EXTREMELY good article in my opinion. Addresses the Manual in a way that I agree with.
During my PLS law exam in 1980 the written part of the test had one main problem, which was to subdivide a section. The land had been patented to numerous landowners, and fences were installed on some of the section lines and internal parcels. The correct reponse the BOR was looking for was simply pro-rated division of the section and the showing of all fences that did not agree precisely with the prorated section division. I worked the problem that way and passed. Later talked to a BOR member, and he said that is exactly how the problem was supposed to be worked. Great example of misapplication of state law where it referes to the Manual for subdivision of sections. INSANE in my opinion.
One thing that I have always found interesting is the return of BLM to survey a section line that is in dispute. Although BLM may have authority over this in some states, I cannot see how an out-of-state BLM surveyor can come into a local area and do a better job than a good, experienced local surveyor, except that he might be interpreted to be the "highest authority." Does that mean that he is the best one to do it? NO.
Mr Lucas loves hyperbole. He evidently doesn't suggest reading the ENTIRE mannual of instructions.
BLM on Double Proportions
www.blmsurveymanual.org/documents/Double_Proportions.doc
....."In this edition of the Manual as well in the past edition, a double proportion is identified as a primary method for restoring a lost corner. We have got to remember that proportions in general are a method of last resort.".........
I have heard and read where Lucas believes that Math is a problem with modern surveys. e.g., Traversing the Law: Math isn’t the answer; it’s the problem. http://www.pobonline.com/Articles/Column/BNP_GUID_9-5-2006_A_10000000000000857460
I question Mr Lucas's meaning of the word math. The problem with pin cushion surveys is that people DON'T understand Math and its subcategories: Error Propagation, Probability and Statistics. Mr. Lucas's most recent article simply shows that he does not understand the ENTIRE mannual of instructions.
I'm not a PLSS surveyor but I agree with what he says
We have got to remember that proportions in general are a method of last resort
There is one guarentee when you do use it. You didn't set the corner where it was originally.
Either from traces of the original marks, or from acceptable evidence or reliable testimony that bears upon the original position and whose location cannot be restored by reference to one or more independent corners.
Does the manual state what is acceptable evidence? Or is it something each surveyor must determine on their own?
I generally agree with Lucas about math. I have seen examples on surveys associated with significant surveys of property where surveys were done just like he mentioned where math was given the power over common sense retracement. That is not to say that all surveyors have the "math" issue--obviously they don't, but I can say that based upon my experience some of them have an awful time with it. And that group is a minority of surveyors.
Once a corner is lost proportioning is appropriate. If it's only obliterated there are other options.
Seems to me that it would be at least as constructive to say what needs to be said about the subject matter.
I agree. Mr. Lucas should tell people to read the ENTIRE mannual AND learn mathematics beyond button pushing.
> Great example of misapplication of state law where it referes to the Manual for subdivision of sections. INSANE in my opinion.
Yes, I agree nowadays especially for my 'neck of the woods'. There are no lost corners here. Just surveyors who have gotten lost looking fo them. All rules of all manuals were ignored here as fae as I can tell.
But years ago, I did see the wisdom of deferring to the Manual for solid and sane surveying practice.
I understand that the northern part of Louisiana was working in a very different milieu that here.
I worked in Arkansas where recovery and restoration of PLSS corners was paramount for surveying since the quick and down and dirty surveyors of the 1320 club and the 'fence line' surveyors were running amok with no regard to PLSS practices.
I thought the reference to the Manual would give notice to them to tighten it up and survey right if they bothered to read the law.
I had a conversation with Corky Rodine at a conference in Louisiana once.. He was a lurker on the old board.
We talked about proportionate measure. I told him that it was a moot point i.e no practical value or relevance. where I work.
The little nugget of wisdom that he shed on me was that he did not understand that proportionate measure should not be used only as the 'last resort ' but it is also a good option as a means to help you with your search for the corner before you consider it the last resort. It may get you in the proximity of the corner to aid you in recovery.
There are plenty of places in the NW which are whole townships of raw forest land, where no one other than original GLO surveyors and loggers (60 years ago) have been. In these places there can, indeed be truly lost corners. But, even so, corners that first seem to be lost often are not.
Wasn't referring to that. Was referring to use of hyperbole. Why not just stay on subject?
What would you call Lucas's statements?
Lucas blasts the Mannual without reading the entire context. etc. Would Lucas also recommend not looking at ALL THE EVIDENCE?
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/hyperbole
hy·per·bo·le? –noun Rhetoric .
1. obvious and intentional exaggeration.
2. an extravagant statement or figure of speech not intended to be taken literally, as “to wait an eternity".
Robert Hill had a great comment:
"...The little nugget of wisdom that he shed on me was that he did not understand that proportionate measure should not be used only as the 'last resort ' but it is also a good option as a means to help you with your search for the corner before you consider it the last resort. It may get you in the proximity of the corner to aid you in recovery...."
Well said.
Don't you also need to know the mannual to monument additional aliquot corners that were possibly never monumented? like 1/16th and 1/64th corners?
I understand completely.
Way out west and in the NW and Alaska and also parts of Maine, I think that there is a total different mindset that has to be addressed in the PLS system. I was addressing Frank and the 'state of surveying' in Louisiana.
Certainly. The manual is well thumbed by many surveyors out here.
I think that Mr. Lucas has made a blanket statement that passes for Alabama but is not so true for nationwide publication.
The key is once those 1/16th and 1/64th corners are established, they aren't open to continual revision due to better math, better technology or better measuring.
I agree, this is one of Lucas's best articles in a long time.
Dave
I agree. What Mr. Lucas confuses for excessive math is actually lack of Math and Math understanding.
Lucas Hyperbole
Traversing the Law: Math isn’t the answer; it’s the problem
http://www.pobonline.com/Articles/Column/BNP_GUID_9-5-2006_A_10000000000000857460 <
“…If I could do one thing to slow the current demise of the profession, I would seize all handheld calculators, computers and GPS equipment, and I would immediately issue a K&E transit,[1] a 100-foot steel chain[2]and three plumb bobs[3] to every land surveyor performing boundary surveys….”
I wonder if Mr. Lucas did this within his own office. Or, demands it of all surveyors he works with.
When a lost corner is re-established by proportion it is assumed to be in the original location. If a corner is lost it is as though it was never monumented. If it was never monumented there would obviously be no evidence of it ever having been used. If setting it by proportion doesn't create disputes there is no harm in assuming it is in its original location. If setting it by proportion caused disputes the corner was not lost to begin with.
