Just because the client needs several hundred section corners found is no excuse to be sloppy. ?ÿFound another example of such &%&$##@**$# surveying today. ?ÿ"Well, the Government Field Notes from 1857 say this quarter corner is halfway along a straight line between the southeast and northeast section corners, so that's where I put my bar and ?ÿshiny cap."
Anyone surveying in that county regularly knows the corner is actually where it appears it should be and that the Field Notes frequently belong in the Fiction section of the library. ?ÿWe routinely find the original stones confirming the fictional status of the Notes.
In this case the ?ÿshiny cap is over 20 feet to the west of the true corner. ?ÿThe stone, near the center line of the county road has been reported several times. ?ÿHowever, the most recent find was prior to the practice of filing Land Survey Reference Reports (section corner ties) with the State Archives. ?ÿNewbys and one-and-dones can't take the time and effort to ever search through the survey records on file with the county. ?ÿIf there is no LSRR, the corner must be "lost", in their opinion.
The longterm problem is that the next doofus who comes along and finds the LSRR in a computer search will believe he has struck gold.
GRRRRRRRR!!!!!!!!!!
Dunning-Kruger Effect
Yup. ?ÿOne doesn't know enough to know they don't know enough.
Dunning-Kruger Effect
Seems to be more prevalent among surveyors who can look, but can not see.?ÿ ??ÿ
Just because the client needs several hundred section corners found is no excuse to be sloppy. ?ÿFound another example of such &%&$##@**$# surveying today. ?ÿ"Well, the Government Field Notes from 1857 say this quarter corner is halfway along a straight line between the southeast and northeast section corners, so that's where I put my bar and ?ÿshiny cap."
Anyone surveying in that county regularly knows the corner is actually where it appears it should be and that the Field Notes frequently belong in the Fiction section of the library. ?ÿWe routinely find the original stones confirming the fictional status of the Notes.
In this case the ?ÿshiny cap is over 20 feet to the west of the true corner. ?ÿThe stone, near the center line of the county road has been reported several times. ?ÿHowever, the most recent find was prior to the practice of filing Land Survey Reference Reports (section corner ties) with the State Archives. ?ÿNewbys and one-and-dones can't take the time and effort to ever search through the survey records on file with the county. ?ÿIf there is no LSRR, the corner must be "lost", in their opinion.
The longterm problem is that the next doofus who comes along and finds the LSRR in a computer search will believe he has struck gold.
GRRRRRRRR!!!!!!!!!!
At least twice in the last 3 or 4 years I have emailed photos of the "real" corner to my brethren that felt compelled to stick their cheap rebar "half way and on line" between corners that have been properly perpetuated.?ÿ
In one case I sent a photo and a letter to the newer owner of a piece of property.?ÿTheir names were?ÿderived from county records and I'm assuming they paid for the survey.?ÿ My "shot-in-the-dark" must have hit the bull's eye...the surveyor that was in a hurry called me and he was mad as hell.?ÿ I guess his client must have called him.
The surveyor wanted to know why I hadn't contacted him.?ÿ I read him the dates of six times I attempted to call him (left 5 voice mails) with no reply.?ÿ He was going to "turn me in to the Board".?ÿ I told him in a few days I was having lunch with the head of the State Board's "enforcement" department and I'd be sure to mention his complaint in person.
I never heard anything from it. ??ÿ
A bit off the main point..
20 feet from a split isn't fraud when you look at the time period. I hear the term thrown around a lot but it's usually not warranted...
I completely agree with the gist of your post, but I don't get calling an 1857 survey "fiction" for being 20 feet off. What makes you think they didn't actually measure it as half way?
I completely agree with the gist of your post, but I don't get calling an 1857 survey "fiction" for being 20 feet off. What makes you think they didn't actually measure it as half way?
HC is in Kansas, where you can see from section corner to section corner in many cases. 20 feet, while not a lot for Oregon/Washington, is a bunch there.?ÿ Still, it probably doesn't rise to the level of fraud.
In this case there are two small hills preventing the line of sight that can occur rather frequently.
Also, in this case I believe the first surveyors made a reasonable attempt to do the job correctly. ?ÿThe problem is that there are many examples of fiction across the county. ?ÿIn those cases, the actual measurement of a half mile may be off by 200 feet or a sideways bend of 100 feet or more may exist. Stubbed in quarter corners are frequent. ?ÿThat is fiction.
One-and-dones never expect to ever be in a situation where they question their own work on a future project. ?ÿWe have had a project in that section before and may well have others in the future. ?ÿTaking shortcuts will catch up to you sooner or later. ?ÿNot searching the area around he theoretical center corner for evidence of earlier survey work is one of those shortcuts. ?ÿNot searching all the available records is another.
One-and-dones never expect to ever be in a situation where they question their own work on a future project. ?ÿWe have had a project in that section before and may well have others in the future. ?ÿTaking shortcuts will catch up to you sooner or later. ?ÿNot searching the area around he theoretical center corner for evidence of earlier survey work is one of those shortcuts. ?ÿNot searching all the available records is another.
I definitely agree with this.
