Re-tagging found "no tag" pipes...

[Mike Mueller]

I was wondering two things about this topic:

1. How many think it is ++REQUIRED++ to set your tag in an older pipe that you find untagged? If yes, What criteria is used to determine when to re-tag or not? IE I would assume we don't have to set a tag in every landscaping pipe set into wooden steps.

2. If you do think you need to re-tag pipes, by what law or theory would you base the required by law argument?


I would not normally bias the answers by saying my opinion/thoughts, but I know that my opinion will likely not influence yours, so here is mine :)

Personally I am do not think that re-tagging pipes is required. It is also not even that important from a "good practice" view. Modern measurements allow us to use positional relationships much more reliably to determine origin and authenticity. The only time re-tagging a pipe is possibly warranted in my thinking is if there is a "pincushion", but even then, a competent description of the set of monuments will provide a very unique constellation that will enable recovery of the particular pipe that I am callling correct within the pincushion.


Mikey Mueller, PLS 9076
Sonoma County

[hellsangle]

Hmmmm - tagging a found pipe, huh?

Would that be like putting one’s monogram on The Mona Lisa . . . of anyone that has viewed it?

Or could it be more like this:

A known bad-practitioner tags a point . . . files nothing . . . another surveyor finds the point and basically thinks to him/herself, “Oh that piece of crap? Look who set it!” And pay no mind to it. By tagging it you have biased a future practitioner from analyzing its provenance.

Please leave it be.

Crazy Phil's - tooooo cents

[JHerman]

1990 legal opinion from the Board’s Counsel says no, you are not required to tag found monuments. I have a copy if you would like it.

[DWoolley]

1990 legal opinion from the Board’s Counsel says no, you are not required to tag found monuments. I have a copy if you would like it.

There is also a 1972-73 opinion that states found monuments accepted as control must be tagged.

Take your pick.

DWoolley

[Jim Frame]

If be grateful if both Dave and Jherman would post copies of those opinion documents. I'd like to have them for reference.

[bryanmundia]

Couldn't you make the argument that if you tag a previously untagged monument you could simply file a corner record barring any other stipulations of 8762 pursuant to 8771(f)?

If you leave it untagged, I would argue that it is a physical change in the monument pursuant to 8762(1) or could fall under 8762(4) in regards to the location of a point not shown on a map and you would be required to file a Record of Survey.

Besides this, why wouldn't you tag a previously untagged monument if you are accepting it for a boundary corner or controlling corner? This to me would be the best practice in order to allow a future retracement to follow in your footsteps, has the price of brass/copper gotten too expensive?

[Edward M Reading]

I've got an email from Dallas in 2021 saying that if you accept and use an untagged monument, you need to mark it with your tag.

[JHerman]

Attached is the 1990 Opinion

[DWoolley]

Attached is the 1973 opinion. As a map checker, I request land surveyors to tag untagged monuments accepted as control, as needed.

By way of background, the 1990 opinion was based on a map submitted in Orange County. The surveyor held a concrete nail for the centerline intersection of a block. The map checker requested the surveyor to locate and map the next monument in each direction (2 directions) to verify the concrete nail was in the intersection. The surveyor refused. The map checker offered an alternative, tag the the concrete nail at the centerline intersection. The surveyor refused to tag the monument. The Orange County Surveyor requested an opinion from the Board.

ACEC, CELSOC at the time, had an outsized influence on the opinion. They did not want to be bothered tagging monuments. A contemporary CELSOC article exists detailing their position.

DWoolley

[DWoolley]

Oops, I attached the wrong opinion. I will leave the other opinion attached to the previous posts.

See the attached correct opinion.

DWoolley

[David Kendall]

1. How many think it is ++REQUIRED++ to set your tag in an older pipe that you find untagged? If yes, What criteria is used to determine when to re-tag or not? IE I would assume we don't have to set a tag in every landscaping pipe set into wooden steps.

2. If you do think you need to re-tag pipes, by what law or theory would you base the required by law argument?

1. I do it when I feel like it. When I have the time and materials and budget handy and I find a pipe that I am holding and I am filing a record then I will tag a no tag pipe, usually only in cases when I am holding the pipe for one of my subject property corners. Very rarely would I tag an adjoiner property corner because I feel that it would be considered an endorsement of the adjoiner's monument as a boundary corner and I have no reason to assume that liability. I recently set a memorial pipe for a wood hub found on an adjoiner lot corner and tagged that as well. The hub was shown on a prior map and I wanted the position to last longer than it would otherwise...

