Looking at a possible retracement this coming Spring, so I have been reading the Field Notes around the Section in question.
Four of the Seven Corners That I need to find/tie/whatever, have similar "1915 Cap alongside 1871 Stone."
OLD Pin-Cushion!
Loyal
I am curious if "no accessories" means no pits were made. Some surveyors always made the pits while others did not if a stone was set. I think the thought was what to do with the soil if they dug pits when mound had to be made.
Loyal, post: 355220, member: 228 wrote: Looking at a possible retracement this coming Spring, so I have been reading the Field Notes around the Section in question.
Four of the Seven Corners That I need to find/tie/whatever, have similar "1915 Cap alongside 1871 Stone."
OLD Pin-Cushion!
Loyal
I don't think it's a pin cushion, is it? He reset the stone in the "exact position" and put his monument beside it kind of like a fancy lath, right? You could question his determination of the exact position maybe, but the stone is the monument, I think.
Full disclosure: I've been wrong before.
Don
So, where is the corner? Is it the readily located iron post with properly marked cap? Or is it the stone that was "reset" at the "exact cor. point"?
Sadly, 8 or 9 out of ten surveyors will erroneously locate the iron post & cap as the "corner". There are literally 100's of high dollar building lots (multiple subdivisions) on the west side of Bear Lake tied to similarly monumented PLSS corners (iron post & stone). Yep, gov't created pin cushions.
Now what?
1) Leave everything as it is and tie to the inaccurate post or stone or both, noting what you did on corner records and/or plats - knowing that the information you leave will be ignored as often as the GLO notes?
2) Move the post to the stone location and bury the stone alongside - messing up all the all-important precise measurements to the hundreds/thousands of monuments tied to the previous post location?
3) Leaving the post in place and replace the stone (bury stone alongside) with a new shiny monument, leaving a new pin cushion and filing the proper documents? Yes, what you have done & documented will also be largely ignored.
4) How creative can we get?
In the other cases (in this Section), he found the 1871 Stone(s) firmly set, and placed his Pipe/Cap alongside. So, I think that it's pretty clear, that the Brass Cap is an accessory to the CORNER, not THE Corner. Of course the SOP for some surveyors in Utah (and elsewhere), is to just grab the plat (notes are so much trouble and expense), run up to the Brass Cap, get two BEEPS on the RTK thingamajig, and haul ass. Most of them wouldn't recognize a marked stone if they saw one anyway...
Loyal, post: 355233, member: 228 wrote: In the other cases (in this Section), he found the 1871 Stone(s) firmly set, and placed his Pipe/Cap alongside. So, I think that it's pretty clear, that the Brass Cap is an accessory to the CORNER, not THE Corner. Of course the SOP for some surveyors in Utah (and elsewhere), is to just grab the plat (notes are so much trouble and expense), run up to the Brass Cap, get two BEEPS on the RTK thingamajig, and haul ass. Most of them wouldn't recognize a marked stone if they saw one anyway...
[sarcasm]cynical much?[/sarcasm] 😛
Rankin,
Not really...based on my experience lately, I COULD have "MOST" surveyors! But I suspect that we only remember the really good ones, and the REALLY BAD ones, the rest don't make much of an impression.
Soooo, not cynical, just realistic!
:angel:
This has always and is still standard operating procedure. The pipe was set because it is more readily identifible and durable. The stone is burried along side to provide a conclusive tie to the original monument. If the pipe was intendeded as a refernence it would have been required to mark it "RM".
Remeber "exact" did not mean the same thing to a 1915 GLO surveyor as it does to an urban zero lot line surveyor today.
So he found the stone loose and put it back where it was or at his measured spot?
Dave Karoly, post: 355243, member: 94 wrote: So he found the stone loose and put it back where it was or at his measured spot?
the precise one.....
More common example in same area:
The Stone is obviously THE CORNER, although one must have the "Field" Notes to understand what the two monuments mean (and don't mean).
I prefer to bury the stone (upside down) along side of the NEW Monument, but I also understand some folks who prefer to place the Pipe/Cap IN the hole where the stone came out, and then place the Stone alongside (rotated 90å¡) to proved that they really found a stone. So long as your Corner Record "tells the tale," it doesn't really matter one way or the other.
