Found this.... More later....when I not using this phone...
. 
Sorry all I see is rock.
Not having those over here, I struggle to see the 1/4 every time one of these photos gets posted.
What I think I can accurately imagine however is the quiet (sometimes not so quite too!) satisfaction of finding one of these and knowing that you are in the right place. It is always great to finish a job and have not a single shred of doubt that you have done the right thing.
Very few in my neck of the woods have numbers marked on them, but you know one when you see it. It is a great feeling.
Well, I guess that Montana DOT has to save money wherever possible. You'd think with all the cash saved from not buying pre-cast concrete markers and using field stone instead, that they'd be able to afford something better than a Ford Escape, though. :>
Seb, post: 371835, member: 7509 wrote: Sorry all I see is rock.
Not having those over here, I struggle to see the 1/4 every time one of these photos gets posted.
What I think I can accurately imagine however is the quiet (sometimes not so quite too!) satisfaction of finding one of these and knowing that you are in the right place. It is always great to finish a job and have not a single shred of doubt that you have done the right thing.
There be some follow up info tomorrow...all is not good in stone land. Btw. The top stone has a 1/4 on it about a third down and off to the left a bit. The picture is a bit tough to see. The bottom 2 pictures are of a section corner 4 notches on the east one on the south......
Sent from my XT1528 using Tapatalk
I'll bet Surveyors are the only people that have a mental orgasam looking at a rock. 😉
Rankin_File, post: 371839, member: 101 wrote: There be some follow up info tomorrow...all is not good in stone land. Btw. The top stone has a 1/4 on it about a third down and off to the left a bit. The picture is a bit tough to see. The bottom 2 pictures are of a section corner 4 notches on the east one on the south......
Sent from my XT1528 using Tapatalk
Nice marks: NE of 32?
the 1/4 is messy, looks like they were having a hard time finding a nice smooth stone to set, but it's pretty clear what it is, was it set?
MightyMoe, post: 371860, member: 700 wrote: Nice marks: NE of 32?
the 1/4 is messy, looks like they were having a hard time finding a nice smooth stone to set, but it's pretty clear what it is, was it set?
"Was it set?"- that's the ugly part....
Here's a picture of the site from the SSE. Notice the Brass cap on the left? Notice the pile of rocks to the right? The 1/4 corner stone was lying face up next to the pile.... I'll be starting a thread in the general chit chat to discuss this situation further.....
Sent from my XT1528 using Tapatalk
Rankin_File, post: 371884, member: 101 wrote: "Was it set?"- that's the ugly part....
Here's a picture of the site from the SSE. Notice the Brass cap on the left? Notice the pile of rocks to the right? The 1/4 corner stone was lying face up next to the pile.... I'll be starting a thread in the general chit chat to discuss this situation further.....Sent from my XT1528 using Tapatalk
record was a mound of stone and set stone?
FL/GA PLS., post: 371846, member: 379 wrote: I'll bet Surveyors are the only people that have a mental orgasam looking at a rock. 😉
[MEDIA=youtube]Sqk1kdjk5o0[/MEDIA]
MightyMoe, post: 371887, member: 700 wrote: record was a mound of stone and set stone?
stone and 2 BT's- no mention of a mound....
From the CCR.....
Rankin_File, post: 371897, member: 101 wrote: stone and 2 BT's- no mention of a mound....
From the CCR.....
There you go, more of those Montana scanned notes..........
And you know what, a couple of years of practice and I can read them now, lol
24x15x12, 18in in the ground, two trees.
Missed the LOOSE marked stone by just a few feet, he probably looked at that stone and couldn't see the marks, now you need to decide if it was already disturbed and the prorate is the correct location anyway,,,,,,,,, no mention of a mound and he is saying the BT's are gone? logged out?.
What's with the stone and trees 200' north?
