-
Center of a Closing Section
How would you set the center of a closing section (section 7) and what would you do if you found a 2″ iron pipe N 0-46-47 E 6.85 feet of that position?
-
28 Replies
-
Straight line between the 4 controlling 1/4 corners, the manual will state that the east-west line isn’t straight but curved.
6.85′ that is very close, I would need a good reason to reject that one.
-
I’m with Moe. Barring any extraneous evidence to the contrary, that’s a “found”. Move on with the survey and maybe make some money on this one.
-
Seen this one.
Btw. Moe is exactly right
-
I did an ALTA of a 2 sections a few years back. One had several descriptions calling for various monuments at the center of section. The math for the deeds told me there was going to be more than one pin.
My crew found 3 rebar in a 3 foot bubble. Nearby was a beautiful rock marked “CS C1/4”. The stone was protruding 6 inches, firmly set and even had faint traces of orange puke on it. It didn’t show on any of maps, but was called for in a 110 year old deed.
The methods of the manual are wonderful tools WHEN YOU NEED THEM. Answer the status question for corners first. IMO you have proba ly found the center of section…
-
As I age, I see more wisdom in the old injunction “cursed be he that moveth his neighbor’s landmark”.
I accept more monuments than I used to.
Jon, that was a dandy!
N
-
agree with the above- also re-evaluate the pedigree of your east and west 1/4 corners- any chance there’s another monument out there about 14 feet north of what you’re holding?
-
Seen this one
-
All good advise, but make sure the 1/4 on the line closed upon is actually the 1/4 for your section. Many closing sections have 1/4’s for one side only. This happens more often on township lines, but it also occurs on range lines.
-
AS far as accepting the pipe. Wouldn’t accept it just because its there. Need to figure out maybe who set it and why. Also investigate to see if it has been relied upon for further section division. Does it match up with apparent 1/16 corners or other deeds and such. Not that hard to do anymore with kml’s into google earth. You’ll be able to see what sort of fits and what doesn’t then go get some shots on stuff that fits to see how good it fits.
-
Accept it and carry on…
-
Tickled pink. Double check the perimeter as suggested above.
-
I am finding myself compiling more traverses via GPS and LS. Here’s a combination of 4 two-dimensional traverses from the mid 80’s that I compiled yesterday with 8 GPS points. There is a Land Court Plan from the north to the south that we have worked within several times with different meridians because they could not resolve the traverses without the GPS. I am now able to hold record monuments at the extremes. The meridian is within 0.01′ and all the located record monuments fall withing 0.08′ of their calculated positions. The non-record monuments are not as close to their calculated positions with a couple off by as much as 0.22′. Fortunately I don’t have to worry about those non-record monuments as the property I am surveying enjoys monuments that work with the record information. One day I will likely return to those pesky monuments and I will have to make a choice or more likely, let the client make a choice as we cannot break a Land Court Plan without a petition to the Land Court. Who wants to waste the time and money over 0.22′?
-
Thanks Nate.
-
Like LRDay I’d like to evaluate the 6.85′ pipe along with some other supporting evidence, just to make sure that it wasn’t intended to be marking something else. But that certainly is close enough. Especially considering the terrain and vegetation that the original surveyor might have encountered in Western Washington. I would expect better than that in the grass prairies of Oklahoma, but would still find it acceptable in the absence of positive evidence to the contrary.
For those that may find conflict with my recent comments re: right of way monuments, this is a plat corner and therefore called for. It is a protracted plat corner, therefore the first surveyor making a good faith effort to set the corner is setting the original plat monument. See the 2009 Manual, Sections 3-131 et.seq.
-
Norman,
We are in close agreement. I would point that the manual cautions us in more than one section that original (federal authority) surveys and later (state authority) surveys are not equal. While the websters definition ‘original surveyor’ setting those protracted corners carries great weight, the monuments they set are not on par with those actually set by the GLO. The later surveys do not contain the same elements nor are they subject to the same level of review and approval as those accepted by the Surveyor General. We also need to consider who had interest in the adjoining lands when the survey was done to know if Federal or State law governs.
Again, I’m holding monuments until the evidence tells me not too. The distinction is I must evaluate evidence under the correct standard, which requires the correct identification of the monument. In this case ‘first’ and ‘original’ aren’t the same…
-
I also agree with Norman (I want to know if the pipe was specifically set to mark the center by someone with authority to do so) but I think the 2009 Manual is overstating the law. I don’t think the Federal Government has any special authority to overcome established protracted corners since they didn’t undertake to set them originally. Their perceived authority is really just greater brute force their internal procedures allow them.
-
Dave, I think that the BLM attempts to reserve to themselves the authority to overrule the local surveyor when it please them to do so. But I, too, wonder if they actually have any such authority.
-
Like LRDay I’d like to evaluate the 6.85′ pipe along with some other supporting evidence, just to make sure that it wasn’t intended to be marking something else. But that certainly is close enough. Especially considering the terrain and vegetation that the original surveyor might have encountered in Western Washington. I would expect better than that in the grass prairies of Oklahoma, but would still find it acceptable in the absence of positive evidence to the contrary.
For those that may find conflict with my recent comments re: right of way monuments, this is a plat corner and therefore called for. It is a protracted plat corner, therefore the first surveyor making a good faith effort to set the corner is setting the original plat monument. See the 2009 Manual, Sections 3-131 et.seq.
Remember the old Pipe vs the Stone thread on the old POB Board from several years ago that was located in Oklahoma. The G.L.O. established the C?¬ during the coarse of the original Township Subdivision surveys. That C?¬ stone monument carried as much weight as any of the exterior monuments set during those surveys and should be used to reestablish or verify the position of any of the exterior section monument positions. The field notes of those surveys document how the G.L.O. ran the North-South and East-West survey lines and how they established the position of the C?¬. They were set not at a direct intersection of the two lines ran. I can’t recall the Township & Range involved, but I remember reading through the field notes and thought it was interesting how they did the C?¬ positioning.
-
Remember the old Pipe vs the Stone thread on the old POB Board from several years ago……. I remember reading through the field notes and thought it was interesting how they did the C?¬ positioning.
While I don’t remember that thread specifically….. Very possibly you are referring to a section subdivided, by the GLO, into 40 acre tracts by the 3 mile method. They are relatively common in OK. You would not establish the C1/4 of a 3 miler in the common manner.
-
Trimble Man was the poster of the Pipe vs Stone issue. The comments went on for weeks. There were definitely two camps of commentors.
We need to recover that entire thread for the current participants to view.
Log in to reply.