I would link to the article, but our local paper - Alaska Dispatch is not showing the article as of today. This is from today's, Thursday, Dec 22, 2016 paper.
I hope some of this is discussed openly during our upcoming http://www.aksmc.org&apos ;">Alaska Survey and Mapping Conference
Alaska was not even a consideration when the PLSS rectangular land system was established. The original intent was to speed up the survey process by creating some uniformity in parcel sizes by allowing straight line measurements to be periodically adjusted to allow convergence as found on the surface. Alaska has much more convergence and I agree that using he PLSS Manual survey method is problematic in Alaska. PLSS was ideal for the farmland? of the Midwest, and quite a bit more work in the western mountains.
What Special Instructions have been created for Alaska?
In actual size, what does an Alaska township look like at Barrow as compared to Anchorage?
How many Base Lines have been established?
The main body of Alaska expands over 10å¡ of latitude, only California in the 48 covers the same degree of change.
I suggest they extend the current system no further and square up large areas in the existing system. Then in the new system establish sparse monumentation of higher quality. First thought is that the NE corner of every even numbered Township in an odd numbered Range and every odd number in an even Range be monumented. The corner monument to be surrounded by three tripod footing monuments so that the corner can be readily occupied by securing a tripod and using GPS.
If the Township corner cannot reasonably be occupied a reference monument may be established within 1 mile. If not it is skipped and a parcel quality monument set at the most convenient Township corner, 6 miles East or West. In this way every Township will have 2 monumented GPS corners.
A parcel to be subdivided may be established by a monument at it's NE corner, with other corners referenced to that monument and at least 3 Township monuments, 2 of which are for the Township of which it is a part.
Parcel metadata to include OPUS observation reports.
Paul in PA
Here's a link to a series of slides illustrating the proposal to bring cadastral methods into the era of modern positioning. It looks perfectly reasonable to me, given present positioning capabilities.
http://dnr.alaska.gov/commis/cacfa/documents/MeetingInformation/2016Juneau/DPPS_Surveys.pdf
What could possibly go wrong with that? It's worked so well, all those coordinates put out by the agency are perfect 🙁
Brings up all kinds of new possibilities for surveyors, when the coordinate is two miles north of where the point actually is I would usually go to the actual brass cap (silly me), but now? Do you use the coordinate? mmmmmm
Because that CGDB it's perfect!!!!!:p
Local monuments control boundaries. Departure from that is pure folly.
MightyMoe, post: 405602, member: 700 wrote: What could possibly go wrong with that? It's worked so well, all those coordinates put out by the agency are perfect
Well, the exercise amounts to simply providing the coordinates of every protracted corner in the township as well as the coordinates of various monumented points (including presumably some in the more accessible locations) by which the coordinate system may be verified. That is definitely not Rocket Science.
What can go wrong is nothing more than would be possible under the older system of monumenting just the township boundaries. That is, a surveyor who can't position some protracted corner at some definite relationship to a monumented control point miles away, won't be able to subdivide a protracted township, either. So, either way the system relies upon some minimal level of surveying competence.
Presumably the township plat includes a sufficient amount of information, such as bearings and distances between coordinated points, by which the coordinates can be verified.
thebionicman, post: 405607, member: 8136 wrote: Local monuments control boundaries. Departure from that is pure folly.
What if the coordinate is the monument.. until something physical can be placed on the ground?
I will probably be slammed for this, but it isn't really a bad idea overall.
Like previously stated, I would like to see some main CPs monumented throughout the project. The exterior boundary would need to be monumented, and all sections bounding an exterior boundary would be treated as closing, coordinates for the interior, connected to monumented exterior. If any interior corner is subsequently monumented, then it is recorded, and becomes the official corner for that location only - but it MUST be recorded. If it isn't recorded then you treat it as not existing.
The key to this whole concept would be to adopt rules that would prevent future pincushioning - then it could be doable.
As far as passing off the cost to the state or private clients... what is more expensive, going out and recovering 4, 8, or untold more section corners to monument a 40? or, compute the 4 tract corners, occupy a main CP, and place monuments in the ground - then RECORD the project.
