Kent McMillan, post: 445214, member: 3 wrote: Leon just wanted someone to do his work for him. It would be fun to go to Pennsylvania to some little spot like Warwick township and find old boundary markers that nobody has seen in decades or more. Unfortunately, there is too much to do in Texas.
I think you are missing a big opportunity here, go on the road, find those stones, start a firm like the Accident Lawyers, you can even have slick TV ads with a "non-Land Surveyor spokesperson,"
"If you or anyone you know has failed to have their stones found you should write for our free book, Stone-not-Found, go to stonenotfound dot com to find out more and order your free book today! There is no obligation!"
You are mischaracterizing Leon's challenge but that makes no difference to me.
Dave Karoly, post: 445215, member: 94 wrote: I think you are missing a big opportunity here, go on the road, find those stones, start a firm like the Accident Lawyers, you can even have slick TV ads with a "non-Land Surveyor spokesperson,"
"If you or anyone you know has failed to have their stones found you should write for our free book, Stone-not-Found, go to stonenotfound dot com to find out more and order your free book today! There is no obligation!"
You are mischaracterizing Leon's challenge but that makes no difference to me.
Dave Karoly, post: 445215, member: 94 wrote: I think you are missing a big opportunity here, go on the road, find those stones.
Actually, a quick google confirms that there are companies renting ground-penetrating radar units that should be right for the task. Being a Pennsylvania firm that specialized in locating buried stones with GPR would be a lot more fun than running a scanner, I'd bet. When the need arises, I'll give GPR a try and be sure to mention the results.
All depends on the soils...GPR is almost useless on clay soils.
James Fleming, post: 445219, member: 136 wrote: All depends on the soils...GPR is almost useless on clay soils.
Well, here's a link to a GPR suitability map of Pennsylvania based upon soil type. It hardly looks unfeasible, particularly considering the relatively shallow depths of the target stones.
https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/nrcs142p2_051530.pdf
Oh, and here's the link to maps of other states, such as, say, Kansas and, say, Utah :
https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/soils/survey/geo/?cid=nrcs142p2_053622
Lot less purple (unsuitable) in Pennsylvania than some of the areas I am working in.
Kent McMillan, post: 445220, member: 3 wrote: Well, here's a link to a GPR suitability map of Pennsylvania based upon soil type. It hardly looks unfeasible, particularly considering the relatively shallow depths of the target stones.
Lot less purple (unsuitable) in Pennsylvania than some of the areas I am working in.
Kent McMillan, post: 445220, member: 3 wrote: Well, here's a link to a GPR suitability map of Pennsylvania based upon soil type. It hardly looks unfeasible, particularly considering the relatively shallow depths of the target stones.
https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/nrcs142p2_051530.pdf
Oh, and here's the link to maps of other states, such as, say, Kansas and, say, Utah :
https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/soils/survey/geo/?cid=nrcs142p2_053622
Hey you can rent GPR...
https://www.sensoft.ca/rentals/
Why don't you go there and give it a shot?
I used GPR on 100% of my projects in the last 4 years
Dave Karoly, post: 445231, member: 94 wrote: Hey you can rent GPR...
https://www.sensoft.ca/rentals/Why don't you go there and give it a shot?
Well, it would be like taking a metal detector to an area where they aren't customarily used. In both cases, it's enough to mention the technology and the fact that a surveyor can rent the equipment to test it out. We already know that GPR works.
The GPR suitability map indicates that much of Chester County where the OP tracts are situated is suitable for GPR use and we know that stones in road beds tend to be rather shallow unless there has been some obvious deep fill placed when the road was constructed (not particularly common on 19th-century roads), so it ought to work. The main things to test would be just the operational elements of evaluating the returns on target candidates and marking the target positions as accurately as necessary so that the excavation is quite minimal.
I'm seeing a deed call of N 8?øW along the OP's west line and the '83 survey shows S5?ø47'56"E. That's about a 10 foot difference. Then I'm seeing a 10 foot difference along the OP's south line between deed and survey. Is 10 feet in a couple hundred really the standard for the time and area? I'm not seeing any explanation, or even an acknowledgement, of the differences. Which I think is appropriate. It may all be how it is, but it sure leaves a lot of questions to be answered.
The stones in the road may be a lost cause, but the one called for at the SW corner of the OP aught to be tried for. Worth a shot.
If those little open circles on the '83 map represent set monuments then the time to dispute the survey's findings may have come and gone. But we don't even know if that is the case. They may be just calculated points.
If the '83 map was intended to be binding on the parties then new deeds should have been drafted and recorded. Perhaps they were. Who knows?
I worked with the boss one Saturday about 15 years ago. We were looking for a stone in the road. He had his T16 with a top mount DI4; he put me on line, shot the distance and told me to go away 2 feet. The shot I took was on the seam between the old asphalt and a new trench; for a recent sewer line running perpendicular. So this means I'm going to be 2 feet into this new asphalt. There's no way this stone is going to be there. The boss says we gotta say we looked. We were still about 6 feet away from the manhole so we dug. All we had was a shovel and bar. I wasn't going to let the old man do to much so I busted through most of the 6 inches of asphalt by myself. And by god it was there; 2 feet deep with a nice chiseled X.
You gotta be able to say you looked...
Bu
Scott Ellis, post: 445162, member: 7154 wrote: I think the PLSS Surveyors are still in shock that a tract of land does not have to be square.
I shouldn't respond to such a blatant troll post, but will post ONE reply.
You are willfully ignoring all the posts in those long threads which have explained a multitude of reasons that PLSS tracts are complicated and not usually particularly close to true rectangles, except for lots in some housing subdivisions like anywhere else.
