..... I still do not understand why the PLSS exists.?ÿ Why codify double protraction??ÿ The boundary is where it is.
You have to put yourself in the place and time of the government of 1805. The fundamental thing was to survey and monument the land before it was settled. The PLSS was a systematic way to get that done. To get said survey done, at minimum cost, because the country was just getting started and had nothing like the resources it does today. And to get the west settled with Americans before the British, Spanish, Russians, French, etc. etc. did it. Sure, the system has it's faults. But the frontier west was wild enough as it was.
The PLSS works pretty darn well.?ÿ ?ÿThe boundary is were it is in the PLSS as well as any other system. Where "is" is is sometimes a matter of contention. Just like in every other system.?ÿ
Hey - if it was so bad why did the Canadians adopt a nearly identical system when it came time to survey the prairie provinces 70 years later??ÿ
Double proportion is "codified" as an absolute last resort to ensure that, disregarding any measurment differences, any two surveyors will come to the same solution. The double proportion method was chosen as a best guess of where the corner was when a survey was carried out following normal procedures. It is not applicable if the survey was not done under the normal historical method.?ÿ
The PLSS was surveyed very differently than a typical subdivision by a private surveyor, becasue of this the usual methods of replacing lost corners is not applicable.?ÿ
The PLSS exists becasue it was a brilliant 18th century invention that allowed for cheap surveying of an huge area of the world with a fraction of the boundary conflicts of the existing system. No doubt we could come up with a better system now, but?ÿ finding the political will and the funding to transition the basis of our boundary law in over 3/4 of the country would not be easy.
?ÿ
?ÿ
Local control for local boundaries.
I am a vehement enemy of state plane, so I'm all for the local, but that doesnt mean we cant use coordinates .
You have to put yourself in the place and time of the government of 1805. The fundamental thing was to survey and monument the land before it was settled. The PLSS was a systematic way to get that done. To get said survey done, at minimum cost, because the country was just getting started and had nothing like the resources it does today. And to get the west settled with Americans before the British, Spanish, Russians, French, etc. etc. did it. Sure, the system has it's faults. But the frontier west was wild enough as it was.
Hey - if it was so bad why did the Canadians adopt a nearly identical system when it came time to survey the prairie provinces 70 years later??ÿ
It was actually 1785 when the system began.?ÿ
The Dominion Surveys made some usefull refinements, but they recognized a good idea and went with it.?ÿ
1785 - quite right.
As far as double proportioning goes - I've been surveying 30 years, 20 years licensed. And the only times I've done DP is for monument search stakeouts and the 3 state tests I've taken. It truly is a last resort. Any kind of valid evidence trumps DP.?ÿ
?ÿ
?ÿ
Local control for local boundaries.
I am a vehement enemy of state plane, so I'm all for the local, but that doesnt mean we cant use coordinates .
Coordinates??ÿ I just got off two surveys along a US Highway.?ÿ The State Highway Surveyor shows coordinates for the section corners at the center-line of the highway.?ÿ If I use their coordinates I'm along the shoulder of the road not the center-line.?ÿ My coords are something like seven feet and N75W away from the center line.?ÿ NO coords don't work any better than linear measurements.
Just coords, no metadata??ÿ That's usually the problem with coordinates.
N75W is maybe WGS/IGS vs NAD83?
Usually a scaling or wrong kind of foot would move you NE (or maybe SW).
.... My coords are something like seven feet and N75W away from the center line.?ÿ NO coords don't work any better than linear measurements.
One of you is working with an autonomously positioned base.
The PLSS codified some common law colonial solutions to problems, and came up with other solutions by predicting or reacting to new problems.?ÿ Double proportion gives surveyors an equitable solution that's standard and doesn't have to go through a lawsuit.?ÿ If it's used when it shouldn't be, that's a problem with practitioners rather than the system.
I find there's much more that's common than different PLSS v Colonial.
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=002/llsl002.db&recNum=350
Point being, already by 1805 speed and economics playing a role with repeal of no certificate without survey.?ÿ Rules developed for how to determine lines not surveyed before certificates issued.?ÿ Partly had to do with investors purchasing lands allotted to veterans for pennies on the dollar and amassing large fortunes.
Apportionment is just a method for restoring as closely as possible the original survey and its marks when they are lost.?ÿ Double proportion is a logical extension of that by using the original field data from four directions instead of two as in single proportion.
Distortions occur when the data in the official field note was cooked up in the office later, not actually ran out on the ground.
Apportionment is just a method for restoring as closely as possible the original survey and its marks when they are lost.?ÿ Double proportion is a logical extension of that by using the original field data from four directions instead of two as in single proportion.
Distortions occur when the data in the official field note was cooked up in the office later, not actually ran out on the ground.
Well, that's one way to look at it.?ÿ It's not true, but it's good legal fiction to avoid saying it gives surveyors equitable powers they shouldn't have:)
Apportionment is just a method for restoring as closely as possible the original survey and its marks when they are lost.?ÿ Double proportion is a logical extension of that by using the original field data from four directions instead of two as in single proportion.
