section question

Regular or super size, your 1/4 pounder meal?

Just a joke, I can not comprehend your text man, getting dizzy!

sorry. :-/

Royal with Cheese in the Colonial States 😉

"Keeping in mind we took the East 1/2 of NE 1/4 and split it in 1/2 strictly by math"

Section 6...Splitting in half by math sounds dangerous. I would like to see the GLO plat and sketch...No lots in the NE 1/4?

No nothing. GLO notes and maps so perfect 80 chain sections and 20 chain 1/4s

Splitting by math is dangerous. The new surveyor has split by math E to W. We went N to S for the EAST 1/2.

I would try to discourage any client from making an aliquot part subdivision of any parcel. The whole system was invented to eliminate surveying. It's a huge disaster. Figure out the math if that's what they insist, reduce it to a metes and bounds with calls to corner monuments. At least at that point the next surveyor would need to ignore the monument and pin cushion the previous called to monument. The temptation to reduce the math ever time, over, over and over till the end of time is just too much to resist for math inclined survey nerds when pro ration or aliquot descriptions is in the mix.

Splitting the E1/2 NE1/4 from north-south in half is not the same as dividing it into quarters the line should be split from the center N1/16 to the N1/16 on the section line. The corner should be in a different place. Did you stamp your corner as the NE1/16?

Sorry to correct myself, I guess they would be the same corner if you had a perfect section

So you split the east half of the ne 1/4 of section 6 into two equal area tracts? Why didn't you also set the 1/16th corners at the time? Surely you didn't mark those corners as aliquot corners.o.O

I find it very difficult to believe that there is a Section 6 out there somewhere that is a perfect 80 chains on all four sides. If there really is one purporting to be such, I hereby declare the original surveyor to be a *%^##*&^ liar!

It is always a dangerous thing to be involved in splitting combinations of lots plus aliquot parts into what appears to the layman to be an aliquot part. That is: What you did in the east half of the northeast quarter of a Section 6 does not produce a true NE4/NE4 and SE4/NE4. The center corner to north quarter corner should never turn out to be precisely 80 chains in any section, let alone a Section 6. I know, I know, sometimes the lying bustards that wrote the field notes claimed all sides of a section to be exactly 80 chains, but, in nearly every case there will be an angular element involved that alters the lengths from the center corner to the four quarter corners from being a precise 40 chains.

I am not certain I even want to know if that is a serious comment...

A "perfect"section 6

HC,

There are a few townships around here of which the north line was only about a mile and a half north of a river (and Treaty Boundary).

They actually started at the NW corner of the township (as opposed to the SE) and surveyed proceeding east and south (bassackwards), closing on the river. Although the notes reflect their procedure, AND section 6 was reported as 80 ch. on all sides, a current resurvey would not come up with their "pristine" cardinal distances.

A "perfect"section 6

Normally there is some deviation in the relative bearing of opposite sides of the section, thus skewing the quarter-section lines a tad.

> Our firm was contracted to cut out a portion of a section yrs ago. That being the East 1/2 of the NE 1/4 of Section 6. We recovered on the North line the North 1/4 corner and the NE and NW corners. We recovered the SE and SW of NE 1/4 and the SE corner of the SW 1/4 of SW 1/4 of NE 1/4(also being the SW cor of our East 1/2). All the corners fit and checked so the North 1/4 and NE corner we held and the distance split as per the original township maps.
>
> Later our firm was contracted to split this east 1/2 into a North 1/2 and South 1/2. to be more confused as the NE 1/4 of NE 1/4 and SE 1/4 of NE 1/4. Now a new guy has purchased the SW 1/4 of NE 1/4 and hired a surveyor to establish his boundary. Keeping in mind we took the East 1/2 of NE 1/4 and split it in 1/2 strictly by math, the West line being 2642.50(1321.25). In our survey we went from the SW corner of the East 1/2 to the NW corner of East 1/2 and split that in half(1321.25) The surveyor that is surveying the SW 1/4 of NE 1/4 has found his SW, NW, SE corners and is setting a corner at the NE. This NE corner is also the SW corner of our N 1/2 of East 1/2 of NE 1/4 or is it? He has taken the NW cor of the SW 1/4 of NE 1/4 and the NE cor of the SE 1/4 of NE 1/4 and split that in half. Missing our corner by 6.67 feet. Fences and all kinds of fun stuff have been built. So my question is having all the surrounding corners how should the NE CORNER OF SW 1/4 OF NE 1/4 be established? With our East 1/2 split it is impossible to do it any different, then asked to split it in half...so are there 2 different corners now or should surveyor B not be splitting the North line of SW 1/4 and SE 1/4?
>
>
> I tried to upload a quick sketch with no luck.....

The north part of section six is typically lotted. Lots 1 and 2, of course would typically be the two nort lots of the NE 1/4. It sounds like you are inferring that this was not done in the original survey. If it was, the appropriate way to describe what you are talking about would the to call it the SW¼ of the NE¼ and lot 2 of Section 6. If the client wanted to use exactly half of exactly one-forth of the section regardless of the lots, I think he could do that,but, as Holy Cow says, he should describe it differently. The standard solution is to treat it as thought they "meant" to say the correct lotting method.

