putting on the popcorn and pulling up a chair....
> If you were doing the Oklahoma survey do you think you would be able to locate the "the original marks of the government survey?"
That question is irrelevant unless you want to claim that nobody can ever identify any original government corner in PLSSia. Is that your position?
putting on the popcorn and pulling up a chair....
I've identified, remonumented and filed public records on lots of original PLSS corners. I've also done a few obliterated re establishments, even from fences. I've also looked for and not been able to find a lot of corners (even dug up roads with backhoes).
There are a few places where, in my opinion and experience, the original corners are irrelevant other than patents which eliminated gaps and overlaps were issued on paper. The US government (unlike Texas) disposed of all the land regardless of how accurate or bad the surveys where. There were patents issued where at time of patent the corners were already extinct. But no matter, there are boundary establishment laws which allowed society to exist just fine. And they did, and they do, and they should be respected for how it is and not how you think it should be. And, you can't find all this or look it up in a cook book, that is outside of Texas.
BUT, you didn't answer my question on exactly how you would have done the Oklahoma survey, but that doesn't surprise me as you rarely do.
Kuechler preferred to use his own 10-vara chain and the result was a somewhat similar excess in his nominal miles throughout that survey.
Just wondering. Is this a gross error that you are going to correct?
> Just wondering. Is this a gross error that you are going to correct?
If you actually read the thread, you should get some idea of what is under discussion. Novel concept, I know.
putting on the popcorn and pulling up a chair....
> BUT, you didn't answer my question on exactly how you would have done the Oklahoma survey, but that doesn't surprise me as you rarely do.
No, I didn't bother with your question because it's irrelevant to the discussion. What Brian Allen refers to is the case where a center of section is marked in 1965 in a position that is shown to be 30 ft. from the intersection of straight lines run between the quarter corners. His contention is that 30 ft. can't be called a gross error. He also wants to call a marker set in 1965 to mark a corner established by protraction in the 1870's an "original" monument. That's what we are discussing if you'd like to participate.
In other words, the given of the problem is that the position of the corner that was originally protracted at the time of the issuance of patents to the various 1/4 sections can be essentially exactly determined. His point is that because some surveyor roughly 100 years after the government subdivision drove a stake into the ground in a position that was 30 ft. away from the original protracted location, that the act of simply pounding a stake in the ground means that it is as error-free as the actual marks of the original survey. He likes to call it an "original" corner as if it is a late addition to the GLO corners.
putting on the popcorn and pulling up a chair....
So you are saying you could locate precisely that center quarter corner and then would stake the deeds regardless of the 50 years of occupation. You are right and these landowners long time actions and reliance are wrong.
In your view the landowners are irrelevant to the location of their boundaries and only a proper survey, by a licensed surveyor, when and if ever done to your standards, controls the boundaries.
Is your view reasonable to a functioning society of landowners that live on the land?
I'm sorry Kent, but if this is how it is then surveyors should be wiped off the face of the earth!
In other words, the given of the problem is that the position of the corner that was originally protracted at the time of the issuance of patents to the various 1/4 sections can be essentially exactly determined.
In the cook book that is true, but in reality its impossible, but the punch marks at some point will dance around on top of the disc if the original quarter corners have been perpetuated down through time. But the reality is, which you continually deny, that the original corners all haven't been precisely perpetuated and some have been lost. And lost, there is one a shelf full of cook books been written. Lost in the wilderness is one thing. Lost in an already well developed area, then prorated and every boundary in the sections affected need to move. Can't the see the stupidity here?
I suppose you're lucky to be in Texas, where some dumb %$$ PLSS surveyor can't decide it's all wrong and your house of maybe 30 years, and paid for, was staked out from some stubbed in single quarter corner 60 years ago, the patent wasn't precisely followed (intersected), and the neighbor rightfully owns your swimming pool and garage.
You're one lucky dude!
A surveyor I knew had a picture of S.W. Foreman in a bullseye target. I think it's S.W.
