FOUND MONUMENT, O.U.

[sako]

When researching maps to find out when was a certain monument (pipe or BD) set, often I see it shown as found monument on a map without any reference.
If I find the same monument and want to show it on my map I cannot say the monument was set per map which showed it as found, AND
a certian city surveyor tells me I cannot show it as OU since it was shown on a prior map as found. My argument is that a monument's origin is unknown to me unless I see a license # on it, sometimes I accept an open pipe as set per a recorded map if it fits on record location and it has the character (size, age) of original monument. I would like to read your opinion on this issue.

[Ric7308]

When researching maps to find out when was a certain monument (pipe or BD) set, often I see it shown as found monument on a map without any reference.

Wouldn't that previous map now be the reference? Assuming the monument was not shown on any map previously, it is now record.

If I find the same monument and want to show it on my map I cannot say the monument was set per map which showed it as found, AND
a certian city surveyor tells me I cannot show it as OU since it was shown on a prior map as found. My argument is that a monument's origin is unknown to me unless I see a license # on it, sometimes I accept an open pipe as set per a recorded map if it fits on record location and it has the character (size, age) of original monument. I would like to read your opinion on this issue.

I'm not sure what you mean by "OU"? Did you mean "Origin Unknown"? Why can't you describe it as "Found as depicted on PRIOR MAP, OU" (or something like this) - wouldn't that be the most accurate statement? If both you and the City Surveyor don't have any idea as to who originally set it, why is the City Surveyor telling you not to include an accurate statement?

I would expect you will receive at least one response pertaining to "there should be a law that requires a surveyor to tag a found monument that is being accepted and not previously tagged." While I think it is a good standard to tag a monument such as that (maybe CLSA should be promoting this as a standard of practice?), there are no laws which require that.

Glad to help you and the City Surveyor if you want, just contact Dallas or me.

[dharri]

You should not ignore the fact that the monument appears on a previously recorded map. Because there is no record of the origin of the monument, rather than saying "per" the previous map, you might want to say "as shown on" or "see" the previous map. That way the monument is tied to the previous map in some manner.

[btaylor]

You are being too literal. You do not know the origin (who actually set it originally), but if you think it is the same pipe as shown on a prior map, it is better to state it as such. It will confuse them if you do not say you found the same pipe.

[sako]

You are being too literal. You do not know the origin (who actually set it originally), but if you think it is the same pipe as shown on a prior map, it is better to state it as such. It will confuse them if you do not say you found the same pipe.

I can say it's the same monument if there is a license tag of original surveyor on it, otherwise it's an assumption. As I mentioned, I sometimes accept a monument even if I don't know 100% it is the one set by surveyor on record.

[btaylor]

When I am not sure if I am finding the same pipe, I then say "possibly same as shown on ..." or something similar.

[sako]

You should not ignore the fact that the monument appears on a previously recorded map. Because there is no record of the origin of the monument, rather than saying "per" the previous map, you might want to say "as shown on" or "see" the previous map. That way the monument is tied to the previous map in some manner.

These days we are asked to be specific on what kind of monument we found, where most maps from 70's showed the found monument legend and described it as "found standard monument". This is why I cannot use "found as shown on", because I'm not sure if the same monument was found.

[sako]

Wouldn't that previous map now be the reference? Assuming the monument was not shown on any map previously, it is now record.

Rick, I can't be sure if it's the same monument as the other surveyor found, since he/she didn't give any description beside "found standard monument"

I'm not sure what you mean by "OU"? Did you mean "Origin Unknown"? Why can't you describe it as "Found as depicted on PRIOR MAP, OU" (or something like this) - wouldn't that be the most accurate statement? If both you and the City Surveyor don't have any idea as to who originally set it, why is the City Surveyor telling you not to include an accurate statement?[/quote]

same answer as above, lack of description on found monument makes me wonder if I really found the same monument

would expect you will receive at least one response pertaining to "there should be a law that requires a surveyor to tag a found monument that is being accepted and not previously tagged." While I think it is a good standard to tag a monument such as that (maybe CLSA should be promoting this as a standard of practice?), there are no laws which require that.

This is a good idea about found pipes, but how about those brass disks in monument which nobody knows who set them?

sorry, I don't know how this quote thing works.

[mpallamary]

If I determine or decide that the monument is the one per the map, I will state:

"Found two-inch iron pipe, accepted as monument per map XXXX." When I do this, I look around to see what other surveyors found and look for a precedent.

In other instances I will state:

"Found two-inch monument; accepted as remains of monument per map XXXX." This is when a tag is missing or something.

It has to be understood that very few people run around banging two-inch pipes in the ground; they are usually surveyors. No one else does things like this. Decide and declare! That is why people are licensed.

Good luck.

