When I first joined this forum, I viewed the PLSS as far superior to the Colonial system I've experienced in Maine, New Hampshire, and North Carolina. Ten years later and I've noticed a pattern emerge from the many PLSS folks. It sounds kinda like, ??If only more surveyors did a better job, then there would be fewer problems with pin cushions and proportioned corners.? I submit that the problem is the system itself as it will always multiply the effects of a poor survey.
What about the following statement is not true at a macro scale?
The PLSS allows the errors made by one PLS to spread to non contiguous boundaries many thousands of feet in all directions from the source of the error. The Metes and Bounds system generally constrains errors to the particular parcel being surveyed and those adjoining it.
If aliquot descriptions were deemed insufficient for recording, would a given PLSS state be better or worse off one hundred years from now?
Gaps and overlaps happen in both systems.?ÿ The Texas method ensures changing descriptions.?ÿ No system is superior to others with the lone possibility being RADU's.?ÿ Then it is absolutely decided by someone beyond the surveyor/best measurer and is locked in as I understand it.
Good question.
In my opinion one of the biggest problems we have around here is tying metes and bounds surveys to PLSS corners.?ÿ It is a somewhat vague requirement in our statutes and probably screws up more stuff than it helps.?ÿ And I'm blaming this on the fact that a lot of our PLSS land corners fall within traveled and maintained roadways.?ÿ The monuments are under constant and relentless attack and it shows.
Something that I've noticed about a lot of surveyors is an uncanny and almost hypnotic desire to strictly adhere to a call from a land corner, no matter the distance of quality of the corner's position.?ÿ An example:
"Commencing at the SW corner of the NW/4, thence east 1500' to the point of beginning..."
This parcel may indeed bare 4 original corners in pristine condition.?ÿ But due to a rocky pedigree the monument at point of commencement sits some 2' or so from its position at the time the parcel was monument.?ÿ Glory be, some fool will surely stick to the call and set new monuments at the parcel's corners...all 2' away from the actual corners.?ÿ And then some will even argue the point ad nauseum.
When possible, I prefer to tie surveys to corners within the interior of a section that are more protected from constant road maintenance.
But the statement above stating: the errors made by one PLS to spread to non contiguous boundaries many thousands of feet in all directions from the source of the error is probably not accurate.?ÿ Existing monuments within any section are still viable boundary corners.?ÿ The fact that some willy-nilly surveyor smacked a PK down where he or she thinks it ought to be doesn't necessarily "spread" the error.?ÿ It does make retracement difficult at times.
I'm going to make the assumption a 160 acre tract in a 'metes and bounds' state will probably have more corners than four.?ÿ In a PLSS situation that 160 acres may have only 2 or 3 adjoiners.?ÿ In a Colonial situation I'm betting there are far more abutting parcels and corners "pulling and twisting" the corners.
I'm guessing it's a trade-off.?ÿ Many local municipalities will not accept aliquot descriptions and require bounded descriptions.?ÿ I don't think the process is as detrimental to boundary locations as is poor surveying.?ÿ A hundred years from now we will probably still be experiencing the effects of poor surveying practice.
The PLSS rectangular system was brilliant for the catalog and quick transfer of lands 150 years ago.?ÿ We're stuck with it, good or bad.?ÿ
?ÿ
We are required to tie tract corners to a PLSS corner whether it commences there or begins there anytime we are outside of recorded subdivisions.
?ÿ
Boundary Descriptions (AKA: LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS)
Descriptions defining land boundaries written for conveyance or other purposes shall be
complete, providing definite and unequivocal identification of lines and boundaries thereof. The
description shall contain dimensions sufficient to enable the description to be plotted and
retraced and shall describe the land surveyed by either government lot, aliquot parts, quarter
section, section, township, range and county; or by metes and bounds commencing with a corner
marked and established in the U.S. Public Land Survey System; or if such land is located in a
recorded subdivision or recorded addition thereto, then by the number or other description of that
lot, block or subdivision thereof. If the parcel is described by metes and bounds it may be
referenced to known lot or block corners in recorded subdivisions or additions.
a lot of our PLSS land corners fall within traveled and maintained roadways.?ÿ
Funny thing this is.....its uncanny how the county roads in some places are gridded to near perfection in some counties, and then in others the offset them 50 ft or so to allow that boundary to be held.?ÿ Almost too convenient, like " why would we reinvent the wheel and survey out a better fitting set of local boundaries when the G_men already wrapped this up for us.....?ÿ just a personal perspective from not having worked in surveying for 30 plus years, but with a deductive reason angle.....
