I am getting 20.05 chains between lots 4 & 3. I agree, there might be a mathematical error there. because all the lots across the top of the township show to be less than 40 acres, except this one. And you notice all of them are getting smaller as you come from Section 6 and go east.
> I am getting 20.05 chains between lots 4 & 3. I agree, there might be a mathematical error there. because all the lots across the top of the township show to be less than 40 acres, except this one. And you notice all of them are getting smaller as you come from Section 6 and go east.
scotland,
Exactly. I have the same problem. If I use 20.05 chains between lots 4 & 3, a check is that the chainage between lots 4 & 5 should be the mean of 20.05 and 17.18 (18.615), but it would be 20.00 chains if the acreage adds up for lot 4. That's 1.385 chains different (91 feet).
I will order the original notes, but I didn't know if someone here might find the problem on yhe plat. I have gone to the web site, and found the plat there. Thank you for your help.
🙂 no need for sorry - the clearer image helped immensely. Really need record dims on the west line of section to make better sense. The shortage in northern tier combined with the river in NE part of section would seem to indicate that a greater excess in north line of NW 1/4 is present than the given 40.05ch. I wonder if that dim was mistakenly transcribed as the area of lot 4 by whomever(?) - to make it work holding 20 ch on north & south line of Lot 4, I get E line (lot 4) of 20.76 ch & W line (lot 4) of 19.29 ch...but that results in a greater excess in north line of NW 1/4 than is stated on plat
Ok I went ahead and calculated the figure and there is a large misclosure into the east line of Lot 1 using the meqander calls and due east along the north line of Sec. 4. The meander line would miss the 9 chain call by quite a bit. If the meander line is then backed into the north township line from the point on Lot 1 shown by the 9chain call-then the acreages for Lots 1,2 and 3 work. Not so well for Lots 4 and 5-there would be a shortage of +-3 acres. WHEW! I think you have a kind of a mess.
Parenthetical distances
Sorry I didn't re-read your post before I hit send. After review everything I think there is something wrong with the plat. I see you are ordering the notes - maybe you can resolve the problem from them. Let us know what you find - this is interesting
distance between 4/5 19.976 chs
distance between 4/3 20.048 chs
area=(a+c/2 * b+d/2)/10
more info would be needed to figure lot 3,as noted by others
Dane,
Shouldn't the distance between lots 4/5 be proportional (the mean of) the distance on the west line of lot 5 and the distance between lots 3/4?
my solution
My solution for what it's worth:
I think the draftsman held 20 chains for the north and south lines of lot 5 ,and the east, west, and south lines of lot 4; and 20.05 for the north line of lot 4. The areas would then be 20.0 + 17.18 = 37.18 acres for lot 5, and 20.05 + 20 chains for lot 4. (or multiply 2.0 ( 0.1 times the mean of the sidelines) * 20.025 (the mean of the north and south lines)).
Note:
That doesn't make sense, per se, and it creates an angle point between lots 4 and 5, but that is the simplest solution I have that fits the areas. (Dane's solution is similar with an angle point between the lots) I will get the original notes and see if I can confirm my theory. But I have a feeling it won't have enough information.
If I run the first four courses and distances of the meander lines and then go south 9 chains and then around the section, I get an inverse from the south line of the section to the first point of the meander line of 79.98 chains. I am calling that 80 chains. I run the traverse up to the NW Corner of section 4 and close to the beginning of the meanders.
If you download the drawing and zoom in on the north 1/4 of section 4, you see that the meander corner is marked to be at the north 1/4.
Thanks guys for all your input. Any other thoughts are welcome.
Tom
I'm missing something probably...a couple people have this dim, but where's the 20.05 coming from (between lot 4 & 3)?
opps I made an error,but Adam,plug in the values
Adam plug in the values for the formula and you will get the correct dimensions.You have 3 side for lot 5. They are 17.18, 20 and 20.05 That is if I figured them correctly.The north line of lot 5 is 20.05. The part below the lots is an aliquot part of 80acs, 20chs x 40chs, assuming I read the plat correctly. The line between lot 4/5 is 19.953. 19.953-40.05= 20.097 for the line between lot3/4. 19.953+20.097/2 * 20= 400.50/10 = 40.05 area of lot 4.
17.18+19.953/2 * 20.05+20/2 = 371.94/10 = 37.179 area lot 5
Plug in the values and solve for the missing side and see what you come up with.
My solution checks the area of both lot 4/5.
The mistake I made in my first attempt was to divide .05 chains in half where the .05 should have gone to lot 5.
Adam,plug in the values - good point
> Adam plug in the values for the formula that I posted and you will get the correct dimensions.You have 3 side for lot 5. They are 17.18, 20 and 20.025. That is if I figured them correctly.Half of 40.05 on the north line is 20.025. The part below the lots is an aliquot part of 80acs, 20chs x 40chs, assuming I read the plat correctly.
>
> The formula you are trying to use does not work because the lots have different dimensions on all for sides. Many of the formulas work only if you have 20chs on pairs of sides. Plug in the values and solve for the missing side and see what you come up with.
