The big problem comes with the group of surveyors who never attempt to evaluate anything at the center of section because they have already decided a mathematical solution is perfect in all cases. They grab whatever appears to be the quarter corners and the section corner of concern and WHAMMYZAMMY any subdivision can now be determined.
Holy Cow, post: 432415, member: 50 wrote: The big problem comes with the group of surveyors who never attempt to evaluate anything at the center of section because they have already decided a mathematical solution is perfect in all cases. They grab whatever appears to be the quarter corners and the section corner of concern and WHAMMYZAMMY any subdivision can now be determined.
My data collector doesn't have a "WHAMMYZAMMY" button....:(
paden cash, post: 432417, member: 20 wrote: My data collector doesn't have a "WHAMMYZAMMY" button....:(
A lot of Surveyors improperly use WHAMMYZAMMY when clearly they should be using ZAMMYWHAMMY.
It's really that stupid, isn't it?
Holy Cow, post: 432446, member: 50 wrote: It's really that stupid, isn't it?
There are a good number of townships south of the Canadian here in so. central OK where the center of section WAS originally set by the GLO in the 1870s. It is not that apparent when viewing the twp. plats; one must read the notes. At the time the practice in setting these was the same as any quarter corner on an east-west line....chaining from west to east on a random line, recording the falling and returning to the quarter corner to adjust the temporary corner (by half the falling) that was set as they chained past the first time. Sadly most of them were "set posts" without a bearing tree within a mile. Usually there is no evidence of the original post, save a perpetuated fence.
Here's a pic one of them. The monument that marks the corner is an ancient 2" pipe mushroomed at the top and protruding about a half a foot out of the ground. It is a half foot from the base of the current corner pull post, a rail tie. The fence rows that have been cultivated over the years are almost knee high. The first record I could find of it was 1948 highway department notes, although the fences were noted in a 1933 highway survey. It is (within reason) a split between the east and west quarter corners as per the 1870s notes.
The STUPID part: approximately 6' east of this corner is a 1/2" rebar with someone's yellow cap proudly affixed to the top. Calculation indicated the 1/2" rebar occupies a point more closely related to a brg-brg intersect of the quarter lines. I disregarded that pin. According to GE's photo date the tracks in the grass are apparently mine.
Relying on a paragraph or two in the current Manual while disregarding several other chapters is apparently standard practice around here. One should be caned for setting corners without reading the notes.
I would like to know how local professional practice plays into this picture. I don't want to speak for all surveyors in my geographic area but I think most (and most includes some of the most respected surveyors in the area, both past and present) would use the mathematical location without hesitation especially if no survey of record exists (recording law has been in place only since 1947). So in the back of my mind I am thinking no matter how good the fence evidence is how many of my local peers will honor my location if the well documented fence corner is held.
What says the scholars? Jp
Jp7191, post: 432468, member: 1617 wrote: I would like to know how local professional practice plays into this picture. I don't want to speak for all surveyors in my geographic area but I think most (and most includes some of the most respected surveyors in the area, both past and present) would use the mathematical location without hesitation especially if no survey of record exists (recording law has been in place only since 1947). So in the back of my mind I am thinking no matter how good the fence evidence is how many of my local peers will honor my location if the well documented fence corner is held.
What says the scholars? Jp
This is more of a global problem that extends beyond the PLSS. Too many surveyors (mostly engineers) too easily disregard anything that is "not of record" believing it has no value because a map is not filed.
Jp7191, post: 432468, member: 1617 wrote: I would like to know how local professional practice plays into this picture. I don't want to speak for all surveyors in my geographic area but I think most (and most includes some of the most respected surveyors in the area, both past and present) would use the mathematical location without hesitation especially if no survey of record exists (recording law has been in place only since 1947). So in the back of my mind I am thinking no matter how good the fence evidence is how many of my local peers will honor my location if the well documented fence corner is held.
What says the scholars? Jp
You may be surprised, if you were to monument a long held corner for the C1/4 that is protecting bona fide rights of the original patents and their successors, file a corner record, reference chapter 6, explain why you did what you did and show that this isn't a math solution and how a math solution will infringe upon the legal bona fide rights of landowners you will probably back down anyone who complains. One thing I never do is show the distance or bearing to the "math" solution, because you already have the actual point which has zero error.