I gotta admit, my glossing over threads ability is improving. Ain't like a lot of it hasn't been written hundreds of times before. Since POB got flushed down the crapper I suppose one needs to rewrite the legacy over and over and over.............
putting on the popcorn and pulling up a chair....
Apparently you haven't read much case law or the much of the BLM Manual concerning such things. I'd suggest you spend some time actually researching a few things about the PLSS.
Please cite the section(s) of the 2009 Manual that support your position.
putting on the popcorn and pulling up a chair....
> Please cite the section(s) of the 2009 Manual that support your position.
You mean the idea that the phrase "original monument" when used in the context of boundaries created by the original government subdivision made in 1870 does not refer to something that Joe Doak plopped down in 1965 in a grossly erroneous position a century after the patents issued? Is that what you're asking about?
I agree with your concept of retracing surveys that were made with a chain that was quoted as varas and was actually measured by chains manufactured with different specs
When you had Surveyors that had been trained in England and France and brought their concepts and equipment here and many a time their direct measurement units were never converted in their reports
In NorthEast Texas the common factor was dropped lengths or added lengths of chain at 66ft per boundary error or at each exchange of chaining pins.
Nearing the Louisiana boundary the errors are most likely to be in increments of perches per boundary.
That along with common chaining errors of wear and tear of chain and chainmen can add up to horrors in boundary surveying 101.
With the presence of more trees than wide open landscapes of the more arid sections of Texas, we encounter a varying degree of evidence.
Stones are much harder to locate with root systems in place and existing treelines and other usage limits showing errors being very noticeable on aerial views.
With absence of local LSS intervention, many such excess area are not of interest to the State because the oil and gas industry has better odds by traveling to Vegas or Reno to seek riches or even an actual return of their investment for the paperwork involved.
With the price of timber as it is, many crude boundary surveys are marked by compass and now amateur GPS.
At least on some days the trees hide the sun and on others the trees stop the breeze.
😉
putting on the popcorn and pulling up a chair....
I'm still waiting for you to unearth the original 4 quarter corners, you know the ones you need to be able to punch the shiny new "original" center quarter marker.
Git yer butt up to Oklahoma and git er done! Feel the thrill of the real thing, not just survey TV.
putting on the popcorn and pulling up a chair....
Apparently, there are only three kinds of monuments recognized by Kent: 1) Original monuments which predate the conveyance, are identifiable, and undisturbed, 2) Monuments which are set by surveyors after the fact which must be rejected because of some undefined quantity of "gross error" or were set by "improper procedure", and 3) Monuments set in the precise location and correctly sporting a "dimple" of the proper dimension. 1 & 3 are acceptable; 2 must be rejected at all cost for the rest of eternity regardless of any extenuating circumstance.
Fortunately, the courts recognize a fourth type of monument: one which controls the location of the boundary due to a combination of reputation, reliance, and satisfaction (and, they're not talking a surveyor's perception). Three attributes which can't be measured. This type of monument is commonly referred to as an "established monument."
That's the type of monument presented in this thread.
JBS
putting on the popcorn and pulling up a chair....
Yes, I realize that in Utah it's enough that a pipe has been pounded into the ground. No one considers it a relevant question whether 30 ft. distant from the original position of the corner is "close enough" because apparently the instant after the pipe is driven, the "original" position of the corner has moved to be somewhere in the vicinity of the pipe. It hasn't moved to the *center* of the pipe, though, please note. That would imply that the corner had a definite location, which in Utah and Idaho it cannot have. :>
putting on the popcorn and pulling up a chair....
Want me to find you an apartment in Salt Lake City? With some luck on your part, by this time next year you could be on the opposite side from JBStahl in a court case. It could be the gross error vs. the 50 year old landowners accepted marker. One would be the controlling boundary marker and the other would be gross academic BS. Sorry I can't sort it out for you which side you'd be representing but I'm pretty sure almost everyone else can.
Hey Beerlegger's, is enough entertainment fer ya?
