I've posted about this one previously. The task was to locate one of the boundaries of a tract of roughly 3,000 acres originally surveyed in 1902. The sketch below depicts what I think the evidence shows is the location of the boundary most consistent with all of the evidence.
The puzzle that is presented is the call given by the 1902 surveyor for a 30-inch Live Oak bearing S5-1/4°E, 205-1/2 varas from a 12-inch Cypress that he marked where his line intersected the bank of a river.
Here is a photo of that cypress, by the way:
A cypress that was 12 inches in diameter in 1902 should be about 23 inches in diameter presently.
Given growth rates of Live Oaks in upland settings, one that was 30 inches in diameter in 1902 would be expected to be about 38 inches in 2014.
The large oak in the background of this photo is the 40-inch Live Oak noted on the sketch and the hack scar on the 5-inch Live Oak standing dead appears in the foreground:
The most reasonable conclusions are :
1. The 1902 surveyor actually ran the line Northerly from the North corner of the 1000 ac. tract to the 12" Cypress on the river bank, rather Southerly as described in the 1902 deed.
2. The North corner of the 1000 ac. tract is correctly identified as located on the sketch.
3. The bank of the river has almost certainly not shifted significantly since 1902 and ran approximately at the bearing indicated then.
4. The Dry Branch is almost certainly in essentially the identical position as it was in 1902.
5. The 40-inch Live Oak is the only plausible candidate for the bearing tree called for by the 1902 surveyor.
So, what is the most plausible explanation for the discrepancy in the distance from the 23-inch Cypress on the river bank to the 40-inch Live Oak?
In your original post you had hinted that although the notes ran from the bank to the SE, you had suspicions that it was actually ran in the same direction your retracement has. This possibly had produced a transposition.
Just glancing, it appears there is a 53 vara discrepancy (I like the live oak, too). Maybe it's just too hot out, but I can't come up with any mathematical transpositions or add/ subtract stationing error that would produce the 53 varas...
Enlighten us, oh sage..;-)
> In your original post you had hinted that although the notes ran from the bank to the SE, you had suspicions that it was actually ran in the same direction your retracement has.
I consider it nearly a certainty that the 1902 surveyor ran his line Northerly from the North corner of the 1000 acres. That corner had been made by him in 1890, whereas the 12-inch Cypress was a tree he marked in 1902. It wasn't an existing corner or on some previously surveyed line.
While the boundary of the 3,000 acres followed a sinuous river for more than a couple of miles, the 1902 surveyor recited no calls other than one single overall course for the meanders of the river. In other words, it was almost certainly calculated and not surveyed. So if the line had been run Southerly, the 1902 surveyor would have had to have chosen the Cypress to mark, run a trial line Southerly to reach the North corner of the 1000 acres, and then corrected up and run his final line Northerly from the corner of the 1000 acres if he wanted to to minimize his (extra) effort. And somehow, he ended up with an even degree bearing for the corrected line, odds of 1:4 for that event when a compass is used and bearings read to the nearest 1/4 degree.
The best explanation that I see is that the 1902 surveyor recorded a chainage of 6+61 varas on his run Northerly from the North corner of the 1000 acres and a chainage of 6+93 varas on the Dry Branch crossing, but read the 6+61 as "6+01" when he calculated the distance to the 40 inch Live Oak from his notes.
The Dry Branch is only about 2.75 varas wide, but crosses line at an angle (about 54°30') such that line runs for about 3.4 varas across it. I can easily see an uncertainty of a vara in picking the exact crossing point on the Dry Branch when chaining, but not much more.
In other words the point on the Dry Branch that I measured as being 700.03 varas from the North corner of the 1000 acres could quite easily have been 1 vara North or South of the same point that the 1902 surveyor measured to.
So, what the 1902 surveyor measured as :
806.5 varas - 113.5 varas = 693 varas
could have easily have actually been a distance in the range of 699 varas to 701 varas. That would mean that a scale factor, SF, in the range of:
699 varas/693 varas = 1.0086 < SF < 1.0115 = 701 varas/693 varas
would be reasonable.
