Steve
"7-24
This procedure is not advisable where the junior corner was not established by an obvious careful resurvey or retracement, evidenced by its recovery far off line. That condition can only be shown by retracing enough of the line to determine its bearing. Where there has been extensive loss of corners, particularly the senior corners, the existent junior corner 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."
Where the senior corner monuments are missing, then the existent junior corner monuments can be used to restore the missing senior corners.
Keith
Keith
Yeah, I know, but you left that part out of your 15:09 post.
Dan
> 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.
The quality junior monument (corner) nearest the missing senior corner (monument) has the least uncertainty?
If the missing senior corner was relocated with minimal uncertainty, based upon the undisturbed junior corner, then the line runs (in a straight line) between said relocated senior missing corners?
Or does one just tie in all the existing corners, giving a weighted scale depending on being original senior, relocated senior, original 'conforming' junior corner, and those junior monuments of unknown certification...and a least square analysis giving a 'best fit' straight line and producing a plat showing ALL of the found, senior and junior, and/or missing monuments off the 'best fit' senior line?
DDSM
(I say it depends)
:beer:
Steve
Tell me what I am missing??
Keith
Dan
Kent is babbling again!
Just read the sections and they are complete in themselves as to the meaning they convey.
They are written in English and really do not need interpretation.
Read what they say.
Keith
Keith
> Just read the sections and they are complete in themselves as to the meaning they convey.
>
> They are written in English and really do not need interpretation.
>
> Read what they say.
The key word is themselves...you can not take a single chapter and verse out of context.
I have been reading what 'they' say for a few years...and firmly believe that to follow in the footsteps, one must read what 'they' said (the instructions and/or manual) at the time of the original survey. With an understanding of the instructions used, the equipment at hand, and the conditions under which the original survey was completed, one can judge the subsequent 'Junior' surveys, their instructions, equipment, and conditions.
DDSM
(but then again, what do I know?)
:beer:
Dan
> The quality junior monument (corner) nearest the missing senior corner (monument) has the least uncertainty?
Usually that's the case because of the geometry of the situation where a line is being projected through that marker back to restore a corner.
> If the missing senior corner was relocated with minimal uncertainty, based upon the undisturbed junior corner, then the line runs (in a straight line) between said relocated senior missing corners?
We're mixing PLSSia and the rest of the US here, but in Texas if the boundary was originally created as a straight line (as it typically the case) and the point of the exercise is to identify the original line (as is also typically the case), then yes, the line runs straight between the reestablished corners if their positions are known with minimal uncertainty.
>
> Or does one just tie in all the existing corners, giving a weighted scale depending on being original senior, relocated senior, original 'conforming' junior corner, and those junior monuments of unknown certification...and a least square analysis giving a 'best fit' straight line and producing a plat showing ALL of the found, senior and junior, and/or missing monuments off the 'best fit' senior line?
No, the situation is no different than had the original monuments still existed. Had they been in place the original line would run straight between the original corners (in the case under discussion). The surveyor who adopts that method with reestablished corners needs to be damn sure that the reestablishment is careful and correct, but if it is, you've found the line. The rest of the subsequently placed markers are wherever they are, either off or on line. They clearly don't control since they didn't exist when the boundary was originally created.
Dan
> 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.
Awkward as hell wording but sounds like there may be actual agreement up in here...:-D
Keith
Oh, all I'm saying is that the part that says "...junior corners will exercise control for both measurement and alinement" can have quite a different meaning depending on whether the sentence before that is included: "Where there has been extensive loss of corners, particularly the senior corners, the existent junior corner may constitute the best available evidence of the line itself. In such case..."
As you point out, the existent junior corner monuments can be used to restore the missing senior corners. This particular section doesn't say that if the senior corners are existent, the junior corners control the alinement.
Dan
Great post and I would not argue with any of it.
Keith
butch
The Manual language is much better and easily understood.
Keith
Butch
> Awkward as hell wording but sounds like there may be actual agreement up in here...:-D
I'd bet with a beer or two...and a few sketches on a napkin...there would be a lot of "agreement up in here"...
