Snootiness; Retracing ROW's; and Finding the center 0f an old pile of rocks

Some of us are experts and darned near everything. You're welcome.;);):p:p

I appreciate the thought, but the reason for locating that 1875-vintage rock mound that I posted about in another thread was to satisfy the curiosity of some folks who had a hard time wrapping their heads around the idea that a 2.7 ft. dia. rock mound would have a fairly definite center.

As for the concept of "snootiness", I get the idea that there are some places where the relatively simple PLSS has devolved into cadastral chaos and, because no effort has been devoted to maintaining it, that is supposed to pass for complexity. That may explain why it has all collapsed into a shambles of fence posts and PK nails. The objective observer who points out the inherent simplicity of the PLSS is apparently understood to be the source of the problem. It's amusing, but somewhat sad.

As for the thread that raised the question of whether every concrete right-of-way marker ever set by a road contractor's employees along the right-of-way of a public highway acquired without reference to the same necessarily controls the location of the right-of-way under some theory of equity, I hadn't bothered to read the thread when it first appeared. After newly reading it, I'm hard pressed to see why any professional surveyor would want to rely upon some marker that is clearly erroneously set by a contractor when, after the same marker is destroyed by the forces of whatever, the basis for location of the line in question will continue to be the language of the actual grant to the State that was described in relation to the centerline.

I definitely would not want to go into court to defend my opinion as a professional surveyor that a right-of-way that was described as being 80 ft. wide (and for which no language exists in the conveyance that would suggest otherwise) is actually only 78 or 79 ft. wide.

I guess that the EASY button results in dot-to-dot surveying, but really should be relabeled the LOOKS EASY BUT ALMOST CERTAINLY NOT button.

Kent McMillan, post: 440296, member: 3 wrote: I appreciate the thought, but the reason for locating that 1875-vintage rock mound that I posted about in another thread was to satisfy the curiosity of some folks who had a hard time wrapping their heads around the idea that a 2.7 ft. dia. rock mound would have a fairly definite center.

And what an educational example that was. The thing was so near perfectly symmetrical I think my two year old son could have found the center.

roger_LS, post: 440301, member: 11550 wrote: And what an educational example that was. The thing was so near perfectly symmetrical I think my two year old son could have found the center.

Yes, it amazed me that anyone would suggest that some elaborate software was needed to determine the center of a rock mound roughly 2.7 ft. in dia. when obviously a short tape will get one within about a tenth.

It will, that is, unless the mound is too scattered to have even distinct edges. That sometimes happens, as I mentioned in a previous thread, giving an example from 1854 where it turned out that large Live Oak bearing trees marked that year gave a more reliable answer than could be deduced from the scatter of the rocks.

Kent McMillan, post: 440296, member: 3 wrote: ...The objective observer who....

When have you ever been in the proximity of an objective observer Kent? To read your posts I don't think you've ever been in the same county as a so called "objective" observer.

From reading your posts it's evident you predispose a survey as to whether or not you respect a historic surveyor (or like his north arrow). You also seem to have a definite inclination to admire those of Germanic descent. It's an infatuation if he was a city or county official way back then. It also appears you make decisions early in a survey before all the evidence is discovered about whom you're going to follow and whom you're going to discount. I want to know where you got your crystal ball.

You just stated finding a cedar stake in the center of a rock mound that wasn't mentioned in the notes was just carelessness in the recordation of the notes. Somehow you were able to tell the cedar stake wasn't from a later survey, possibly one of which you have no knowledge. And some time in the past I seem to remember you found a rock mound with a cedar stake and discounted it, setting your own cap and pin a foot or two distant. I believe your "objective" reasoning involved the drinking habits of the surveyor that had set (and duly noted) the cedar stake.

In my opinion you make your decisions way too early and spend the lion's share of time discounting all the found evidence that doesn't agree with your premature hypothesis. Objective...my butt. 😉

Kent McMillan, post: 440302, member: 3 wrote: Yes, it amazed me that anyone would suggest that some elaborate software was needed to determine the center of a rock mound roughly 2.7 ft. in dia. when obviously a short tape will get one within about a tenth.

