Kent McMillan, post: 405655, member: 3 wrote: 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.
The point isn't that it's not possible. The point is it's completely different than establishing corners according to the manual. Why try to apply the PLSS to something that bears NO relationship to it?
The manual has ways of dealing with Tracts not surveyed in the normal manner. They aren't called Sections.
The existing Federal statutes require that appropriate corners be represented as having been monumented prior to patent. That language would have to be updated.
thebionicman, post: 405659, member: 8136 wrote: The point isn't that it's not possible. The point is it's completely different than establishing corners according to the manual. Why try to apply the PLSS to something that bears NO relationship to it?
The manual has ways of dealing with Tracts not surveyed in the normal manner. They aren't called Sections.
Well, the PLSS is at its root an easy method for describing land according to a coordinate system of sorts as presented upon a map and other records of the operations that produced the map, right? That is exactly how the proposed form of the coordinated township plats could be described.
All of the rest of the manual mainly appears to deal with methods of accomodating errors in the original survey by impersonal-appearing methods, both for replacement of markers and for the establishment of new markers at corners that preveiously were protracted. In the case of a modern coordinated township plat where the uncertainties in the underlying coordinate system are much smaller than the ordinary errors of surveyors working in the township, the elaborate instructions of the manual reduce to those of acceptable standards of measuring and positioning.
LRDay, post: 405653, member: 571 wrote: 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.
I would argue that it's been saving tons of money for the Feds by effectively privatizing and transferring the expense of locating those boundaries on the ground to the end user, in this case the State, who will in turn pass that expense on to the entry man or business entity, who will in turn find the lowest bidding surveyor to locate those boundaries with predictable results. Coordinates are time dependent and without any evidence on the ground a retracing surveyor a hundred years from now isn't going to have much to go on. I've worked with protracted townships here extensively in the past. It's common to have a US Survey or even a patented township plat GP's miles off. Once it's been patented to the State, the BLM wipes their hands clean and will tell you, "not our problem, it's yours now". It's short cutting, plain and simple, and leaving the end user to untangle the mess that follows down the road.
Kent McMillan, post: 405649, member: 3 wrote: 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?
Coordinates of course didn't exist prior to GPS.
So I suppose this is the best way.
Like I say, can't imagine anything going wrong with this system.
Link to article...
Williwaw, post: 405667, member: 7066 wrote: It's common to have a US Survey or even a patented township plat GP's miles off.
Aren't you mixing Grapefruit and Pomegranates, though, if you're suggesting that a modern plat prepared by a competent surveyor giving the precise coordinates in some standard datum would be in great error? The coordinated plat gives the positions of monuments from which the coordinate system can be reconstructed as necessary, and I'd think that it would be smart to provide coordinates of other control points that are both stable and GPSable, and as readily accessible as possible.
Kent McMillan, post: 405666, member: 3 wrote: Well, the PLSS is at its root an easy method for describing land according to a coordinate system of sorts as presented upon a map and other records of the operations that produced the map, right? That is exactly how the proposed form of the coordinated township plats could be described.
All of the rest of the manual mainly appears to deal with methods of accomodating errors in the original survey by impersonal-appearing methods, both for replacement of markers and for the establishment of new markers at corners that preveiously were protracted. In the case of a modern coordinated township plat where the uncertainties in the underlying coordinate system are much smaller than the ordinary errors of surveyors working in the township, the elaborate instructions of the manual reduce to those of acceptable standards of measuring and positioning.
I'm quite certain that every generation of measurement experts has had these very thoughts. If you attempt to reduce the Manual (and the entirety of boundary law arising from its use) to a few paragraphs you might even believe it.
I have no doubt the proposed system can be made to work. My issue is it creates a different type of fabric and needs it's own set of rules (and laws). It is ludicrous to use the same terms, thereby misleading the public, the courts and the less educated in our Profession.
Kent McMillan, post: 405671, member: 3 wrote: Aren't you mixing Grapefruit and Pomegranates, though, if you're suggesting that a modern plat prepared by a competent surveyor giving the precise coordinates in some standard datum would be in great error? The coordinated plat gives the positions of monuments from which the coordinate system can be reconstructed as necessary, and I'd think that it would be smart to provide coordinates of other control points that are both stable and GPSable, and as readily accessible as possible.
