Government Field Notes for the west line of Section 5 report that the crew began at the freshly set southwest corner(stake and pits), went north 40 chains, set a temporary post, continued 40.63 chains and missed the existing northwest section corner (stake and pits) by something like 5 links. They returned on the true line 40.63 chains and correctly set a stake and pits for the quarter corner between Sections 5 & 6.
NEWS FLASH
Straight line distance from existing bar at southwest section corner to existing bar at northwest section corner is 5468.11 feet (82.85 chains) or else their chain had grown to 67.82 feet in length for 80.63 chains. Maybe they miscounted by 2.22 chains.;-) 😉 😉 Also, at a point 2640 feet north of the southwest corner all evidence points to the historic quarter corner being over 26 feet west of the straight line alignment.
Major guess is that they never ran that mile up and back. Reported a guesstimated distance with an insignificant potential bend at the quarter corner if they didn't correct the initial post location east-west.
We have encountered many sections in that county with far larger bends at the apparent quarter corners. Mismeasures are common as well.
Liars is a strong word...I prefer to think of them as "prevaricators".
I've run into similar evidence. One that pops into my head is 17N 6E, I.M., Payne County, OK. The original survey (1875 or so) was followed by a "retracement survey" a few years later that was not a bad survey. Qtr corners noted on the original being placed at 40 ch. on a true line were found 30 or 40 links one way or the other and just as much off line.
There was plenty of pencil whipping in some of the surveys. I also think they had two chains. One to measure South to North, and another West to East for the Qtr. Cors.
The S-N chain wasn't in too bad a shape. That one they used for W-E was stretched out a bit....
160' along the west line of a Section 5 and 26' off line. That's dead on around here.;-)
So the question is "what are you going to do about it?"
Before making any assumptions; run more line. You are comparing apples and oranges when you talk about comparing local control to the GLO record. Unless you've already done that and failed to mention it. Run more line and develop an index error if possible. But don't be too quick to jump at a conclusion. Your job is to retrace what was not fix what is....
Chapter 3 of the 1973 manual requires that the quarter corners are to be set at mid-point and on line between the section corners for regular sections!!!
Follow the math and the procedures laid before you in Chapter 3. The only legal position for a quarter corner is where chapter 3 of the manual tells you where it is to be set. Section 6-30 (1973) requires all retracements to be done in accordance with the chapter 3 methods only.
Get out there and put those quarter corners where they are legally supposed to be.
Liars, Liars, Liars> Brian
You need to take a look at Chap 5, Sec. 5-1 (1973 Manual)
"The purpose is not to "correct" the original survey by determining where a new or exact running of the line would locate a particular corner, but rather to determine where the corner was established in the beginning."
"Get out there and put those quarter corners where they are legally supposed to be."
Say What?
Dang, I hope your trying to be funny
I failed to see your sarcasm font, which I hope you posted that in. I just spewed coffee all over my desk. Say it ain't so Brian.
Same with the stupid center questions. Legal my arse.
That's what I was thinking.
This is a couple of sections (Sec. 2 and 22 of the same township) that are somewhat typical of how one township was run with multiple crews. They did not connect section lines in the manner transcribed in the notes; but, with the exception of the 1/4 common to 2 and 1, all originals or old records of the originals were found. The center 1/4 of section 22 was set during a dispute between two land owners in the north 1/2 of Section 22 and the state owns all the south 1/2. It could be argued that the breakdown of Section 22 be preformed in a different manner; but with existing monuments and a court dispute......
Hope you aren't serious
We would have lawsuits out the wazoo if we did that. I have sections with as much as 300 feet from the quarter corner to the straight line connecting the section corners. Entire houses, outbuildings and other improvements would suddenly leap off the property.
Deral,
Sorry, I forgot the "font". Well, not really. I was being sarcastic, yet serious. I think you did catch my intended, yet subtle reference to the c1/4 argument. Kinda makes the argument against saying only 3-87 and 3-89 of the 1973 manual applies for previously established 16th corners and the "ever floating" C1/4, doesn't it?
Holy hell, even with this
the PLSSians are still messin' with the recipe, whether putting shrimp in the Jambalaya and what not...
😉