California Surveyors Forums

Hi
Planning on trying out my O-Tag system to put some offsets in concrete walk.
Is there any reason to use the brass pin instead of the aluminum cup tack I plan to use?

Can't set a tripod over the points I am setting and rod points slip off those rounded brass pin tops.

Actually, there is a reason not to use a galvanized cup tack - they rust once the galvanized casing is cracked and disintegrate in a short amount of time. I have found brass escutcheon pins well over 80 years old. I have found galvanized cup tacks which are practically dust in less than 5 years after being set.

On more than one occassion, after finding a cup tack set for a monument, I have mailed the surveyor a box of brass pins.

I am willing to bet you really like the O-Tag setup. I won't set another lead, tack and tag without it.

D. Woolley

I have bought brass pins with a flat head on them at Home Depot. You can probably find them online on Amazon or something like that.

A commonly used "cup tack" may very well not satisfy section 8772 when complying with "...shall be permanently and visibly marked or tagged with the certificate number..."

I find cup tacks wiggle out of the lead because of their tapered shape.

But they really are great for holding a rod point!

Ric7308 wrote:A commonly used "cup tack" may very well not satisfy section 8772 when complying with "...shall be permanently and visibly marked or tagged with the certificate number..."

How about not being counter sunk in concrete? Would that be in violation of 8772?

Ric7308 wrote:A commonly used "cup tack" may very well not satisfy section 8772 when complying with "...shall be permanently and visibly marked or tagged with the certificate number..."

So what does the Board accept as a "Permanent Monument"? Is there a list of defined permanent points approved by the Board?
When a city states "Standard Monument", one needs to search that city ordinance to comply, as they will have approved monuments for that jurisdiction.

Any monument is not permanent, but we try to set something that will not easily be disturbed. I personally do not set lead in sidewalks, rather use a 1/8" concrete drill and set a square concrete nail with tag which binds into the concrete well. If need be, add a little 5 minute epoxy for those critical boundary disputes.

I have had a great deal of success using a "ribbed flat headed brass nail". They are longer than a cup tack, and not a problem putting a rod on the top center of it (like the round top escutcheon pins). Problem is, trying to find them. The bag I have, I think I bought from "Hadco" in Orange County back in the day (which is long gone). I liked them with concrete in pipes too.

Nothing is permanent. The worst monument is the plastic caps as they will melt or crack in a short period. The problem has to do with the compatibility of dissimilar metals. If you feel a small rounded head of a nail is a challenge, you should consider setting a small brass screw inside the monument.

Dissimilar metals are a common issue in boating. Brass and lead are a good combination. Lead and a cup tack, not so good.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galvanic_corrosion

Ric7308 wrote:A commonly used "cup tack" may very well not satisfy section 8772 when complying with "...shall be permanently and visibly marked or tagged with the certificate number..."

I am asking anyone who finds a cup tack (or MAG nail, concrete nail, PK nail) set as a permanent monument to file a complaint with the Board for Professional Engineers, Land Surveyors and Geologist - see what happens and report back in a couple years. Who among us thinks of these as "durable" monuments? Rhetorical question. Keep in mind, it is almost wholly dependant on what a self certified "technical expert" - with no formal training in the administravtive process or verified applicable experience - thinks is acceptable and/or whether BPELSG staff thinks you're a "good guy" or not. Imagine self certified boundary "technical experts" with few, very few, filed records of survey checking another land surveyor's boundary analysis and determining a violation. There are some good Technical Experts that I know personally. I acknowledge there may be some licensees that has prepared many records of survey, for another licensee to sign, which would be more than qualified. However, I have seen Technical Experts which by experience are no way qualified to evaluate another professionals work.

Ideally, BPELSG staff would define their good guy criteria or good guy exceptions to regulatory actions. Personally, I am a traditionalist - preferring the "justice is blind principles" in which there are no good guy exceptions to enforcement. An enforcement system in which the 4th, 5th and 14th Amendments actually factor into the process - as opposed to a regulatory body that purposefully tries to legislate around our equal protection rights i.e. AB 177 and a substantial criteria regulation which removed the word "conviction". Justice must be a one size fits all and yes, good guys get the same treatment as the scoundrels.

I am calling for - as should our community- a definition of good guy status, how it was determined and lastly, who determines it.

File the complaints today. Everyone has some extra time over the holidays. Also, Iook for the Orange County chapter of CLSA, a practice based chapter, to make announcements concerning statewide enforcement actions shortly after the first of the year.

D. Woolley

DWoolley wrote:I am calling for - as should our community- a definition of good guy status, how it was determined and lastly, who determines it.

Good guys are humble. And they have pretty wives. I think most of them work for the state so they only use Trimble instruments. That's why they're good. The good guys in private practice are all older, mostly past sixty-five and if they ever make a mistake then they probably just forgot. All of the county surveyors are good guys.

Good guys turn triple sets on control and log data in bound field books and set solid brass nails in wood hubs instead of cup tacks and carry plumb bobs.

We should probably start a new thread for this one, a bit off topic....

PLS7393 wrote:

Ric7308 wrote:A commonly used "cup tack" may very well not satisfy section 8772 when complying with "...shall be permanently and visibly marked or tagged with the certificate number..."

So what does the Board accept as a "Permanent Monument"? Is there a list of defined permanent points approved by the Board?
When a city states "Standard Monument", one needs to search that city ordinance to comply, as they will have approved monuments for that jurisdiction.

Any monument is not permanent, but we try to set something that will not easily be disturbed. I personally do not set lead in sidewalks, rather use a 1/8" concrete drill and set a square concrete nail with tag which binds into the concrete well. If need be, add a little 5 minute epoxy for those critical boundary disputes.

