what this country needs is...
a good 5 cent solar transit.
nope can't agree to that at all Steve
But I can agree that no matter how you set the center of section, that those folloe diswing behind you are likley to be bound to hold your point, like it or not.
In California, the courts have ruled on the meaning of words in plenty of cases. Generally, words mean what common folks think they mean. Obscure and technical meanings do not come into to play , unless everyone is put on notice that the intention is a the technical meaning and not the common every use of the word.
So in 1805, congress had the opportunity to write the law exactly as they intended. They could have said "intersecting line of constant bearing", but they said straight lines. Surveyors that work in the realm of geodesy understand the distinction well, but private surveyors that work mainly on a plane not so much and neither do ranchers and farmers.
Considering the standards used in the original subdivision of section, the difference between a curved line solution and a straight line solution is probably an issue that would fall into the category of de minimus issuses.
Not worth arguing over, but it is worth knowing how the BLM would do it and how it would be done once the land was patented and in the hands of PRIVATE OWNERS.
nope can't agree to that at all Steve
Anyone who files a lawsuit over the difference between a latitudinal line and a straight line (at least in the context of a center quarter between four quarters) should have their head examined.
But that really isn't Keith's original point.
A matter of perspective from MLSchumann
Well I got lost in all of that and was trying to imagine a straight line somewhere out in space that was north of the north pole!
Keith
A matter of perspective from MLSchumann
Run your line but lean the lath over so that it is perpendicular to Earth's axis of rotation. Then stand leaning over the same amount. I do believe the lath will line up in a straight line from that perspective.
Dave
I am debating Keith original point about proper method. One needs to understand what Congress's intent was when they used the word "straight". I am trying to point to evidence that would lend support for the notion, that the proper method maybe different where state law is concerned as opposed to federal rules.
Thomas Jefferson and the Congress back then were all learned men who knew that the earth was “round”. This is evidenced by the mandated use of Guide Meridians and Standard Parallels. To run a “straight” line on a spherical surface one must observe the constraints of spherical geometry.
> Thomas Jefferson and the Congress back then were all learned men who knew that the earth was “round”. This is evidenced by the mandated use of Guide Meridians and Standard Parallels. To run a “straight” line on a spherical surface one must observe the constraints of spherical geometry.
There are two sets of constraints to understand. One is spherical geometry, and that has to do with the fact that all of your lines are curved including the north-south lines and the equatorial line. This concept is that if you had a spherical "line" that went a quarter-way around the globe and a big triangle of extremely huge lines, the sum of the interiors of a three-sided "triangle" could total greater than 180 degrees. The three sides of that "triangle" are all curved. One semi-simple way to envision this is to go to a point on the equator, backsight the north pole and turn ninety degrees. Then go, say 1/3 of the circumference of the earth to another point on the equator, and backsight the last point and turn another 90-degree angle to the north pole, then go to the norh pole and turn the 120º interior angle between the other two points. You would then have a great-circle spherical geometry triangle adding up to 90º+90º+120º=300º You could also have a "triangle" in other configurations that are not dependant on where the equator or north-pole are. That was just one way of explaining it.
The other concept is not the same spherical-geometry type of problem (per se) but following the latitudinal lines on a curve. In this case, you are not really thinking of the north-south lines as curved, although they really are. We are on such a smaller scale, those kind of curves aren't really affecting your local plane (ellipsoid).