Keith
> BUT, it's pretty hard to find evidence of the original line when you AIN'T on it (and are therefore looking in the wrong place).
>
> Remember, we ARE talking about “pure” compass lines here, not solar attachment (or solar compass) lines.
>
> Local attraction can (and will) put you CHAINS away from the “instrument straight” line in a half a mile. That can make things a little complicated.
>
> 🙂
> Loyal
I can see an argument for that out in your neck of the woods where evidence of the perpetuation of line as originally run can be, shall we say, scarce.
Keith
Pobably not, the "pin cushion" might just get larger in diameter.
🙂
Loyal
Even if you have to take a sledge hammer and knock a few of those darn junior monuments over to where they are supposed to be?
An abundance of occupation evidence makes the question moot. What counts is what happens when it is scarce and what you do once you feel confident you are on one line segment or corner. Using the compass might be the proper tool but you must have some knowledge and experience in using them for something other than rough work. As simple as a compass is, most don't appreciate how fickle and demanding it is, especially those in areas of little magnetic interference caused by mineral deposits or changes in mass in the land itself. Running a compass over that same line should tighten the difference between the new and the old results and if you want to be able to defend your work, that may be the only method accepted by the courts.
jud.
Whoa Trigger!
I didn't say anything about abandoning modern technology.
Run the theoretical calculations, shoot the first corner with the GPS or TS, and then head off towards the next corner with the RTK (or TS traverse) following the compass...shooting anything and everything that looks interesting along the way...what's so hard about that? When you get “there,” you at least have a clue how close “compass there” is to “GPS/TS there.” Of course of the original in situ corner monument is there, you are done. If you don't see it right away, maybe you “picked” something up along the way to point you to where it IS.
Shooting the first corner and then jumping in the truck and driving AROUND the hill/forest/swamp/whatever is NOT “walking the footsteps” in any way shape or form. You don't find anything along the line unless you were actually THERE at some point!
🙂
Loyal
> Even if you have to take a sledge hammer and knock a few of those darn junior monuments over to where they are supposed to be?
The US Supreme Court settled that tired old subject in Clement v. Packer, and quite a long time ago, too. Boiled down to a concentrated form, they said that it was obvious that junior surveys don't alter senior surveys.
Kent,
You're the only surveyor I know who has a 6000 vara piece of mono-filament and who conveniently lives in a part of the country where, not only can you stretch it full length between intervisible corners, the wind never blows.
;o)
JBS
Gee, since it was a US Supreme Court, I guess we should all ignore junior corner monuments.
Gosh need to reread the case!
Keith
> You're the only surveyor I know who has a 6000 vara piece of mono-filament and who conveniently lives in a part of the country where, not only can you stretch it full length between intervisible corners, the wind never blows.
Well, I realize that Utah surveying is, as Leon Day constantly reminds his readers, full of boobs and incompetents, and many of them probably use your monofilament line to "survey" with, but in Texas running straight lines with surveying equipment is not generally considered to be much of a challenge.
Loyal
Good point. One needs to walk the line, not just drive around where it is easy.
Kent
Since it has been some time since I read your cited case, Give us a quote from it that justfies your ignoring of junior monuments?
Thanks.
Keith
> I think the "original equipment" theory is largely based on the premise that only a magnetic compass similar to the original will reproduce the local variation that may have occurred due to large iron deposits and such. It's probably overkill for nearly all recon.
Yes, running miles of line through brush with a surveying compass or compass theodolite is nuts anywhere in nearly all of Texas. Even in areas with local attractions, you'd still have to actually be occupying the same stations along the same line of traverse and that would be unlikely unless you had the original surveyor's field book.
A much more efficient scheme is just to observe magnetic declination at different places along the lines to see whether there even are any local anomalies. If not, you won't get much of anything out of the compass traverse. I find that GPS with magnetic models is much more efficient.
Kent
Keith:
You have asked this question probably more than six times during the last couple of years and each time you have forgotten the answer in less than a couple of months. I just don't think you retain any information that demonstrates that your views are completely mistaken. There are lots of people like that, but few of them are land surveyors because it is a moral failing that surveyors are licensed to avoid.
Keith
Like you, when I started in this racket late 60s...we “ran” EVERY LINE (random line or random traverse).
The EDM (and later the Total Station) created the opportunity to “shoot” a section corner from yonder (drive to) hill, and then then walk (or drive) following the path of least resistance to the “next” [theoretical] corner position. GPS can be just a continuation of that same short cut.
The beauty of RTK GPS IMO, is that you CAN follow that compass line with little additional effort (over just walking it), and easily shoot anything and everything along the way that might constitute evidence of the original line, occupation, reliance, a junior corner NOT of record, WHATEVER!
Without actually WALKING that line, you simply DON'T KNOW if there was anything there or not.
Not only THAT, but I HAVE run compass lines, found the original stone in situ a chain or two “off line according to the math,” and then found a "modern" Pipe/Rebar/Cap [whatever] over there at or very near the theoretical position. If one were to just drive to the coordinate (as many do), they would have “found” the cap, but NOT the CORNER! (they stop looking when they find the cap). A form of self-fulfilling prophesy.
Loyal
Kent
Well shucks, since I let my Montana license lapse and I have not lived there since 1974, I have an excuse for being forgetful!
But that said, let me just ask one more time and I promise not to bother you again.
And I am sure that others here could/would learn from your vast knowledge on the US Supreme Court case that you referred to?
Keith
Loyal
Great post and I have been there too.
Of course, when I started, I was the rear chairman and walked every chain of the line, naturally not quite as observant as a land surveyor!
Keith
Kent
> Since it has been some time since I read your cited case, Give us a quote from it that justfies your ignoring of junior monuments?
Do you have a copy of the BLM Casebook laying around? It's quoted on Page C1-6.
James
I would rather hear it from Kent in his words?
Could you guess that maybe we have different interpretations on the same verbiage in the court case?
I want to hear his version of how it relieves us of using junior corner monuments!
After all, is it safe to assume that some 90 percent of all corner monuments being set today are junior corner monuments?
That is a WAG, but you get the picture!
In other words, Kent will ignore every one of them because of his reading of the court case.
Right?
Keith
James
> In other words, Kent will ignore every one of them because of his reading of the court case.
See, I knew that you'd forgotten what the US Supreme court said in its opinion in Clement v. Packer.
Loyal
Amen...We are retracing LINES not just the 'corners'...
:beer:
DDSM