Ah ha, I thought it was a good post, especially the part that I quoted. Right on!
Keith
> Dan, I don't remember the exact circumstance, but the idea of two corners for the C 1/4 sec. cor. where it is a regular C 1/4 on the GLO plat, is simply wrong.
>
> This whole concept of aliquot part corners and property corners (two sets of monuments) is the bogus theory that I have repeatedly posted about.
>
> Trouble is, some surveyors actually believe this bogus theory?
>
Keith,
When the timber company surveyor left the site, according to his plat, there was only one C1/4 corner...the existing pine knot with stone collar. The situation was that he did not use this monument to establish the 1/16th corners. I think I remember your comments on 'timing'. You first determine the location of the established C1/4 corner and THEN continue to subdivide the section and not establish the 1/16th and 1/64th monuments and THEN yield to the existing C1/4 monument.
I thought Nate, at that time, was adamant that if the surveyor decided to 'technically' subdivide the section to establish the 1/16th etc. corners that it was improper to then 'yield' to the existing C1/4 monument and should set a new C1/4 at the 'BBint'.
Is it a case of two sets of monuments or two methods of establishing the location of a new monument?
DDSM
> Is it a case of two sets of monuments or two methods of establishing the location of a new monument?
sounds like a case of beer.......
OK, so now you have two sets of corners
Yah, calc both sets, then go recon. See what fits which set.
Lucky if there's only two sets. I've seen a section with two n/4 and three c/4's and 16th and 64ths and fence corners set from all of them. Still pondering that one.
OK, so now you have two sets of corners
yes and a bunch of measuring experts!
OK, so now you have two sets of corners
Hopefully they were ALL expert measurers. Just wish they had used the shovel and the recorder's office a little more !
The particular section I'm thinking of has a lot of relief, would have been a pain to chain. The GLO notes are pretty loose. It was cheap rural land in the 1940s when the physical n/4 mon got moved 42.50' east. (County paved the road, monument got moved to the shoulder, someone found it there and reset it where they found it, set a c/4 from that and subdivided the north half from it. The South half and particularly the SW quarter section had existing farms & fences laid out from the original N/4 and C/4.
Double corners got set, and having no other reference points to go by, landowners relied on them to develop. Finally the development got dense enough that the discrepancies began to surface in 2004-2006-2008 and eventually a surveyor calls an old stone 16th in the SW 1/4 "off 10.xx'" and
everyone in that former 5 acre ranchette now half acre McMansions moves their fences ten feet. Except the last guy up against the paved county road. What a hooraw! and I betcha that old stone that is "off 10.xx'" is more original than any other mon out there. I also betcha there is an old c/4 stone that nobody has seen since they day it was set, 21 feet east of the 1940s iron pipe and 25 feet east of the rebar with red cap staked from a typo on a plat ... Meanwhile, people are relying upon the new set of corners, the years will go by ...
OK, so now you have two sets of corners
OK, Half Bubbs,
THAT is why improvements should happen NOW, not 25-40 yrs future. Life is happening, and it should happen with the right corners.
N
