Tom Adams, post: 440689, member: 7285 wrote: Texans have a unique reputation of thinking they are the biggest and the best. I'm sure that was the basis of the joke. (note to self....make sure and explain your jokes to your Texas surveyor brethren)
I think you nailed ty to a tee. I don't think he was quite that good when he worked out of OK, but once he mastered OK Surveying he moved up to Texas.
It sounds like Texas Surveyors are a style of Engineer wanna-be's. They want to run around telling surveyors they are superior but had to figure out what makes themselves "not-a-surveyor". I always wondered about guys that think they have to explain how intelligent and superior they are.
Okay, enough. I swore I wouldn't get into this little better-than-thou discussion, and then I jumped right in feet-first.
Yes, you surveyors in Texas are very good. The metes-and-bounds system is very complicated and the Texas m-&-b system is extra hard.
I got your joke, its really the only joke anyone ever makes about the size of Texas, the thing is no one in Texas cares about the size of Alaska, or any other state.
I have never claimed to be in Engineer or have ever wanted to be an Engineer, Sounds to me like you are just bitter, must of really hurt your feelings when you woke up one morning and found out that surveying in PLSS was child's play compared to Metes and Bounds.
Scott Ellis, post: 440694, member: 7154 wrote: I got your joke, its really the only joke anyone ever makes about the size of Texas, the thing is no one in Texas cares about the size of Alaska, or any other state.
I have never claimed to be in Engineer or have ever wanted to be an Engineer, Sounds to me like you are just bitter, must of really hurt your feelings when you woke up one morning and found out that surveying in PLSS was child's play compared to Metes and Bounds.
You got me.
It's ridiculous to think that Colonial Surveying is harder than PLSS surveying. I made my original comment in jest, and I figure that was understood. However, as one of the few (as far as I'm aware) Colonial Surveyors to have taken and successfully completed the CFedS program I acquired a much deeper respect for the PLSS surveyors.
Everyone thinks that they have it tough but I'm always reminded of a conversation that I had with a Vermont PLS. "It must be tough going up and down the mountains all the time. I don't think that I could do it like that," I said. He replied, "I don't know how you can put up with all those briars day in and day out."
We all have our problems, and I would put those of the PLSS right up there with the most difficult metes and bounds surveys that I've done.
foggyidea, post: 440728, member: 155 wrote: It's ridiculous to think that Colonial Surveying is harder than PLSS surveying. I made my original comment in jest, and I figure that was understood. However, as one of the few (as far as I'm aware) Colonial Surveyors to have taken and successfully completed the CFedS program I acquired a much deeper respect for the PLSS surveyors.
Everyone thinks that they have it tough but I'm always reminded of a conversation that I had with a Vermont PLS. "It must be tough going up and down the mountains all the time. I don't think that I could do it like that," I said. He replied, "I don't know how you can put up with all those briars day in and day out."
We all have our problems, and I would put those of the PLSS right up there with the most difficult metes and bounds surveys that I've done.
It's not the physical part of finding the corners, it's the research that is easier, having a book tell you all the steps, and when in doubt of where to put the corner just square it up with the other found corners.
The Township Plats created simultaneous lots. That's the primary difference from metes and bounds. From what I've read, there seem to be few qualifiers in the bounds in Texas. The concept of intentional gaps is what would make retracement difficult.
In a township broken by Grant Boundaries, Swamp & Overflow demarcations, later completion surveys, military and forest reservations, meander lines, townsites, mineral claims, riparian limits, donation land claims, there is the intent to use interior lines protracted to closing corners.
The exterior of townships are run on the ground first, with section and quarter corners set. Subdivision of the interior occurs later, and the acceptance of the plat completes the necessary step for issuing patents. Once transferred to private ownership, the orderly scheme begins to unravel. Retracement at this point in time is as any other situation. It turns out that junior/senior rights accrue once aliquot descriptions are subdivided by metes and bounds.
Some people actually look at the deed of the property they are retracing and research the adjoiner's deeds and make sure there are not gaps or overlaps in the deeds, and research the chain of title and find the original deed where the property in question was first created. If the apparent boundary in question does not fit to the PLSS corner position, one might resolve that issue as well. But it sounds like Texas surveyors would take shortcuts and just "square up" the PLSS Corner and run the calls to the property with no regard to the occupation or found original or secondary property pins.
Tom Adams, post: 440742, member: 7285 wrote: Some people actually look at the deed of the property they are retracing and research the adjoiner's deeds and make sure there are not gaps or overlaps in the deeds, and research the chain of title and find the original deed where the property in question was first created. If the apparent boundary in question does not fit to the PLSS corner position, one might resolve that issue as well. But it sounds like Texas surveyors would take shortcuts and just "square up" the PLSS Corner and run the calls to the property with no regard to the occupation or found original or secondary property pins.
There you go again getting Texas Surveyors mixed up with PLSS Surveyors.
The so-called cookbook is little more than a general guide once Federal interest is out of the picture.
Yup, they're all squares, kinda sorta maybe. Check out this link. Notice the sections on either side of the range line between Range 7E and Range 8E. Note how the numbering of lots changes. For extra credit, sort out how much information one might need to survey a tract that falls in Sections 36,31,6 and 1 about a mile to the northeast of Rosalia. Hint: a standard parallel is involved. Standard parallels were laid out by one contractor. Township boundaries were set by a different contractor. Many times the internal section lines for a specific township were set by a third contractor. One of those third contractors claimed to have completed a township with which I am familiar in less than three days in an area that does not enjoy "pancake" status.
