I have read some older deeds that describe a course and distance, then, in parenthesis (B.S. N 22° 17' W). Not all of the calls have these "B.S." bearings and they don't appear to have any correlation with the description. You would assume they mean "Back Sight", but, back sight to what?
Thanking you in advance for you input!
Just a wild guess...but:
Do they appear to be similar to the preceding course (+180°). If so, you might be seeing the local magnetic variation being detailed.
Other than that possibility, I have no clue.
Loyal
"By Scale"? maybe?
"Bearing Source"
I seem to recall seeing something similar when dealing with deflections and Azimuths.B-)
It might not hurt to post the actual description or a portion of it verbatum with the questionable parenthetical bearing included. Maybe seeing it in full context might help some of the guys here to figure out what it might mean. (ie are the differences in bearing somewhat consistent? is it in generally the opposite direction or the same quadrant, or randomly different?, what other common traits do those calls have that include the BS bearing?)
I'll try to locate the deed and post it.
> I'll try to locate the deed and post it.
That would be good. Mark Chain is right that a little context will give us more to go on.
I'll throw out a WAG anyway: could it be referring to an earlier record?
Don
Edit. Well, there it is and I don't have a clue.
It might have something to do with the back sight's relationship to Magnetic North, but I am only guessing.
I have run into those references in deeds in New York as well. It has always been my interpretation that the lines were being run by compass (staff or compass on transit) as part of the original surveys and that they were back siting their previous station and were observing a slight variation from their previous foresite in the opposition direction. i.e. Course into the corner was N 22 W, when they go to next courses of N 68 E BS S 22 13 E. So..did they just read a different magnetic bearing? or were they actually turning an angle?
It appears to be a sideshot taken to a corner that is not a part of the parcel being described, but rather a reference tie for positioning the monument in the future.
:good: Makes perfect sense for compass work, since the bearings I read were only slightly different from reciprocal - a little local magnetic attraction. He was recording more information to help retracement.
I think that's the right answer. It's a compass survey and they are recording the back bearing as well. It does help to know if there was some kind of local attraction throwing the compass off.
I tend to agree. The example was hard for me to read. it looked like they spelled out "Back sight" once, then used the abbreviation B.S. after that. I may be wrong, but it looks like there are things like "Back sight 85º W." (without a north or south prefix) and "b.s. 0 ¼º W." Would that be NW or SW? once appears to be thence S. 0¼ deg. W. (B.S. 0¼ deg. W.) Would/should that be NE Backsight? Why does doesn't it give both the prefix and suffix quadrant info. I also wonder how those compasses read. Sometimes it's a fractional degree, and other times it is for instance. 0 deg. 10 min. (Unless those are fractional minutes - again, I can't read the posted example very well).
But I am no help. I have more questions than answers. Those old New England metes-and-bounds descriptions are always an interesting read. I have often contended in the past that we also have m & b descriptions in the PLSS states. But reading some of the old colonial descriptions, I sure see why a lot of the colonial state's surveyors say that retracing their surveys is a lot more complicated. I have read one that had around 10 courses along a river with bearings only. You couldn't tell how far up the river they ran unless you figured out some of the bounds they are calling to or run the description backwards to where it gets to the river.
Okay, enough rambling.
>"b.s. 0 ¼º W." Would that be NW or SW?
Could just be an expression of the difference in the variation between what was read when the bearing was taken the first time. In other words the back sight may have been 0 ¼º W different from what was expected based on the foresight.
But I'm just guessing.
> >"b.s. 0 ¼º W." Would that be NW or SW?
>
> Could just be an expression of the difference in the variation between what was read when the bearing was taken the first time. In other words the back sight may have been 0 ¼º W different from what was expected based on the foresight.
>
> But I'm just guessing.
As good of a guess as I can think of. It could sure get confusing that way, over just reading the backsight bearing and the foresight bearing (just reading what you see).
[sarcasm]Maybe those were bearings that the scrivener was just guessing at because he couldn't read the party chief's notes, and he's just advising the reader of the quality of those particular calls.[/sarcasm]
