Unwritten rule against this?

I prefer to set drill holes on hard surfaces but when I want to set lasting traverse points, I have caps that say TRAV.

I was doing a photo ID project for a local city way back in the mid 1980's. One requirement for it was to set a rebar and cap on the ID positions. One particular position was a fence corner near a federal facility. On the cap I stamped CONTROL POINT- NOT A PROPERTY CORNER. It wasn't close to the actual corner,,,,,,but it was later used as the corner. It's best to never put caps near property corners, find something else to use as control points. 

@williwaw New Zealand gets around this by having wooden boundary pegs and iron reference marks. If using a nail it has to be clearly labelled if it is boundary. Also reference marks are going to be flush or below ground - you could reasonably request that I think

I set some control pins in the area of likely property corners when I was fresh out of school.  I immediately wondered if that would cause problems, but the caps said CONTROL on them so I figured that made it OK.  Fortunately I didn't do very many, but now I would never do that.  I ended up buying a handheld saw, sort of like a big dremel, and I do scribed Xs for control points near likely property corners.

The practice is likely not in the best interest of the public so you could argue it is an unwritten rule.

Posted by: @mightymoe

↑

It's best to never put caps near property corners, find something else to use as control points.

I go one step further and say just don't set control near a property corner, period.  It sometimes takes some doing but it can usually be done. If it just can't be done set the control deep, so the property corner is sure to be found before the control is.

In 1998, a survey crew traversed along a county road for a new subdivision, setting 1/2" rebars for traverse points, one of which had a lath marked "CP 100". This was a trouble spot, in a 1960 subdivision, with a county road problem, where a stretch of gravel road "cut a corner" and ran for about 100 feet entirely outside the platted right of way. I was commissioned to retrace the county road, and prepared the appropriate plat, and set several monuments, one which land about 3 feet from CP100. To explain that the road did not lie within the right of way blew minds. There was an on site meeting with a group of pissed off landowners and a gaggle of our counties finest, including county attorney, commissioners, and road and bridge superintendent. One landowner, who's adjoining property i had monumented, but who had no actual negative impact by the right of way problem, got up early and strung a string from CP100, east, 100 feet to some random point that he thought was his property  but was actually about 15 feet into public, dedicated right of way. Everyone had a copy of my plat. I explained the difference between a property corner and a cp to my captive pissed off audience. The deranged landowner said he thought CP meant "corner point". It really pissed everyone off when I showed them my monument with number and name, and explained "this is a property corner". I then took my channel locks out and pulled the cp100 out, so my audience wouldn't be confused. 25 years later, to this day, the same group of people are just as confused as ever, they are dumbfounded that I would claim that the road doesn't lie in the right of way. I went to the site just today, and explained a lingering issue to a landowner. But after that meeting on site 25 years ago, the road and bridge guy filed a complaint to the county manager that the county surveyor was going around Perkins out people's property corners, there is CONTINUING turmoil among landowners who've hired a slew of surveyors,( which means more confusion) and no county employee has any idea what the deal is

The only time I set control near a property corner is to use it to set the actual corner after the calcs are finished. When I come back to set the corner I pull the control when finished.

Why not use the property corner, if recovered, as the control point rather than set another close by?

Typically, control points are marked with a cap that reads, "control" but that doesn't do any good if the cap itself is destroyed.

Posted by: @squirl

↑

Why not use the property corner, if recovered, as the control point rather than set another close by?

In my case I was doing topos for street resurfacing projects so no boundary work was needed, but I needed to set control along the street to put the instrument on.  If you happened to know where a property pin is though then yeah that would work, but sometimes all you're doing is topo.

It's an unwritten rule for sure, but it spotlights another area where the land surveying community could improve, standardizing monumentation. It would benefit everyone if we standardized boundary corner monuments. Maybe a #5 or #6 green epoxied rebar with it being acceptable to encase it concrete as long as the rebar can be seen. There would be a rough transition and plenty of PLSs who have done it one way and wouldn't accept the change, but it'd help the public out and eventually make our jobs easier.

@murphy I don't think I'd be interested in messing around with concrete especially on hundreds of subdivision corners.  Making #5 or #6 rebar a requirement isn't a bad idea though.

Posted by: @murphy

↑

Maybe a #5 or #6 green epoxied rebar with it being acceptable to encase it concrete as long as the rebar can be seen.

Posted by: @bstrand

↑

Making #5 or #6 rebar a requirement isn't a bad idea though

#5 rebar is required for property corners in Oregon (pipe may also be used, but almost nobody does that), and has been for a long time.  Plenty of times that rebar is set in asphalt roadways with only the cap showing. Not a problem. Corrosion of the iron is not a problem here so I'm not going for the epoxied rebar part. The epoxy would likely be compromised by the act of hammering in the bar anyway. 

I don't leave traverse points on a project for the specific reason that they may be construed as boundary marks. Typical traverse points are 12" long galvanized spikes. The spikes are pulled out easily at the end of the project and can be used again.