Time converts verbs, to nouns.
Verb: "the SW cor. SW 1/4-NE1/4"?ÿ
Noun: "that big axle, is the corner".
At some point, all the "verb corners" become noun corners.
Point is, survey and set the c1/4, criss-crossing the section, in 1855, with an old compass, and set a stone. (Position is 25' "off")
Criss cross it again, in 1859, with a rittenhouse compass, and reset the c-1/4, it's now wrong by only 9'.
Criss cross it again, in 1920, with transit and tape, and dependant Resurvey. Loop the section, error of closure is 12', due to too many details. New corner. Moved it again, it's "off" now by 10', in the other direction.
Fancy fancy survey crew surveys it again in 1970, but three of the?ÿ 1/4 corners are missing. They set a USFS alum Mark, but it's "off" by 12" south. (Not e-w like some of the others)
Now, I come out in 2019, with my fancy gps, and put it "right".
At what point do we call it converted from a noun, to a verb? It's got many iterations!
Thank you!
Nate
Equity was the concern.?ÿ Most settlers acquired quarter sections or a combination of aliquot parts adding to 160 acres more or less in my neck of the woods.?ÿ Most roads were established centered on section lines so that the land used would be half from one owner and half from another.?ÿ There are exceptions of course.?ÿ Many of our roads that do not follow the section line follow quarter section lines or quarter-quarter section lines.
In certain places it was set that all section lines were automatically declared to be the center lines of official roads whether or not they were ever developed.?ÿ Many never-opened roads had to be vacated later.
Criss cross it again, in 1859, with a rittenhouse compass, and reset the c-1/4, it's now wrong by only 9'.
etc
Why are people moving it? Isn't the original monument correct by definition?
@nate-the-surveyor verbs / nouns. ?ÿNouns / verbs. ?ÿWell put. ?ÿPut well.
CN1/16:
The N2NW4 was the first patent, the N2NE4 was the second two years later. The N2NW4 was also the first occupied and a fence line was established along the south line of the N2N2. It basically was/is 1320'S, of the NW section corner and and headed due east from that point.?ÿ
10 years or so after the patents an army Lieutenant preforms a survey for a fort along the north section line, sets giant 6" monuments, calls them corner No.#s. Using the monuments as defining the north section line causes the north section line now to have a strong NE bearing. Ten years (1910) later the N2NE4 is subdivided into typical city subdivision, streets, blocks and lots using the giant monument at the N1/4 for the section breakdown.
Today if you use all the re-established 1/4 corners, the old subdivision corner for the CN1/16 fits about 5'x4' from a math corner. Problem is the corner for the SE of the N2NW4, the first patent issued, is 100' south. His deed calls that position out as the SE of the N2NW4 1390' south of the Lieutenant's monument while the SW subdivision corner is 1290' south.?ÿ
I had an attorney on the phone trying to pin me down that the description for the N2NW4 is sliding over the 16th line. I don't wish to make that statement, it depends on your perspective and he didn't want to hear that.?ÿ
Typical day in the PLSS.
A verb is an action.?ÿ A noun is a thing that may do action.?ÿ Driving is a verb.?ÿ A person is a thing so is a noun.?ÿ A person driving is a noun doing a verb action.
Or is it a verb acting as a noun?
A verb turned into a noun is a gerund.?ÿ "Driving is a skill most people learn."?ÿ?ÿ Driving is then a gerund form of noun.
?ÿ
?ÿ
You are absolutely correct about that, Bill.
