Arghhhh
OKAY . . .
The Western Reserve of Ohio(N.E. Ohio), was surveyed in 1797 . . . or so.
The south line was "re" surveyed (by bona-fide government surveyors) in early 1800(1818?) . . . as a check.
Differences were noted, but differences were generally within a few hundred feet per 5 mile township.
NOW . . . in 2012, I'm re-measuring the south line of the Western Reserve and habitually come up with an excess of about 50 feet PER MILE . . . sometimes a little more(about 0.7 feet per chain). In the purest sense, 0.7' excess in a stretched chain might be possible . . . but . . . but.
I KNOW THAT CHAIN MEASURING LEFT A LITTLE TO BE DESIRED . . . but . . . to the tune of an "EXCESS" of 50+ feet (or more), per mile?
If the measurements were NOW coming up "short", this would make sense to me.
EVEN with stretch(the government surveyors kept 2 chains(one for a base measure)?
IN MY MIND . . . E-V-E-R-Y-T-H-I-N-G, except for stretch would lead me to expect a shorter distance, not a longer distance. I would expect such that, unless great care was employed to adjust for sag and such(to adjust measurements to a longer report), that the shortage would outweigh the overage.
ANY thoughts?
Not sure which way you are reporting, but a "short chain measures long". So if the chain had bends, etc, and hence was short, the length you measure would be in excess of what is reported.
GeezerB-)
John, are you retracing with GPS?
can't be, GPS hates John 😉
Well, you are right, Dave. Maybe he is applying the wrong stadia constant.
Actually, all the kinks, bends and breaks would mean when a surveyor "thought", he had measured(and reported) a 66' distance, a re-survey would indicate a shorter distance as fact.
A stretched chain(long chain), would result in a 66' reported distance when in fact, the measurement is something more.
What I'm saying is that E-V-E-R-Y-T-H-I-N-G except an elongation of the chain(actually 1/2 chain), would actually result in a shorter distance . . . unless the elongation was so absolutely & obviously elongated . . . so I think.
For retracement in some parts of Nevada, Utah and Arizona, that would be considered good work. They were moving fast and accuracy, as we know it today, was not a consideration. I had one job in Montana that the search area was 20 chains. Yes, 20 chains. The surveyor made a 20 chain error in each latitudinal line in the township. It was lots of fun and we found nearly all the corners. The E-W quarter corners was another subject. Did not find too many of those.
Be happy that you only have 50 ft. per mile.
Jerry
:good: :good: :good:
> Not sure which way you are reporting, but a "short chain measures long". So if the chain had bends, etc, and hence was short, the length you measure would be in excess of what is reported.
>
> GeezerB-)
Geezer is correct, short chains measure long, not short.
> Geezer is correct, short chains measure long, not short.
😉
> > Not sure which way you are reporting, but a "short chain measures long". So if the chain had bends, etc, and hence was short, the length you measure would be in excess of what is reported.
> >
> > GeezerB-)
>
> Geezer is correct, short chains measure long, not short.
I'm not positive what you're saying exactly......but it takes a little paying attention. If my chain is short, and I am staking out a mile...I will stake it out not far enough. I will stake out a mile but the real distance will be less than a mile.....it will be short .
If I am measuring between two points a mile apart with a "short" chain, I will measure it to be over a mile.
Opposite being whether you are measuring between existing points, or staking the points out. If I understand retired69 right, he is correct.
Gps loves john as much as email servers love him;-)
John some time ago at an Ohio Valley Chapter meeting of PLSO several of us were comparing measurements of sections in the Original 7 Ranges. As you are aware these were the original government surveys and first sections. These were surveyed at about the same time as the Western Reserve. We noted that all the sections appeared to be long by an amount similar to what you are finding. Don't recall exactly now but it may have been either a chain (66'0 ft.) or half chain (33 ft.) per mile long.