It will, that is, unless the mound is too scattered to have even distinct edges. That sometimes happens, as I mentioned in a previous thread, giving an example from 1854 where it turned out that large Live Oak bearing trees marked that year gave a more reliable answer than could be deduced from the scatter of the rocks.

Oops, I must have forgot to use the sarcasm font, me bad.

:p

paden cash, post: 440303, member: 20 wrote: When have you ever been in the proximity of an objective observer Kent? To read your posts I don't think you've ever been in the same county as a so called "objective" observer.

As an objective oberver, I can assure you that the basis of my observations is entirely objective. particularly on internet discussion forums such as this, where the contrary arguments tend to be a bit detached from the background facts.

From reading your posts it's evident you predispose a survey as to whether or not you respect a historic surveyor (or like his north arrow). You also seem to have a definite inclination to admire those of Germanic descent. It's an infatuation if he was a city or county official way back then. It also appears you make decisions early in a survey before all the evidence is discovered about whom you're going to follow and whom you're going to discount. I want to know where you got your crystal ball.

I think you may be projecting. It's true that the German immigrants who practiced surveying in Texas in the 19th century tended to be quite competent. That wasn't by reason of language, but from education and experience.

There obviously were exceptions to that rule, Jacob Kuechler being an exemplar par excellence. Mr. Kuechler was a university-trained geologist who had immigrated to Texas, had somewhere along the way gotten the idea that 30 ft. made 10 varas, and had made extensive surveys in Southwest and West Texas in the 1870s on that premise. However, aside from that minor lapse that made a mile around 2050 varas instead of 1900.8, his work was very well organized. His geological mapping of West Texas was, I believe, the earliest comprehensive effort in that regard.

You just stated finding a cedar stake in the center of a rock mound that wasn't mentioned in the notes was just carelessness in the recordation of the notes. Somehow you were able to tell the cedar stake wasn't from a later survey, possibly one of which you have no knowledge.

Yes, the circumstances (and connections to other corners that were originally marked by the same surveyor, bear out my conclusion that the rock mound I mentioned is in fact the same that John E. Campbell reported placing in 1875. Part of dealing with the complexity of Texas surveying involves constructing chronologies of the early surveys, including the variations at which they were reportedly run on specific dates in order to follow their footsteps.

That is, of course, quite apart from what is known about the practices of the surveyors themselves that may come from experience with the work of a specific surveyor.

And some time in the past I seem to remember you found a rock mound with a cedar stake and discounted it, setting your own cap and pin a foot or two distant. I believe your "objective" reasoning involved the drinking habits of the surveyor that had set (and duly noted) the cedar stake.

That's interesting that you understood that thread that way when what was really in question was whether a stake and rock mound corner made by a surveyor in about 1950 (without cheating and getting the file out) would control the location of:

- a corner of a land grant surveyed in the early 1880s or
- the right-of-way of a State Highway surveyed in the early 1930s.

In both cases, the proposition was obviously false and the drinking habits of the surveyor in question provided ready explanations for some of the gross errors he had made. His cedar stake in a rock mound that he had made was in effect a witness corner that fixed a boundary running back from the highwy, but which did not, of course, fix the right-of-way of the existing highway.

In my opinion you make your decisions way too early and spend the lion's share of time discounting all the found evidence that doesn't agree with your premature hypothesis.

I'm certainly aware that knowledge often appears to arrive from the ether and to be less compelling than some conclusion that a person has plodded along to arrive at, but I'm afraid that your hat will still fill up faster if you are waiting for some result other than one based upon the facts. We objective observers have to point stuff like this out.

Here's a link to Mr, Kuechler's bio for those who may be interested:

https://tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/fku01

Kent McMillan, post: 440302, member: 3 wrote: Yes, it amazed me that anyone would suggest that some elaborate software was needed to determine the center of a rock mound roughly 2.7 ft. in dia. when obviously a short tape will get one within about a tenth.

