good test taking skills
If pressed for time, on this question you note that A and C have the same easting and guess one of them. Your odds are only slightly less than 50%.?ÿ Rarely will a test writer have two wrong choices so similar.
We definitely approach slim's question from different perspectives. Your posts are mainly concerned with eliminating "bad" questions from an exam.?ÿ I have a pragmatic viewpoint, so I'm mostly concerned about how best to answer a "bad" question and move to the next question.
The only times I've computed lost PLSS corner positions were to answer questions on the SIT and LS exams in 1984 and the CFedS exam in 2011. Perhaps one day I'll need to compute a lost PLSS corner when tasked with setting corners to a placer mining claim patented by legal subdivisions. The only other time I would consider using double proportion would be to reestablish interior corners to a block of lode mining claims as suggested by John V. Meldrum in his 1980, "Mineral Survey Procedures Guide."
Below is the plat of Sur. No. 15373. if one or more interior corners were lost, I might employ double proportion to reestablish them (if it gave a good result that was not at odds with keeping the end lines substantially parallel). This mineral survey was conducted in 1901.?ÿ If it had been conducted after September 1904, I'd carefully read the "Report" section of the field notes to see if the mineral surveyor described which lines were run on the ground before deciding which method to employ.
Before computing the lost interior corners by double proportion, I'd simplify the computation of cardinal equivalents by rotating the found corners clockwise by 9?ø30'
?ÿ
?ÿ
When taking tests such as the FS or PS it's helpful to remember that you're trying to find the best answer not the right answer.?ÿ A subtle but important distinction.
All this focus on numbers and calculations and I've never once double proportioned a section corner in real life. ?ÿI've done a few single proportions. ?ÿThere's almost always something better available.
It really depends on where you are working. Double proportioning is often the only resort when you are surveying in an area where most boundary lines are not occupied to. For example,?ÿ it would be?ÿ rare someplace like Oklahoma, but much more common in some parts of Alaska where fences, farming, roads and landscaping are unheard of.?ÿ
Figuring out how to best answer a bad question and moving on is the right approach to test taking, and there will be "bad" questions on the NCEES exam so that is good strategy to learn. This question however, is fundamentally flawed. A crucial step in performing the calculation by the "BLM method" is missing. It was especially concerning to me, because this is the kind of mistake I see in the field often, sometimes with disastrous consequences. There would be no justification to assume a cardinal record in real life.
I don't know if double proportioning would ever be appropriate on a mineral survey. The only reason double proportioning makes sense, is the unique way townships were subdivided. If they were done "by the book" each internal section corner had 4 independent measurements made from them with four semi independent determinations of bearings made. The two east west lines would have had two independent corrections for curvature. When there is substantial evidence that the "book method" wasn't used, double proportioning shouldn't be used.
If the standard methods (grant boundary, compass rule, parallel end lines, single proportioning, ect) used in mineral surveys fail, I would look at the method of miscellaneous control before resorting to double proportioning.
Guys this question is screwed up, you are all assuming the original record is cardinal. The original berings are not provided, so it can't be solved.?ÿ
The assumption that the north south bearing is cardinal is an especially bad assumption. Even if we assumed this township was perfect, this section line would not be cardinal.?ÿ
The assumption needed is that the lines have the same bearings. There is no need to assume they are cardinal.
Lots of fun and games. How about a test question on recognition of retracement evidence rather than an exercise in theory??ÿ People like Slim get the notion that because it was tested and taught then by God it must be practiced.?ÿ
Guys this question is screwed up, you are all assuming the original record is cardinal. The original berings are not provided, so it can't be solved.?ÿ
The assumption that the north south bearing is cardinal is an especially bad assumption. Even if we assumed this township was perfect, this section line would not be cardinal.?ÿ
The assumption needed is that the lines have the same bearings. There is no need to assume they are cardinal.
Sure, but that is still an assumption that should never be made.?ÿ
I don't know if double proportioning would ever be appropriate on a mineral survey.?ÿ The only reason double proportioning makes sense, is the unique way townships were subdivided. If they were done "by the book" each internal section corner had 4 independent measurements made from them with four semi independent determinations of bearings made. The two east west lines would have had two independent corrections for curvature. When there is substantial evidence that the "book method" wasn't used, double proportioning shouldn't be used.?ÿ
If the standard methods (grant boundary, compass rule, parallel end lines, single proportioning, ect) used in mineral surveys fail, I would look at the method of miscellaneous control before resorting to double proportioning.?ÿ
Your statements not to use double proportion are contrary to the guidance provided in Chapter VI of the "Mineral Survey Procedures Guide" and the "consideration" described in the "Lost Corners" section 10-213?ÿ (for a block of claims) in the 2009 Manual. I attached a PDF of Chapter VI of Meldrum's guide that states on Page 59, second full paragraph (see also Figure 8 on page 60):
In reestablishing corners of a block of claims, the rules of proportionate measurement may be applied. In Figure 8, missing Corner No. 2 of claims E, F, G and H can be restored by double proportion. Missing Corner No. 1 of claims A and B may also be restored by double proportion; since there is no corner beyond this corner, the record distance from Corner No. 2 would have to be used in this direction.
Meldrum's musings are of course, only guidance for how to proceed. The 2009 Manual sections on "Lost Corners" is included below.
Lost Corners
10-213. There is no hard and fast rule for reestablish??ing lost corners of lode mining claims. The method should be selected that will give the best results, bearing in mind that end lines of lode claims should remain sub??stantially parallel, if parallel by record. When the origi??nal surveys were made faithfully, the application of the principles of parallelism, record distances, record angu??lar relationships, and record relationships between the claim and the workings on it, in combination with the presumption that the original intent was to be conform??able with the statutes governing dimensions and area, should substantially meet the objectives stated above.
