Markings on 1/16 Corner "Caps"

I will generally place the T and R on 1/16th corners, more habit than anything else, as they aren't needed.
Many surveyors use the CN, CE markings, it's all good to me. Some will even use them in a description, I've done it.

However, I will now do it the old fashioned way and call it something like the NE corner of the S2NW4, even though it's wordy, I figure it follows the original description and therefore more proper.

I do know surveyors who insist that CN, is the way to do it.

Clearly the C----C markings on the cap are not something that can be incorporated into the description.

CN1/16 is probably a less confusing way to show the corner on a drawing.

Mighty,

I pretty much agree with your comments above, although I see a myriad of "scenarios" where one could argue about how said 1/16th Corner should be identified in a "description."

A given Center-North 1/16th could be the Corner of 4 Original Patents, or 3, or 2. All described as various 1/2(s) of 1/4(s), 1/4(s) of 1/4(s), etc.

I personally dislike the practice of taking a perfectly good (and unambiguous) Aliquot Part Description, and creating a [pseudo] Metes & Bounds (or worse, a Metes w/o Bounds) "legal" Description out of it. It just doesn't seem "right" to me. Now obviously when such a Patent is "cut up" into two or more individual parcels that do NOT conform to standard aliquot parts, then things change.

To me, "calling" TO the CN 1/16th Corner of Section X, is easier to "find" on a Plat, than the NW of the SW of the NE...or maybe not.

If the ORIGINAL "deed" (Patent), says "NW?¬ SW?¬ NE?¬, then I think that we should go with the original verbiage, and NOT CHANGE the Record.

I know, I know, EVERYBODY wants Bearings and Distances, but that doesn't make it right. Here in the Recording States, ALL of that GOOD STUFF is on the ROS PLAT.

Just my 2-bits.
Loyal

Oh no!!!! I'm not writing a description for this survey, the one already filed is perfectly fine.
I don't metes and bounds 40's or 80's. I only used the NE of the S2NW4 as an example, in this case that would follow the patent description.

I would only need a metes and bounds if the 40 or 80 gets split somehow. I've used the CN in a description, but honestly I've gotten some blow back from title people who have no idea what it is. So.....I figure why bother, just call it what everyone understands.

MightyMoe, post: 448038, member: 700 wrote: Oh no!!!! I'm not writing a description for this survey, the one already filed is perfectly fine.
I don't metes and bounds 40's or 80's. I only used the NE of the S2NW4 as an example, in this case that would follow the patent description.

I would only need a metes and bounds if the 40 or 80 gets split somehow. I've used the CN in a description, but honestly I've gotten some blow back from title people who have no idea what it is. So.....I figure why bother, just call it what everyone understands.

I believe you Mighty! And I feel your pain too (PITA Title folks).

I was commenting IN GENERAL about what I see ALL THE TIME it seems. An aliquot part 40 (or whatever), is Patented, sold, inherited, sold again, ALL using the Original Aliquot Part Description in the Patent. Then some brain-dead Attorney, Realtor, Title weenie, whatever...decides that North 1320, East 1320, South 1320, & West 1320 is BETTER!

And it's all downhill from there.
😡
Loyal

Loyal, post: 448014, member: 228 wrote: I didn't want to complicate Mighty's thread about his NEW Cap, so here goes on a side tangent:

I KNOW that I have stamped NC 1/16 on more than one Cap, and my only ƒ??excuseƒ? is that I have carried a OLD USFS Diagram (R4-7100-72a) around for the last 45 years as a ƒ??go byƒ? (lots easier than packing the full Manual around). It ƒ??showsƒ? the Center-North 1/16 as 'CN 1/16' along with ƒ??Idsƒ? down to the 1024 Corners. Me BAD!

Here's the actual Instruction cites for all of the Manuals since 1919 (the 1902 and earlier Manuals predate ƒ??brass capsƒ? and don't apply here).

Marking on Caps:

1919/1924 Advance Sheets Sec.274 Page 237
1930 Manual Sec.274 Page 241
1947 Manual Sec.274 Page 258
1973 Manual Ch.4-36 Page 113
2009 Manual Ch.4-41 Page 113

Figure 4-2 (2009)

Now there is also the following ƒ??Instructionsƒ? for marking the Bearing Trees of said 1/16 Corners:

1919/1924 Advance Sheets Sec.342 Page 255
1930 Manual Sec.342 Page 259
1947 Manual Sec.342 Page 278
1973 Manual Ch.4-110 Page 126
2009 Manual Ch.4-106 Page 125

Figure 4-11 (2009)

ALL of the above Manuals use the same "figures"

Loyal

For my Colleagues who insist that the Center corner is NOT a Quarter corner and therefore not subject to mandatory filing in Oklahoma. Read the part about the state adopting the Manual in its entirety in the law and then look at the above instructions on how to mark corners, directly from said manual.

