The problem with all standards are that they are practically toothless in the short run and very expensive to enforce after the fact.
Not DOT projects. They have learned what happens and know how to deal with the issue. This involves MSB road upgrades in the valley. They don't play by the same rule book.
prepare a Corner Record showing your "correct" info (and your ties) and the "monument in the wrong place"
send a copy to the other surveyor
wait 2 weeks for response
file your Corner Record (or whatever in the normal term in Ak)
passive aggressive, should work.
I use the notation "OOP Concrete Monument found" on my drawing and in my descriptions with a bearing and distance from the actual corner location - Out Of Position
https://surveyorconnect.com/threads/who-doe-this.284003
I feel for you Williwaw and do not envy your position. The horns of your dilemma are sharp indeed.
If you take a stand against sloppy/egotistical surveyors practices you'll watch that friendly cooperation we all depend on dwindle to zero.
If you take a stand against toothless state boards you will make VERY powerful enemies of them.
Your third choice ( to do nothing ) is not really a choice at all. Is it? You don't seem like the smug self-righteous type.
I can not give you any real guidance but I wish you the best whichever way you go. You'll always have my respect.
partychief3, post: 335288, member: 9053 wrote: https://surveyorconnect.com/threads/who-doe-this.284003
I feel for you Williwaw and do not envy your position. The horns of your dilemma are sharp indeed.
If you take a stand against sloppy/egotistical surveyors practices you'll watch that friendly cooperation we all depend on dwindle to zero.
If you take a stand against toothless state boards you will make VERY powerful enemies of them.
Your third choice ( to do nothing ) is not really a choice at all. Is it? You don't seem like the smug self-righteous type.I can not give you any real guidance but I wish you the best whichever way you go. You'll always have my respect.
If that were how my fellow professionals responded here, I would move. Have I lost some friends? You bet. I have no use for anyone with that attitude anyway.
As for the Board, that sounds bizarre. They are people just like you and me. They aren't spies sitting in a dark room plotting the destruction of any who dare challenge them to do thier job.
If you enter the process leaving room for the Surveyor to clean things up you will likely get a pleasant surprise. Our process isn't perfect but it works.
If I don't do something, then I am part of the problem. I'll send the surveyor in question a letter detailing my findings and give him the opportunity to clean up his mess, politely worded of course, while making clear that if no action is taken, my second letter will be to his client and the board requesting a more thorough investigation. I have to give this individual every opportunity to make things right before raising a big stink. I'm not concerned about making enemies. Winston Churchill once said, 'So you have enemies? Good. That means you're doing something right.'
good, with you 98%
I would drop the threat part of the letter.
If he does not respond and clean it up, then send the letters to his client and the board, and CC him.
let us know how it comes out, good luck
I would be careful with the client letter. Public statements can be a violation even if true.
The last time I saw this it cost the surveyor a hefty fine and he ultimately surrendered his license. He was a repeat offender and he left a trail of destruction behind him. We know his brass caps are in the wrong place, but where the original monuments were is now lost. Now that is sad.
A Harris, post: 335188, member: 81 wrote: I use the notation "OOP Concrete Monument found"
Shouldn't that be Out Of Position Survey monument found?
"OOPS" - That was how it all started, new regulations imply we give detail of "survey monument"
It may be best to show as "OPPS - 1/2 inch rebar found N13å¡W at 9.97' "
Big [emoji106] to all for your thoughts. The input is priceless to me.
Thank you.
Carry on.
Williwaw, post: 335596, member: 7066 wrote: Big [emoji106] to all for your thoughts. The input is priceless to me.
Thank you.
Carry on.
I've been on both sides of this, since we do a lot of construction staking. Its the monuments that did not show up in the design survey that are usually an issue; if they were referenced / tied through as part of the design, or if we referenced them knowing they may be taken out they can be replaced, knowing we put them back where they were. The problem ones are the mons that were missed in the design survey, and that we did not reference- the only ties to them will be trying to re-establish them from the plat, and a lot of the corners were set in positions that don't match the plat real well, but they are the actual corner. We will do our best to reestablish a corner in its original position, but if it wasn't referenced odds are good that it is going to be in a slightly different position than it originally was- the same can be said for resetting any corner, though.
I'm close to concluding that this is a systematic problem in the over all process with a lack of a line item to deal with the issue post construction. Taking it up with my local chapter of the ASPLS. I can't be the only one that cares. At least I hope not. No sense on trying to take this all on by lonesome self.
