I got a call from a local engineer that spends quite a bit of time with info that you can download from the web. He told me that “something” was wrong with a coordinate that I had on a Section Corner. This was a corner that I had filed on for a highway project. It was quite a while ago and the coordinates on the plat were NAD27 state plane that the DOT wanted at the time. Anyway, he seemed to be under the mistaken impression that what he downloaded would accurately locate the coordinates for the corner. As near as I could figure out, his coordinate number ultimately came from the cross shown on the quad.
Oh well; GIGO. I sent him some Section Corners from a recent project and how the crosses “fit” the actual monuments. He first figured the Quad was sampled into my drawing incorrectly. I assured him it is correctly inserted into my drawing.
The SW of 8-about 85'
The NW of 16- about 20'
The NE of 16-about 75'
This is pretty typical in undeveloped areas that I work in. In the more populated areas the crosses are usually closer. The one that puzzeled me was the northeast corner of Section 16, which sits under an old fence that I know was there before the photos for the Quad were taken.
After over 35 years of generating georeferenced coordinates (NAD27/NAD83_SPC/UTM/LDP) on thousnads of PLSS corners across the West, I would say that your examples above are EXACTLY what I have come to expect. There are a few that are [much] worse, and a few that seem to be "spot on," but anything less than 100' is considered a winner in my book!
All things considered, the USGS does a pretty darn good job of it!
Loyal
All things considered, the USGS does a pretty darn good job of it!
It's actually amazing that they found some of these monuments. They're not that easy to find and they don't fit 2640 x 2640 or due north-due east. Yet they turned up most of them. But, to think that the cross would be precise when you download a scanned quad from the internet is an odd assumption at best.
That project got expanded and I need to look again for a monument I couldn't find two months ago. The quad shows it as found, but my first attempt turned up a couple of hundred stones but not a corner. So, one, or two, or three more times... it's got to be there.
Mighty;
The USGS keeps field notes (I think they call them "tablets" or something like that), that describe (to some extent or another) what they "found" at Section & 1/4 Corners, as well as the Bench Marks and Tri_stations. These "notes" are (or were) available for most quadrangles. I would suggest a call/Email to the USGS in Denver, and maybe they can help you out.
I have only used these documents a few times, but they can be woth their weight in gold in some cases.
Loyal
The better question is where does one obtain the notes of when USGS done their field work?
> All things considered, the USGS does a pretty darn good job of it!
>
> It's actually amazing that they found some of these monuments. They're not that easy to find and they don't fit 2640 x 2640 or due north-due east. Yet they turned up most of them. But, to think that the cross would be precise when you download a scanned quad from the internet is an odd assumption at best.
>
> That project got expanded and I need to look again for a monument I couldn't find two months ago. The quad shows it as found, but my first attempt turned up a couple of hundred stones but not a corner. So, one, or two, or three more times... it's got to be there.
Billybob
That of course DEPENDS on where you are at...
Mighty Moe is in Wyoming (I think), so he would contact the USGS in Denver.
Your mileage may vary.
I used to get this data for California in Menlo Park, but it's been a couple of DECADES!!!!
Loyal
Yes, I've tracked down some of the quad notes at times. It took a while to get them, and they were somewhat helpful. In this case, however, I think I just need to look longer.
Check out the section pictured in the thread above started by Paden Cash.
You guys do know that many of the locations was plotted by a USGS surveyor and plane table alidade right? On the back of the original field sheets the USGS surveyor kept notes on the corners found. In one court case we even tried to contact the USGS field surveyor for testimony. Unfortunately he was past his zenith and in the nadir mode.
Pablo
"You guys do know that many of the locations was plotted by a USGS surveyor and plane table alidade..."
God, to be a young man again and doing that kind of work.....sigh.
Well, it's really not that bad being older and looking forward to a little bit of wisdom.
Hijack over, sorry.
Don
I just look for the big red cross painted on the ground.
It's easier to do this from an airplane or helicopter.
I haven't found one yet but I have high hopes.
Way back I worked a photo control project for about 1200 Sq miles of new quad sheets. Along with surveying panels for control, we also located section corners and paneled them.
That project gave me the mistaken impression that the crosses on quad sheets represented panels on the ground at the time of the flights. Some years later I learned that it wasn't typically done that way.
The crosses that make me scratch my head are the ones that are quite a bit off but are at a ground feature that is simple to identify on a photo-usually a fence corner. I've got a GLO brass cap that shows as a found corner but the cap is 250 feet from of the cross; and cap sits at a fence corner that is called out in the 1917 notes.
I would think that the field crew would have just noted on the photos they had with them that the corner was at the fence corner and moved on. Maybe they did and something happened during the drafting process.
From what I remember for the older 15' quads, the "+" meant that there was proven GLO evidence remaining. However when updates were done and the 7.5' quads were developed the "+" only meant that there was a monument of some type there. USGS did not verify accessories or acceptance. Also "+" designation could even have meant a fence corner.
I don't know if the field information still exists on these "+" corners. The field books were kept by USGS in Rolla, Missouri for years but I had heard that they threw them away several years ago. The field books explained what was recovered at each "+".
If anybody knows if this data still exists, please let us know. Maybe they retired the information to the National Archives.