I would not recommend this process for retracement surveys, but for original Alaska surveys, I see the merit.
thebionicman, post: 405607, member: 8136 wrote: Local monuments control boundaries. Departure from that is pure folly.
The difference is that via GPS it is possible to survey ties to monuments miles away for boundary control, instead of having to have a nomument within reach of transit and tape. Presumably, there is some mechanism in Alaska by which a map of some later survey of some protracted section in a system of townships can be recorded.
While I get the short term value I think the tradeoff is too great. The very nature of the PLSS falls apart when you perform initial surveys in a random fashion. We deal with that now, but in this case it would be the rule not the exception. They should just patent it out as metes and bounds tracts as section info will be useless.
It is a practical impossibility in most of Alaska to do the rectangulr? survey as intended on the ground.
If monuments are set as I propose at 12 mile intervals alternating, it is most practical to GPS in a new subdivision corner monument at the protracted location. A monument is then set and a GPS location survey is recorded.
It is not even neccessary to begin the record with coordinates for all or any aliquot corners. For the first subdivision in a Township a coordinate record is added to for Township monuments, aliquot corner coordinates are estasblished for pertinent or all corners,
GPS positional standards as established for these corners must be met, i.e. no cell phone and probably no RTK. As standards I suggest a monument be established by static observations to 3 Township corners, submitting OPUS observations for each and then for the established new corner. After review the survey is accepted or rejected. A corner may be accepted as it is or where it is, or may instead be only a reference monument to the actual record coordinates. A foot precision may be sufficient precision to accept the corner coordinates.
What has to be understood is, that having done this, an aliquot parcel is then forever described by a Bounds survey of coordinates/tie vectors, that are on the record. Once accepted a parcel becomes senior to subsequent parcels and the monument holds.
Once all parcels are separated all interior and North and East township line corners will be monumented. the South and West Township lines will not. Parcels along the S & W lines may be required to also set an exterior monument.
Paul in PA
Paul in PA, post: 405622, member: 236 wrote: It is a practical impossibility in most of Alaska to do the rectangulr? survey as intended on the ground.
If monuments are set as I propose at 12 mile intervals alternating, it is most practical to GPS in a new subdivision corner monument at the protracted location. A monument is then set and a GPS location survey is recorded.
It is not even neccessary to begin the record with coordinates for all or any aliquot corners. For the first subdivision in a Township a coordinate record is added to for Township monuments, aliquot corner coordinates are estasblished for pertinent or all corners,
GPS positional standards as established for these corners must be met, i.e. no cell phone and probably no RTK. As standards I suggest a monument be established by static observations to 3 Township corners, submitting OPUS observations for each and then for the established new corner. After review the survey is accepted or rejected. A corner may be accepted as it is or where it is, or may instead be only a reference monument to the actual record coordinates. A foot precision may be sufficient precision to accept the corner coordinates.
What has to be understood is, that having done this, an aliquot parcel is then forever described by a Bounds survey of coordinates/tie vectors, that are on the record. Once accepted a parcel becomes senior to subsequent parcels and the monument holds.
Once all parcels are separated all interior and North and East township line corners will be monumented. the South and West Township lines will not. Parcels along the S & W lines may be required to also set an exterior monument.
Paul in PA
While I see that as a somewhat reasonable plan, I would advocate eliminating the labeling of these tracts as 'Section anything'. With such a great departure from the rectangular method just call them what they are.
Kent McMillan, post: 405610, member: 3 wrote: Well, the exercise amounts to simply providing the coordinates of every protracted corner in the township as well as the coordinates of various monumented points (including presumably some in the more accessible locations) by which the coordinate system may be verified. That is definitely not Rocket Science.
What can go wrong is nothing more than would be possible under the older system of monumenting just the township boundaries. That is, a surveyor who can't position some protracted corner at some definite relationship to a monumented control point miles away, won't be able to subdivide a protracted township, either. So, either way the system relies upon some minimal level of surveying competence.
