Somebody pass the popcorn already!:rofl:
We're all out of popcorn. How about some Milk Duds or Raisinettes?
Milk Duds will be just fine, thank you.
Gene Kooper, post: 440308, member: 9850 wrote: If the the cedar stake was the corner, then this thread is NOT an example of "Finding the Center of an 1875 Rock Mound".
Well, considering that the call I believe I mentioned that Mr. Cambell gave for the corner was "a Stone mound from which two Spanish Oaks brs. N 28 E 16 vrs", the remains of the cedar stake are best understood as something outside the record that had probably been driven to mark where the stone mound was to be built. The remains of the cedar stake were an interesting confirmation of how accurately a person can determine the point originally marked by a rock mound 2.7 ft. in diameter as long as the mound is fairly intact. If the demonstration was lost on you, I'm afraid this won't be a first. :>
In Colorado, we would likely encounter one stone mound, and 3 or 4 cedar stakes positioned randomly of varying ages and degree of decay, accompanied by a land survey plat clearly designating which of the cedar stakes represented superior measurements (or, most recently set), and the relative location of the other cedar stakes representing inferior measurements (or, oldest set).
Warren,
I presume that you are speaking of original wood posts (usually 4"x4") that were occasionally set during the rectangular contract surveys within Grand County. I say this as there are few opportunities in Grand County to retrace a mineral survey. By my count there are only 114 mineral surveys in Grand County with only a few being monumented with wood posts. I'd love to see some photos of your examples where several "cedar stakes" mark one corner (esp. if there are multiple tacks in any of them) as I know you have collected several photos of pin cushioned corners over the years for your presentations.
The situation that you describe is not uncommon in counties that lie within the Colorado Mineral Belt. I've seen several instances of multiple wood posts within the vicinity of a mineral survey corner. A surveyor with a modicum of specialized knowledge in mineral surveys usually has no trouble sorting out the various posts. The extraneous "stakes" almost always are substantial posts set by mining claimants to mark the boundaries of their nearby unpatented mining claims. As miners are not surveyors, the posts are often placed haphazardly.
Back in 2010, I posted on the old board a Land Survey Plat where I found a stone mound and rotted remains of a wood post that marked the corner of a mineral survey. Nearby were two other wood posts, both fallen over. I accepted the one that matched the record dimensions and I clearly showed the positions of the other posts on my plat. Near the stone mound with rotted post that I accepted, was a tree that had been blown down. I did the field work the year before when Dave Karoly came out for a visit. Under the tree we found what looked like an old wood post. Dave helped with moving the tree and we discovered a 4"x5" inch post. I packed out the post and that night after cleaning it up found scribing (mineral survey number and corner number) that confirmed it was the original mineral survey corner post set in 1887. At some time in the past it had fallen over and covered by the tree, which preserved the scribe marks.
[SARCASM]When I posted the plat, the only comment Kent had was with regard to a standard note I had placed on the plat. No mention at all about my corner perpetuation. Perhaps you can explain to Kent that our State Appeals Court ruled that a surveyor's liability is limited only if the below text is placed on the plat. I didn't have any luck in explaining it to him back then. Perhaps you will have better luck now.[/SARCASM]
Notice: According to Colorado law, you must commence any legal action based upon any defect in this survey within three years after you first discover such defect. In no event may any action based upon any defect in this survey be commenced more than ten years from the date of the certification shown hereon.
A narrative aside for paden: I carefully excavated the soil around the wood post remains to expose it and then drove a No. 6 rebar through the center of the rotted remains as I took that to be the best available evidence for the original corner position. I then tied the rebar with cap in to my survey and found it to be 0.15 ft. off line from the line of a senior mineral survey. Please note that I did not set a second rebar and cap 0.15 ft. away on the senior line.
At least here in Colorado, we do NOT accept the following as being the best available evidence marking the corner. The preliminary corner position was determined by accepting the center of the rotted remains of a wood post, with the final position being tapped over to be exactly on an instrument line between the two senior corners (the term "exactly" is defined from a Star*Net analysis showing the reasonable uncertainty of the new pin being on the senior line is within +/- 5 mm)! 😉
Kent McMillan, post: 440331, member: 3 wrote: Well, considering that the call I believe I mentioned that Mr. Cambell gave for the corner was "a Stone mound from which two Spanish Oaks brs. N 28 E 16 vrs", the remains of the cedar stake are best understood as something outside the record that had probably been driven to mark where the stone mound was to be built. The remains of the cedar stake were an interesting confirmation of how accurately a person can determine the point originally marked by a rock mound 2.7 ft. in diameter as long as the mound is fairly intact. If the demonstration was lost on you, I'm afraid this won't be a first. :>
No Kent the "demonstration was not lost" on me. You stated in minute detail that you prefer to reestablish the position of an original corner based the stone mound and bearing tree accessories rather than the rotted remains of the actual corner. The stone mound was circular in form and radiated out from the centroid, which is approx. where the cedar stake was. I guess you didn't see a need that day to bring the tile probe with you to see if there was a "soft spot" in the middle of the mound or to carefully look for the remains of a stake before getting out your trusty drill. The part of your demonstration (and illogic) that was lost on my is why you pulled out the cedar stake remains and discarded it! I find it facinating that you would hold corner accessories over a cedar stake set to mark the corner (imperative mood).
