While the dudes in Idaho were busy getting their hats adjusted at the drugstore today, one of the boundary markers that I located was this one placed in 1875 by Hays County Surveyor B.C. Hardin and described by him as a "stone mound".
In 2014, Mr. Hardin's mound is in the middle of some stick-in-your-eye cedar forest, none of it appearing to be more than 100 years old. In 1875, Mr. Hardin could look out over the Blanco River valley toward Wimberley and could see various peaks. From this mound, he took bearings to those peaks with his surveying compass. Fortunately for me, one of them was Lone Man Mountain lying North of Wimberly, about 55614.8 ft. distant from the rod and cap marker that I installed in Mr. Hardin's mound.
So, how did I know the distance to the nearest tenth of a foot? Actually I computed it using the position of a triangulation station in place at the top of Lone Man Mountain as published by the National Geodetic Survey. No chainsaws were required, which suited me.
For the record, Mr. Hardin reported that the bearing to Lone Man Mountain from this rock mound he built in 1875 was N23°E, probably to the nearest 0°15' since he appears to have been running with either a compass or a plain transit (basically a compass with a telescope).
The grid bearing from my rod and cap marker at the center of the mound to the triangulation station on Lone Man Mountain? N21°16'30.7"E
In other words, Mr. Hardin's "North" had a grid bearing of about N1°43'W, or so one would estimate from today's bit of evidence.
This is a continuation of the field investigation from matters described in this thread in which I calculated that Mr. Hardin's North would be about N1°42'W (based upon concluding that he'd used a variation of 10°30'E in that locality in 1875).
http://beerleg.com/index.php?mode=thread&id=282803
> This is a continuation of the field investigation from matters described in this thread in which I calculated that Mr. Hardin's North would be about N1°42'W (based upon concluding that he'd used a variation of 10°30'E in that locality in 1875).
Kent,
I'm reading -1°47’ Grid Az Survey North on your previous post, not -1°42'W.
Maybe your sub-standard, non-Idahoan hat is getting in your way?
...;-)
BTW - North of the Red River our cedars have green growth. Has there been a fire?
Looks like it took a lot of crouching, bending and a good pair of goggles to get to that spot.....
I like Kent's hat !
> > This is a continuation of the field investigation from matters described in this thread in which I calculated that Mr. Hardin's North would be about N1°42'W (based upon concluding that he'd used a variation of 10°30'E in that locality in 1875).
> I'm reading -1°47’ Grid Az Survey North on your previous post, not -1°42'W.
Actually, that calculation I gave was to estimate Hardin's variation. If you plug the value of 10°30'E into the calculation, his "North" direction would be a grid azimuth -1°42' or N1°42'W. The arithmetic:
[pre]
B.C. Hardin 1875
9°13’ True Az Mag North 1875
10°30’ Survey variation
-------
-1°22’ True Az Survey North
-0°25’ Convergence
-------
-1°42’ Grid Az Survey North
[/pre]
> BTW - North of the Red River our cedars have green growth. Has there been a fire?
The dead lower branches are pretty typical of thick cedar forest. You probably don't have any of that up there. :>
> Looks like it took a lot of crouching, bending and a good pair of goggles to get to that spot.....
Some work with loppers was time well spent.
> The dead lower branches are pretty typical of thick cedar forest. You probably don't have any of that up there. :>
That's odd looking cedar. Looks almost like a stunted version of Western Juniper (commonly referred to as "cedar" by the old timers).
Doesn't look like any of the cedar I cut this year for fire wood.
Maybe that saying about Texas isn't true after all.
The locals call it cedar...
Really, it is Juniperus ashei (Ashe Juniper).
> Looks like it took a lot of crouching...
Kent's only 4'11" without the hat 😀
The locals call it cedar...
Around here they are beginning to treat the Juniper as noxious weeds.
Many of the ranchers are cutting all of them down in order to increase water and forage for the cattle. If they have enough acres and large enough trees, they can even make a little money having someone come in and chip them.
I have a bunch of them on my property. I cull out the little ones and limb up the larger ones so they don't get killed by wildfire. The limbs actually make decent firewood (considering it's free).
Cedar ???
There are only 4 "true" Cedars...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cedrus
NONE of which are indigenous to the New World...
Cedar ???
Everything we call cedar locally is actually a cypress. Incense Cedar, Port-Orford Cedar, and Yellow Cedar. All distinctly different looking from Juniper.
From the photo it appears you are 0.04' south of the center of the pile.
Cedar ???
Also a LOT different looking than a Cedar!
😉
> From the photo it appears you are 0.04' south of the center of the pile.
Doubtful considering Kent's customized Star*Net module
Cedar ???
I kind of snickered when I read where Kent was calling that a forest, but then felt bad afterwards for doing it.
> From the photo it appears you are 0.04' south of the center of the pile.
Actually, there is an art to finding the center of a rock mound in that shape. It's basically just finding the outline of the base, splitting those dimensions and looking at how the stones were laid up to see if they indicate a somewhat different position.
> That's odd looking cedar. Looks almost like a stunted version of Western Juniper (commonly referred to as "cedar" by the old timers).
LOL. I doubt you have any true cedars (members of the genus Cedrus), either. Probably some Thuja at best. Those specimens of J. ashei in my photo above are in fact known as cedars, both today and in 1875 when the original survey was made.
> > From the photo it appears you are 0.04' south of the center of the pile.
>
> Actually, there is an art to finding the center of a rock mound in that shape. It's basically just finding the outline of the base, splitting those dimensions and looking at how the stones were laid up to see if they indicate a somewhat different position.
And what is art, after all, than an active imagination well presented.:-)
Don
Well, the art is when the stumps of bearing trees are involved. The rod and cap in the rock mound posted in the photo above is Rod and Cap 122
[pre]
From Rod and Cap 122
Actual Grid 1875 Survey Record
Object Azimuth Dist. Azimuth Dist. Actual-Record.
(vrs.) (vrs.)
-------------------------------------------------------------
Loneman 21-16-31 20021.3 23-00 -1°43'
BT131 271-03-19 30.730 272-30 30 -1°27'
RM109 178-19-15 936.960 180-00 950 -1°41'
[/pre]
The bearing to the original Southwest corner of the grant agrees excellently with the bearing to Lone Man Mountain. The bearing tree that the 1875 surveyor reported as being 30 varas from where he made his mound is now a rotting stump of a 10-inch Live Oak, the trunk having broken off and now lying on the ground beside the stump. The bearing tree, a Live Oak (Quercus virginiana for the botanically correct, which I know we all aspire to be) appears not to have been growing straight up, but to have leaned away from two other more distant Live Oaks growing in the same cluster, and toward the rock mound.
So, the art lies in deciding whether the discrepancies in BT ties are significant or not.