Not sure exactly what you're talking about but recent discussions I can remember have had cases where the stones had been scattered. An example of determining center on one of those could actually be interesting. But I'm missing the point on this one. Is the survey lesson...if you ever find a 150 year old mound that is near perfectly symmetrical, measure the diameter and divide by two to get to center?

Oh ye who strain gnats and swallow camels....and then actually want to argue over who's camel was the tastiest.

Learn something every day around this place. Learned this one without going to church this morning.

Matthew 23:24King James Version (KJV)
24 Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel.

Kent McMillan, post: 440299, member: 3 wrote: As for the thread that raised the question of whether every concrete right-of-way marker ever set by a road contractor's employees along the right-of-way of a public highway acquired without reference to the same necessarily controls the location of the right-of-way under some theory of equity, I hadn't bothered to read the thread when it first appeared. After newly reading it, I'm hard pressed to see why any professional surveyor would want to rely upon some marker that is clearly erroneously set by a contractor when, after the same marker is destroyed by the forces of whatever, the basis for location of the line in question will continue to be the language of the actual grant to the State that was described in relation to the centerline.

I definitely would not want to go into court to defend my opinion as a professional surveyor that a right-of-way that was described as being 80 ft. wide (and for which no language exists in the conveyance that would suggest otherwise) is actually only 78 or 79 ft. wide.

I guess that the EASY button results in dot-to-dot surveying, but really should be relabeled the LOOKS EASY BUT ALMOST CERTAINLY NOT button.

I have argued this before in Georgia. Many rural roads having a right of way were never defined (or delineated) and the road is in essence the monument. Many folks tend to rely upon the rear corners for the location of the property and let it go to the road right of way and any errors (excess and deficiency) is lost to the right of way.

roger_LS, post: 440309, member: 11550 wrote: Not sure exactly what you're talking about but recent discussions I can remember have had cases where the stones had been scattered. An example of determining center on one of those could actually be interesting. But I'm missing the point on this one. Is the survey lesson...if you ever find a 150 year old mound that is near perfectly symmetrical, measure the diameter and divide by two to get to center?

The point of the example of the 1875 stone mound was to demonstrate that while from a distance the center of a roughly 2.7 ft. diameter arrangement of stones may seem to be some indefinite point just anywhere in the mound, in fact by careful examination of the mound the point originally marked by the mound can often be determined with very small uncertainty and perpetuated for posterity with a more permanent marker having an exact center while leaving the mound intact as found.

BTW, here's a photo that perfectly illustrates the subject of this thread. I've posted it before.

Probably one of the more interesting features of a survey I made in 2014 is this spot where there are no fewer than three survey markers within about four feet of each other. The rod and cap is my marker just set to mark the intersection of the right-of-way line with the side line of a tract adjoining the right-of-way. The Cedar Stake in the Rock Mound was placed in May, 1949 by a fellow named T.A. Breeze. One of the large flags in the mound had a steel beer can under it with the puncture marks of a church key. While Mr. Breeze described his stake and mound as falling on the right-of-way, reality had other thoughts on the matter. He missed the right-of-way, so his marker was in effect a witness corner on the boundary leading to the corner.

The #3 Rebar North of the Cedar Stake was probably placed in 1971.

The #4 Rebar by the fence corner post was probably set in 1991.

So, about every 20 years or so, another marker has arrived at that corner.

https://surveyorconnect.com/community/threads/an-excellent-multiple-choice-corner.287260/#post-287260

The #3 Rebar North of the Cedar Stake was probably placed in 1971, evidently in ignorance of the existence of the cedar stake, which I found laid over under about sixty years worth of oak leaves and cedar duff.

The #4 Rebar by the fence corner post was probably set in 1991, probably in ignorance of both the #3 Rebar and the Cedar Stake, by a surveyor attempting to determine the boundary of the tract to the West.