Saw a survey yesterday where the northeast corner and north quarter corner of Section 4 were set by single proportion based on found monuments at the northeast corner of Section 3 and the northwest corner of Section 6.?ÿ Apparently there was no record of any surveys between those two points and no monuments were found and any evidence of physical evidence was dismissed.?ÿ Knowing the crew involved, all reporting is based on the State Plane coordinates of the two found monuments.?ÿ Difference between GPS and total station is about 0.4 feet per mile and their descriptions will not match total station measurments.
The bearing between the two found monuments was shown as a single value.?ÿ Is this on a curve??ÿ Is this flat out straight as drawn in AutoCAD at that bearing and a distance of four miles??ÿ Who knows for sure?
What think ye?
?ÿ
My opinion is the surveyor in question should have looked for evidence of the southeast corner, the west and south 1/4 corners, used the found monuments at sections 3 and 6 to determine the northing only for the replacement NE corner of Section 4, and the monumentation found south between 3 & 4 and 9 & 10 to complete the double proportion to the NE corner. Only after the NE corner was correctly double proportioned, should the north 1/4 corner be calculated.
Their E-W position should be essentially the same whether they proportioned using GPS or TS distances. Their labeling may not be the surface distance. The other question is whether they followed a rhumb line or not to get the N-S position..
@kevin-hines Lost corners on a township line are restored by single proportion. The notes and plat should be reviewed to see if it was done on the latitudinal arc (which it almost certainly was).
I would proportion using geographic coordinates then check the converted grid against table 11 in the red book. I wiuld return to the field and search again before 'slapping the math on the ground'....
I find it hard to believe that all field evidence along four (4) miles between two (2) townships is gone.
Sounds like someone didn't get the shovel out of the truck, and/or didn't get corner records to look for monuments for the township to the north?
Find/establish corners for the town line to the north and set any requisite closing corners for the township to the south. A nice check would be locating the corners a half mile south of the section corners. Then breakdown the section the project is in.
1866-1867 Government survey time frame, so the instructions last issued prior to that would have been used. Theoretically, the range lines were run first, Then the township lines were run from the NEC of Section 1 to the NWC of Section 6, then set on the return trip to the NEC of Section 1. Sometimes this was carried out by a different crew than the crew who established the internal corners of the township. Sometimes the reports did not match what was actually done in the field (by a huge amount).
In that four mile stretch, a river would have been crossed twice plus the NWC of Section 6 appears to be very close to or in the river, as well. Plenty of ups and downs along the way.
This is not on a standard parallel, so all corners were set along the township line on that return trip mentioned above. No double corners. Fairly rough country with few roads and LOTS of cattle.
Let me guess, the corners they used were near the "few roads".
and sometimes they ran out of liquor food and supplies all together, and even had to fight off the locals who weren't all that excited to see them encroaching...
An absence of liquor would have definitely shut things down for a time.
The locals were moving out rapidly so didn't tend to be much of a distraction. They moved on to worthless ground in Oklahoma which later was found to be setting atop a billion ocean-going tankers worth of oil.
The bearing between the two found monuments was shown as a single value. Is this on a curve? Is this flat out straight as drawn in AutoCAD at that bearing and a distance of four miles? Who knows for sure?
What think ye?
This is something that I have not been exposed to. For our relatively short distances in found monuments, none since I've been here have been four miles apart that I am aware of, there has been a straight line drawn between the next found monument in each direction. This includes standard corners as well as closing corners (I recall BLM methods require only single proportioning on a Town line between standard corners?).
I don't recall ever hearing anything about a latitudinal line being generated. Is that something that needs to be done on a state level?
I would proportion using geographic coordinates then check the converted grid against table 11 in the red book.
Would you mind breaking this down for me? Not familiar.
Like the bionicman says:
It's very simple to prorate along a curve to replace township lines. Simply convert the end points to decimal lat, long numbers and then its checkbook math.
Compare to the charts and formulas available from GLO/BLM.
I developed drawings for township/standard lines per even degree of latitude to do these calculations.
Locally a 1/4 drops 2" from a straight line between section corners.
Simply put in coordinates from lat longs at each 1/2 mile of a line, for instance 40d lat, xxxlong at each 1/2 mile, draw straight lines and see what the fallings are to intermediate corners.
Then I got GPS and didn't look at my drawings anymore.
However, what Kevin Hines says can't be dismissed, control north and south of the township line may, in some rare circumstances, be the way to replace a township corner. I wouldn't necessarily declare those lost corners. As always---it depends.
@mightymoe THRAC Alert.. I clicked the like for your post. It selected thumbs down (which was not my intent). It won't ket me change it.
That git me windering how many inadvertent 'dislikes' I have left on various threads.
While I have twisted a few knives in my day, rest assured I have never intentionally left a dislike on this site. Now back to our regularly scheduled program...
