Why you Can Ignore The Corner To The North ?
Charles, Frankly, I don't know if the reference is to a STANDARD Corner as we know it, or simply a regular corner?
There is too much confusion in this thread to worry about facts.
Paden Cash Asked One Question, Then Ducked For Cover
All those other facts, were invented by the anwerees.
Paul in PA
Paden Cash Asked One Question, Then Ducked For Cover
It takes a real artist to start a thread like this then have it go for a long string of responses while the O.P. never comments again.
Keep your head low and keep movin'....
Actually I'd been pretty busy today and didn't get to look at the board until late this afternoon. I apologize for leaving everyone unsupervised.:-$
When I said standard corner, I meant standard section corner. It's the SE corner of section 5. The township line to the north is not a standard parallel.
To me, it appears as though the surveyor that filed the records had 'proportioned' his new location from three directions. Why? I dunno.
I couldn't think of any kind of situation where that would be appropriate...hence my question.
I have been asked to review a number of separate surveys and conveyances for some folks. They felt it was in their best interest to beg my discression. They are aware that I wasn't thrilled with the limiting of my research to documents of record.
PLS vs NY
I know a NY rural type surveyor who like others in NE England took corner-monumented
straight lines and put angles in them because their was a stone wall going all over
the place.
He moved to Montana and immediately got educated about using the eight original
corners set around the outside of a section every half mile and making straight
lines of a 1/2 mile each.
Keep your head low and keep movin'....
> They are aware that I wasn't thrilled with the limiting of my research to documents of record.
If you are in the position of letting unlicensed people dictate how you make an investigation of a surveying matter, that is unenviable. On the other hand, if the investigation of the records is merely one part of what in your professional judgment needs to be done to arrive at a defensible opinion, all is well.
Kent
Not that way at all. It's probably in someone's best interest to keep things to what's of record for right now. It's not exactly a boundary issue, but could become one. I'm sure I'll do just fine working with what I've got.
Cowboy
Any brilliant things to say?
Kent
>I'm sure I'll do just fine working with what I've got.
Okay, so you are thrilled to be forming an opinion from just what's in the public records? I thought you implied you weren't. I was just reminding you that the nagging voice is usually right. :>
3 point proportion
Is appropriate when the line is not run in the 4th direction. However, that doesn't sound like this situation.
The surveyor may have realized that you don't proportion beyond the twp boundary but rather have to establish the controlling corner on the twp boundary first. For some reason, it appears he didn't do that.
He's potentially introduced a problem into a satisfactory situation and failed to explain WHY he did what he did. Is there a Record of Survey to go with this Corner Record? You will have to communicate with him before you can render any sort of professional opinion to your clients.
Paden ? Keep your head low and keep movin'....
If you look for the NE Corner of 5 will it stir up the troops?
I would say the general opinion was no good reason to reset the SE Corner.
Paul in PA
Cowboy
No need to sling personal insults, Keith.
Kent
RE:
> I was just reminding you that the nagging voice is usually right. :>
My wife? No, she's always right, whether she's right or not.
Seriously, that is so true. It seems like when something is "haunting" me like that, I find out there was something to it whether I solve it myself, or whether it solves itself, and slaps me in the face later.
Paden ? Keep your head low and keep movin'....
How about the E-¼ corner before you go working on that monument on the township line. You want to proportion to the closest corner.
Keep your head low and keep movin'....
> When I said standard corner, I meant standard section corner. It's the SE corner of section 5. The township line to the north is not a standard parallel.
So, my take on what little we know at this point is... If the corner really was obliterated (or existent as indicated on the first CCR), then he was wrong to call the corner lost and apply the apportionment. If the corner really was lost, he applied the apportionment wrongly, so the second CCR is wrong as well.
[sarcasm]Now that we've judged him, let's go get the rest of the evidence (unless we're satisfied with our rush to judgment).[/sarcasm]
JBS
Paden here's an real world example.
I was hung up on the term standard corner and didn't see what any corner north or south had to do with it. So what you mean is a typical monument set in the area.
There are times when only 3 corners might be considered. This is one example. The western portion of a township was surveyed in 1881 with a stair step line shown by the red line. Then in 1892 the eastern portion was completed. The question arises how to prorate in the missing northeast corner of Section 27. Use the four 1/4 corners or keep the proration to only corners set during the original 1881.
If this isn't similar to what you have then I don't see any reason not to prorate 4 directions-well except for the fact that you have a road indicating where the corner is.;-)
Sounds like fun!
Tyler
Insult?
Just responding in like comments.
2009 BLM Manual
§7-18
"Lost standard corners will be restored to their original positions on a base line, standard parallel, or correction line, by single proportionate measurement on the line connecting the nearest identified regular standard corners on opposite sides of the lost corner or corners."
Like I said, if it's a Standard Corner...
Yes, you are right
But, since the poster did not know the difference and referred to a section corner as a standard corner, it only muddied the water more.
4 Corners or 2 Corners
Paul,
To re-establish a regular section corner or a township corner by proportionate measure method, you would need corners in all 4 directions to control the double proportionate method. For 1/4 corners, other corners along a township line, and for standard corners (corners set along a line of standard parallel), you would need a corner in each of two directions to control a single proportionate method.
The logic is in using corners that were connected to the lost corner by the same survey by which the corner that is now lost was set.
The Meridian and the Standard Parallels were each run as one continuous line along which corners were set by which to control the township line surveys that followed. So except where the Standard Parallels crossed the Meridian, corners of the survey were only East and West of each other.
The surveys of the exterior Township lines were run, at least in these parts, not necessarily township by township (surveying one nominal 6 mile square, then the next nominal 6 mile square, and so on), but by following exterior township lines in what at times seems to be somewhat random order, setting the section and 1/4 corners that fall along those lines as they went. The GLO crew would begin at a Township Corner on a Standard Parallel (thereby being also a Standard Corner) and run North (sometimes South in CA at least) along the township line until they got to the next Township Corner. They would then either continue North along the line between the next Townships North, or they would go West along the E-W Township line until they got to the next Township Corner. And then Either North or West again, and proceed that way until they got to and closed on the next Standard Parallel.
It seems to me that this zig-zag pattern was run to encompass an area of townships that were to be divided into sections by survey later the same season or next.
Other surveys were run shortly after to infill the Township lines in the area encompassed by the seemingly random zig zag.
With the Township surveys, except where exterior Township lines crossed at the 4 corners of the Township, all other corners are either East and West of each other (if on the N or S line of Twp), or North & South of each other (if on the E or W line of Twp).
The surveys of individual Townships, in which the sections were created, were controlled by the corners set along the Township exterior lines. Section lines intersect at section corners, thus 4 controlling corners for DP method restoration, and 1/4 corners were only connected to 2 adjacent section corners by survey, thus 2 controlling corners for SP method.
Hope that helps.
In this case though, I think the basic question is twofold: 1st, whether or not the mathematical solution was even appropriate, and 2nd, why did the surveyor use DP method for a Standard Corner. It seems that using the corner to the North pulled the solution 30' +/- away from its more likely original position. That is one of the reasons that you would use only positions that were originally established by the same survey.