[SARCASM]But, hey I'm not licensed in Texas, and fortunately you are not licensed in Colorado, so I won't worry about having to clean up any of your tidy corner restorations here.[/SARCASM]
Gene Kooper, post: 440381, member: 9850 wrote: No Kent the "demonstration was not lost" on me. You stated in minute detail that you prefer to reestablish the position of an original corner based the stone mound and bearing tree accessories rather than the rotted remains of the actual corner. The stone mound was circular in form and radiated out from the centroid, which is approx. where the cedar stake was. I guess you didn't see a need that day to bring the tile probe with you to see if there was a "soft spot" in the middle of the mound or to carefully look for the remains of a stake before getting out your trusty drill. The part of your demonstration (and illogic) that was lost on my is why you pulled out the cedar stake remains and discarded it! I find it facinating that you would hold corner accessories over a cedar stake set to mark the corner (imperative mood).
[SARCASM]But, hey I'm not licensed in Texas, and fortunately you are not licensed in Colorado, so I won't worry about having to clean up any of your tidy corner restorations here.[/SARCASM]
Correct me if I am wrong, but don't the bearing trees, the stone mound, and the cedar stake all carry the same weight in the "dignity of calls"? all being artificial.
Edit: But the stake is not called for so...
Gene Kooper, post: 440381, member: 9850 wrote: No Kent the "demonstration was not lost" on me. You stated in minute detail that you prefer to reestablish the position of an original corner based the stone mound and bearing tree accessories rather than the rotted remains of the actual corner. The stone mound was circular in form and radiated out from the centroid, which is approx. where the cedar stake was. I guess you didn't see a need that day to bring the tile probe with you to see if there was a "soft spot" in the middle of the mound or to carefully look for the remains of a stake before getting out your trusty drill. The part of your demonstration (and illogic) that was lost on my is why you pulled out the cedar stake remains and discarded it! I find it facinating that you would hold corner accessories over a cedar stake set to mark the corner (imperative mood).
[SARCASM]But, hey I'm not licensed in Texas, and fortunately you are not licensed in Colorado, so I won't worry about having to clean up any of your tidy corner restorations here.[/SARCASM]
Correct me if I am wrong, but don't the bearing trees, the stone mound, and the cedar stake all carry the same weight in the "dignity of calls"? all being artificial.
Darryl Beard, post: 440388, member: 11556 wrote: Correct me if I am wrong, but don't the bearing trees, the stone mound, and the cedar stake all carry the same weight in the "dignity of calls"? all being artificial.
Edit: But the stake is not called for so...
In this case, Kent has clearly stated that he believes the cedar stake was intended to mark the corner. Regarding dignity of calls, each state has their own nuances. I generally regard the dignity of calls to be a statement as to what is regarded as more certain. Normally a call to a natural monument is more certain than a call to an artificial monument, which is more certain than bearings then distances (e.g. Texas) or distances then bearings (e.g. Colorado). I see accessories as being witnesses to the corner. Since they do not mark the corner and, therefore must rely on courses and distances to to ascertain the corner position, they are inferior in the dignity of calls to corner monuments. YMMV
In my opinion, for small discrepancies between the position of an artificial monument and where its original accessories say it should be, I would hold the monument. A main value of original accessories is to verify that the monument has not been disturbed from its originally established position. They should not be employed to nudge the monument since courses and distances are less certain.
If there is a large discrepancy, then the surveyor is tasked with determining what shall hold based on his/her professional judgment.
Gene Kooper, post: 440381, member: 9850 wrote: No Kent the "demonstration was not lost" on me. You stated in minute detail that you prefer to reestablish the position of an original corner based the stone mound and bearing tree accessories rather than the rotted remains of the actual corner.