We are all doing our best to follow the footsteps...to retrace the original...to perpetuate...
DDSM
(following the footsteps and trying not to step on any toes)
:beer: :beer: leg
A double beer leg is when the back chain and the fore chain both are bent around them dang legs
Steve, now I know what you mean
Posting the original section again:
"Junior-Senior Corners
7-23. This situation exists where one set of corners was established for one side of the line, and a second set of corners was established for the other side of the of the same line in the course of a later resurvey or retracement (figure 7-4).
The line is regarded as having been fixed in position by the senior survey and subsequent dependent resurveys or retracements. If both sets of corners are recovered, a junior survey,if it was established in the course of an obvious careful resurvey or retracement, reporting the most recent measurement of the line, will be used for alinement of the line and for control in restoring a lost senior corner of the line."
If all senior and junior corner monuments are found, then the junior corner monuments only need to be used for alinement and does not need to be used to restore a lost senior corner, since it is not lost.
Hence, the line goes through all corners.
Keith
Zig Zag
> Hence, the line goes through all corners.
If the Junior 'monuments' were placed on the original senior line...and the senior line was 'straight'...then the only Zig Zag would be due to ability, equipment, or conditions?
Therefore the subsequent line is 'straight' plus/minus the 'nominal construction'...
DDSM
(2.5)
Zig Zag
You got it.
Too bad Kent can't understand land surveying 101.
Keith
Dan
> > 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.
>
> Awkward as hell wording but sounds like there may be actual agreement up in here...:-
Well, it's not really so hard to get. There are different levels of certainty in boundary reconstruction, the top level is
Definitely the original footsteps of the surveyor, highly defensible from original evidence,
The bottom level is:
Can't be proven to be incorrect.
The case where the original monuments that define the line still exist undisturbed and the original line is abandoned in favor of a dot-to-dot type exercise, that wouldn't even meet the lowest standard since it can be proven to be incorrect.
In the real world, one sees all sorts of fact situations, but where the issue is retracement of the original line, as has been under discussion here, the situation is usually pretty straightforward.
Kent
You surely have some reference material to support your claims/opinions???
Lets see em!
Keith
Kent
Seems pretty clear to me...
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.
If it's clear to Keith, then apparently the problem is that Keith never thinks there is any uncertainty. Just takes the prior bad survey as gospel, accepts the kinks and gaps and perpetuates them.
Again, the difference between a grunt technician who merely locates and measures whatever he finds along the line, versus a true professional, who applies his judgement and experience in evaluating the evidence found to determine what should be located and measured and how.
Kent
> Well, it's not really so hard to get. There are different levels of certainty in boundary reconstruction, the top level is
>
> Definitely the original footsteps of the surveyor, highly defensible from original evidence,
>
> The bottom level is:
>
> Can't be proven to be incorrect.
>
> The case where the original monuments that define the line still exist undisturbed and the original line is abandoned in favor of a dot-to-dot type exercise, that wouldn't even meet the lowest standard since it can be proven to be incorrect.
>
> In the real world, one sees all sorts of fact situations, but where the issue is retracement of the original line, as has been under discussion here, the situation is usually pretty straightforward.
If, in the real world, all of the undisturbed and original monuments were lost...would the 'junior' monuments (that can't be proven incorrect) be the best evidence of the 'senior' line?...would it be a straightforward exercise in 'best fitting' these junior monuments?...or would the exercise be is using the junior monuments to re-establish the senior monuments?...or would the dot to dot method be the most defensible?
I agree...one must weigh the evidence...
DDSM
(I still think you and Keith are saying the same thing in different dialects)
Kent
> You surely have some reference material to support your claims/opinions???
What in particular are you in any doubt as to? The 1867 Texas Supreme Court case of Stafford v. King is where one would begin to demonstrate the obvious. Basically, you are insisting that markers that can be shown not to be the footsteps of the original surveyor and in fact to be inconsistent with those footsteps control the boundary. That is exactly contrary to what virtually every Texas court has held since Stafford v. King.