[btaylor]

I guess I am a little confused what you are finding. I assume you mean the record map had that lazy, generic "found standard city monument" description? So you find a brass disk, but do not want to say it is the same one per the map? I think you can safely assume that, but if you are concerned you can say "found (size) brass disk with punch in cast iron sleeve and cover, presumed to be same monument shown on...."

[dedkad]

In my opinion, you are overthinking it. You found a monument that fits record data within an acceptable tolerance and is shown on a previous map. I agree with MP's statement: "Decide and declare! That is why people are licensed."

[Anthony Maffia]

I was an adherent to labeling some monuments as O.U. but a friend convinced me that instead of stating the origin of every monument, it is acceptable to reference a record map on which it appears, which often is the same as the origin map but not always. Now I use N.R.F. = No Reference Found.

[btaylor]

I was an adherent to labeling some monuments as O.U. but a friend convinced me that instead of stating the origin of every monument, it is acceptable to reference a record map on which it appears, which often is the same as the origin map but not always. Now I use N.R.F. = No Reference Found.

I prefer to use both, "OU" if they lack a tag, and NRF/"no record found" (in case I am mistaken and there is a record but for some reason I did not find it) if they have a tag. "OU" is strange to me if there is a tag, since you therefore know the origin.

[sako]

Years ago, the county surveyor complained about using "per" referring to a map which the monument was shown as found ( without referring to original map), to me it made sense. Now, often when I dig down little bit, I find the original map on which the monument shows as "set".
On this particular survey, I couldn't find the origin of the BD set in monument, one map shows " pipe in mon. box", other one shows " standard monument", so the origin is unknown, and I think for clarity, origin matters.

[sako]

I was an adherent to labeling some monuments as O.U. but a friend convinced me that instead of stating the origin of every monument, it is acceptable to reference a record map on which it appears, which often is the same as the origin map but not always. Now I use N.R.F. = No Reference Found.

I prefer to use both, "OU" if they lack a tag, and NRF/"no record found" (in case I am mistaken and there is a record but for some reason I did not find it) if they have a tag. "OU" is strange to me if there is a tag, since you therefore know the origin.

NRF makes sense, but the argument is if the map showing "found standard monument" could be used as reference.

[Steve Martin]

In order to bring some clarity to the varying shorthand monument descriptions, Lee Hixson and I included a Monument or Corner history on this Record of Survey.

In reviewing the record maps it was confusing to see "found Iron Pipe" shown on maps filed years after someone else had replaced it with a well monument on their map.

This can be a useful tool for large surveys such as township retracements too.

[Anthony Maffia]

This is the first time I've read a monument history, and I find that instead of documenting the research, it questions whether the monument you found and described was accepted as being the record monument. It distracts from interpreting your resolution, and may be a liability in court, as it invites argument about the basis of your factual findings.

[Steve Martin]

Anthony,
I disagree. The map clearly shows and describes what is being held. The corner histories tie that back to the record evidence which may or may not be a continuous chain back to the original monument. Would you hide gaps in the chain back to the original from the reader? My preference is to document the facts as I know them so the next Surveyor can evaluate my survey. The survey narrative is a part of that. Document well enough and you stay out of court.

[William Magee]

Brass disk set in concrete 0.04' off line? Some darn good measuring going on there.

[Steve Martin]

Brass disk set in concrete 0.04' off line? Some darn good measuring going on there.

So why don't you post a few of your surveys (that you have bragged about) for us to comment on?

[mpallamary]

Yes, Howard, that would be a good idea. I haven't seen any of your maps to review.

[sako]

Aren't record maps public documents? ;)

[mpallamary]

Not on the forum. There are certain folks who have lobbied the forum administrator to prohibit the posting of recorded maps.

[William Magee]

So why don't you post a few of your surveys (that you have bragged about) for us to comment on?

I'd be too embarrassed being as my measurement skills just don't compare. I'd hate to be subject to ridicule for the magnitude of error I find acceptable in the work of prior retracements or of my own.

[-Dave Ryan-]

Sako-

I'm late to the conversation but I'm encouraged that you're raising these good questions. Too often monument descriptions are treated as afterthoughts or loosely presented without much thought. The map of origin, if known, is critical. Other information, if not known, but surmised or inferred, is also important to share for the record. I like to know what a surveyor who was on the ground and visited the monument was thinking about the pedigree of that monument. It's important when I visit it and have to make a decision. Or more importantly, if destroyed, his/her report at that snapshot in time becomes even more critical. I agree with whoever said you can't say "per" a particular record unless that record is the survey of origin that "established" it. So I'm in agreement with your concerns and the desire to take advantage of explicit language to say what you found, and to describe your perceptions of what it represents.

Steve, I love what you did on that RS with the monument history. Leaves no mistake about the varying descriptions and conveniently serves the history right up for the next surveyor. I've probably taken the lazy way out before and said something to the effect of "...accept as the same monument previously reported with varying descriptions...". Yours is much more useful.

Monuments are important! Let's take care in describing what we find.

Dave Ryan,
Arcata, Ca.