If they need a section corner tie use the cc, it would be the SE or NE corner of 24. You need to treat it like other closing corners, accept it or move it to the line. But they are section corners
Imperial Entanglement ALERT!
I'd run your results past Dan Webb just to be on the safe side.
Loyal
YUP, PLSS is just a nice, simple, neat set of one mile squares.?ÿ Nothing could be further from the reality, at least where I work.
PLSS Surveyors will scream at the top or their lungs nothing is square in PLSS, but get mad when the tracts they are working on are not square.
?ÿ
Imperial Entanglement ALERT!
I'd run your results past Dan Webb just to be on the safe side.
Loyal
I've already looked at the patent, posted it in another thread couple weeks ago.?ÿ Mineral rights were reserved by the US.?ÿ What problem do you see here Loyal? I 've recovered intact most of the 1914 GLO survey in my area of interest.?ÿ I don't really see any issues with the boundary.
Imperial Entanglement ALERT!
I'd run your results past Dan Webb just to be on the safe side.
Loyal
You lost me on the Imperial Entanglements alert.?ÿ I see that patent as conveying several lots and aliquot parts in Secs. 13, 23 and 24 as defined by the original survey and two supplemental plats that were approved in 1916.?ÿ What am I missing?
?ÿ
Just say'n...
The BLM has a dog in this fight (should it EVER become one).
I'm sure that Leon has all of this under control (his grasp of such matters is MUCH better than most), I was simply expressing my opinion that it "might" be a good idea to run it by the BLM (just to be on the safe side).
I guess that I missed the earlier post of the Patent (me bad).
Loyal
Imperial Entanglement ALERT!
I'd run your results past Dan Webb just to be on the safe side.
Loyal
You lost me on the Imperial Entanglements alert.?ÿ I see that patent as conveying several lots and aliquot parts in Secs. 13, 23 and 24 as defined by the original survey and two supplemental plats that were approved in 1916.?ÿ What am I missing?
?ÿ
I think Loyal's point is that the patent is only for the surface rights, therefore the Feds still are owners in the land.
So any sectional surveying would need to be "the way they would do it", generally a nice math solution, although it seems that is slowly changing. Plus there are some unusual issues with how to lay out those lots.
It doesn't look like Leon is going to be getting into that so he should just be up against the usual issues with running line between corners. Without looking at the patents for the tracts you are probably running a line between federal and private owners.
Imperial Entanglement ALERT!
I'd run your results past Dan Webb just to be on the safe side.
Loyal
You lost me on the Imperial Entanglements alert.?ÿ I see that patent as conveying several lots and aliquot parts in Secs. 13, 23 and 24 as defined by the original survey and two supplemental plats that were approved in 1916.?ÿ What am I missing?
?ÿ
I think Loyal's point is that the patent is only for the surface rights, therefore the Feds still are owners in the land.
So any sectional surveying would need to be "the way they would do it", generally a nice math solution, although it seems that is slowly changing. Plus there are some unusual issues with how to lay out those lots.
It doesn't look like Leon is going to be getting into that so he should just be up against the usual issues with running line between corners. Without looking at the patents for the tracts you are probably running a line between federal and private owners.
There is not any significant occupational issue here.?ÿ The Tract/Lots boundary is fenced but the fence follows closely to the line.?ÿ Maybe a foot or two here and there but not enough to make me concerned.?ÿ I'm gong to go with the GLO line (not bind up the surface/minerals boundary).?ÿ The CC on the south side of the section is about 0.6 feet off the line.?ÿ I'm going to use the Tract line and markers but I will show the CC corner as is.?ÿ I'm not going to amend it as I don't need to for my survey.?ÿ The north CC I haven't located yet, I searched for it on the line but it's not there.?ÿ Once I got the notes it says they set a mound of stones west of the corner.?ÿ There is some stones in the fence line and the Tract line is about 3 feet west of there at this location.?ÿ Next visit I'll search east of the rocks, maybe find the CC.?ÿ If I do it will be maybe 6 feet from the line which is more than I'd expect for this survey.?ÿ This CC is about a half mile north of my survey area.
Although this survey is a little different and complicated I like these kind because the GLO markers are there.?ÿ I've never found a marker from the early 1856/57 survey in the valley and read very few notes where later GLO surveys found them (jut a few - wood post were set).?ÿ After about 1870 (GLO left Utah between 1857 and 1869) they set stones and I've been successful finding many of these in the foothills and mountains but not so many in the more human developed valley.?ÿ Many sections in the valley don't have one pedigreed corner tied back to the original GLO (lots of wild proration gone on).?ÿ The use of brass markers began about 1910 or so when the GLO went to using there own surveyors instead of contractors.?ÿ The brass corners seem to survive better, not just another rock to the lay persons.
Thanks all for the conversation, I'm going to write up the descriptions.?ÿ Great to have such a backup team available here.
I'd be inclined to refer to a preferred location as the ne corner of a lot etc?ÿ ?ÿjust my prima facy glance
I'd be inclined to refer to a preferred location as the ne corner of a lot etc?ÿ ?ÿjust my prima facy glance