Regardless of all that, common corners should break down to the common corners. ie: the north line of the SW¼ of the NE¼ should be a common line to the south line of the NW¼ of the NE¼. yours being there first, one could argue that the second surveyor should accept your monuments. At a minimum as soon as another surveyor finds a discrepency with someone else's work, they should contact the other surveyor and work it out.

Often times we have to deal with ambiguous descriptions that can be interpreted different ways. If you create a plat from surveying an ambiguous description, I think the biggest thing you could do is have a detailed explanation of what you did and why you interpreted it the way you did.

By the way, I describe corners in what I think is a much simpler format. Instead of "NW cor of the NE¼" I'll use "the N¼ corner. Accordingly, instead of the SW¼ of the NE¼ I'll say the C¼ corner. The sixteenth above that, the "N-1/16th corner of (the section)", or the center of that 1/4-section as the NE-1/16 of the section. Kind of like it's described in the manual. In section six, if it's a typical section six, I would probably use what corner of what lot it is, if it was lotted instead of confusing aliquot parts where it isn't really "aliquot".

Anyway, a sit-down with the other surveyor is the most appropriate solution in my opinion. Adjoining properties should have common lines that don't overlap or have a gap between them.

I hope all that mumbo-jumbo made sense.

I'm totally serious. Describing land by 1/4's, 1/2's, 100 feet of ½ and such is and has been a disaster. It's always up for interpretation and surveyors seem to continually interpret. Stability of boundaries doesn't happen. Yeah, Thomas Jefferson solved the litigation of his father and the system enabled the disposal of the public lands without the gap and overlap problem and at the lowest possible cost by making it possible to convey land without surveying and marking all the boundaries. I get that. But what followed hasn't worked out so well. To be doing it at this time is crazy, perpetuating a problematic system and chaos.

If someone wants to divide their land by ¼, ½ or what ever we can do that. Figure it out, mark it and describe it as a metes and bounds with calls to the monuments. End the BS right there (at least on the new lines).

For evidence of my position just think about the perpetual argument about where the center of a section is located or whether it can ever be marked, accepted and fixed in place.

I am licensed and practice in Utah. While I see the problems you describe I do not attribute it to the system. When I go into a County and I am told 'corner records haven't caught on around here', I think I've found part of the problem. In my opinion it isn't the PLSS. ..

This crap hurts my head and I have to draw a picture every these questions are asked. I really have nothing of value to add other than I remember that the North and West lines of Section 6 always have problems due to how the township was "supposed" to be divided.

Yes I agree with all of this and maybe my point was missed. I and we understand all the Lots and Section 6 issues but the main point was the new corner can not be established by holding the Nw corner of sw 1/4 of ne 1/4 and the ne corner of the SE 1/4 of NE 1/4 and splitting it in half. Thanks for all the replies!!

I do corner records but the funding is short. The PLSS site at AGRC is a good start. It probably varies by county. Some counties (urban) have money and a county surveyor. Some counties try to do what they can and some counties do nothing.

The state law requires corner records if you visit and use a corner without a record at the county. Also if you mark a corner or change any of the accessories. It's not adhered to by many surveyors and some counties don't do much.

So what counties you working in?

> Our firm was contracted to cut out a portion of a section yrs ago. That being the East 1/2 of the NE 1/4 of Section 6. We recovered on the North line the North 1/4 corner and the NE and NW corners. We recovered the SE and SW of NE 1/4 and the SE corner of the SW 1/4 of SW 1/4 of NE 1/4(also being the SW cor of our East 1/2). All the corners fit and checked so the North 1/4 and NE corner we held and the distance split as per the original township maps.
>
> Later our firm was contracted to split this east 1/2 into a North 1/2 and South 1/2. to be more confused as the NE 1/4 of NE 1/4 and SE 1/4 of NE 1/4. Now a new guy has purchased the SW 1/4 of NE 1/4 and hired a surveyor to establish his boundary. Keeping in mind we took the East 1/2 of NE 1/4 and split it in 1/2 strictly by math, the West line being 2642.50(1321.25). In our survey we went from the SW corner of the East 1/2 to the NW corner of East 1/2 and split that in half(1321.25) The surveyor that is surveying the SW 1/4 of NE 1/4 has found his SW, NW, SE corners and is setting a corner at the NE. This NE corner is also the SW corner of our N 1/2 of East 1/2 of NE 1/4 or is it? He has taken the NW cor of the SW 1/4 of NE 1/4 and the NE cor of the SE 1/4 of NE 1/4 and split that in half. Missing our corner by 6.67 feet. Fences and all kinds of fun stuff have been built. So my question is having all the surrounding corners how should the NE CORNER OF SW 1/4 OF NE 1/4 be established? With our East 1/2 split it is impossible to do it any different, then asked to split it in half...so are there 2 different corners now or should surveyor B not be splitting the North line of SW 1/4 and SE 1/4?
>
>
> I tried to upload a quick sketch with no luck.....

Sure would have to see your sketch, but my e-mail, in profile is valid. or dwcraw43 (at) hotmail (dot) com