Distortions occur when the data in the official field note was cooked up in the office later, not actually ran out on the ground.
Well, that's one way to look at it.?ÿ It's not true, but it's good legal fiction to avoid saying it gives surveyors equitable powers they shouldn't have:)
That's how I read the cases, the explanations I have read.
Kent would constantly throw shade on that "well that's JUST an equitable doctrine, right?" because he thought Surveyors had nothing to do with equity.?ÿ Well everyone can implement equity.?ÿ Isn't that the core principle? In order to receive equity one must first do equity.
For example:
490. O'Brien v. McGrane
Supreme Court of Wisconsin. January 1, 1871 27 Wis. 446
Headnote: On a line of the same survey, and between remote corners, the whole length of which is found to be variant from the length called for, it is not to be presumed that the variance was caused from a defective survey in any part, but it must be presumed, in the absence of circumstances showing the contrary, that it arose from imperfect measurement of the whole line; and such variance must be distributed between the several subdivisions of the line, in proportion to their respective lengths.
California has 5 or 6 apportionment cases; in every one the Court states the apportionment rule then says it doesn't apply in this case.?ÿ I find that humorous.
California has 5 or 6 apportionment cases; in every one the Court states the apportionment rule then says it doesn't apply in this case.?ÿ I find that humorous.
Thats pretty common. Boundaries tend to end up in court, especially at the higher courts, when proportioning was used or suggested when it was inappropriate. When a corner is truly lost, and the conditions that the proportion method relys on exist, any argument over the proportion is unlikely to make it to the supreme courts.?ÿ
Being a sittting Judge does not qualify a person to have an understanding of the surveying terms and what they entail that are included in the existing laws that govern Surveying.
A few counties over had a rule, whenever any parties came thru his court the contested property would be divided into equal parts among those included in the lawsuit ~ 1//2 vs 1/2(1/4,1/8,1/8) ~ and along lines the would draw across the existing drawing where everyone had access to their adjoining land or to a road if there was one, sometimes there was no access.
In another county, the presiding judge would award the property to whoever had contributed to his campaign efforts or voted for him or who he knew best.
Glad they are not in office anymore.
Being a sittting Judge does not qualify a person to have an understanding of the surveying terms and what they entail that are included in the existing laws that govern Surveying.
A few counties over had a rule, whenever any parties came thru his court the contested property would be divided into equal parts among those included in the lawsuit ~ 1//2 vs 1/2(1/4,1/8,1/8) ~ and along lines the would draw across the existing drawing where everyone had access to their adjoining land or to a road if there was one, sometimes there was no access.
In another county, the presiding judge would award the property to whoever had contributed to his campaign efforts or voted for him or who he knew best.
Glad they are not in office anymore.
Yeah, lower courts are a crap shoot, they are not always worried about the law. Thats why their rulings dont set precedent, although if you know how that particular judge will rule, it kind of does, unless you have the money and patience for an appeal.
Is the question then, "Do we have to salute a corner that was carelessly or lazily set. just because surveyor A- got there first"?
Or is "Yes" the answer?
?ÿ
?ÿ
Is the question then, "Do we have to salute a corner that was carelessly or lazily set. just because surveyor A- got there first"?
The point is sometimes made that what gives a corner authority is reliance by the land owners.?ÿ If the surveyor sets an iron inaccurately and it is relied on, it becomes the property corner (but not necessarily the section corner for other purposes). If a surveyor sets an iron, accurately or not, that none of the adjacent land owners knows is there and they by their actions recognize a corner somewhere else, then by that theory the iron would not control anything.
I hear what you're saying, Bill.
What can I say to this, though: If our only ability is to fool landowners, just what kind of standard is that? And I've met some clever ones - are they watching us with a sly grin?
What sets us apart then from any other non-professional? Why do we bother to have standards? Continuing education? Ethics - including the ability to admit we were wrong, or missed a vital piece of research?
How about the title companies, insuring title to a piece of land, like one I did for an old Navy veteran? His description, written by an old time (drunken?) cheese maker didn't even have his house on his (worthless) description. Was it professional to do another, meet with his farmer neighbor and do quit-claim deeds and correct it, or just plunk in a couple of pipes somewhere and call it good enough? "Just tap your toe, and there it goes".
You exempt section corners, but they are subject to the same situations. I've heard surveyors argue that they can move if they've been relied on for x number of years, even though they are clearly in error. In the last couple of years, I've dealt with 2 very egregious examples, 66' and 85 feet off that affect everyone in 2 sections.
On the other hand, I'm working another section which was thoroughly subdivided in 1853 and the center is within a couple of feet of occupation. What that tells me is that it's not the center, it's the other corners that were set a bit off, having no physical evidence, but happened to themselves be within a few feet of the original. I'm holding the center, by the way, since it has better occupation than the corners themselves, but it's nice everything works.
Like aliquot says, "Meeting state minimum standards is not enough."
?ÿ
?ÿ