Monument Swing Tie Points

User avatar
PLS7393
Posts: 600
Joined: Tue Aug 24, 2004 2:09 pm
Location: Bay Area (Fremont)
Contact:

Monument Swing Tie Points

Postby PLS7393 » Fri Feb 09, 2018 9:38 am

Am I missing something under Section 8772 about a monument set shall bear the surveyors license number?
The section does state "mark or reference a point on a property or land line . . . "
I have come across a large number of recent corner records for monument preservation and the surveyor only set "Cut Crosses" in the curb.
I was under the impression all points set shall require a tag?
Are reference points for monument preservation excluded from Section 8772 of the PLS Act?
If this is true, I can significantly reduce my costs on future proposals going after this type of work.

User avatar
E_Page
Posts: 1952
Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2005 6:49 am
Location: El Dorado County

Re: Monument Swing Tie Points

Postby E_Page » Fri Feb 09, 2018 9:20 pm

A cut cross by itself does not satisfy 8772. There are times when a cut cross or similar mark might be the only practical way to mark the actual corner location, but in those instances, IMO, one or more reference monuments that otherwise fully complies with 8772 should be set as near as practical to the otherwise non-conforming mark.
Evan Page, PLS
A Certain Forum Essayist

User avatar
Jim Frame
Posts: 1030
Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2002 8:52 pm
Location: Davis, CA

Re: Monument Swing Tie Points

Postby Jim Frame » Sat Feb 10, 2018 8:07 am

A few years ago I filed a complaint based on this issue with my regional JPPC. I never heard back, and the untagged crosses are still there.

User avatar
E_Page
Posts: 1952
Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2005 6:49 am
Location: El Dorado County

Re: Monument Swing Tie Points

Postby E_Page » Sat Feb 10, 2018 11:31 am

Your regional PPC, although technically still in existence, went dormant around 2011 or 2012. Could be there wasn't anyone left to receive the complaint.
Evan Page, PLS
A Certain Forum Essayist

User avatar
bruce hall
Posts: 602
Joined: Sun Oct 05, 2003 9:18 pm
Location: huntington beach, orange county, california

Re: Monument Swing Tie Points

Postby bruce hall » Sun Feb 11, 2018 10:52 am

the ties are supposed to be tagged. the ties are monuments and they reference land lines. That's what I think.

The practice of setting crosses in curbs without identifiers will continue unless someone decides to change this procedure.

Nothing changes if nothing changes.

User avatar
dmi
Posts: 979
Joined: Wed Dec 08, 2004 7:42 pm
Location: San Francisco
Contact:

Re: Monument Swing Tie Points

Postby dmi » Mon Feb 12, 2018 8:05 am

Going out on a limb here, I see no discussion of setting accessories in the PLS Act. The RPs are accessories and they reference an existing monument that marks the line or corner. When the existing monument is gone then the RPs are used to replace the monument and that point is tagged when re-set. I am not sure that tagging all four RPs at every intersection in the state of California protects the public. Filing the monument preservation record does protect the public by stating what was set and when. If there were no corner or line monument then the RPs would in fact be referencing the corner or line and should be tagged.

User avatar
Jim Frame
Posts: 1030
Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2002 8:52 pm
Location: Davis, CA

Re: Monument Swing Tie Points

Postby Jim Frame » Mon Feb 12, 2018 9:14 am

I see no discussion of setting accessories in the PLS Act.


8772. Marking of monuments
Any monument set by a licensed land surveyor or registered civil engineer to mark or reference a point on a property or land line shall be permanently and visibly marked or tagged with the certificate number of the surveyor or civil engineer setting it

Just because setting untagged reference marks has been common practice in San Francisco for over a century doesn't mean that doing so complies with the statute.

User avatar
dmi
Posts: 979
Joined: Wed Dec 08, 2004 7:42 pm
Location: San Francisco
Contact:

Re: Monument Swing Tie Points

Postby dmi » Mon Feb 12, 2018 9:33 am

Jim , I understand, Please read carefully what I wrote. Please read 8772 carefully. "To mark or reference a point on a property line or a land line" makes no mention of an existing monument being referenced. Again I see no discussion of accessories in the PLS act. I listed two entirely different scenarios. One was exactly in line with the PLS where the purpose was to monument or reference a line or point WHERE THERE IS NO EXISTING MONUMENT. The other case is where THERE is an existing monument. The practice of setting RPs for existing monuments is something that has happened all over the state not just in San Francisco. There are thousands and thousands of RPs in LA county.

User avatar
Jim Frame
Posts: 1030
Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2002 8:52 pm
Location: Davis, CA

Re: Monument Swing Tie Points

Postby Jim Frame » Mon Feb 12, 2018 9:52 am

Dane, you're making a distinction between a monument and a durable reference point. I maintain that there is no difference under the statute. I do make a distinction between marks intended only for short-term use (e.g. construction stakes) and durable reference marks, but my read of the law is that any "permanent" mark set by a surveyor to reference a property line or corner has to be tagged.

