An original survey 1881, a town is laid out 1894, it gets added to over the years, in the 1950s a survey for the town boundary is done setting monuments, many of which get destroyed over the years. The south line of the town follows along the north line of the S2N2 of a Section 19.
A 30's era deed established a boundary along the east line of the SW4NW4 (which is south of the town), then in the late 80's the section corners for 19 were retraced.
Of course, the math breakdown doesn't fit the south line of the town or the boundary staked for the east line of the SWNW, what a shock. It's actually not too bad:cool: (call it 10' both directions)
So now along comes the surveyor to retrace the 30's era deed and survey. The east line is about 10' east into the SENW and talk of boundary line adjustments and corrective deeds and all that.
Setting the NW1/16th at the math position isn't going to match the south line of the town north, nor will it line up with the 1930's deed and survey, subdivisions will also line up with it. I doubt any solution will match every piece of historical info.
Sounds fun, too bad I'm not the one doing it............
The math location of the 1/16th is a moot point. You already know that, but it bears repeating.
The Corner location is evidenced by longstanding occupation. So your best to sit down with the Mathemagician and explain it. Hopefully the light will come on before the lawyers show up...
So, what difference does a few inches make between friends?
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
It might make a baby.
Wonmore, or Nother.....
thebionicman, post: 411285, member: 8136 wrote: The math location of the 1/16th is a moot point. You already know that, but it bears repeating.
The Corner location is evidenced by longstanding occupation. So your best to sit down with the Mathemagician and explain it. Hopefully the light will come on before the lawyers show up...
We had a chat, good guy, my point is don't use my section survey to survey outside in, this one needs the inside out treatment.;)
I have to draw a sketch every time you PLSS guys start talking about 1/4's and 1/2's and 1/16's. Give me headrights and metes and bounds or give me death!
Kris Morgan, post: 411294, member: 29 wrote: I have to draw a sketch every time you PLSS guys start talking about 1/4's and 1/2's and 1/16's.
Me too and I practice in a PLSS state.
The quickest way to find "acreage" in the PLSS is to just multiply all the denominator's in the fractional description and divide into 640. 😎
Kris Morgan, post: 411294, member: 29 wrote: I have to draw a sketch every time you PLSS guys start talking about 1/4's and 1/2's and 1/16's. Give me headrights and metes and bounds or give me death!
In a rare fit of seriousness I will say in my opinion the PLSS system is wrought with as many pitfalls as good attributes. Even when a parcel is described in M&B its location can be vague if the beginning or commencing point is a PLSS corner.
I guess the biggest thorn I invariably run into is a "new" corner set by a surveyor with a coon-skin cap and a copy of the BLM manual that feels his job is to rearrange sectional sub-division corners to fit the pretty pictures in his manual. Even 150 years after the BLM's last bit of authority vanished from these lands some people still cling to their silly "rules".
paden cash, post: 411297, member: 20 wrote: In a rare fit of seriousness I will say in my opinion the PLSS system is wrought with as many pitfalls as good attributes. Even when a parcel is described in M&B its location can be vague if the beginning or commencing point is a PLSS corner.
I guess the biggest thorn I invariably run into is a "new" corner set by a surveyor with a coon-skin cap and a copy of the BLM manual that feels his job is to rearrange sectional sub-division corners to fit the pretty pictures in his manual. Even 150 years after the BLM's last bit of authority vanished from these lands some people still cling to their silly "rules".
If only they would actually follow all those rules instead of a couple of them 😉
I thought it my duty to exhibit things as they are, not as they ought to be. -Alexander Hamilton, August 13, 1782
paden cash, post: 411297, member: 20 wrote: I guess the biggest thorn I invariably run into is a "new" corner set by a surveyor with a coon-skin cap and a copy of the BLM manual that feels his job is to rearrange sectional sub-division corners to fit the pretty pictures in his manual.
Why would he not? For cripes sake's it's in the "Manual". No sense paying attention to the multitudes of existing monuments, they were set erroneously by some dimwit surveyor.
And besides all 788 properties involved are six feet in the wrong location so everyone has to move their fences.
Explain that to a hostile group. 😉
Here's an interesting example I ran into a few years ago.
In 1871 the original GLO survey actually set a center of section (I don't really remember why and I don't feel like digging up the notes). An 1899 USGS survey reran (and remonumented) the exterior of the section, even though all the lands in that section had passed to private owners. That center corner still exists and was even located in the 1955 OHD survey (redone in 1976) for I-35, where the highway boys just had to cut an x in the top of the stone.
But sadly there is a capped iron pin about 12' northwest of this stone set within the last few years at the "mathematical" B-B intersect point by a local surveyor as a corner of a parcel boundary he performed.
When contacted and queried as to his method of madness the surveyor explained that since the 1899 USGS survey usurps the original 1871 GLO survey he felt the "original" stone was null and void. I personally feel the "void" lies elsewhere. When I asked why he didn't file a corner ref for his pin he explained it wasn't required because the 1899 USGS survey did not set a center corner.
