Yes . . . well
This was a survey of a "reservation" that Connecticut refused to hand over to the newly formed Federal government. The federal government agreed to allow Connecticut to ratin lands north of the 41st parallel and to 120 miles west of the PA., line.
So, if a link was purposely "added", then the private surveyors from Connecticut, would have been frauding the federal government.
After all was said and done, the south line was too far south by about 2000+ feet and too far west by well over a mile.
2000' times(121.3(?) miles=640464' = about 30,000 extra acres.
> 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
There is at least one "extra measure" plat in Minneapolis, the "Mill Company's Addition to St. Anthony", circa 1855. Platted 66-foot lots measure 66.66 within a hundredth or two. Minnesota surveyors of that era all came from the East, since the area was only opened to settlement in 1848, so the "extra measure" concept must have come from there also.
> So, if a link was purposely "added", then the private surveyors from Connecticut, would have been frauding the federal government.
I expect the thought was to ensure the state was not shorted, just as the surveyors didn't want to short the private citizens. No "fraud" involved at all. Just "protecting" the rights of the citizens.
It's all in your perspective.
JBS
Moe,
The Original Seven Ranges and Western Reserve predate the concept of a standard parallel. However, the Seven Ranges northern line, Geographer's Line, was run as a parallel of latitude. The southern boundary of the Western Reserve was also a Parallel of latitude. That line was the southern boundary of the farm I lived on until I was 17. I have been aware of the history of that line long before any interest in surveying.
LOL,,,now john, your retired, seems like your letting this get to you. thought you left it all behind.
Short chains measure long between known points, when sett in points with a short chain, the point distance is short, the inverse with long chains.
jud
I have now retraced(on paper/aerials, survey maps and original field notes), over 40 miles and have ABSOLUTE faith that the government surveyor for the congress lands DID NOT use a "lengthened" chain . . . no EXTRA links . . . still, the measurements are consistently 1/2 link longer than measured.
The surveyor for the Connecticut Land Company(a private company), seems to result in a chain being almost 68 feet long . . . consistently through 40 miles.
I still cannot figure why or how(for the "long" measurement. I would've expected a "short" measurement, but never expected a "long" measurement.
In my mind(hmm), I'd think a chain has to be well over 66' long, if sag and all the other things that generally cause a short measurements, is in fact, causing long measurements.
I have dates for the measurements and eventually I'll see if winter measurements are different from summer measurements.
VERY INTERESTING
I have now logged to 100 miles on this data . . .
As I get farther, I've noted that the chains(used in 1808), is getting increasingly longer.
The measurements began with the 66' chain measuring 66.05 feet each, then progressing to 66.34', then progressing to 66.41' and finally to 66.58 feet(at 100 miles).
Very interesting.
Especially since the 1808 surveyor appears to be taking great care and was required to take and check with a standard tape(to be used only for a check).
Enlightening . . .
