Kent McMillan, post: 441127, member: 3 wrote: When you consider that what drives posting is interest, once the interest in the topic peters out, postings should also plummet. On the other hand, when posters tee up obviously false propositions, such as imagining that somehow the subdivision of a simple system of land grants by METES AND BOUNDS is in any way equivalent in complexity to a superficially similar system, but one based upon a highly complex system of the underlying grants, it does spark interest in correcting such obviously mistaken ideas.
Until someone with experience in both system wants to chime in this thread can only be assertions by both sides. That's why I have refrained from chiming in for the most part. Besides, it is hardly a positive for your Texan system to assert that it is so complex that it is hard to survey.
Kent McMillan, post: 441124, member: 3 wrote: Okay, so is this the Kooper Gambit of resorting to mineral claims as evidence of the complexity of the PLSS? I'm just asking. If so, how many mineral claims would you suppose there are in Kansas or Iowa?
No, that was me explaining that your evaluation was useless. Putting forth maps that do not show parcel lines but do potentially show townships that do not exist proves nothing. I have no idea how many claims exist in those States nor do I care. Your assertion was that all PLSS Surveyors are inferior because we never encounter complexity. The more you try to prove it, the more you reveal your ignorance.
Wow. Ten pages' worth of responses. In my opinion, Bill93's reply to the initial post summed it up quite well.
The only superior evidence is that which you haven't yet found.
thebionicman, post: 441139, member: 8136 wrote: No, that was me explaining that your evaluation was useless. Putting forth maps that do not show parcel lines but do potentially show townships that do not exist proves nothing. I have no idea how many claims exist in those States nor do I care. Your assertion was that all PLSS Surveyors are inferior because we never encounter complexity. The more you try to prove it, the more you reveal your ignorance.
What kind of complexity do you encounter in the PLSS, is it a where the land was Granted with Metes and Bounds before the PLSS was invented? That would be Metes and Bounds surveying not PLSS.
Or trying to figure out how to square the section because the first Surveyor could not make a square on the ground?
I keep reading there are no squares in a PLSS system, the very system that was invented for square surveying. Since 1785 and 30ish States one would think by now at least on the the sections would be a square. If not by skill then by luck.
I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and besides, the pig likes it. - George Bernard Shaw
they're all square. Someone was pulling your chain.
Mark Mayer, post: 441138, member: 424 wrote: Until someone with experience in both system wants to chime in this thread can only be assertions by both sides. That's why I have refrained from chiming in for the most part. Besides, it is hardly a positive for your Texan system to assert that it is so complex that it is hard to survey.
Scott Ellis, post: 441143, member: 7154 wrote: What kind of complexity do you encounter in the PLSS, is it a where the land was Granted with Metes and Bounds before the PLSS was invented? That would be Metes and Bounds surveying not PLSS.
Or trying to figure out how to square the section because the first Surveyor could not make a square on the ground?
I keep reading there are no squares in a PLSS system, the very system that was invented for square surveying. Since 1785 and 30ish States one would think by now at least on the the sections would be a square. If not by skill then by luck.
Your first comment hit the nail on the head. Most PLSS States have substantial areas where M and B tracts of one sort or another are the norm. Some of these have PLSS around and over them, still others have M and B over that. My point isnt that this is so complex. I'm simply pointing out that a PLSS Surveyor better have a grip on metes and bounds surveying.
As for 'squaring a section' because the first guy didnt, I'm all but certain you know better. Without intentional departure from sound practice or missed evidence it's best not to go about setting better corners thsn the last guy.
Our objection to the idea that we work with squares is simple. We generally don't. A close look at the manner of putting the PLSS on the ground will reveal the depth and elegance involved.
My biggest objection to this entire thread is the quantum leap from 'my system sucks' to 'you are all inferior'. It starts with a false premise, is supported by dubious evidence and presumes a non-existent cause and effect. I have surveyed extensively in both PLSS and strictly Metes and Bounds States (including Texas). I can say with certainty the supposed superiority is crap.
You should have used sarcasm font for that, Tom.
No one will ever convince me that the contractors working in this region had a solar compass and actually used it if they did.
The closest thing to a square is a case of some dumb@$$ modern surveyor ignoring all worthwhile evidence, finding or setting the four section corners and then doing math for everything else assuming half distance and on line everywhere. We all know that is fictional.
thebionicman, post: 441155, member: 8136 wrote: My biggest objection to this entire thread is the quantum leap from 'my system sucks' to 'you are all inferior'.
My biggest objection to this thread is that it is basically two guys in Texas giggling while they throw food into the pond and a bunch of Koi rising for it.
Which is more difficult? Learning to speak Chinese or learning to speak Russian. If our country were controlled by those as silly as a couple fellows from south of the Red River, all of us would be needing to learn how to speak Chinese or Russian or both.
Holy Cow, post: 441158, member: 50 wrote: Which is more difficult? Learning to speak Chinese or learning to speak Russian. If our country were controlled by those as silly as a couple fellows from south of the Red River, all of us would be needing to learn how to speak Chinese or Russian or both.
We have had a few Presidents of the United States from Texas, and none of them have made Chinese or Russian the official language of the United States.
Two doesn't qualify as a few. Only Eisenhower and Lyndon J. were native Texans. Eisenhower's parents were sufficiently intelligent as to relocate their family before the young ones could be ruined.
Holy Cow, post: 441158, member: 50 wrote: Which is more difficult? Learning to speak Chinese or learning to speak Russian. If our country were controlled by those as silly as a couple fellows from south of the Red River, all of us would be needing to learn how to speak Chinese or Russian or both.
Another logical fallacy
Tommy Young, post: 441164, member: 703 wrote:
Kent McMillan, post: 441125, member: 3 wrote: irrelevant anecdotes
RADAR, post: 441171, member: 413 wrote:
Oh stop it, and go "monument" your section corner.
Tom Adams, post: 441173, member: 7285 wrote: go "monument" your section corner.
How did you know !?!
:scream:
RADAR, post: 441171, member: 413 wrote:
As far as I know access has always been a verb, since it derives from a Latin verb.
I do like the last frame immensely.
Paul in PA
What I don't understand is, in the M&B states, is why don't you just read the description and set the corners? It isn't rocket science. True that simple squares are a more simplistic geometric figure, but with computers and programmable calculators, you can run the math easily, and generate coordinates. Hell, back in the day, I could run coordinates in a flash with my hp41 and now technology is even more advanced. You can even run a least squares evaluation with the push of a button. And how could researching chain of title be any more difficult than in the PLSSia states? In fact without section corners, you don't have to worry about finding the original government monument or worry about discrepancies. In PLSSia we have both M&B and PLSS. Sometimes they are combined so that you have to locate an original section corner and run coordinates around a M&B description. If you can work in PLSSia, everything else is childsplay as far as I can tell.