Knowing the principle
> that this whole argument is based on a corner monument that was found to be 0.14 feet into the State ROW.
Yes, as Keith points out, the principle is the same. 140 ft., 14 ft., 1.4 ft., or 0.14 ft., the line laid down by the senior survey is determined by ITS corners, not those of a junior survey. Keep this principle in mind and you won't go wrong.
Well, we'll hold your beer
> I am sure that if I took the time, and I am not going to, I could find a subsequent Supreme Court case, that is in fact opposite of your interpretation of your 1888 case.
Okay, I'll bet that some kind soul will hold your beer and we'll all watch.
Knowing the principle
We all know that Kent's only principle in retracements, is to use original senior corner monuments only, and ignores any other existing evidence.
That is not land surveying as I have come to know it and that experience is from nearly 20 years in the headquarters office of the Land Department of the United States of America.
Keith
Keith say what?
When you were at HQ how many STATE AUTHORITY surveys did you ,personally,conduct on the ground? In the 20 years at HQ how many surveys of PRIVATE Lands did you approve and sign for?
In the 20 years at HQ how many Federal authority aurveys did you,personally,conduct?
How many surveys have YOU EVER, personally, conducted where you overturned Bona fide rights?
Did you accept every monument,set by federal authority, that you ever found?
If you did not accept every monument so set, why not?
Did you accept every monument,set under state authority, that you ever found?
If not,why not?
What about no authority monuments, those set by land owners?
Did you accept every no authority monument that you found?
If not why not?
No doubt your extentsive experience at HQ is invaluable, but it may not very useful when it comes to the determination of PRIVATE LAND BOUNDARIES!
Kent
Keith:
it is impossible to take a quote out of context without loosing some meaning and morphing...
BUT "It is unquestionably true that a junior survey cannot control or enlarge the dimensions of a senior survey. We understand this to mean that when the location of a survey is or can be ascertained and determined by its own marks upon the ground -- its own calls and courses and distances -- it cannot be changed or controlled or enlarged or diminished by the marks or lines of an adjoining junior survey"
You really do need to take a bit of time and read the entire decision and see what was decided by the highest court in the land.
To the best of my knowledge that decision has not been overturned or modified in any way... it is on point with this discussion.
BTW: WTF kind of thinking is it that leads some to the idea that we as Surveyors should ignore reality (court decisions) and think we are some sort of GOD that can Fix something that Ain't Broke? Old School Black Box Surveying!
Seriously friend, when you get back from the beach you should just sit back and have a read... it is enlightening.
CLEMENT V. PACKER, 125 U. S. 309 (1888)
Peter
I would be interested in your thinking on the case and give us some insight into what you believe the court case to be?
Keith
Keith say what?
Oh the love in here, it gives me such a warm and fuzzy feeling.
Dave
Some just babble on and pay no attention to them.
Keith
Keith?
Did you ever get to ride in a TWA Lockheed Constellation?
I think there are still a few around.
[flash width=480 height=385] http://www.youtube.com/v/Gsvm21gndVY?fs=1&hl=en_US [/flash]
Wouldn't a logical extension of this case be to rip out the errant marker and replace it on the senior line. Then there wouldn't be any confusing pin cushion only the proper marker. Future surveyors could also continually tune it up a little more each time until it's adjusted to fit on a pin head. What's to say that the original 0.14 feet in the next iteration of the adjustment won't come in at 0.06 feet or some new ROW evidence flip it say 0.10 feet over on the other side of the pipe.
I can agree with the basic black and white Survey 101 principal, but in my real shades of gray world, its rarely that simple. When you get to the graduate level 500 series courses and then into actual real practice dealing with real folks property rights (and all the stupid stuff that has actually happened for 150 years) there usually is a lot more stuff to consider and deal with.
Most of the real original monuments in my world were stones (PLSS corners). They might have had a base dimension of 1.2 feet by 0.8 feet. They where jacked around by frost heave and other forces of nature for a hundred plus years before someone like me set a metal pipe and cap (with punch mark) deep in the ground and even those can be subject to some movement. So really my senior lines (when they can actually be found) are about a foot wide when all this is taken into consideration. So as the senior line gets tuned up from a big error ellipses to tiny pin head sized ones, all the junior markers are just rubber banding all over the place. BUT that's how it is in SURVEY 101, you can't bend the rule!
not to mention most Courts are disconnected from reality. They think everything is perfect in the record and surveyors can measure to the width of half a molecule.
I just finished C.S. Forester's "The General." This is a very interesting book about a WWI British General (fiction) and I couldn't help but notice the tension between the military professionals and the lay political leadership. Sometimes the professionals lose sight of the fact that their role is to serve the public, not the other way around.
The professionals were sure that they were winning a war of attrition with the Germans. When the civilian political authorities questioned the truth of this,the General rounds up a bunch of quality German prisoners from several units around the area to prove the point and get the pesky lay people out of their hair.
What does this have to do with junior corners off line? You have to use your imagination a little. Are we here to impose a version of technical nirvana on the public or to help them solve their boundary problems?
Dave
I think I did fly on one from Billings to Missoula in about 1964 or so.
My first flight.
Keith
> Wouldn't a logical extension of this case be to rip out the errant marker and replace it on the senior line. Then there wouldn't be any confusing pin cushion only the proper marker.
