You are retracing a survey, performed in 1965, with this kind of gear:?ÿ https://m.ebay.com/itm/Antique-Surveying-Surveyors-Equipment-66-Long-Measuring-Chain-Tool-Pin-Stakes/253306672243?hash=item3afa411473:g:1yAAAOSwy0JaIW4f?ÿ
They also had an old transit, and a cimpass needle in the transit, for direction.
We gonna hold the deed dimensions, or the fence corners?
I just started a pot of real perkolated folgers dark, on the wood stove. The dark color is gently exploding, as seen through the sight glass.
It's obvious that the 1965 surveyor has errors if measure that vary with the terrain. The steeper, the more error. Some places even have as much as 5' per 100' error. Fences were built, everyone was happy happy happy, until along i came, measuring to the 0.01' and messing up the 'hood.
Coffee is done, and it's time to set the stove top percolator onto a short piece of 3/8' rebar, to reduce the heat. The rebar sits on the stove, for this purpose.
Got me a piece of deer meat, fresh smoked to go with coffee.
And, ya know, I once had a client sharpen a stack of rebar. I don't thing it made them drive any better.
Well, gotta get a cup down...
N
?ÿ
No. I wouldn't do it. This is the exact topic often covered by Mr. Lucas and others. If they are original pins set for the subdivision that the 'Hood is living with and happy - then there is no error. No different than proportioning a quarter corner, driving a new iron, and calling off an existing stone that is off by 7.48' from the proportion calcs. Have another cup and let bygones be bygone.
I use to work for an older?ÿsurveyor that pretty much stayed in the office, but gave us detailed instructions every morning.?ÿ On something like you describe he probably would have said, "You guys got no binnus setting anything but traverse points. I just need to know what's out there. So go dig me some holes and find some pins and fences?ÿand tie them down. I need to look at this one before we do anything."
Ecclesiastes 3:1-8 might be an inspiration also.
?ÿ
errors ...that vary with the terrain. The steeper, the more error. Some places even have as much as 5' per 100' error.
?ÿ
Adjusting/compensating for original measurements from the 1800's being reported on the slope is something I find myself doing more and more.?ÿ
A lot of times if I bring in GIS topo and make a rough estimate of the slope along each course of an old deed, and apply a scale factor to the courses based on the slope, the error of closure on the old deed math suddenly disappears.?ÿ This is a place where technology warms my Luddite heart; using GPS, coordinate systems, and Lidar derived surfaces to better retrace a 19th century survey, rather than more accurately measure something that wasn't measured the same way in the first place.?ÿ
?ÿ?ÿ
I just have one question, if everyone is happy, happy, happy with the existing fence corners why did someone want a surveyor to come out? To verify everything matches the deed or to get that extra land they brought on the other fence of the 50 years old fence? ?ÿ ?
1. to satisfy public agency/lender requirements
2. to document for history the current status when there is none on public record
I am guessing 98% are #1
I'm not sure "what you gonna hold" is even the right question.?ÿ Maybe it should be considered what they (landowners) have held.?ÿ Using boundary law the numbers are way down the list.?ÿ I'd look at more of, what's out there, who knows about it, how long has it been there, and are the owners treating it as the boundary (and for how long).
The issue I see is the difference between the "record" and the physical reality.?ÿ What the government and title folks rely on is the record.?ÿ The record is on paper and easy for them to access.?ÿ They want to rely on it, no need to examine the physical on the ground reality and further the law and the history of the landowners.?ÿ When I go out into reality it's obvious to me that the record in many instances does not confirm to reality.?ÿ I can't ignore it although I find surveyors tend to ignore the landowners and the time and effort it takes to talk to landowners.?ÿ In many instances it's not as simple as whether you "hold" the record or the fences.?ÿ The surveyor needs to determine if the boundary is established at the fence location.?ÿ That takes more than whether the fence is at the record distance.?ÿ It's sort of magical when they match up but for me where I work they rarely do.?ÿ Much of the old stuff I deal with has no record monuments, it's just metes without bounds.?ÿ If you ignore the physical evidence shown by the fences in place many decades you are ignoring the only evidence other than words in a deed that there is.?ÿ Unfortunately I see more old evidence rejected and the deed staked out than I see using the established fence boundary.?ÿ Then when you measure all the way across a section side the deeds will add up to near perfect 5,280 and your measurement will be different by an average around here of 60-80 feet.?ÿ Even the east/west section line deeds will add out to 5,280 regardless of the real GLO measurement, so much for the "reality" of the record.?ÿ The record is sort of a utopion fictional manifestation of the reality.?ÿ THEY didn't use professionals to do the early surveying for the most part, they didn't keep or require a detailed record to be kept! They may not have even examined the original GLO plat. The deeds they wrote were very poor. Many times when they sold a new parcel they whipped it up in the office or kitchen table.?ÿ They used the simple idea that the PLSS is square and perfect.?ÿ So what you going to hold, the fictional record or the physical reality.?ÿ Good question isn't it.?ÿ There is not simple answer.
Updating the record to be near reality is what needs to be done.?ÿ That isn't easy either, not as simple as writing a new description and having one landowner record it, yet the records are full of this stuff.?ÿ A boundary has two landowners and both landowners need to be involved to properly update their common boundary record to reality.?ÿ There is not much simplicity in reality!?ÿ The simplicity is in the record.
