The Diagram as Map

I like how the original points are prominent, and how you don't change point #429 to "A" and point #381 to "B", etc. I always say "if something has a distinct name, why change it?", especially when there are related field notes, calcs, etc. that use the point number.
Unusual for me on this boundary survey product is the use of other than a solid line for determined boundaries. Maybe that's your choice due to the varying map scales. I do see the linetype in the legend.

what's with that fence line surveying to point 539???

BajaOR, post: 378962, member: 9139 wrote: I like how the original points are prominent, and how you don't change point #429 to "A" and point #381 to "B", etc. I always say "if something has a distinct name, why change it?", especially when there are related field notes, calcs, etc. that use the point number.
Unusual for me on this boundary survey product is the use of other than a solid line for determined boundaries. Maybe that's your choice due to the varying map scales. I do see the linetype in the legend.

What the sketch is intended to show is the relationship between various corners that appear on other maps generated as a result of the survey. The issue was whether the survey made by virtue of the I & GN scrip was even valid or not, i.e. whether there had been a strip of unsurveyed public domain remaining in place to locate the scrip upon in the first place. If not, then the survey was entirely in conflict with other valid titles and was at best merely a claim of title junior to those of the adjoining surveys.

I obviously agree that using the same point i.d. nos. in field record, on maps, and in descriptions is the way to go.

Andy J, post: 378963, member: 44 wrote: what's with that fence line surveying to point 539???

The tract that was the subject of my survey was one situated in the Westbrook Survey that was created by a late 19th-century subdivision of the original grant. That old barbed wire fence appeared to me to have been built to one of the division lines, but following a somewhat wacky idea of where the Southwest line of the Westbrook Survey actually was located. The sketch shows the method that the surveyor most likely followed, i.e. running from one original survey of the survey along the record bearing of the Westbrook, but with his compass adjusted for the wrong variation to actually follow the line, and then running back perpendicular, thinking that he'd made a nice, square cutoff.

The lines ran in prairie (i.e. no marked trees along the line), and without actually running from corner to corner and correcting the variation in the compass, that was easy to do.

Somewhere I have photos of some of those original corners that I'll post.

Here is a photo of one of the corners of the Thomas B. Westbrook Survey, Pt. No. 245 on the map. In 1838, it fell on the road from San Antonio to Nacogdoches. It survived when the road was later shifted Northwest and eventually upgraded to a State highwy. You never know what will survive.

And here is another photo of the same corner showing a bit of the context. The distinguished fellow in the photo is the late Charles R. Swart of San Marcos, Texas and Bozeman, Montana, depending upon the season.

Here's photo of a Rock Mound made by A.M. Lindsey in 1854 to mark the East corner of the C. Walter Survey No. 169 in Hays County, Texas. This is No. 434 on the sketch I posted.

And here's a photo showing the context of the corner on the side of a county road, with a less well dressed fellow for scale beside it.

And here's another one of Lindsey's Rock Mounds from 1854. This is No. 435 on the sketch, the West corner of the Armand Welch Survey. Note how using the same point i.d. nos. assigned in the field simplifies identifying field photos. That is, I knew it was Pt. No.435 and didn't have to wait to decide what it might eventually be renumbered or lettered as.

Kent- do you happen to recollect the amount of absolute CRAP you dished my way when I posted an image of a COS with a North arrow that wasn't perpendicular with the top of the sheet? I do...

Rankin_File, post: 378987, member: 101 wrote: Kent- do you happen to recollect the amount of absolute CRAP you dished my way when I posted an image of a COS with a North arrow that wasn't perpendicular with the top of the sheet? I do...

No, I don't recall that at all. I think you must have me confused with some other poster. Probably it was Douglas Casement. We are often mistaken for one another.

Here's another one of A.M. Lindsey's monuments from 1854, what is left of his original stake and mound shown as No. 429 on the sketch above. While a call for a "stake and mound" is notorious in West Texas for being a fictitious call made in the office, with nothing on the ground at the corner, in Central Texas it typically means a length of cedar (juniper) set in the ground with rocks or cobbles piled around it. Cedar heart wood is highly rot-resistant and traces of it will survive for considerable lengths of time if modern life doesn't intervene.

Kent McMillan, post: 378994, member: 3 wrote: Cedar heart wood is highly rot-resistant and traces of it will survive for considerable lengths of time if modern life doesn't intervene.

Was the cedar post at #429 disturbed?

FL/GA PLS., post: 378995, member: 379 wrote: Was the cedar post at #429 disturbed?

No more than you'd expect after 154 years. It was leaning a bit and, in any event, was about half decayed. I left the stub of the stake in place so that in case any actual surveyor ever arrived before the corner was destroyed, they might see the remains of Lindsey's stake from 1854.

Here's one more photo. This is what the evidence shows is the North corner of the Thomas B. Westbrook Survey, described in 1838 as a corner where he "set a stake and made a mound". The stake in place was an extremely decayed cedar post.

A photo of the vicinity. The pasture fencing was evidently constructed to lines run in the late 19th or early 20th century and has been rebuilt since then at least once.

What does FD OLD RM mean?

John Thompson, post: 379003, member: 9631 wrote: What does FD OLD RM mean?

FD-FOUND
RM-REFERANCE MONUMENT ( guessing)

John Thompson, post: 379003, member: 9631 wrote: What does FD OLD RM mean?

Found Old Rock Mound.

FD OLD SM = Found Old Stone Mound
FD OLD PS = Found Old Pile of Stone

Here is a close-up of No. 435, which the original surveyor, A.M. Lindsey, called a "Stone Mound" in 1854. I used his term.

Kent McMillan, post: 378994, member: 3 wrote: Here's another one of A.M. Lindsey's monuments from 1854, what is left of his original stake and mound shown as No. 429 on the sketch above. While a call for a "stake and mound" is notorious in West Texas for being a fictitious call made in the office, with nothing on the ground at the corner, in Central Texas it typically means a length of cedar (juniper) set in the ground with rocks or cobbles piled around it. Cedar heart wood is highly rot-resistant and traces of it will survive for considerable lengths of time if modern life doesn't intervene.

[sarcasm]you need to buy one of those stamping jigs from Jerry Penry- then you caps wont look like a ransom note......[/sarcasm]

Rankin_File, post: 379007, member: 101 wrote: you need to buy one of those stamping jigs from Jerry Penry- then you caps wont look like a ransom note.

I find it's easiest to stamp the caps after they are affixed to the rods. It tends to focus the mind, too. The one trick I use is laying out the lettering on the cap in ink, full size.

Kent McMillan, post: 379008, member: 3 wrote: I find it's easiest to stamp the caps after they are affixed to the rods. It tends to focus the mind, too. The one trick I use is laying out the lettering on the cap in ink, full size.

well whatever, but maybe next time try it with at least 1 eye open.....

( all teasing aside- I am always amazed at how well Kent's stamping looks)