Around here (Cowlitz County, WA), many of the surveys prior to the 1940s were done by individuals who also worked for the County Engineer (or were the County Engineer). Most of what they set were wood posts (with an errant stone here or there). Fortunately, the County has retained the field notes and plats for most of this work, so I've been able to make a bit of a study of this stuff. When you go out to many of these field note corners today, the only thing you will find is an old fence corner or fence line (or evidence thereof - staples, broken off posts, nails, etc.) running out of the corner location that matches the location in the old field notes, or shown on the old plat (within tolerance of the day). Sometimes with a modern rebar and cap or two several feet away. Sometimes with a more modern fence or two coming out of the new rebar(s). No evidence of the original post remains (at least nothing definitive). In these cases, I find this to be pretty substantial evidence that the fence corner location was set by a land surveyor, and wasn't just a fence of convenience. At that point, the fence corner (to me at least) becomes the best evidence remaining for where that surveyor set his wood post, many of which were set from original GLO evidence, or with knowledge of where the original GLO monument was. This can be for interior 16ths and centers of section as well (obviously not set by GLO, but often calculated from the original corners, which have since gone missing or are in contention).
Due to the above, I usually consider finding an old fence line or corner that doesn't match my calculations (or the modern surveys) to be evidence that I need to throw a wider net at my research.
Jp7191, post: 432468, member: 1617 wrote: I would like to know how local professional practice plays into this picture. I don't want to speak for all surveyors in my geographic area but I think most (and most includes some of the most respected surveyors in the area, both past and present) would use the mathematical location without hesitation especially if no survey of record exists (recording law has been in place only since 1947). So in the back of my mind I am thinking no matter how good the fence evidence is how many of my local peers will honor my location if the well documented fence corner is held.
What says the scholars? Jp
Here in Cali, it has been my frequent observation that the cattle fencing in the foothill ranches very often misses the original section corners by significant amounts. There is much fencing in these areas of split cedar posts and 3 or 4 strand barbed wire that has been in existence much longer than my old bones. The fence builders far more often than not appeared to not be too concerned with actually lining up with the actual existing GLO original corners, often missing existing original corners by 20 feet and often more, and then running in a somewhat snaking fashion in between corners.
In the valley farmlands I find the fence builders were more deliberate, but often this is a different beast as much of the more developed areas fall in Ranchos, not PLSS divisions.
Long story short, I am not convinced that some fences were intended to be more than a means of keeping cows contained.
clearcut, post: 432481, member: 297 wrote: Here in Cali, it has been my frequent observation that the cattle fencing in the foothill ranches very often misses the original section corners by significant amounts. There is much fencing in these areas of split cedar posts and 3 or 4 strand barbed wire that has been in existence much longer than my old bones. The fence builders far more often than not appeared to not be too concerned with actually lining up with the actual existing GLO original corners, often missing existing original corners by 20 feet and often more, and then running in a somewhat snaking fashion in between corners.
In the valley farmlands I find the fence builders were more deliberate, but often this is a different beast as much of the more developed areas fall in Ranchos, not PLSS divisions.Long story short, I am not convinced that some fences were intended to be more than a means of keeping cows contained.
I think it's fair to say that jumping on every fence is worse than never accepting one, at least around my areas it would be.
Many fences have absolutely nothing to do with boundary locations. Determining which ones do, is why we have the profession known as land surveying.
Holy Cow, post: 432484, member: 50 wrote: Many fences have absolutely nothing to do with boundary locations. Determining which ones do, is why we have the profession known as land surveying.
Glad to see your engineering background hasn't affected your ability to survey.
clearcut, post: 432487, member: 297 wrote: Glad to see your engineering background hasn't affected your ability to survey.
I wanna see him use a slide rule with those big hooves of his....;)
eapls2708, post: 432350, member: 589 wrote:
From the 2009 Manual:
??3-99: In the public land survey system a corner is fixed in position by operation of law. Corners marked in official surveys followed by use are fixed in position by monuments. Only a small portion of corners are marked on the ground in original surveys. Subdivision-of-section corners are generally not marked. Their positions are fixed on the plat by protraction. Their positions are fixed on the ground by the survey process of running (and marking) line between marked corners, and setting monuments.??3-137: The protracted position of the legal subdivision corner on the survey plat is merely the first step in fixing the position of a corner. The corner position is fixed by the running and marking of the lines.