Loyal
Loyal, post: 355246, member: 228 wrote:
The Stone is obviously THE CORNER, although one must have the "Field" Notes to understand what the two monuments mean (and don't mean).Loyal
Just to be a contrarian, I disagree with you Loyal. The field notes do not leave me with the impression that the stone is OBVIOUSLY the corner. The stone is the [sarcasm]OLD[/sarcasm] cor.
The field notes state:
Set an iron post [skip the dimensions] alongside old cor. for reestablished cor. of secs. 22, 23, 26 and 27, with brass cap.
I wholeheartedly agree with you that the stone is the corner, but the 1915 GLO surveyor didn't (at least the way I read his notes). The shiny new brass cap is the [sarcasm]reestablished[/sarcasm] corner to him.
But there is no dimple, no x, what to do, what to do.........
I've got some where the GLO accepted a brass cap by a private surveyor for the corner then set a GLO BC for tract corners......
Just to be a contrarian, The field notes do not leave me with the impression that the stone is OBVIOUSLY the corner. The stone is the
OLD cor.
The field notes state:
Set an iron post [skip the dimensions] alongside old cor. for reestablished cor. of secs. 22, 23, 26 and 27, with brass cap.
I wholeheartedly agree with you that the stone is the corner, but the 1915 GLO surveyor didn't (at least the way I read his notes). The shiny new brass cap is the sarcasm reestablished corner to him.
I believe, it depends, what was the reason for the resurvey? Was there reliance on the original or reliance on the resurvey? Without the reliance on the original, could not the owner, USA sell or patent to the reestablished corners? What were the instructions?
aliquot, post: 355241, member: 2486 wrote: This has always and is still standard operating procedure. The pipe was set because it is more readily identifible and durable. The stone is burried along side to provide a conclusive tie to the original monument. If the pipe was intendeded as a refernence it would have been required to mark it "RM".
Remeber "exact" did not mean the same thing to a 1915 GLO surveyor as it does to an urban zero lot line surveyor today.
"This has always and is still standard operating procedure."
Not so here - the original monument was buried alongside the new monument.
Now,now,now, fellers. The monument is the monument. If you can get a shot on it most anywhere you have adequately accomplished the goal of documenting that it still exists.
The monument is not "the center of an x being 0.000' in height with the initials KLM stamped directly below near the center of a brass cap found in a 1' x 1' x 3' concrete column".
Suggesting the location of the "x" mentioned is the most precise location is unnecessary. Especially when one considers there was a gusting 35 mph breeze at the time the shot was taken and the rod was kinda/sorta/maybe/could be vertical if the bubble was 100 percent accurate and the viewing of said bubble was made at the correct angle with no glare.
Jim in AZ, post: 355279, member: 249 wrote: "This has always and is still standard operating procedure."
Not so here - the original monument was buried alongside the new monument.
huh? Thats exactly what I said.
So my question, from a colonial state surveyor, would be....
If "surveyors today wouldn't notice a marked stone if they saw one" and "most" surveyors would just see the pipe with cap and use that as the monument....
Why not replace the hard to recognize stone with an actual monument, or a pipe with cap, and record it. This way future surveyors won't have to notice the hard to tell stones and things won't get as messed up like people complain they do.
This isn't 1890 anymore. We aren't traversing around the wilderness using stones, pits, and cairns any longer. So why not modernize and replace the stones in the same spot with something that will make the future easier... isn't that what it's about? Perpetuation, making things easier? And to me making things less prone to error is protecting the public.
Used a stone today. Why screw up 150 years of successful persistence? Pretty and shiny today isn't nearly so pretty or shiny decades down the line.
The 1915 Field Notes are clear, the Stone is the Original Corner and as of 1915 the stone is in its original position.
If I remember the discussion, this was about the time the GLO was given authority to use iron pipes and the question was, is it legal to disturb of the original corner(monument)? I think you can conclude from there actions that the GLO or their legal eagles opinion was that it was not appropriate to disturb the original corner(monument) and so they set the iron post alongside.
If came across this situation today I would set my monument where the stone is and bury the 1915 iron pipe and the stone alongside. I would leave the mks on the stone up so they are visible. So the next surveyor dose not have to dig it up. My Field Notes would clearly explain what I did and why.
Good Luck
