There are a lot of GLO stones in my neck of the woods.?ÿ Lately I've come across a few that have been disturbed, and am wondering what best practices others use when shooting them.?ÿ As an example, the attached 1/4 corner monument has been cracked in half and moved by who knows how much horizontally, and is not in its original orientation either.?ÿ I reassembled the top to the bottom and picked a point roughly above the centroid to shoot.
Even when these stone aren't disturbed, where to shoot them seems rather subjective.?ÿ I don't have my Manual of Surveying Instructions handy, but is there ever any circumstance where it is appropriate for a regular surveyor to replace the stone with a more modern monument?
While I'm asking, the field notes end with <illegible> impracticable.?ÿ Does anyone know what word precedes the impracticable?
Thank you.
?ÿ
Any hope of deciphering that word probably lies in reading over the rest of the notes in the same handwriting and trying to find other instances of similar notes that are more legible.?ÿ
Great subject! And yes indeed, there are ??circumstances where it is appropriate for a regular surveyor to replace the stone with a more modern monument?.?ÿ You will get a lot of replies on this one.?ÿ The word that precedes the impracticable in the field notes is pits.?ÿ Pits were one of the called for methods of marking corners in the PLSS.?ÿ I see here as your photograph reveals, it would be ??impractical? to attempt to dig pits on the solid rock beneath this corner.
I agree with @norman-oklahoma. Start looking for similar penstrokes.
Looks like it could be Pit (or Pits) impracticable.
Depends on where you're at, but digging pits and mounding the dirt up around a physical marker was SOP in some regions. Ground may be too hard and it was easier to mound stones?
Set volcanic stone 14x 10x 6 ?ÿ10 in. in ground for1/4 sec corner to secs 15 & 22, marked1/4 S on north face and raise a mound of stone 3 ft across, 2 ?« feet high, N. of corner, pits impracticable. ?ÿ
Yes, sir.?ÿ Pits, it is.?ÿ They would be impracticable in such a location.?ÿ Most of our corners were labeled as being stake and pits.?ÿ Still, there were many stones to search out.?ÿ Some are still being recovered for the first time since 1865 when they were placed.?ÿ I had a back hoe operator almost get ill because he accidentally knocked off about the top eight inches of a well-set stone.?ÿ Left a nearly flat surface.?ÿ Shot the center of that and took the top with me.?ÿ Described what happened in the official corner report.
BTW, the stone is the monument.?ÿ There is no single microscopic location on the stone that is ultimately superior to all other microscopic locations.?ÿ Do what you believe to be correct, document that and roll on to the next monument you need.?ÿ You do not need to hold a prayer vigil over the stone or anything else to bestow holiness upon it.
?ÿ
Note on the handwriting the word "set" has no crossingline whatsoever.?ÿ In the same line, the word "stone" has one but it is far to the right of the "t".?ÿ Pits has a dot far to the right that was supposed to be the crossingline.
?ÿ
Your best estimate; as to where a disturbed stone was, originally, is better than any proportioned position. Be sure to weigh in all of the available evidence, before you make your final decision.?ÿ
Jerry Penry would locate, then tie out the stone; dig down deep enough to set a monument over it; and put it back; then set a new monument over it.?ÿ
Generally, if you're looking for a point on the stone to tie; use the high point.
?ÿ
I sure miss that guys posts; I hope he's doing ok...
I??d locate what looks like center to me and move on. Stones and stone piles were used often before boundary started to get so precise. Shoot, surveyors of two generations ago would look at us funny nowadays as we??re bumping the pin around 0.05?? for a property corner. Haha?ÿ
I don't have my Manual of Surveying Instructions handy, but is there ever any circumstance where it is appropriate for a regular surveyor to replace the stone with a more modern monument?
I've yet to find a GLO stone so I haven't had to do it yet, but I believe it's required in my state that all monuments are updated to something magnetically detectable.?ÿ And it's not like you throw away the stone; even if you set a pin you keep the stone there too.
The most important issue BY FAR when setting a bar next to a stone is to clarify whether the center of th stone or the bar is the true location of the corner when filing corner reports and so designating on the survey drawing.?ÿ Too many times we have discovered a bar at the location cited on the survey drawing but the stone has not been disturbed from where it was found by us several years earlier.?ÿ That means there are two locations in the official corner reports.?ÿ THAT IS BAD SURVEYING.
Set two or more bars around the stone with the tops lower than the top of stone by several inches to ensure future surveyors will get a magnetic signal or two or three to lead them to the stone.
If the stone is in poor condition it's time to set a new monument and bury the stone alongside. That being said you've got some decisions to make concerning that one. It doesn't look set (was it marked?) anymore and it's in the middle of the stone mound. The notes state a mound of stone north of the monument which means all the stones should be sitting north of the monument as an accessory and the stone planted in the ground along the south side of the mound. Since it's just sitting there unset you might decide it was pulled out and placed near the center of the mound. It also could be that the stone was at that spot and the mound was reconfigured around the stone. Usually, if the stone is placed in the mound they would state that or not say where the mound was constructed which they clearly did in those notes. I would always like to know the way the local crews normally did it. If you have others like that one I would consider they didn't really do what the notes say.
For some jobs I would declare that stone to be disturbed and then decide if I set one on the south side of the pile (often deconstructing the pile will show where it originally was built) or at the stone if the mound looks disturbed. You can also replant the stone in the ground like it should be, but now it looks like anyone giving it the slightest push will tip it over.?ÿ
There are a lot of GLO stones in my neck of the woods.?ÿ Lately I've come across a few that have been disturbed, and am wondering what best practices others use when shooting them.?ÿ As an example, the attached 1/4 corner monument has been cracked in half and moved by who knows how much horizontally, and is not in its original orientation either.?ÿ I reassembled the top to the bottom and picked a point roughly above the centroid to shoot.
Even when these stone aren't disturbed, where to shoot them seems rather subjective.?ÿ I don't have my Manual of Surveying Instructions handy, but is there ever any circumstance where it is appropriate for a regular surveyor to replace the stone with a more modern monument?
While I'm asking, the field notes end with <illegible> impracticable.?ÿ Does anyone know what word precedes the impracticable?
Thank you.
?ÿ
Pits Impracticable?ÿ
?ÿ
I did find the marked face, but struggled to determine the correct orientation of markings.?ÿ See attached.
?ÿ
I did find the marked face, but struggled to determine the correct orientation of markings.?ÿ See attached.
You've clearly found a deteriorating original stone, the corner needs a new monument and that one buried alongside. Where you place it depends on what you've found on the ground, under the stone's found position, possibly south of the stone mound.?ÿ
?ÿThe stone is about to turn into three smaller ones and it will become more and more difficult to use as a monument.?ÿ
?ÿ
In one case from about 70 years ago.?ÿ The County Surveyor recovered a limestone that was splitting at the top.?ÿ He slipped a horseshoe over the stone, which prevented further movement.?ÿ Also, became a handy metal signal to follow to the stone.