A decision to set aside previously fixed local survey legal subdivision corners must be supported by evidence that goes beyond mere demonstration of technical error, reasonable discrepancies between former and new measurement, and less than strict adherence to restoration and subdivision rules. Were the Federal Government obliged to open the question as to the location of a particular tract or tracts over technical differences or reasonable discrepancies, controversies would constantly arise, and resurveys and readjudication would be interminable. The law gives these activities repose.
Fence corners are sometimes the way to go, but just because to adjacent land owners agreed on a position does not mean it is the true position. State law may act to accept the location as the boundary between the two land owners even if it not the true position.
??6-42: A property corner or a use or occupancy position should exercise a regular control upon the retracement only when it was placed with due regard to the location of the original survey, or agreement is so close as to constitute the best available evidence.
??6-40:..A landowner's bona fide belief concerning the boundary location is not the same a bona fide right...
??6-46: The surveyor cannot abandon the record of the original survey in favor of an indiscriminate adoption of points not reconcilable with it...The surveyor will endeavor to avoid disturbing the position of locally recognized lines when such action may adversely affect improvements, again, provided that there is substantial agreement with the evidence of the original survey...
Here is one we did over 10 years ago. It's a memorable one because it has a mix of opinions on the center of section location. o 
paden cash, post: 432417, member: 20 wrote: My data collector doesn't have a "WHAMMYZAMMY" button....:(
I bet it does. I'm sure they all do. The problem is that you begin to lose the ability to find it as you gain experience and knowledge as a surveyor.
aliquot, post: 432498, member: 2486 wrote: Fence corners are sometimes the way to go, but just because to adjacent land owners agreed on a position does not mean it is the true position. State law may act to accept the location as the boundary between the two land owners even if it not the true position.
??6-42: A property corner or a use or occupancy position should exercise a regular control upon the retracement only when it was placed with due regard to the location of the original survey, or agreement is so close as to constitute the best available evidence.
??6-40:..A landowner's bona fide belief concerning the boundary location is not the same a bona fide right...
??6-46: The surveyor cannot abandon the record of the original survey in favor of an indiscriminate adoption of points not reconcilable with it...The surveyor will endeavor to avoid disturbing the position of locally recognized lines when such action may adversely affect improvements, again, provided that there is substantial agreement with the evidence of the original survey...
So we seem to be saying the same thing: that a fence may or may not be the best evidence of the original boundary and that making that determination requires investigation and analysis.
A problem comes in with interpretation. The portion you highlighted has been interpreted by many to mean "substantial agreement with the plat dimensions" or "at or very close to the carefully measured and calculated bearing-bearing intersection of the quarter corners".
To glean the full meaning, you need to keep it in context with other parts of the manual. Often, probably far more often than not, interior corners were first physically established by the homesteaders themselves, having no recourse to qualified surveyors.
Going back to ??3-137, the test is not whether they followed the prescribed procedure fully, but whether they made a good faith attempt to properly establish and used the section control provided by the GLO surveyors to do so. If they found 2 adjacent quarter corners and determined the center by stretching a half mile of wire from each to determine a distance/distance intersection, that is a good faith attempt. If they had line of sight between opposite quarter corners and stretched out a half mile of wire on that line, that would be a good faith attempt. If they were only able to find one quarter corner because the others had been obliterated or for some reason were very difficult to find, and so ran a half mile of wire from one quarter corner on a compass line, that would most likely be acceptable.
If someone were to later find an original quarter corner the first homesteader did not use, and it had been neither obliterated nor difficult to find, it could be reasonably argued that the first homesteader didn't make a full good faith attempt. If the entryman had found the proper corners but made no attempt to accurately measure, but instead merely estimated distances and or directions, that would not be a good faith attempt.
Entrymen were not expected to be surveyors trained in GLO methods and in possession of specialized survey equipment. Judging a good faith attempt has a lower bar for a patentee than it would for a surveyor.
As to bona fide belief vs. a bona fide right, speaks more to whether the entryman located his boundaries with reference to the correct controlling points than it does whether he fully adhered to the prescribed method. As long as he started from the correct corners and made a reasonable attempt to lay out his parcel according to the information in his patent and on the GLO plat, then the establishment is a good basis for bona fide rights.
