My bearing from the SW corner to the NW corner of sec 5 was 359 58 07.6, because I used the distance on the GLO plat 14.70?ÿ chains = 970.20 ft from the NW corner of sec 5 to the SE corner of section 31. I'm assuming when the surveyor of section 5 hit the standard parallel already surveyed, he measured over east to find the nearest corner already set.?ÿ
Since I'm just another amateur, I don't know if that 970.20 should be proportioned also or not.?ÿ If instead of using that distance directly, you proportion it using the ratio on the west line of section 5 of?ÿ remeasured 5170.225 versus given distance 78.80 chains = 5200.8, it moves the corner 5.7 ft east. At least all our answers are close enough for a monument search.
I was hoping this problem would draw discussion from the people who really know how to do it, but apparently it is just another job and not an interesting puzzle for them.
Yes proficiency is the key,, but I think only a Colonial State only surveyor would think?ÿ think being able to calculate a double?ÿ proportion and pass the PS exam means someone is proficient in the PLSS.
Do you think that passing the PS and being able to do a compass rule adjustment makes for a proficient boundary surveyor in New Jersey? I know I would approach a survey in New Jersey with a lot more humility than that.?ÿ
Most American state licenses prove?ÿ a very minimal type of "proficiency".?ÿ From your posts here I think you far exceed that level in New Jersey. We would be in a much better position as a profession if everyone stayed closer to their comfort zone. Unfortunate, some don't even know enough to feel uncomfortable.?ÿ
@bill93?ÿ
Our problem is that we normally have access to more data that will affect how we go about solving the puzzle.?ÿ That, combined with our own repertoire of experiences over years of similar challenges impacts our thinking on little things like when to proportion and when to not proportion.
@aliquot I used to know the system well, but, only from studying it, never from actually practicing in a PLS state.?ÿ I have probably forgotten most of it and would not attempt to practice in a system that I have no practical experience in.
Finally have a few minutes to calculate:
Question 14 and 15 ask what is the current measurement. Which to me means the record measurement since the corners are lost but 1240.8 doesn't appear for an answer to 15,,,,,so the test taker should infer that current measurement means the calculated prorated distance. That would be 14d and 15b.?ÿ
I don't know the filing rules so I can't speak to 16.
The actual calculations can't be done for 17-19 since we aren't given the coordinate basis or the latitude of the area. However, the question must want to assume the coordinates are "close" to a true north system and ignore curvature:
The notes should be examined but since both E-W lines along the south lines of Section 4 & 5 are even distances this simplifies the calculation. If 4 had an odd chainage there would no doubt be a .3' shift for the SE corner of 5. You would need the notes to figure that out.?ÿ
Not knowing the latitude means the question asked likely requires you to ignore curvature and that means the coordinates results will be slightly north of a correct calculation.?ÿ
This is a worksheet for the section:
?ÿ
?ÿ
How did you find the bearing of the west line?
@bill93?ÿ
It's an inverse between the coordinate pairs, calculate the NW corner first using the given data. The NW corner is placed on the line between SE section corner and S1/4 corner along the standard line. I did not include curvature for that point. It would only drop south probably 0.02' anyway. I normally don't even look at XY coordinates for those types of calculations, I work with the Lat, Longs of the point. But for this quiz that's not possible.?ÿ
Ok, so the NW corner of sec 5 came before the bearing.?ÿ How did you get it's easting?
I can't find what you prorated with.?ÿ
I tried the fit distance on the west line 5170.225 ft?ÿ divided by the GLO distance on the west line 78.8 ch=5200.8 ft, and multiplied that times the GLO distance 14.70 ch = 970.2 ft between the NW corner of sec5 and the SE corner of sec 31. Those would have been measured by the same crew on the same day.
That gets 965.72 off of the easting at the SE sec 31, which I had as 10967.377, yielding the easting of the NW sec 5 as 10001.66 ft.?ÿ That doesn't match your easting and I'm stumped.
@bill93?ÿ
You're indexing, that isn't something I?ÿ do except as a last resort. I've done it once as I recall. Of course, I would want more data for this situation including the township corner. Plus you're not indexing between found corners, something I've never heard.
