I have a rhetorical question for my PLSS brethren:
A found PK and shiner in a section line road intersection appears to mark the SE corner of Sec. 10 but there is no filed corner record or pedigree.?ÿ The land use is rural with the smallest parcel visible being a quarter section of a nominal "160 acres".?ÿ West 1 mile to the SW corner of 10 there is a filed and accepted corner.?ÿ East 1 mile there is also a filed and accepted corner at the SE corner of section 11.?ÿ Field data indicates that the found PK at the SE corner of 10 is most nearly (within fractions of a foot) almost exactly halfway and on line between the SW corner of sec. 10 and the SE corner of sec. 11.
This unrecorded PK & shiner has the 'appearance' of being placed with a single-proportioned distance using one-half of the entire 2 miles.?ÿ The fly in the ointment is that the notes reflect the south line of 10 as measuring 80 ch. and the south line of 11 measuring 79.5 ch. so the PK nestled halfway in between these two recorded corners doesn't really fit an indexed comparison to the original notes.
The PK is most near the center of the roads at an intersection.?ÿ There is a pull post and corner post at one corner with no fence. There are no power poles and the only other evidence near the intersection is a small stand of piss elms growing in the downstream end of a culvert pipe.?ÿ The rest of the area is covered with green winter wheat up to almost the edges of the roadbeds.
I was asked by a colleague as to whether I would accept the PK as a corner.?ÿ The field crew did not review the info before bringing it back to their office so they did not look for anything north or south, which would have been required to calc a proper double-proportional "check".?ÿ I am sure they will be back out there.
Now in Oklahoma the burden of proof to discount a corner is upon the surveyor that rejects the corner.?ÿ One has to have distinct corroborating evidence that the corner actually resides elsewhere than the rejected monument.?ÿ In this case there is simply no evidence, save the center of a county road.?ÿ Now even though the PK's location "smells bad" to me, I don't think that is enough evidence to reject it.?ÿ If one could reject a corner location simply because it didn't fit the GLO's 1879 plat by twenty or thirty links almost EVERY corner could technically be rejected.
Would you accept the corner??ÿ
?ÿ
Is it really a monument if it's only a nail with no identifying information and no record? Could just as easily be someone's reference point, or initial search point, or they decided it was wrong and never bothered to pull it.?ÿ
Sounds like you have some evidence to show it's not at the right position.?ÿ
If that corner controls federal interest, the standard of proof goes up. You should still try to find a reason to accept existing monuments, rather than a reason to reject it, but it doesn't sound like you have that reason.?ÿ
And please, once you make your decision explain it fully in your OCCR so then next guy can find a reason to accept it, and set something more substantial than a nail, so we won't be in the same position 10 years from now.?ÿ
A number of issues come into play.?ÿ Much of the decision should come based on experiences with other sections you have worked in that same township.?ÿ What has been learned about the relative reliability of the Government field notes compared to numerous other sections surveyed.?ÿ Has your experience indicated frequent deviations??ÿ The north-south lines may be rather reliable, somewhat on the correct alignment, while the east-west lines suggest the reported setting of the north section corners never really happened and were merely made up on the spot.?ÿ Perhaps some sections check out rather closely on all sides while others in the same township vary greatly.?ÿ Perhaps some have significant bends, especially in the east-west lines.?ÿ Do the field notes indicate the entire township was completed in two days through quite rough terrain with some areas, such as the reported location, being relatively flat??ÿ What has been the experience in other townships nearby set by the same contractor??ÿ Based on surveys that are on record, why might that corner have been set??ÿ Based on the existence or non-existence of cross country pipelines, bridge projects or other non-boundary work, how do you view the existence of something being present.
If you don't know the answer to all of the above, either contact a local surveyor with all of that local experience or hold off on making a decision until you have more data.?ÿ If you do have the answers to the above, you will most likely be thrilled to have found something that gives the appearance that it was put there by a surveyor in modern times.?ÿ Be sure to include the step of pulling the nail after locating it such that you can reset a superior monument in that exact location, perform a little metal detector work, consult your notes to see if the original corner was a stone.?ÿ If it was a stone, start digging by hand, if practical.?ÿ If not practical, back off, make a one-call request, wait the appropriate number of days, bring in a backhoe (with county approval) and make a search of the entire intersection, if necessary.?ÿ If everything comes up negative, go with your gut.?ÿ Either set a monument where the nail was found or determine where you would have set it had there not been a nail present.