> I agree with your concept of retracing surveys that were made with a chain that was quoted as varas and was actually measured by chains manufactured with different specs
I can think of two other instances where the original survey showed large excesses of a fairly systematic nature and both were in areas that were severely screwed up by later surveyors who did not realize or properly deal with those errors.
Much of Concho and McCulloch Counties falls in the Texas German Immigration Company lands surveyed by J.J. Giddings in about 1847. From what I've seen of Giddings's work, about 1950 varas per mile was par for the course. What that means is that if you were fortunate enough to find one of Mr. Giddings's corners and ran the distance that he reported to his next corner a nominal mile away, you'd be short about 139 ft. on average from where he actually marked a corner.
Fast forward a century of surveyors running record course and distance for miles from whatever they were able to find and it gets fairly hard to retrace the lines of the original grants. It can be done (or at least in my experience it can be), but it is difficult work.
The next candidate is a fellow who surveyed in Atascosa County in the 1870's for whom about 1965 varas was a nominal mile. when you stack up four or five miles of surveys averaging 65 varas excess per each, that starts to become a challenge to follow his work 140 years later.
Kuechler is the reigning champion, though, with an excess of about 160 varas or so per nominal mile. Add into the mix that most of his bearing trees were mesquites and it's a recipe for some real fun.
putting on the popcorn and pulling up a chair....
> Hey Beerlegger's, is enough entertainment fer ya?
I'm afraid I have the disadvantage of actually *being* a land surveyor, not just playing one on the internet. So the idea of examining the unseemly stuff that takes place in Utah, and now Idaho, doesn't hold any interest. They're Chinatown, Jake.
putting on the popcorn and pulling up a chair....
> Yes, I realize that in Utah it's enough that a pipe has been pounded into the ground.
Sorry, Kent. You don't know Utah law very well at all. Your statement is flat out wrong. It's not just wrong in Utah, either.
> No one considers it a relevant question whether 30 ft. distant from the original position of the corner is "close enough" because apparently the instant after the pipe is driven, the "original" position of the corner has moved to be somewhere in the vicinity of the pipe.
Sorry again, Kent. You're wrong again. There is no such thing as "close enough" in boundary law. The center quarter has no "original" position. It only has a "theory of location." Until there is a bonafide attempt to mark the position followed by subsequent recognition, acceptance and satisfaction by the owners, any pipe driven to mark the corner fails the establishment tests.
>It hasn't moved to the *center* of the pipe, though, please note. That would imply that the corner had a definite location, which in Utah and Idaho it cannot have. :>
Sorry again, Kent. You're wrong again. The center quarter, once established, has a definite location (whether or not it has a dimple). Prior to its establishment, any monument set improperly can be repaired to its acceptable location.
It's that last part that your mathematically precise theoretical location cannot now and has never been expected to control. The legal principles regarding the establishment of land boundaries don't have anything to do with one's ability to measure. The courts simply don't expect perfection no matter how much the thought hurts the surveyor's (expert measurer's) brain.
JBS
putting on the popcorn and pulling up a chair....
> The center quarter, once established, has a definite location (whether or not it has a dimple).
I think your argument is with Sacred Bovine and Brian Allen. They will show you where you are wrong about corners having some exact location. I leave you to them.
putting on the popcorn and pulling up a chair....
With your extraordinary math skills, I thought you were an engineer. What kind of degree do you have anyway, not that it means much, but where did it all start, your self indignation of actually *being* a land surveyor?
So the idea of examining the unseemly stuff that takes place in Utah, and now Idaho, doesn't hold any interest. They're Chinatown, Jake.
Then why don't you stop pretending to be some sort of expert on the PLSS, preaching to us about *original* PLSS corners and protracted intersections. Isn't Texas big enough for you?
Playing on the internet. Lets see:
Kent McMillan
Logins per day: 7.74
Postings: 4455 (2.4%)
Postings per day: 3.90
LRDay
Logins per day: 2.95
Postings: 1209 (0.6%)
Postings per day: 1.11
Yeah, and after review of the statistics I'll admit, I've been playing on the internet way to much!