Be aware, the record they would have referenced probably showed a rectangle of 80.00 ch x 80.00 ch with the sides all at or within 1'30" of cardinal directions. If they found two quarter corners and measured 40 ch from each, then by a layman's reasonable understanding, the intersection should be at or very near the C 1/4 as a diligent surveyor would locate it. Likewise the other methods I mentioned above.
If, for instance, he was trying to lay out the SW 1/4 of Section 25, thought he had found the W 1/4, SW Cor, and S 1/4, but instead had found those corners for Section 26 and laid out accordingly, he would have a bona fide (honest) belief that the land identified was what he had purchased, but he would not have a bona fide right to it because that land would belong to someone else. Due to his own mistake, he would need to start over in Section 25. So it is a mistake in identification, not a failure to fully adhere to prescribed methodology that makes the difference between bona fide rights and bona fide belief.
eapls2708, post: 432512, member: 589 wrote: So we seem to be saying the same thing: that a fence may or may not be the best evidence of the original boundary and that making that determination requires investigation and analysis.
A problem comes in with interpretation. The portion you highlighted has been interpreted by many to mean "substantial agreement with the plat dimensions" or "at or very close to the carefully measured and calculated bearing-bearing intersection of the quarter corners".
To glean the full meaning, you need to keep it in context with other parts of the manual. Often, probably far more often than not, interior corners were first physically established by the homesteaders themselves, having no recourse to qualified surveyors.
Going back to ??3-137, the test is not whether they followed the prescribed procedure fully, but whether they made a good faith attempt to properly establish and used the section control provided by the GLO surveyors to do so. If they found 2 adjacent quarter corners and determined the center by stretching a half mile of wire from each to determine a distance/distance intersection, that is a good faith attempt. If they had line of sight between opposite quarter corners and stretched out a half mile of wire on that line, that would be a good faith attempt. If they were only able to find one quarter corner because the others had been obliterated or for some reason were very difficult to find, and so ran a half mile of wire from one quarter corner on a compass line, that would most likely be acceptable.
If someone were to later find an original quarter corner the first homesteader did not use, and it had been neither obliterated nor difficult to find, it could be reasonably argued that the first homesteader didn't make a full good faith attempt. If the entryman had found the proper corners but made no attempt to accurately measure, but instead merely estimated distances and or directions, that would not be a good faith attempt.
Entrymen were not expected to be surveyors trained in GLO methods and in possession of specialized survey equipment. Judging a good faith attempt has a lower bar for a patentee than it would for a surveyor.
As to bona fide belief vs. a bona fide right, speaks more to whether the entryman located his boundaries with reference to the correct controlling points than it does whether he fully adhered to the prescribed method. As long as he started from the correct corners and made a reasonable attempt to lay out his parcel according to the information in his patent and on the GLO plat, then the establishment is a good basis for bona fide rights.
Be aware, the record they would have referenced probably showed a rectangle of 80.00 ch x 80.00 ch with the sides all at or within 1'30" of cardinal directions. If they found two quarter corners and measured 40 ch from each, then by a layman's reasonable understanding, the intersection should be at or very near the C 1/4 as a diligent surveyor would locate it. Likewise the other methods I mentioned above.
If, for instance, he was trying to lay out the SW 1/4 of Section 25, thought he had found the W 1/4, SW Cor, and S 1/4, but instead had found those corners for Section 26 and laid out accordingly, he would have a bona fide (honest) belief that the land identified was what he had purchased, but he would not have a bona fide right to it because that land would belong to someone else. Due to his own mistake, he would need to start over in Section 25. So it is a mistake in identification, not a failure to fully adhere to prescribed methodology that makes the difference between bona fide rights and bona fide belief.
"Fully adhering" is not a requirement, but substantialy adhering is. I agree with the examples you gave, but where problems arise is with irregular sections, fractional sections, and where any measurment, even by a non surveyor would reveal a significant difference between the record and the actual monuments. Other problems arise when no reference to the field notes are made and a W.C., W.P., R.M., or double, or triple corner is encountered and not handled correctly.
aliquot, post: 432514, member: 2486 wrote: "Fully adhering" is not a requirement, but substantialy adhering is. I agree with the examples you gave, but where problems arise is with irregular sections, fractional sections, and where any measurment, even by a non surveyor would reveal a significant difference between the record and the actual monuments. Other problems arise when no reference to the field notes are made and a W.C., W.P., R.M., or double, or triple corner is encountered and not handled correctly.
