I saw something really strange today. It was a map that purported to be of a survey made on the ground that delineated what it called the "ostensible survey lines" that appeared to be the boundaries of three different original land grants from the Republic and, later, State of Texas. "So what," you might well ask, "is an "ostensible" survey line?" I did, too.
Merriam-Webster's dictionary offers the following meanings for the word "ostensible":
1. Intended for display or open to view.
and
2. Being such in appearance or plausible rather than demonstrably true or real.
Now, since the lines drawn on the map are not evidenced by any visible feature on the ground such as an occupation line or road, and in fact the map showed no evidence whatsoever that I could see that might be any evidence from which the location of survey lines was determined, the first meaning probably wouldn't fit the bill.
So one is left with the second sense of "ostensible" to understand that the survey lines are "plausible rather than demonstrably true or real." Fine, the "ostensible survey lines" are merely an indication of where survey lines might be if they ... actually were there. But no assurance is given that they in fact ... are in that position.
That's all entertaining enough, but between the "ostensible survey lines" there is a gap indicated that could only be a vacancy, unsurveyed Permanent School Fund land, if the survey lines are correctly shown. But the "ostensible" vacancy is labelled "unknown ownership". This is definitely a first. The fact that a survey turns up a vacancy isn't particularly novel, of course. What is highly unusual is a map that "ostensibly" shows a vacancy but while pretending that it is a tract of "unknown ownership"!
The first question that enters my mind is; is this a recent "survey" (within the last 10-12 years or so) or an older one? My curiosity revolves around some of the bizarre disclaimers I have observed on the face of a few "surveys" myself. Admittedly, your post is my first exposure to the word 'ostensible'.
ostensibly
adv
(sentence modifier) apparently; seemingly
(dictionary.reference.com)
CV
Never seen this before (Texas) KENT....
DATT WAY....
k]
> The first question that enters my mind is; is this a recent "survey" (within the last 10-12 years or so) or an older one?
Yes, it is a recent product. The survey lines appear to have either been conjured from thin air or to be the product of GIS imagineering. The "ostensible" does fit with either scenario, although then proceeding to indicate that a vacancy or, excuse me, triangle of "unknown ownership" exists between the "ostensible" lines is very innovative.
Never seen this before (Texas) KENT....
> DATT WAY....
>
>
Okay, so Colonel Light says "No Vacancy". :>
"ostensible" survey line?"
>
Did they actually use that word? You have to at least give them creativity points.
I have seen Approximate Survey Line on some actual surveys before.
> "ostensible" survey line?"
>
> Did they actually use that word? You have to at least give them creativity points.
Yes, all of the lines of the original land grants are labelled "ostensible survey line". If you suspect that a vacancy may exist on a tract, particularly one slated for subdivision, sure enough, you've got to highlight that fact. On the other hand, mistakenly indicating the existence of a vacancy is a serious problem as well.
Drawing "ostensible" survey lines and indicating not a vacancy, but an area bounded by patented surveys that looks like nothing so much as a vacancy but is labelled "unknown ownership" is probably my least favorite solution to that one. The answer would have taken one helluva lot more surveying and research than was apparently done.
The other element to that one is that the map shows a computed area within the triangle of "unknown ownership", so even if a vacancy is proven, but is larger than the acreage, it's still a potential big loser for the surveyor.
"It was a map that purported to be of a survey made on the ground that delineated what it called the 'ostensible survey lines'"
So basically y'all are getting state tested, and paying yearly dues to...??..?
What I really find so sad is that the GLO has made it so easy to obtain original field notes.
One can easily build back the lines based on the field notes and have a good idea of what exists and the make the decision if more investigative work is required.
"Apparently" the author was unfamiliar with the word "apparent". I've seen that term used thousands of times.
> "Apparently" the author was unfamiliar with the word "apparent". I've seen that term used thousands of times.
I think "apparent" was a bit too definite. "Ostensible" is a bit more speculative.
WOW! I didn't pay enough attention while reading that. I thought i had read the surveyor had labeled the boundary on his client's tract as "ostensible". ooops.
> One can easily build back the lines based on the field notes and have a good idea of what exists and the make the decision if more investigative work is required.
Well, in fairness, I will say that it would be tough to construct those surveys from the patent field notes and aerial imagery. This is because some of the original surveys contain large chaining errors and the field notes are not overburdened with topo calls on lines run mostly in prairie. Some of the later infill surveys only added a layer of confusion. I've wrestled with that area for years and have found that some elements of the puzzle have only been fit into place after considerable abstracting of early conveyances and work on the ground.
perhaps easily was the wrong word. I should have further said that it was probably a better option than taking them from some GIS data source.
> perhaps easily was the wrong word. I should have further said that it was probably a better option than taking them from some GIS data source.
Yes. It's true that in some parts of the state the pattern of original surveys can actually be overlaid on aerial imagery pretty well just from the patent field notes, their topographic calls, and occupation lines that show in the imagery.
But it's also true that there are some areas where things are really confused for various reasons, and it is just heavy lifting to even get close.
McMoundfinder-
Are you certain it has nothing to do with "Os" as bone as in 'bone headed' ?
YOS
TNAI
> Are you certain it has nothing to do with "Os" as bone as in 'bone headed' ?
Without a doubt there is a need to determine the likelihood of whether a tract one is resurveying in Texas contains unsurveyed public land to which title is vested in the State, and without a doubt that determination can be difficult and time-consuming.
But sort of just penciling something in, hoping that the right combination of adjectives will somehow protect the surveyor if things blow up, while of course not actually fully informing the client of the situation, is probably just about the worst solution I can think of.
