I recovered a quarter corner (in a rural area) the other day that had been set and noted on the references as being set by "modified single proportioning".?ÿ I had a fairly good idea what he meant.?ÿ This was on an east-west section line and although the distances to each supporting section corner we most nearly a good split, there was a 15 minute difference in the bearings.?ÿ Meaning of course the corner wasn't placed on a line between the two section corners.?ÿ Although the surveyor didn't go into much detail it was evident to me he had honored the fenced R/W.
The statutory RW in that county is one rod making the county roadway 33' total width.?ÿ The old corner posts were somewhere around thirty-something feet apart and the distance-split fit nicely.?ÿ An "on-line" split would have placed the corner almost 12 feet from the center of the "occupied" RW, only three or four feet from the corner post.
For those of us that have been fortunate enough to have found original corners in-situ, especially on east-west lines, know full well that the quarter corners rarely fell on a true line between section corners.?ÿ ?ÿI accepted the corner and moved on.?ÿ And I will admit I have replaced obliterated corners in a similar fashion once or twice.?ÿ My approach on N-S section lines is more in tune with the Manual.
In my mind the fenced RW, at times, can be considered accessories to a corner.?ÿ And setting a corner so far from the center of the 'occupied' RW seems to ignore good evidence.?ÿ Surveying public land lines after patent can be more complex than merely following the Manual's instructions.?ÿ I was just wondering how other surveyors felt about this.?ÿ Any arguments??ÿ
?ÿ
?ÿ
Was the East/West Section line the Township line??ÿ If not, I question why a modified single proportion was done instead of a double proportion.?ÿ If he used two points on the section line, and his modified single proportion was off of that straight line by 15 minutes, he made a mistake somewhere.?ÿ Just another tick in the column for proportioning only as a last resort as my mentor drilled into my head.
In my mind the fenced RW, at times, can be considered accessories to a corner.
I think that I lean the other way. The fenced R/W, and the roadway itself, is an accessory unless I have good proof that it isn't.?ÿ This particularly in OK, not quite so much in my other states. But only in the sense that the others are recording states and records of local stakings are usually available.
It would be almost impossible to argue the reverse.?ÿ
proportioning only as a last resort
The only thing you can be sure of, when proportioning; you will not be setting the corner back in it's original position.
The "modified" single proportion, in Paden's dilemma, sounds like a best attempt at putting the corner back in it's original position.?ÿ
Did the proportion hit the old fence line? If it did, you are golden...
?ÿ
@dougie?ÿ
There was a newer 1/4 corner set in a county road locally. It is prorated from section corners east-west that weren't original by any means. When I went to locate it I'm standing at the witness monument along the south right of way for the corner in the center of the county road. Heading to the south is an old fence line..........trouble is it's about 12 feet west of the witness corner.?ÿ
I recovered a quarter corner (in a rural area) the other day that had been set and noted on the references as being set by "modified single proportioning".?ÿ I had a fairly good idea what he meant.?ÿ This was on an east-west section line and although the distances to each supporting section corner we most nearly a good split, there was a 15 minute difference in the bearings.?ÿ Meaning of course the corner wasn't placed on a line between the two section corners.?ÿ Although the surveyor didn't go into much detail it was evident to me he had honored the fenced R/W.
The statutory RW in that county is one rod making the county roadway 33' total width.?ÿ The old corner posts were somewhere around thirty-something feet apart and the distance-split fit nicely.?ÿ An "on-line" split would have placed the corner almost 12 feet from the center of the "occupied" RW, only three or four feet from the corner post.
For those of us that have been fortunate enough to have found original corners in-situ, especially on east-west lines, know full well that the quarter corners rarely fell on a true line between section corners.?ÿ ?ÿI accepted the corner and moved on.?ÿ And I will admit I have replaced obliterated corners in a similar fashion once or twice.?ÿ My approach on N-S section lines is more in tune with the Manual.
