Hi,?ÿ
I am dealing with a map from 1917. On the map, there is a right of way jog that the surveyor notes as (0.08ch)?ÿ when ground out exactly it is 5.28 feet.?ÿ HOWEVER, when a straight 5 feet is used, it grinds out to .0757ch.?ÿ ?ÿ I personally think the jog should be a straight 5 feet since it is a road.?ÿ
I've seen 50 foot wide roads called out as 0.76ch and some surveyors have used the right of way to be 50.16 feet while others simply use 50 feet as the width.?ÿ Most rights of way are even footages. I'd love to hear feedback on what everyone thinks.?ÿ ?ÿPS?ÿ there is no specific occupation evidence AND the old monuments were not found.?ÿ?ÿ
Thanks all and happy Thanksgiving?ÿ
?ÿ0.0757ch = 0.08ch in my surveying rounding world. No explanation or reference needed. ?????ÿ
In British Columbia it is quite common for rights of way to be 1 chain exactly. Which, nowadays, is quoted as being 20.117 metres. Point being that people working in chains were not giving the conversion to another unit the slightest thought. It's 0.08 chains and the fact that 0.08 chains converts to 1.609 metres does not change that one iota.?ÿ
I would look for other evidence. I've seen any number of odd widths, some for no apparent reason. That being said I've also found surveys to be the least reliable source of information regarding rights-of-way. Plats dedicating them are the exception.
The map distance is 8 links. Any conversion to feet is just speculation. If you had two monuments 5 feet apart then you would have a basis to vary the distance, otherwise it is 8 links.
Me 'not having any authority whatsoever" thinks you might also evaluate the abutting deed (or deeds) information at that jog as a possible inference weight.?ÿ 8 links is going to carry a +/- 1/2 link tolerance so could be 4.95' to 5.61' and still be "right".?ÿ Drilling in from another deed might sway your decision one way (or not).
The map distance is 8 links. Any conversion to feet is just speculation. If you had two monuments 5 feet apart then you would have a basis to vary the distance, otherwise it is 8 links.
I agree with Dave (I think). If the guy is using a "chain" (or a tape graduated in links), and he measures 0.08 chains (8 links), then THAT is the "distance." Now whether (OR NOT) he is rounding up/down/whatever is not clear! Without empirical evidence one way or the other, the DISTANCE is 8 links. You can convert that to feet, meters, cubits, Smoots, until the cows come home, but I think that you still need evidence that it ISN'T .08 x 66 feet.
2 bits
Me 'not having any authority whatsoever" thinks you might also evaluate the abutting deed (or deeds) information at that jog as a possible inference weight.?ÿ 8 links is going to carry a +/- 1/2 link tolerance so could be 4.95' to 5.61' and still be "right".?ÿ Drilling in from another deed might sway your decision one way (or not).
Clark, Surveying and Boundaries (1922):
The ROW is what it is. The fact that you choose to use feet to report your measurements doesn't move the boundary. But...
Why are you converting a distance reported to the nearest link to hundredths of a foot?
The map distance is 8 links. Any conversion to feet is just speculation.
Which begs the question:?ÿ is the map authoritative with regard to the ROW creation??ÿ Or is there a deed or other document that created the ROW before the map was produced?
This is a really good question.?ÿ
We run into significant distance issues all the time with right-of-ways. This is another twist with chains/links.
The OP states that there is no physical evidence of a right-of-way so without that I would use 8 links.?ÿ
If monuments were found I would use those assuming they were reasonable. I've been involved with numerous DOT ROW projects and I don't think I ever found two monuments that fit the "exact" width for a ROW. Even if the intent was a 5.00' ROW, it's doubtful that a 5.00' set of monuments would ever be recovered. So I would place the width at 8 links set my monuments and the next surveyor could come along and find my monuments at 5.30' or 5.26'. Of course I wasn't setting them at 5.28', I was setting them at 8 links. That's my opinion with the facts stated above. Now, if 5.28' puts a building foundation in the ROW and 5.00' clears it then my opinion would probably change.?ÿ
@jim-frame right, I??m just commenting on the information in the O.P.
I agree.?ÿ Maybe just a minor OCD thing, but when the original layout of a road is called out as 2, 3, or 4 rods wide, that's what I write on my plan.?ÿ Even though everyone else is writing 66' wide, or even 66.00' wide, I'm writing, 4 rods wide.
I will add the map reference here.?ÿ Sorry I didn't do that earlier, All of the holiday hustle and bustle?ÿ
The part is question is in the NE corner of parcel 1.?ÿ The largest issue is the 6.17 chains south of a point which I believe to be 6.17 ch PLUS 0.08 ch south of the section line.
Attached is the 1917 map.?ÿ In 1971, a Surveyor ignored the 0.08 chain "jog" and set the angle point north of where I (kinda) think the angle point should be.?ÿ I do want to dig around for the redwood post at the point where I think the original surveyor set the angle point?ÿ Plus I will search for the Oak post at the river.?ÿ Hard to say if these exist after 104 years.?ÿ The fences placed along this line, simply follow a "best path" for fence.?ÿ They don't follow any particular line. These fences are to keep cattle in the property east.?ÿ ?ÿ
I appreciate all of the input so far. As Surveyors we try our best to get it right.?ÿ?ÿ
?ÿ
Chains and links.?ÿ To the nearest link.?ÿ Feet, inches and decimals thereof do not apply.
Half a link is bigger than the difference you're getting with your conversion dilemma, so it looks like conditions in the field is where the answer is to me.
As JPH said, write what the original said.
I get the impression that there are quite a few here who have never used a chain. If you've been dragging it through the undergrowth all day you really are past caring about sub-divisions of links - nearest one will do (and you probably haven't bothered to correct for any minor slope:- over the full chain - yes you would, but for minor undulations almost certainly not.)
When Right of Ways are designated in chains, many years later many were converted to feet. Most common road ROW was 2 Rods, 33', adequate for most purposes. Next in commonality is a chain, most often called a 4 Rod road, at 66'. But right of ways were designated in other increments, 1/2 Rod, 8.25' good enough for?ÿ driveway or alley, 1 Rod, 16.5', good for farm access, especially when a stone row on either side marked it's location. Usually one farm had the fee, but both used it, but when stone rows were cleared out to enlarge fields the wrong stone row may remain clouding the deed distances. Some roads were established at 2.5 Rods,?ÿ 41.25' and were latter called 40' roads, while 3 Rod , 49.5', roads came to be 50'. Then there are the King's Highways at 6 rods, 99', established not by Road Returns, but by the fact the King's Army marched up them.
What is most interesting are the original Road Return descriptions, very often beginning 3 surveyors met on a Saturday morning?ÿ at Jule's Tavern prior to commencing the survey from a point in the road 1.33 Rods NW of the SE step of the Stone Church, calls which can still be found today.Very seldom did a road return establish a ROW but put an existing road on the record. Years later a newer Road Return might create a relocated?ÿ ROW and simultaneously vacate a portion of the original.
The daangerous surveyors are those who think chains are gospel lengths, I remember years ago seeing a fie=led map where the surveyor had exact chain distance down a 30% slope and passed over a marble County?ÿ Park monument set in the middle of a stone row, turning deed angle and missing by many feet the next county monument at the stone row intersections. Then there are also those that do not recognize that the East side of the road may mean the East side of the centerline not the ROW line.
Paul in non PLSS PA
