Hopefully this won't?ÿdevolve into a "quasi" P&R post as some have in the past:
I was having a discussion with a buddy about the difference between a lost corner and an obliterated corner.?ÿ As some of you may know there was discussion during the prep of the last Manual to incorporate both definitions.?ÿ And I will agree the difference between the two might get blurry at times.
But here's a question to which I would like to hear some shared experiences from you guys:
When restoring a corner with either single or double proportioning, what is the "worst" distance you derived as compared to record??ÿ And to clarify, I'm talking about your run-of-mill-in-the-middle-of-a-township corners...no crazy closing corners or completion surveys.
In my memory I don't think I've ever determined a lost corner location that was anywhere close to?ÿa chain in any direction differing from the record.?ÿ Most have been 50 links or less.?ÿ But I realize down here in the flats closing up a township may not have been as difficult as it possibly?ÿ could have been in rough terrain.
What's the worst distance difference you've encountered?
A lost corner is one that is not there and there are no record calls from record monuments, witness or any other existing information or records, public or private, for use to set back in place.
The biggest difference I've found between record monuments was 200vrs.
Worst distance relative to record (proportioned v. record), or worst distance TO the Original Corner (proportioned v. ACTUAL) when finally recovered?
Loyal
I 2nd Loyal??s question....my iPhone 5s won??t let me like....
Loyal, Paden said no P&R 😉
It has been a long time since I have felt it appropriate to label a corner as lost. ?ÿLots of obliterated ones, though.
?ÿ
It's not your question, but there are many original corners found nowhere near the record location. ?ÿA frequent issue is a bend sideways that should not exist.
I always found that the survey distances between section corners in the grasslands of Oklahoma are always within about 10, maybe 20, feet of the theoretical miles. In mountainous and forested Oregon and Washington those differences are routinely more like 200 feet.?ÿ ?ÿ
It seems that is the norm here- sections usually within a chain of record overall..... some places show different problems... sideline is very nearly 80 chains but the fnd quarter is nearly 2 chains off for distance and sometimes "over yonder" for line.....
Recovered monuments either set by others or original. 5 chains comes to mind for one situation of a corner?ÿset by the county surveyor at proper proportionate measurement in an elongated section (record), but actually way short (East-West) and 300'?ñ in another area that was an original monument.
It seems that is the norm here- sections usually within a chain of record overall..... some places show different problems... sideline is very nearly 80 chains but the fnd quarter is nearly 2 chains off for distance and sometimes "over yonder" for line.....
I think that's pretty common.?ÿ?ÿI have seen sections with the N-S "sidelines" that measure within a few feet of record, with very little linear deflection at the quarter corner...and then in the same section; the north or south quarter corner (on the east-west lines) appears as though it was thrown out of an airplane from altitude!?ÿ I remember one (17N, 5 or 6 E, I.M. I believe) where we found an existing stone 160' or so north of line and about 70' from being a "split".?ÿ
It's evident to me the cross-chaining to set interior quarter corners was not done in any particularly precise fashion around here.?ÿ The only 1/4 corners that are anywhere near on line or near a split are almost assuredly modern day re-sets of the original lost or obliterated corner.
It doesn't take too many years to "lose" a post or pits and mounds that had?ÿno accessories...a common practice in the grasslands.
I would have attached this map of the 1912 County Surveyors Retracement?ÿ Survey, but I had to find where I stored it in my computer files and then found I needed to reduce the file size in order to post it.?ÿ. By all rights, double proportion should not have been used to set the NE of Section 18 due to the distortion that method caused. He should have used only a single proportion from the recovered corner monuments?ÿNorth and South of this corner or maybe a 3-way proprtion?ÿusing the ?¬ East of the lost NE corner of 18.?ÿ?ÿI am also?ÿattaching my retracement diagram. This is a really messed up?ÿTownship and I couldn't begin to add all the data I put together that shows the BLM has a really bogus Dependent Resurvey?ÿperformed in 1967. I also have maybe a 6 page synopsis regarding what I recovered in 1984 and what my thoughts are for what needs to be done. All my data was sent into the BLM and they were supposed to make a field trip with me in 1985 to look at the situation. It is now over 30 years and they never did get back with me to do this. Anyway, I thought this would give you all something to look at. :>)
I recovered Wheeler's NE corner of Section 18 in 1974 when surveying a buried telephone cable through this area, but it was?ÿdestroyed?ÿin 1983 ? when the highway was relocated.?ÿ
?ÿ
?ÿ
?ÿ
?ÿ
?ÿ
Hopefully this won't?ÿdevolve into a "quasi" P&R post as some have in the past:
What fun are you??ÿ You used to be a pretty good, fun-loving kind of guy.
Hopefully this won't?ÿdevolve into a "quasi" P&R post as some have in the past:
What fun are you??ÿ You used to be a pretty good, fun-loving kind of guy.
I was just trying to avoid feeling compelled to read all the posts from surveyors in non-PLSS state that feel the need to spout off about things they know absolutely nothing about.?ÿ?ÿ And it could lead to a player or two being ejected from the game for a personal foul out-of-bounds.
You know what they say...it's all fun and games until someone gets their eye poked out. 😉
A. Harris,
Where did the GLO/BLM use varas?