> While the language is not that explicit, it already says that...
Really? You know that and I know that, too bad our licensing Board doesn't know that.
It is kinda amusing, I have some resurvey blm monuments set mid century that missed the originals from the 1880's: it happens, and I've been to honor the new ones not the old ones, guess it's only for certain people that the newer ones hold.
And of course finding a blm resurvey that honored old private entryman original surveys will be like finding a unicorn. lol
I'm sure they are out there, somewhere.........
What if you had designed the PLSS? - Warren
Of course you are correct, Warren, it is a pity to set a new C-¼ corner a couple of tenths closer to a previously set corner because of mathematical precision and more precise surveying instruments. Hopefully, however, the retracing surveyor doesn't simply flag up and accept the first corner s/he trips over. Laws, rules and decisions in our statutes and case law has required us to keep aware of our due diligence.
sometimes tying in the controlling corners (and the correct controlling corners) reviewing past monument records, and the original GLO plats should be considered before the acceptance of the first goat-stake you run across.
Sometimes a piece of metal in the ground is just a piece of metal in the ground. Old horror stories of land owners moving the original stones, or driving a piece of metal in the ground where they think the corner should be (or want it to be) or previous surveyors that may not have found the original controlling corner positions could be at play.
It seems to me that the more time that goes by from the original surveys, the more convoluted the retracing surveying might have it.
I don't think the original government instructions could have compensated for adequate retracement surveying. They needed to come up with the best system possible.
Just some other things to think about. Reasonableness often has two sides, and if I ever see a monument that doesn't agree with mine, I suspect it has more to do with math, but what evidence the other surveyor looked at and how they may have agreed with a different position than mine.
Metric...1 km sections...1000 m on a side...100 hectares in a section...1/4 section=25 hectares...10000 sq meters in a hectare (100 m X 100 m)
nah, I think it is much better to use
1 mile sections...5280 feet on a side...640 acres in a section...1/4 section=160 acres...43560 sq ft in an acre (208.71 ft X 208.71 ft)
I couldn't resist.
The metric system is a tool of the devil...
> Metric...1 km sections...1000 m on a side...100 hectares in a section...1/4 section=25 hectares...10000 sq meters in a hectare (100 m X 100 m)
>
> nah, I think it is much better to use
>
> 1 mile sections...5280 feet on a side...640 acres in a section...1/4 section=160 acres...43560 sq ft in an acre (208.71 ft X 208.71 ft)
>
> I couldn't resist.
>
> The metric system is a tool of the devil...
But John,
It was designed using chains and links. I know you're being funny, but in all fairness
80 chains in a mile, 10² chains to an acre, 640 Acres/4 = 160, 160/4 = 40, 40/4 = 10 nice multiples of 4 and easy to divide in half and quarters. An acre was the amount of land that could be plowed in one day with a yoke of oxen, and was 1 chain X 10 chains.
I can understand why they did what they did.
What I don't agree with is why they keep dividing public land, say in Alaska, by the same methods. It seems that following the natural topography, water drainage and such would make better parcels than forcing squares. Ain't like we don't have satellite photography and other tech tools at our disposal these days (something they didn't even imagine in the late 1700's). They don't even chain it any more (fly into the corners with helicopters and GPS).
Knowing what has happened I would have never allowed any protraction or aliquot parts. Every parcel would have have monuments of record at every corner which controlled the boundaries. They could have did the Townships like they did but each patent should have required a survey of record with the corners set.
I'd require that they at least set a rr spike at Section corners!
(Wink)
N