The actual distance of 666.09 varas from the North corner of the 1000 acres to the 40-inch Live Oak would then have likely been measured by the 1902 surveyor as a distance, D, in the range of:
666.09/1.0115 = 658.5 < D < 660.4 = 666.09/1.0086
Which is close enough to the hypothetical 661 varas read as "601 varas" in reducing the distance to the Live Oak to hold up as an explanation.
Considering that I can't see any other plausible explanation, I consider the above to be the most likely by default.
I looked at your other post and note that the other course from the cypress is not there. How does it compare to record?
My gut feeling is that you got the wrong cypress.
> I looked at your other post and note that the other course from the cypress is not there. How does it compare to record?
You mean that course that runs for about 2.7 miles? I'm afraid that course is obviously calculated and offers nothing of value other than to confirm that the 1902 surveyor didn't actually run it.
There are several lines of evidence that indicate that 23-inch Cypress is the same tree described by the 1902 surveyor. One is the way that the geometry of the lines of the river bank and centerline of Dry Branch constrains the solution. There is very little room to swing the line and fit those calls.
Another is the size of the Cypress with the old scar on it. There are no other plausible alternate candidates that are large enough to have been 12 inches in diameter in 1902 and no remains of stumps in any location that is at all plausible.
Last, but not least, is the actual direction of the line itself. The line as I reconstructed it was evidently run with a compass adjusted to indicate "North" in a direction that had a Grid Bearing of about N0°58'W. That nearly exactly fits the "North" of another, very well marked line that the 1902 surveyor ran on the other side of the 3,000 acres, following an old rock fence for about 600 varas on a bearing he reported in relation to a "North" with a Grid Bearing of about N0°55'W. Considering that he was almost certainly working with a compass as the bearings to the nearest 1/4 degree indicate, it isn't reasonable to think that he ran one line at one variation set off in the instrument and then changed the variation elsewhere on the same survey to run other lines.
I suppose that it would be possible to make a formal analysis of the estimated probabilities of alternate scenarios, but to me the whole pattern of evidence is so overwhelming as to be conclusive.
> My gut feeling is that you got the wrong cypress.
That was my knee-jerk reaction also. But knee-jerks are just that..
After looking at evidence and Kent's photos of the bank, I have a tendency to believe the cypress is a terminant of the original line.
My last fleeting doubt was that the scar on the cypress may have been an old "dozer wound" so common here in Oklahoma. From the position of the scar and the condition of the bank, I don't believe that's a possibility.
And Kent has taken his investigative "reasoning" one step past mine; he's found some reasonable explanation as to the conflicting call to the live oak. I would probably just chalk it up to pencil whipping if I had both ends of a line. The GLO notes we depend on in Oklahoma are filled with conflicting data that makes no definable sense.
I couldn't even begin to second guess Texas surveyors, past or present. I'll leave that up to those that have lived and breathed those notes for their entire career.
I would screw a survey up in Texas just as bad as Kent would in Oklahoma...:pinch:
> My last fleeting doubt was that the scar on the cypress may have been an old "dozer wound" so common here in Oklahoma. From the position of the scar and the condition of the bank, I don't believe that's a possibility.
Yes, there is no evidence of any machine clearing in that area. There are pastures of the ranch that were bulldozed, but that isn't one of them. Had the scar been on the upstream side of the tree, rather than facing line as you'd expect for a surveyor's mark on a line run from the North corner of the 1000 acres, it could possibly be attributed to drift material in a flood. However, none of the cypresses along that bank show more than small dings on their river sides and not many of those at that. Note that the scaffold limbs on the cypress in question aren't even broken off on the river side.
> And Kent has taken his investigative "reasoning" one step past mine; he's found some reasonable explanation as to the conflicting call to the live oak.
Yes, I don't like unexplained discrepancies since it's the discrepancies that often point to something that has been overlooked.
unexplained discrepancies
> Yes, I don't like unexplained discrepancies since it's the discrepancies that often point to something that has been overlooked.
That's true...sometimes. I attribute it to the part of our mind that wants to make patterns out of chaos. It does help one sleep better at night if every idiosyncrasy in an old survey can be tied down and accounted. Sadly, it's usually not the case around here.
I recently retraced several sections in 7N - 7E in Oklahoma. Things fit the original notes well until they closed on the north township line. Every closing distance was recorded long by approximately 1 chain (66') all the way across the township.
