California Surveyors Forums

Section 8764 reads as follows:

"The record of survey shall show the applicable provisions of the following consistent with the purpose of the survey:
(a) All monuments found, set, reset..........."

If a monument was found during the course of a field survey, and has no relation to the boundary solution (i.e. an old county triangulation station 2.5 feet from the CL intersection, or a no reference monument that DOES NOT fit), I have always showed the monument, and included a tie distance. Perhaps a "Tie Only" statement. This has been in an effort to show "All monuments found, set, reset...........".

Does the language "consistent with the purpose of the survey" indicate that you don't necessarily have to show EVERY monument if they are not germane to your boundary establishment?

I know what I have and will continue to do.......just wondering if this language leaves it up to the surveyor's judgment.

Jake Sharp, PLS

Myself, I tend toward the side of showing everything I found...maybe not every single time, but usually. As long as you have a strongly resolved boundary, showing those that you didn't "accept" won't detract from your solution.

I nearly always do as Lee does and show everything on any boundary survey.

I show pretty much everything too. I want the survey to be retraceable. I take the attitude that most of my monuments I set are either going to be disturbed or at least quite difficult to tie in later on, and street control will get wiped out. The more marks in a more "permanent" concrete area the better on a survey.

I am amazed lately at how often I lose my street control. It seems like cities are re-paving at an alarming rate.

I also show everything that I come across and locate on the survey. I do that because I enjoy creating records and I figure that the more I document the easier it will be for following surveyors.

We show every monument located. I think that is what the law states and therefor we do that.

My question is why wouldn't you show everything you found during your field survey? If you make clear concise notes that these are "tie only" and do not affect the result of the boundary determination then where is the harm?

Besides, you spent the time to collect them, you at some point during your survey thought that they may be important/relevant, why does that change during the mapping of the project?

Jake,

Are these monuments of reference or are they "no reference" monuments?

Bryan:

I agree completely. I took the time to double-tie these monuments. Drawing a line and describing the monument takes less time, and adds to the record, which is the point I think.

Jake

"Besides, you spent the time to collect them, you at some point during your survey thought that they may be important/relevant, why does that change during the mapping of the project?"

A lot of times I am not really sure what may be "important/relavent" until after I download my data. I walk up to some tag or cross or ? and I may not know what it represents, although I usually have a pretty good idea(thats why I get the big bucks), anyway I am here, lets hit this puppy and see where it falls, instead of thinking "man, if I locate this thing then I gotta show it onna map".

Locate it, show it on the map however you want, and go nuts from there.