I think that this is a fairly interesting problem. In 1949, a surveyor reported that there was "a stake and rock mound" marking one corner of a 160 acre land grant and he also noted that from the stake and rock mound:
> an 8" Live Oak bears N26°30'E, 5.5 ft.,
> a 6" Live Oak bears N89°W, 17.5 ft., and
> a 6" Live Oak bears N33°W, 31.4 ft.
65 years later, one of the above trees remains standing (No. 23, mentioned below), one exists as a plainly recognizable stump (No.232), and one is the remains of a stump now buried under about three inches of soil that have washed in (No.231). The stake and Mound have been destroyed.
I identified what I think are plainly the above three trees and measured the following directions and distances to the remains of them from a random point No. 234:
[pre]
From 234:
Obj Grid Az. Hor Dist.
231 23°43' 5.38 ft.
232 267°43' 17.48 ft
233 330°01' 31.87 ft.
[/pre]
In this vicinity, Grid Az = Geodetic Az - 0°25'53".
The 1949 surveyor was probably taking the bearings to the trees by pointing his transit at them at a level about 4 ft. above the ground and reading the bearing by the needle of his transit's compass.
Consistent with that practice, the 1949 surveyor was not extremely careful about the details of his work. There is no reason to think that his measurements were ever completely reliable.
So, given that information, what would the ties actually be from where the stake and rock mound were most likely in place in 1949 to the remains of the three trees?
I think the area of uncertainty for the corner is fairly small and that you are tilting at windmills. I think your "random point" is pretty darn close and I'd be tempted to leave it at that. However this is only with a cursory glance at your data and I have not run it through any data analysis.
Having said that, my personal feeling is that for bearing trees the distance is generally more reliable than bearings. Another caveat, however, is personal knowledge of the surveyor and whether he measured to the center of the tree or the blaze face.
It is my understanding that the bearings are for general location so that the next surveyor is assured that the correct tree is being used. The next assumption is that the following surveyor may only find a stump so the distances are (generally) from the center of the assumed stump.
Make your best SWAG (guess) at locating the center of the stumps, strike three arcs in the field, set your corner and survey to it.
Then "it's miller time".
Kent, I would have to say "The Proof is in the pudding" meaning depending on all the other evidence you have found to reproduce the missing corner, how well does that check with the trees you found? Of course them pulling a old transit and chain or tape around in 49 there will be a certain amount of error anyways.
That depends on which side of the compass he was holding the chain. Of course, if he was holding a beer can in one hand and the chain in the other they might cancel out. And then there's the pistol. Being Texas in 1940's there must be a pistol near that compass somewhere, especially if beer and chains are involved.
On a serious note, I'm amazed at how closely you can reproduce bearings in TX. This neck of the woods it's not possible to get that close in most cases. There are areas where you don't want to rely solely on a compass to find your way out of the woods, and looking for irons with the locator is a trying experience to say the least.
The law in NY has not favored bearing over distance or vice verse; each case judged on the merits. I know some states do favor bearing over distance; is Texas one of those?
> The law in NY has not favored bearing over distance or vice verse; each case judged on the merits. I know some states do favor bearing over distance; is Texas one of those?
As a general rule of construction, bearings are considered to be more reliable than distances. However, the even broader rule is that whichever element of a description can be shown to be the most reliable should be given priority in reconstructing a survey.
The priority of bearings over distances (as stated in the 1867 decision of the Texas Supreme Court in the landmark case of Stafford v. King) was based upon the fact that at the time the directions of lines did tend to be better determined than their lengths.
What is cute about this problem is that the surveyor has to determine which of the elements are the most definite and use them in favor of those that are more apt to be in error.
Hmmmm. Looks like two of the trees are consistent with each other and the third is out in left field by nearly 5 degrees.
So, I won't answer this until I could know what is the bearing of one of the property lines as you have either found or determined, so that one can evaluate the difference in the bearing. The two that look good appear to be an average of 02°35' from true. Close enough to verify the trees, but is that the same bearing swing you are noting along a property line.
Also, we tend to make lots of arcs and look at the intersections and then evaluate the bearings and "refine" it from there, on the ground, and make the decision. This is not something new and I suspect you've done the same which is where your "working point" came from. If you did that, drive a rod and call it a day.
No matter what you do with this little equation, there will always be the difference between the point 4' up from the ground, and the ground, where the stump hole is. IF the trees were vertical, then there should be no problem. If the trees were leaning, then all bets are off. So, you should provide an analysis of some of the typical trees, in the vicinity of this corner, (If any exist), so we can determine typical residuals.
This is why for ALL my witness trees, I measure to the middle of where I estimate that the stump hole would be, should the tree die, and rot away.
I have retraced all kinds. Measure to center of tree at 4' up. Measure to center of estimated future stump hole. Measure to FACE of tree, at 4' up. Measure to FACE of tree, at ground. This can apply, when the undulation of the terrain, is such that the aforementioned tree is in ground, that is HIGHER in elevation, than the monument being referenced. Also, if the tree is growing in ground LOWER in elevation, (by some 4' or so) Then, the typical measurement is to a point on the tree, that is level with the survey mark.
These factors can move a point around.
N
What are the Magnetic Bearings (1949 corr) for your Random Point?
Nice thing about holding distance is that there are less corrections.
Oh wait, are the ties Grid or Ground? 😉
> So, you should provide an analysis of some of the typical trees, in the vicinity of this corner, (If any exist), so we can determine typical residuals.
