Hey Dan
Do you think Kent has a clue about what the Manual is stating?
Keith
The relevant question
Actually, after Keith has wasted so much bandwidth with his pet ideas in two threads, the relevant question is whether he actually understands what those provisions of the new manual mean. The manual clearly contemplates the senior line as being the controlling line. The monuments erroneously set by later surveys are treated as closing corners, not held as controlling the alignment of the senior line per Keith's fantasy.
🙂
Keith
Actually, if you are curious as to the the carousel, I use them to point out how childish the back and forth between you and Kent has become. The arguments are literally like going around and around to no great purpose, other than, perhaps, your own amusement.
More like a see-saw than a carousel
And that gentlemen
is how Kent sees the world.
He does not have a clue on what the Manual's concept is and continues to try and justify his own measurement only rationale and has failed at it.
Even his insults to me, only shows his own ignorance of land law as laid out in the Manual.
He cannot even understand the concept of closing corners.
You have to read it to believe it and then you will understand and a darn good reason he is in Texas.
Keith
Maybe Kent just should
> Post his reference material where it states that bearings and distances always are ranked higher in evidence than monuments? This would prove your statements as being true.
>
>
> How about it Kent?
>
> Keith
I think you're not seeing the forest for the trees here. What I interpret Kent's stance to be is that monuments do control over courses (especially senior monuments). There is only ever one legal location of a corner - it does not move (assuming corner location is not a natural monument). Anytime you accept a junior "monument" to a senior line, of a certainty, that surveyor whose monument you're accepting (hook line & sinker I would add) is whispering thankyous, as you've just absolved him of liability should his corner turn out to be bogus.
And that gentlemen
Well, the amusing thing about those two rules I just quoted is how they contradict your own pet ideas in that they contemplate such radical ideas as actually retracing a senior line and marking the corners actually fall upon it where later efforts have missed it.
This is what you've endlessly (and I do mean endlessly) argued is what you call "expert measuring". Your argument clearly is with the folks who still works for the BLM. Why not call them up and set them straight, eh? If the resist, be insistent. Don't hesitate to repeat the same points over and over that didn't amount to much the first time.
🙂
The Rest of the Story
7-24
This procedure is not advisable where the junior corner was not established by an obvious careful resurvey or retracement (of the senior line), evidenced by its recovery far off (the senior) line. That condition can only be shown by retracing enough of the (senior) line to determine its bearing. Where there has been extensive loss of corners, particularly the senior corners, the existent junior corner (established by an obvious careful resurvey or retracement) may constitute the best available evidence of the line itself. In such a case the junior corners will exercise control for both measurement and alinement.
DDSM
:beer:
The Rest of the Story
> Maybe I should repeat your quote and highlight all those "junior corners" that Kent said did not exist in the Manual.
LOL! The actual phrase that Keith has used ad libidum and was asked to find in the new manual wasn't "junior corner". It was "junior monument". World of difference there.
🙂
butch
You need to read more of Kent's rationale. He simply accepts the end points of a senior line which of course are the senior monuments and then his instrument straight line between those corners ignores all subsequent junior corner monuments.
If you don't accept an acceptable junior corner on a senior line and think you are absolving yourself of liability, you are mistaken.
You have just added to your liability!
Keith
Kent
You are right, there is a world of difference between a "junior corner" and a "junior monument"!
I think it would be fair to talk about junior monuments as they are what you can see and accept or reject. The junior corners are of course positions and not easily seen in the daylight.
At least I am speaking of "junior monuments" that have been set to mark the "junior corners" and your refusal to accept them under any condition,.....if they are not on your instrument straight line.
Keith
Kent
> I think it would be fair to talk about junior monuments as they are what you can see and accept or reject. The junior corners are of course positions and not easily seen in the daylight.
>
> At least I am speaking of "junior monuments" that have been set to mark the "junior corners" and your refusal to accept them under any condition,.....if they are not on your instrument straight line.
So, you don't actually read these threads before you post? Why am I unsurprised?
And that gentlemen
Kent is masterful at talking in circles.
He actually believes what he has stated and is in complete disagreement with the Manual.
And you have to read his statements closely to understand that he does not have a clue about the Manual rationale.
Keith
Kent
That condition can only be shown by retracing enough of the (senior) line to determine its bearing.
Is the senior line the 'straight' line we are talking about?
DDSM
:beer: leg
Kent
> That condition can only be shown by retracing enough of the (senior) line to determine its bearing.
>
> Is the senior line the 'straight' line we are talking about?
I certainly understand the use of "retrace" there to mean actually carefully determining the location and direction of the senior line.
Senior reading comprehension
Hey, if anyone else wants to help Keith out with his reading comprehension, have at it. I didn't look. Is he holding the book upside down? Is that the problem?
🙂
butch
> You need to read more of Kent's rationale. He simply accepts the end points of a senior line which of course are the senior monuments and then his instrument straight line between those corners ignores all subsequent junior corner monuments.
>
> If you don't accept an acceptable junior corner on a senior line and think you are absolving yourself of liability, you are mistaken.
>
> You have just added to your liability!
>
> Keith
"accept an acceptable..."? what exactly is that?! this is gibberish, how can i ever go wrong accepting senior monuments and holding the line between them? Am i surveying the junior or senior parcel? I'll answer that - it doesn't matter, the senior line always holds.
Kent and Keith
So once the senior line has been carefully retraced, and its position and bearing is known, and the 'junior' monuments set along the senior line meet the 'condition'...
and Where there has been extensive loss of corners, particularly the senior corners, the existent junior corner (established by an obvious careful resurvey or retracement) may constitute the best available evidence of the line itself. In such a case the junior corners will exercise control for both measurement and alinement?
Does the senior line now zig and zag between these junior monuments?
DDSM
:beer: leg
Dan
The Manual section is very clear and yes, the line goes through the junior "monument" as it has been found to be acceptable evidence of the line. As in ". . . junior corners will exercise control for both measurement and alinement?"
Obviously, the "junior monument" is at the "junior corner"!!!
Keith
Keith
What about the part that says "where there has been extensive loss of corners..."?
Dan
> and Where there has been extensive loss of corners, particularly the senior corners, the existent junior corner (established by an obvious careful resurvey or retracement) may constitute the best available evidence of the line itself. In such a case the junior corners will exercise control for both measurement and alinement?
>
> Does the senior line now zig and zag between these junior monuments?
That's not how I understand the provision. The line in the vicinity of the corner to be replaced is definitely fixed in relation to the monuments placed in later surveys that are most apt to give the position of the senior corner with the least uncertainty. Those would typically be the monuments nearest to the senior corner.
If the senior corners can be relocated with minimal uncertainty, then the line runs from corner to corner just as it would were the missing monuments in place undisturbed. If the corners cannot be fixed with minimal uncertainty, then the exercise is one of comparing the positions of the monuments placed by later surveys to the best estimate of the senior line. If none depart from it by more than the uncertainty of the reconstruction, you may simply not have a basis for saying that any particular monument is obviously incorrect. In that scenario, where each is more or less equally plausible and none can be definitely shown to be incorrect, It may well be warranted to adopt some or all of the later monuments, but that decision will be specific to the particular facts and circumstances.
