I have a question about locating the corner on a natural monument.
This question refers to a quarter corner about 15 miles North of Tulsa.
It is fairly rural now but in 20 years who knows.
From the 1896 GLO Notes:
"The point for 1/4 sec. cor. falls on a sandstone in place 10x12x8 ft. above ground on which I cut a cross (X) on the exact point for 1/4 sec. cor. marked 1/4 on w. side of cross from which...."
The boulder is easy to find. The surface of this boulder is very flakey and if I cut an "X" on it today I would doubt that it would still be visible next year. Needless to say I have not found the 1896 cross.
The section corners to the North and South have been obliterated but, the current monuments seem to be harmonious with the surrounding corners and each other.
My halfway and online point falls a little over a foot off the 10x12 boulder.
If I keep my section line straight I would need to move my position about 3-4 feet south to fall on a solid part of the boulder.
If I find the center point of the boulder I would know that I'm no further than 5-6 feet from the position of the 1896 cross but it would put a angle point on the section line.
I've talked to a few other surveyors part say "Keep the Line Straight" and part say "Center of Boulder".
The GLO said it was on the boulder so I want to keep the corner on the boulder.
Do any of you have an opinion on how this should be resolved?
Near Sycamore, Illinois, there is a huge cornerstone. It has several x's chiseled on the
stone. Is there a term for pin cushion on a stone?
If you are sure you have the same original boulder, in the same original position, the corner is on the boulder.
> From the 1896 GLO Notes:
>
> "The point for 1/4 sec. cor. falls on a sandstone in place 10x12x8 ft. above ground on which I cut a cross (X) on the exact point for 1/4 sec. cor. marked 1/4 on w. side of cross from which...."
from which....?? That seems important. But I am sure you looked for those ties already, and that is why you didn't quote any farther.
> The boulder is easy to find. The surface of this boulder is very flakey and if I cut an "X" on it today I would doubt that it would still be visible next year. Needless to say I have not found the 1896 cross.
>
> The section corners to the North and South have been obliterated but, the current monuments seem to be harmonious with the surrounding corners and each other.
>
> My halfway and online point falls a little over a foot off the 10x12 boulder.
>
> If I keep my section line straight I would need to move my position about 3-4 feet south to fall on a solid part of the boulder.
>
> If I find the center point of the boulder I would know that I'm no further than 5-6 feet from the position of the 1896 cross but it would put a angle point on the section line.
>
> I've talked to a few other surveyors part say "Keep the Line Straight" and part say "Center of Boulder".
>
> The GLO said it was on the boulder so I want to keep the corner on the boulder.
>
> Do any of you have an opinion on how this should be resolved?
I don't know about the center of the stone. That might be a good remedy. Another thought is the the best fit with the being on the boulder and as close to fitting on line while on the top of the boulder. Of course if there are references to bearing trees or other accessories, utilize those. Are there any property corners or other secondary monuments that may tie to the original location or the 1/4-corner?
>
> Do any of you have an opinion on how this should be resolved?
Hire Kent to take a look at the boulder. From his posts here, I'd bet his E.S.P. could sniff it out for you.
But seriously, if there is absolutely no mark remains identifiable, I'd think the position that falls on the boulder that most closely fits record would be the most defendable position.
I wish I was rich and had nothing better to do. I'd love to fly out and look at the rock. Not saying you're wrong about the wear of the boulder. Just find that evaluating these types of evidence is what really makes this job fun.
For sure you need to hold the bolder. I would take pictures of the rock. I'd look at them blown up to see if anything shows up. Sometimes a mark will show up in the picture that isn't as visible in the light. Don't worry about the section line being straight over the rock. Were there any accessories mentioned? Look for those. The notes you posted seem to indicate that there were-even pits may still be recoverable.
:good:
I have searched and searched for a cut cross before, only to see it clear as day when looking at it with the sun shining from a different direction. Also feeling it stone for possible little grooves might help you find a cross. (Maybe you've already done that, but just saying...)
There were 2 B.T.'s but I can find know evidence of their position.
The boulder had a fair amount of soil and rotten leaves on it but every time I swept off some of the soil/leaves a chunk of rock would also get broken off.
I had hoped that the soil was there in 1896 and the GLO surveyor raked some back chiseled the "X" and then recovered it. Which may have protected it.
I've spent a few hours crawling around on this 10x12 boulder and have not seen anything that looks like a man made mark.
It is a fairly solitary boulder and there are no others within 50 feet. It certainly has moved over the last 10,000 years but there is no reason that I see to believe that it has moved in the last 100.
It sets on about a 45 degree skew to the section line so by holding equal distance to the section corners north and south the quarter corner would fall on the boulder about 5 feet west of line and if I hold line it would need to fall about 4 feet south of the mid point.
I thought that I'd be able to at least see some portion of the cross or the chiseled 1/4 but so far I have not.
"The point for 1/4 sec. cor. falls on a sandstone in place 10x12x8 ft. above ground ??
How large is this stone and does it project 8 ft. above ground? or are these dimensions in inches?
This is only the third corner that I have looked for that falls on a large natural stone.