Scattered across this vast State are many older surveys done before the advent of GPS with only loose ties at best or lat/longs calculated by solar observations. Typically the latitudes are close but longitudes can be way off. I've seen BLM township plats done as late as the '70's that contain significant errors in the lat/long for the SE corner of the township, which is typically the controlling coordinates for performing a protraction. In a sense your correct in your analogy of mixing Grapefruit and Pomegranates in the sense what they are proposing is exactly that, mixing less than perfect surveys done pre GPS over the last hundred years, with mathematically perfect protractions and Precise Point Positioning and leaving no evidence behind for others to follow, other than a list of coordinates of course. I called BLM about that error on the township plat and was told that the land has been patented and it's not their problem, but now what if that record coordinate becomes the controlling element of a township because there were no monuments set that would provide better evidence of the true location? Make fruit salad I guess.
I understand where the BLM and the state.are coming from. As long as the land is federal I would say the BLM can and will do whatever they want. A couple questions:
1) if the corners are coordinates will a surveyor be needed to lay out the first line as opposed to the entryman establishing the line as best they can between BLM monuments? If so, That "should" be a good thing.
2) will the entryman use there own methods to stake coordinates much the same as they did when only the 8 exterior corners existed?
One thing is for sure. Either way there will still be conflicts down the road between the theorized position and positions that have been established.
Williwaw, post: 405675, member: 7066 wrote: Scattered across this vast State are many older surveys done before the advent of GPS with only loose ties at best or lat/longs calculated by solar observations. Typically the latitudes are close but longitudes can be way off. I've seen BLM township plats done as late as the '70's that contain significant errors in the lat/long for the SE corner of the township, which is typically the controlling coordinates for performing a protraction. In a sense your correct in your analogy of mixing Grapefruit and Pomegranates in the sense what they are proposing is exactly that, mixing less than perfect surveys done pre GPS over the last hundred years, with mathematically perfect protractions and Precise Point Positioning and leaving no evidence behind for others to follow, other than a list of coordinates of course. I called BLM about that error on the township plat and was told that the land has been patented and it's not their problem, but now what if that record coordinate becomes the controlling element of a township because there were no monuments set that would provide better evidence of the true location? Make fruit salad I guess.
Actually, there are brand new ones that have issues with lat/longs. GPS and all. But,,,,Brave New World,,,,,, what can go wrong? Hey, but don't listen to me, it's not like I haven't seen anything.
thebionicman, post: 405673, member: 8136 wrote: I have no doubt the proposed system can be made to work. My issue is it creates a different type of fabric and needs it's own set of rules (and laws). It is ludicrous to use the same terms, thereby misleading the public, the courts and the less educated in our Profession.
So, you're mostly worried that folks who think that they've purchased a tract of land with corners having known coordinates will feel cheated to discover that any three competent surveyors will all agree as to the locations of its corners? Somehow, Or is the problem that members of the public will be able to plug in the coordinates of tract corners and navigate to within a few feet of them using recreational-grade handheld receivers?
As for worrying that surveyors won't be able to figure out how to accurately mark the positions of tract corners when necessary, do you think that these same individuals are able to locate protracted corners that already exist and with perfect skill? It just seems setting expectations too low that land surveyors should not possess certain minimum skills and knowledge beyond those that existed in 1890.
MightyMoe, post: 405678, member: 700 wrote: Actually, there are brand new ones that have issues with lat/longs. GPS and all. But,,,,Brave New World,,,,,, what can go wrong? Hey, but don't listen to me, it's not like I haven't seen anything.
Essentially, you seem to be arguing that the efficiencies of modern positioning technology shouldn't be used because some of the surveyors you know are unable to understand how to use it.
My solution to that would be to annotate the coordinated township plat with bearings and distances so that Larry Curly & Associates can go ahead and survey for miles from some monumented control point to the corner in question. It would be a great opportunity to thin the herd.
Williwaw, post: 405675, member: 7066 wrote: In a sense your correct in your analogy of mixing Grapefruit and Pomegranates in the sense what they are proposing is exactly that, mixing less than perfect surveys done pre GPS over the last hundred years, with mathematically perfect protractions and Precise Point Positioning and leaving no evidence behind for others to follow, other than a list of coordinates of course.
I don't think that is what is being proposed at all. At least the specimen plat that appears in the presentation that I linked above clearly shows monuments set that would allow the coordinate system to be readily re-established. If there are a lot of surveyors who are worried about their abilities to determine the relative positions of things miles apart, considering that it's Alaska, you could always lobby for looser standards, say submeter. The downside to that, of course, would be that Joe Landowner will probably soon be able to do that well with an El Cheapo handheld receiver. So it probably would be a good idea to argue in favor of somewhat better positional accuracy standards.