@not-my-real-name I have no issue with spikes. It's #5 rebar specifically that without a legible cap on it, is indistinguishable from the majority of property pins in my area. Not that I'm keeping track but it's engineering firms that seem to be far and away the worst offenders. I can quickly determine if a random rebar is a corner or not but laymen generally are going to hang their hat on the first piece of steel they find and if they rely on it to build, there's a good chance that they're going to regret it eventually.

I just pointed out my concerns in my comments. Not my purpose in life to eliminate stupid from the world but to say nothing would be abdicating my professional responsibility.

Carry on.

Posted by: @wward

↑

In 1998, a survey crew traversed along a county road for a new subdivision, setting 1/2" rebars for traverse points, one of which had a lath marked "CP 100". This was a trouble spot, in a 1960 subdivision, with a county road problem, where a stretch of gravel road "cut a corner" and ran for about 100 feet entirely outside the platted right of way. I was commissioned to retrace the county road, and prepared the appropriate plat, and set several monuments, one which land about 3 feet from CP100. To explain that the road did not lie within the right of way blew minds. There was an on site meeting with a group of pissed off landowners and a gaggle of our counties finest, including county attorney, commissioners, and road and bridge superintendent. One landowner, who's adjoining property i had monumented, but who had no actual negative impact by the right of way problem, got up early and strung a string from CP100, east, 100 feet to some random point that he thought was his property  but was actually about 15 feet into public, dedicated right of way. Everyone had a copy of my plat. I explained the difference between a property corner and a cp to my captive pissed off audience. The deranged landowner said he thought CP meant "corner point". It really pissed everyone off when I showed them my monument with number and name, and explained "this is a property corner". I then took my channel locks out and pulled the cp100 out, so my audience wouldn't be confused. 25 years later, to this day, the same group of people are just as confused as ever, they are dumbfounded that I would claim that the road doesn't lie in the right of way. I went to the site just today, and explained a lingering issue to a landowner. But after that meeting on site 25 years ago, the road and bridge guy filed a complaint to the county manager that the county surveyor was going around Perkins out people's property corners, there is CONTINUING turmoil among landowners who've hired a slew of surveyors,( which means more confusion) and no county employee has any idea what the deal is

@wward I’m not sure what state you’re in or the specific history and conditions of that situation.  In Oregon there are some situations that if all the criteria are met, there can be a road legalization which essentially says “the road is the road where it lays”.  That moves the paperwork to match the reality on the ground.  It’s a long process to be undertaken by the board of county commissioners (and public works and surveyor).  You can read about it starting at ORS 368.201, https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/bills_laws/ors/ors368.html.  There are similar options for city streets and other types of roads.  Not all situations meet the criteria so it is not always appropriate.  When it is done here, subsequent following surveyors tend to all match and be on the same page. 

@williwaw 

As OK mentioned, property corners are at a minimum #5 rebar.  I started using #4 rebar with a control cap for control a couple of decades ago.  ODOT used to use square 1/2" bar for control.  I'd love to find a source but gave up before I changed over to the #4.

As far as placement, I try to avoid setting control near presumed property corners but sometimes it just can't be helped.

I have worked at shops where they set capped rebar for control points, the problem is a one size fits all approach to managing.

"All control points will be set as ### with ### and ###"

If the people who do know a thing or two try to dumb down their operations to a level where no one needs to know anything then you end up with people doing stupid things like setting rebars near to a corner, or never setting a control point on concrete or never setting a control point off concrete or spray painting all over everything every single time or whatever.

And that is just the surveyors, controlling the public is impossible. The percentage of the public who know what "control point" or "traverse point" defines has to be statistically insignificant.

That said, I thought this was America, either the rule is written and represents some form of law which we respect or there is freedom to set whatever you want within the mts. 

Most regions where I've worked, the modern and recent historic standard object used to monument corners has been either a 5/8" rebar or 3/4" iron pipe with plastic cap or brass tag wired to the iron.  In some areas, there is a history of surveyors using a variety of wooden stakes and iron bars, pipes, axles, drill steels, etc. of widely varying size.

I've worked for several companies that typically would use 5/8 or 3/4 rebar for corners and 1/2" rebar with a plastic "traverse" or "Control Point" cap on control points.

In the area I'm in now, most use 5/8" rebar/plastic cap, with larger iron pipes typically used to remonument PLSS corners.  But there are a few who still use 1/2" rebar & plastic cap.

The problem with caps, particularly plastic caps is that they tend to get knocked of the pipe or bar they had been placed on sooner or later.  Most of us use caps that rely on a snug fit to stay on.  Very few cement their caps on and fewer still use monuments that have the cap either riveted to a pipe or set into a concrete monument, especially for lot or property corners.

When in the vicinity of corners which are or may be monumented with a typical modern monument consisting of rebar, using a very similar object is irresponsible IMO because it invites confusion by landowners, contractors, and sometimes even less than adequately diligent surveyors.  I typically prefer to use objects which are not typically used to monument corners for this very reason.  What that object is depends on the area, ground material, relative location to property corners & lines, RWs, etc.