Needless to say I disagree wholeheartedly with most idiotic reasoning.
Here is the most recent corner reference by a competent surveyor of the stone (although erroneously called out the USGS survey year) but otherwise is a good corner ref of the stone.
I personally feel the "void" lies elsewhere. -Paden Cash, January 28, 2017
paden cash, post: 411297, member: 20 wrote: In a rare fit of seriousness I will say in my opinion the PLSS system is wrought with as many pitfalls as good attributes. Even when a parcel is described in M&B its location can be vague if the beginning or commencing point is a PLSS corner.
I guess the biggest thorn I invariably run into is a "new" corner set by a surveyor with a coon-skin cap and a copy of the BLM manual that feels his job is to rearrange sectional sub-division corners to fit the pretty pictures in his manual. Even 150 years after the BLM's last bit of authority vanished from these lands some people still cling to their silly "rules".
I have worked at my current job for about 7 years now. I have had the joy of working through an oil boom and seeing the misapplication of the BLM manual and outright disregard for established surveys of record to tell stories for hours. I've seen quarter corners set in a pit 3 feet away from an obvious original monument, entire townships calculated from 10 or so found corners and a few corner records, and my new favorite, a quarter corner set between two found original section corners, which was calculated off the reference rebar's about a foot to the east of the stones.
We hired a new guy from out of state(that is not a shot at out of state surveyors at all, lots of them did an excellent job) who had one of those handy dandy four year degrees and four years of "experience" in his home state. In one of first few surveys I did for him, I went out to mark the line between the W/2 and the E1/2 of the NW. I found all the exterior monuments around the section which were all recorded and calculated my C/4. Found an old axel near this location, which matched the N/4 and the W/4. It was out of position by about 4 feet. I accepted the axel and set my 1/16th corners and marked the line. Didn't even think about calling asking. The axel's were set by a very well respected surveyor in the late 50's, before any recording was required. I did my corner records for it, did the sketch of survey, and set it on his desk after I got back in on Saturday afternoon.
Monday morning rolls around and I have a note on my desk to speak with him and the head boss. The head boss is from the area and has been surveying in the area for about 35 years. I go down the hall and ask the boss man what's up and he said he didn't really know. New guy comes in a lays my work down and says we are going to have to go and reset the C/4 and 1/16th's because the corners do not agree with his calculated positions. "The Manual instructs us that the C/4 is set at the intersection of opposing 1/4 corners" The boss man looks at me and asked me what I thought. My response to the New Guy was that the Manual lays out the methodology to do the original breakdown of a section. If the section has already been broken down, by the laws in our state, the existing evidence should be used. The crickets were heard for about 7 to 10 seconds and at about the 8.9 second mark you could see the light click on.
Most of the problems we run into is from people not actually looking for a corner and that seems to be fall back excuse for eveytime we run into this, is the Manual says its is supposed to be like this. 10 minutes with a yellow wand and a shovel could stop a lot of the problems we run into. As well as having competent and capable field staff. Where I'm at, the licensed guy mostly stay in the office and leave it in the hands of the party chiefs, which may or may not be a good thing. A surveyor is only as good as his staff, if there is not as many dots on the screen as are out in field, its hard to make good professional judgments.
paden cash, post: 411305, member: 20 wrote: Here's an interesting example I ran into a few years ago.
In 1871 the original GLO survey actually set a center of section (I don't really remember why and I don't feel like digging up the notes). An 1899 USGS survey reran (and remonumented) the exterior of the section, even though all the lands in that section had passed to private owners. That center corner still exists and was even located in the 1955 OHD survey (redone in 1976) for I-35, where the highway boys just had to cut an x in the top of the stone.
But sadly there is a capped iron pin about 12' northwest of this stone set within the last few years at the "mathematical" B-B intersect point by a local surveyor as a corner of a parcel boundary he performed.
When contacted and queried as to his method of madness the surveyor explained that since the 1899 USGS survey usurps the original 1871 GLO survey he felt the "original" stone was null and void. I personally feel the "void" lies elsewhere. When I asked why he didn't file a corner ref for his pin he explained it wasn't required because the 1899 USGS survey did not set a center corner.
Needless to say I disagree wholeheartedly with most idiotic reasoning.
That is odd, they did an original survey in 71, then did an original survey in 99, what was the reason for that?
Was the 71 plat canceled?
Here is the most recent corner reference by a competent surveyor of the stone (although erroneously called out the USGS survey year) but otherwise is a good corner ref of the stone.
[QUOTE="jpb, post: 411308, member:My response to the New Guy was that the Manual lays out the methodology to do the original breakdown of a section.
The manual is a lot more than that. The new guy obviously doesn't understand the manual. From your description of the situation a correct interpretation of the manual would lead to the same conclusion you did. The manual is based on 200 years of common law. The court cases that are the basis of the resurvey sections are the same cases a judge in any PLSS state will be looking at. It is a good resource for all if it is taken in its entirety.