2014 Dependent Resurvey:
S 1° 30' E between Sec. 3 and 4.
At 9.968 chains set new corner on line with W 1/4 corner 3 and 4 at proportionate dist.
From this point a concrete post firmly set with a 2" dia. brass cap marked ...NPS bears S 2° 57' E 2.9 lks. dist (1.91 ft.and 0.10 ft. off line)
Established by xxx, Civil Engineer and Land Surveyor, in 1958, at a point intended to be at midpoint and on line between controlling corners N and S.
This is hills and timber
We've lost our way with the BLM at the forefront.
Something was said in another thread about the BLM promoting a national GIS. If this is what that means all surveying has become is GIS stakeout.
I'm holding a concrete mon set in 1964 by DP, it's off 7'. Maybe I'm doing something wrong?
It's been out there and used for timber harvest for 50 years, for crying out loud.
Do you have a photo of this new pincushion, or did you intend to use the sarcasm font (something I often fail to do myself)?
Idiots. The world is full of idiots.
:-O , [sarcasm]are BLM monuments from the 50's subject to the same standards? [/sarcasm]
That's pretty bad.
But the urge to perfect the sections is not new. I posted this last June, where some of that thinking may have been going on:
Somewhere around here I have a clipping from the hometown newspaper in southern Iowa where an old geezer was reminiscing about things and mentioned that he worked for the county surveyor in the 1930's.
He said they were digging up the old section corner stones and "putting them where they belonged". If this guy stated it accurately, that surveyor was redistributing the original measurement errors in a direction that would tend to square up the sections.
I hope they were really just lowering them in preparation for road work.
Just maybe the 1/4 corner is correct. :pinch:
I hope that you will contact the perpetrator and his/her boss directly to explain just how wrong he is. You are preaching to the choir here.
I'm knocking on wood here
Every time I read about this reoccurring scenario in PLS land, it takes me back to all of the worst places that I have worked.
I can now understand why the rest of the states surveyors can't leave the office without GPS, they have to survey half the county to survey anything.
BTW, there is no sectionalized land in this part of Texas and am I happy for that.
metes and bounds....
B-)
I have been really fortunate.
ALL the original GLO monuments that I have found have been correct, or within 0.04' !!!
maybe it's the "are tea kay" that's off?
My experience is that it's standard operating proceedure for BLM to disregard monuments set by private sector surveyors that don't agree perfectly with their solution. Where federal lands are involved, theirs is the last word on location. The attitude is that they (the private surveyor) gave it their best shot but did not get it perfect. Only they (the BLM), are authorized to be capable of 'perfection' . Our State DOT is not much different when it comes to their ROWs. They reserve the right to not honor ROW monuments set by their own contractors.
Just because I'm paranoid, doesn't mean they aren't out to get me.
Kinda stupid.
No doubt the personnel trained earlier in their career with Oklahoma Department of Transportation survey crews.
Their logo" "Tomorrow's Problems Today".
There have been many horrifying mentions of DOT contractors in various states setting monuments "somewhere close" without the benefit of a PLS. If that's how they were set, then yes, they probably should be ignored.
All hope is lost (if we give up)
Good post
Yea, over by Carlsbad Caverns (NM) I can show you a beautiful BLM 3" aluminum cap 1/4 corner set in 1980, only ±41' from the original circa 1880's stone marked 1/4. Oft wondered about that one.
To little information to give a defiant answer. But from the information and my experience, the only reason the BLM rejected the 58 monument was improper procedure. The BLM I worked for is a stickler for procedure. I see the words proportionate and midpoint used. Is the BLM monument at midpoint?
Here is how I looked at the P's
Procedure protects rights
Accuracy protects position
Without both you have nothing.
No reason to wonder, just check the notes. My guess is an independent resurvey.
Did you call the BLM office and inform them of the original corner. If not call them Monday and rattle some chains. Nobody likes bad work hanging around.
Did you read all the notes? Anytime the BLM rejects a monument the reason should be in the notes, not necessarily in the same place as the call. Sometimes you will find it at the beginning in the history of surveys section. Was there a record for the 1950's corner. How much of the section is federal interest? Why were they doing the survey? Is midpoint and proportional distance the same thing on this line?
The BLM is not perfect, but almost overtime a private surveyor tells me they made a mistake further investigation reveals the BLM was right. This particular mistake seems highly improbable. BLM training in emphatic that proportioning is an absolute last resort.
The office, BLM Oregon State Office, I worked for bent over backwards to accept surveys. The line was drawn at procedure, improper procedure dose not protect rights, private and public.