A Puzzle from the Age of the EDM and Theodolite

"On one day in August of 1981, a surveyor set up a one-second theodolite and AGA EDM on the above 60d nail control point that he had connected by traverse to various original survey corners that he used to construct the lines and corners of one particular survey that had originally been located entirely on paper as described in field notes filed at the Texas General Land Office in 1886."

Therefore one can assume that the 1886 distance was 2387+/-.

Secondly the 1981 field notes should have a corresponding metric distance that would not equal the metric conversion of the dislexic 2887 field book entry.

Or Kent could just recall that back in 1981 the sun was in his eyes.

Paul in PA

> Therefore one can assume that the 1886 distance was 2387+/-.

Actually, the distance of 2887 ft. and change was the correct distance to mark the corner in the intended position. The puzzle is how to prove that what is on the ground, nominally 500 ft. short, is or is not the actual mark that the 1981 surveyor set.

BTW, I'm just the expert witness. That wasn't one of mine.

> So, with the available information mentioned above in hand, how might a surveyor go about proving or disproving that the Rod and Rock Mound No. 100, 499.81 ft. from the position in which the surveyor's record notes that he set a marker, is actually what is left of the 1981 surveyor's rod and cap or not?

The numbers certainly suggest a 500' bust in the layout distance. An examination of the rebar in question to see if it's of the same size and deformation pattern as the others would bolster the hypothesis that it's the one that was staked out in 1981.

> The numbers certainly suggest a 500' bust in the layout distance. An examination of the rebar in question to see if it's of the same size and deformation pattern as the others would bolster the hypothesis that it's the one that was staked out in 1981.

Well, but how would you prove that it hasn't just been moved back 500 ft. by some Richard Schaut type who thought it should be closer to the fence and just got lucky in putting it on the line toward the control point?

> Well, but how would you prove that it hasn't just been moved back 500 ft. by some Richard Schaut type who thought it should be closer to the fence and just got lucky in putting it on the line toward the control point?

Proof in this case is going to have be of the "beyond a reasonable doubt" kind, rather than the indisputable kind, but a comparison of the elevations of the found rebar and the position purportedly staked would indicate whether plausible rod heights would comport with the recorded zenith angle.

> Proof in this case is going to have be of the "beyond a reasonable doubt" kind, rather than the indisputable kind, but a comparison of the elevations of the found rebar and the position purportedly staked would indicate whether plausible rod heights would comport with the recorded zenith angle.

Yes, very good, Jim. That is exactly what shows that the marker in place is most likely in it's original position as staked, the slope distance written in the field book to the contrary not withstanding.

I learned from one of his former employees that the 1981 surveyor used 4 ft. sections of range pole to support the prism, typically using two 8 ft. sections, but adding more if needed. Using an HI of 5.50 ft. and an HT of 8.25 ft. (two 8ft. sections + prism) checks the elevation differences between the control point and the three markers essentially exactly. The zenith angle to the questioned marker works out to give an elevation more than 11 ft. below grade at the position where using the recorded slope distance to the marker would have placed it.

Given that the 2887 is correct, it appears that the 2387 as laid out was a confusion in the field surveyors mind with the other 2388 distance. Just as Kent McMillan said 2 8' sections when he meant 2 4' sections.

One then turns to the adjacent descriptions, prior to 1981 what were the calls for the adjacent parcel? Is there current evidence that the adjacent owner considered the 2387 point to also be his corner. The doctrine that an original monument inaccurately placed becomes the corner is to allow for the error in measuring, whereas what you have is a gross error (blunder). Given sufficient corroborating evidence, one might hold the found iron as a line pin and continue the full distance. That is assuming this was not a radial stakeout from a random point.

Paul in PA

> Given that the 2887 is correct, it appears that the 2387 as laid out was a confusion in the field surveyors mind with the other 2388 distance.

What most likely happened is that the surveyor's rodman began with a shot on line at the casual fence, which was about 13 ft. South of where the misplaced marker ended up. In 1981, I'd imagine that the EDM had an LED display which was a bit hard to read in bright sun, so one possibility is that a displayed range of 2375 ft. was misread, partly through wishful thinking, as 2875 ft. and by the next shot only 13 ft. away the surveyor was focused on the fractional feet.
>
> One then turns to the adjacent descriptions, prior to 1981 what were the calls for the adjacent parcel?

Actually, this is Texas. That 600 acres was an original land grant from the State which stands on its own field notes, and they don't call for the misplaced marker. The patent from the State only calls for one of the four rods and caps on the West line. The rest do not control the land grant although those that are in more or less proper position do confirm the surveyor's plan or intention as expressed in the field notes. They are not original monuments in the fullest sense, but only attempts to mark protracted corners and are only correct to the extent that they're substantially correct.

