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
So, just to summarize: the original poster's question was an interesting one, even if, as is often the case with such things, an insufficient amount of information was presented to form much more than questions. What the first part of the thread demonstrated was how a land surveyor could fill in enough of the missing pieces to determine the likely merits of the ideas that the original poster had about how a description in a deed should be constructed.
Several things were demonstrated:
- The language of the description that probably created the boundary in question was from about 1881 or 1882.
- The calls for the bearings of lines contained in that description probably referred to magnetic North, but magnetic North in 1881 or 1882, not 2017.
- The calls for various lines and corners of adjoining lands contained in the deed would require research of the descriptions by which those lands were granted, but probably placed the North and East lines of the parcel formed by the two triangles approximately on the centerlines of certain roads, one that was in existence in 1881 and 1882 and one that probably was relocated by 1883 following the conveyance of the western triangle to the school.
- The pattern of ownership shown on the 1873 atlas map of Warwick Township means that probably the western triangle was a grant senior to the remainder out of which the land of the adjacent subdivision came, but that would need to be confirmed by research.
- The names of landowners shown on the 1873 atlas map of Warwick Township and the depiction of a schoolhouse in place in a position corresponding to the eastern triangle means that the description of the eastern triangle was probably drafted sometime before 1873, and quite likely a decade or more earlier, considering the mention of Emmer Trego and his age as reported to the census in 1870. In other words, the eastern triangle was a grant senior to that of the western triangle.
- The adjacent subdivision plat showed no evidence that the responsible surveyor had recovered any of the corners of the (apparently) senior tract, the western triangle.
- The plat of the subdivision of the land lying to the East of the eastern triangle shows a location for the road indicated as bounding the eastern triangle of the School Parcel on the 1883 atlas map of Warwick Township.
- A construction of the description of the eastern triangle that places its North line on or very near the centerline of the pavement of Harmonyville Road yields a bearing for the hypoteneuse forming the common boundary of the eastern and western triangles that in turn yields a construction of the western triangle that gives bearings consistent with the calls of the description of the western triangle having referred to magnetic North in 1881 and 1882 as the same is estimated from historical observations.
In addition to these facts that are relevant to the original post, we learned a number of things that may be charitably called "tangential" and which are probably more related to the personal psychologies (read: "complexes") of various posters than to anything connected with actual land surveying practice.
TTT
James Fleming, post: 445114, member: 136 wrote: The fact that "negligence" is based on a local standard of care and that in almost thirty years practicing in a very similar area I've never heard of anyone finding a called for stone from the mid 1800's in the road.
We have something here in the Mid-Atlantic states that differentiates us from a lot of the states on the other side of the Mississippi...people. Stones set in roads didn't last (heck stones set in farm fence lines often didn't last): however since most of the properties were occupied by people (rather than scorpions, jackrabbits, and the occasional buzzard) the lines marked by the old stones have been perpetuated by occupation.
I have found plenty of 1870's stones in roads in Oklahoma. Does 20 years make that much difference? Your point about occupation is valid though.
I also found a 1790's stone under a road in TN once, so there probably are some in PA. Sometimes it is better not to find those old stones though..
MightyMoe, post: 445124, member: 700 wrote: At the end of the day the subdivision line is probably going to hold, I would think Help wouldn't like to hear that however, and I can understand her frustration.
But exactly what would cause it to change?
Finding the original stone at the NW corner will quite possibly move the line easterly, finding it across the subdivision line will probably create a court battle if she goes after that land.
Not to be a downer, but fixing the line where it historically has been would be my preference if I owned that parcel.
What would an excavation and court battle actually cost? 20-30k? minimum?
And what would be the decision? I would think the court in PA would rule for the historical position. The boundary that has been established for decades.
And if you find a stone to the east of the subdivision line? She would give up land?
Hey if the landowner wants to get into such a battle, go for it, but be very up-front about all the options, all the ramifications, and all the possibilities for loss.
The cost of excavation would be a few hours of labor.
