Activity Feed › Discussion Forums › Strictly Surveying › Diagonal PLSS Aliquot Part Patents
-
Diagonal PLSS Aliquot Part Patents
Posted by loyal on January 23, 2020 at 8:01 pmSome years back “we” had a discussion about “diagonal aliquot part” Patents (GLO).
These are mentioned in C.A. White’s book “A History of the Rectangular Survey System” (page 172), and appear to be unique to Oklahoma.
Does anybody have a Township/Range where I could find a Master Title Plat (MTP) indicating one or more of these unicorns?
Loyal
thebionicman replied 4 years, 7 months ago 10 Members · 22 Replies -
22 Replies
-
I remember the conversation I think. But I don’t recollect any examples.
As far as there being any in OK all I can say is: I’ve seen literally tens of thousands of GLO & USGS plats over the years and have never seen one. I would be interested too if any actually originally existed.
ps – Are unicorns the same thing as hen’s teeth?
-
Just uninformed blind searching in Google turned this up. Probably not what you’re looking for, but maybe interesting in its own right. Also, being later than 1971, it’s practically brand new:
-
Oh please, please don’t start about the “bogus” BLM crap again, its been peaceful since he left. ????
-
What do “W.C.” and “AP1, AP2, etc.” indicate? Other than that, I see no indications of monuments having been found or set. Just some shiny coordinates on a few of the corners. :hmm:
-
Posted by: @peter-lothian
What do “W.C.” and “AP1, AP2, etc.” indicate?
Witness corner and angle point
. -
So the witness corner would be a physical object, described in another record on file with BLM? (field notes, corner record drawing?)
-
So are those W.C., so close to the line intersection. previously existing monuments that this survey is calling off by trivial distances?
. -
There are a set of field notes describing lines run, topo calls, monuments set, ect.
It will also have other information including the surveyor, instructions indicating the reason for the survey.
-
Good question, I’m guessing no, but the notes should explain.
One thing that jumps out to me is there is no lotting, that procedure hasn’t made it to the Colo office I guess.
The MT and OG plats often explain much of what is going on with the survey, I don’t bother setting section corners anymore without looking at them.
-
Do the field notes explain what the diagonal line is? It looks to me like it is a previous boundary of something, maybe the Wildlife Refuge?
-
Considering the territory involved, I was guessing the witness corners were based on the futility of attempting to place a monument at the true corner.
-
I am unaware of any that were patented that way here, but Idaho was a bit late to the game. I did retrace one that was sold as the NW 1/2 and SE 1/2 of a quarter section. The dividing fence was a beautiful arc around the crest of a hill, with a mid ordinate of twenty-some feet. I could not convince the owners to live with it. They spent a small fortune for the survey and fence, not to mention the required easements to deal with access and utilities. At least it was a peaceful (if not stupid) process…
-
Interesting, the MTP indicates that the Original Patents do NOT reflect the diagonal Boundaries. It doesn’t look (to me) like the “new” Field Notes are online yet.
Loyal
-
Posted by: @holy-cow
Considering the territory involved, I was guessing the witness corners were based on the futility of attempting to place a monument at the true corner.
With distances like 0.50 1.08 0.46 0.45 1.21 etc., maybe trees at the calcualted corners?
. -
Posted by: @bill93Posted by: @holy-cow
Considering the territory involved, I was guessing the witness corners were based on the futility of attempting to place a monument at the true corner.
With distances like 0.50 1.08 0.46 0.45 1.21 etc., maybe trees at the calculated corners?
But if that were the case, wouldn’t they have set them on line instead of at various other bearings?
. -
Posted by: @bill93Posted by: @bill93Posted by: @holy-cow
Considering the territory involved, I was guessing the witness corners were based on the futility of attempting to place a monument at the true corner.
With distances like 0.50 1.08 0.46 0.45 1.21 etc., maybe trees at the calculated corners?
But if that were the case, wouldn’t they have set them on line instead of at various other bearings?
I dunno Bill, I might be missing something here, but all of the Witness Corners appear to be ON LINE except the WC for the ?¬ Corner of Sections 20/29, which reads “0.45 South” as opposed to 0.45 S0?ø42’W (which would make sense to me). The dimension for the WC to Cor. of Sections 18/17 (and presumably 7/8) is also missing on the plat.
Maybe I need another cup of coffee (or new glasses).
Loyal
Log in to reply.