Kent McMillan, post: 445237, member: 3 wrote: Well, it would be like taking a metal detector to an area where they aren't customarily used. In both cases, it's enough to mention the technology and the fact that a surveyor can rent the equipment to test it out. We already know that GPR works.
The GPR suitability map indicates that much of Chester County where the OP tracts are situated is suitable for GPR use and we know that stones in road beds tend to be rather shallow unless there has been some obvious deep fill placed when the road was constructed (not particularly common on 19th-century roads), so it ought to work. The main things to test would be just the operational elements of evaluating the returns on target candidates and marking the target positions as accurately as necessary so that the excavation is quite minimal.
I think you're just too chicken to go show everyone your surveying prowess. You talk a lot but can't deliver.
What's the saying?, "all hat, no cattle."
Mark Mayer, post: 445238, member: 424 wrote: I'm seeing a deed call of N 8?øW along the OP's west line and the '83 survey shows S5?ø47'56"E. That's about a 10 foot difference. Then I'm seeing a 10 foot difference along the OP's south line between deed and survey. Is 10 feet in a couple hundred really the standard for the time and area? I'm not seeing any explanation, or even an acknowledgement, of the differences. Which I think is appropriate. It may all be how it is, but it sure leaves a lot of questions to be answered.
More importantly, when you approach the problem from a metes and bounds perspective, the first tract conveyed, Triangle "A" would be constructed first and the adjoiner condition with it would also control the construction of Triangle "B". They aren't independent pieces that can be considered as geometric things without reference to the calls for adjoiner and the prior surveys that created those boundaries.
In the case of Triangle "A" its North line is called to begin at "a corner between the hereby granted premises and land of Jacob Eargood" and to run "thence BY SAME North 87 degrees 3/4 East, perches and 68 hundredths to a stone" and "thence by land of Emmer Trego South 9 degrees and 3/4 East, 18 perches to a stone"
It would need to be verified by examining the deed to the adjacent land formerly owned by Jacob Eargood, but I'd think it's a good bet that the centerline of the Harmonyville Road is along or very near that boundary. So the centerline of the Harmonyville Road provides a basis for determining the variation from true to which the bearings refer.
Further, some time in or before 1883, what is now South Hill Camp Road was evidently opened along the East line of Triangle "A". One would need to confirm that by reference to the road records, but the 1873 and 1883 farm maps of Warwick township pretty clearly show a relocation of the road from a diagonal alignment across the Parcel consisting of Triangles "A" and "B" and opening the road along a boundary would probably be the normal arrangement.
The centerline of the realigned road also provides a basis for determining the variation from true of the East line of Triangle "A". From them both, the variation from true of the long side of Triangle "A" follows to a very good first approximation.
So, having reconstructed the lines and corners of Triangle "A", the construction of Triangle "B" can be tested by two means:
- evidence of very old occupation (read: "remains of a fence") along the West line of Triangle "B" and
- comparison of the derived variation with estimates of the magnetic declination for about the year 1881 (assuming that the original conveyance of Triangle "B" was made then).
One detail that appears as a faint trace in the aerial photos is that it appears that some evidence of the diagonal road that ran across the School Parcel before 1883 may remain. I'm going to guess that it would show up as a change in texture of the soil, the soil under the former road being more compacted than the soil beyond the road bed. Some work with a probe would map that feature, if it exists, on the ground.
Dave Karoly, post: 445250, member: 94 wrote: I think you're just too chicken to go show everyone your surveying prowess. You talk a lot but can't deliver.
What's the saying?, "all hat, no cattle."
I think the saying is "you can lead a horse to water, but you cannot make him drink". :>
Kent McMillan, post: 445251, member: 3 wrote: More importantly, when you approach the problem from a metes and bounds perspective,
....There are two triangles with a common side. So its easy to relate one to another to make a 4 sided figure. We have bearings run by compass so the angles between the lines are maybe of less significance than if they were run by transit. We have roads along two sides of the 4 sided figure which form, at least, a good guide to the ultimate solution. I agree that road records should be searched, as well as all the adjoining deeds.
Mark Mayer, post: 445255, member: 424 wrote: We have roads along two sides of the 4 sided figure which form, at least, a good guide to the ultimate solution
We also have an occupation line along the south boundary.
Not saying that any perfect solution can be reached, not saying the the OP will get any satisfaction, not saying that these called for monuments can be found. But I am saying that this '83 survey leaves a lot of questions unanswered. Which makes it a poor boundary survey, IMO.
Mark Mayer, post: 445255, member: 424 wrote: ....There are two triangles with a common side. So its easy to relate one to another to make a 4 sided figure. We have bearings run by compass so the angles between the lines are maybe of less significance than if they were run by transit. We have roads along two sides of the 4 sided figure which form, at least, a good guide to the ultimate solution. I agree that road records should be searched, as well as all the adjoining deeds.
On the East line of Triangle "A" the engineering plan cum subdivision plat covering the land East of S Hill Camp Road shows a centerline of the road that evidently the responsible professional determined by some means to be that of S Hill Camp Road.
What particularly interests me about that is that it shows an existing structure partly in the statutory right-of-way in the position in which the 1883 farm map indicates a structure.
Bill93, post: 445245, member: 87 wrote: I shouldn't respond to such a blatant troll post, but will post ONE reply.
You are willfully ignoring all the posts in those long threads which have explained a multitude of reasons that PLSS tracts are complicated and not usually particularly close to true rectangles, except for lots in some housing subdivisions like anywhere else.
Bill.
I am in no way a troll as you have called me. I am on this forum under my real name and not hiding behind a name like some of the members of this forum. I am also a register professional land surveyor on a land surveying forum.
How many Surveys have you stamped and signed?
Yes I believe the PLSS is an easy system to learn and survey in. The only time it is complicated is when the step by step instructions are not followed.
