We argue about a tenth, of a foot. Or 0.04', but for the time of the glo surveys (early to mid 1800'a) that figure was 0.66' as obviated by a chain, and link.
So, this system was built, at a time when the unit of measure, generally did not bother with 0.04'
All I'm saying is that we are retracing surveyors, for whom 0.66 was "plenty good, and lucky if it was that good."
Another interesting item is that most bearings in SW Arkansas are run at N01*30'E or, N89*W.
This is evidence that the original glo surveyors were knowledgable, and compensating for curvature.
(They overcompensating)
So, if they were compensating, should not we?
I have never done it. I have never seen an EW sec. Line, with a single proportionate measure (SPM) that was a tenth or so south of mid.
But, as I convert, and become a geodetic surveyor, and not so much a rectangular surveyor, I'm beginning to grasp my small curvature of the earth.
And I've got a bit of rethinking to do... Around a tenth of a foot worth.
We still have bigger fish to fry. But this is interesting..
Larry Scott, post: 366305, member: 8766 wrote: Fourth. That the center lines of a regular section are to be straight, running from the quarter-section corner on one boundary of the section to the corresponding corner on the opposite section line.
Can I use a solar compass to run those straight lines?
Bottom line: if you run a straight line with a theodolite on the west quarter-corner and sight the east quarter corner and put you man on line and do the same north-south to intersect the lines, I am going to accept your corner monument, and (surprise-surprise) if you set it on the latitudinal arc, I am still going to accept your monument. Whichever way you do it, I think you are doing it by a reasonable interpretation of the manual. Pointing out the latitudinal arc is just a way of pointing out to the surveyor who doesn't accept a monument within 0.4 feet of his math, that maybe he never has that precision.
Can't I assume that a line running east to west at a constant bearing is "straight"?
TWP and RNG lines are meridians and latitudes. The 25 Standard sections were laid out parallel to the east and west lines of the TWP, by distance. Commencing in the SE corner progressing north and west. Not on meridians and latitudes.
So it's not how well they may have done that, but what was the instruction. And is a matter of how we treat the evidence: the original standard corners.
We should not be declaring corners lost unless there is absolutely no other alternative. Almost anything is better than declaring a corner lost.
Dave Karoly, post: 366347, member: 94 wrote: We should not be declaring corners lost unless there is absolutely no other alternative. Almost anything is better than declaring a corner lost.
This includes the center quarter section corner and the 1/16th corners.
Continuously resubdividing sections is one of the evils foisted on the public by the Land Surveying profession.
Dave Karoly, post: 366347, member: 94 wrote: We should not be declaring corners lost unless there is absolutely no other alternative. Almost anything is better than declaring a corner lost.
Amen:good::good:
DDSM:beer:
Dave Karoly, post: 366347, member: 94 wrote: We should not be declaring corners lost unless there is absolutely no other alternative. Almost anything is better than declaring a corner lost.
Agreed 100%
Isn't even that fence corner over there that the adjoining owner put up a better guess than double-proportionment? And what about local property corners to back the section corner in. Or if a property farther away has a that corner as a point of commencement, go back it in. If there are properties nearby, they are the best guess of where the corners are. If no improvements, property improvements, owner declarations or anything has ever been established and it's just a big open field, then okay....do whatever you want. No one will care if it's double-proportioned because no ties to the corner have ever been made nor no claim to any adjoining property has ever been done.
Tom Adams, post: 366360, member: 7285 wrote: Isn't even that fence corner over there that the adjoining owner put up a better guess than double-proportionment? And what about local property corners to back the section corner in. Or if a property farther away has a that corner as a point of commencement, go back it in.
Instead of resubdividing the 1/16 corners from proportioned exterior corners, use the BLM subdivision methods BACKWARDS to extrapolate from the established 1/16 corners to determine the original location area of the section/quarter section corners...
...BACK IT IN...
DDSM:beer:
Ric Moore, post: 366244, member: 731 wrote: It would be cool to get ahold of one of those "red books" for my library.
I have a "Red Book" dated 1956 that I would sell if the price was right. Make me a offer.
Dan B. Robison, post: 366365, member: 34 wrote: Instead of resubdividing the 1/16 corners from proportioned exterior corners, use the BLM subdivision methods BACKWARDS to extrapolate from the established 1/16 corners to determine the original location area of the section/quarter section corners...
...BACK IT IN...
DDSM:beer:
Yes, if you have 16th corners set based on that original section corner. Locate all the evidence, 1/16th corners, property pins, fences....everything if you have all that. Just don't declare it lost if you have any evidence.
I would assume this discussion is anout virgin sectionsB-)
sounds like a bogus theory; to me....:-X
RADAR, post: 366393, member: 413 wrote: sounds like a bogus theory; to me....:-X
lol 😀
I see one major step missing in the exhortation to use all evidence. We don't just grab a fence or nearby corner and assume a relationship to the Corner in question. It is our job to establish a connection to the Corner. That means knocking on doors, knowing the order things happened, etc.
It is encouraging to see Professionals openly advocating recovery over restoration. Just remember to finish the job with the details that make it defensible.
The PLSS datum defines "straight lines" as being those of constant geodesic bearing which are curved lines in terms of an orthogonal coordinate system.
This includes lines used to subdivide a section (3-114 2009 manual). I'm not saying the difference is huge, only that it's there and am surprised it isn't addressed more.
Evaluating corner evidence is a different discussion.
Ain't happening. The first Gubmit surveyors didn't do it here nor did the county surveyors who followed them for the next ninety years. Line of sight as best they could see it. The township lines may not have even been performed per the Instructions when entire townships were completed in three days in December. Tons of evidence suggests a lack of attention to detail and vivid imaginations.
Holy Cow, post: 366463, member: 50 wrote: ...Tons of evidence suggests a lack of attention to detail and vivid imaginations.
ain't that the truth...
From the notes I've read down here ol' Ehud Darling and Theo. Barrett actually ran the Indian Base and subsequent Standard Parallels with some geodetic accuracy...after that it was cookie cutter compass running north (with a WAG on the variance) and the east-wests were merely chained. They worked at a pace that most of us couldn't even walk the distances they covered in the same amount of time.
I've always thought it humorous that a modern surveyor will spent hours upon hours looking for evidence at a possible corner location...and the original crew hardly took the time to pee there!
True enough Paden. But not so funny when another surveyor, while peeing, finds an original corner 100' away from the one you just proportioned...
Thats the rub
Jim_H, post: 366450, member: 11536 wrote: The PLSS datum defines "straight lines" as being those of constant geodesic bearing which are curved lines in terms of an orthogonal coordinate system.
This includes lines used to subdivide a section (3-114 2009 manual). I'm not saying the difference is huge, only that it's there and am surprised it isn't addressed more.
Evaluating corner evidence is a different discussion.
The BLM disputes itself as they also call a east-west line of changing bearings a straight line, this can be seen in chapter 2 of the 73 manual, the 09 manual decrees that when breaking down a section an east-west straight line is actually a curved line, oh well,,,,,,,,,,,
All of which don't mean squat once the government is out of the picture.