And a verb in a noun when you are referring to the term "verb", as in: A verb connotes action, even if in the form of a thought.
Following lost corner procedures spreads error. Following retracement procedures isolates it. In reality however truly following retracement procedures has no error regardless if you are working in PLSS or any system.?ÿ?ÿ
Actually, in this case, it is a verb turned into an adjective, which is a participle. In Bill's example, driving is the subject of a sentence, in HC's example, driving descries the noun person.?ÿ
Examples are here: https://www.chompchomp.com/terms/participlephrase.htm
?ÿ
The error propagation you describe does pop up from time to time, but it comes from a misapplication of the PLSS, not a problem with the PLSS itself. I suppose you would have a point if by PLSS you include both the basic fabric, it's rules, and the failures of our education/ licensing system.
The massive numbers of corners under roads in the flat states is a drawback of the system though. Digging holes in roads gets tedious and expensive. The Dominion surveys in Canada recognized this, and public gaps of one or two chains between some sections were retained for roads.?ÿ
[?ÿ .?ÿ .?ÿ .]
"Commencing at the SW corner of the NW/4, thence east 1500' to the point of beginning..."
[?ÿ .?ÿ .?ÿ .?ÿ ]
I hate seeing that in a description except when all adjacent parcels reference the same POC & thences.?ÿ I've seen surveys?ÿ where large former PLSS parcels were anciently subdivided into lots and described by metes and bounds with reference to set interior non-GLO monuments and the locale is stable concerning ownership.
?ÿ Then decades later some out of town clown traverses from the (valid?) GLO monument thousands of feet distant and GPS pincushions their one lot survey ten feet off from its a adjoinders, ignoring occupation lines and the post GLO record monuments, sometimes into the streets. They are fools. Usually the locals ignore it and continue in repose; it's not worth pursuing some bad LS survey unless your neighbor gets huffy about your ancient fences & monument locations.
The key is once land is patented away from the GLO system local control becomes paramount concerning further subdivision.?ÿ Yes, the GLO boundaries are senior lines, but once out of Federal ownership it's a local control system.
But I'm old school and maybe I'm wrong.
Thanks gentlemen.?ÿ From your responses, I am guessing that my view of the PLSS as one giant pin cushion has more to do with the large volume of Western posters on this forum and the tendency not to discuss run-of-the-mill surveys.
While surveying a couple of parcels around the Watauga River last week, I realized that I've grown to prefer boundaries with vague or incomplete descriptions. The ones I get in the NC Mountains go something like, ??Thence in a westerly direction 13 poles to a chestnut stump, cornering, thence in a northerly direction 19 poles to a cluster of willows? etc.. When there is no map, the description doesn't close by a hundred feet, and every corner is a ??point? there is no conflict between math and the evidence on the ground. Earlier in my career these types of surveys scared the crap out of me, but now I appreciate the time spent interviewing land owners and investigating.
(Digression alert) While interviewing one the suspected owner of one of the lots I learned a bit about the history of tobacco allotments. The interviewee claimed that his father had maxed out his acreage of tobacco but wanted to grow more. His plan was write a fake deed granting 1.5 acres to the neighboring preacher (why is it always a preacher?) and then grow tobacco under the preacher's allotment. If the authorities (ATF?) questioned the preacher, the preacher could produce the deed and prove that my interviewee was not double dipping. So of course, the preacher ??stole? the interviewee's land by simply recording the deed. Fast forward to the present and the rehab colony established by the preacher has no idea that they own 1.5 acres across the creek from their main holdings.
I bring this up because it got me to thinking about the influence of maps or geometry on how a given surveyor evaluates evidence. I would think that if North Carolina had a map dividing it into townships and ranges, that I would probably have said map printed and pinned to my office wall. If I spent years and years glancing at the map it might begin to affect how I evaluate evidence on the ground.
Is it possible that some of the pin cushioning problems in the PLSS has to do with the existence of Township and Range maps and a desire to preserve its geometric symmetry?
?ÿ