Williwaw, post: 405667, member: 7066 wrote: I would argue that it's been saving tons of money for the Feds by effectively privatizing and transferring the expense of locating those boundaries on the ground to the end user, in this case the State, who will in turn pass that expense on to the entry man or business entity, who will in turn find the lowest bidding surveyor to locate those boundaries with predictable results. Coordinates are time dependent and without any evidence on the ground a retracing surveyor a hundred years from now isn't going to have much to go on. I've worked with protracted townships here extensively in the past. It's common to have a US Survey or even a patented township plat GP's miles off. Once it's been patented to the State, the BLM wipes their hands clean and will tell you, "not our problem, it's yours now". It's short cutting, plain and simple, and leaving the end user to untangle the mess that follows down the road.
I agree with that, it saves the feds money, every one else pays from then on. So, what else is new?
Kent McMillan, post: 405679, member: 3 wrote: So, you're mostly worried that folks who think that they've purchased a tract of land with corners having known coordinates will feel cheated to discover that any three competent surveyors will all agree as to the locations of its corners? Somehow, Or is the problem that members of the public will be able to plug in the coordinates of tract corners and navigate to within a few feet of them using recreational-grade handheld receivers?
As for worrying that surveyors won't be able to figure out how to accurately mark the positions of tract corners when necessary, do you think that these same individuals are able to locate protracted corners that already exist and with perfect skill? It just seems setting expectations too low that land surveyors should not possess certain minimum skills and knowledge beyond those that existed in 1890.
The location of coordinates on the ground is not the same thing as establishing PLSS Corners. That doesn't mean they aren't both possible or valid. They are different.
As for the public, you can't be serious.
My issue with Surveyors isn't completely tied to incompetence ( though that is a valid concern). We are also bound by laws that require us to use the plan laid out in the manual. Our decisions are weighed by the Courts using laws developed from that same manual.
In simplest terms, if you are going to do something different, call it something different. I can explain it to you all day long. Unfortunately I can't understand it for you.
Merry Christmas, Tom
Williwaw, post: 405667, member: 7066 wrote: I would argue that it's been saving tons of money for the Feds by effectively privatizing and transferring the expense of locating those boundaries on the ground to the end user,
Except wasn't the "fully monumented" option just placing the section corners on the township lines? I didn't get the idea that the Federal goverment was at all obligated to fully monument every section and quarter corner just to turn lands over to the State of Alaska. Assuming that there is no such obligation, then the question is the strictly practical one of what method of platting the lands would find the right balance between cost and performance, i.e. just monuments on the township exteriors at intervals of two miles or a fully coordinated township with monuments on the exterior of the whole contiguous mass of townships for the purpose of showing thse boundaries as well as of proof of the coordinate system on the ground.
thebionicman, post: 405692, member: 8136 wrote: The location of coordinates on the ground is not the same thing as establishing PLSS Corners.
Well, if the subdivision of townships is to be done by a prescribed method and the position of every corner on the township exterior is accurately known and no corners have previously been established in the interior of the township, the exercise takes on a character that will yield exactly one position for every subdivision corner in the township won't it? That is analogous to the proposal for Alaska presented by the link below:
http://dnr.alaska.gov/commis/cacfa/documents/MeetingInformation/2016Juneau/DPPS_Surveys.pdf
Kent McMillan, post: 405694, member: 3 wrote: Except wasn't the "fully monumented" option just placing the section corners on the township lines? I didn't get the idea that the Federal goverment was at all obligated to fully monument every section and quarter corner just to turn lands over to the State of Alaska. Assuming that there is no such obligation, then the question is the strictly practical one of what method of platting the lands would find the right balance between cost and performance, i.e. just monuments on the township exteriors at intervals of two limes or a fully coordinated township with monuments on the exterior of the whole contiguous mass of townships for the purpose of showing thse boundaries as well as of proof of the coordinate system on the ground.
I believe that was the compromise reached and outlined in a Memorandum of Understanding between the State and BLM in 1973 as to what constituted adequately surveyed lands for the purpose of patent. BLM wants to tear it up and State wants to hold them to it. The outstanding balance of lands selected for conveyance by the State under the Equal Footing Doctrine are TA'd, Tentatively Approved, or 'virtually' patented, but still held in trust by the Feds until 'surveyed' status has been achieved. It's a bit of a sore spot being a resource driven economy with much of the State locked up by the Feds.
Williwaw, post: 405697, member: 7066 wrote: I believe that was the compromise reached and outlined in a Memorandum of Understanding between the State and BLM in 1973 as to what constituted adequately surveyed lands for the purpose of patent. BLM wants to tear it up and State wants to hold them to it. The outstanding balance of lands selected for conveyance by the State under the Equal Footing Doctrine are TA'd, Tentatively Approved, or 'virtually' patented, but still held in trust by the Feds until 'surveyed' status has been achieved. It's a bit of a sore spot being a resource driven economy with much of the State locked up by the Feds.
Is this what the federal statute provides as to necessary surveys?
