Geodetic Survey Marker Disks - Questions on Pedestrian Access, Visual Uniqueness, and PRP
What constitutes a survey marker can vary quite significantly, from substantial triangulation stations (TRIG stations) on mountain-tops and hill-tops to smaller metal disks scattered throughout urban areas.
In my experience reviewing in NSW, Australia, smaller brass survey markers are becoming an increasingly frequent type of nomination. Over the past weekend, for example, I had a streak of no less than 5 of these markers in a row in my Wayfarer queue. I've personally developed a habit of skipping many of these but that stance is becoming untenable.
The following is a typical example of a metal disk survey marker in Sydney, Australia, and is very typical of the submissions are currently coming up in Wayfarer. United States penny for scale:
While the frequency of these markers will obviously vary regionally, in urban Australia, they tend to be rather common. For example, this screenshot from the NSW Government's SIX Spatial Services Maps shows a typical frequency at which these marks can occur, with one or more occurring on almost every city block.
Under the pre-update eligibility criteria and advice, the advice appeared to be:
"As long as it's on a public pathway and not on a sidewalk next to a private residence (or any other location mentioned in our Do not submit list), the 4* guideline still applies."
The new eligibility criteria do not appear to address these more common markers at all, nor can I find a recent AMA that tackles the issue.
Some Wayspot submissions for these markers quote from the old criteria or paraphrase it in some way Other submissions will allude to how these survey markers play a role in mapping or even in other activities such as geocaching and benchmarking - however, there are many common features that can be used in mapping and geocaching aside from these markers, and many are not eligible (natural features or [other] mass-produced generic objects for example.)
There is also the factor of pedestrian access:
In the above picture:
Marker A is in an area accessible to pedestrians but doesn't have a path leading up to it.
Marker B is on the curb between the road and the pedestrian area.
Marker C is in the gutter of the road.
Marker D is on the road itself (these are less common but do occur)
Marker E is embedded in a footpath.
Marker F is on the curb with a footpath leading up to it.
Marker G is in the gutter of the road with a footpath leading up to it (the photo earlier in this post would be a "G")
Marker H is on the road itself with a marker leading up to it.
At what point do the markers become unsafe for pedestrians? I have personally seen submitters attempt to submit and justify markers similar to C, G, and H on multiple occasions.
Additionally, survey markers are frequently being submitted when they occur in the roadside easement and/or nature **** of a single-family home.
In this case:
Marker X is similar to Marker A, but occurs in the easement or nature **** in front of a single-family home.
Marker Y is similar to Markers B and F, but occurs on the curb in front of a single-family home.
Marker Z is similar to Markers C and G, but occurs in the gutter of the road in front of a single-family home.
In Australia, the immediate space between the road is generally considered "crown land" (may vary in size and enforcement from location to location) meaning it is accessible to the public but also normally managed by the land-title-holder/owner to some extent.
Is there any current guidance for these kinds of markers?
At what point do we score down these kinds of features for visual uniqueness if there are potentially multiple markers of this kind on a single small city block?
What constitutes safe pedestrian access in relation to features immediately adjacent to or even on the edge of the road?
How should we treat features when they fall on the immediate verge of private residential property?