I'll admit, I'm a bit rusty on determining lot dimensions from the area returned on the original GLO plat, but this is just giving me fits.
I'm trying to retrace the lots in Section 3, but I just can't recreate the old boy's areas. Anybody have any ideas?
Distances on the plat match the notes, survey was done in 1870. If I can't figure the dimensions from the area, I'll probably use distances of 20ch and 20.195ch as record distances along the north 1/2 of the N-S center of section line to determine the CN1/16 corner. 
Puzzling.
The areas of gov lots 1-4 reduce in nearly equal increments, about the proper increment for the difference between 20.52 and 19.87 north-south dimensions.
But the areas he gives for them all look too small for his dimensions. Even if you take the product of the smaller sides it's bigger than his area.
Deano, post: 428991, member: 6369 wrote: I'll admit, I'm a bit rusty on determining lot dimensions from the area returned on the original GLO plat, but this is just giving me fits.
I'm trying to retrace the lots in Section 3, but I just can't recreate the old boy's areas. Anybody have any ideas?
Distances on the plat match the notes, survey was done in 1870. If I can't figure the dimensions from the area, I'll probably use distances of 20ch and 20.195ch as record distances along the north 1/2 of the N-S center of section line to determine the CN1/16 corner.
Here is a document that may give you some help. There are a few (7) little errors in the transcription of distances in the area calculation portion which I can send if you want them or you can check the entries yourself.
The "acres-side=other side" method seems to work from one side of the section to the other, if I'm reading the acres correctly, but the "acres+acres/4=side between" method doesn't make any sense. I agree with your 20.195ch for the N1/4-CN1/16 distance using acres-side=side, and that jives with a straight proportion across the section, so that would likely be my solution too. What township is this? I see 2 west BM, but I can't see the township number. There's an off chance that I may have worked in this township.
David Baalman, post: 429041, member: 11919 wrote: The "acres-side=other side" method seems to work from one side of the section to the other, if I'm reading the acres correctly, but the "acres+acres/4=side between" method doesn't make any sense. I agree with your 20.195ch for the N1/4-CN1/16 distance using acres-side=side, and that jives with a straight proportion across the section, so that would likely be my solution too. What township is this? I see 2 west BM, but I can't see the township number. There's an off chance that I may have worked in this township.
14 North, 2 West
[USER=11919]@David Baalman[/USER]
Loyal is correct...14N, 2W. The surveyor is Darius Baker.
If I use the "acres-side=other side", I'd get 40.04ac - 20.52ch = 19.52ch for the west side of GL1, which doesn't make sense as that is less than the distance for the west line of GL4, but...
Continuing west...39.71ac - 19.52ch = 20.19ch for the west line of GL2...which would agree with proportioning the 20.52ch and the 19.87ch across the lots.
This does work on through to the west side of GL4 giving 19.86ch...within 0.01ch of the reported distance, so that makes sense.
"14N 2W"
Can't say I've been there, looks like a fun place to work though