Kent McMillan, post: 424323, member: 3 wrote: To assess urban surveying in the Western US,, then, would it be fair to sample urban areas to see what percentage of them fall within regular townships? My point has been that the simpler PLSS makes many surveying tasks more routine than they would be in metes and bounds land grant states for several reasons, including the power of the PLSS as a way of organizing land transactions (indexing for title search) and organizing records of prior surveys and survey maintenance. such as corner records.
If one is able to know in advance how much time will be required to perform the research necessary for a survey, then clearly they are operating within a highly routine system.
That would tell part of the story. A better metric would be to pull titles to lands being developed or changing hands. You would quickly find that we have the same issues to varying degrees. Where title has been established and maintained without reference to the PLSS, it doesnt matter where its at. In the rectangular portions you still have to deal with the unsettled state and county lines that moved records around and the 100 to 140 year period where no or few survey records were kept.
Your comments and descriptions of the PLSS shatter any illusions that your questions are founded in genuine interest. While i generally hold Texas Surveyors in high regard, your attitude is sucking the fun right out of the conversation.
Kent McMillan, post: 424323, member: 3 wrote: To assess urban surveying in the Western US,, then, would it be fair to sample urban areas to see what percentage of them fall within regular townships? My point has been that the simpler PLSS makes many surveying tasks more routine than they would be in metes and bounds land grant states for several reasons, including the power of the PLSS as a way of organizing land transactions (indexing for title search) and organizing records of prior surveys and survey maintenance. such as corner records.
If one is able to know in advance how much time will be required to perform the research necessary for a survey, then clearly they are operating within a highly routine system.
Urban research in the PLSS States is going to be much as it is anywhere that the original patents have been subdivided so densely as to limit the area beyond which repose of title has constrained the use of precise math to overcome the settlement pattern - much as it is in Singapore.
thebionicman, post: 424333, member: 8136 wrote: your attitude is sucking the fun right out of the conversation
Sweet Jeebus...you've been having FUN to this point? What else do you do for fun? Colonoscopy prep? Take the Mother-in Law out for brunch? Slam your 'junk" in a car door?
When I was in third grade my teacher handed out everyone in class a sheet of paper. She said we were going to learn about the PLSS. It had 36 squares on it, she told us in the upper right hand corner write 1 in the box then go to the left and write 2 then keep going to the end of the first row, then go down one box and write a 7, then label each box to the right and finish filling out all the boxes till you get to the end. Now pick any box and draw a line down the middle of that box, up and down and left to right. Now pick one of those boxes you just made and do the same thing,she taught us how to know which square we picked the NE 1/4, SE 1/4 , SW 1/4 , NW 1/4 . then which squre we picked out of that. The NE 1/4 SE 1/4 of whichever square we picked.
When a third grader can learn how to write a PLSS legal description how hard can it be to survey in a PLSS system, if we had a bus driver that day we probably could have had a field trip to find the monuments.
The system was made so land owners could survey their own property to put up fences, its a good system just a much easier system then Metes and Bounds.
Warren Smith, post: 424336, member: 9900 wrote: Urban research in the PLSS States is going to be much as it is anywhere that the original patents have been subdivided so densely as to limit the area beyond which repose of title has constrained the use of precise math to overcome the settlement pattern.
Well, if the underlying subdivisions are 1/4 sections or 1/16 sections, that right off the bat is a huge simplification for abstracting in that you're most likely dealing with 40 ac. or 160 ac. chunks instead of 4400 acre grants. It may be that a person who has only surveyed within the PLSS cannot realize how easy they have it in many respects.
Scott Ellis, post: 424346, member: 7154 wrote: When I was in third grade my teacher handed out everyone in class a sheet of paper. She said we were going to learn about the PLSS. It had 36 squares on it, she told us in the upper right hand corner write 1 in the box then go to the left and write 2 then keep going to the end of the first row, then go down one box and write a 7, then label each box to the right and finish filling out all the boxes till you get to the end. Now pick any box and draw a line down the middle of that box, up and down and left to right. Now pick one of those boxes you just made and do the same thing,she taught us how to know which square we picked the NE 1/4, SE 1/4 , SW 1/4 , NW 1/4 . then which squre we picked out of that. The NE 1/4 SE 1/4 of whichever square we picked.
When a third grader can learn how to write a PLSS legal description how hard can it be to survey in a PLSS system, if we had a bus driver that day we probably could have had a field trip to find the monuments.
The system was made so land owners could survey their own property to put up fences, its a good system just a much easier system then Metes and Bounds.
I taught the same level of course to my hunter education students so they understood basic mapreading of quads. That covers about 2 pages of one manual. Now add the various sources of law, claims and oh yeah, metes and bounds. I find it hilarious that folks think knowing part of the definition of a quarter section think they know the PLSS well enough to survey in it.
Kent McMillan, post: 424350, member: 3 wrote: Well, if the underlying subdivisions are 1/4 sections or 1/16 sections, that right off the bat is a huge simplification for abstracting in that you're most likely dealing with 40 ac. or 160 ac. chunks instead of 4400 acre grants. It may be that a person who has only surveyed within the PLSS cannot realize how easy they have it in many respects.
