Peter Lothian - MA ME, post: 445491, member: 4512 wrote: Why do so many of these threads devolve into a pissing match between the same folks? I hope the original poster was able to glean some useful information from the earlier part of the discussion, and am not surprised that he or she has not returned.
This was Harmonyville, until the surveyor's showed up.
Where this thread took a downhill course was when it was when the discussion turned to how to search for stones buried in roads. As may be seen from this response, there are several posters who are routinely bothered by the idea of finding old boundary markers when they would prefer to believe that none exist. For some odd reason, surveyors who practice in areas where original evidence of land boundaries has become very well obscured live in fear that such original evidence might actually be discoverable.
https://surveyorconnect.com/community/threads/hatfield-and-mccoy-nonsense.331789/page-8#post-445202
Peter Lothian - MA ME, post: 445491, member: 4512 wrote: Why do so many of these threads devolve into a pissing match between the same folks?
It's treads like this that tempt me to delete the site from my bookmarks.
MightyMoe, post: 445497, member: 700 wrote: I don't blame her at all, she basically got nothing here, at least nothing useful.
Actually, the OP thought that the bearings in the description of Triangle "B" referred to magnetic North and should be laid out in reference to magnetic North as it presently exists. That was the basis of her contention that a recent survey had failed to properly locate the West line of the land in question. What was demonstrated early on was that the description most likely originated in about 1881 or 1882 when the magnetic declination was much different than it presently is. In other words, her contention was mistaken. That much was obvious.
That is, while the declination is presently about 11?ø52'W in the vicinity of Harmonyville, PA, between 1881 and 1882 it was around 5?ø41'W. I'd say that when the OP recognized this fundamental mistake that was being made, she decided that she'd have to find another basis to dispute the line in question.
Two thoughts on this thread:
1. Kent has provided a most remarkable response (and in my mind textbook) approach to initial research prior to heading to the field. It shows just how much research can be obtained on-line. Its all about identifying what to look for and narrowing down the search area for the original corners and senior/junior rights.
2. I have used GPR once before searching for a possible stone set sometime around 1685. This was not a paying survey project, rather more of a bucket list personal item. The area was under a rural asphalt road. We identified 3 or 4 likely targets which I tied in at that time. After waiting three years for the road to come up for resurfacing, I was able to have the DPW dig those areas up with a backhoe (It helped that the Town Supervisor is an avid history buff). One of the targets was a piece of metal agricultural junk with the others all being random stones and unremarkable. The technology does work and should be considered another tool in the toolbox, prices have dropped considerable on these units. One thought would be to have a local survey society purchase it for use by its members when needed with a couple of dedicated members trained. Probably will never happen but it's a nice thought.
Jim
James Vianna, post: 445505, member: 120 wrote:
2. I have used GPR once before searching for a possible stone set sometime around 1685. This was not a paying survey project, rather more of a bucket list personal item. The area was under a rural asphalt road. We identified 3 or 4 likely targets which I tied in at that time. After waiting three years for the road to come up for resurfacing, I was able to have the DPW dig those areas up with a backhoe (It helped that the Town Supervisor is an avid history buff). One of the targets was a piece of metal agricultural junk with the others all being random stones and unremarkable. The technology does work and should be considered another tool in the toolbox, prices have dropped considerable on these units. One thought would be to have a local survey society purchase it for use by its members when needed with a couple of dedicated members trained. Probably will never happen but it's a nice thought.
That's an interesting account of using GPR in the real world. I like the idea of investigating lots of locations over a day or two and simply logging accurate coordinates of targets or setting reference points outside the pavement to reference the target locations so that the thing the GPR spotted can be investigated as needed (and with its relation to other candidates in view).
As GPR technology continues to improve, this is bound to become a tool that surveyors use more commonly.
James Fleming, post: 445503, member: 136 wrote: It's treads like this that tempt me to delete the site from my bookmarks.
I liken these threads to a canker sore in my mouth...it hurts if I touch it with my tongue. So what do I do? Constantly touch the sore with my tongue to see if it still hurts. 😉
Without any other perimeters, the fact that some surveyors are RELENTLESS, gives me hope for the profession.
Quite frankly, I find the character trait of relentlessness, a good thing.
Nate
Perimeters, parameters. Close enough for Beerleg.
MightyMoe, post: 445497, member: 700 wrote: I don't blame her at all, she basically got nothing here, at least nothing useful.
It would be interesting to hear how disputed boundaries are resolved in PA, this can't be the first one.
I thought that this was a pretty good thread up through about the first 3 or 4 pages of posts. The OP seemed to appreciate the advice she was getting as well. The discussion devolved rather quickly after that. I like to tell myself that I've checked back a few times to see if it will veer back into a useful professional discussion. But it might just be that canker sore thing Paden was talking about.
No matter how good a thread starts out, if it devolves into people trying to outwit each other with insults, it almost never gets back on track. Kind of like hoping a rotten apple will turn from mushy brown back to firm and red.