If you read the original surveyor's description of the corner as "a Stone mound from which two Spanish Oaks brs. N 28 E 16 vrs" and concluded that he actually mean that the corner was not marked by a stone mound, I'm pretty sure that the demonstration was lost on you. What the stake represented was the center of the stone mound and the center of the stone mound is the position of the corner, but the actual monument is the stone mound.
Darryl Beard, post: 440388, member: 11556 wrote: Correct me if I am wrong, but don't the bearing trees, the stone mound, and the cedar stake all carry the same weight in the "dignity of calls"? all being artificial.
Edit: But the stake is not called for so...
A bearing tree would fall into the category of a natural monument if it is permanent, immovable, and unmistakable. The difference between natural and artificial monuments generally is how liable to error they may be. Stakes can be moved, but features like trees cannot be.
The case of a bearing tree that cannot be identified from its marks or where the marks are of dubious authenticity, however, would not fall into the same category. Naturally, bearing trees typically depend upon calls for course and distance from them to fix a corner, so the uncertainty in those can increase the uncertainty in the location of the corner in many cases.
You're right about considering a stake that isn't called for in the field notes of the original survey to control the location of the corner to be an unnatural act without some good explanation.
Kent McMillan, post: 440391, member: 3 wrote: If you read the original surveyor's description of the corner as "a Stone mound from which two Spanish Oaks brs. N 28 E 16 vrs" and concluded that he actually mean that the corner was not marked by a stone mound, I'm pretty sure that the demonstration was lost on you. What the stake represented was the center of the stone mound and the center of the stone mound is the position of the corner, but the actual monument is the stone mound.
Geez, Kent. Sometimes I wonder if you remember what you have written just before you press the "Post Reply" button. You just stated that the stake represents the center of the stone mound and the center of the stone mound is the position of the corner. So, if your job is to do what the title of this thread states, then why are you futzing with some quick and dirty measurements of the stone mound to reestablish the center when you just got done saying that the stake represents the center of the mound? Your field work should have been, 1) find old cedar stake which was actually set to mark the center of the stone mound, 2) Drive a rebar through the center of said found stake and call it good. I know you have been dodging my question throughout this thread, but do you have any valid reason for removing and discarding the cedar stake? I certainly cannot come up with a valid reason to remove and destroy the stake, but maybe Texas case law requires removal of old monuments when perpetuating the corner with a modern monument.
Talk about being obtuse in your defense of your work. As a friendly reminder, the title of this thread is, "Finding the Center of an 1875 Rock Mound"
Gene Kooper, post: 440402, member: 9850 wrote: Geez, Kent. Sometimes I wonder if you remember what you have written just before you press the "Post Reply" button. You just stated that the stake represents the center of the stone mound and the center of the stone mound is the position of the corner.
Sure, I recall perfectly well what I've posted. I found a stone mound built in 1875 that appeared to have been built around a center that once upon a time was marked by a cedar stake that now mostly exists as a hole in the ground with a few remnants of very decayed cedar. The pattern of facts are that:
- the original surveyor made no call for a cedar stake
Logical conclusion: the cedar stake is not the original monument as described in his field notes upon which patent issued.
- the original surveyor called for a stone mound at the corner with ties by course and distance to bearing trees that fall in positions that they would have been destroyed at least fifty years ago by road construction.
Logical conclusion: the stone mound is the primary evidence of the position of the corner as established by him, specifically the center of the mound.
- measurements on the stone mound identify a center that happens to fall where there is about a 2-3 in. diameter hole in the ground in which some highly decayed fragments of cedar remain.
Alternate possibility: most likely the mound was built around something that was once in the hole and a cedar stake is the main candidate.
Alternate possibilitiy: the actual settler in 1875 set a cedar stake in the center of the stone mound to help him find it again.
My estimate is that the mound was that the cedar stake came before the stones were laid up to make the mound. But the most defensible opinion is that the center of the stone mound is the position of the corner. As far as I'm concerned a professional opinion is simply the most defensible one. That means it is the one most easily explained in court and that isn't plainly contrary to law or equity.
Kent McMillan, post: 440392, member: 3 wrote: A bearing tree would fall into the category of a natural monument if it is permanent, immovable, and unmistakable. The difference between natural and artificial monuments generally is how liable to error they may be. Stakes can be moved, but features like trees cannot be.
The case of a bearing tree that cannot be identified from its marks or where the marks are of dubious authenticity, however, would not fall into the same category. Naturally, bearing trees typically depend upon calls for course and distance from them to fix a corner, so the uncertainty in those can increase the uncertainty in the location of the corner in many cases.
You're right about considering a stake that isn't called for in the field notes of the original survey to control the location of the corner to be an unnatural act without some good explanation.