The PLSS is a fantastic framework for its intended function. How development occurred afterward is not less complicated than that within the Republic of Texas which has the distinction of not having ceded its public lands to the Federal Government upon admission as a State.
Your point is well taken as to the size of land grants in Tejas. California has the distinction of a multitude of Spanish and Mexican land grants in - go figure - the most desirable arable locations, such as along the Pacific coast. Few of those survive intact, save for conservation purposes repurchased for that reason. We may only boast of Tejon Ranch as akin to West Texas holdings.
thebionicman, post: 424352, member: 8136 wrote: ... I find it hilarious that folks think knowing part of the definition of a quarter section think they know the PLSS well enough to survey in it.
I guess it is a little humorous. I wish every job I got was some "40 acres square". I just looked and 5 out of the last 7 jobs I've completed were m & b. In a pragmatic light and completely ignoring state-specific details, retracements of metes and bounds in Texas cannot be much different than anywhere else.
In a PLSS system a description might start something like:
A part of the NW/4 of Section 11, Township 17 North, Range 34 West of the Wyandotte Principal Meridian, Polk County, Oklahoma, more particularly described as beginning at the Northwest Corner of said NW/4....
In Texas a description might read something similar to this:
Being 104 acres of land, a part of the W.F. Allison Headright Survey, Rusk County, Texas, about 20 miles South of Henderson, and described as metes and bounds as follows: Beginning at the N.W. Corner of Allison League....
...giving me the sentiment that while both describe a location for the survey to begin, one might see some ambiguity in a description that uses the term "about" in the first dozen words. And while one in Texas probably couldn't do much without a good copy of the W.F. Allison Headright Survey, one in Oklahoma would be foolish to attempt to locate something in NW/4 of Section 11 without the GLO notes either.
I get the impression that in Texas, after the task of finding your abstract out of the 1,000+ others positioned randomly somewhere in the county and then locating the 18Û black jack in the middle of a field 2 varas N 44Ûª E from a 16Û Hickory tree (in 1910), you might be ready to get out your shovel and Schonstedt.
The big difference to me seems to be the hurdles one must jump to obtain records and chain of title to actually begin the survey in Texas as compared to a PLSS system. And although each PLSS state and counties keep things a little differently, the PLSS system is far superior to the Texas system of record conveyance documentation. The correlation I can't see is considering difficult record retrieval or somewhat ambiguous POB locations as being somehow a superior environment in which to survey. And I don't believe that a difficult surveying environment fosters any sort or tempering of a surveyor's ability. Difficult surveying environments simply detract from the overall quality of a surveyor's work.
thebionicman, post: 424352, member: 8136 wrote: I taught the same level of course to my hunter education students so they understood basic mapreading of quads. That covers about 2 pages of one manual. Now add the various sources of law, claims and oh yeah, metes and bounds. I find it hilarious that folks think knowing part of the definition of a quarter section think they know the PLSS well enough to survey in it.
So you agree its easy to teach the PLSS system. Yes I do feel I know enough about the PLSS to Survey in it.
Scott Ellis, post: 424365, member: 7154 wrote: So you agree its easy to teach the PLSS system. Yes I do feel I know enough about the PLSS to Survey in it.
The basic concept of township structure and aliquot part reference are simple. Saying that equips you to survey it is so ludicrous it defies any non-offensive analogy. You may very well know how to survey in the PLSS, but not if you stopped learning at what a quarter section might look like.
thebionicman, post: 424375, member: 8136 wrote: The basic concept of township structure and aliquot part reference are simple. Saying that equips you to survey it is so ludicrous it defies any non-offensive analogy. You may very well know how to survey in the PLSS, but not if you stopped learning at what a quarter section might look like.
How many squares inside of a square must one go, before you deem them qualified to work in PLSS?
Scott Ellis, post: 424376, member: 7154 wrote: How many squares inside of a square must one go, before you deem them qualified to work in PLSS?
That can lead to the bogus theory ...
Scott Ellis, post: 424376, member: 7154 wrote: How many squares inside of a square must one go, before you deem them qualified to work in PLSS?
Step one is realizing its not all squares. My last exam was about 20 percent PLSS questions. None were about the rectangular basics.
I laugh every time I hear these useless discussions about PLSS being easier than M&B as I've got the opposite perspective. Around here we have some of everything, ancient subdivisions, ranchos and sectionalized land. The one type I virtually never do, unless more modern mapping is available are the public lands. I'd love to, but
can never get a client to pay for the effort to do them properly. Dense canopy removes GPS as an option so you're talking about cutting miles of line on the ground through rugged country, then most of the old corners were wooden stakes that are long gone.
paden cash, post: 424364, member: 20 wrote: I guess it is a little humorous. I wish every job I got was some "40 acres square". I just looked and 5 out of the last 7 jobs I've completed were m & b. In a pragmatic light and completely ignoring state-specific details, retracements of metes and bounds in Texas cannot be much different than anywhere else.