I can't claim a history of innocence. On the old POB forum, I got into it with Kent in about the same manner as a couple of guys have done here. Kent must have had a thinner skin back then because he disappeared from the forum for a few months. I was embarrassed to have been (probably rightfully) labeled a troll for relentlessly giving Kent the same as he so often gave. Better to not get into a prolonged debate with the only goal being to diminish the other guy.
In the long run, if someone is a blowhard and habitually engages in belittling others, most will recognize that character flaw. Trying to help expose those flaws mostly results in getting as much mud on oneself as was thrown at the other guy.
Over the past 2 or 3 years, I've been encouraged by the number of times that I've seen Kent provide well thought out responses and good advice without including the condescending hyperbole that many of us have been targeted with. I was quite impressed with his having taken the time to find record info for the property in this thread and make some reasonable inferences based on those records. All good until he began opining on conditions and local practice with regard to typical conditions that he lacks the regional experience to provide an informed opinion on.
Nothing wrong with making a post to call him out on that. But that has grown into a running 10 page debate between Kent and a few others. Some of you continuing the argument with Kent, I have tremendous respect for you guys and always make a point of checking out your posts, because they are usually educational and interesting, but this has gone far enough.
If the technical and professional value of this thread has run its course, then please let the thread die. Don't compete with Kent for the last word because he is stubborn enough to go as long as you will.
eapls2708, post: 445546, member: 589 wrote: I thought that this was a pretty good thread up through about the first 3 or 4 pages of posts. The OP seemed to appreciate the advice she was getting as well. The discussion devolved rather quickly after that. I like to tell myself that I've checked back a few times to see if it will veer back into a useful professional discussion. But it might just be that canker sore thing Paden was talking about.
No matter how good a thread starts out, if it devolves into people trying to outwit each other with insults, it almost never gets back on track. Kind of like hoping a rotten apple will turn from mushy brown back to firm and red.
I can't claim a history of innocence. On the old POB forum, I got into it with Kent in about the same manner as a couple of guys have done here. Kent must have had a thinner skin back then because he disappeared from the forum for a few months. I was embarrassed to have been (probably rightfully) labeled a troll for relentlessly giving Kent the same as he so often gave. Better to not get into a prolonged debate with the only goal being to diminish the other guy.
In the long run, if someone is a blowhard and habitually engages in belittling others, most will recognize that character flaw. Trying to help expose those flaws mostly results in getting as much mud on oneself as was thrown at the other guy.
Over the past 2 or 3 years, I've been encouraged by the number of times that I've seen Kent provide well thought out responses and good advice without including the condescending hyperbole that many of us have been targeted with. I was quite impressed with his having taken the time to find record info for the property in this thread and make some reasonable inferences based on those records. All good until he began opining on conditions and local practice with regard to typical conditions that he lacks the regional experience to provide an informed opinion on.
Nothing wrong with making a post to call him out on that. But that has grown into a running 10 page debate between Kent and a few others. Some of you continuing the argument with Kent, I have tremendous respect for you guys and always make a point of checking out your posts, because they are usually educational and interesting, but this has gone far enough.
If the technical and professional value of this thread has run its course, then please let the thread die. Don't compete with Kent for the last word because he is stubborn enough to go as long as you will.
In my house, whomever has spoken the last word is the loser. It is usually me. I am a slow learner.
I always check back in to see if the Divine Bovine has taken the initiative to inject a little levity into the melee; much like Ben Franklin did when tempers flared during the hot summer at the Pennsylvania State House. I usually skip anything that Kent has interjected because of its predictability.
Kent McMillan, post: 445467, member: 3 wrote: Can you, in a nutshell, describe what you believe to be the relevance of "Mineral Specimen Mining" to searching for set stones in roadbeds and, more importantly, when this investigation was made by the geologists you were evidently working for?
The fact that my application of GPR was for a geological investigation doesn't change the fact that you have no experience or understanding beyond Google searches. You imply that using GPR for finding buried stones is a simple matter; just rent the equipment, turn it on and presto any buried stones will leap from the display screen; easy peasy. Any survey monkey could do it.
GPR has many uses. For example, with a high frequency antenna it is used to map rebar in reinforced concrete. The science behind how it works hasn't changed over the years. For an application like finding a dressed stone buried under a road there are questions as to what antenna frequency is optimal. It may be that multiple surveys with different antennas should be employed and the results stacked to better discriminate a stone at depth. GPR is influenced by the type of soil and its moisture content. If one really is interested in developing a viable and economic technique there are several variables that should be evaluated. For the work that I do, I don't see an opportunity to use GPR to search for buried stones. However, If I did have a situation where it would be applicable, I'd likely first look for a utility location services that uses GPR to map buried utilities, rather than rent the equipment with the hope that luck will be on my side.
