Kent McMillan, post: 436362, member: 3 wrote: Once again, we are reminded that reading is FUNDAMENTAL and an essential skill for a surveyor. What I actually posted was that I had replaced an original land grant corner from two large, marked live oak bearing trees that that were near enough to the corner that the replacement was with so little uncertainty that I was confident where the corner had originally been marked in 1853. I've posted photos of both the trees and the scatter of the stones of the original mound before.
Kent,
Once again you divert the discussion. No, this isn't about your reply to Robert Hill where you replaced "an original grant corner from two large, marked live oak bearing trees". In that post, you never mentioned rebuilding the stone mound. My post concerned the exception to your rule to not rebuild stone mounds, which was in reply to Jack Chiles' question.
Kent McMillan, post: 436195, member: 3 wrote: As a general rule, I don't because it tends to destroy the evidences of the age of the mound and to produce something that looks to be of more recent origin.
The exception to that rule is the case where the location of the corner can be determined with little uncertainty from bearing trees or some other similar evidence and where the mound is so scattered that it doesn't provide a basis for locating the corner. In that situation, I have rebuilt the mound around a new rod and cap marker at the corner and have noted that fact in the written description. With some care, you can leave the patinates surfaces of the rocks exposed so that the mound doesn't look newly made.
My previous reply did not take issue with rebuilding the stone mound. Kudos to you. My issue is your purposeful decision to "leave the patinates (sic) surfaces of the rocks exposed so that the mound doesn't look newly made." What possible purpose does that serve other than to mislead a surveyor following your work? You are supposedly going to include a "narrative aside" in your description, so why does that even matter to you?
Gene Kooper, post: 436368, member: 9850 wrote: My issue is your purposeful decision to "leave the patinates (sic) surfaces of the rocks exposed so that the mound doesn't look newly made." What possible purpose does that serve other than to mislead a surveyor following your work? You are supposedly going to include a "narrative aside" in your description, so why does that even matter to you?
The case that I referred to is that presented in the photos above. The scatter as found and the mound as rebuilt are shown in the photos above. If you were a Texas surveyor, you would be expected to realize that two original bearing trees 7 varas from a corner provide a better basis for locating an original land grant corner than a scatter of rocks without a definite center. Rebuilding the mound that originally marked the corner in the exact position it formerly occupied is a much different exercise since the original evidence of the bearing trees is just a few steps away. It is the scatter of stones, but in a more readily recognizable form that won't be buried under a few years of tree litter.
As for your other questions, I guess in PLSSia the fundamentals of surveying are so little understood that these strike you as meaningful points of inquiry?
I think Kent is really Cookie Monster's nemesis, The Crumb:
[MEDIA=youtube]vKxBGHYwJ3Q[/MEDIA]
Kent McMillan, post: 436393, member: 3 wrote: The case that I referred to is that presented in the photos above. The scatter as found and the mound as rebuilt are shown in the photos above. If you were a Texas surveyor, you would be expected to realize that two original bearing trees 7 varas from a corner provide a better basis for locating an original land grant corner than a scatter of rocks without a definite center. Rebuilding the mound that originally marked the corner in the exact position it formerly occupied is a much different exercise since the original evidence of the bearing trees is just a few steps away. It is the scatter of stones, but in a more readily recognizable form that won't be buried under a few years of tree litter.
As for your other questions, I guess in PLSSia the fundamentals of surveying are so little understood that these strike you as meaningful points of inquiry?
Kent, you are changing the topic once again. Geezo, this isn't about your 2 bearing tree example. It is about your general statement to Jack Chiles' question where you clearly state that you carefully rebuild the mound with all the stones buttered side up so that others won't be left with the impression it was recently rebuilt. This is a common debate trick of yours. That being to deflect or redirect the discussion away from answering a direct question.
Again, your guessing shows that you are completely ignorant of surveying in a PLSS state. The situation you describe above with your two bearing trees is a classic example of an extant corner. I'm glad to hear that it is a no-brainer in Texas, too, also. Your unwillingness to defend your previous statement is telling.
Gene Kooper, post: 436419, member: 9850 wrote: Kent, you are changing the topic once again. Geezo, this isn't about your 2 bearing tree example. It is about your general statement to Jack Chiles' question where you clearly state that you carefully rebuild the mound with all the stones buttered side up so that others won't be left with the impression it was recently rebuilt. This is a common debate trick of yours. That being to deflect or redirect the discussion away from answering a direct question.