Scott Ellis, post: 440745, member: 7154 wrote: There you go again getting Texas Surveyors mixed up with PLSS Surveyors.
Not exactly, just addressing texas surveyors who are telling PLSS surveyors how to survey and take shortcuts
The outspoken Texans are clearly mistaken on proper survey practice in the PLSS, likely because they have never done a survey in the PLSS. Is there anything else you have no experience with that you would care to comment about for a while? Remember, everyone else's job appears easier when observing from a distance. You two's (Kent and Scott) understanding on the subject matter is limited and a gross oversimplification.
A first-time PLSS section retracement or subdivision would appear simple when reading through the "cookbook" as you call it. It was well thought out and designed that way. However, after the original patents 180 years of private party conveyances involving a mixture of aliquot and meets and bounds parcel descriptions is what we are left with. There is Jr/Sr conflict just like the Texas system, and a PROPER PLSS survey will investigate deeds back to each involved parcels creation. The typical "square" shape of the sections and townships is immaterial. The boundaries must still be retraced and the conflicts resolved.
Tom Adams, post: 440762, member: 7285 wrote: Not exactly, just addressing texas surveyors who are telling PLSS surveyors how to survey and take shortcuts
No need to take a shortcut when told how to perform a survey with step by step instructions.
The KGB, post: 440765, member: 10394 wrote: The outspoken Texans are clearly mistaken on proper survey practice in the PLSS, likely because they have never done a survey in the PLSS. Is there anything else you have no experience with that you would care to comment about for a while? Remember, everyone else's job appears easier when observing from a distance. You two's (Kent and Scott) understanding on the subject matter is limited and a gross oversimplification.
A first-time PLSS section retracement or subdivision would appear simple when reading through the "cookbook" as you call it. It was well thought out and designed that way. However, after the original patents 180 years of private party conveyances involving a mixture of aliquot and meets and bounds parcel descriptions is what we are left with. There is Jr/Sr conflict just like the Texas system, and a PROPER PLSS survey will investigate deeds back to each involved parcels creation. The typical "square" shape of the sections and townships is immaterial. The boundaries must still be retraced and the conflicts resolved.
How I am mistaken? Is there not a book on how to survey in PLSS states with step by step how to solve the boundary and where to set the corners? My understanding is not limited on PLSS, I had to read the manual in College and also to study for the RPLS exam. I put the book down and thought wow this is such an easy way to Survey. Not only that but in a recording state it must be even easier.
Must be so bad surveyors who after 180 years can not read step by step instructions, I can now see why some States went to recording the corner information.
Knowing how to break down a Section is just the start.
Scott Ellis, post: 440772, member: 7154 wrote: No need to take a shortcut when told how to perform a survey with step by step instructions.
You need to understand something. The current cookbook (and the numerous ones that came before it) is a set of instructions for the Subdivision of Federal Lands. Once those lands pass to the Public it has much less importance. That is when we use it as a Guide to understanding the possible methods of setting those original corners... taking into account what was actually done (using old instructions) is Step One.
Personally I have not encountered but a handful of surveys that adjoined Federal Land.
The Manual Of Instructions is a History Book for the normal surveyor in PLSSia... unless you are actively working in remote Alaska,
Peter Ehlert, post: 440777, member: 60 wrote: You need to understand something. The current cookbook (and the numerous ones that came before it) is a set of instructions for the Subdivision of Federal Lands
You do know he's yanking your chain, right?
Not even a Texan can be that dense (With the possible exception of Rick "we fought the revolution in the 16th century" Perry)
Which leads to the question on B.C. Did the calendars run in reverse just like the years? December being the first month and January the last?
Just kidding. We all know they didn't have December way back in those days.
Holy Cow, post: 440782, member: 50 wrote: Which leads to the question on B.C. Did the calendars run in reverse just like the years? December being the first month and January the last?
Back in the day, yesterday was the first day of autumn
http://aclerkofoxford.blogspot.co.uk/2016/08/on-hrfeste-ham-gelde.html
James Fleming, post: 440785, member: 136 wrote: Back in the day, yesterday was the first day of autumn
http://aclerkofoxford.blogspot.co.uk/2016/08/on-hrfeste-ham-gelde.html
You might need an introduction to the Texas calendar. I believe it is changed and re-applied throughout time. Situations where someone want's their child born the day after April 2, to have been born on, say, March 8, will go and record a document that the former April 3 is now March 8. Or someone is trying to record their deed and they want it to have been recorded before another deed for the same property; so they change the date of their recording to 4 mos. earlier. etc.
Now, today (whatever day this is) in order to get a correct calendar of the days, months and years, you have to research each day and find out exactly the chain of changed dates to get exactly what today's date is and, perhaps the whole year's calendar. It's extremely complicated but the texas timekeepers and annual calendar-makers are some of the smartest calendar-makers in the world.
I imagine the most difficult would be in the non recording states. Lack of peer review, needing to wild ass guess who else has surveyed there, and who set/or moved the monuments. Then someone else appears and sees it differently, or finds different conditions.
I see in Texas most work is not disclosed unless there is a sale and if some clerk xeroxes in some report... That would be real tough.
But heck, no record, nobody knows how bad you screwed up! Win Win