There was no reason for it to be recorded improperly, it was prairie for cryin' out loud. You could stand on the last quarter corner and look north and see the township line. Why? Quien sabe?
Some crazy screw up that got recorded, or transcribed, improperly. It is what it is..|-)
unexplained discrepancies
> > Yes, I don't like unexplained discrepancies since it's the discrepancies that often point to something that has been overlooked.
>
> That's true...sometimes. I attribute it to the part of our mind that wants to make patterns out of chaos. It does help one sleep better at night if every idiosyncrasy in an old survey can be tied down and accounted.
I think what I had in mind were the loose threads. I've seen quite a few maps that I think of as "survey kits" where the surveyor produced a map that showed some strange evidence that suggested there was more to the story that wasn't considered. The typical loose thread is something of obvious age that doesn't fit some pattern of evidence that isn't all that old, or something that just looks so wrong that experience says it can't be right.
unexplained discrepancies
>
> I think what I had in mind were the loose threads. I've seen quite a few maps that I think of as "survey kits" where the surveyor produced a map that showed some strange evidence that suggested there was more to the story that wasn't considered. The typical loose thread is something of obvious age that doesn't fit some pattern of evidence that isn't all that old, or something that just looks so wrong that experience says it can't be right.
It is interesting how you changed the value of the Vara and compared chains of surveys past and present. I think the latter is most helpful.
I would toss the 5" Oak. I think it is moot to your problem/solution for the reasons that you just stated. The large live oak and dry branch are your main pieces.
The cypress could have been scarred by other natural occurrences instead of a head of an axe. I am sort of 75/25% on it as being the 10". Also it could have totally washed away also in the ragin' flash flood of 09' or something like that..Who knows?
But Paden and you seem to be in agreement. I know that you Texan and Okie boys have a strange sort of symbiotic relationship through oil or cows or something.
Just a simple question before I go..
Why don't the landowners have an opinion on these lost lines? Are you surveying surreptitiously out there?
I wonder if there are experts in tree hacks/markings both modern and historic. I wonder what they would be called. The expertise would have to come with a lot of experience, so how much experience does one get looking at old blazes. I think a forester would have more experience in the normal course of affairs.
unexplained discrepancies
> It is interesting how you changed the value of the Vara and compared chains of surveys past and present. I think the latter is most helpful.
The practice of the day was for the County Surveyor to use whoever was standing around and willing as chainmen. When you consider the mechanics of measuring distances over varying terrain with a 10 vara chain, it isn't particularly difficult to imagine finding differences from survey to survey.
> I would toss the 5" Oak. I think it is moot to your problem/solution for the reasons that you just stated.
Actually, what that old hack on the 5-inch Live Oak provides is evidence consistent with a line having been surveyed through it. The fact that the hack is about 0.45 varas (1.25 ft.) off line is not particularly concerning. When small-caliper Live Oaks are marked too heavily, in that area they either die or become stunted. They do not grow as they would otherwise.
> The large live oak and dry branch are your main pieces.
The direction of the line being consistent with those of other lines definitely reported by the County Surveyor in 1902 is quite strong evidence that places the locus of the line within a fairly narrow strip that also contains the 23-inch Cypress and the 40-inch Live Oak. The direction of the line is an excellent piece of evidence that it would be a mistake to ignore.
> The cypress could have been scarred by other natural occurrences instead of a head of an axe.
Except I examined probably ten other cypresses in the vicinity and there was no similar mark upon them.
> I am sort of 75/25% on it as being the 10". Also it could have totally washed away also in the ragin' flash flood of 09' or something like that..Who knows?
Except the sizes of the trees growing on the river bank show that the bank has been in place for at least as long as the trees have been alive and their sizes mean that they have been in place since 1902 or before.
> Why don't the landowners have an opinion on these lost lines? Are you surveying surreptitiously out there?
Why would they have an opinion? The reason they hired me is that they didn't know where the line is.
> I wonder if there are experts in tree hacks/markings both modern and historic. I wonder what they would be called.
Well, I've seen more old surveyors' marks on Live Oaks in Central Texas than anyone I know and I call myself a "surveyor". The foresters in this area mostly deal with yard trees since there is no commercial timber industry in the Hill Country aside from cutting cedar, and that hardly requires a forester.
unexplained discrepancies
> I wonder if there are experts in tree hacks/markings both modern and historic. I wonder what they would be called.