User avatar
dmi
Posts: 979
Joined: Wed Dec 08, 2004 7:42 pm
Location: San Francisco
Contact:

Re: Monument Swing Tie Points

Postby dmi » Mon Feb 12, 2018 10:11 am

Jim no sir you misunderstand me entirely. I am making a distinction about the purpose for which the marks are set. I am in complete agreement that if your purpose is to mark or reference a line , a point on the line or a corner, then you are required to set permanent a tagged monument(s). Now if the line is marked with a monument and accessories are set to reference the existing monument and a corner record is filed then the purpose is slightly different and not fully addressed in the PLS ACT..

User avatar
Jim Frame
Posts: 1030
Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2002 8:52 pm
Location: Davis, CA

Re: Monument Swing Tie Points

Postby Jim Frame » Mon Feb 12, 2018 10:29 am

I am making a distinction about the purpose for which the marks are set


In my opinion, the statute is clear: if it's durable and references a property line or corner, it has to be tagged. I think we simply disagree on this.

User avatar
bruce hall
Posts: 602
Joined: Sun Oct 05, 2003 9:18 pm
Location: huntington beach, orange county, california

Re: Monument Swing Tie Points

Postby bruce hall » Mon Feb 12, 2018 12:04 pm

Jim has it right. its clear to me.

] when I set something permanent (or as permanent as can be) in the ground that references a line or a corner, its supposed to be tagged. that way hopefully the next guy wont have to think "is this the same cross that Hall set or not?" Been there, seen that, and shake my head. What am I supposed to be doing? one of the things I do is set stuff so other folks can find that stuff and not wonder, is this the right stuff?

User avatar
dedkad
Posts: 303
Joined: Tue Jan 14, 2014 3:55 pm

Re: Monument Swing Tie Points

Postby dedkad » Mon Feb 12, 2018 12:39 pm

It's hard enough getting contractors and agencies to preserve monuments. Trying to get them to preserve three, four or five monuments for a single property corner will be even harder. I'm not sure if the benefit is there.

User avatar
bruce hall
Posts: 602
Joined: Sun Oct 05, 2003 9:18 pm
Location: huntington beach, orange county, california

Re: Monument Swing Tie Points

Postby bruce hall » Mon Feb 12, 2018 12:58 pm

well, I for one don't have control over other peoples actions, only mine. I guess as long as the corner being referenced is not moved or disturbed, who cares about the ties, but that's not how the law is written. I only have to lset ties if I am NOT GOING to reset the corner after the construction/work.

good luck with the chisled crosses and not setting an identifier (tag). Normally I don't perpetuate the tie points, I will locate them but that is all. Then I just reset new ties away from construction and reference them to the corner. I only am perpetuating one corner, the old ties can be destroyed and they will be, but I set new ones just because, and they are tagged just because its the law AND the right thing to do.

We wouldn't need laws if we all did the right thing..

User avatar
Mr. Smith
Posts: 153
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 6:44 am
Location: Montague CA
Contact:

Re: Monument Swing Tie Points

Postby Mr. Smith » Tue Feb 13, 2018 9:28 am

I see your point Dane but the way I read the statute I will set reference points with my number just to be safe.
Got some tags that say “reference point” then name and LS number.

Bri

User avatar
bruce hall
Posts: 602
Joined: Sun Oct 05, 2003 9:18 pm
Location: huntington beach, orange county, california

Re: Monument Swing Tie Points

Postby bruce hall » Tue Feb 13, 2018 2:58 pm

LS XXXX
TIE POINT

or LS XXXX
RP

User avatar
Paul Goebel
Posts: 96
Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2007 1:47 pm

Re: Monument Swing Tie Points

Postby Paul Goebel » Wed Feb 28, 2018 2:38 pm

I can imagine all the confusion the tagged ties would create for the public. A group of tagged ties that look exactly like actual corners only a few feet apart does a landowner no good. In San Diego County we have over 40,000 corner records and a good portion of these indicate "x" marks in concrete set 10 or 15 feet out to perpetuate a monument. If all of these ties had been tagged, we would be knee deep in monuments downtown.

I prefer to just indicate bearings and distances from other existing monuments, which avoids the "set tie" problem and produces a record that is much more useful in future retracement surveys. I understand the arguments for the simplicity and precision of swing ties, but they have their problems.

User avatar
Jim Frame
Posts: 1030
Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2002 8:52 pm
Location: Davis, CA

Re: Monument Swing Tie Points

Postby Jim Frame » Wed Feb 28, 2018 3:25 pm

we would be knee deep in monuments downtown.


Supported by appropriate documentation, I fail to see a downside to this.

You're knee-deep in monuments already, the difference is that many of them have no provenance in the public record.


Return to “General Discussion”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest