> We could also require than all monuments be set in concrete. Who could argue that that wouldn't help future surveyors?
I think that's a great idea. (Not all, necessarily, but whenever possible, or a quality monument for the particular circumstances.)
> I think that we're all professionals here, and are trying our best to perform our services at the highest level.
>
> What a lot of us our saying is that using GPS and putting each survey on SPCS is not always needed, and that doesn't necessarily diminish the quality of our services and product.
Who mentioned anything about State Plane Coordinates for each and every job? I believe the debate has been limited to an independent reproducible basis of bearings. And if we limit the argument to just the bearings, them most surveyors already have the largest percentage of the necessary equipment to accomplish that, i.e., a total station, transit, or theodolite.
Accurate time can be accomplished with just a phone call, stopwatches are a minimal expense, and most data collection software has the solar observation routine built in, I believe.
Solar filters can be had for a modest amount, and if the truth be known, the return on investment could be realized in short time the next opportunity you have to return to your last job and find that only one point of your control has survived.
I, for one, don't believe there is a grassroots movement to require every surveyor to put every job on an independently reproducible basis of bearings. But instead of arguing that it's not what the client needs or that we've always done it this way, why not ask, what possible harm could come from doing so? And if no possible harm could come from the practice, then what possible benefits could be reaped from it?
> Who mentioned anything about State Plane Coordinates for each and every job?
That's what started all this crap - no pretending it didn't now.
If you locate two called-for monuments, you've reproduced the bearing system.
> If you locate two called-for monuments, you've reproduced the bearing system.
Even if one of the called for monuments has been moved?
" Ultimately we were forced to use occupation as it was the only evidence left of the 70 year old boundary."
Am I the only one who thinks this is a rather odd comment?
SHAWN BILLINGS
> On first read, Nate, I can see the validity of your questions. But put into the perspective of what we do as surveyors, I think those arguments fall flat.
>
You have done went and hurt me feelings beyond repair!!
(OK, I fergot the SARCASTICALLY YOURS signature!)
Good cheer.
Nate
> > Who mentioned anything about State Plane Coordinates for each and every job?
> That's what started all this crap - no pretending it didn't now.
The whole discussion has been about the merits of an independently reproducible bearing basis, meaning a North direction that can be determined without reference to monuments. In practice, that means true North (astronomic North or geodetic North) at some stated location or grid North of a specified map projection such as a particular zone of the State Plane Coordinate System.
You don't need State Plane cordinates to compute grid North of the State Plane Coordinate System if you have determined geodetic or near-geodetic North from astro observations and have a good enough approximation of the mapping angle at the station where the observations were made.
Not odd at all, if no other evidence is recoverable and the occupation is in reasonable agreement with the lands surrounding the tract of interest. What else are you going to do? Run into that often around here in the outlying areas, seldom in the populated areas.
jud
First all most of the surveys completed by my company are tied to physical monuments with published SPC coordinates. This is because the various municipalities or clients require it.
But, that being said, the issue that we all really care about is disappearing monuments. The thing we like about North is that it isn't going anywhere.
But, I do not think it is useful to make this a discussion about whether people that include reproducible bearings (and hopefully posistions) are better surveyors.
If the guy with the strip had used and recorded a sun shot, and you didn't match occupation, what then? What would be the best evidence of where the pins were set?
We need to get landowners to view their monuments as valuable. And citizens need to view monuments in the street etc as their land's protector.
And... If you are a professional, you better be a businessman, or you won't be a professional long.
"Forced" seems like a strange word for such a situation. I would use "blessed by finding" or something along those lines...
I used "forced" because there was such a better line available - an adjudicated, well monumented and described line. It seemed like a real let down to me.
SHAWN BILLINGS
:good:
Well, JPH. In the above 12' strip example, I guess you'd go ahead and turn the angle off of those two axles 12.005 feet apart and run 2000' to the back corners?
I'm with Mr. Perry Williams on this one. I see your point Mr. Billings, but I never said to myself "gosh, I wish the surveyor left me a reproducible bearing".
I still can't believe this is controversial.
Yeah.
What I can't believe is...
> I still can't believe this is controversial.
What I can't believe is Kent is only proposing mandating a Reproducible Bearing Base. If you buy Kent's argument, then having coordinates should also be required.
Ten year ago, Mr. Geodesist, GISguy and a few others were calling us idiots for not requiring coordinates on all corners and deeds descriptions. They were convinced that everything would be described by georeferenced coordinates by now.
What I can't believe is...
> What I can't believe is Kent is only proposing mandating a Reproducible Bearing Base. If you buy Kent's argument, then having coordinates should also be required.
Not at all. A reproducible bearing basis doesn't require that you know the geodetic coordinates of the points connnected by the survey, merely the bearings between them. Those can be accurately determined by solar observations.
I know what can be done because it did it that way for years before GPS and it worked perfectly well. It turned out that when I came back to those tracts with GPS and geodetic coordinates, that the bearings were essentially the same.
For example, using a handheld consumer-grade GPS receiver that will give a position that is accurate with better than 50 ft., what is the undercertainty in the mapping angle that you'd use to convert an observed near-geodetic azimuth to grid azimuth in your SPCS? In Texas, it would be less than 0.5 arc seconds, more like 0.3 arc seconds. I'm going to guess that you would be able to live with that systematic error. :>
What I can't believe is...
We do have the technology to achieve a coordinated Cadastral, the main road block is the Land Surveyors stuck in the past.
I was a jerk to Mr. G too but maybe he was right. Sometimes outsiders see things better. Coordinates will never replace monuments but better and more complete information will improve boundaries for the public we are supposed to serve.