It does vary greatly by region and species.I've seen blazes and refs scribed in pines in Northern New Mexico that were near 100 years old. Some of the letters were still visible. 100 years on a tree in Oklahoma can almost completely heal to nothing but a bump on the bark. It takes the years of experience of reading AND misreading evidence to get to be able to grok* markings on trees. And with the nature of such evidence there will always exist "Doubting Thomases" that won't accept a 100 year old mark on a tree unless someone has a video of the mark being made...
This is one of those things that probably will never be able to be effectively taught in a classroom. Who better to read the evidence than those of us for which it was meant? No one else that I can think of makes their daily bread by interpreting such evidence. Probably only the surveyor that has walked those specific woods for enough time to learn the language is capable.
*apologies to Bob Heinlein and Valentine Michael Smith
unexplained discrepancies
> I've seen blazes and refs scribed in pines in Northern New Mexico that were near 100 years old. Some of the letters were still visible. 100 years on a tree in Oklahoma can almost completely heal to nothing but a bump on the bark. It takes the years of experience of reading AND misreading evidence to get to be able to grok* markings on trees.
Yes, there is such a huge variation in the appearance (condition of overgrowth) of old marks by species, region, and even by immediate locality that there really is no substitute for local knowledge.
unexplained discrepancies
>grok
I'd say no apology needed, as your usage is almost exactly the sense I get from the book. It implies a deeper and more complete understanding than just knowing the facts; having an empathy with the situation.
unexplained discrepancies
so what was your Meyer-Briggs personality type? 😉
unexplained discrepancies
In this area, one finds the blazes more uniform in nature when one finds them. Usually on a river bank, this tee would have been marked with an 'X" denoting it's properties as a corner/line monument.
I will reiterate that there are many natural events that may cause scarring in this area. For instance, there was a very large oak last week struck by lightning that caused a major limb to fall and strike another tree at it's base. I think that it may leave a scar. 🙂
Plus the local climate lends itself to all sorts of tree bark fungus causing unique patterns and discolorations. Then insects then, birds etc...
We have an abundance of live oaks here and could walk the woods and probably find a live oak in the same condition of the 5" that you posted. It wouldn't take long.
But, you do seem to have harmony in your bearings so you are gathering a preponderance of evidence, if nothing else..
unexplained discrepancies
> so what was tour Meyer-Briggs personality type?
Actually, this sort of problem is precisely the reason why the Intuitive Thinking type is so common among land surveyors. Working the problem consists of weighing patterns of evidence and alternate possibilities, rather than depending upon one specific fact to the exclusion of everything else.
unexplained discrepancies
> I will reiterate that there are many natural events that may cause scarring in this area. For instance, there was a very large oak last week struck by lightning that caused a major limb to fall and strike another tree at it's base. I think that it may leave a scar.
By "this area", do you mean the vicinity of New Orleans? The Cypress in my example is growing along a seasonally dry stream in the Texas Hill Country.
Taking just the scar on the Cypress as an event, the likelihood of it being on the side of the tree facing line when none of ten other Cypresses nearby have any similar scar is one element that would have a probability that could be estimated if it were a purely random event.
The fact that none of the limbs above the scar are broken rules out any damage from another falling tree.
Machine clearing can be ruled out as a very low probability.
The fact that the scar is not on the upstream side of the tree rules out damage from drift material in flood as a low probability event.
So, what one is left with is one very likely explanation for the scar and only some very low probability alternatives.
The exclusion of evidence
My my, hasn't this turned into a high-brow discussion..Kent hit the nail on the head with the term "exclusion of evidence".
None of us like evidence that doesn't seem to fit. Most of the time any shred of evidence is so difficult to come by, identify and interpret that excluding it seems blasphemous. But as we all know, it is up to the surveyor to take all discovered evidence and direct its appropriate weight to a solution. Excluding a piece of the puzzle would appear as though it was meaningless to the solution...but we all know it is not.
I don't feel complete with basing my decisions on a solution of evidence unless all of said evidence supports the solution. That is rarely the case however. It seems there is always some sort of fly in the buttermilk somewhere...
The surveyor that can consistently solve all the evidence is truly the Master.
