Let me ask you this? If one of my 1/16 sec. cors. is over the line by a link on the boundary between State and Federal Land, is my monument subject of move to the exact instrument line as would be determined by Kent?
After all, it is encroaching on one or the other?
Think about it for a minute and a half.....one side or the other is being encroached on, in Kent's rationale and both are sovereign!!
After all, I did have authority to retrace the Federal Land and a Private Surveyor would have authority to retrace the State Land.
Keith
If it was in favor of the private owner, he would get the extra, if it was in favor of the government, they would lose it every time. So I guess the only answer is, It depends.;-)
jud
How many times do I have to answer it. Search rpls.com for my answer.
Well,I guess that is one way to look at it?
Kris
It would be much easier if you just gave an answer here.
Matter of fact, I did not ask this question before, so how did you answer it?
Keith
> If one of my 1/16 sec. cors. is over the line by a link on the boundary between State and Federal Land, is my monument subject of move to the exact instrument line as would be determined by Kent?
In Oregon -In the case of "government corners, such as 16ths, then your monuments hold. They put angle points in the section lines. The manual says so, and ORS 209.070(4) says:
"... make all surveys of legal subdivisions with reference to the current United States Manual of Surveying Instructions."
I believe that most, if not all, public domain state have a similar passage in their statute.
But the same may not apply to the miriad other lines that may be monumented with the PLSS framework. With those, I think perhaps, an uncalled for monument is just a surveyors opinion.
Smiling here.:-) I wonder how many 40 corners Keith has set are out there waiting for litigation. You have a lot of corners to get straight Keith. You'd better get busy.
Yes, and you know what; after all these years, I have not heard of one of my monuments being moved to the "True Position" and I can guarantee you that they were NOT set with a micrometer as Kent does.
Keith
How can that be?
The experts on here proclaim that junior corner monuments cannot bend senior lines???
And we might guess that my 1/16 corners are junior in my retracement of the senior section line.
Keith
Kris
this whole message keeps popping up over and over in a so called new discussion and it is actually the same topic.
That and the fact that a concrete answer is not accepted as fact goes on and solidifies why I am so blessed to be in Texas and do not have to worry about sectional divided properties that are so debated in the PLSS states.
It is so wonderful that we have statues and principles that are actually on paper that guide our way thru the day.
ON top of that, summer is over and what a nice day of surveying there was in NE Texas today as today we scouted and found our monuments at will and mostly undisturbed.
A Harris
What would your answer be to my question? I have to imagine you understand lines that are run between State Land and Federal Land.
I am making the point here that both sides are sovereign so what does one do, other than Kent, about a corner monument that is found off line by a link?
Simple question but should have good rationale for the answer.
Keith
YOU CANNOT SELL WHAT YOU DO NOT OWN.(DOES THAT RING A BELL)SKELTON POINTS OUT THAT MONUMENTS THAT EMBRACE THE LANDS OF ANOTHER ARE NOT CONTROLING. PLACE YOUR FEDERAL AUTHORITY MONUMENT ANYWHERE YOU WOULD LIKE, BUT IF IT EMBRACES LAND NOT OWNED BY THE FEDS..... WELL WE WILL SEE WHAT THE COURT HAS TO SAY....
How can that be?
With all of the real issues facing people in America today y'all choose to focus on this totally insignificat piece of minutia just for the sake of argument? This is just totally absurd!! Isn't there more to y'all life than this?? This is NOT a technical discussion, it's a stupid" My daddy can kick your daddy's ass" playground argument.Bicker and argue, bicker and argue! If this is your life, I pity all of you. It's just sickening to watch.
How can that be?
> The experts on here proclaim that junior corner monuments cannot bend senior lines???
I believe the "experts" are proclaiming that a boundary line of a parcel that has senior title based on the date of a sequential conveyance that is defined by existing original monuments is fixed at the time of its creation and subsequent surveys which purport to place a monument on that fixed line are irrelevant to it's location as long as evidence of the senior title line exists.