In a PLSS system a description might start something like:
A part of the NW/4 of Section 11, Township 17 North, Range 34 West of the Wyandotte Principal Meridian, Polk County, Oklahoma, more particularly described as beginning at the Northwest Corner of said NW/4....
In Texas a description might read something similar to this:
Being 104 acres of land, a part of the W.F. Allison Headright Survey, Rusk County, Texas, about 20 miles South of Henderson, and described as metes and bounds as follows: Beginning at the N.W. Corner of Allison League....
...giving me the sentiment that while both describe a location for the survey to begin, one might see some ambiguity in a description that uses the term "about" in the first dozen words. And while one in Texas probably couldn't do much without a good copy of the W.F. Allison Headright Survey, one in Oklahoma would be foolish to attempt to locate something in NW/4 of Section 11 without the GLO notes either.
I think you're forgetting that in Okieland you can zip right to the quad sheet with that NW 1/4 already plotted for you and have a whole libary full of corner records to identify which PK nails or Railroad Spikes in the County Road pavement are the "original" corners controlling the location of the 1/4 section of which your tract is a part. I suppose that if you want to make a fetish of it, you could actually hunt for the original "original" corners from the government survey and might just find them considering how relatively recently most of the Western States of PLSSia, including Oklahoma, were surveyed.
That Texas Headright grant, on the other hand, dates from 1835 and it will most likely take a significant amount of abstracting into the 19th century to find a record of the perpetuation of any of the original corners. It's a nominally square tract 5000 varas on a side (about 13,888 ft., depending upon the length of the vara actually used in 1835). Unlike PLSSia, the junior surveys surrounding the senior survey are at best corroborating evidence, but it would be improper to simply run out the lines of the surrounding junior surveys and conclude that whatever is left over must be the older grant. In PLSSia, of course entire townships were typically subdivided as a part of the same operation, so evidence of that survey throughout the township is hardly irrelevant.
Kent McMillan, post: 424385, member: 3 wrote: ...Unlike PLSSia, the junior surveys surrounding the senior survey are at best corroborating evidence, but it would be improper to simply run out the lines of the surrounding junior surveys and conclude that whatever is left over must be the older grant. In PLSSia, of course entire townships were typically subdivided as a part of the same operation, so evidence of that survey throughout the township is hardly irrelevant.
So am I correct in what I hear you saying is a simultaneously created network with interdependent evidence would be a superior system rather than an obscure and approximate two and a half mile square tract that was originally created without the benefit of even a standard unit of measure with ancient or long lost corners only marked by long dead deciduous growth?
[USER=7154]@Scott Ellis[/USER]
[USER=8136]@thebionicman[/USER]
With something like squares, it took a lot of bad measures and not measuring at all in a whole bunch of places to get to where the PLSS situation is today.
With the tools the original surveyors had to work with and the lack of manpower and budget to do it correctly, it is a wonder any of it can be retraced today.
I've been happy inside my own element and don't plan to do anything outside of NE Texas.
A Harris, post: 424391, member: 81 wrote: ...I've been happy inside my own element and don't plan to do anything outside of NE Texas.
I've been clicking my ruby slippers together for quite some time now... 😉
paden cash, post: 424388, member: 20 wrote: So am I correct in what I hear you saying is a simultaneously created network with interdependent evidence would be a superior system rather than an obscure and approximate two and a half mile square tract that was originally created without the benefit of even a standard unit of measure with ancient or long lost corners only marked by long dead deciduous growth?
Of course it's easier to survey inside a system of surveys instead of dealing with individual tracts separately surveyed and conveyed over decades by many different individuals as is common in a metes and bounds system. The huge advantage of the PLSS is that you began with a framework of the subdivision of the township and while things may have gone downhill from there, at least the initial state was more ordered than what you would have had if every section in the township had been separately surveyed and conveyed over a period of perhaps fifty years.
Add in the large recordkeeping simplification of the coordinate system of the PLSS, i.e. Township, Range, Section, Part, for something like indexing records of drving PK Nails or Railroad Spikes into County Roads to perpetuate corners and you've got a really simplified system.
Kent McMillan, post: 424399, member: 3 wrote: Of course it's easier to survey inside a system of surveys instead of dealing with individual tracts separately surveyed and conveyed over decades by many different individuals as is common in a metes and bounds system. The huge advantage of the PLSS is that you began with a framework of the subdivision of the township and while things may have gone downhill from there, at least the initial state was more ordered than what you would have had if every section in the township had been separately surveyed and conveyed over a period of perhaps fifty years.
Add in the large recordkeeping simplification of the coordinate system of the PLSS, i.e. Township, Range, Section, Part, for something like indexing records of drving PK Nails or Railroad Spikes into County Roads to perpetuate corners and you've got a really simplified system.
So far nobody has given an example of things i dont encounter here. The only thing shown is that Texans lacked the ability to create a sensible cadastre that covered a good bit of their lands. Y'al get the braggin righrs on that one.