@bill93?ÿ
To further flesh it out the proration is 2647.09/2640x14.7x66=972.806'. If I were to try record vs. measured using the township to the south the only recovered measurement I have is 2489.11/2485.56x14.70x66=971.59'. I would not use the record vs prorate to come up with an indexing ratio. To use a ratio like that it's necessary to compare many measurements. And I would want to have north-south section lines for that.?ÿ
It's not ideal to prorate the way I did. A standard parallel will normally consist of long 1/2 miles. The reason for that is obvious. So I would expect most 1/2 miles along a standard to be long. We don't have the notes so it's assumed the distance is 2640, although since there is no mention of those or the north south section lines 2640 is what I will use for this problem. Fallings such as the 14.70 are also weak, from experience I don't normally find them very accurate. However the recovered bearing along the east section line is N0d02'33'W vs a record of N0d02'W, while my bearing is N0d03'36"W vs a record of N0d03'W. This alone makes the proration very strong. We know any proration will be incorrect.?ÿ
I would criticize your method for two reasons. The original distance that was remeasured as 2647.09 was not measured by the same crew as measured the 14.70 chains so is not subject to the same calibration error, and as you note, distances on a standard parallel were usually made intentionally long to balance out convergence in the townships to the north, while no such extra applies to the 14.70 ch.
I think there is more justification for what you call "indexing" the 14.70 to the other measurements made by the same crew, or else simply taking the 14.70 verbatim as the best data we have for the falling.
@bill93?ÿ
Much of that early work was carried out so poorly compared to what has been written in the notes that it is a crapshoot on what is the best form of proportioning to use.?ÿ The standard parallel may have been established 20 years ahead of the crews establishing the township and range lines and then another several months before the sections were established.?ÿ Add in, in our case, Indian Treaty Lines, that were established many years ahead of section establishment and slice across the subject section.?ÿ What is really fun is a Section 6 impacted by two Indian Treaty Lines crossing each other.
It is all guesswork.
Nevertheless, there should be a "best" answer within the framework of the quiz.
@bill93?ÿ
I know what you're saying but you don't have a measurement by the same crew on the same day either. The best you have for your theory is on the east line of the section and it's only one measurement, likely by a different crew on a different day and it's longer than record not shorter. All the north-south measurements in the township area appear to be long yet you shorted the 14.70 ch. One thing is for sure you can't use the falling from the SW corner to the standard line as a crew measurement, you need to have it between two found monuments. Closing corners were not expected to be placed on the line. The NE corner is a good example and I would be looking for the NW corner north of the line since the distance along the west line is so much longer than along the east section line.?ÿ
Anyway if you had set the NW corner using your method and I went to the field and found it I would accept it and move on.?ÿ
As far as the standard line being measured long, that's been my experience, however, the notes will not indicate that it is.?ÿ
Again, look at the bearings, they match almost perfectly, they will not if you use the record falling or short it. Not that it's expected to match them, but mine do.?ÿ
?ÿ
?ÿ
Mostly clueless here on PLSS except for what I've read, but for 14 & 15:
Why would 14 not be a = 40ch (2640')? Without having any field notes could one assume that that lost W1/4 was never set and that, being a northernmost section of the township, the intent would have been to determine a point 40ch north to 1/4 section (by calculating from a random line run from the east to west) and, as shown on the map, that the north half of the north quarter would take the deficiency/excess.
Same for 15:?ÿ why would it not be none of the above = 1240.8 (18.8ch = 78.8ch - 60ch)? for the same reasons as above, that it's a northern section.
No need to answer, just sounds like I may have also spectacularly failed this quiz.
@dave-o?ÿ
I agree with you, but the test didn't have what I would call the correct answer for the current measurement. The current measurement being the latest one recorded, which is the record.?ÿ
could one assume that that lost W1/4 was never set
We were supplied with the GLO plat showing distance for the closing line. Thus the default assumption is that the line was measured and the 1/4 corner WAS set according to standard instructions.
@bill93 OK.?ÿ Weren't standard instructions to calculate and set a point at that 1/4 exactly 40ch north of the SW corner and, continuing north, that the discrepancy is all made up on the north half of the north quarters (northern 1/4 mile)?
And a side memory (which are rarely accurate) I think moving east to west, it's usually described as the deficiency taken in the west half of the west sections (western 1/2 mile).