For paden: You can call me Canker (or Cantankerous) Kooper any time! 😉
Some backstory:
Kent harassed Leon Day repeatedly over a couple of years for saying that wooden post section corners set in fields already under cultivation no longer exist and may have only existed for a few days in the 1850s because the Mormon farmers already in possession would've pulled them out and tossed them aside. Anti-government sentiment is certainly not a new phenomenon in this country; those crazy gubmint severers! why they plant sticks in my alfalfa field? This was limited to a particular valley in Utah (Leon has posted about original GLO monuments he has found in other areas). Leon said no one had ever found one in decades of searching so it was a "reasonable" assumption that they were "most likely" missing (quotes enclose a few of Kent's favorite phrases). In Kent's own work of course he doesn't criticize himself for making "reasonable assumptions that are most likely true." Leon finally got fed up and told Kent to come to Utah and search himself; he offered some sort of incentive that I don't remember the details, such as he would pay for the trip of something like that. It had nothing to do with Leon needing Kent's mentoring on how to conduct a boundary survey.
That was the inspiration for suggesting that Kent not just blather on endlessly stylistically slamming PA LSs but actually go to Pennsylvania and show us all his prowess. Maybe I went a little bit overboard last night (it is rare that someone gets in the last post in a back and forth with Kent, he is relentless so it can go on for a lot of posts, that's why he has like 11.5k posts on here but I have just over 9k). The other poster who made a pitiful effort to insult me by saying I have a desk job literally has an avatar of himself sitting at...wait for it...A DESK, you can't make this stuff up LOL. (My avatar is my Grandson who is the greatest kid on earth and who keeps me from spending too much time here on the weekends).
Now I expect Kent will reply and misrepresent the past but good for him! I have to stay off of here during work hours (it is lunchtime).
[MEDIA=youtube]Wxk1cyYJe-o[/MEDIA]
Enjoy!!!
Nate The Surveyor, post: 445593, member: 291 wrote: [MEDIA=youtube]Wxk1cyYJe-o[/MEDIA]
Enjoy!!!
Looks like a log to me.
Dave Karoly, post: 445591, member: 94 wrote: Some backstory:
Kent harassed Leon Day repeatedly over a couple of years for saying that wooden post section corners set in fields already under cultivation no longer exist and may have only existed for a few days in the 1850s because the Mormon farmers already in possession would've pulled them out and tossed them aside. Anti-government sentiment is certainly not a new phenomenon in this country; those crazy gubmint severers! why they plant sticks in my alfalfa field? This was limited to a particular valley in Utah (Leon has posted about original GLO monuments he has found in other areas). Leon said no one had ever found one in decades of searching so it was a "reasonable" assumption that they were "most likely" missing (quotes enclose a few of Kent's favorite phrases). In Kent's own work of course he doesn't criticize himself for making "reasonable assumptions that are most likely true." Leon finally got fed up and told Kent to come to Utah and search himself; he offered some sort of incentive that I don't remember the details, such as he would pay for the trip of something like that. It had nothing to do with Leon needing Kent's mentoring on how to conduct a boundary survey.That was the inspiration for suggesting that Kent not just blather on endlessly stylistically slamming PA LSs but actually go to Pennsylvania and show us all his prowess. Maybe I went a little bit overboard last night. The other poster who made a pitiful effort to insult me by saying I have a desk job literally has an avatar of himself sitting at...wait for it...A DESK, you can't make this stuff up LOL. (My avatar is my Grandson who is the greatest kid on earth and who keeps me from spending too much time here on the weekends).
Now I expect Kent will reply and misrepresent the past but good for him! I have to stay off of here during work hours (it is lunchtime).
I said you have a Government Desk. If you are going to quote me quote me, don't paraphrase me. Every Surveyor on this thread has a desk, and also has been in the field. I was referring to your crazy theory post https://surveyorconnect.com/community/threads/career-change.330628/#post-427366 on what you think Surveyors should charge for their work. Since you get a government paycheck it is not your business on what private practice surveyors should charge, and how they should survey.
Nate The Surveyor, post: 445593, member: 291 wrote: [MEDIA=youtube]Wxk1cyYJe-o[/MEDIA]
Enjoy!!!
Thanks, Nate.
A great example showing the progression from conjecture, to remote sensing, and "ground" truth.
The real takeaway from this thread is that surveyors are a cantankerous and disagreeable lot that enjoy argueing to the point nobody can remember the original post! I'm fairly certain the OP left shaking their head in disbelief long ago. Those of us familiar with the actors are not in the least bit surprised. Even if you found the darn stone, you would be hard pressed to prove its in its original position.
[SARCASM]Carry on[/SARCASM]
Dave Karoly, post: 445591, member: 94 wrote: The other poster who made a pitiful effort to insult me by saying I have a desk job literally has an avatar of himself sitting at...wait for it...A DESK, you can't make this stuff up LOL.
Hey take it easy on him. The avatar was taken while he was writing his "Field Notes".
paden cash, post: 445514, member: 20 wrote: I liken these threads to a canker sore in my mouth...it hurts if I touch it with my tongue. So what do I do? Constantly touch the sore with my tongue to see if it still hurts. 😉
Now if the heavily salted (and buttered) popcorn (or one of the other delicious sounding recipes:yum:) hadn't run out days ago, the salt would be a good test as well.
Who didn't keep the popcorn in full supply for this run? I wanna blame someone (and that will likely be me) :p