I don't believe that a single surveyor from Virginia, Pennsylvania, New York, Texas or (now) Maryland has stated any opinion in any of these threads that was meant to be applied to evaluating the proper location of a 1/16 corner. One reason is that they generally understand:
Junior/Senior is Different in PLSS
And for us to understand it we have to understand that there is a different application of the concept of junior/senior when we are talking public lands as opposed metes and bounds.
You will recall that in metes and bounds we talk about junior/senior, we are talking about date of deeds but you will also recall that the public land system is primarily a giant simultaneous creation there is not a lot of junior/senior situations when it comes to title, but there is a junior/senior situation or relationship that exists in the public land system, but it is different it is not one based on the date of the deed, but rather the approval dates of the survey.
- Certified Federal Surveyors (CFedS) Certification Training Program
Course 2: Boundary Law & Title Examination
I swear I'm at a loss to explain why surveyors who practice under two distinctive land tenure systems (the later and more prevalent one being designed specifically to eliminate some of the issues being discussed by creating huge simultaneous conveyances), spread amongst 50+ separate legal jurisdictions that are free (within reason) to establish their own interpretation of boundary law, feel the need to pontificate to professionals in other jurisdictions how to practice their craft.
I wouldn't begin to have the nerve to question Keith's (or any private practitioner in the PLSS) decisions on how to subdivide a section where they practice and I'd like to think that they would feel the same way about my re-establishment of a corner marking the intersection of a parcel with a pre-existing state right of way in Maryland.
But then again, where I survey you could float an oil tanker down this stretch of river:
yet for boundary purposes it's not considered navigable.
A Harris
You probably measured from the wrong side of the stone.
Andy
Damn! That was funny, I don't care who you are!
How can that be?
cptdent,
What Keith raises here is important, and the as Mark opines, most closely comes to the real answer.
I do not believe that this is a junior / senior issue, as long that the 1/16 corner was done within the tolerances in place at the time of the survey that established the 1/16 corner.
Lets say that the survey that monumented the 1/16 corner was conducted in 1975, then the BLM 1973 Manual would be the authority, and assuming that there are no bona fide elements to consider then we must look at section 3-89 for what the establishment of 1/16 corner says and as being mid-point and online between section and quarter corners and the limits of closure as mandated in 3-124 was not exceeded.
Therefore, the short answer is - I would accept Keith's monument as being the location of the legal 1/16 corner, even if it is one link "off" - thus creating an angle point between the Sect & quarter corners. ---
How can that be?
BTW -
If a McMillimeter type was to say the existing 1/16 corner was wrong, faulty, out of position, incorrect, erroneous, false or inaccurate - I would say; "Dude, give your license back, because you are the type of surveyor that gives all us a bad name."
You think your error ellipse is any smaller than that one link?
Hey, let's let it freeze and thaw a few times, maybe a small earthquake or two, some hillside slippage, maybe some subsidence. Then we'll measure it again! Use that rag tape, certified to have been run over by light passenger cars on asphalt less than half a dozen times. And some base-rover RTK under canopy. Oh, and a hand compass, what's the declination here between the truck and the iron ore deposit?
My shovel trumps your measurement crack.
What was the question again?
There are really multiple error ellipses. Those of the monuments from whence the 16th is being determined. Then the error of staking/setting the monument. Then the error of checking or retracing, possibly years later. If all the error ellipses overlap, then everything is "good enough."
The "math crack" generation ignores all the other possibilities and calls the original monument "wrong". The "least count reader" generation (aka button pushers) don't even get going on the math crack, they just say "Found stone 0.66' N 1.32' E of true position" -- RTK retracement at its finest.
There is an older & wiser minority of surveyors who could say, we located the parent monuments as best as we could, we calculated the 16th as best as we could, we consulted Mr. Shovel, and then we set the monument as best as we could. Mr. Murphy was sleeping in the truck, so odds are we got it "right", although everyone knows we brought the error here from the other monuments, no avoiding that. We did the best we could and it was good enough. So now years later you retrace us with your whizbang foolproof heat seeking one button PLSS-correcting wunderbox and call us wrong? Let's hear you give the judge your clear and simple explanation for that one.
Hoping to be older and wiser when I grow up. -- hb
you can't lose what you aint never had: Muddy says so...