Document it thoroughly per state and local policy.
?ÿ
Something else to consider is the procedure that led to the certified corners to the east and to the west.?ÿ Were those, in fact, original monuments from the Government survey??ÿ Were they set by the best procedure??ÿ Unless they are original monuments, they may be no better than the nail found.?ÿ So, sweating a few links worth of proration isn't worth the effort.
Heck, Paden, I thought you were going to go all Keith Williams on us and start to worry about the bizarre thought that the curvature of the Earth was actually considered in the original survey.?ÿ How the section corners were set in the original survey had nothing to do with curvature other than at the Standard Parallel.?ÿ The crudeness?ÿ of the measurements coming north from the base line would quickly remove that factor.?ÿ It is conceivable it was a factor when doing the fine adjustment on the return trip while setting the north quarter corners, but the crudeness of the measurements pretty well takes that out of play, as well, especially at your latitude.
..And please, once you make your decision explain it fully in your OCCR so then next guy can find a reason to accept it, and set something more substantial than a nail, so we won't be in the same position 10 years from now.?ÿ
It's not my call, but that of a younger colleague that contacted me.?ÿ I am following what becomes of this.
And your question about whether an unrecorded nail in an intersection is "really" the corner seems to be the crux of this dilemma.?ÿ Initially I would say no.?ÿ A previously unknown monument should at least rest upon some other evidence proving its worthiness.?ÿ This has none except it is near the center of an intersection (maybe a good thing) and doesn't fit real well with other recorded adjacent land corners(maybe a bad thing).?ÿ Neither of which is really enough to make an intelligent call.
Other than the wheat there is nothing else out there but a number of oil & gas wells.?ÿ And most of the filed corner records reflect the activities of surveyors in pursuit of those interests.?ÿ My personal opinion is the PK was set to represent the section corner by someone that (a) was in a hurry (b) knew just enough to be dangerous (and c) either didn't have immediate access to the original plat and notes, or didn't care to take the time to get that info.
But that's just a hunch from an old surveyor.?ÿ Proving it with documentation and evidence might be difficult.?ÿ ?ÿ?ÿ
Something else to consider is the procedure that led to the certified corners to the east and to the west.?ÿ Were those, in fact, original monuments from the Government survey??ÿ Were they set by the best procedure??ÿ Unless they are original monuments, they may be no better than the nail found.?ÿ So, sweating a few links worth of proration isn't worth the effort.
Heck, Paden, I thought you were going to go all Keith Williams on us and start to worry about the bizarre thought that the curvature of the Earth was actually considered in the original survey.?ÿ How the section corners were set in the original survey had nothing to do with curvature other than at the Standard Parallel.?ÿ The crudeness?ÿ of the measurements coming north from the base line would quickly remove that factor.?ÿ It is conceivable it was a factor when doing the fine adjustment on the return trip while setting the north quarter corners, but the crudeness of the measurements pretty well takes that out of play, as well, especially at your latitude.
The adjacent filed corners are all just a hodge-podge of resets over the years; meaning just stuff that folks have found over the years.?ÿ Most (if not all) of the GLO's original corners were just wooden posts in this part of the country, leaving almost everything up to conjecture.?ÿ
But I have worked in that area enough to know that there is a bit of harmony in the orbs.?ÿ Most of the E-W section lines really do reflect a crude "line of constant bearing" meaning they all have a tendency to deflect to the N as you travel W along multiple section lines.?ÿ Wile the distances are a common anomaly.?ÿ The N-S section lines are usually longer than originally reported with the E-W lines being the opposite and falling shorter than reported.
I've always said the original crews used two chains, one was a little short and one a little long. 😉
A nail is not what I would call a great monument.
Certainly not a "permanent reference mark" as defined in the NZ regs.
How well does it fit with the occupation?
Can you prove anything that fits better?
?ÿ
?ÿ
Fascinating.?ÿ Working routinely in an area does give the surveyor a tremendous advantage on sniffing things out.
