If I have a call for an iron rod set on the earth, is the rod or the earth the monument? If I can't find the rod, should I presume it was set in the middle? How large does the object have to be in proportion to the mark before differing presumption might apply?
If I have a call for a punch mark on a capped iron rod, and I can't find the punch mark, should I presume it was intended to be in the middle? Why would the punch mark be necessary if the middle was the intent?
It seems this sandstone is easily carved up; I wonder if a nearby neighbor has a nice sandstone doorstep with an "x" chiseled on it somewhere? What if a neighbor rolled the stone over in preparation for building a fence corner in that location? That could be fairly embarrassing testimony if I make too many presumptions.
It's nice to be sure, but I'd rather have a defensible position with admitted qualifications. Been cross examined too many times I guess :-/
> "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...."
>
Good, identifiable monument. It would have been nice if the told you approximate placement on the boulder, but such details were not common.
> My halfway and online point falls a little over a foot off the 10x12 boulder.
>
Excellent confirmation that you've found the same boulder described by the GLO.
> 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.
>
Have you ever retraced a section line, found original monuments at both Section Corners and at the Quarter Corner between, and found that the 1/4 was exactly at the midpoint on line between the section corners? Has anyone ever found such a situation? I know that I never have in over 30 years of surveying, nor have I met anyone, many with far more experience than I, who has claimed to have found it. In fact, I would consider it an rare confluence of happily compensating random errors if I found the 1/4 to be within 6' of the precise midpoint. I'd wager that to be true in most parts of the PLSS.
The fact that using the center of the boulder would place a 5' to 6' kink in the section line is not a cause for concern unless long-standing improvements conflict with the resulting section line in several places. In fact, it is a source of significant comfort that you have found the object that is the original monument and that it is only 6' away from making a precisely straight line. Woo Hoo!!!
> I've talked to a few other surveyors part say "Keep the Line Straight" and part say "Center of Boulder".
>
Knuckleheads! Those straight-line guys aren't licensed are they? If so, I hope that they at least stick to something other than boundary surveying.
You have the original monument! The markings have simply warn away. In the absence of evidence that leads you to determine a different precise location on the monument, the law is that you consider the center of the monument to be the precise location of the corner. You cannot ignore an original monument just because you cannot find the markings on it. Nor can you ignore it simply because it does not limit your discretion of the precise corner location to an area of a 3" or smaller circle. And you certainly cannot ignore an original monument for the absolutely STUPID reason that it is not at the precise midpoint on line between non-original monuments!
(Insert favorite facepalm image here)
> The GLO said it was on the boulder so I want to keep the corner on the boulder.
>
Right on! Ignore those overrated CAD monkeys advising you to ignore the original monument and to keep the line straight.
> Do any of you have an opinion on how this should be resolved?
[sarcasm]Um, no, I guess not. [/sarcasm]
I guess in any situation, things can be taken to the absurd extreme. That is why there is such a thing as a rebuttable presumption. Look it up.
> If I have a call for an iron rod set on the earth, is the rod or the earth the monument?
Really Duane? That's way too absurd to be even remotely useful. You know better. You must be baiting. OK, I'm biting. When the parcel you are surveying is smaller than the "monument", the object is probably too big to be considered a monument.
>If I can't find the rod, should I presume it was set in the middle? How large does the object have to be in proportion to the mark before differing presumption might apply?
>
> If I have a call for a punch mark on a capped iron rod, and I can't find the punch mark, should I presume it was intended to be in the middle? Why would the punch mark be necessary if the middle was the intent?
>
In this case, the GLO called for a distinct and identifiable object. Courts have recognized ridge lines, which are most often far less distinct than a boulder the size of a sedan. Such an object is certainly, inarguably the monument.
It is quite likely that the originally scribed "X" was at some location other than the precise middle, but placing it at the middle is certain to be within 6' of the actual original position and possibly much closer than that, and placing it at the MPOL is absolutely certain to not be at the original location and is certain to be 3' to 15' away from it. Common law supports holding the middle unless evidence supports a different location on the monument, and some states (such as CA) have also codified the presumption in statute.
> It seems this sandstone is easily carved up; I wonder if a nearby neighbor has a nice sandstone doorstep with an "x" chiseled on it somewhere? What if a neighbor rolled the stone over in preparation for building a fence corner in that location? That could be fairly embarrassing testimony if I make too many presumptions.
>
If you find an iron pipe, set vertically in the ground that matches the description of one you expect to find at a corner, with the exception that the markings have been obliterated, you are not going to reject the pipe for a lack of a punch mark. Nor are you going to reject it on the presumption that it has been moved from its original location.
In fact, the presumption is that a found monument is in its original location. to reject it, you must overcome the presumption with evidence that it has been moved, or that the portion containing the original mark of the precise corner location has been removed.
> It's nice to be sure, but I'd rather have a defensible position with admitted qualifications. Been cross examined too many times I guess :-/
It is far, far more defensible to accept the middle of the boulder than it would be to reject the boulder altogether without solid evidence to support that decision. Without evidence that someone moved this monument weighing several tons, holding the mathemagical MPOL is totally indefensible.
I'd be way less confident having to support ignoring an original monument under cross than I would be explaining, defending, and supporting a decision to hold an original monument over a mathematical procedure intended to be used only when no evidence of the original corner can be found.
It's amazing how long a hole will persist.
I have some field notes from the 1960s. They set a concrete monument and removed a nearby "existing" monument. I calculated the bearing & distance to where it was. I went up there (heavily wooded ridge) and there is obviously still a 4x4 hole there. I didn't even need a tile probe. There's another one about 1200 feet away but that one got destroyed by a skid trail.
> >
> 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.
>
Original evidence will always make angle points and bearing breaks with the use of our modern measuring equipment! If it doesn't... something is terribly wrong.
Actually, I'm trying to point out that the presumption has been rebutted by calling for the specific mark that does not claim to be in the center.
One of the mathematical solutions (on line, 1/2 way) puts the corner within a foot of landing on the boulder. The other math solution is 4-5 feet away and using the center of the boulder is 5 feet or so out.
No evidence present to suggest the center of the boulder. No evidentiary rules to support the center of the boulder.
The actual calls and corroborating evidence indicate a point on the edge of the boulder that exists or that may have eroded or been destroyed over the years. There could be other evidence to suggest otherwise, but if so it has not been presented.
Mr. Wells, the point I was making is that the BLM surveyor would not proportion because that would be contrary to the Manual. I am a retired BLM'er (an RLS for the past 34 yrs and in private practice for the past 20 yrs) and as you would say a 'disciple'. I do not know any BLM surveyor who would ignore an original monument in place. You and I, and I think, BLM, would arrive at somewhat the same position on the boulder; all in accordance with the Manual.
Maybe only worth 1-bit this time.
Jerry
Jerry, I agree with you concerning BLM’s acceptance of an original monument in place. Realistically, this situation is not terribly unlike where to measure to on an uncapped iron pipe/pin, except for the size of the object.
Please accept my apology if you feel that I have impugned your integrity. My comments were jaundiced by BLM’s performance in the dependent township resurvey that was the proximate cause of Rivers v. Lozeau, which has been the subject of numerous threads both here and yon. In this survey the BLM apparently restored numerous corners by proportion without resorting to this method as a last resort as required by the manual. Leastwise, that is my interpretation of the field notes for this survey. But, that is a different subject for another day; perhaps in another lifetime.
Larry
Larry, No apology needed. I find it interesting to listen to others' viewpoints. I don't get upset when others disagree with me. I try to learn from you all.
I do understand that a few in BLM have done some things that I would not have done. As I have stated before in my posts. BLM has many surveyors and perhaps a dozen Chiefs in positions of responsibility to interpret the Manual for their state/area. I believe each BLM surveyor tries to follow the law as they understand it. As within the private sector BLM surveyors do not agree with each other in all cases. But, the Chief with the authority and responsibility to interpret the Manual for that State sets the tone for the surveyors working in that area.
Of course IBLA can overrule any of them, but..... that is another story that has been discussed on this forum.
Jerry
