If anything, this charade demonstrates the surveyor that has actually been on the ground is really the only one who can reasonably FULLY assess the situation and gather the relevant evidence..
What is also demonstrates is how deceptive some "case-studies" can be made by those posters who intentionally withhold relevant information, if for no other reason than to waste time.
Good one Kent.
"Found disturbed rebar encased in concrete with pipe fence corner free standing above ground."
Unless you find the holes that the fence corner brace sat in you can not begin to imagine the original location.
0.02
Kent McMillan, post: 371568, member: 3 wrote: Well, all I'm pointing out is how certain habits of the mind such as uncritically accepting whatever one finds wherever he or she finds it, basically act as blinders to other relevant inquiry. Stuff happens and measurements are yet another clue that a surveyor wants to pay attention to before just breaking some rebar out of the concrete around a fence post, pounding it into the ground, and returning to the office.
Yes return to the office, download and reduce field data, make a decision, return to site, set corner, tear old flagging off original rebar.
Most conscious, non-blind people, upon arriving on the site, would certainly recognize a concreted, welded, steel pipe double H brace that has been moved from its constructed position. Golly gee, most of us un-ed-u-macated country boys wouldn't even need a tape measure to recognize such a mess.
Come on, you can do better than this.
Brian Allen, post: 371571, member: 1333 wrote: What is also demonstrates is how deceptive some "case-studies" can be made by those posters who intentionally withhold relevant information, if for no other reason than to waste time.
So, you would have preferred to have had the answer provided? It was pretty much in the photos. I hardly think its a waste of time to point out that one of the better clues as to whether a marker has been disturbed or not is whether, given the survey methods by which it was likely placed, it is reasonable that it ended up in the position found. I posted this example as a cautionary tale for the benefit of the surveyors who want to uncritically latch onto whatever they find, wherever they find it and demand that it be something it isn't.
I would say that you just use your own two good corners and find out yourself where that corner should be.
Brian Allen, post: 371578, member: 1333 wrote: Golly gee, most of us un-ed-u-macated country boys wouldn't even need a tape measure to recognize such a mess.
Well, in retrospect, what comes to mind when you look at both of the photos I posted? Your blinders locked you onto the fact that there was a rebar there and that was the end of the hunt. You thought that either end of the rebar would suit you just fine as the boundary corner with no further inquiry. I consider this thread a public service. You can thank me later. :>
It looks as if the fence row is leading up to the disturbed (moved) post and concrete.
However, let's say that the post was just disturbed that badly. I would locate the top of the rebar along with the top and bottom of the post and project that same angle down for whatever the length of the rebar was...
I'd also locate the bottom of the rebar and study possible locations relative to other known corners...
Kent McMillan, post: 371582, member: 3 wrote: Well, in retrospect, what comes to mind when you look at both of the photos I posted? Your blinders locked you onto the fact that there was a rebar there and that was the end of the hunt. You thought that either end of the rebar would suit you just fine as the boundary corner with no further inquiry. I consider this a of public service. You can thank me later. :>
No, your mind-reading abilities are slipping there buddy.
Mostly it was this, as you so graciously revealed as your intentionally deceptive lie.
Kent McMillan, post: 371538, member: 3 wrote: Here's the question: Do you consider the top or the bottom of the rod to mark the corner?
Brian Allen, post: 371585, member: 1333 wrote: .Here's the question: Do you consider the top or the bottom of the rod to mark the corner?
Well, the obvious answer was "neither, the monument appears to have been disturbed." :> That was a very good real life example that did snare some folks with blinders.
Robert Hill, post: 371575, member: 378 wrote: Yes return to the office, download and reduce field data, make a decision, return to site, set corner, tear old flagging off original rebar.
Oh, I wouldn't even leave the original rebar in the concrete at the base of the post. It is obviously an attractive nuisance.
I really don't see any evidence one way or the other as to whether the monument has been disturbed. I realize a lot of surveyors could argue one way or the other, but both are utilizing their imagination...poor practice when it comes to recording only facts in my opinion.
There is visible evidence the subgrade has scoured under the post, but the post and pin appear to remain solid. The only evidence I could be sure of is the rebar exists. The bigger question I believe is how does the rebar fit within the existing boundary?
Practice up here on this side of the Red is to allow existing monuments their peace. I realize Kent considers this pin an attractive nuisance. Running around the countryside resetting corners and monuments because you believe them to either be erroneously set, or in such a condition a mere mortal might actually make the mistake of accepting it, is a slippery slope indeed I believe. We accept monumentation over measurements in a lot of cases...Texas must indeed be the pin-cushion capitol of the world. 😉
paden cash, post: 371593, member: 20 wrote: I really don't see any evidence one way or the other as to whether the monument has been disturbed.
By "disturbed", of course, what is meant is "not in the same position as originally set. The clues MIGHT be that it is waaay off plumb, had concrete poured around it, evidently in the course of fence construction, now off level roughly as much as the post is out of plumb. The part of the rod labeled "Bottom of 1/2" Iron Rod" really is the bottom of the rod - about an inch above the dirt - and the structure that the rod is embedded in (the concrete at the base of the fence post) looks obviously out of whack. I'm not saying that all that isn't business as usual elsewhere, but in Texas it's like having a neon sign on the thing advertising for a replacement.
The fact that it's about 5 ft. out of the position in which it was reportedly set might be another clue that it is a really bad idea to pretend that it is even a monument at all any more.
Brian Allen, post: 371571, member: 1333 wrote: If anything, this charade demonstrates the surveyor that has actually been on the ground is really the only one who can reasonably FULLY assess the situation and gather the relevant evidence..
What is also demonstrates is how deceptive some "case-studies" can be made by those posters who intentionally withhold relevant information, if for no other reason than to waste time.
Good one Kent.
Dagnabit! WILL YOU QUIT UNCRITICALLY ACCEPTING THINGS.
Why can't you be more like your brother?
Dave Karoly, post: 371602, member: 94 wrote: WILL YOU QUIT UNCRITICALLY ACCEPTING THINGS.
And, better yet, if a surveyor is unwilling to consider what the ordinary errors in a survey that placed a monument would be, but isn't bothered by the thought that a rebar dangling in the air from some concrete around a fence post that obviously has had some major life trauma MIGHT just be disturbed, how can any marker ever qualify as disturbed? I mean, if you don't want to use measurements as an important clue and don't want to use observations, is ESP all that is left?
Kent you should take this show on the road, maybe you can get a Broadway opening.
Dave Karoly, post: 371608, member: 94 wrote: Kent you should take this show on the road, maybe you can get a Broadway opening.
More like Vaudeville!
😀
Bravo!
Dave Karoly, post: 371608, member: 94 wrote: Kent you should take this show on the road, maybe you can get a Broadway opening.
[SARCASM]You should be more appreciative that someone is taking the time to explain to you something that you just don't have the Professional fortitude to figure out on your own.[/SARCASM]
Jones, post: 371612, member: 10458 wrote: [SARCASM]You should be more appreciative that someone is taking the time to explain to you something that you just don't have the Professional fortitude to figure out on your own.[/SARCASM]
Apparently Texas Surveyors need StarNet and 95% error ellipses to figure out a monument is out of place 5'.