Another question, though.?ÿ About what year did the original survey work take place around there??ÿ Obviously, this would be much later than nearby States such as Arkansas and Missouri and possibly a couple decades later than southern Kansas.
Perhaps this nail was set by Joe Nationalfirm out of Timbuktu, NJ to determine that a certain well location was at least the required distance from certain aliquot lines.?ÿ A bit more searching may find similar nails around one or more of the abutting sections.
The GLO was first in there in in 1880. There was some later "resurveys" about 8 or 9 years later in the area, but not this township. I'm guessing the posts all fell over and blew away and needed stood back up.
'Why' the nail wound up there is still a big question mark...
Is your guy sure there isn't a rebar somewhere under the nail? Or if it WAS placed over a magnetic signal that the signal was from a real monument and not a random piece of junk?
What are the consequences of propositioning versus accepting? Would one or the other make someone's improvements over a line? Somebody lose a lot of oil money? A happy status quo can be a good thing?
Okay I'll take a stab at it. Understand I know absolutely zero about surveying in the land of squares and every time you guys start talking about the NEC of the SWC stuff my head swims -----
This is a simple survey question. Does the nail and washer represent the corner??ÿ
1. Work in from the known/accepted to the unknown and develop a search area.
2. Rent a backhoe and excavate a sufficient area. (Do I dare mention GPR)
3. If nothing found, hold the nail and washer as best evidence
4. You have now exceeded what the "average and prudent" surveyor would have done.
5. Move on to next job
Jim
?ÿ
I found one like this back in Missouri. When I pulled the nail, The LS number was on the other side of the washer. That probably won't happen again, but I bet you look now...
Aside from some of what has been said, I would search any old road books for clues. It would also be good to check in with the adjoining owners. They may have an old map?ÿ or two, possibly a helpful memory.
What I WOULDN'T do is accept or reject it from assumption, emotion or old wives tail practice. Put in the work, follow the evidence...
@thebionicman. I agree with this - but- ??Old wives tail?. ?ÿ Wrong on sooo many levels...
?ÿ
"tail"................now, that's a good one. Tale, perhaps.
Might get in trouble checking out some other old wives' tails.
It is my opinion that PK nails in the centerline of an intersection are mostly for striping of the roads and are set from eyeballing than by any actual measuring.
Maybe I missed it somewhere paden, but what if anything is tied to that nail and washer??ÿ In other words, who has relied on the position of that nail being the SE Cor. of Sec. 10??ÿ IMHO just because "someone" set a nail and washer somewhere in the vicinity of the center of a paved intersection does not give it any dignity.?ÿ
I've never surveyed in Oklahoma, but my first thought would be to grab a claw hammer and mutter to myself, "what nail and washer" if'n my research did not discover a plat to a nearby oil and gas well that used the nail.
Some things to consider is how shiny and new it is... Is it possible that it??s so new that it hasn??t been filed on, but still within the statutory filing limits??ÿ
as previously stated -is there anything under it? ?ÿ
90% of the roads here are built along section lines thus there are many corners lying on centerlines. The State of Florida will accept a pk nail as a monument. They're just loads of fun to occupy. (especially during rush hour) ????
Something else to consider is the procedure that led to the certified corners to the east and to the west.?ÿ Were those, in fact, original monuments from the Government survey??ÿ Were they set by the best procedure??ÿ Unless they are original monuments, they may be no better than the nail found.?ÿ So, sweating a few links worth of proration isn't worth the effort.
Heck, Paden, I thought you were going to go all Keith Williams on us and start to worry about the bizarre thought that the curvature of the Earth was actually considered in the original survey.?ÿ How the section corners were set in the original survey had nothing to do with curvature other than at the Standard Parallel.?ÿ The crudeness?ÿ of the measurements coming north from the base line would quickly remove that factor.?ÿ It is conceivable it was a factor when doing the fine adjustment on the return trip while setting the north quarter corners, but the crudeness of the measurements pretty well takes that out of play, as well, especially at your latitude.
Wow, all you have to do is check out 90% of the originally monumented townships in the country for proof they considered the curvature of the earth. Where it gets lost is with resurveyors who don't understand geodetic surveying. (i.e. replacing lost corners by double proportion on some kind of grid.).?ÿ
