In a lightly developed area a C1/4 is necessary to be monumented. Also it's important to monument the CN1/6.
The C1/4 will be along the extension of an old east-west property line, traced all the way back to patent property lines and pushed into a state highway and on the N-S centerline of the section.?ÿ
The CW1/6 is a brass cap set for a subdivision, the E1/4 is a WC cause the point falls in a medium sized creek.?ÿ
The CN1/6 will be set by extending the south line of a mid century subdivision into the state highway and on the N-S section centerline. ?ÿ
Except for the N-S section centerline no consideration was given to a classical breakdown, way too much has been done over the years for that.?ÿ
Placing the C1/4 at the position described above and inversing between the E1/4 and CW1/16 shows the new C1/4 0.1' off line.?ÿ
The CN1/6 ends up being 1.5' from a midpoint location, between the N1/4 and C1/4.?ÿ
Frankly the locations of these points were seemingly random positions, controlled by old fence lines and old patents, but someone, at sometime must have laid out these positions and the rest of us just followed along. I even have a 1970's era "breakdown" for the section and it's 15-20 feet from the final points we are setting which makes it a bit annoying. The reason for this is they didn't use the CW1/6, prorated in the W1/4 and didn't accept the NW1/6 which was an old established property corner, thus throwing out the interior points. Using the "breakdown" would throw the existing property lines into chaos.?ÿ
Go figure.?ÿ
?ÿ
We have scads of sections down here that were broken into 40 acre allotment tracts for tribal members before statehood.?ÿ The GLO shows clean 1/16th. lines in their sanitary record eloquence...it IS NOT that way on the ground.
The actual art of a retracement survey where they only set wooden posts is an acquired talent.?ÿ I have been fortunate in some areas where stones were set to find them and they are as willy-nilly as what you call "random positions".?ÿ I only set corners on prorated lines if there is absolutely no other evidence.
I know what you're saying.?ÿ It seem like a lot of work goes into something that comes out looking like you flipped coins for corner locations.?ÿ Stick by your guns and your experience.?ÿ It's jobs like this that separate the surveyors with a pair from those that only have a calculator and a recent copy of the manual.?ÿ
carry on...I think you're doing what you need.?ÿ 😉
We had one issue along the north parcel line, there were some deeds written from the 15-20' "off" corners of the 1970's era breakdown. The monumented CN1/16 would leave our parcel without access to the main road along the north line. Then putting all the deeds together, there was a developer who owned all NE4NW4 and quitclaimed to the county all the 40 excepting the north 1260'. Thinking he had a good section breakdown, proceeded to describe lands using it but never monumented the points. Well, he inadvertently left the strip in county ownership, so we don't have to try and claim the strip or worry about access cause of the odd quit claim. In essence it cleaned-up the position of the county road, it's not 60' wide it now varies from 69 to 64' wide.?ÿ
That was pure luck.?ÿ
It is wonderful when existing fences and tree rows are on or at least relatively close to where you think they should be.?ÿ Then there are the cases where nothing fits worth a darn but NO ONE is going to move anything to any alignment you mark out.
A prime example is the section where we are working that I mentioned a few weeks back where we were to look for some odd property corners from an 1883 description that were said to be stones marked "X" at distances apart that was not stated.?ÿ The stones at the NW and N1/4 were set about 1910 yet the 1883 description commences at a stone that was supposed to be there already.?ÿ Based on some stretches of rock wall built a billion years ago their idea of the N1/4 must have been about 40 feet or so further to the east.?ÿ You can forget the "X" stones, they are impossible to find among the three billion stones to evaluate.?ÿ Parts of the brow of the bluff have sheared off in modern times.?ÿ One conglomeration of three detachments is probably about 80 feet in length and up to thirty feet wide at one point.
Meanwhile, at other corners far removed from the crucial area, the fences and tree rows will not work neatly, or even semi-neatly.?ÿ Near the w1/4, for example, there is a fence headed north and a different fence headed south that are about 25 feet apart but which end up very close to the NW and SW section corners.?ÿ The "ideal" corner falls near dead center between the two corner posts that are 25 feet apart.?ÿ Leaving the the W1/4 headed towards the CC is a fence and tree row, that if elongated, would hit about 70 feet north of the "ideal" E1/4.?ÿ ?ÿThere is absolutely nothing to suggest where the E1/4 should be other than somewhere the middle of a north-south county dirt/boulder road.?ÿ A fence and tree row separating the north half and the south half of the southeast quarter refuses to conform to any rational plan.?ÿ Most of the so-called fence corners are cages about six feet in diameter made of welded wire panels that have carefully been filled with limestones gathered from the surrounding pastures to a depth of about 50 inches.?ÿ They aren't going anywhere, nor are the attached strands of barb wire.
The oldest I??ve seen where someone broke down the center of section the ??correct? way was in the 1970??s. In the past people did random methods. Illinois was also and early PLSS state. The sad part of that 1970??s survey where he set the center of section at intersection of the quarter corners is it missed a fence corner by a foot or two.?ÿ
Happens frequently around here still today, especially in places where evidence of past development has been obliterated.
We had a hundred or so years between GLO and our recording Statute. Many if not most sections were divided in some fashion during thst time.
Put in the work to find and evaluate the evidence. Dont latch onto the fence OR the manual without good cause...
Often, a correct interpretation of the Manual will point you right to the fence.
I don't get the fence vs manual talk on this board. The Manual is whole book, not just one chapter.
"You can forget the "X" stones, they are impossible to find among the three billion stones to evaluate."
I hope that statement is backed by a diligent unsuccessful search. Nothing will get a survey overturned faster then not searching for original monuments.
It sounds like MightMoe is doing it the correct way, if by correct you mean in compliance with the 2009 Manual.
Yup. We were there. Followed roughly a quarter mile of bluff "brow" very slowly and diligently. In most areas the only way to get a stone to stand would have been to haul in a nice collection of other stones to support it. There were no such piles or anything resembling scattered piles. I would bet the stones marked with an "X" were already horizontal in 1883. Have seen such an "X" carved into bedrock at a quarter corner before. It is pretty clear that the intent of the wording was to follow said brow with the exception of the starting two calls and the final two calls. The next to last call is indeterminate and falls in the stream far below. The last call simply tells you to go southwest from there until you hit the point where the bluff crosses the west aliquot boundary. That's about the only point we know with certainty other than the beginning point. Why they jumped off the bluff into the water then jumped back up atop the bluff is bizarre. The elevation difference is on the order of 40 feet.
It would be no problem to "create" stones with "X's" and stick them about where they might have been. I believe that would be considered unethical practice. I have no doubt that there are some surveyors who would magically find what we did not, especially if the money involved was plentiful.
