@aliquot?ÿ
Dad was probably one of the first in SE NY to put caps on his monuments, back in the early 70's, I'm a little surprised at the post by Mr. ARS... above that caps/tags are still not required in NY. Other states I've worked in have minimum monument standards also, but when I was growing up in NY it seemed to be "put in whatever you have handy at the moment" that led to a lot of less than reputable surveyors just using hub & tack because they deteriorate and "hard for someone to prove me wrong". There was also (I've heard) that if you hit a rock while driving whatever, just cut it at the ground, so there were some instances of a 4" long pipe or pin.
@thebionicman I recently read that in Idaho, a surveyor who intends to "reject" an existing monument must first notify the landowners and state board! Bravo.
?ÿ
This is a great code, although i dont think you have to notify the board unless you can't come to an agreement with the other surveyor.?ÿ There is an adjacent owner notification requirement as well.
Now if we could only get the folks in WA to establish a code requiring all PLSS corner used in your survey to be set instead of the constant stream of 'corner calced per ROS XXXX" like I see in WA.?ÿ I cross the state line into WA and all the section corners disappear or turn into pk nails.?ÿ This shouldn't be.
if we could only get the folks in WA to establish a code requiring all PLSS corner used in your survey to be set
Adding a cost of $10k to get your $10k lot in Republic surveyed...that is probably the biggest hurdle there. Eventually, it would get sorted, of course.
It is, unfortunately, standard practice in WA, but that doesn't make it right. It's bad here on my side of the state, but it's much worse on the other side from what I've seen. I did a little topo in Island County for my cousin at his vacation cabin. I did a bit of boundary research just to see what to look for to put the boundary on the topo for the engineer. I found all the corners and they all matched the record both for material and measurement, but I am probably the only surveyor to ever retrace anything in that plat and accept the found monuments. Most list a falling (x.x'N by x.x'E) on EVERY SINGLE FOUND MONUMENT. They don't seem to hold anything, or give any indication of what they did hold to determine their fallings. My guess is that they held a section corner that they don't even show on their survey, but it's a big time dubious way of doing things. The plat was from the 60's and the section corner was stamped something in the mid 90's.
It ticks me off so much to see this that I've started writing an article about it. I keep getting distracted by other projects, so it's been an ongoing project for over a year. A little hint on the content: the title is?ÿIs it the Corner or Isn't it? and the subtitle is The Paper Pincushion Will be the Downfall of Our Profession.?ÿ
I applaud the doing something about it, rather than just getting irritated. I personally do not care if I follow that sort of survey, as long as they indicate their starting point or basis of position, and their basis of bearings on a certain line. The difficulty is when they call out a plat as a basis of bearings but you have no idea where they started and which two physical monuments they held for bearing. If you know what the falling is relative to, then you can figure out what they did. If not, you are left with the OP question.
Very common in Western New York, hold the record dimensions and as many monuments that fit the records and show the other monuments off with directional ties.?ÿ Recorded surveys are few and far between and caps or tags are not required so, there is no pedigree to most of the found irons. If a measured bearing or distance is shown it will require a new description.?ÿ
Interesting, I worked for years here in WA with a surveyor that was responsible for thousands of surveys, and he always did that on his surveys, and he started in Western New York, graduated from a survey program there, I believe.
There was also (I've heard) that if you hit a rock while driving whatever, just cut it at the ground, so there were some instances of a 4" long pipe or pin.
I always think of this when I hear "driven to refusal".
Adding a cost of $10k to get your $10k lot in Republic surveyed...that is probably the biggest hurdle there. Eventually, it would get sorted, of course.
If they did it in ID they can certainly do it in WA.?ÿ Over time all the PLSS corners get set.?ÿ I can't recall the last time a PLSS corner was missing for my ID surveys, meanwhile they are always missing in WA.
In Washington where Doug works:
WAC 332-130-050(1)(B)(e)(iv) Give the physical description of any monuments shown, found, established or reestablished, including type, size, and date visited;
BTW, I like the rule. Once a surveyor breaks a section down and establishes local control, for some surveyors it is possible that they will rarely, if ever, visit that monument again (depending on location). I want to know if this is from their records from 1975. It makes it a bit easier to understand if the monument I find is of a different nature than what they found.
Thanks for the cite j-holt; it's quite clear.?ÿ My mental stumbling block was (is),?ÿ when I read "Found" on a record map it means it was "visited" during the contemporary field survey for that map, not (possibly) decades earlier by the same LS during an earlier survey he performed.
I don't like the rule.?ÿ To me, an ROS/Parcel split is like a photograph taken at a certain date.?ÿ To depict a monument as "Found"?ÿ on a 2022 ROS with the note reading it was last visited in 1975 is not photographic.?ÿ Surely a better way to handle?ÿ the issue is to define "Found" as meaning the monument was visited and found in the same state as 1975,?ÿ as in "Fd. 3/8" rebar w/Tag LS XXXX per ROS #(1975#)".?ÿ Monumentation can be fluid as the decades pass?ÿ and I want to know their description is founded on actually visiting the corner situs in 2022, not what they located in 1975 based on (possibly) privately held field notes.
I suspect the cited WAC's intent was not to allow such shenanigans but understand what a boon it is to not have to revisit possibly difficult to access corners and just use your old field records over and over when referencing them, quite the money saver.?ÿ I can imagine an LS who surveyed a parcel can come back decades later and do a split, setting only two monuments (GPS) without visiting a single record corner.?ÿ Sweet!
?ÿ
?ÿ
We have firms now citing the use of certain section corner monuments with the note "not recovered this survey".?ÿ That means they did not visit them to even determine if they still exist.?ÿ BUTTTTT, they have coordinates stored in other files that say they were there at some point in the past.?ÿ Then corner records are filed identical to those from their visit XX years ago.
Sounds like just about everywhere in the U.S. in the 70's...Some states have moved on.
I wouldn't have a reason for anyone to use what I called an awkward alternative, but I could interpret what was presented that way.
I too think this is chicken poo to leave an ambiguity of what is going on with the survey and associated plat.?ÿ ?ÿIt IS the responsibility of the Land Surveyor to recover original corner, or re-establish the property corner in its legally defendable position, that's what he was licensed and retained to do.?ÿ ?ÿI would question if he as done either.?ÿ Property corner established at record and fixed by calculations and note and not marked??ÿ ?ÿThat's the best I can make out of this madness.?ÿ Existing corner monuments that are recovered, evaluated and rejected should be tied and clearly noted that they were rejected as being an original corner or perpetuation or as an improper re-establishment of the corner position (with a statement why it was improper).?ÿ ?ÿThat's what the federal surveyor does in accordance with the BLM Manual.?ÿ ?ÿThat's what the state licensed surveyors should do too.?ÿ If you are going to go rejecting monuments, put your big boy pants on and tell us all in a recorded record why.?ÿ ?ÿNot matching calculation tells me nothing,?ÿ Poor landowner that gets that for a survey, sheeez.?ÿ?ÿ
We've been covering this very topic in the PLS/FS refresher course I'm currently attending.?ÿ Definitely interesting to read through this and observe.
There are 2 things at issue here. Number 1 is whether to hold a found monument, or not . Number 2 is a failure to write a brief note that unambiguously conveys its meaning. The former may be debated. The latter is inexcusable.?ÿ?ÿ
