Many years ago I did a survey adjacent of the Cimarron River in Kingfisher Co., OK. The property consisted of a little less than 5,000 acres and spread out across almost ten sections. It was about half cultivated pasture and cross-timber as it approached the river. This was back in the days of total stations so, needless to say, it took a while to complete.
The northern boundaries had county roads and the section corners were predictably perpetuated with various referenced pins but the further south one traveled the roads and pasture gave way to around three full sections that had almost no evidence of surveyors since the original survey. The difficulty of the work was compounded by the fact the original GLO survey was actually performed from N to S and closed on a meander line at the river. Back then I thought of it as an interesting challenge. Nowadays I'd probably call it a pain-in-the-butt. Anyway what few fences there were in the buckland were of convenience and of little value as survey evidence.
I had used the original surveys, what little evidence I found and a lot of just plain guessing to come up with "probable search locations" of corners pertinent to the survey. We dove into the area running on traverse lines to search. Now a lot of the original monuments were either posts or pits and mounds, neither of which I expected to find.
There was one particular corner common to four sections that I really needed to tie everything together. We eventually wound up there and found only mature cedars with a spattering of cow bones. I reluctantly expanded my search area from "right here somewhere" to rooting around through the cedars in hopes of finding something...anything.
I didn't find it, it was one of the crew. But nestled in an old cedar that had assuredly grown around it stood a weathered railroad tie buried about three feet in the ground. There was no railroad close nor had there ever been. There was no other occupational evidence of any kind. Just this old tie that had been nearly consumed by a seventy year old cedar. We hacked a line into the brush and shot it. I wasn't really too excited, but we were there...and it was the only evidence that a human had ever been there.
Later on after I "threw everything up on the screen" I realized the tie lay on a north-south line that fit amazingly well (within a few feet) with everything I had found to the north. What troubled me was that if I considered it a section corner it was almost 1 chain north of where I would have calculated. This kind of blew my calcs out of the water because everything else was fitting within 15 links or so as compared to the original survey.
Long story short I relied on the tie and completed the survey. It really didn't make much difference because it was an interior corner of the property, more than a mile from the closest deed boundary.
The crew hand that had found the tie eventually obtained his license. At the time he was critical of me for honoring "just a post". Over the years when we would see each other we would still chat about it. He has admitted he isn't so critical of my decision as he was years ago.
I've discussed this with seminar classes over the years and found an almost distinct 50-50 on opinions. Some say they would have used the tie, and others say they would have gone with a protracted location.
What do you think? Was this tie a surveyed location or just a proverbial "goat stake"?
That's a tough one. Re-tracing a township tends to "give you a feel" of how the original surveyor and crews operated. But, there always seems to be surprises. For most of the pre government employee GLO surveys one chain wouldn't concern me much at all, I'd be expecting it. But, a random RR tie is kinda weak for evidence. At least you made a stand and now the next guy will have to have something very special to dispute it.
During my time in state I found that distances between section corner monuments on lines actually run (ie/the meridional lines) were universally within 10 feet or so of true miles. The east/west section lines that were run - nominally - random and true were somewhat less reliable. So I'd be disinclined to accept this find without further provenance. But I can also see myself closing my eyes and holding it just as you have done.
Training one's gut to accept/reject something takes years of experience. It's not a matter of measurements, so much, as it is a belief in the practices of those who went before you. For a specific area, that training can only come about through repeated jobs in that area. This is part of why I cuss the surveyors from Timbuktu who run around blindly stabbing large "monuments" in the ground and then expecting all who follow to believe their work is proper and defensible.
It's little things such as learning, through evidence that everything west of a certain river was run and then everything east of the river was run. The Field Notes report all sorts of river crossings that NEVER happened. Thus, the north line of the section east of the river is about 1000 feet further north than the north line of the section west of the river. Consistently. People lied way back then. People still lie today. But, you don't know that little detail when you spent last night at a Holiday Inn a zillion miles from home.
Personally I would have held the RR tie, whether it was a chain off or not, it was the only physical evidence that somebody had taken the time and effort to leave some kind of memorial behind as opposed to some perfect proportion which is guaranteed to not be in the original location called for. There just so many nuances and different ways of weighing the evidence. Sometimes there is no perfect answer, only a best educated guess from the gut, but letting the math dictate where that guess falls seems a cop out to me when there is less than perfect physical evidence that in my mind out weighs the perfect math solution. It is after all, not a perfect world and to any detractor to any of my carefully calibrated best guesses, to ye I say, prove me wrong.
One of those tough ones for sure. Lots of considerations. I would have more questions if I had to throw down and form a true opinion but for the sake of discussion I will go from the hip.
From what I gather the RR tie fits perpetuated corners to the N quite well, but is 1 ch N of the proportionate position? If this is the case then I would not be all that concerned by the 1 ch. Considering that the line was run N to S closing (does this mean terminating, ie no tie line across river?) at a meander line then it makes sense that the RR tie fits the N vs proportionate. Did someone other than GLO "stub" out from the N and place the RR tie in that location would be a valid question, ie reestablished via "math."
IMO (mine only-not associated with my employer or position) the RR tie could be considered best available evidence of the orig cor position. Without something that conflicts with that assessment then it would be very difficult to reject it as not being such. In the situation presented, I am in the boat of accept as best available unless other evidence is recovered that disputes the RR tie. The RR tie can be reasonably reconciled through analysis and cannot be proven as incorrect with other evidence so it fits the best available concept. The only thing that seems to conflict with this is the question about stubbing from the N. My comment to that is your retracement demonstrated that the GLO measurements were within this realm (+/-15 lks) and technically it was established at a "stub" from the N by GLO. The time in the ground for the RR tie also lends to the idea that maybe, when it was set, there were remains of the orig or other survey monument that perpetuated the orig and it replaced them becoming the best available, similar to a fence corner built at a survey corner. Many times there are unrecorded local "perpetuations" that on first appearance seem to be the proverbial goat stake, but upon further evaluation/consideration it is determined that they are in fact perpetuations or best available. Of course it can go the other way to and they end up being just a goat stake.
It could also be considered a reestablishment by an intervening surveyor that determined record dist from N on the line was a better solution than proportionate due to the river and slop going S. Depends on the perspective of that surveyor and if they considered it excessive distortion therefore using an alternate method for lost cor than the prescribed method of proportion. Without a record of the reestablishment I think I would go down the road of best available of the orig cor. In my world we need to be clear as to how we are accepting/rejecting type of thing hence my distinction between best available of orig vs reestablishment. IMO it is better to defend as best available of the orig since no record exists of a reestablishment. The lack of record or testimony of the reestablishment action makes it more theory type of thing. We have a record of the orig survey and the only issue is that it is not a monument of record.
I am guessing that the concern of no direct tie to the original through records or evidence causes many to go the proportion route. I am big on collateral evidence which as many know is the only remaining evidence in many areas east of the MS river (most of my experience) and rarely has direct ties to the orig. Measurements can and should be considered as part of the corroborating evidence to accept collateral (occupation and the likes) or scintilla evidence such as stump hole patterns. In this case the orig measurement from the N can be considered as corroborating the RR tie's location supporting the best available concept.
Fun stuff! Love to look at these kinds of situations. Technically it could be argued several different ways but you as a PLS made a call and it should be honored unless someone can prove it incorrect by a preponderance of evidence, which in my opinion would need to be something evidence based or a solid clear/concise record, not just math (proportion/protraction) or theories. BTW I do cringe saying that it could be proved incorrect, but it is the world we live in as surveyors.