Just last week I was setting a 1/16th and browsed the manual, turns out I was doing it wrong too. I always did C-N 1/16.....so I switched to C-----C

Jon Collins, post: 448181, member: 11135 wrote: Just last week I was setting a 1/16th and browsed the manual, turns out I was doing it wrong too. I always did C-N 1/16.....so I switched to C-----C

I wouldn't consider the CN marking "wrong", many surveyors use it; I prefer the C---C way cause of the diagram and because it's easy to point to the book when a field guy wants to know how to mark a cap. If you do it the same way every time you know what's on the cap.

Down to the 1/16ths it's simple, then you get into the 1/64ths, the 1/265ths and the 1/1024ths. Those are really fun to puzzle out from the book.

The book doesn't cover everything, when a section comes up like some of the Independent Resurvey sections, or fractional sections, there maybe needs to be some creative thought when stamping some of those corners.

the SE1/16th for section 29 could be stamped that way, but using Lot 2 and Lot 1 in a diagram shouldn't trigger anyone either.

Same goes for more regular lotted sections, say the NE1/6th of Section 1.

At the end of the day there aren't stencil police out there, at least none I've ever run into. 😉

Perhaps in those sections you could precede the standard lettering with "FU" for fouled up section.

MightyMoe, post: 448198, member: 700 wrote: I wouldn't consider the CN marking "wrong", many surveyors use it; I prefer the C---C way cause of the diagram and because it's easy to point to the book when a field guy wants to know how to mark a cap. If you do it the same way every time you know what's on the cap.

Down to the 1/16ths it's simple, then you get into the 1/64ths, the 1/265ths and the 1/1024ths. Those are really fun to puzzle out from the book.

The book doesn't cover everything, when a section comes up like some of the Independent Resurvey sections, or fractional sections, there maybe needs to be some creative thought when stamping some of those corners.

the SE1/16th for section 29 could be stamped that way, but using Lot 2 and Lot 1 in a diagram shouldn't trigger anyone either.

Same goes for more regular lotted sections, say the NE1/6th of Section 1.

At the end of the day there aren't stencil police out there, at least none I've ever run into. 😉

A lot of those are dealt with in the new Manual by the additional of a distance beyond the normal subdivision.

MightyMoe, post: 448198, member: 700 wrote: I wouldn't consider the CN marking "wrong", many surveyors use it; I prefer the C---C way cause of the diagram and because it's easy to point to the book when a field guy wants to know how to mark a cap. If you do it the same way every time you know what's on the cap.

Down to the 1/16ths it's simple, then you get into the 1/64ths, the 1/265ths and the 1/1024ths. Those are really fun to puzzle out from the book.

The book doesn't cover everything, when a section comes up like some of the Independent Resurvey sections, or fractional sections, there maybe needs to be some creative thought when stamping some of those corners.

the SE1/16th for section 29 could be stamped that way, but using Lot 2 and Lot 1 in a diagram shouldn't trigger anyone either.

Same goes for more regular lotted sections, say the NE1/6th of Section 1.

At the end of the day there aren't stencil police out there, at least none I've ever run into. 😉

J.B. Kendrick! Those Tracts are a small portion of what holdings he had in Montana & Wyoming. The first telephone I can remember was the old crank phone at the OW Ranch between Decker & Otter Creek, close to where I was raised. My brothers & I were always fasinated by the phone every time we visited the OW. Even got so we could even tell some of the people who were being called by the ring up codes. Whenever the phone would ring, everyone that had a phone would pick up and listen in. The more listeners on the line, the weaker the transmission got, so that you could hardly have a conversation. The rings worked both ways, incoming or out going calls. That was the only phone that we had ever seen in the area except for those in the little towns or stores scattered about, Birney, Ashland, Otter Creek, & Lame Deer.

Charles L. Dowdell, post: 448260, member: 82 wrote: J.B. Kendrick! Those Tracts are a small portion of what holdings he had in Montana & Wyoming. The first telephone I can remember was the old crank phone at the OW Ranch between Decker & Otter Creek, close to where I was raised. My brothers & I were always fasinated by the phone every time we visited the OW. Even got so we could even tell some of the people who were being called by the ring up codes. Whenever the phone would ring, everyone that had a phone would pick up and listen in. The more listeners on the line, the weaker the transmission got, so that you could hardly have a conversation. The rings worked both ways, incoming or out going calls. That was the only phone that we had ever seen in the area except for those in the little towns or stores scattered about, Birney, Ashland, Otter Creek, & Lame Deer.

The OW is still out there, under new ownership, if you drive to the headquarters of that ranch you will have a difficult time believing there was a time it was technology central. Basically it's really in the middle of nowhere. It's a trek from it, not just to the next town, but the next structure.

I think some music producer bought it. 😎

And just Monday I was out on an old "parcel" of the Kendrick ranch. A little spread of 130,000 acres, one of the "units" of a much, much larger ranch. Although I think when they had this place it was a bit smaller, a "small" game ranch was added to it a while back. When I was out there I was driving by a 1/4 so of course I had to stop and look:

Sure enough, there it is, a nice set 16x4 sandstone, extending 10" above ground.

Tied this one this week-

I tagged out the pls no.

these guys are doing my lawnmowing for me...