Again, your guessing shows that you are completely ignorant of surveying in a PLSS state. The situation you describe above with your two bearing trees is a classic example of an extant corner. I'm glad to hear that it is a no-brainer in Texas, too, also. Your unwillingness to defend your previous statement is telling.
Gene,
What are you trying to ask? I feel you are grasping at something that is nothing. In Texas a Surveyor has to set a monument that is.
??663.17. Monumentation. (a) All monuments set by registered professional land surveyors shall be set at sufficient depth to retain a stable and distinctive location and be of sufficient size to withstand the deteriorating forces of nature and shall be of such material that in the land surveyor's judgment will best achieve this goal.
Rebuilding a rock mount from two bearing trees, Kent didn't just pick a spot to rebuild the rock mount, the base was already there, just put the rocks back on top. I think it would be same as straightening up a iron pipe, some Surveyors feel you should straighten the pipe, others say not to touch it. Some Pipes I agree don't touch, others may need to be straighten. If the description calls for a bend pipe don't touch it, if a tractor bend it in the last year I would straighten it.
Scott Ellis, post: 436430, member: 7154 wrote: Gene,
What are you trying to ask? I feel you are grasping at something that is nothing. In Texas a Surveyor has to set a monument that is.
??663.17. Monumentation. (a) All monuments set by registered professional land surveyors shall be set at sufficient depth to retain a stable and distinctive location and be of sufficient size to withstand the deteriorating forces of nature and shall be of such material that in the land surveyor's judgment will best achieve this goal.
Rebuilding a rock mount from two bearing trees, Kent didn't just pick a spot to rebuild the rock mount, the base was already there, just put the rocks back on top. I think it would be same as straightening up a iron pipe, some Surveyors feel you should straighten the pipe, others say not to touch it. Some Pipes I agree don't touch, others may need to be straighten. If the description calls for a bend pipe don't touch it, if a tractor bend it in the last year I would straighten it.
Scott,
I rebuild mounds of stone as a general practice since the majority of original corners I find are marked stones surrounded by a mound of stones. In Colorado, the mound is not the corner, but rather an accessory. The corner is the marked stone. My question about Kent rebuilding mound of stones was one of several in that post. Kent chose to ignore the other questions I posed.
I'm not saying that Kent shouldn't have rebuilt a mound of stone or that he shouldn't have used the two original bearing trees to reestablish the corner. Quite the contrary, I gave him kudos. Those two bearing trees are original accessories and as such the corner is not lost or obliterated (PLSS terms); the corner is known. One of the questions I had for Kent is why his practice of rebuilding stone mounds is to "leave the patinates (sic) surfaces of the rocks exposed so that the mound doesn't look newly made." Those are his words, not mine. Granted, my intellectual curiosity got the best of me. If Kent had omitted the phrase, "so that the mound doesn't look newly made" I would have taken it as another example of the high quality of his work.
As with most debates with Kent, the end is very predictable. 😉
Gene Kooper, post: 436446, member: 9850 wrote: One of the questions I had for Kent is why his practice of rebuilding stone mounds is to "leave the patinates (sic) surfaces of the rocks exposed so that the mound doesn't look newly made."
The answer, of course is that it's for the benefit of posterity. Once the rebuilt mound has weathered a bit, it will give some future surveyor a chance to see what an intact rock mound looks like. The only case that comes to mind when I rebuild mounds is when the corner can be proven with certainty from other evidence that still exists. In cases where the scatter of stones is the main evidence of the corner, I would not rebuild the mound because it destroys the evidence from which the corner was determined in the first place.
Kent McMillan, post: 436572, member: 3 wrote: Once the rebuilt mound has weathered a bit, it will give some future surveyor a chance to see what an intact rock mound looks like.
What Kent meant to say is, "Once the rebuilt mound [rebuilt to not look newly rebuilt, that is] has weathered a bit, it will give some future surveyor a chance to see what an intact rock mound looks like."
WOW! I'm stunned.
[SARCASM]Just a quick reminder about a common online gardener's trick to artificially age landscaping rocks. Scrape some of the lichen off of a nearby chunk of native limestone. Put it in a blender with some buttermilk and after the mound has been rebuilt, spray the mixture onto the stone mound. This will accelerate the weathering and to create a mound that looks just like it hadn't been disturbed or touched since 1854.[/SARCASM]
Gene Kooper, post: 436579, member: 9850 wrote: What Kent meant to say is, "Once the rebuilt mound [rebuilt to not look newly rebuilt, that is] has weathered a bit, it will give some future surveyor a chance to see what an intact rock mound looks like."
WOW! I'm stunted.
