BLM and GPS Coordinates

Paul in PA, post: 380548, member: 236 wrote: http://gpsworld.com/blms-new-gnss-protocols-may-set-undesirable-precedent/&apos ;">BLM and GPS Coordinates

Paul in PA

In sharp contrast to the 'Why "Cut Line?" thread.

Cadastral Surveys in Alaska are now done almost exclusively with GPS, there are no lines cut, no evidence of the footsteps of the surveyor to for later retracing surveyors to follow. Heck. Who even needs monuments?

Williwaw, post: 380719, member: 7066 wrote: Who even needs monuments?

We used to have this argument; a long time ago. It's good to see it rear it's ugly head again....

Remember http://www.pobonline.com/articles/91801-nad83-is-a-three-dimensional-system&apos ;">Mister Geodesist and how he would rattle Kent's cage? Good times.....

Wasn't his real name Bill Strange? I remember he passed away a few years ago.

RADAR, post: 380726, member: 413 wrote: ...I remember he passed away a few years ago.

I think that's a common symptom of arguing with Kent too much.....

paden cash, post: 380727, member: 20 wrote: I think that's a common symptom of arguing with Kent too much.....

Yknow you boys have that completely wrong. Kent and Mr. Geodesist ( Dr Strange of NGS) were definetly on the same page. Mr. G was an advocate of coordinate usage for perpetualizing monuments/corners. I think that we all learned from Mr.G. despite some of our stubbornness.
If you're going to jab at Kent just to jab at him, make certain your posts have some basis of fact.

paden cash, post: 380727, member: 20 wrote: I think that's a common symptom of arguing with Kent too much.....

I almost liked this...but then I realized how true it was...

Robert Hill, post: 380736, member: 378 wrote: Kent and Mr. Geodesist ( Dr Strange of NGS) were defiantly on the same page.

I don't know if we were reading the same board or not, but I remember this being fairly rare.

Robert Hill, post: 380736, member: 378 wrote: ...If you're going to jab at Kent just to jab at him, make certain your posts have some basis of fact.

If "basis of fact" was a requirement here it would be a pretty desolate place.

I remember some civilian property owner asked a pretty simple question here about a hedgerow and a property pin that was a few feet distance....
It turned into a seven page diatribe on boundary line adjustments...

"What we miss in the OP we make up as we go along!"

carry on

Mr. G was coming around to understand the need for a monument perpetuated on the ground not just with numbers.

Apparently coordinates only was and/or now is the mantra of NGS.

Paul in PA

This is going to be interesting...is the first surveyor to construct/establish an on the ground, physical monument:
1. Original surveyor;
2. First surveyor; or
3. Retracement surveyor...
How close will be close enough?
DDSM

Dan B. Robison, post: 380753, member: 34 wrote: This is going to be interesting...is the first surveyor to construct/establish an on the ground, physical monument:
1. Original surveyor;
2. First surveyor; or
3. Retracement surveyor...
How close will be close enough?
DDSM

State completely rejects this approach. Puts the financial and responsible burden on all those that have to follow.

Williwaw, post: 380756, member: 7066 wrote: State completely rejects this approach. Puts the financial and responsible burden on all those that have to follow.

What are you saying? The State rejects the Federal method of the way they survey their own land? Please elaborate...

There's stil a lot of Federal land due for transfer to the State awaiting 'survey', so called 'TA'd' lands, tentively approved. Typically the township will be monuments every 2 miles on the exterior. If they do away with that requirement and accept zero monumentation, after the State acquires patent and wants to subdivide sections, the entire subsequent cost falls on the State and private parties that wish to utilize the lands. It's a simple case of passing the buck. Mind you the State is operating 4 billion in the red with depressed oil prices.