The 1949 surveyor had quite a few trees to choose from in the vicinity of that corner. The tie I measured to Live Oak No. 233 (record tie: N33W, 31.4 ft.) was taken to its center, 48 inches up from the ground at the level where the tree showed some scarring on the bark (but no recognizable mark). Probably an uncertainty of 0.5 ft. in N and E is reasonable for the positions of the two trees that are now stumps. That is, the actual position on the trunk that the 1949 surveyor measured a tie to was within 0.5 ft. N and E from the point on the stump to which I gave a tie.
I would rely heavily on the distances and regard the bearings as mere reference. Carlson Survey has a neat LS utility for figuring a best fit. FWIW, in this part of the world distances are usually to the near face of the tree, not the center. But not always.
> I would rely heavily on the distances and regard the bearings as mere reference. Carlson Survey has a neat LS utility for figuring a best fit. FWIW, in this part of the world distances are usually to the near face of the tree, not the center. But not always.
Before striking out on his own, the 1949 surveyor worked for a firm that pretty much consistently measured to the center of the tree, with the exception of very large diameter trees. I think it's unlikely that he did more than sight along the barrel of the telescope and read the transit compass needle to get the bearings. Naturally, all of the usual compass reading errors would apply.
The 1949 surveyor gave the bearings he reported for other lines of the survey to the nearest minute, so it looks to have been surveyed with a transit, not a compass, but probably with some funky shortcuts, knowing the results that the 1949 surveyor customarily got.
Do you see it strange that for the shortest tie, he recorded the bearing to a half a degree, but for the longer ties, he only recorded to the nearest degree? Based on that and the fact that all the distances are to the nearest tenth of a foot, I would say the distance elements are the most definite ( ".. is that the surveyor has to determine which of the elements are the most definite .." ) and then swing ties, make a field decision, monument it, show the recorded and measured data to the recovered BT evidence on the plat and move on. I’ve done exactly this in the past on several corners up here.
I know you like to play with the numbers but I would not use an arduous mathematical analysis in this situation to establish the corner. Maybe later to review the results to shed light on a possible error in the 1949 data, but not to establish the corner.
> Do you see it strange that for the shortest tie, he recorded the bearing to a half a degree, but for the longer ties, he only recorded to the nearest degree?
No, those appear to be compass bearings, not from transit angles. It wasn't uncommon at all for surveyors to drop the 00' fraction from an even-degree bearing.
The surveying of farms and ranches with a transit to produce lines, but reading the compass for direction, wasn't a completely uncommon practice even into the 1950's.
The record calls reported by the 1949 surveyor from a stake and rock mound he evidently found in place marking an original corner of a land grant:
>
> > an 8" Live Oak bears N26°30'E, 5.5 ft.,
> > a 6" Live Oak bears N89°W, 17.5 ft., and
> > a 6" Live Oak bears N33°W, 31.4 ft.
>
The ties I made from the random point to what remains of the same trees:
> [pre]
> From 234:
>
> Obj Grid Az. Hor Dist.
>
> 231 23°43' 5.38 ft.
>
> 232 267°43' 17.48 ft
>
> 233 330°01' 31.87 ft.
> [/pre]
>
Since I know we all like closure in these matters, these are the final ties from the corner as reconstructed by me:
[pre]
Obj Grid Az. Hor. Dist
231 23°46' 5.57 ft.
232 268°16' 17.40 ft.
233 330°17' 31.98 ft.
[/pre]
I concluded that the call of N33°W was most likely a misreading of N27°W on the compass since that explanation was most consistent with the evidence. That means that at the corner, the "North" direction to which the bearings to the trees refer was a Grid Azimuth of about -2°44'.
It may not be purely coincidental that Grid Azimuth of the line to the nearest corner nominally 200 varas away is 357°11'47" on a line with a record bearing (as reported by a survey prior to the 1949 work) of NORTH. In other words, the Grid Azimuth of that record NORTH was about -2°48', essentially exactly fitting the 1949 surveyor's work.
How dos Texas law define the word 'obliterated' as it pertains to corners and accessories monuments?
I seem to recall older surveys in Texas having very consistent direction relationships. Nearly every other place I've worked The distances would have held. The uncertainty without the directions included is plus or minus 0.2'. That's just one reason licenses are by the State.
On other notes, It's nice to see someone treat accessories they way they were intended. Too many folks would have ignored the trees and proportioned in the face of the better evidence...
> How dos Texas law define the word 'obliterated' as it pertains to corners and accessories monuments?
There is no statutory definition of 'obliterated' I'm aware of other than that contained in the Alcoholic Beverage Code.
An obliterated corner would be when no original evidence remains of connecting monuments, no references or no other relative information that is available for use to locate or restore that corner with any certainty.
> I seem to recall older surveys in Texas having very consistent direction relationships.
If the lines were all run at the same time with the same compass at the same variation, I'd expect that the "North" to which the bearings reported refered would be fairly consistent. Where not all of the lines of the survey were actually run, and corners were stubbed in on one-way linse, the trick is figuring out which were actually run and which not.
While Central Texas is generally free local attraction from the native limestone, odd anomolies do pop up from time to time in retracements. One of these days, I'm going to examine the change in magnetic declination around drastic changes in topography and faults. It seems to me that some of the anomolies I've encountered have been in those conditions. The simpler explanation is possibly that errors in levelling the compass tended to figure most prominently on steep lines with inclined lines of sight.