Presumably the township plat includes a sufficient amount of information, such as bearings and distances between coordinated points, by which the coordinates can be verified.
Been there, done it, got the tee shirt, yep it's perfect, nary an issue.;)
Can't imagine ANYTHING that will cause problems with THAT system
FrancisH would be proud.
thebionicman, post: 405617, member: 8136 wrote: While I get the short term value I think the tradeoff is too great. The very nature of the PLSS falls apart when you perform initial surveys in a random fashion.
I don't quite understand how a system of subdivision such as we're discussing can be called "random" since it represents a single system extending across a large area, all laid out as a part of the same platting operation. Given modern positioning capabilities, it's quite feasible to position things within the system with uncertainties that would be exact for nearly all practical purposes. Over time, there would be issues with the realization of the coordinate system, but as long as the permanent reference monuments were intelligently planned, that should not be that much of a problem.
Presumably, the periodic maintenance of a dozen reference monuments by the State of Alaska would be a highly manageable task. To take crustal motion into account, that maintenance could involve reobservation of the reference monuments to derive the transformation from some later datum to that originally used in the whole system. If there are active faults across the area covered by the system, the locations of the reference monuments should take that into account, obviously.
MightyMoe, post: 405633, member: 700 wrote: Been there, done it, got the tee shirt, yep it's perfect, nary an issue.
Can't imagine ANYTHING that will cause problems with THAT system
Well, I appreciate your desire not to use GPS for cadastral surveying, but I'm afraid that train left the station long ago. If what concerns you is that there would be lots of RTK users who would show up to just wing something in by whatever method seems fast at the time, what prevents exactly that from occurring in a more intensively monumented system? Nothing?
If the coordinate is the corner then every attempt to mark it is a pin cushion. The monument is a coordinate so markers can never be. Good surveyors should be able to get close though. This is not a new concept, protraction is the glory of the PLSS. Been saving tons of money for centuries.
Kent McMillan, post: 405648, member: 3 wrote: I don't quite understand how a system of subdivision such as we're discussing can be called "random" since it represents a single system extending across a large area, all laid out as a part of the same platting operation. Given modern positioning capabilities, it's quite feasible to position things within the system with uncertainties that would be exact for nearly all practical purposes. Over time, there would be issues with the realization of the coordinate system, but as long as the permanent reference monuments were intelligently planned, that should not be that much of a problem.
Presumably, the periodic maintenance of a dozen reference monuments by the State of Alaska would be a highly manageable task. To take crustal motion into account, that maintenance could involve reobservation of the reference monuments to derive the transformation from some later datum to that originally used in the whole system. If there are active faults across the area covered by the system, the locations of the reference monuments should take that into account, obviously.
The order of operations and manner of memorializing Corners gives us clear direction on resurveys and restoration. The entire system is interdependent from start to finish. If you are going to deviate from the outset, call it something different. It isn't related to the rectangular system so keeping the name is grotesquely misleading.
thebionicman, post: 405654, member: 8136 wrote: The order of operations and manner of memorializing Corners gives us clear direction on resurveys and restoration. The entire system is interdependent from start to finish. If you are going to deviate from the outset, call it something different. It isn't related to the rectangular system so keeping the name is grotesquely misleading.
Well, in what way is this really any different from any other protracted corners in a PLSS township aside from the protracted corners in the system proposed for the Alaska lands to be transferred to the State of Alaska being more definitely known and locatable?
There are other places with extensive experience with a coordinated cadastre and I don't think that the sky has collapsed upon them, yet.
LRDay, post: 405653, member: 571 wrote: If the coordinate is the corner then every attempt to mark it is a pin cushion.
Probably the better way to say that is that in a coordinated system, markers are representations or realizations of the position of the corner. All that is missing is a statute that specifies that any marker set by an authorized surveyor as represented upon a Record of Survey duly recorded that falls within a radial distance of less than ____ ft. from the coordinates of the corner as shown upon the official map shall be considered the correct position of the same corner in any legal proceeding brought in which the location of the corner is at issue.