The point that you obviously missed, though, is that the whole exercise is one of the evaluation and preservation of evidence. Rebuilding the mound destroys the information that was contained in the scatter of rocks, but that information/evidence was of a much lower order than that of the bearing trees. The photo below shows the two different ideas that I had about the location of the corner based upon two different sets of evidence. The Rod and Cap on the left is that which I set using only the scatter on the theory that the bearing trees were unlikely to provide better evidence that would override that location. I had not yet noticed the mark "X" with bars above and below that remained visible on the bark, but at an unusually low height above the ground for cut marks on bearing trees and expected that the ties to the trees at the height that such marks typically are cut would show the point I selected to be a reasonable determination of the corner as originally located by the 1854 surveyor.
So, the Rod and Cap on the left got installed and located and from it I measured ties to the bearing trees, noticing the scars of the marks on the bark quite low on the trees and taking the ties to the "X" with the idea that I'd have to work out in the office whether the 1854 surveyor had measured his distances from the center of the tree or the face of the tree at the mark. Having worked that out and reconstructed the original position of the corner, I found that estimate of the center of the scatter was hasty pudding and set the Rod and Cap marker on the right at the refined determination of the corner, 1.23 ft. distant from the Initial estimate represented by the Rod and Cap on the left.
Both Rods and Caps were driven into drill holes in underlying rock and were very solidly set, so I removed the cap from the Rod and Cap on the left, drove the Rod down as far as I could, and rebuilt the 1854 surveyor's rock mound around the Rod and Cap on the right, the Cap stamped "RBLT OLD RM" with Pt. No. stamped on it that is keyed to the maps and descriptions subsequently produced.
Naturally, an old Stone Mound that since 1854 has been in place under the canopy of a large Live Oak will have quite a bit of organic matter in the form of decaying leaf litter and the stones themselves will have some soil that has formed or washed or blown in between them. These are details of an original Stone Mound in that setting that are as important as the grey, weathered patina from years of rainfall.
Kent McMillan, post: 436585, member: 3 wrote: .... Having worked that out and reconstructed the original position of the corner, I found that estimate of the center of the scatter was hasty pudding and set the Rod and Cap marker on the right at the refined determination of the corner, 1.23 ft. distant from the Initial estimate represented by the Rod and Cap on the left..
...so you 'restored' the corner then moved it to fit your calcs? marvelous....
'smatter? The original surveyor didn't have StarNet?
paden cash, post: 436586, member: 20 wrote: ...so you 'restored' the corner then moved it to fit your calcs? marvelous....
'smatter? The original surveyor didn't have StarNet?
No, I picked what I thought was the center of the remains of the original rock mound that had been very well scattered as you could see in the photo I posted above, concluding from compass bearings and taped distances to the tree that it should fit the 1854 surveyor's ties. However, after doing that, I spotted the actual marks "X", low on the tree, to which the 1854 surveyor had taken his bearings and distances visible on the bark of the live oaks that in 1854 had been reported by the original suveyor as 17 and 18 inches dia. and that were now both 30 inches dia.
The 1854 surveyor was running his lines in relation to a North direction that two of his corners 660 vrs. apart show has a Grid Azimuth of -0?ø34' Here is the comparison of his report and my determination of the corner in relation to his original marks:
[PRE]1854 Surveyor Predicted Grid Actual Grid
North, 660 vrs. N0?ø34W, 660 vrs. N0?ø33'51"W, 660.340 vrs.
N41?øW, 7 vrs. N41?ø34'W, 7 vrs. N41?ø18'W, 6.89 vrs, (bearing to mark, dist. to center of tree)
N53?øW. 7 vrs. N53?ø34'W, 7 vrs. N53?ø18'W, 7.16 vrs (bearing to mark, dist to center of tree)[/PRE]
As you can see, the agreement is as good as it may be reasonably expected to get, essentially exact considering that his compass bearings, rounded to the nearest degree, would have had a standard error of about 0.68 x 30 minutes = 20 minutes and distances measured to the nearest vara would have a standard error of about 0.68 x 0.5 vrs = 0.34 vrs.
Kent McMillan, post: 436595, member: 3 wrote: No, I picked what I thought was the center of the remains of the original rock mound that had been very well scattered as you could see in the photo I posted above, concluding from compass bearings and taped distances to the tree that it should fit the 1854 surveyor's ties. However, after doing that, I spotted the actual marks "X", low on the tree, to which the 1854 surveyor had taken his bearings and distances visible on the bark of the live oaks that in 1854 had been reported by the original suveyor as 17 and 18 inches dia. and that were now both 30 inches dia.
