If the BLM were to retrace a section line, and found locally accepted property corners, wouldn't they hold them and prorate between them?
@norman-oklahoma in this particular case the Plat the notes say 5280. I realize that other places are wacky. I realize there are a million ways to restore corners. I realize all of the extra things folks are throwing in the conversation to feel correct about something. When the land was patented, it was sold off using the information from the GLO Plat and notes. I realize that a lot of monuments are not exact. This is all a given. My only point is when the need to proportion arises, the record of the original conveyance is used in the calculations. Nevermind, I give up.
@scrim yes. They would. But would they use the distance between them on the new Plat as the record data? Or the original Plat/Notes for the record distance in their calculations?
It would be 2/3rds of 7982 no matter which record dimension you show. Or 5321.33'.
Again, maybe I'm missing something.
I assume there are other corners along that range line that have been found at some time and accepted.?ÿ The measurements between any two of them probably does not agree with what the plat says they should be.?ÿ There is the conundrum.?ÿ None of them are perfect based on other evidence, yet that is where they are.?ÿ Assuming that northernmost one is perfect, working south at record distances puts all the error between the last two to the south.?ÿ Reversing that and determining the southernmost one is perfect, working north at record distances puts all the error in the last two to the north.?ÿ The errors are out there in the real world.?ÿ They cannot be fixed.?ÿ As mentioned before, dropping or adding a chain or half chain happened regularly.?ÿ You have no way to know if it was along any part of the east line of S36 or in the reported distance along the east line of the southeast quarter of S25.?ÿ Proportioning between two accepted monuments is the best solution unless there is clear physical evidence of a different solution.?ÿ
Math are simple.?ÿ Surveying are not just math.?ÿ Surveying are hard.
pi R squared----nope----- cornbread are square, pi R round
Have a great day.
@holy-cow when calculating this proportion, what is to be used as the record distance in the calculation? The distance between the new reestablished monuments, or the record distance of the original line?
That distance between the currently accepted monuments, whether both were set by recent surveyors or both by the GLO surveyors or by one recent surveyor and one GLO surveyor.?ÿ The GLO numbers are goals, they are not factual in our perfectionistic world.
The problem comes with knowing with absolute certainty that the one thought to be a GLO monument is precisely where it was placed well over 100 years ago.?ÿ The entrymen arrived long before there was a need for other surveyors to assist landowners find their corners.?ÿ There was nothing to prevent those entrymen from moving said monuments to what they deemed to be a preferred location and then obliterating any trace of the truly original location.
As Norman Oklahoma put it, the goal was to dispense with the Government land as quickly as possible to put it into private ownership.?ÿ The differences between what was intended on paper and what was actually done in the real world can be quite large.?ÿ I can think of one half-mile that is roughly 300 feet long than the one to the south of it in a standard section and two examples where the half-mile distance is around 200 feet long.?ÿ They are whatever they are.
I realize this is unpleasant to hear, because I am sure this is not the first time you have had such a situation arise in your years of surveying.
Do I understand this correctly? There are 3 "portions" that need to be defined. SE corner to 1/4 corner then 1/4 corner to NE corner then NE corner to 1/4 corner of section 25. If the record shows these 3 legs as being equal (all being 2640' or 2660' from the later survey) it will not matter which record distance is used because the 3 missing corners will all be placed at 1/3 of the total distance. You really need record distances that are unequal over the portions you describe for your example to demonstrate differing positions resulting from the use of different record measurements being used. If the record proportions are similar then the resulting positions will be the same regardless of the record distances used.
Let me give you two real world surveys of what I think you're discussing.?ÿ
1st one was a survey I did in the early 2000's. A company had ongoing mining operations. In the 1930's they set a bunch of sectional corners and one was the W1/4 of Section 22. It was at a found stone and fence corner. In the 1970's the company surveyor set the same corner at a prorate because the area had been mined. It was a good distance from the 1930 corner according to the 1930 math. This went to court as the landowners sued over the lost minerals. The landowners won, the 1930 corner was fixed by the court as the correct location.?ÿ
I survey the south line of a Section 15. In the 1960's a surveyor found the stone and monumented it. The GLO plat shows 79.81 chains. A prorate would place it 39.91 from the SW section corner and 39.90 from the SE. The 1960 plat shows the 1/4 20' south of line and 2641' from the SW corner, 2615' from the SE. Probably a stub-out. My resurvey between the two section corners shows 5259', about 3' different from the 1960 survey. Do I prorate the now destroyed monument at .3' east of mid-point or at a prorated position from the 1960 survey. I went with the 1960 survey and used his bearings and distances as record.?ÿ
If this is what we are discussing I would really advise you to not go to the board with a complaint.?ÿ
If prorating between two monuments, wouldn??t the actual prorated position be the same, regardless of the record data?
Now, the quandary might come when you are prorating in a Gov??t lot corner.?ÿ The intention of the BLM is to go 1320, then leave the rest as remainder.?ÿ In which case 1320 is the record to prorate by.?ÿ But there may be cases where a new record was established.?ÿ If you are in an urban area where lot area is sold by the square foot, you would really need to look hard at your solution.