The first one I found a smallish chiseled "X"(Approx. 4") but it did not have the slashes that the GLO described. I swept the rock and under about 2 or 3 inches of dirt and about two feet away I found a real nice large "X" (Approx. 10")with the appropriate slashes.
The second I spent a few hours looking but did not find anything. It fell on a cliff about 50 feet above the edge of the Neosho River. A pretty place to sit for a while but I sure wish I'd been able to find it.
Thanks for the input.
In Oklahoma....
most surveyors usually "find" those "x's".....;-) (whether they are there or not...)
Seriously, the one place I can tell you that the X was not at would be the on-line split. 4 or 5 links one way or the other is not unusual, even on meridonial lines. But as others have pointed out, you need another "centilla" of evidence in figgerin' out where on that donnicker to re-establish your corner.
This sounds like one of those cases, young Skywalker, where you need to draw upon the "force". Good luck, Luke....errr, Mike.
Given no other evidence, I'd think you should use the closest point to your straight section line midpoint that falls on a surface of the boulder the GLO could have marked.
Yes these dimensions are in feet. It sets were one side is about 4 feet above the ground and the other is about 8 feet. It is on the side of a hill. There is a topo call for the "top of ridge 140 ft. high bears N.W. and S.E.".
The top of ridge call is at 41.00 chains. Because of the angle at which the section line intersects the ridge line that call doesn't help.
If you are certain it’s the correct boulder called for in the original notes you have to hold it unless you can prove it has been moved.
A "straight" section line would scare me.
Have a great week! B-)
> I have a question about locating the corner on a natural monument.
> This question refers to a quarter corner about 15 miles North of Tulsa.
> It is fairly rural now but in 20 years who knows.
>
> From the 1896 GLO Notes:
>
> "The point for 1/4 sec. cor. falls on a sandstone in place 10x12x8 ft. above ground on which I cut a cross (X) on the exact point for 1/4 sec. cor. marked 1/4 on w. side of cross from which...."
>
> The boulder is easy to find. The surface of this boulder is very flakey and if I cut an "X" on it today I would doubt that it would still be visible next year. Needless to say I have not found the 1896 cross.
>
> The section corners to the North and South have been obliterated but, the current monuments seem to be harmonious with the surrounding corners and each other.
>
> My halfway and online point falls a little over a foot off the 10x12 boulder.
>
> If I keep my section line straight I would need to move my position about 3-4 feet south to fall on a solid part of the boulder.
>
> If I find the center point of the boulder I would know that I'm no further than 5-6 feet from the position of the 1896 cross but it would put a angle point on the section line.
>
> I've talked to a few other surveyors part say "Keep the Line Straight" and part say "Center of Boulder".
>
> The GLO said it was on the boulder so I want to keep the corner on the boulder.
>
> Do any of you have an opinion on how this should be resolved?
As a point of investigation:
Have you checked with a compass to see if there were any local attractions that might have set off the bearing on the original lines as run?
:-S
> Do any of you have an opinion on how this should be resolved?
By licensing you as a surveyor the state has empowered you with a certain amount of authority exercise discretion in these matters. Pick a spot on the stone that looks good to you. Mark the point and reference it. If you can't mark the stone in a way that will be permanent you should replace the stone with something equally substantial. File a CCR which fully describes what you have done.
In Oklahoma.... (and elsewhere)
> Seriously, the one place I can tell you that the X was not at would be the on-line split.
...or the proportional distance off-line 😉
two thoughts...
wrong bolder? fifty or a hundred feet (or more) in a half mile is not reall uncommon.
whatever your solution, make sure it also fits locations where the BTs could have been.
good luck!
> Given no other evidence, I'd think you should use the closest point to your straight section line midpoint that falls on a surface of the boulder the GLO could have marked.
:good:
> > Do any of you have an opinion on how this should be resolved?
> By licensing you as a surveyor the state has empowered you with a certain amount of authority exercise discretion in these matters. Pick a spot on the stone that looks good to you. Mark the point and reference it. If you can't mark the stone in a way that will be permanent you should replace the stone with something equally substantial. File a CCR which fully describes what you have done.
You aren't going to replace that stone. Just the part that is showing above ground, from Mike's description, probably weighs at least 6.5 tons.
No telling how much the total boulder weighs.
B-)
Find an old tennis ball. Paint half of it thickly with your ever-ready can of spray paint. Toss the ball gently into the air such that on it's downward arc it will have to hit the upper part of the boulder SOMEWHERE. Climb your ladder and chisel a heavyduty "X" wherever the ball painted the boulder. That will be just as accurate as any other method being proposed.
Try looking on the edge/side of the boulder for possibly a "1/4" or some other marking. On some of the boulders I've found marked, there are marking on the edge closest to the "X" they placed on top. But then again, some didn't have additional markings.
Barring all that, I agree with Norman. Use your best judgement, after you have evaluated all the evidence, and have made a professional decision, mark the spot permanently (drill in a solid rebar or brass cap), and document what you did and why. Who's gonna argue with what you have done if it makes sense,and they haven't found better evidence? Anywhere on the boulder is a better position than any kind of proportion.