Looks like fun, B-)
<p>
"MightyMoe, post: 371904, member: 700" wrote: There you go, more of those Montana scanned notes..........</p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p>What's with the stone and trees 200' north?</p><p><br /></p><p>Looks like fun, <img src=""styles/default/xenforo/mlfsmilies/cool.png"" class="mceSmilie" alt="
" unselectable="on" />
</p><p>well- all the timber cruiser tags are now attached to small trees around this location- not sure who moved them- there's one new cruiser tag in the vic also dated 2007.</p><p>The 22" fir is still in place to the north - the blaze is fully healed and the remnants of nails remain where the locate tags <i>were.</i> there is a small mound of stone there, too. I'm not sure if this stone wqas moved from that location or just rounded up in the area here. Lots and lots of questions.</p><p><br /></p><p>This is just one piece of this particular problem.</p><p><br /></p><p>in 1995, a surveyor set out to break out the SE1/4SW1/4 of section 5.</p><p>He ends up setting the NW and SW section corners by double prop and the w1/4 of 5 by single prop and the N1/4 of 6 by single prop.</p><p>and then breaks down the section for his 40.</p><p>In 1998, another firm is surveying lines all around sect. 5 for a state agency, and doesn't show any info regarding section 5 or the north line of 6.</p><p>In2005 another firm retraces 5 and accepts the mons set in 1995, and breaks down the section and sets the 1/16th corners for the north and west tiers of aliquot 40's. My Job is to retrace the parcel whose north and west boundaries are the 2005 corners.</p><p>I pull the surveys and see all this proportioning - that 4 stones and 12 trees at that they can't find any evidence of..... you've seen what I found at the N1/4 of 6. At the NW of 5 I found the same thing, the marked stone was lying on the east side of the mound of stone around the Brass cap... most of the bearing trees were ponderosa and the remains of those now are rotten mounds that can barely be identified as to species... once the stone gets moved either it is nearly impossible to Id the tree locations........</p><p>As for the stones being moved to the corners, I'd like to attribute it to ignorance on the part of the crews building the mounds or something.... I'd rather not like considering the option that they were knowingly moved... as far as the NE of 32, that corner was replaced by a crew by double proportion.... I found the stone in a campfire ring about 40 feet from the corner position they established.... 
</p>
MightyMoe, post: 371904, member: 700 wrote: There you go, more of those Montana scanned notes..........
What's with the stone and trees 200' north?
Looks like fun, B-)
well- all the timber cruiser tags are now attached to small trees around this location- not sure who moved them- there's one new cruiser tag in the vic also dated 2007. The 22" fir is still in place to the north - the blaze is fully healed and the remnants of nails remain where the locate tags were . There is a small mound of stone there, too. I'm not sure if this stone was moved from that location or just rounded up in the area here. Lots and lots of questions.
This is just one piece of this particular problem.
In 1995, a surveyor set out to break out the SE1/4SW1/4 of section 5. He ends up setting the NW and SW section corners by double prop and the w1/4 of 5 by single prop and the N1/4 of 6 by single prop. and then breaks down the section for his 40.
In 1998, another firm is surveying lines all around sect. 5 for a state agency, and doesn't show any info regarding section 5 or the north line of 6.</p><p>In2005 another firm retraces 5 and accepts the mons set in 1995, and breaks down the section and sets the 1/16th corners for the north and west tiers of aliquot 40's.
My Job is to retrace the parcel whose north and west boundaries are the 2005 corners. I pull the surveys and see all this proportioning - that 4 stones and 12 trees at that they can't find any evidence of..... you've seen what I found at the N1/4 of 6. At the NW of 5 I found the same thing, the marked stone was lying on the east side of the mound of stone around the Brass cap... most of the bearing trees were ponderosa and the remains of those now are rotten mounds that can barely be identified as to species... once the stone gets moved either it is nearly impossible to Id the tree locations........
As for the stones being moved to the corners, I'd like to attribute it to ignorance on the part of the crews building the mounds or something.... I'd rather not like considering the option that they were knowingly moved.....
As far as the NE of 32, that corner was replaced by a crew by double proportion.... I found the stone in a campfire ring about 40 feet from the corner position they established 
or the north line of 6.</p><p>In2005 another firm
set out to break out the
I realize English is a rather complex language but you seem to have created some words not found in my Funk & Wagnalls.:whistle:;-)
Learned a new word...porphyry. I must admit I slept through Materials 1101...but I'm pretty sure they never mentioned it.
Holy Cow, post: 372015, member: 50 wrote: or the north line of 6.</p><p>In2005 another firm
set out to break out the
I realize English is a rather complex language but you seem to have created some words not found in my Funk & Wagnalls.:whistle:;-)
Yeah I was having technical difficulties.....
a case of disturbed original monuments, they have moved from the original position.
It's good you found them, at least you know someone else won't stumble on them later.
Without accessories,,,,,well I'm sure you know how to proceed.
you said they double prorated the NW of 5? surely not
I suppose if you can find a BT or identify a stump as one, you can dispute something, otherwise...........
MightyMoe, post: 372043, member: 700 wrote: a case of disturbed original monuments, they have moved from the original position.
It's good you found them, at least you know someone else won't stumble on them later.
Without accessories,,,,,well I'm sure you know how to proceed.you said they double prorated the NW of 5? surely not
I suppose if you can find a BT or identify a stump as one, you can dispute something, otherwise...........
I was incorrect on my statement about double prop on the NW of 5- it was single prop. I was trying to convey that they'd positioned the section corners first, then the 1/4's.... As The Cow has pointed out , I was having a lot of issues with my post..... :-/
Sent from my XT1528 using Tapatalk
I kinda figured, had one of those strings in a scan of a legal I did, was putting it on my plat as the record and it left some cuss words in a bearing ?&##7$%, the tec reviewing it was scratching her head wondering what the H#!! I was doing,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, hope for cow's sake they curved them in, otherwise it would upset his digestion todayB-)