The 1854 surveyor was running his lines in relation to a North direction that two of his corners 660 vrs. apart show has a Grid Azimuth of -0?ø34' Here is the comparison of his report and my determination of the corner in relation to his original marks:
[PRE]1854 Surveyor Predicted Grid Actual Grid
North, 660 vrs. N0?ø34W, 660 vrs. N0?ø33'51"W, 660.340 vrs.N41?øW, 7 vrs. N41?ø34'W, 7 vrs. N41?ø18'W, 6.89 vrs, (bearing to mark, dist. to center of tree)
N53?øW. 7 vrs. N53?ø34'W, 7 vrs. N53?ø18'W, 7.16 vrs (bearing to mark, dist to center of tree)[/PRE]
As you can see, the agreement is as good as it may be reasonably expected to get, essentially exact considering that his compass bearings, rounded to the nearest degree, would have had a standard error of about 0.68 x 30 minutes = 20 minutes and distances measured to the nearest vara would have a standard error of about 0.68 x 0.5 vrs = 0.34 vrs.
Resetting a corner and then looking for the bearing trees must be some of that Texas surveying us Okies couldn't understand...;)
paden cash, post: 436603, member: 20 wrote: Resetting a corner and then looking for the bearing trees must be some of that Texas surveying us Okies couldn't understand
Yes, I doubt you have very many bearing trees in Oklahoma at all, what with fire wood being as hard to come by as it is. At that ranch in TEXAS, I found the bearing trees and backed in from them to the scattered mound hiding under the tree litter, spending a fair amount of time with a trowel and whisk broom to clean it up enough just to see the pattern of the scatter.
The Live Oak BTs had increased from 17 and 18 inches in dia. (in 1854) to 30 inches (in 2011), which meant that any mark made in 1854 would only be visible as a scar on the bark of the trees. I looked but didn't see anything, so proceeded to measure from the trees to where I thought the center of the former mound as evidenced by the stones in the scatter probably had been.
Naturally, it was only after setting a Rod and Cap in a drill hole in the underlying limestone that I spotted the scars of the 1854 surveyor's marks. They were unusually low, 1.9 ft. above the ground and depended a bit upon the light to see them well. I'd been operating under the assumption that the trees had been marked at more typical height and had been measuring to the centers of the trees at that height.
Obviously, the best way to determine how to most efficiently do anything is to go ahead and do it and then figure out later what would have been the most efficient way. As soon as I saw the scars of the marks, I set up the total station and got ties to the centers of the "X" on each tree and measured distances to the faces of the 30 in. dia. trunks that got corrected to the center. Then, in the calm of the evening office, I realized that the 1854 surveyor's corner truly had been marked 1.23 ft. away from where I had thought the pattern of the scattered stones indicated it had been. Stuff happens.
I probably should have posted a marked up version of the photo of the tree with the more visible mark so that everyone can see where it was. Note one feature of old scars in Live Oak bark is that they stretch horizontally as the tree grows and the bark separates as it expands. It's possible to arrive at rough estimates of the diameter of the tree when the mark was originally made just by rescaling a photo of the elongated scar until it looks about right.
paden cash, post: 436603, member: 20 wrote: Resetting a corner and then looking for the bearing trees must be some of that Texas surveying us Okies couldn't understand...;)
I don't have any issue with the order in which a surveyor conducts their field work. Accepting or rejecting found monuments or changing the position of lost corners, like my opinion of the boundary line(s) are all subject to revision up to the point I seal and sign the plat.
As for bark scribed bearing trees, I have the singular experience of finding a bark scribed aspen tree. I would presume that the record distance between the bearing tree and corner is corrected to account for the tree's growth.
Without cutting into the trees to get to the X, I'd imagine that you could easily get a combined 1 foot of error between the two trees through the process of backing these positions in to the locus of the mark. Your first guess may have been as good as any. BTW, I assume that you mentioned in your report about the first rebar that was set in error. This could be confusing for someone down the road when your cap has long disappeared. I'm also surprised by the very slow growth of the trees even for oaks, 12" in over 150 years isn't much, but maybe that's just Texas.
Gene Kooper, post: 436610, member: 9850 wrote: I don't have any issue with the order in which a surveyor conducts their field work. Accepting or rejecting found monuments or changing the position of lost corners, like my opinion of the boundary line(s) are all subject to revision up to the point I seal and sign the plat.
