Original survey north of a state line in mid 1910's setting closing corners along the state line. You find the SW corner of Section 36 and it's .6' north of the state line, about 20chains west of a MP and 60chains east of the next MP. Do you accept the closing corner as the state line?
In the notes and plat it shows that they tied into the MP's and retracted the state line just prior to setting the originals.
I put all the blame on the danged curve thingy Ol' Keith used to get so het up about. They probably put it on a straight line between the MP's. What's a link between friends?
A closing corner would control line north to south and be used for proportioning corners immediately north.
The State line location would be controlled by Statute and the applicable rules.
Yep, it's the curve!!
Isn't it true that closing corners never bend the line they are closing on?
As I understand BLM policy:
If the surveyor initially established the closing corner on the line closed upon by running to controlling corners on both sides of the CC,
OR
If there is a original CC not established by running both ways and the surveyor establishes the true CC position by running to controlling corners on both sides of the closing corner position,
the BLM will accept those CC as lying on the closed upon line, even if they create slight bends in the line.
The rational is that running one way is not sufficient to determine whether the CC is on the true line, and once the attempt is made to determine the true CC position by tying to controlling corners on each side of the line, small errors in the determination of the resulting CC position are not worth a continual refinement.
Of course, some of us will continue remeasuring and calling an existing monument "off" in pursuit of the "0.04 foot error".
:good:
I agree with Tyler above.
N
I do have a plat showing a CC on the state line 0.09' off. To be fair it was done in the 1970's and that was the thinking at the time.
They were much more precise back in the 70's weren't they!?
Lol, yes.
I know who did those plats, they were using T2's and Topcon mounted distance meters, they were really tight. 😉
I didn't see anything to quibble about. Although that .09' was without the curve applied.
Your post alludes to another important thing to remember.
The BLM is subject to the opinions of each regional supervisor. There isn't really 'a BLM way it's done' regardless of written policy. I have yet to follow any local GLO or BLM surveys that bend a senior line to hold a Closing Corner. That doesn't mean there isn't one right in my back yard...
They have "changed" or "updated" their viewpoint regarding closing corners as reflected in the new manual.
I agree to.
But this is a State Line. I don't think breaking bearing at anything other than a State Mile Marker would fly. State Boundaries are a different bird
The 2 underlying theorys are:
The standard corners are set. Established title, to the north. DONE
The CC established title to the south. So, it cannot encroach into the senior line. PERIOD. It has to YIELD to the senior line.
Yet, in field procedure, the logic is that they DID yield when setting the CC, as best they could. And, thus, they came north, until they found the chopped line, (remains thereof) and Thus, they legally did yield, and sans the errors of measurement, they DID it. So, there is a kink there, of 6' or 3' or 0.04'.
At some point we MUST become documenters of "Where it landed" Not Fixers of all past errors of measurement. (You can quote this last line!)
Nate
The reasoning that if the controlling corners were tied in both directions then the monument should be accepted as being on the line is good. It makes sense given the rule that a corner is the result of the [imperfect] surveying process and the monument is evidence of the corner. Without these rules corner positions would constantly move and no one would know where the corners and lines are located.
On the other hand, did the GLO have the authority to monument State lines? If not, the State line may not yield to a CC.
But on the other hand, in some locations 6 tenths is de minimus and therefore affects the rights of no one in a material way.
If I were a rich man the important surveyors would come to me, posing problems that would cross a rabbi's eyes!
For a second, I thought you typed "rabbit's eyes". That stimulated the brain cells in a negative manner.
Dave Karoly, post: 349883, member: 94 wrote: The reasoning that if the controlling corners were tied in both directions then the monument should be accepted as being on the line is good. It makes sense given the rule that a corner is the result of the [imperfect] surveying process and the monument is evidence of the corner. Without these rules corner positions would constantly move and no one would know where the corners and lines are located.
On the other hand, did the GLO have the authority to monument State lines? If not, the State line may not yield to a CC.
But on the other hand, in some locations 6 tenths is de minimus and therefore affects the rights of no one in a material way.
If I were a rich man the important surveyors would come to me, posing problems that would cross a rabbi's eyes!
The survey in question is a 1974 BLM dependent resurvey.
They did run the state line and the CC's are intended to be on that line.
I'm not going to quibble about CC's .6' and less "off" the line, clearly the BLM felt that they had the authority to do the survey, I'm sure not going to argue that point.
As for accepting the monuments as being the line, that's what I'm doing, others may have a different opinion,,,,,,,,,
Showing the offest, some being about a .10' of a foot is like the .03'N, ,06'E notes I see posted here that are done in other parts of the country..........
I wonder who started that practice???
Actually the surveyor did a great job with this township, imagine doing that in semi-rough country and getting it all within .6'.
MightyMoe, post: 349897, member: 700 wrote: The survey in question is a 1974 BLM dependent resurvey.
They did run the state line and the CC's are intended to be on that line.
I'm not going to quibble about CC's .6' and less "off" the line, clearly the BLM felt that they had the authority to do the survey, I'm sure not going to argue that point.
I think the de minimus angle covers it. I suspect the BLM may stand in the same shoes as any other Surveyor when it comes to State lines, they have the authority to conduct the Survey but they can't impose a solution on either State. They can establish their township and section corners, obviously.
I am in favor of accepting pre-existing survey monuments especially in cases like this where the differences are not material. Forestry is similar, the Forester's standard is to flag the harvest boundary within 5' of a straight line. Obviously we do better than that but a monument off 2' is generally not a concern especially when they were set in steep brushy terrain with transit and chain.
johnbo, post: 349875, member: 8695 wrote: I agree to.
But this is a State Line. I don't think breaking bearing at anything other than a State Mile Marker would fly. State Boundaries are a different bird
Different bird? Well...............
Definitely NOT a different set of rules.