While bearing trees, bearing rocks and even mounds of stone are natural objects, that does not mean that they are natural monuments that can alter the position of the corner monument as originally established. In the dignity of calls, area is below bearing and distance because it is derived from them. Accessories are similar. They are a derived from a monument and bearing and distance. The bearing and distance don't magically become natural bearings and distances just because the tie is made from a bearing tree. If the original monument is disturbed or grossly out of position WRT to the BT ties then you, Kent need to do some more work and figure out whether those two ties should be held or if other evidence of the corner position should take precedence. You seem to be advocating that when you only have two bearing objects that the ties are sacrosanct and are never subject to error.
If the original surveyor had marked 3 or 4 bearing trees and your measurements shows that the original ties all fall within a 5mm error ellipse and the corner stake position is 0.6 ft. from that point, then the bearing trees may be superior evidence of the corner position. In your case you have 2 bearing trees, so there is no verification that the measurements are correct. What you do have is a cedar stake located at or near the centroid of a stone mound where the measurements from the bearing trees are in agreement. Great, pound that 18" long No. 5 rebar through the center of the stake, affix your cap and move on. It really isn't as complex as you seem to require it to be.
Gene Kooper, post: 440408, member: 9850 wrote: While bearing trees, bearing rocks and even mounds of stone are natural objects, that does not mean that they are natural monuments that can alter the position of the corner monument as originally established.
With the obvious exception that a set of bearing trees can show an object similar in description to that described as marking the corner to have been moved or not to be the identical one. This is particularly true where the positions of the bearing trees are such that the corner determined from them is quite consistent with the position of each. To believe otherwise would usually mean that one is claiming that the bearing trees have moved in relation to the corner.
Kent McMillan, post: 440409, member: 3 wrote: With the obvious exception that a set of bearing trees can show an object similar in description to that described as marking the corner to have been moved or not to be the identical one. This is particularly true where the positions of the bearing trees are such that the corner determined from them is quite consistent with the position of each. To believe otherwise would usually mean that one is claiming that the bearing trees have moved in relation to the corner.
Goodnight Kent. If you are not going to read my replies there is no sense continuing this charade of playing your silly debating games of quote mining and flinging straw men about.
Just in case you didn't purposely overlook them, I posted these in reply to Mr. Beard's question and your 7:22 p.m. post (post #31).
In my opinion, for small discrepancies between the position of an artificial monument and where its original accessories say it should be, I would hold the monument. A main value of original accessories is to verify that the monument has not been disturbed from its originally established position. They should not be employed to nudge the monument since courses and distances are less certain.
and
If the original monument is disturbed or grossly out of position WRT to the BT ties then you, Kent need to do some more work and figure out whether those two ties should be held or if other evidence of the corner position should take precedence.
Gene Kooper, post: 440411, member: 9850 wrote: Goodnight Kent. If you are not going to read my replies
Well your thesis was that:
While bearing trees, bearing rocks and even mounds of stone are natural objects, that does not mean that they are natural monuments that can alter the position of the corner monument as originally established.
The relevant point is that natural monuments can disprove the claim that one has found "the corner monument as originally established" when it is an artificial monument that can be relocated.
Kent McMillan, post: 440412, member: 3 wrote: The relevant point is that natural monuments can disprove the claim that one has found "the corner monument as originally established" when it is an artificial monument that can be relocated.
If you had read my posts, you would have noticed I said just that, Kent. I did add the important caveat that when a discrepancy is found between the monument and the accessory ties, the surveyor must determine whether monument was displaced or if the accessory ties are erroneous. I've seen both instances. You seem to imply that you have never seen an erroneous tie to a bearing tree. Lucky you.
Gene Kooper, post: 440413, member: 9850 wrote: If you had read my posts, you would have noticed I said just that, Kent. I did add the important caveat that when a discrepancy is found between the monument and the accessory ties, the surveyor must determine whether monument was displaced or if the accessory ties are erroneous. I've seen both instances. You seem to imply that you have never seen an erroneous tie to a bearing tree. Lucky you.
I read your posts and thought that they really didn't add very much to the discussion since the point of departure was whether:
- bearing trees,
- a stone mound, and
- a cedar stake
were all artificial monuments.
Bearing trees are, of course, natural monuments if they meet certain criteria of unmistakable identity, but both stone mounds and cedar stakes are typically artificial monuments.
The main point was that a cedar stake that is now just rotten fragments of something that was never mentioned by the original surveyor is no monument at all as far as the boundaries described by the original surveyor are concerned when the monument that he did describe, the stone mound, remains in place in the very good condition shown in my photos.