As for bark-scribed bearing trees, I have the singular experience of finding a bark scribed aspen tree. I would presume that the record distance between the bearing tree and corner is corrected to account for the tree's growth.
These live oaks were most likely NOT scribed only on their bark, but cut with an axe or hatchet into the cambium of the tree. That was typically how Live Oaks were marked by 19th-century surveyors in Texas. The surveyors who marked oaks a bit too heavily tended to kill them or to create a pocket that rotted away.
What happens is that as the cut mark overgrows with living wood, the scar is visible in the upper layers of the bark of Live Oaks as a change of texture, depth, or color. After about 160 years, the marks tend to become very difficult to see if the tree has continued to grow as those marked by the 1854 surveyor did.
roger_LS, post: 436615, member: 11550 wrote: Without cutting into the trees to get to the X, I'd imagine that you could easily get a combined 1 foot of error between the two trees through the process of backing these positions in to the locus of the mark. Your first guess may have been as good as any. BTW, I assume that you mentioned in your report about the first rebar that was set in error. This could be confusing for someone down the road when your cap has long disappeared. I'm also surprised by the very slow growth of the trees even for oaks, 12" in over 150 years isn't much, but maybe that's just Texas.
You may have missed it, but the "X" marks remain visible on the bark for quite a long time. The bark expands like an elastic waistband at a buffet, but doesn't rotate. So the center of the "X" remains on the same bearing from the corner it was marked to reference. There is no need to actually cut into the tree, particularly since that will probably kill the tree.
As for growth rates, the approximately 13 years per inch of increase in diameter that the Live Oaks exhibit is on the fast side for Central Texas. Rates of 14 years to 20 years per inch for marked Live Oak bearing trees are more typically what I expect to encounter. The soils are shallow and the annual rainfall is around 30 inches. The size of those two Live Oaks and the relatively small girdling effect of the marks that were cut probably account for the faster growth rates after marking.
The visible X today would only remain on the same called for bearing if the X was initially set on an exact direct line between the center of the tree and corner and the tree grew perfectly evenly. A better practice is to develop a position of the center of the tree by taking a number of shots around it, then back in toward the center of the tree using the difference between the two diameters. In any case, it's an approximatation.
roger_LS, post: 436621, member: 11550 wrote: The visible X today would only remain on the same called for bearing if the X was initially set on an exact direct line between the center of the tree and corner and the tree grew perfectly evenly. A better practice is to develop a position of the center of the tree by taking a number of shots around it, then back in toward the center of the tree using the difference between the two diameters. In any case, it's an approximatation.
Typically, the "X" would have been cut facing the corner. The fact that the scar on the bark remains on that same radial is easily verified by measuring the angles to both edges of the tree at the level of the mark, as well as to the mark itself. If it isn't, there is always the option of computing the position on the radial from the center of the mark on the bark to the trees center, but at the distance from the center when the tree was originally marked.
Asymmetrical growth patterns will typically be reflected in a markedly non-circular cross-section of the tree at the level of the mark. So, in the absence of that more or less uniform growth from the center is a warranted assumption.
Error analysis is of considerable value in this situation to demonstrate the triviality of the small errors that might conceivably result from adopting the scar on the bark as having exactly the same bearing from the corner as the mark as originally made at some remote time in the past. For example, suppose that the mark as originally cut when the tree was 18 inches dia. was 0.10 ft. offset from a line from the corner to the center of the tree. That means that the mark is most likely offset from that same line by 0.16 ft. when the tree is 30 inches dia.
When distances are measured with a standard error of 0.34 vara ( = 0.94 ft.) and compass directions have a standard error of 0?ø20', that means that worrying about errors of 0.06 ft introduced by assuming that the scar has the same bearing from the corner as the original mark did are well below the noise threshold.
What is important, however, is that when marks on bearing trees are tied, that the ties be made from as near to the position of the corner as possible.
Kent McMillan, post: 436624, member: 3 wrote:
What is important, however, is that when marks on bearing trees are tied, that the ties be made from as near to the position of the corner as possible.
Please elaborate.
I had a crewmember tell me once that he liked to set the instrument up on the monument to tie all of the BTs but I never understood that and I rarely did it.
I was senior to him so I made the calls when we were in the field and I don't recall asking him why he would do that but I have wondered about it a few times
It always seemed like an extraneous setup to me, especially considering what you just said about "triviality of the small errors" in relation to the magnitude of chaining and directional error on the old monuments (which I have always believed as well -- If there are typical variations of 3-5 feet in a 1/4 mile then what difference does a foot or two make when backing in a monument from BTs??)