Keith, this has been mentioned previously several times. The PLS Act does not state "permanent monument". It says the license number shall be permanently affixed to the monument. Please go back and read it again. It is all about anyone being able to readily identify which licensee set the monument.

khuerth wrote:

Ric7308 wrote:A commonly used "cup tack" may very well not satisfy section 8772 when complying with "...shall be permanently and visibly marked or tagged with the certificate number..."

How about not being counter sunk in concrete? Would that be in violation of 8772?

Possibly. The responsible land surveyor has a duty to reasonably determine if the license number attached to the monument will stand the test of time in the location that the monument is set. Countersinking the monument below the surface tends to signify that the land surveyor properly exercised his or her duties in attempting to lessen the chances of the tag being easily removed.

Bus. and Prof. 8771
"(a) Monuments set shall be sufficient in number and durability and efficiently placed so as not to be readily disturbed, to ensure, together with monuments already existing, the perpetuation or facile reestablishment of any point or line of the survey."

It seems clear with the words "durability" and "...not to be readily disturbed...". This section is cited in the Subdivision Map Act - which also uses the word "durable". I didn't look it up, but I blind bet it is the same in the Streets and Highways Code. Nothing flimsy or wishy washy about the language. Some subjectivity, but hardly the mystery of the inscription "DOUOSVAVVM" on the Shepard's Monument.

A monument that will essentially destroy itself - absent any malicious act - isn't durable. This would include Mag and concrete nails with washers set in traveled streets, cup tacks which rust away, plastic caps in fire areas, etc. Nope, nothing mysterious or requiring the translation of ancient scrolls in the PLSA.

For what it's worth,

D. Woolley

[please overlook spelling or grammar errors - written on a tablet.]

The responsible land surveyor has a duty to reasonably determine if the license number attached to the monument will stand the test of time in the location that the monument is set.

How about a tag epoxied to the surface of a concrete paver? One of those galls me every time I pass by it (which is about 3 times a week).

Jim Frame wrote: How about a tag epoxied to the surface of a concrete paver? One of those galls me every time I pass by it (which is about 3 times a week).

That's a good question Jim. Epoxying the tag to the surface appears to meet the requirement of "permanently affixed" and I'm sure one could argue that a concrete paver would be considered "durable" depending on specific circumstances unique to each situation. However, PLS Act, section 8771(a) also states that the monument should be "...placed so as to not be readily disturbed..."

Questions that a diligent licensed land surveyor could ask themselves in this situation could be "Is the concrete paver installed in concrete or cement?" "Can the individual paver be easily lifted up away from the other pavers without causing damage?" "Can the pavers be rearranged such that property owners could accidently place the "tagged" paver in a different location after maintenance and no one would know?" "Should the monument be set under the paver flush with the subsurface?" Should a witness monument be placed in a location away from the paver?" "Should the property owner (possibly client) be asked for his or her preference?"

A lot depends on the unique circumstances and situation that each licensed land surveyor is faced with. Why a licensed land surveyor would set a monument (or cause a monument to be set) in a location that he or she would not reasonably be certain would last, is beyond me. Why a licensed land surveyor would not instruct his or her field crew to set monuments in safe and secure locations and call for advice in special situations, is beyond me. I still go back to my previous statement that it is the licensed land surveyor's responsibility to ensure that wherever the monument is placed, it is secure enough in its placement to reasonably maintain its location so it can be relied upon by others. The land surveyor is licensed for this reason...to make these decisions for the betterment of the public even when a special situation was not foreseen or easy to do.

"epoxy" glues are not a good choice, they are often not "durable"... there are Many kinds of epoxy, most don't do well in the sun.
the type used for raised pavement markers typically is great, I suggest you avoid the rest.

The standard of practice in a situation where the intended corner is unstable, one should set an offset monument at the closest location that provides stability.

Here in San Diego, the city sets their monuments in the surface of a plastic/aluminum pedestrian ramp. Are these acceptable?

mpallamary wrote:Here in San Diego, the city sets their monuments in the surface of a plastic/aluminum pedestrian ramp. Are these acceptable?

My response would be the same as for the concrete paver.

Thanks for the discussion

O-Tag system worked pretty well.
The very first one failed as I hit something about .03' down that I couldn't drill through. (19.2 volt drill)
The others went extremely smoothly and looked great when done.

I expected to hear from more people who find some pretty old tacks which seem to last in the hubs and iron pipes I find.

I expect I will have found a good brass fastener that will hold a rod point by the time the box Dave sends me runs out.

I have attached a picture of one of these monuments. This is a replacement one. The bulk of these are set by the city as tie-out replacements after the ped-ramp is installed.

I haven't used them, but those o' tags seem pretty slick. The only concern I'd have is that unlike drilling a smaller diameter hole and compacting it with lead wool like a dentist filling a cavity where you can get some serious compression and resistance for the nail to go in, the o'tag system is just kind smashing the lead into a much larger drilled hole and it doesn't seem like you'd get that same compaction. I guess time will tell...

Jay Wright wrote:Thanks for the discussion

O-Tag system worked pretty well.
The very first one failed as I hit something about .03' down that I couldn't drill through. (19.2 volt drill)
The others went extremely smoothly and looked great when done.

I expected to hear from more people who find some pretty old tacks which seem to last in the hubs and iron pipes I find.

I expect I will have found a good brass fastener that will hold a rod point by the time the box Dave sends me runs out.

Ha! I think you may be a good guy Jay. That thing you couldn't drill through was probably a 130 year old cup tack from the original government survey monument

I think the O-Tag system is a great tool!