@lurker?ÿ
You are correct in your process.?ÿ Sometimes, though, we need to go the extra mile to determine whether the corners we have found are where they should be.?ÿ The south section corner mentioned can be compared to other corners to the east, west and south to see if what we think happened could have happened.?ÿ Thus, it is in the correct location.?ÿ The more recently set monument at the east quarter corner of Section 25 needs to also be investigated similarly to see why the licensed surveyor who put it there had a reasonable rationale for doing so.?ÿ This requires significantly more research and fieldwork time than anticipated.?ÿ Poop happens.
?ÿ
Husker 76 I believe I agree with you but your example is bad and I'm not so sure the guy you are concerned about has made a mistake. Has he proportioned in corners where the record proportions are different than what he used? In your example the record proportions remain the same no matter the distance measured between the SE corner of 36 and the E 1/4 of 25. They are all equal. If he used record distances of 2640' for the 2 halves of SEC 36 and then 2700' for the south half of SEC 25 then he would end up with proportionate locations that differed from the original GLO plat. Otherwise, he proportions in thirds and record distance is trivial if it is equal for all 3 halves.
But putting record dimensions on a plat is good practice.?ÿ
Um, I think it's mandatory.?ÿ I've stacked record dimension anno four or more high on some ROSs.?ÿ It ties your "opinion" of the boundary location to the history of the parcel.?ÿ
I looked it up for a few Counties nearby and it is mandatory:
"The bearing and length of lines, including the measured data and the record data of the lines, will be shown on the record of survey. "
@holy-cow the land that was sold to the original pantentees was sold and described in the patents, to be the size and shape of what the GLO had surveyed. Nelson buys the s 1/2 of section 25, Smith buys section 36. The original survey calls these a perfect mile and half mile. Of course, they are not. A newer survey reestablishes the SE of 36 and finds a replacement of the E 1/4 of 25. No replacement of the SE of 25. If he were to need to replace this corner by proportion after all other methods were exhausted , he would have used the original record distance to do so. Am I wrong?
He would have placed it two-thirds of the distance up the line to the east quarter corner location mentioned.?ÿ Placing it at 5280 north from one monument or 2640 south from the other would produce different results.?ÿ Thus the need for proportioning in the case of a lost corner.?ÿ There is some reason that he picked the spot he did for the quarter corner regardless of what the distance between the two monuments happens to be.
How much farther north from his quarter corner is the next known monument??ÿ That number comes into play as well.
@lurker I agree. I can see where what I wrote could lead to some WTH moments. My bad. ????
@mightymoe these are great examples and I agree with the procedure 100%. I do need to state however that It would take something really really really terrible to motivate me to report another surveyor to the board. This is not that bad. I was simply looking for some input from other professionals and boy oh boy did I get that! Ha!
@lurker I agree with you. 3rds either way because the original record showed that it was in fact divided that way. What happened in this particular situation was rather that using 3rds, he used an obscure record from the Courthouse, not even really a survey I suppose, that showed that the North and South monuments had been recovered or reestablished at some point. Some of the notes say simply "stone" with some triangles drawn representing ties. Some corners simply have a penciled dot. No mention whatsoever as to what the dot represents. The drawing, in some areas also shows a chained distance between some of the monuments. Nothing more. Nothing stating if these dots were found monuments or set monuments. No notes accompanied these drawings stating if they were found or set or if they were set, why they were set at that particular position or what was set. None of the monuments found during my/his survey fit these drawings well enough to say that they we're related to these drawings. If they did fit within reason, it could have been good evidence to aid in the search or even replacement of the missing corner. These drawings did not show the line as being 5280 and 2640 as is to be expected. The distances shown between whatever was found or set disagreed with the GLO distances. They were definitely not 3rds.The distances on these drawings was used to calculate a proportionate position for the missing SE cor of 25. Not the GLO distance, resulting in a 9 foot discrepancy between his and my surveys.
Some of us may say that the drawings were better evidence. If I had found the same monuments as the Courthouse drawings or had any way of confidently saying what those monuments even were and was able to measure within reason to their record distance, I might agree that the drawings were in fact better evidence of how the corners were ultimately placed during the original survey. Instead, monuments to the north and south of the SE cor of 25 were found. Zero pedigree or record of either of the monuments with regards to size, material, method, etc. These were accepted as best evidence in both surveys because they were in harmony with the surrounding features, roads etc. When it came time to replace the missing SE corner of 25, he used the distances shown on the Courthouse drawings and I used the GLO distance resulting in a 9 foot difference.
The land was originally conveyed as being perfect aliquot parts. Of course, the actual corners almost always disagree with this fact. Sometimes by a very significant amount. The equitable resolution to a missing corner is an equal distribution of the error unless another way of restoring the original monuments position can be found. The error can be discovered only by a comparison between the monuments on the ground versus what was conveyed. Not what was subsequently remeasured. Discovering that the original monuments were not placed where they GLO noted them to be placed does not change what was conveyed. Remeasuring the monuments or replacing them does not change what was conveyed. Therefore when the necessity arises to use a proportionate position after all other methods have been found to be futile, the original conveyance must be used as the basis of new calculations. I can completely agree that every situation will be unique with regards to how best replace a missing corner. I have used many of the techniques in this thread over my 30 years to do so. On the other hand I can't agree with using newer record data simply because it's newer. That's all I'm trying to say I guess.?ÿ
@mike-marks except Los Angeles County. Everywhere else, yes.