Tagging Required

[Jim Langone RLS PE]

Does anyone know (within a decade or so anyway), when "tagging" monuments became a requirement?

[D Ryan]

I recently got hold of a copy of the LS Act approved March 16, 1907 (which I believe will be reprinted in its entirety in the next California Surveyor-all 3 pages) which addresses monumentation. It requires "...permanent and reliable monuments, and such monuments must be permanently marked with the initials of the surveyor setting them".

This particular Act repealed an earlier one dated March 31, 1891. It's amazing how much wording is identical to today's LS Act. And to think some states still don't have an Act addressing mandatory filing.

[Jim Langone RLS PE]

Thanks for the info D. Ryan

As far as your comment regarding manditory filing...haven't been out there in 10 years, but when I left (I thought) it was pretty cut and dried.

If your providing any kind of certification as to the validity of a boundary your finding or developing....
Create a boundary...Final or Parcel Map
Retrace a boundary...R/S or Corner Record.
The only issue I can recall, was the circumstance of finding all record monumentation, very very close (within measurement tolerances) of where they were supposed to be...?File a Corner Record or Not?

I never really understood the arguement against filing. I typically "drew" a plat anyway, so...what you call it doesn't make much difference. In the early 80's, some Co.'s started charging some pretty hefty "review fees" for R/S's and considering the "quality" of the (some of the) review mentality, THAT ticked me off, but other than that....a map is a map. Oh...if you're doing an ALTA, it would generate the necessity for 2 maps...one for the R/S or Corner Record, and a second for the actual ALTA (with all it's garbage), but other than that...

It's kind of funny, because the reason for my question about tagging is really based on "manditory" platting here in WI., and an interpretation which is such that each and every time a boundary is "used" (apparently) warrents the filing of a "Plat-of-Survey". As a result (what I look at as) the "boundary" data base is cluttered with Plot Plans [some never constructed], As-builts, Topo's, Mortgage Surveys (this product being...something close enough to satisfy a lender in New Jersey), ALTA's, you name it, it's supposed to be there.

I almost "agree"...but not for the right reasons of course. They don't "tag" corners here (at least as a rule). What happens if you find an "untagged" corner in CA.? You "prove" that it's sufficiently close, to "accept" OR you "reject it". Sometimes this "proof" is a real pain in the "whatever".
Imagine...finding a "whole bunch" of monumentation with no real "documentable" history. Oh...Johnny LS did a Subdivision 30 years ago and said he "set pipe"...are these pipe "his", another surveyors "replacement", or here in WI. one must consider the potential for a "property owners" version of where the corner was or "should be".
From that stand point, since a found monument has no history (unless the "whoever set it" is standing there and says "I set that") I can understand...On the otherhand, it sure puts a kink in the "value" of what a surveyor Does, 'cause it's not worth diddly after he turns the corner on his way out of the area.

Well, as usually, it looks like I've written a book when two lines probably would have been sufficient. LOL

[Bowman]

I think that I remember that it became real apparent when the requirement for an RS was made to be filed.