One of the tracts adjoining the line of the 600 acres even remains unpatented to this day. The other is a part of another original land grant described in a patent from the State by a survey made in 1953 that the 600 acres is in slight (about 80 ft.) conflict with.

Since it was the Sovereigns intent to sell the 600 acres, and they did not sell to the short line to anyone else, the land that the Sovereign intended to convey is still sitting there waiting to be claimed. The Sovereign was the original surveyor, whether or not they ever stepped foot on the parcel, not the 1981 surveyor. Since no overlapping claim was made by the Sovereign to others, and there is no other claim, the patent is to be held. Kent that makes you the original locator of the 4th corner of the patent.

A Patent grants to a specific person the right to survey and claim land. No other person has that right. Until all 4 corners are placed on the ground within acceptable precision the "Patent" is the "Monument" to the Grant. Remember that you are not staking the "Deed" you are staking the "Patent Grant", do what the Sovereign has told you to do.

It appears yoou may have some leeway in how perfect the bearing must be, personally I would strive to do the least disruption of what I have found, such as not putting an angle point in an intended straight line as the BLM is prone to do in the Public Land Scurvy System states.

Paul in PA

> Since it was the Sovereigns intent to sell the 600 acres, and they did not sell to the short line to anyone else, the land that the Sovereign intended to convey is still sitting there waiting to be claimed. The Sovereign was the original surveyor, whether or not they ever stepped foot on the parcel, not the 1981 surveyor. Since no overlapping claim was made by the Sovereign to others, and there is no other claim, the patent is to be held. Kent that makes you the original locator of the 4th corner of the patent.

I'm wondering what State that would be true in. It certainly wouldn't be in Texas. The original surveyor of the 600 acre grant as patented was the 1981 surveyor. His calls as given in the description filed at the Texas GLO and incorporated into the patent are what fix the position of the grant upon the ground. To refer to some later resurveyor such as myself as the "original" surveyor is incorrect in Texas.

Seems like 'rudy the red nose', 'all fences are casual fences', Mcmillan is still trying to practice surveying, I wonder how long he can practice until he gets it 'right'.

RS

PS You still haven't apologised.
RS

Many fences around here were built to control the movement of livestock and never intended to define ownership. Others were built as near the GLO as was possible in the old days and intended to divide and make visible ownership. Part of the Surveyors job is to know the difference and if he does not, find out. Application of a single restrictive rule may make us look smart in some circles, but where there is room for, "it depends", it makes us look inexperienced in the real world and can cause harm to a client.
jud

> Many fences around here were built to control the movement of livestock and never intended to define ownership.

Yes, that land is only seasonally grazed and has a net carrying capacity that is probably less than one cow per section. It's Chihuahuan Desert with an agricultural value that is probably not much more than $10 per acre. The fences get shifted around and rebuilt by lessees from absentee landowners. Many old fences just wander across country along convenient routes, one owner trading the use of a few hundred acres here for a few hundred there.

Can it be some kind of offset??? I mean to be 500' off, almost to the inch, seems like it was intentional.

P.S. Where the trees?

> Can it be some kind of offset??? I mean to be 500' off, almost to the inch, seems like it was intentional.

There isn't any reason to think that it is other than just a blunder. The actual corner 500 ft. farther would have been just as visible with a prism on an 8 ft. rod at it. In fact, it probably would have been more visible because it is on somewhat higher ground.

I never used any of the Geodimeter EDMs that would have been available in 1981, but I do remember the age of ranges flashing on lighted diodes before the LCD replaced them.

> P.S. Where the trees?

I'm pretty sure that they were shipped off to Connecticut. In the draws, the remaining trees are mostly fairly scrubby mesquites. Since I don't imagine you have any mesquites up there, they probably just didn't ship those.

Wait a minute, you're telling me he shot that point, from a set-up, 2388+- away???!!

Used the AGA 76 quite a bit, still have a working one, it repeated every 2000 meters and you had to watch that beyond the 4000 meter distances and add 2000 meter increments to the displayed distance. Like you it sounds like a blunder and I would treat it as such unless there is evidence of being depended on. Even if it had been depended on and little harm would be be done by setting a new one an additional 500 feet out I would do so with the owners full knowledge an approval of course. Without their approval it would depend on what I could best defend in court used as a guide.
jud

> Wait a minute, you're telling me he shot that point, from a set-up, 2388+- away???!!

Uh, yes. His backsight was probably more than five miles away, too.

> Even if it had been depended on and little harm would be be done by setting a new one an additional 500 feet out I would do so with the owners full knowledge an approval of course. Without their approval it would depend on what I could best defend in court used as a guide.

Oh, the actual patent corner about 500 ft. away has already been marked more than ten years ago. There really isn't any reason to tip-toe around wondering whether some jackrabbit or coyote might have thought that the misfired marker means anything.

The interesting question was just establishing its identity given the fact that the responsible surveyor's field book, plainly gives another distance to it.