I do not typically tag centerline monuments that have no tag. Mostly because I want to get the heck out of the street and because they are usually not pipes that will accept a plug so it is impractical.

I do not believe that it is required. I think that it is a courtesy and a professional responsibility to leave clear footsteps for others to follow.

2. I can't think of any legal obligation to do this. I can't imagine any potential method of enforcement unless it is a city or county surveyor with a bee in his bonnet that won't sign off on the subdivision map. I suppose that I would tag the monument in that case....

[Ian Wilson]

In reading Mr. Chang’s reply to Jerry Hurlbert’s question, I’m struck by the fact that the question asked was not the question answered.

Jerry asked about UNTAGGED monuments. Chang responds “Such an interpretation would result in the obliteration of the tags of previous land surveyors and would be illogical.” Apparently. Mr. Chang has confused the meaning of “untagged”. No need to deface an existing monument that already has a tag.

The purpose of setting a tag is not just to identify the person setting the tag, but to help make the monument more identifiable. Not only do I know that the pipe bearing the tag stamped “LS 4378” was set by Jerry, but, since I find that pipe roughly where the south east corner of the parcel Jerry marked, it’s probably the one he set and not one set by Brian Hess read upside down (LS 8136). It also distinguishes the pipe form the tree stake/”goat” stake without a tag set near the corner.

I see setting a tag in an UNTAGGED monument as rehabilitation of the monument. If the point has been shown on a previous map, setting a tag would require no more than a Corner Record. This was the original purpose of the Corner Record, albeit for unlicensed federal party chiefs working for the BLM. (See Letters to the Editor, The California Surveyor, No. 74, Spring 1984 for history of Corner Record Statute)

Even if the pipe was tagged by a “bad practitioner”, it would be noted as “FOUND 1” OPEN PIPE, ACCEPTED AS S’LY CORNER LOT 4 PM 1234, TAGGED LS “BAD PRACTICIONER” whether it was on a Corner Record or a Record of Survey. No confusion as to whether it was set by LS BP or not.

To quote Dave, “…it is a courtesy and a professional responsibility to leave clear footsteps for others to follow.”

The point of retracing the previous survey is not to put the points where they would have been put if the survey have been done mathematically correctly, but where the points were actually set. Isn’t that what is taught by Cooley, Clark, Skelton, Brown, Robillard, Wilson, Lucas….

[bryanmundia]

Well said Ian, I completely agree with you and Dave on this. Performing the task of allowing others to follow in our footsteps is paramount to the profession. I think of the approach of doing things right versus doing right things. Doing things right is a tactical approach such as providing good customer service or hiring the right guy (or gal) for your survey crew. Doing right things is more of a strategic approach that requires planning and preparing for long term sustainability.

When you define a good employee do you think of them as someone who does just what is asked of them or is that person someone who goes the extra mile, continues to learn and evolve and has a passion for their work? Why would you hold yourself to anything less than a good employee or someone who only does the minimum required of them in their work?

[dharri]

From a practical stand point, many property owners and others may not comprehend the significance of an open pipe or uncapped rebar. I have replaced a number of these points with a 5/8 rebar and aluminum cap with my name and license number. My desire is that they will recognize my monuments as special.

[Mike Mueller]

The point of retracing the previous survey is not to put the points where they would have been put if the survey have been done mathematically correctly, but where the points were actually set. Isn’t that what is taught by Cooley, Clark, Skelton, Brown, Robillard, Wilson, Lucas….

I just want to be clear, I am saying that current work is generally done with enough precision that we can use the "math" (read- 2-3 dimensional relationships of all retraceable positions such that they create a "constellation" of points that allow for a thorough enough analysis to determine if we are finding the same monument. Math is the analysis tool, not the method to establish.

So if my RoS shows an untagged pipe, any surveyor who follows behind will know it is the right/same pipe by the ties/relationships between the other recoverable positions on my map. The nature of the pipe in question is generally understandable from the notes left on the map, IE "FOUND 1/2" IRON PIPE, NO TAG, ACCEPTED AS PIPE SHOWN ON R1".

