53.15 Right bank of river
73.10 Left bank
79.80 Intersect section line 25 lks N of post
8.00 Left bank set meander post
27.95 Right bank set meander post
39.90 set quarter sec post
79.80 section corner
Moving just 25 links = 16.5 ft south made it 8.00 - (79.80 - 73.10) chains = 1.30 ch = 85.8 feet longer between section line and river bank. So the bank was then SW of his first crossing, on a generally NW-SE river bank? No stream mouth was reported to confuse things.
And the river width was reported identical at 19.95 chains = 1316.7 feet in both directions, where the present day GIS shows no major irregularities from NW-SE and 1160 ft between banks on the section line (river now 156 ft narrower?).
Is this explainable?
---- Add:
His meander data plotted from the GIS river banks on the section line a mile north make the river width 1546 feet versus the 1316.7 feet, even worse.
53.15 Right bank of river
73.10 Left bank
79.80 Intersect section line 25 lks N of post
8.00 Left bank set meander post
27.95 Right bank set meander post
39.90 set quarter sec post
79.80 section corner
Moving just 25 links = 16.5 ft south made it 8.00 - (79.80 - 73.10) chains = 1.30 ch = 85.8 feet longer between section line and river bank. So the bank was then SW of his first crossing, on a generally NW-SE river bank? No stream mouth was reported to confuse things.
And the river width was reported identical at 19.95 chains = 1316.7 feet in both directions, where the present day GIS shows no major irregularities from NW-SE and 1160 ft between banks on the section line (river now 156 ft narrower?).
Is this explainable?
Yes, it's very explainable, GLO notes are full of mistakes.
-The surveyor may have used shortcuts rather than following the order of measurements specified, particularly stubbing in 1/4 corners.
-Crossing major rivers required techniques that were not frequently practiced, so could be blundered.
-The measurements may have been sloppy, i.e. not level or not carefully on line.
-The original notes may have recording blunders, such as losing count of half-chains or giving the wrong quadrant for bearings.
-Sketches could misplace features.
-The notes were then copied into clean books to be kept in the office.Were the sketches recopied by someone who never saw the ground?
-Those books were transcribed on typewriter by the WPA in the 1930's. That's what is on line.
In general, what are the most common errors you find made at each stage of the process?
My experience is that rivers might well be surveyed with separate crews. Stubbing out the 1/4 on the west side, measuring the river with different notes. That's speculation, but I've seen exactly that more than a few times. I don't trust topo calls in older notes for much of any information, if they denote someting.00 then I'm not paying hardly any attention. I've always thought those might well be memory measurements. Well...we crossed a ridge between the sec and quarter corner what should we put down,,,,,,,20.00 sounds about right. The ones I do put more stock into are the close ones, 1.58 chains cross stream, 78.97 chains cross wagon road. Those are more valuable. You have those two together at a section corner and they meet at a strong angle in an old fence, then I'm all over it if the stone is missing.