I happened to see a 1967 Survey that double proportioned some corners.
He rejected some monuments set by a Surveyor in 1888 because they were single proportioned east and west. The Manual (1947 I assume) calls for double proportioning in this situation. The prevailing guidance in the 1880s was single proportioning interior corners north and south but he didn??t seem to know that.
What is different is the Township boundaries and section lines were surveyed in 1855. Then the GLO resurveyed the north boundary of the Township in 1875. They only found the NW and NE corners of the Township and proportioned all the corners in between. 1967 found the 1875 monuments.
So 1967 is double proportioning 1855 distances to 1875 monuments which seems improper to me. Going on the presumption that the 1855 notes are a true record of the survey then the 1855 true lines go to the 1855 corners which had disappeared by 1875. The 1875 section corners are about 83 chains apart so it makes a difference.
Maybe the 1888 Surveyor knew more than us.
The good news is all the surveys since then are ignoring the 1967 monuments and using the 1888 monuments.
The good news is all the surveys since then are ignoring the 1967 monuments and using the 1888 monuments.
All of them so far. Just wait.
So the habit of rejecting monuments is not a new thing...
We should require surveyors to sign the following prior to issuing a license:
I vow never to reject a monument without valid evidence meeting ir exceeding the standards established by the standard of care and courts in my jurisdiction. I further promise not to upset longstanding possession based on any mathemagicallly concocted abomination.
Offenses to result in the loss of one digit per offense, beginning on the nondominant hand, provided no hostile or legal action has commenced prior to discovery and correction.
Each offense to require completion of a 1-semester course or a Jeff Lucas seminar in boundary law.
@bill93 I'd rsther give up a finger lol
@bill93 another local surveyor soon after did a survey covering several sections for the purpose of establishing agreement lines. Soon after that the 1967 surveyor filed an amended survey so in this case I think it??s been put to rest. The County Surveyor??s note is really good:
@dave-karoly That County Surveyor NAILED IT.
As a colonial system surveyor, I'd be interested in knowing what the actual numbers are.
How far off were these guys?
This is from the re-amended Record of Survey. The heavy lines connect the section lines established decades prior:
?ÿ
As a colonial system surveyor, I'd be interested in knowing what the actual numbers are.
How far off were these guys?
Independent resurveys are not allowed according to the manual. To get around it they call them dependent and ignore evidence of establishment using improper location and excessive error theories. If the monuments were set and used as the corners they represent by the owners of the land they control the answer to the how far off question is zero.?ÿ ?ÿ
Double proportioning is justified because they measured all four directions within limits according to the official field notes. It was like they were their own inspector, did you meet limits? Why yes I did it??s right here in my field notes. The creators of the PLSS were obviously lawyers who understood the rules of evidence and legal presumptions. You have to presume they did what is in the field notes unless you have sufficient evidence to prove the contrary AND they made sure to destroy all that evidence (the field tablets and their calculations). Occasionally you might find a quarter corner 20?ø off cardinal and significantly more or less than 40 chains from the section corner which is evidence the field notes are not a true record but you can??t extrapolate that to the entire township.
in this case clutching the 1947 manual is improper because the first generation resurvey being retraced was done before double proportioning was even a thing. Also 1855 distances to 1875 reset monuments doesn??t make sense in my opinion.
So the habit of rejecting monuments is not a new thing...
We should require surveyors to sign the following prior to issuing a license:
I vow never to reject a monument without valid evidence meeting ir exceeding the standards established by the standard of care and courts in my jurisdiction. I further promise not to upset longstanding possession based on any mathemagicallly concocted abomination.
Offenses to result in the loss of one digit per offense, beginning on the nondominant hand, provided no hostile or legal action has commenced prior to discovery and correction.
Out front of my office is a quarter corner...the location of which was disputed by about half a foot by two of the most respected and prolific surveyors in the county. Some sort of pissing contest, I guess. My holding the physical monument for the location of our office property means I have to reject the records and history of my own firm...I wish they were both here so I could plead with them to "just get along".