GLO Fractional Sections

I asked the BLM the same question. The answer was that that if the lots are not numbered, they are described by location:

"An unnumbered government lot in the northeast quarter of the northeast quarter of Section 1 ...", etc.

They didn't say what to do with lots that, for example, border on both sides of a body of water. Perhaps they numbered all of these. Or similar to the above but adding "lying northerly of the Flowing River ..."

It seems like everybody would understand unambiguously if it were called NW 1/4 NW 1/4, even if it isn't really an aliquot part.

Those examples are numbered government lots. Lot 1 is a full 80 in each quarter and Lot 2 is a fractional lot of 80 acres +/-. Usually they were disposed of as such. We have some of similar numbered government Lots around here, you just need to look at the original plat before making assumptions to number Lot 2 in each quarter 1 and 2 in the NE and 3 and 4 in the NW, ditto down the west side.
jud

> ... If the fractional sections are not actually numbered on the plats, is it wrong to designate a lot as a certain number? ...
>

Yes, it would be "wrong" to "invent" a name that was not used on the face of the original plat or in the patent.

Both Tyler and Bill are correct... I have seen both examples used with no confusion.

> It seems like everybody would understand unambiguously if it were called NW 1/4 NW 1/4, even if it isn't really an aliquot part.

It can't be described with a fraction if it isn't one... Can it?

I didn't see the red numbers 1 and 2 in the sections until I blew them up. They just looked like stray marks. Huh? Lots by 1/4 section?

BUT, look at 6, northwest quarter. I see a 2, but no 1.

Absent any other information, including descriptions containing the lot numbers shown (that's the proof), I think I would ignore what is shown there and use the unnumbered lot in ... approach. Why did they bother to calculate and show the ~40 acre Lots if they were going to number as combined?

Good catch Tyler.
I suppose the only "correct" description is the one used in the original Patent.

I've asked a BLM expert to look at this. He's submitting it to another for analysis. I'm sure we'll have some sort of answer before long even if it has to go to DC.

That form of numbering government lots are reflected on our assessors maps and the assessors review will now catch it and ask for a change if you don't use the original numbering scheme on any plats they review. That system of lot numbering may be different from the norm, but they are what was returned on the original GLO plats and are what should be used today when referring to them.
jud

> > It seems like everybody would understand unambiguously if it were called NW 1/4 NW 1/4, even if it isn't really an aliquot part.
>
> It can't be described with a fraction if it isn't one... Can it?

I tend to want to agree w/Jim. If one description is wrong, it would be to describe them as aliquot parts; and it would imply that you proportion points half-way as opposed to using the lot distances.

I would want to err more toward labeling the lots on a drawing with numbers, and referring to the lot numbers. I would also tend to want to use the standard numbering format if no numbers are assigned. Generally speaking when I see a line that doesn't have a distance on it, it is usually assumed to be the "standard" distance for that line. (ie: if a standard-section line is not labeled adversely, I would use 80 chains) I would also think that, unless a lot were numbered differently on the original plat, you would tend to go with the standard numbering system.

I know I will probably be proven wrong by the BLM, but that is the direction I would tend to go, given no better instruction. (as I understand it, you would start with "1" in the upper-right (north tier, east-most lot) and go "boustrophonically" left, down, right, down, left, down... numbering them ascendingly as you go.

Interesting, Jud. I looked around various assessor maps around your area and didn't find that particular numbering system. I did find a number of townships showing 40 acre Government lots extending north from the section centerline or west from the section centerline where they lotted the entire 1/2 section.

If you haven't seen it, http://www.ormap.org/maps/index.cfm gives access to all the assessor maps in Oregon graphically.

I'd have to go with E1/2Lot 2 of the NE1/4, Section 5 (usually described as Lot 1). Lot 1 of the NE1/4 (usually described as the S1/2NE1/4)....; not sure what to do with the unnumbered Lot in Section 6.

Tyler, look at 1S24E and you will see such a lot numbering system. If you look at 6S 24E you see where every section was loted.
jud

If the government patent does not refer to lots neither does today's description. Yes, that would be wrong.

1S24E, Willamette Meridian has the strange "Nebraska" lot numbering, sure enough, but none of the townships around it does.

6S24E is strange too. Four lots on the west side of EVERY section. Lots along the north tier of sections 1-6. I'd like to know the rational behind that. Maybe a resurvey that showed every section was out of limits in the east/west direction.

Yep, every section is between 77.25 ch to 78.80ch wide, average around 78.25 or so. North/South looks like all 80ch. This is just from the assessor map, but they are usually pretty good.

Thanks Jud.

Completion surveys make interesting lottings too.

Ron Scherler came up with an answer - see the 1855 Manual, found in History of the Rectangular Survey System pages 96 & 97(?)

I found it in the sample plat, Diagram B of the 1855 Manual. Just like Mr. Penry's map

I have not read all the posts and did not see the examples, but whatever Ron Scherler says, is right!

Keith

so the proper legal is?

So according to thw 1855 manual what is your opinion of the proper description of your subject parcel?

Thanks for your help

so the proper legal is?

> So according to thw 1855 manual what is your opinion of the proper description of your subject parcel?
>
> Thanks for your help

I was wondering the same thing myself, Dane. All I know so far, is that whatever it is, it's right.