Section 5

It depends on the areas shown for each of the four lots across the top of Section 5.

Do you use the latest Manual, or the instructions in effect at the time of original GLO survey?

chuckh_02, post: 332386, member: 6258 wrote: dumb question, but I've read 3-99 through 3-110 of the Manual several times and I'm not satisfied I completely understand. I understand how to proportion the 1/16th corners for the north tier of 40's along the East and West Section lines - basic stuff. It's the north 1/16th corner on the North/South 1/4 line . . . Is it a straight line between the 1/16th corners on the Section lines? The diagram of Figure 3-40 (2009 edition) shows 20.00 chains north of the center of section - since that's a straight line the 1/16th line in theory would have to be a straight line. But there's no original measurement to proportion against. On my particular survey, the proportions on the East Section line and the West Section line aren't even close. Annoyed with myself because I should know this -

Assuming you found the north 1/4 (if it's not a standard line), then there should be a little kink in the CN1/16, if you prorate the N1/4 then it's straight between the two N1/16.

Of course an east west "straight" line is curved.

Remember to prorate the two n1/16th from the found closing corners and not the point of intersection if the line is a standard line, and what I said above won't apply.

Here we go again with all this foolishness about east-west lines being curved. I'll admit that there may be a few out there. Just nowhere near where I hang my hat most of the time. There must have been a glut of professional liars in those days.

It's the N 1/16th corner on the North/South 1/4 line that I'm a little flummoxed on . . .

It depends on the lot acreages from the government plat. Think about it. How do you know where to split the ones on each side?

chuckh_02, post: 332386, member: 6258 wrote: dumb question, but I've read 3-99 through 3-110 of the Manual several times and I'm not satisfied I completely understand. I understand how to proportion the 1/16th corners for the north tier of 40's along the East and West Section lines - basic stuff. It's the north 1/16th corner on the North/South 1/4 line . . . Is it a straight line between the 1/16th corners on the Section lines? The diagram of Figure 3-40 (2009 edition) shows 20.00 chains north of the center of section - since that's a straight line the 1/16th line in theory would have to be a straight line. But there's no original measurement to proportion against. On my particular survey, the proportions on the East Section line and the West Section line aren't even close. Annoyed with myself because I should know this -

I describe that corner as the Center-North 1/16th. The "lot line" north of your corner has a distance that is based on the areas of the lots and "back-calculating" their side-distances. When you get that distance, you proportion to the 20 chains and that calculated distance. The reported area of each lot is the closing distance on the east side (in chains) of the lot + the closing distance of the west side of the lot (the sum) divided by to. You calculate the lengths of the side-lot-lines through all 4 lots, to make sure you check to the published distances.

Did that make sense?

Is there a reference to that method? In the manual or the instructions??

chuckh_02, post: 332497, member: 6258 wrote: Is there a reference to that method? In the manual or the instructions??

A quick search found this: http://www.cfeds.org/docs/sml/Exercise_7.pdf See if that helps.

I googled "Parenthetical distances on lot sidelines in Sections". That seemed to get some hits.

chuckh_02, post: 332481, member: 6258 wrote: It's the N 1/16th corner on the North/South 1/4 line that I'm a little flummoxed on . . .

Holy Cow, post: 332455, member: 50 wrote: Here we go again with all this foolishness about east-west lines being curved. I'll admit that there may be a few out there. Just nowhere near where I hang my hat most of the time. There must have been a glut of professional liars in those days.

Ha! Not until they got GPS have I seen them actually "get it on the curve" over short distances, 1/4 and 1/16th. They sure do it now.

For the longer lines, Standard lines, township lines, state lines, the curve has always been there, even from the older guys. It just was never very accurate you had to retrace a long section of them to see it, but there is no doubt what was going on.

I just went to a seminar given by one of the "expert" retracement guys (not a BLMer) and he basically says he curves lines until section breakdown time, then it's all straight, either way is fine by me.

As far as the township line, I would curve in that N1/4 of Section 5, it's simple to do and I've been curving standard, township, state lines since I started.

My link above was a bad example (they were dealing with a non-straight-forward calculation). The key is that the draftsman put down an area on the lots. That area was computed using some basic methods. It was drafted during a time that they didn't have calculators, so it was typically a simple arithmetical calculation. You want to "back-calculate" to see what distances they were using. If a section line on the left was 79.52 chains, the lot line on the left would typically be calculated to be 19.52 chains, and if it was 78.9, you last lot line would be 18.9. The lot line distance @ the C-N 1/16th would typically be (19.52+18.9)/2. Get that and the two other distances, and see if the calculation for the published areas work. If it does, you have some pretty good confidence of what the plat distances are and what you should proportion to.

These calculations are "implied" in the manual, and taught @ BLM workshops. They typically refer to the nonpublished distances as "parenthetical" distances which are derived from other values published on the plat. With Chains, 20 chains by 20 chains is 40 acres (20*(20/10)=20*2 = 40. the area of a lot that is 20 chains and two distances on the side is the sum of the side distances (I did a divide by two above which was wrong.) So the area of a lot that is 20 on the north and south side and 18.9 on one side and 19.1 on the other would be 18.9+19.1 or 38.0 acres. (simplified from [(18.9+19.1)/2]*2 the 2/2 is one, and it works out that for the areas besides lot 4 of Section 6, it is the sum of the two sides-distances. If that is what you get, and it matches what is published for acres, your good.

Alright! We're getting there!

The link was a great example, despite the Red Herring. Whatever I googled, it wasn't the right combination to lead me there . . . I think I have a direction to head - thanks!!