The BLM did a dependent resurvey in the early 1970's.
Along the south line of Section 1 they set the SW, SE and S1/4 corners.
The S1/4 was a prorate.
In 94 there was a resurvey of it intended to breakdown the section and set interior corners (by someone else), it shows the S1/4 about 3' south and 3' west of a prorate. Pretty typical, maybe a bit farther than to be expected but not bad.
In 98 we are hired to go in and do a survey and draw a map showing survey conditions. We do so and disagree about the S1/4 getting a bit different answer. I forget about it, then this year we are again in the section to set some corners, I'm looking at the drawing we did and we show the S1/4 at the perfect prorate position, exactly midpoint between the two section corners.
That of course is impossible, the survey was done in trimmap and I can't quickly recreate the vectors cause we didn't keep records well then and the great digital fire of 2001 disconnected our job numbers from the trail to recover trimmap files. Anyway, I figure some dummy (probably me) created a computer point as a search point at the exact midpoint and it never got erased as it was supposed to, and then got used as the corner.
So instead of tracking down the old vector file, I send the PC out to reshoot it (have to anyway) and correct my screw-up.
Well, what do you know, he locates it and it's almost exactly on the prorate, 1" bend, .02' difference in distance.
So now I think it had to have been moved between 94 and 98.
Then I remember there is an old state plane list a surveyor compiled just after the BLM resurvey. He located the caps conventionally onto NAD27.
I put in his coordinates and that 1/4 is .08' from a prorate. So the corner is good, was placed exactly at a midpoint in the early 1970's the 94 survey has a bust...........
I actually never noticed that that point was a midpoint in 98, filed corner records and everything..............
"...almost exactly on the prorate, 1" bend, .02' difference in distance."
What do you mean when you say "almost"?
Jim in AZ, post: 359274, member: 249 wrote: "...almost exactly on the prorate, 1" bend, .02' difference in distance."
What do you mean when you say "almost"?
well, it should be curved
0.0128 feet in 2640 = one second
Holy Cow, post: 359292, member: 50 wrote: 0.0128 feet in 2640 = one second
see not perfect, it actually should be 2inches south of a straight line to be "right on" the prorate
Reminds me of a 1/4 corner we found north of Park City, Utah. Deputy Gorlinsky from 1895. We got on to him and he was very good in the mountains. His lines were usually within a couple feet at the 1/4 and the chaining seldom more than 10 feet difference for the mile. We started finding all the corners but in the mountains they would get buried over time with soil build up. We needed a 1/4 corner and had already located the section corners. I had a partner at the time. I had calculated the search point and my partner had gone to look. He called on the radio and said he had found it. He went to the search point and as the rod sunk into the ground hit the top of a stone. He dug down around it and there was the 1/4 mark. A "perfect proportion" from the original 1895 survey.
You mean 2 inches north don't you? Unless you are in the southern hemisphere.
OOPS, nevermind.
Kent said you failed to mention your cap on that plak. He's loosing sleep.
N
Nate The Surveyor, post: 359301, member: 291 wrote: Kent said you failed to mention your cap on that plak. He's loosing sleep.
N
well, I did fail to mention the accessories, or accessory in this case, not sure it should go on the plat, these open sections without any trees only get a mound of stone, and usually everyone just says found 3" BLM brass cap 1971, something like that.
LRDay, post: 359298, member: 571 wrote: Reminds me of a 1/4 corner we found north of Park City, Utah. Deputy Gorlinsky from 1895. We got on to him and he was very good in the mountains. His lines were usually within a couple feet at the 1/4 and the chaining seldom more than 10 feet difference for the mile. We started finding all the corners but in the mountains they would get buried over time with soil build up. We needed a 1/4 corner and had already located the section corners. I had a partner at the time. I had calculated the search point and my partner had gone to look. He called on the radio and said he had found it. He went to the search point and as the rod sunk into the ground hit the top of a stone. He dug down around it and there was the 1/4 mark. A "perfect proportion" from the original 1895 survey.
Every now and then I guess.
I had a guy send me one where the 1/2 mile came out to 2640.00.
Of course it was two stones, so no dimple.........and it was an east-west line, no doubt the record was a bit different than 80, but still...............
If you survey long enough............
MightyMoe, post: 359384, member: 700 wrote: Every now and then I guess.
I had a guy send me one where the 1/2 mile came out to 2640.00.
Of course it was two stones, so no dimple.........and it was an east-west line, no doubt the record was a bit different than 80, but still...............
If you survey long enough............
Took me 42 years, but last summer found two circa 1919 GLO caps on a north-south line that we measured 5280.00' between.
Jim in AZ, post: 359408, member: 249 wrote: Took me 42 years, but last summer found two circa 1919 GLO caps on a north-south line that we measured 5280.00' between.
That's way cool:-)
Jim in AZ, post: 359408, member: 249 wrote: Took me 42 years, but last summer found two circa 1919 GLO caps on a north-south line that we measured 5280.00' between.
[sarcasm]Didn't you change it to 5280.04 just so people would believe you really measured it?[/sarcasm]
Jim in AZ, post: 359408, member: 249 wrote: Took me 42 years, but last summer found two circa 1919 GLO caps on a north-south line that we measured 5280.00' between.
Did you go out to the calibration baseline and check your machine afterward?
Tom Adams, post: 359625, member: 7285 wrote: Did you go out to the calibration baseline and check your machine afterward?
No - read somewhere that all undisturbed original federal monuments are exactly that far apart. Our measurment confirmed that to be true!;-)
"We don't need no stinking baseline!"
Jim in AZ, post: 359408, member: 249 wrote: Took me 42 years, but last summer found two circa 1919 GLO caps on a north-south line that we measured 5280.00' between.
Should have taken the crew out to celebrate for four beers here: 1320 Club
Tom Adams, post: 359625, member: 7285 wrote: Did you go out to the calibration baseline and check your machine afterward?
I think it's time to buy a lottery ticket
MightyMoe, post: 359384, member: 700 wrote: Every now and then I guess.
I had a guy send me one where the 1/2 mile came out to 2640.00.
Of course it was two stones, so no dimple.........and it was an east-west line, no doubt the record was a bit different than 80, but still...............
If you survey long enough............
Have had some other close ones (2 ft or less) but this is the only one like this. Probably wasn't exactly a perfect split but the stone was there. It was an East/West line. If you used to the nearest link it was right on. If we are going to start splitting hairs, well then we could have been "off" on where we started from the section corners. Should we get into a discussion on whether the stones we leaning, where you measure to on a stone, curved lines, grid to ground and all that?