How many surveys these days are not within a few tenths (of a foot btw) between each others measurements? The fights are over what is the correct evidence to hold, not the measurements between things. If a couple tenths is not enough to provide certainty that the found no tag pipe is the correct monument that you are looking for origin, then it is a very weird situation.

Mikey Mueller, PLS 9076
Sonoma County

PS Thank you all for providing some perspective and opinions. Re-tagging is a subject of debate internally in our office and all of the points and posts are wonderful fodder and "I told you so!" for our debate :)

[hellsangle]

Even if the pipe was tagged by a “bad practitioner”, it would be noted as “FOUND 1” OPEN PIPE, ACCEPTED AS S’LY CORNER LOT 4 PM 1234, TAGGED LS “BAD PRACTICIONER” whether it was on a Corner Record or a Record of Survey. No confusion as to whether it was set by LS BP or not.

Ian,

My point is the bad practitioner tagged the point, didn't file anything, (remember, we're dealing with a bad practitioner), and the point, if left un-tagged could be more easily accepted as an original. PROVENANCE is everything! Again, by the bad practitioner tagging it has biased the future surveyor.

And the "LAW" is clear . . . when one "SETS" a point . . .

Yeah, Crazy Phil again

[bryanmundia]

Mikey,

So if you do find an untagged monument do you call it as "no reference" since it doesn't have the same character as the original or do you accept it as the original corner based upon your findings? I personally don't think it is "required" to retag a monument but I do think that it is something that should be done by the prudent surveyor, especially if it is a property corner.

[Mike Mueller]

Bryan,

If I accept that the pipe is just missing a tag/cap but is from that map, then I say something to the nature of
"FOUND 1/2" IRON PIPE, NO TAG.
ACCEPTED AS BEING PIPE PER R1"

I try to express clearly what I consider to be the origin of every pipe I find. Generally thats from the map that set it, or if the previous map held an untagged pipe, then I say something to the order of "FOUND AS SHOWN ON R1". Sometimes its just "NO RECORD LOCATED". It is my hope that even if I am wrong, everyone knows what I was thinking and why. Our office generally uses the PER to mean document of origin, and AS SHOWN ON when its another surveyors retracement of a previous work.

I am with Phil on the physical condition of the pipe, location, history etc establishes its provenance, and similiar to Antique Roadshow I feel its generally a bad thing for a later person to try and refurbish an old object. If I think the old monument is not going to last then I will replace it, or if its a clear POR I will pull the bent pipe and replace a new straight one, but otherwise I generally leave it as I find it.

After thinking about some of the points made on this thread, I would add that I would consider it a requirement to re-tag something if I happened to destroy a crucial aspect of the monument, like knocking the cap off with the shovel, or a rusted tag that breaks up when the dirt is removed. Essientially I need to leave it in the same "surveyoryness" condition that I found it in so that future surveyors will correctly identify it as important.

Mikey Mueller, PLS 9076
Sonoma County

From Mikey's Webster
"surveyoryness: 1) a measure of the regard with which surveyors will give to a thing. 2) the extent to which a thing was created by a surveyor.

[steffan]

In reading Mr. Chang’s reply to Jerry Hurlbert’s question, I’m struck by the fact that the question asked was not the question answered.

Jerry asked about UNTAGGED monuments. Chang responds “Such an interpretation would result in the obliteration of the tags of previous land surveyors and would be illogical.” Apparently. Mr. Chang has confused the meaning of “untagged”. No need to deface an existing monument that already has a tag.

I don't read the opinion as Mr. Chang being confused, rather instead he opined that going down the path of requiring surveyors to tag any untagged monument might lead to an unintended consequence of some thinking surveyors would need to tag everything they accepted, whether tagged or untagged. Agreed that is a pretty good stretch of the imagination, but maybe not completely out of the realm of possibilities.

I recall a past BLM practice where they would remove (disturb) and replace a local monument with their own and then "deposit" the local monument alongside and below the newly placed BLM monument. I'm not sure if that is still the practice or not but it does sort of support Mr. Chang's imagined consequence.

While I personally don't see anything in the PLS Act that requires adding tags to untagged monuments, my mind wanders more into the challenge of how to readily and cost effectively tag many of the typical monuments for which the exist tags have not remained adhered to.

[DWoolley]

...
I recall a past BLM practice where they would remove (disturb) and replace a local monument with their own and then "deposit" the local monument alongside and below the newly placed BLM monument. I'm not sure if that is still the practice or not but it does sort of support Mr. Chang's imagined consequence.
...

