Up until now the latest "private survey map" I used where the distances were shown in chains was dated sometime in the 1920's.
Yesterday I found a map Dated 2-15-1959 scaled 1" = 3 chains for a 184 acre parcel. Every single distance is shown in chains.
What is the latest private survey map date you have seen where the distances are shown in chains?
Wow! Not sure, but probably the 1920's or earlier. I've seen both chains and feet listed but only to show record vs measured.
Dang! That's terrible! The BLM released a plat way back in 1994, and it is all in chains, and to top it off, the bearings are all related to TRUE north. Meaning, that the every bearing, is turned off of geodetic, for each separate line! Meaning, that you have to go through, and apply theta's to everything, to get it all on a common bearing system! And, theta changes, for each one line, depending on it's geography!
I'd think that the BLM would know that they need to update their system, so that the bearings are all related to a common system, with TRUE being taken at one place....
N
I worked on some RR property last year where the original conveyance was in chains (circa 1875). Fast forward to 1970 something and the RR quit claimed a portion of the original conveyance to the State. Their 1970 description was in chains, (with feet in parenthesis).
Lamon-
In the Great White North, including my friend Kent's Moose Jaw Office of McMoundfinder Freres, the Chain and link is a legal Unit of Measure:
http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/laws/stat/rsc-1985-c-w-6/latest/rsc-1985-c-w-6.html
Cheers,
Derek
The BLM (GLO) system is nation wide and about 250 years old. I'm not sure an update is all that necessary. They do have a common north (towards the pole) and it works everywhere. There is nothing wrong with chains, we all know how to use them.
I guess instead of "private survey map" I should have said a plat/map made by a surveyor in private practice.
Nate,
At one point in my career the finer points of the PLSS seemed ridiculous to me. The further I go in my education and experience, the greater appreciation I have for the scientific and artistic brilliance behind it. What appear on the surface to be oddities all have a purpose. When you begin to eliminate things for convenience the system falls apart. That system is the underlying fabric of the Title to a lot of land. Like it or not it is unlikely to change substantially in the near future...
> Like it or not it is unlikely to change substantially in the near future...
I'd add significantly to your substantially. It ain't perfect, but we do know the rules we have to go by.
Me, I don't even know or care how many Norths there are. Just because I will call out my basis of bearing on my map as a line between two points doesn't make it wrong. Many times I use an assumed North, East, even a South. It does help the next guy though to know what in the heck I was thinking about at the time. And I do try and rotate things to fit record data, whether it be a deed, prior survey, or just because.
What does drive me crazy is when I have a couple recorded surveys in my hand done by the same surveyor and have a common line. The bearings are different by as much as a minute or so, and they list the bearing basis as WGS84. What in the heck are they thinking?
I am more than certain I could do 2 straight hours of stand-up on Basis of Bearing statements. The only problem is in a room full of Surveyors less than half would get the jokes...
I still run into the occasional statement 'basis if bearings GPS WGS84' with no particular line on the map marked. Comparisons usually prove things are the product of a localization or some iteration of Grid. I know of 2 sources for this.
Some rely on the tech to produce a map that is technically correct and meets code. They fail to supervise on any level and don't know that they don't know what they are signing. Others have read that GPS measures everything in WGS84 and run with it. They usually don't know the difference between a datum, an ellipsoid or any definition of north.
In my quest not to become a completely jaded grumpy old $#@%@#$, I do my best to patiently educate these folks. Some days it is rewarding to see the light come on. Other days you add somebody to your private list.
In all seriousness we all have things to learn and were all ignorant of important things at one time. Try to help these guys along. Follow up and bring the Profession up a notch...
Ramble over...
> Up until now the latest "private survey map" I used where the distances were shown in chains was dated sometime in the 1920's.
>
> Yesterday I found a map Dated 2-15-1959 scaled 1" = 3 chains for a 184 acre parcel. Every single distance is shown in chains.
>
> What is the latest private survey map date you have seen where the distances are shown in chains?
