College surveying curriculum

Ain't the way I learned from college. Did you ask these guys if they used the BLM Manual for a textbook?

LRDay, post: 340052, member: 571 wrote: Ain't the way I learned from college. Did you ask these guys if they used the BLM Manual for a textbook?

No, I didn't ask, just curious, this has taken about a decade of time, I figured the two engineers were remembering something from a class that was a quick overview.

My guess, they are not understanding the details.

If you think about it, if you have a perfect square, and you divide the exterior by 1/16th, and connect the opposing 1/16th points, you should get the same results as if you do the c-1/4 then break it down by the manual. Trouble is as we all know we never work on a plane with perfect squares, so the results are different than with a perfect geometric figure.

Iit is logical to anyone who has never actually done field survey work (to my mind).

Tom Adams, post: 340060, member: 7285 wrote: My guess, they are not understanding the details.

If you think about it, if you have a perfect square, and you divide the exterior by 1/16th, and connect the opposing 1/16th points, you should get the same results as if you do the c-1/4 then break it down by the manual. Trouble is as we all know we never work on a plane with perfect squares, so the results are different than with a perfect geometric figure.

Iit is logical to anyone who has never actually done field survey work (to my mind).

Yeah, that's what I think, but never having taken a college surveying class, I have no reference.

The two engineers argued about it, and both of them really didn't understand how to handle closing sections on a standard line. They wanted to prorate the 1/16ths from the intersection points.

They also wanted references to "prove" I was right, as if during the work day I'm dropping everything to look up basic concepts. 🙁

Sometimes you have to be the authority. B-)

I would tell you either way gets you close enough to "start" looking for the original monumentation. Other than that if you ACTUALLY need to break down the section you need to find the rules for your area when it was originally surveyed. The current BLM manual has the current rules.

Here is a good resource:

http://www.amazon.com/Land-Survey-Systems-John-McEntyre/dp/0471024929

What's a section?

Tommy Young, post: 340098, member: 703 wrote: What's a section?

I don't know, but apparently they're unreliable because they're always breaking down.

Based on what I see on this site, it appears to be a Land System that is as confusing as Metes and Bounds.

Mike Falk, post: 340074, member: 442 wrote: I would tell you either way gets you close enough to "start" looking for the original monumentation. Other than that if you ACTUALLY need to break down the section you need to find the rules for your area when it was originally surveyed. The current BLM manual has the current rules.

Here is a good resource:

http://www.amazon.com/Land-Survey-Systems-John-McEntyre/dp/0471024929

Think I've had that one since the late 70's.

As far as rules for the area, these were all new BLM dependent resurveys, thousands of them in the great basin resurveys of the 80's-2000's partly started by the court case which the late great Paul Reid was involved with.

Universally, the Sections have been treated by the BLM as "virgin" sections, non-withstanding the mountains of evidence to the contrary.

So I was allowing these guys to "breakdown" these sections as shown on the new BLM plats, in so doing any interior evidence is completely ignored.

I haven't seen one yet where interior control is used, the next one I see will be the first.:'(
Although, because of this issue there are some new plats showing very odd lotting.

I've had title people calling me, trying to make sense out of them.:-(

Moe,

I can say the method your engineers and graduate student are using is not how I learned.

My experience being based on the last 10 years of instruction under the PLS I work for, and having taken PLS courses from Dennis Mouland through UW within the last few years for my degree.

Bfarmer, post: 340133, member: 7960 wrote: Moe,

I can say the method your engineers and graduate student are using is not how I learned.

My experience being based on the last 10 years of instruction under the PLS I work for, and having taken PLS courses from Dennis Mouland through UW within the last few years for my degree.

That's good to hear, I know that Dennis wouldn't teach it that way, he is really good and interesting, his class about what the manual doesn't say is very good.

Tommy Young, post: 340098, member: 703 wrote: What's a section?

We had Townships and Sections in high school. Don't remember if it was Government or History class. We were told the center Section was sold to pay for the new school.

mark calhoun, post: 340167, member: 10088 wrote: We were told the center Section was sold to pay for the new school.

We were told you just turn 90 and measure 1320'...easy peasy 😀

Longtime SurveyConnect'ers should check out the Customer Review on Mike's link.

I think this may be a case where what was taught in college and what they learned was two different things? :pinch:
I am curious what colleges they went to? I am sure their professor could clear it up.

I could see it happening from the non-surveying "engineering" (assuming civil) students because maybe the prof was teaching outside his abilities? It would be a very short lesson on the PLSS in that case.

Plus it is hard for colleges to find qualified professors because they want them to have Doctorates or a Master's degrees at least. Which I see as an argument for requiring a degree in order to get a license, my opinion I know.

RIP Jobo.

I used McIntyre's book in 1982 when I audited a land surveying course. I was afraid to take it for credit because it was a "just because I want to" course that didn't apply to my major, and I had serious homework in other courses plus a thesis to do. As it turned out, I did all the surveying homework anyway because it was more fun and passed the quizzes (but skipped the final). I re-ran some of those problems more recently when I was writing my least squares program. In recent years I also learned state plane coordinates from his book.

I don't disagree (sorry for the double-neg. I agree) that the rules (or instructions) that were in effect at the time of the original survey apply to the particular section you are retracing. But, to me, more importantly, for retracement you need to get the original GLO survey notes. The original survey is considered to be without error whether they properly followed the "rules" at the time or not.

Not sure on breaking down the section now that it is in private ownership. If you are breaking it down to 1/16ths for the first time, I would think you would use the current instructions. If you are retracing an older breakdown, you need the instructions from the time it was "broke down" to retrace the section breakdown...but, and again, more importantly you need to follow the footsteps of the "original" beaker-downer.

This is an interesting situation, there is no interior sectional control that I've ever seen used in the basin resurveys, probably 5000 sections thereabouts.

Each section has a new plat and a "perfect" breakdown with new lots and acreages, so I would let the boys draw the lines after we had retraced the exterior then put in the interior lines, they were drawing a straight line from 1/16 to 1/16 along the exterior lines.

Of course this didn't work very well.

Sections that were done by the "3 mile method" were subdivided by the GLO by running lines east-west across the section from 1/16th to 1/16th corner, and from E1/4 corner to W1/4 corner (ie/ 3 extra miles). 3 mile sections are common in Oklahoma. Could be your friends are thinking of those and getting confused.