I am having a disagreement on the calculation of a position of a lost corner to be re-established with a co-worker.
Record Calls on Section line between Section 24 and 25 circa 1880 (no weird stuff here pretty cut and dry)....
East on random line bet Secs 24 & 25 v19d30'e
40.00 chs set temp 1/4 cor
79.78 chs intersect Tp line 38 lks N. of cor
s89d44'w on true line
39.88 chs set basalt stone 12x9x6 in mound with pits for 1/4 sec cor
79.78 chs sec cor
We have the section corners and need to reset the 1/4 corner. The next psuedo-retracement of this line was by the County Surveyor in Feb. 22, 1906 when performing a survey for the establishment of a new county road who states he finds the 1/4 matching record size and with legible marks lying loose on the ground. Read... corner has been disturbed since sometime prior to Feb. 22, 1906. I say psuedo-retracement because the County Surveyor is generally running along section lines, but does not call to or find the NW or NE cor of Section 25. Instead he just keeps chugging along setting milestones (stones marked 1M, 2M etc).
No remaining evidence of stone or pits or occupation lines for that matter. The area is heavily farmed irrigated land, think very large pivots and wheat fields.
So here is the disagreement...
I contend that we must proportion against the record. Note the original 1/4 corner was not established at midpoint. The midpoint location for the 1/4 corner would be at 39.89 chs, not 39.88 chs.
We are talking about a difference of one link, even in the record and as it works out also in our re-establishment.
No special instructions, true line notes agree with plat, etc. etc.
So is the answer:
A. proportion against the record
B. re-establish 1/4 corner at midpoint of retraced line
I would set it at midpoint as the original instructions indicate he should do. What makes you believe that 39.88 chains is not a scrivener's error? Set it midpoint, make a record and move on...
B-)
Pablo
I would set it at midpoint as it was actually done in the field by the GLO guys. The total distance came out to be and odd number, but in the real world where they were at, it was set at midpoint.
I think he set where the notes say he set it.
I see no proof that it is a scrivener's error.
I would agree with you if the total distance were odd, but the total distance is an even number.
Shucks,
You are right and it still should be set at midpoint!
🙂
Which ever way you're willing to defend. Right now, I'd be more concerned on HOW I was going to set it and reference it for a permanant monument. How much frost do you have out there right now? Is it plowed? How deep? :-/
don't forget to set it on the curve......
Corner falls on the northern edge of a road in the gravel shoulder.
It is pretty dry around here; frost is generally shallow.
Probably going to dig a deep hole and set bar and cap. References will be buried also.
Hmmm...what did he say about the line between 1 & 12, 12 & 13, 13 & 24, and 25 & 36?
Are these at perfect splits?
May be the scrivener's error is 39.88 instead of between 39.78 ???
Now 10 links is certainly non-trivial.
An unlikely scenario, but I have seen it before.
Loyal
> Corner falls on the northern edge of a road in the gravel shoulder.
Use record and if that road has notes and generally runs E-W, latitudinally put it in the center of the road or calc cl off evidence of ROW. Probably not your case but I have seen alot of "mid pts" in the past that disregard obvious evidence.
Just a field mut's thoughts
The field mut makes a good point. Of course the corner is then obliterated rather than lost the way I read things.
We did consider that option as we have done that on other corners were opposing corners were also called for in the record. I am not so sure since in this case the section corners were not explicitly called for in the record.
Good point and it is duly noted.
I was alwaqys taught that the surveyor's record (field notes) are correst unless it can be proven otherwise. So in this case I would proportion using the values that he listed.
So...Kevin...
Are "they" mid-point splits or not?
There is a reason that I ask...
Loyal
Hmmm, maybe the road is better evidence than the math?
Well the description begins 20 chains west of the SE corner of Section 20 in the next Township to the East.
The county surveyor then runs west, up and around a grade and back to his alignment that approximates the section lines. He doesn't call any section lines, section or quarter corners until he gets to the quarter corner in question, which he found loose laying on the ground (aka disturbed).
He then continues to run his line to the west and the next corner he calls is the corner to sections 22, 23, 26 and 27.
I should note this county surveyor typically calls for any section corners along the line he surveys for the road by giving a cardinal direction and a falling in links. There are no calls like this along this portion of the road.
I don't see the as-built road location as evidence to control the latitude of this corner.
So...Kevin...
Sorry on the delay in replying Loyal, long day. I have to wrangle kids when I get home from work! 🙂
The lines you asked about are in fact even splits.
That is my line of thinking as well.
Thanks Kevin
The reason that I asked, is that some Townships were surveyed West to East (instead of East to West), with the interior merdianal lines parallel to the West Line (not the East Line), with the east-west 1/4 corneres at the midpoint on the West Tier. Thee "lots" were established along the East line, with the 1/4 corners 40 chains from the west corners of the East tier (mirror image of the standard township).
They are pretty rare.
Loyal