Not chains, but poles/rods around here. Probably the late 1940's/early 50's. Local guy grew up here under his father (who was a county surveyor from the 10's to the 30's) and moved away to Texas to be a railroad surveyor (or something like that). I guess he came back to roost/take care of his family and started surveying locally... and he was PROLIFIC!! Lots and lots of surveys on file, but not always the greatest monumentation or closures. I've heard told that he did an awful lot via stadia (even on hillsides around here). Personally, I think he did stuff in stadia, to the nearest quarter minute, converted the distances to the nearest half-pole and went on about his way. But, that's must me guessing.
Carl
>
>
> What is the latest private survey map date you have seen where the distances are shown in chains?
I have never seen one in chains. I'm sure there are some in Texas, but I've never seen one. Up until the mid 60's, the vara was still the weapon of choice, then the foot came into being the weapon of choice. However, there was an old surveyor in Jacksonville, who died at 92 (I think) in 1997. Every now and again, I think just to mess with someone, he would survey the tract in varas. I saw one of his from '94 I think, with bearings to the nearest second, and distances to the hundredth of a vara. Of course, he had distance meters then, but these were nearly always small 1 acre lots.
Chains never was a popular unit in NE Texas.
Varas phased out around 1960±.
I worked for a surveyor and we still did a few select surveys in varas in the early 1970s.
> Nate,
> At one point in my career the finer points of the PLSS seemed ridiculous to me. The further I go in my education and experience, the greater appreciation I have for the scientific and artistic brilliance behind it. What appear on the surface to be oddities all have a purpose. When you begin to eliminate things for convenience the system falls apart. That system is the underlying fabric of the Title to a lot of land. Like it or not it is unlikely to change substantially in the near future...
Yep. True north everywhere. Easy to understand and use.
Sounds like you guys in Texas have a standard conversion for the old varas? There are a few surveys here in California that date back to the Mexican vara, but there isn't a lot of consistency in converting varas to feet from these old descriptions/maps.
There were so many foreigners that would contract to survey and some had their own chain that was not the proper length.
vara / 0.36 = feet in Texas
Many Headrights I have retraced were amazingly much what they were called and one was off 200vr per side.
All surveys in New Zealand were done in chains and links before surveying went metric in 1972
2009 BLM Manual, Appendices I, II, IV, V
The biggest thing to consider while working in chains is what distance you use when you convert from chains to feet, here are your choices if chains are shown to two decimal places:
a) 66.000
b) 66.00
c) 66.00 +/- 0.33
d) 66.0000000000 +/- 0.0436777 + 3ppm (for the LSA Bible Thumpers)
When in doubt, go with C. I'll give a thumbs up to anyone who can explain why you should use C.
> There were so many foreigners that would contract to survey and some had their own chain that was not the proper length.
>
> vara / 0.36 = feet in Texas
>
> Many Headrights I have retraced were amazingly much what they were called and one was off 200vr per side.
I retraced, via O&G work, three mexican grants that are side by each, but only one is square, and when I got it done, I remembered that the Mexican vara was called "3 geometric feet". Well, that won't help on the acreage conversion, but what I found was that over all the lines, the vara used was nearly 3.0 feet and not 2.78 feet. Not much difference but at the end of a 5000 vara line, it was 14,980' vs. 13,888.89 feet. This was on the senior survey in the bunch. This one was so old, it wasn't in the county surveyor records. It didn't get filed until 1898 in the deed records because it was only in the GLO and Nacogdoches County. Also, it was filed in spanish in the deed records. 🙂
While I still use the standard conversion, I do look, at least on Mexican grants, at the conversion between 3 feet and 2.78 feet.
Two other lines were many miles distant and the Southern line was a river, so who the hell knows what the vara actually was on that one. 🙂
C assumes they rounded to the nearest link, as 0.33 ft is half a link. That would be applicable when all distances appear to be given to 0.01 chain, which might not always be the case.