You're looking at this with the benefit of the knowledge that there is no such thing as a perfect section and that the lines and monuments placed on the ground by the GLO never match the notes & plat in terms of dimensions and often are substantially discrepant.
Isn't that all the more reason to not expect a high level of technical correctness from the non-surveyor entrymen? If we know that the supposedly trained and qualified surveyors often couldn't measure worth a darn, how can we, or the government possibly have the audacity to expect a higher level of professional competence from the entrymen who had no expectation of full familiarity with GLO methods?
Why would a homesteader have any reason, going in, to think that the government surveyors blew it so bad that their map can't be trusted, requiring the untrained homesteader to completely resurvey the section to determine how far out of square it is , or what odd shape it might be? Shouldn't the homesteaders, those non-surveyors who by necessity had to try to do enough surveying to identify what they owned, have been able to rely on the official government plat given to them as a means of locating their land?
If they were required to identify the land themselves, relying on the correctness of the government survey provided to them, once they found the government corner monuments on their boundaries, and relying upon the government map provided to them and represented to them as accurate, and after establishing the interior corner(s) according to the distances and/or directions indicated on the supposedly accurate government map, shouldn't they have a right to be secure in their holdings even if some surveyor, probably decades later, comes along and finds significant discrepancies between the plat and the actual corners on the ground?
The system was set up to facilitate the orderly and peaceful transition of ownership from the government to private parties. If the corners placed on the ground for that system are subject to constant movement each time someone comes and makes a better measurement, that undermines the basic purpose of the system. That this was understood early on is evidenced by the portion of the land act of 1805 that declared that monuments set by government surveyors become the true positions of the fixed corners regardless of any errors in the measurements. Once the survey is officially accepted, placed well or poorly, the corners are fixed. That precludes anyone from moving the corners to where they "should have been" and effectively nullifies being able to apply any test of accuracy or adherence to prescribed methods after the fact. (2009, ??1-20n, p. 21)
That the interior corners were to be established by local surveyors, or by the entrymen themselves before the ready availability of qualified surveyors, is an integral part of the system. It doesn't extend only to the efforts of government surveyors (2009 ??3-132). But the difference is that the GLO did not deputize and issue instructions to the entrymen. Nor did they require a plat or have a mechanism to approve the corners set by local surveyors or entrymen.
If the government recognized that there would be errors found in their own surveyors' work that exceeded mandated standards, we can't then or now apply a higher standard to others who were tasked with establishing interior corners. The GLO rightly did not assume control or review authority over local surveyors or entrymen acting as their own surveyor for the establishment of protracted corners. But time showed that there had to be some manner of determining acceptability as some locally set corners clearly should have been rejected while the basic purpose of orderly and peaceful transfer remained intact.
Those standards were developed through the courts. It has nothing to do with precision or accuracy. The courts view the matters in the same way as other non-surveyors. It boils down to whether the interior corners were set with reference to exterior corners of that section, whether the person establishing them, if not carefully and fully following prescribed GLO procedure, made reasonable inferences from the records available to them and acted reasonably according to those inferences.
As for fractional sections and irregular sections, bear in mind that the GLO developed the rules for their own deputies over the course of many years through several Manuals before getting to the procedures prescribed today. If the surveyors making the rules for other trained surveyors were confused by these circumstances for many years, again, one must make even more allowance for the untrained who were required to establish their own corners.
When evaluating interior corners, we can't do it from the perspective of trained measurers and trained mathematicians. We must be able to set that aside and view it in the same light as a non-surveyor of average intelligence, armed with little more than the government map, your patent, a few 1/4 mile spools of fence wire, and if you're prepared a bit better than most, maybe a compass. From that perspective, how would you go about setting your corners. Don't forget to consider that as a non-surveyor of average intelligence, you have no training as to the prescribed method of establishing any interior corners.
Once you've found the evidence while keeping this perspective, go ahead and jump back to the trained measurer perspective and locate it all. When you start analyzing it, be ready to jump from one perspective to the other and back many times and in short order. Bottom line, if it was a reasonable attempt for a person with no survey or measurement training, and it's the original establishment of the corner, it's not the "property corner" with the true position of the aliquot corner being some distance away according to recent measurements. It is the true position of the designated aliquot corner (which is the property corner) regardless of the errors that exist in the measurements.