In my mind the fenced RW, at times, can be considered accessories to a corner.?ÿ And setting a corner so far from the center of the 'occupied' RW seems to ignore good evidence.?ÿ Surveying public land lines after patent can be more complex than merely following the Manual's instructions.?ÿ I was just wondering how other surveyors felt about this.?ÿ Any arguments??ÿ
?ÿ
?ÿ
You may be unintentionally propagating a common misunderstanding of the Manual. If by following the mathematical proportioning methods in the Manual you are "ignoring good evidence" you are not following the Manual. The Manual's proportioning methods are only intended for situations in which there is no evidence. (And yes, much to the astonishment of surveyors in places like Ohio, there still are plenty of corners with no evidence at all).
One of the most important skills for a boundary surveyor is learning how to recognize "good evidence". Good evidence is the kind of evidence you can convince a court with when the other guy ignores the Manual and proportions everything in.?ÿ It sounds like you may be well on your way on your journey developing that skill.
I have always figured that the surveyors 150 years ago, roughly 7 years after the government survey, had a much more reliable situation for evidence when constructing county roads that were to follow section lines.?ÿ When I encounter a situation where the center corner was monumented in that same era, I tend to believe the fences represent where that monument was placed, even if I do not find it in a diligent search.
@kevin-hines It was a quarter corner. There is nothing in the other cardinals to proportion to.
The term 'modified single proportion' is generally used to describe the method used to deal with a bearing break at the quarter corner. The distances are used to proportion one direction and a compass rule adjustment sets the other. My primary use for this is to get me near where evidence remains. I've used it to set a corner where no evidence of any kind seemed to be available exactly one time.?ÿ
This is the first time I've heard the term, but have seen many corners set in similar fashion.
"In my mind the fenced RW,?ÿat times, can be considered accessories to a corner."
Of course - it is probably the "Best Available Evidence".
"In my mind the fenced RW,?ÿat times, can be considered accessories to a corner."
Of course - it is probably the "Best Available Evidence".
It can be.?ÿ However there is a prevalent school of thought among some surveyors around here that "accessories" and "evidence" are terms reserved strictly for only documented appurtenances such as what was recorded at the time of the original survey.?ÿ To me that's an almost laughable concept.?ÿ
I've often chuckled at the situational reality of what actually happened when an original monument was placed.?ÿ The crew that located the position was moving (chaining), and possibly, but not always, aided by a compassman directing line with a hanky from some distance.?ÿ Whatever set monumentation wound up at that spot was surely set by a crew following behind.?ÿ I've always pictured a couple of hands armed with a mule, an ax and probably a shovel frantically trying to keep up with the chaining crew..or at least keeping them in sight until dark.?ÿ Whichever, no one ever actually spent more than a few moments at any given corner.?ÿ Get it done, get it written down and move on to the next one.?ÿ Around here they were all contractors, time is money.?ÿ The humorous part to me is how much time surveyors spend pondering a location as compared to the time actually spent setting a monument.
And there in is where the real evidence surfaces.?ÿ Not in the ancient brief or scrawled notes, but from those "entrymen" that honored the monuments with their adjoiners and perpetuated their bounds.?ÿ?ÿ
?ÿ
Cardinal still needs to be considered when prorating off-line 1/4 corners
The humorous part to me is how much time surveyors spend pondering a location as compared to the time actually spent setting a monument.
?ÿ
The difference is simple. When the GLO was setting monuments they were creating the location. Once rights have been earned and patents issued, it is an agregious breach of our duty to move the corner to some alternate location without cause.?ÿ
What I often deal with are WWII generation proportioned monuments. They loved to proportion or set by mid point protraction no matter what. They were wonderful engineers, went to the moon in less than a decade. But they did a lot of boundary misadventures.
WWII was a highly technical project, I think it affected the culture. Every problem must have an objective and rational answer.
Proportioning from the monument set in 1960 by some proportionate means is often not the best answer.