California Surveyors Forums

Yesterday we went out and set additional ties to preserve the position of a Government Corner. Using the last two remaining 1927 ties, the position was monumented. We also found two other non referenced leads in the old curb, which were incorporated as swing ties. The curb the 1927 ties were in will soon be gone. Newer returns are being constructed so it's just a matter of time before the city rips these older pieces of curb out and replaces it with new curb.

While we were at it we tied into a PK that may be the one called for in PWFB 1425 Page 359. This PK was used as the center of a fly point, I hope that whoever used that PK did not accept it as the c/l intersection...it's not. I did not run down to that PK and pull the ties shown on the PWFB, no need. The location is near the intersection of Del Mar Ave and Las Tunas Drive.

I made a post a while back about taking C/L ties with a grain of salt, especially those with the disclaimer on it. This is a prime example why you just cannot accept what's filed. I have seen so many times filed records, RS and CR, where a block is run using C/L information, then a prorate is done, old monuments that have existed for decades are now "OFF" by silly X amounts. Why surveyors do not search out sideline monuments and really make an analysis is beyond me, but I think it is because the mentors that are now of status (older LS numbers) are mentoring in error.

I also have a gripe over the crews that need to set fly panels and walk out "close" to an intersection and drop in a nail and paint it up. Those that do that should be roofers or plumbers but not land surveyors. If you need to set a panel at an intersection, use some common sense and make sure the panel/nail is offset from the apparent intersection enough that the nail or w/e you set does not end up being tied out as some useless point and filed in a PWFB with a disclaimer.

Attached is a copy of the CR I will be filing, for those interested.

I just noticed I forgot to identify a monument that bears S 26° 03' 09" W, 88.88' from "C". It an LS 7003 tag. Damn! Im always missing something until I look at my own PDF.

PS Corrected CR uploaded

I also have a gripe over the crews that need to set fly panels and walk out "close" to an intersection and drop in a nail and paint it up. Those that do that should be roofers or plumbers but not land surveyors

I always set random or target points far as I can from where someone might accept it as a cl mon.
A friend, now a LS, was once forced to set a gear spk for a target near the apparent cl int by a party chief that never got his LS. This was the same PC that wrote coordinates to 0.01ft on a 1x2 set for rough grade control that was about 0.2ft from those NE. Funny how he worked for that large firm long after I and the now LS left.

Don't they use well monuments in intersections in L.A.? I don't understand how 20 ties could be better than a durable monument that is protected from repaving project.

I'm a Bay Area guy...

Anthony Maffia wrote:Don't they use well monuments in intersections in L.A.? I don't understand how 20 ties could be better than a durable monument that is protected from repaving project.

I'm a Bay Area guy...

The city this is in is San Gabriel..incorporated. That city does not have much regard for anything survey related. I funded this out of my own pocket.

It's a mish-mash down here. A lot of old LA streets were concrete so L&Tks were set. Many of those streets are paved over with as much as 6in of AC.
OC has a lot of well mons on CLs but not in the old areas. Riverside and SB I think still require a 1"IP on CL control.
A lot of control has been lost to ADA ramps. And it seems like whenever possible to get new concrete at some land owners expense the local agency is requiring new curbs and walks and a lot of PL o/s L&Tk are being lost as the contractors and the inspectors have no clue.

Riverside and SB I think still require a 1"IP on CL control.

Is this requirement for subdivisions only or doe's it extend to CR and RS? If RS and CR are involved, did these cities pass an ordinance for it?

Not that it's a bad idea, but if it's just employee whims without ordinance backing then it's a good idea without basis.

LS 4722 wrote:Is this requirement for subdivisions only or doe's it extend to CR and RS? If RS and CR are involved, did these cities pass an ordinance for it?

Not that it's a bad idea, but if it's just employee whims without ordinance backing then it's a good idea without basis.

I was referring to Counties, not familiar with any cities out there but many cities just adopt the county rules.