In restoring lost corners of irregular claims, such as nonrectangular placers or millsites, the secondary meth??ods of broken boundary adjustments (sections 7-53 and 7-54) should be considered. These may also be applied to lode claims if application of the methods described in the previous section does not give adequate results.
In restoring lost corners of a block of claims, originally surveyed at the same time, the primary methods of pro??portionate measurement should be considered. The field notes and order should be consulted to determine if the basis for record directions deviates from the general plan (section 10-121).
As with all lost or obliterated corners, the position of a corner of a mineral survey must be determined from the best available evidence and in such a configuration that will place the lines as nearly as possible in their original positions.
10-214. Caution should be exercised in the use of any ties to or from adjoining surveys when the descriptions for the conflicting claim corners, PLSS corners, or min??eral monuments are not mentioned in the field notes memorandum and may in fact have only been calculated and not surveyed on the ground. Such calculated ties, as a rule, should not be used.
The Manual only asks the surveyor to consider proportionate methods, and usually only in the case where the methods outlined in the first paragraph of Sec. 10-213 do NOT give a good result.?ÿ As you know, the "primary methods of proportionate measurement" are listed in Chapter VII, those being double proportion and single proportion (and their variants).?ÿ It is important to note that secondary proportionate methods should be avoided when reestablishing lost corners to lode mining claims. They are generally only appropriate for irregular claims such as nonrectangular placers and mill sites.
Both Meldrum's guide and Section 10-213 begin with the caveat that "there is no hard and fast rule for reestablishing lost corners of lode mining claims."
Below is an example mineral survey conducted after September 1904 (1908) where the first line of the "Report" section of the official field notes state, "All lines of this survey were run direct or by traverses upon the ground." I would not use proportionate methods in this case as the mineral surveyor states that all lines were not directly run.
The Penn lodes are located on Pennsylvania Mountain, which is southwest of Alma, CO.?ÿ The plat shows the ridge line running along the interior corners. This is a photo looking east-southeast of Pennsylvania Mountain (taken on Aug. 5, 2009). The northerly end lines would be approx. 1400 to 1500 ft. below the ridge line, which indicates why the mineral surveyor did not directly run all the lines.
The photo was taken when Dave Karoly visited me. We are on London Mtn. looking for stones of mineral surveys that were part of the Sinnott v. Jewett land decision (33 L.D. 91). In the lower right, foreground is Cor. No. 1 of the Silver Monument Lode, Sur. No. 15714 (the stone has a flat top face that is light tan in color).
"In restoring lost corners of a block of claims, originally surveyed at the same time, the primary methods of proportionate measurement should be considered. The field notes and order should be consulted to determine if the basis for record directions deviates from the general pla (section 10-121).
As with all lost or obliterated corners, the position of a corner of a mineral survey must be determined from the best available evidence and in such a configuration that will place the lines as nearly as possible in their original positions."
These are the key passages. The primary methods include single proportion, three point control, two point control, and index corrections. All of those are applicable (some in limited circumstances) to mineral surveys.
"The field notes and order should be consulted to determine if the basis for record directions deviates from the general plan".
It would be very rare to find a set of field notes for a MS that supports double proportioning. For most MS corners common to four claims the notes indicate the survey was run around each claim individually. We know that is not how the surveys were usually performed, but I have never seen any evidence to support the idea that mineral survey was done according to the instructions for the PLSS (rotated). Have you?
Without either notes or other substantial evidence to support the PLSS method of surveying I certainly couldn't defend a double proportion position as the "onfiguration that will place the lines as nearly as possible in their original positions." For the same reason I have only used double proportioning once on a private subdivision. It was surveyed by a former GLO surveyor, the lots were cardinal squares and there was evidence of random lines on the east-west lines.
?ÿ"All lines of this survey were run direct or by traverses upon the ground."
This statment certainly rules out double proportioning, but do you think it rules out all proportioning?
"there is no hard and fast rule for reestablishing lost corners of lode mining claims"
Of course I wouldn't never claim that not using double proportioning is a hard and fast rule, I just think the circumstances in which it is applicable are very rarely encountered.?ÿ
I thought I would fire up my trusty old HP-86B with Wild Volume C COGO Program and run the Double Proportion & Single Propertion function to see what answer it would spit out. It had been so long since I had fired the thing up, I had to get the Manual out to read up on the startup sequence. First you had to put the Program & Data disks in the disk drive, turn it on, then turn on the printer, then the computer and then the monitor. Then it was a head scratcher after I did the initial file setup to get the data file to load in order to assign points and then run the calc's.
Anyway, here is a print out of the calc's in both a JPEG & PDF format.
?ÿ
?ÿ
?ÿ
?ÿ
What do you do if there's no monument within 1 mile of your lost section corner? In other words there are lost section corners between your lost section corner and the found monument.
the problems I have seen assume there are found monuments at 1 mile or 1/2 mile in 4 directions.
FYI?ÿ Don't believe everything written in the books.?ÿ Currently working along a township line set out in 1866.?ÿ So the five miles and roughly 75 chains were allegedly run from the northeast corner of the township to the northwest corner of the township and then corrections made on the return to the northeast corner of the township.?ÿ Single proportion work.?ÿ Try it and you might just end up a hundred feet behind someone's house such that they must actually live in a different section than what everyone has always thought was correct.?ÿ Anyone assuming the center line of the county road is surely an indicator of the section line is in for a fooling as well.?ÿ As this also happens to be the line common to two counties things can get even more entertaining if one starts using perfect mathematical solutions.
I would expand that to include, don't believe everything written in the Field Notes (formalistic narrative) either!
😉
