Kent McMillan, post: 442334, member: 3 wrote: I know, it sounds odd, but a poster from PLSSia using the pseudonym (I assume) of aliquot said that anything within a foot was plenty close for him and wondered why it could possibly be a problem anywhere else. This is how one learns about what actually goes on in PLSSia beyond Gene Kooper's tips for faking stone corners by cultivating lichens on them.
Thanks, Kent for making it clear once again that you attack other posters with fabricated invective, while my commentary is based your own statements that you adulterate evidence.
Gene Kooper, post: 442342, member: 9850 wrote: Thanks, Kent for making it clear once again that you attack other posters with fabricated invective, while my commentary is based your own statements that you adulterate evidence.
Well, I was just giving you credit for having posted a method of creating a fake patina on stone survey markers that never would have occurred to me. Just because it isn't some mainstay of practice in Texas doesn't necessarily mean that isn't so in PLSSia and i like to alway keep an open mind. Your account of how you create a lichen patina on newly set stones is something that I would have thought completely implausible until reading your tips on how to do it.
Geez, Kent. If I thought you could survive the altitude, I'd invite you to meet up at 13,000 and see what original stones and stone mounds look like in Colorado. Well, wait! You drive a Tundra don't you. Odd name for a vehicle that wheezes out before it can make it up to the alpine tundra. Probably need a good set of tires too. Best to keep both of you in the heat and near sea level.
As for me, I have no desire to visit Texas or see your fabricated statuary masquerading as original, undisturbed stone mounds.
Gene Kooper, post: 442347, member: 9850 wrote: As for me, I have no desire to visit Texas or see your fabricated statuary masquerading as original, undisturbed stone mounds.
Well, that's a relief, I'm sure.
The narrative is interesting ( I guess).
Surveyor flies a nail into center of a found stone mound rubble in 1971.
You come along 46 years later and find a nail, oh wait find a second nail and remove/replace with a sturdy monument along with a tidying up
of the rubble. A found burnt tree stump you have estimated to be close to 100 years bears witness to the monument.
So where did the misplaced 2nd nail come from or did I miss that.
Robert Hill, post: 442367, member: 378 wrote: So where did the misplaced 2nd nail come from or did I miss that.
No, you didn't miss any conclusion about the origin of the 60d nail that I initially found. I don't know where it came from but think that it most likely arrived in 1971 or thereafter. If I were sufficiently curious, I'd go back to examine Orin Metcalfe's field book again to see if the other nail falls on the prolongation of a line he ran. Since the real object of the exercise was to locate the 1871 land grant corner, however, and there are other older questions to answer, I probably will let someone else forty years from now wonder about the second nail (which I left in place, unflagged).
Kent McMillan, post: 442315, member: 3 wrote: The short answer is that the location is at the end of a half-mile carry in 103?øF temps and one where the prospect of two 60d nails in a roughly 2.4 ft. dia. rock mound seemed like a low probability event. So the metal detector got left behind in favor of the Suunto hand compass which also would have picked up the second nail, but it didn't occur to me that there could possibly be a second nail in that location, so the Suunto stayed in my vest pocket.
That may have been the heat which, of course, would not be present in most of PLSSia where I believe the solution would have been to just locate the first 60d nail in view and call it the "established" corner and file a corner record to validate that judgment.
I prefer to recover all of the pertinent evidence on the first trip rather than continuing to revisit the corner unnecessarily, but this must just be a Ca thing. I'm also an advocate for metal detectors during searches as surveyors tend to set metal objects but who am I to judge the practices of a Texas surveyor. I assume that you informed your client that the additional costs were due to the fact that it was a little hot and uncomfortable that day.
roger_LS, post: 442402, member: 11550 wrote: I prefer to recover all of the pertinent evidence on the first trip rather than continuing to revisit the corner unnecessarily, but this must just be a Ca thing. I'm also an advocate for metal detectors during searches as surveyors tend to set metal objects but who am I to judge the practices of a Texas surveyor. I assume that you informed your client that the additional costs were due to the fact that it was a little hot and uncomfortable that day.
Roger,
You must be the greatest keyboard Surveyor. Finding the rock mount was the pertinent evidence. Kent had to go back to set his Iron pipe and cap, so where is the extra cost?
You should write us a recap on some old survey corners you have found. So we can automatically disagree with how you perform the Survey before we read your post, then look for a small detail and say how we would have done it, and how much better of a Surveyor we are.
roger_LS, post: 442402, member: 11550 wrote: I prefer to recover all of the pertinent evidence on the first trip rather than continuing to revisit the corner unnecessarily, but this must just be a Ca thing. I'm also an advocate for metal detectors during searches as surveyors tend to set metal objects but who am I to judge the practices of a Texas surveyor. I assume that you informed your client that the additional costs were due to the fact that it was a little hot and uncomfortable that day.
I'd love to stand and watch you pack all of the equipment that was required to find, monument, and locate that corner. Carrying a metal detector when searching for original rock mound land grant corners from the 19th century is a fun idea, but usually a waste of effort.
Holding a Suunto (or any other) compass horizontal near the ground, sweeping the suspected area and observing any movement of the compass card consistent with a magnetic attraction is usually perfectly fine. I do agree with you that the idiot-proof system of record keeping followed in California must be much simpler and facilitate walking up to some corner from the 1870s (that has been replaced about a zillion times) for a quick beep and go.
As for productivity when the heat index is above 100?øF, that is always a factor. I explain to my clients that if their land were in California, the work would not be as difficult or the problems as complex. They understand.