Nate, you inspired me to get out one of my stovetop percolators. I hand grind the beans.
My impression of many 19th century Deeds is they were cooked up by the Lawyer to facilitate the transaction. They didn't bother too much with precise description of the bounds because that was covered by well settled common law. ?ÿThey knew their purpose...in the case of mountainous timberland they dragged the logs downhill using steam donkeys so the ridge made a convenient boundary. Their purpose can inform our determination of their intention. ?ÿThe surveyor ran along the ridge line presumably setting stakes or blazing trees. If one of the timber owners asked the Surveyor, "where is the boundary?" I would think the surveyor would point to his freshly set stakes and say, "there at the stakes."?ÿ
Do you want to be known as "a part of the solution" or "a part of the problem"? I'm working on a survey now where everyone has been holding the fencelines for 30 years. On the south line the fences are only "off" by a few feet (the south line is relatively flat). The north line is 36' short. I've offered to write a legal description on the part between the deed line and the fenceline; for the purposes of obtaining a "quit-claim" deed from the neighbor. ?ÿIt was all "family" property at one time. I know what happened from talking to land owners. They measured distances to write legal descriptions and built fences accordingly. (Didn't think they needed a survey, I'm sure). Now, it's no longer "family" land, and the problems are beginning.
Nate, I get the feeling you're just tossing out a simulated grenade for entertainment purposes and already know the right answer.?ÿ Fresh perc coffee and venison jerky is your version of soda and popcorn.?ÿ Slow day and you're scaring up some entertainment.
What you said about the errors increasing "per 100'" in proportion to the steepness of the terrain gives it away.?ÿ I'll say in common surveyorese what Jim Fleming said in mathematican... They measured slope distance in the original survey and that's what you need to retrace.
When you find all the distances to be reported longer than you measure, you need to consider whether the map or description was based on a survey using measurements that followed the terrain.?ÿ If that pans out, just as with any other retracement, correcting the existing line locations to what they apparently were "supposed to be" is exactly the wrong thing to do.
You are retracing a survey, performed in 1965, with this kind of gear: ...
They also had an old transit, and a cimpass needle in the transit, for direction.
1965 seems a bit late for an actual chain to be used by a surveyor - most would have had a tape "chain". The picture linked looks poorly homemade, not even close to being in the same league as Jerry Penry's homemade chain.?ÿ
http://www.penryfamily.com/surveying/chainmaking.html
So this is an owner's do-it-yourself job you are retracing?
?ÿ
You are retracing a survey, performed in 1965, with this kind of gear: ...
They also had an old transit, and a cimpass needle in the transit, for direction.
1965 seems a bit late for an actual chain to be used by a surveyor - most would have had a tape "chain". The picture linked looks poorly homemade, not even close to being in the same league as Jerry Penry's homemade chain.?ÿ
http://www.penryfamily.com/surveying/chainmaking.html
So this is an owner's do-it-yourself job you are retracing?
?ÿ
Isn't there a DIY Surveying show on HGTV now??ÿ Could have sworn I saw something like that while I was flicking through the guide waiting for the next football game to come on Sunday afternoon.
I don't know... I've heard tales of things. And, there was a 66' steel tape, still some floating around...
I don't know... I've heard tales of things. And, there was a 66' steel tape, still some floating around...
I don't know... I've heard tales of things. And, there was a 66' steel tape, still some floating around...
There were 33ft chains
and
people in offices that thought varas were yards when converting to feet with some using 2.77 or 2.78 as a multiplier in feeble attempt to change varas into feet for the new deed after 1960.
You are retracing a survey, performed in 1965, with this kind of gear: ...
They also had an old transit, and a cimpass needle in the transit, for direction.
1965 seems a bit late for an actual chain to be used by a surveyor - most would have had a tape "chain". The picture linked looks poorly homemade, not even close to being in the same league as Jerry Penry's homemade chain.?ÿ
http://www.penryfamily.com/surveying/chainmaking.html
So this is an owner's do-it-yourself job you are retracing?
?ÿ
Where I began my survey career in the Midwest, most rural roads and a lot of in-town streets had either 66' or 33' wide RW.?ÿ Most of the work trucks in the outfits I worked for had some form of 66' tape.
But then again, remember that we're discussing a survey in Arkysaw.?ÿ There may still be a few surveyors using actual chains and staff compasses for their standard equipment.
Well there are numerous chains of different lengths.?ÿ 100' (with 1' links), 2-pole chains or 33' (with 50 0.66' links), and the Gunter Chain which is the 66' chain with 100 links.?ÿ The distance of 66' being a chain is from the standards that were established for land measurement.?ÿ If you see GLO notes with a distance of 80 chains, it would be the 66' Gunter chain lengths by definition.?ÿ There is the "measurement" which is 66' by definition, and there is the measuring device the physical chain which could vary.
As far as the steel tape being called a "chain", when I started surveying we always called our steel tape a "chain".?ÿ This was before I knew what an actual chain looked like.?ÿ The term became ingrained into our nomenclature for so long, I don't blame anyone who refers to a steel tape as a chain and talks about "throwing the chain".?ÿ Never heard of anyone mentioning "throwing" the steel tape. :>?ÿ (thought I would borrow the Kent evil-grin icon since he isn't visiting anymore)