These sections we were in Harrison, Jefferson and Belmont Counties all rough country. That would imply it was likely the chain would be difficult to keep level. Direct result of poor chaining would be a longer distance reported than marked on the ground. We were finding exactly the opposite and the difference was relatively consistent. To the best of our knowledge there is no record of instructions to the surveyors of the Original Seven Ranges.
Best we could determine the error was an attempt to give "good and sufficient measure" and insure that all sections included AT LEAST the area intended.
They could adjust the length of a chain. Most sections here in the valley are long about 50 feet. I've seen several places in GLO notes where a surveyor would measure a township line previously done before subdivision. Then he would adjust his chain to match the previous and begin his subdivision. One example was 80.84, 80.84....turn around, adjust his chain and measure back 80, 80, 80 .... and then begin the subdivision with chain at original length (long).
The practice seemed to end around here late 1890's. Not so many long chains after that.
Slope chaining? Perhaps reported as horizontal? But seems likely that it is just "good enough" for the time. Accuracy of the times?o.O
It is not uncommon here for a chain on the ground (as surveyed) to be a link out.
That would account for a lot of links over 80 chain.
They would add a link every chain and that would make for a line measuring 100 links as shown in survey but in effect be 101 links long when measured today.
(the line was lengthened by a link per chain but not shown as such)
80 chains, 80 links, 16± meters, 53± feet, per mile.
Short chains/ long chains - confusing stuff.
Why bother with GPS, we will all be back in chains 😉
I'll take a stab at this; but a 1797 survey is way out of my experience.
I'm guessing that you are surveying a standard parallel.
These were surveyed long on purpose as seen in this recent retractment
If you continue north to the north line of the township just south of the next standard you see this.
The original plats and notes don't show the streching and shrinking of the townships; it was just understood that they did.
I expect the section lines at the "bottom" of a stack of townships to be long. And shorter as the converge into the next standard. And 50' is just about right. As far as the retracement: if it's like the ones I've seen that are done just before the breakup of the township they seem to try to follow the plat. If the retracement wasn't incorperated into the plat you need to decide what to do with it. I'd talk to some BLM guys about that. The question is so you replace a corner using the retracement or the plat.
I've resurveyed a number of locations where the surveyor clearly applied what was commonly referred to as "extra measure" to his chaining. The "extra measure" was often 1 link per chain. That would account for an extra 52.8 feet per mile. The thought process was that the subsequent landowners would never complain if they had more ground that they purchased, but would complain loudly when they were shorted.
JBS
OKAY . . .
so, it appears that measurements made with a 33'(half-chain), were generally pretty accurate and precise in every respect, other than stretching of the loops.
I had always thought that slope & sag would generally suffer more(accuracy-wise), even if the measurements were somewhat precise.
The fact that the 7 ranges appear to suffer the same 50' distance overage makes me feel better about the differences I've found, comparing 1797 measurements to 2012 measurements...
I had expected more accurate or, at the least, shorter distances upon later retracement.
I had wondered about the lack of a legislated "standard" in the Western Reserve survey and that all known errors benefited the state of Connecticut(and the private owners), upon discovering that the north line of Ohio didn't somewhat parallel(or follow), the 42nd parallel.
Still . . . it's important to know the true(more truer) instance of precision and accuracy, especially in cases where a later surveyor(say from 1850 or later) may have "set a township(or section) corner(which are also very old), using more accurate measurement tools . . . maybe, eventually causing a new corner to be as much as 50+' from an older, much more obscure monument.
Much to say, that if a section is 80 chains wide, in consideration of that 50', that the half section would be at 40 chains plus about 25 feet . . . if it's really a "half-section".
Even though a fenceline might exist at the "40" chains(maybe even with an old monument), a more thorough search(25 feet away), might serve successful, even if the actual boundary likely wouldn't move . . . kinda like enjoying the thrill of more closely following the original surveyors.
I hope to search for some really old markers some day and the knowledge of the 25 feet or 50 feet might come in handy and might help "re" determine where the more original marker(now lost or obliterated), might actually be.