No, if you actually bother to read Clement v. Packer, you'll see that the court provides for exactly the case that Carl described, where the marker mistakenly set in conflict with some senior title is nonetheless an important element of constructing the block system of surveys.
In other words, the pipe shows where the later surveyor mistakenly thought the highway line to be when he laid out the subdivision, but doesn't, of course, actually mark the highway line. Moreover, it is an original monument on the common lot line, even if the true lot corner isn't at the pipe, but is at the intersection of the lot line and the highway line.
really Keith?
"Some just babble on and pay no attention to them."
KW
You set your self up as an expert,Keith, yet you are incapable of answering a few simple questions that would go a long way to persuading us that you have even the faintest clue of what you are talking about.
IF YOU HAVE PROOF, THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES HAS REVERSED THEIR DECISION, THEN PLEASE PROVIDE US WITH THE CITATION. Absent evidence that the court has reversed themselevs, their 1888 ruling is still law.
I am always open to learning, but the learning experience is diminished in its effectiveness if all the educational experience consist of is
I am right
You are wrong
You are a dudiehead
Show me this
show me that prove it
Prove it to my satifaction
You are just a dudiedhead, dudiehead.
It would be very useful, if you have a contary viewpoint , then make an effort to prove your own point.
That's the concept of a closing corner in the PLSS. The BLM seems to be getting rid of them in new surveys as they have been a source of constant confusion and irritation. How many times does the closing corner get amended? If I'm not mistaken I think it's just once at this point. You fix it best you can one time and after that just except the BEND in the line. I suppose you need to allow for fraud and stuff like that.
In the debated case it might be good to require the use of weldable steel for all set markers. About 5 surveys from now then they can just all be welded together in a line. Then all you need from that point is a grinder (battery operated) to grind off the previous punch mark and set the new one. KISS principle. Even better might be to actually set a flat piece of steel on the lot line. That would eliminate the future welding and set up the continual tweaking right from the present. So do we need a 6 inch flat bar, 12 inch flat bar or will just, say, a 2 inch flat steel bar do?
>
> In the debated case it might be good to require the use of weldable steel for all set markers. About 5 surveys from now then they can just all be welded together in a line. Then all you need from that point is a grinder (battery operated) to grind off the previous punch mark and set the new one. KISS principle. Even better might be to actually set a flat piece of steel on the lot line. That would eliminate the future welding and set up the continual tweaking right from the present. So do we need a 6 inch flat bar, 12 inch flat bar or will just, say, a 2 inch flat steel bar do?
Actually, all it takes is one competent surveyor to correctly mark the corner as Carl described. His example is quite basic garden-variety land surveying even if it seems like Rocket Science in some quarters.
Well, I still like the idea of sorting out the markers for senior/junior lines. We could use small round tops for senior markers and flat bars for junior markers set on senior lines. We could require the length of the flat bars to be determined by a mathematical analysis to determine the length of flat bar. Probably be good to increase it by at least three lengths to cover the maximum error possible.
Then we could also have the licensing boards sort out the competent from incompetent surveyors and require that also on their marks (PLS 123456 C or I). So the incompetent licensed surveyors would be required to at least double the length of closing corner flat bar from that of the competent guys. The incompetent guys are lucky cause they know a competent guy will be along some day to punch their bar in the right spot.
So think just how simple it would be, right there in the field you'd know you are on a closing corner junior survey mark set across the senior line (hopefully). Now all you got to do is find the ends of the senior line, run your adjustment program, file off the previous punch mark, and punch it with an additional either C or I. Of course if the previous punch is coded with a C and it isn't on your line then you could consider tweaking the senior corners as it's obvious that they must have moved.
This all fits in nicely with standardizing corner codes for survey marks on plats. Senior corners are a dot and junior corners are a straight line. Of coarse in the PLSS we would also need big crosses for most aliquot corners. You'd need to punch it on two directions. When someone replaced a stone with a pipe, cap and punch mark you wouldn't need to set any new aliquot corners markers. Just get your file, punch and adjustment program fired up, be done in no time. Heck the landowners might not even know you'd been there!
Thanks for the Clip, Dave
Interesting to see how much has changed.
Also interesting to see what hasn't.
> Well, I still like the idea of sorting out the markers for senior/junior lines.
What could be simpler? In Texas, I would have set a rod and cap monument at the intersection of the highway line with the side lot line and would have stamped the aluminum cap "ROW LINE" to give the idea. Problem permanently solved.
Peter
Sure Keith, in your world the the court would say "the newer monument is a closing corner"
Perhaps we are having a problem with what we really are expected to do... find/establish LINES. If we were able to easily mark a Line on the ground (not a bunch of points) we would seldom have this problem. In our modern day (you, Kent and me, not the under 50 kids) coordinates became the handy shortcut to laying and figuring points on the lines we work with rather than drawing a line on the ground.
We have lost sight of what we are really expected to do and our product has been aimed at our cronies, not the owners. Maps work, the public sees lines... but we use a microscope and see the theoretical end points and miss the bigger picture entirely.
The issue is further confused when people use the words Corner and Monument interchangeably... they sure ain't the same words in Websters!
We could go on and on about acquired rights and kinks and warps in the lines created buy the owners and their occupation and use, but Carl was not dealing with that due to the concept of the crown not being subject to adverse possession.
Peter
~ Let us be nice to each other, we are Family! ~ Bill "Jolly Blue" Ehlert