Steffan:

This is still the practice as recently as two years ago. We find original scribed stones, tie the stone out holding the highest point on the stone, pull the monument, dig a pit, set a flanged pipe and cap in concrete at the base, place the original stone upside-down in/under the ground as part of the mound, we wrapped the scribed stone in a heavy ply garbage sack to make it readily apparent and differentiate it from the other stones in the mound.

The black plastic garbage sack isn't in the Manual. I am testing the "disposable diapers take at least 500 years to decompose" story I heard several years back. I'll get back you with the results in 2520.

DWoolley

[Edward M Reading]

Dave,
Can you explain the logic behind doing this? The stones functioned perfectly fine for over 100 years. What's the rationale? I've never understood this. It seems like desecrating the original monument to me. Thanks for any info!

[steffan]

David, I was referring to the practice of replacing tagged pipes and rebars set by private practice surveyors with BLM pipes, not the remonumentation of original marked stones, mounds of stones or scribed posts. I can name a number of instances where perfectly good 2" IP's with brass caps set by local surveyors were pulled and "deposited alongside" a new BLM pipe. No corner record, no record of survey. Sure, one should be checking the BLM records also, particularly when there are federal lands in the area, but still it is basically removing evidence from the local record. The main point being is how much value is added by disturbing the exist condition?
Just this last week I was helping an elderly couple who started me off by showing me 3 of their corners. Turns out that none of them were their actual corners. One was a tag placed in a treated fence post designating the manufacturer of that post. One was a rebar of unknown origin, the other was a tagged pipe that did not match record in either position or character. After making a number of measurements in the neighborhood, I searched an area where my calculations said the corner should have been and within a foot of that position I found a t-bar as per record except its stainless steel cap was not marked with the LS # as per record, but rather it was simply marked with a tag that said "survey monument do not disturb". There were 3 records of survey that had either set or tied to this particular position over the years. None of the prior surveyors correctly identified this position as to its character.
Will I provide more value to my client and the surveying community by charging my client for me to develop some method of retagging this t-bar (probably easiest is to pull it and "deposit alongside" a "new and improved" monument). Or will they benefit more by saving the client that effort and simply putting in the record the specific conditions as found? I tend to think simply describing the t-bar in its found condition as being the better path than trying to jerry-rig a new tag to it or completely replacing it.

[Steve Martin]

While I personally don't see anything in the PLS Act that requires adding tags to untagged monuments, my mind wanders more into the challenge of how to readily and cost effectively tag many of the typical monuments for which the exist tags have not remained adhered to.

The 2-part epoxy that Caltrans uses to adhere BOTS DOTS to the freeway works particularly well. I've been recovering HPGN monuments we set with this over 30 years ago and they are still permanently attached.

Mix some from the white can with some from the black can and you get a grey mess that, if you get any on you, is permanent until you lose your outer layer of skin.

I've also seen Pourstone concrete wash out of a boulder from the rain, leaving the nail and tag in the drillhole. Epoxy is the way to go.

[DWoolley]

Dave,
Can you explain the logic behind doing this? The stones functioned perfectly fine for over 100 years. What's the rationale? I've never understood this. It seems like desecrating the original monument to me. Thanks for any info!

Ed:

Federal surveys are governed by the Manual. US Forest Service has some of their own rules. They have monumention standards that requires - going from memory- 30" pipe cut so they can be flanged, specifically stamped cap, magnets, u-post with signs placed in a particular way, additional signs stamped or scribed to which corner is set, bearing and distance to the corner, and nailed to trees with special nails.

The Manual refers to the placement of the original upside-down and underground as "memorials" in the monumentation section. The scribes are usually more than 100 years old and fading. Oftentimes the original mound is no longer recognizable, scattered - the rehabilitation and updating of the monuments is for the better. For example, you can examine an old stone and not be able to see the scribes, look again another day in different light and the scribes looks like a neon sign. It is the damnest thing.

Hot tip, when scribing a bearing tree I recommend you scribe them backwards from the ground up - if you're scribing towards the ground and run out of tree, well, then what?

I keep a bearing tree scribe photo on my phone next to my kids. See attached.

Thanks for asking.

DWoolley

[steffan]

There is a 10- year old subdivision on West Street in Redding that has quite a multitude of epoxy splotches with missing tags along its sidewalks. Results may vary.