>
> My solution checks the area of both lot 4/5.
Your solution works for both lots 4 & 5, and is as viable as I can come up with. However, it is not absolute. As a check, the distance between lots 4 and 5 should be the mean (approximately) between the lot line to the west and the one to the east. That part doesn't work. (Mean of 17.18 and 20.048 = 18.614)
My solution works as well but causes the same problem. I don't know what the draftsman used.
Use as the four sides for lot 5: 17.18, 20, 20, and 20. Use as the four sides of lot 4: 20.05 (on the north), 20, 20, and 20.
To me, it's just too coincidental that the area for lot 5 is 37.18 and the west line of the lot is 17.18; and the area for lot 4 is 40.05. and the length of the line on top is 40.05. (I think he threw that remaining 0.05 into that lot) One thing you don't see ifs the common line to the north.....having 80 acres in the west half of the SW 1/4 of lot 33 implying that the 20 chains is in the west half of that line. I will try to post that drawing.
No I don not think so. We are trying to protect the plat,unless we can prove the plat is in error. So the dimensions you come up with should check the area on the plat.
Adam,plug in the values - good point
Can I link it? Look at the below link if this works. It appears as though I can't upload this large of a picture. (Image size larger than the maximum size of the server)
If that works, it implies (to me) that the extra 0.05 chains is all pushed to the east.
Adam I made a mistake the first time,but
Adam I made a mistake the fisrt time, but I corrected it. In any case the formula that I used is one I was taught by BLM trainers. So I am not guessing on how to solve the dimensions. The formula I posted is the one used when you have three sides and you are trying to solve for a 4th side. If I properly picked the correct parenthethicals that are given and plug them into the formula i get the platted area for both lot 4/5. Since this checks the plat, I am a happy camper. We are trying to protect the plat.
Further Adam, the parenthetical dimensions that you use as givens are incorrect.
Given for lot 5 w 17.18, n 20.05, s 20 e ?
Given for lot 4 n 20, s 20 w ? e?.
Remember the effort was to make as many aliquot parts as possible, so the error goes in the north and west ,usually.
There is no error in the plat, that I can find.
Adam I made a mistake the first time,but
Dane,
I get that you had a mistake the first time. I do understand the formula as well, and have had courses in parenthetical distances by area by blm instructors.
The check doesn't work for me. The areas don't make sense. I am not sure you have fully read my logic for my solution, but maybe I didn't explain it well.
However, having said all of that, if I was retracing your work and found your corners based on your solution, I would accept them, as I can't make an absolute determination to the contrary. (outside of pulling the original notes and finding something that supports an alternative solution and/or a typo in one of the areas.)
Tom
Adam I made a mistake the first time,but
I may be missing something (besides the notes on the north line) but you can't just figure lots as a series of rectangular boxes next to each other. The Section at this stage of knowledge has straight centerline and the NW 4 should be divided by straight lines. Not a bent EW line. Given the south half is shown as 80 the situation and geometry looks pretty impossible to me unless somehow the north line has been skewed NE a few degrees. Lot 4 just can't magically get big like it seems to here. Yeah you may be able to put two trapezoids together with the same common side and area, but the geometry of the section and the quarter don't work out then.
So the plat is still pretty mystifying to me.
- jlw
Mr Wahl can you
Can you please explain further. Clearly, I am missing something. The lots seem to work for me, based ypon the plat. So I just do not get it.
Adam, I understood what you posted,I think. I did not agree with the parentheticals that you come up with.
Thanks for your help
Thank Mr. Ince, and Mr. Wahl
Dane,
I think the point you are missing, is that you can come up with a distance on the line between the lots, but that number should be close to the mean of the outer lines, otherwise those lines can't be straight, or you would have some obscure geometry.
I can let Mr. Wahl explain his thoughts in his words, but that is my whole problem with the platted areas and distances and why I posted it.
I think there is an error on the plat. I am suspicious that the draftsman made a mistake and the numbers I am calling are what I am guessing the draftsman used. The numbers I posted work with your formula, but they cause the same problem.
Thank Mr. Ince, and Mr. Wahl
Thanks Adam for your post. I agree with you that the line will be skewed. I am trying to use the plat and preserve what is on the plat. Based upon the plat the line will be skewed. If those lots were patented, they were entered upon based upon the plat. We cannot now come back and "FIX" that "problem".
For my own benefit, is there some place in the manual that leads you to believe that the line MUST be equal to the mean? I ask because,my opinion would be that you need evidence to support a position at variance with the plat. A review of the notes may provide evidence that you are correct. But again, I would tread carefully, if these lots have been patented.
We have not discussed retracement. No doubt a true and accurate retracement of these lots will be very, very interesting.
Thank Mr. Ince, and Mr. Wahl
in my first look at this problem, i determined the line between lots 4&5 by using the collective area of the N 1/2 of NW1/4 (77.23A), then determining the east line (between 3&4) assuming 20 ch E-W across lot 4. I believe Dane's solution is, academically, the best with the given data, and as he has mentioned, most protective of the plat as recorded. just my 2cents