I've run into trouble too many times with surveyors who claim all the surveys in their area are fradulant, or that none of the originals are there, so there is no need to spend the time to look.?ÿ
Original evidence lurks under the ground, and in disguise, even in Oklahoma and Kansas.?ÿ
Sounds like the North Dakota oil patch.?ÿ One rubber stamp overseeing the work of dozens of field crews, working as fast as possible.?ÿ Filing corner certificates, at least, but those certs tell you almost nothing you didn't know already.
Let me be clear. ?ÿWhat I am calling fiction are Field Notes that report precise 40 chain intervals and straight lines laid out in the proper sequence when the truth is many quarter corners were stubbed in and the north section lines were not measured from the northwest corner to the recently set northeast corner and returned to set the monument at the midpoint. ?ÿMaybe a large percentage were done correctly but the numerous exceptions cause the modern surveyors sleepless nights debating whether to go with what the Field Notes report or what is much more likely to be the true location of the original monument. ?ÿThose who always believe the Field Notes are accurate need to seek employment in some other line of work. ?ÿOne does not learn the difference overnight. ?ÿYou must learn the truth via experience in the specific area where the survey is needed.
Similar background experience is needed with older town plats and subdivisions and additions to those towns. ?ÿOne needs to follow the work of their predecessors who have already set many monuments.
?ÿ
Unless you can see it on the ground and have the paper with the field data to support the work, it never happened.
To follow-up with HC's last post, Bob Dahl stresses this concept in the CFedS training course.?ÿ Paraphrasing, there are three things the PLSS retracement surveyor should know/determine.
1.?ÿ What was the original surveyor supposed to do.
2. What did the original surveyor say he did.
3. What did the retracement surveyor determine that the original surveyor actually did!
In other words, what's in the Manual, what's in the field notes and on the plat, and what a PLS?ÿshould do.
Absolutely, but without any evidence to the contrary, the original survey is the best evidence.?ÿ If you have recovered multiple corners in the township that show they were stubbed out, or have other specific evidence, then it is definitely appropriate to place it where a stubbed out survey would place it, but just making a blanket assumption that surveys were not preformed as stated in the official record won't win many conflicts.?ÿ
We can all wave our book-learnin' knowledge around but if your?ÿsingle proportioned brass falls 20 feet off the centerline of a Kansan section line road you might want to review your "solution".?ÿ?ÿ
I don't think anyone here is advocating that blanket assumptions should be made that the original surveys were never performed as stated in the official record. However, there are examples that detail the shortcuts taken in the old contract surveys. Many years ago, Paul Reid shared with me the 1883 journal of Harley Nettleton, who worked under U.S. Deputy Surveyor George W. Fairfield who was contracted to subdivided 23 townships in Sioux County, Nebraska.
Surveying in Nebraska: The 1883 Journal of Harley Nettleton
An interesting read for anyone working in northwest Nebraska.
Some areas of the PLSS were surveyed in a slapdash manner and there are ways to analyze the record before stepping foot in the field.?ÿ I conducted an analysis a few years ago of a township on the Western Slope of Colorado.?ÿ I downloaded the National Elevation Dataset (NED) for the area and created a local map projection of the elevation grid in chains. I plotted up all of the calls in the field notes and found that over 1/3 of the township subdivision corners were either stubbed out or never set.?ÿ The original surveyor appeared to have avoided the areas with thick brush like the plague and generally followed the drainages with existing roads!?ÿ ??ÿ
Why is the new Surveyor in the area always wrong? He might have done the Surveyor to Kansas standards. Seems like the established Surveyors in the area always bad mouth the new Surveyors, because they don't like new Surveyors in the area or worried they are going to catch the mistakes they have been making.?ÿ
I think our modern day expectations can get in the way of a good retracement. The old surveys were done for land disposal, imagine doing a township in two or three days in hilly and scattered timbered country. We have some of those, one I recall was done from dec. 20-22. The three shortest days of the year, through timber and some bigger hills.
It wasn't so much the point of these surveys to make?ÿmeticulous measurements, but it was more to put markers on the ground, get it done, get it ready for homesteads. You see the same surveyors in the notes doing township after township from 1880-1882, someone once remarked that 2200 townships were surveyed in the state?ÿthose three years. They really covered lots of ground.
Its clear that they would have more than one set of crews working and not really laying it out the way the notes tell you they did, if you think the way they did you can often "break the code" and find evidence. I've seen prorates for a 1/4 corner 15 feet from an old fence,,,,,,,,more than once. ??ÿ
?ÿ
Why is the new Surveyor in the area always wrong? He might have done the Surveyor to Kansas standards. Seems like the established Surveyors in the area always bad mouth the new Surveyors, because they don't like new Surveyors in the area or worried they are going to catch the mistakes they have been making.?ÿ
I didn't see Holy Cow indict new surveyors in the OP.?ÿ I interpreted from this quote, "Newbys and one-and-dones can't take the time and effort to ever search through the survey records on file with the county." that HC was upset with quickie-dickie surveyors.?ÿ
This thread is not unlike any of a number of threads started by an Austinite surveyor who often complained of other surveyors who failed to do the required homework and research.