I enjoy cutting line... especially when it is raining...
Most all of my surveying work involves the cutting of traverse lines.
I prefer to clear cut on the suspected property line, stonewalls, or along old fence lines.
When a land owner wants to walk his lines, he will not have a problem following my work.
I was taught to cut a path wide enough to walk out of in the dark, with a transit over my shoulder,
and not trip on stubbies.
Most of the young surveyors cut just enough traverse line to "shoot" from traverse point to traverse point.
We still have a 4-man crew and cut line all the time. The work is for pipeline and we set center line and limits of easement stakes every 100 or 200'. I am curious for boundary work how can you find possible encroachments such as drainage, fences, building etc. in the woods without walking the lines.
Shawn Billings, post: 321043, member: 6521 wrote: said the guy from Arizona...
I can't imagine that you are not required to follow in the footsteps of previous surveyors because you are in an area with more vegetation...
FL/GA PLS., post: 321017, member: 379 wrote: Quote from a previous post:
"Question is why would a survey crew cut line? It’s economically unfeasible."
How can it possibly be economically unfeasible? Aren't you the one who determined the price? If you are not cutting the line at least enough to walk down you stand little chance of observing any unwritten rights...
FL/GA PLS., post: 321017, member: 379 wrote: Quote from a previous post:
“As Paul brought up a lot of surveyors will regard you as a lesser specimen due to the fact that you are not out there chopping 2 or 3k feet of line everyday.”
Question is why would a survey crew cut line? It’s economically unfeasible.
Cut many miles of line when working for BLM in remote forests, a requirement which included blazing trees properly, etc.
http://www.blm.gov/cadastral/Manual/73man/id161.htm
It ain't easy sometimes; I recall days in thick willows where we only got 100 yards production with a five man crew. I clearly recall brush cutting involves taped up blistered and sometimes bloody hands and sore joints. Best tools: machete, Sandvik, loppers, brushhook (not too popular) brush bow chainsaw, chainsaw, double bit ax, 2 man crosscut saw, and rarely, 250 grain/foot Detcord when Yogi the miner was on the crew. Most fun was chainsawing a big tree right on line which prevented a nice long sight line. At camp we'd set a hub and wager who could chainsaw any nearby tree and hit it. Also played machete hurling where the target was a piece of flagging tacked onto a big tree trunk, although one time we had to fire up the emergency Shortwave radio valise and HELIVAC a crewmember out because the machete bounced back and nicked a major artery in his thigh. Also some dumb stuff like how fast could you carve a spoon out of a stake to eat your canned lunch with.
Later, while working for the Forest Service the rules were much more restrictive. Heavy chaps and hardhat with faceguard, and a chainsaw training certificate before you could pull the cord, machetes of any kind illegal, some trail clearing tasks where no motorized gear was allowed. Much slower progress. In areas where a machete was the proper tool, we'd buy our own and hide them at the trailhead, leave the stupid Sandviks and brushhooks in the truck. The boss was none the wiser.
The virtue of cutting line? 80 years after the original survey in areas where not a soul has been except for us since (Dependent Resurveys mostly), the footsteps of the original surveyors are still visible even though overgrown due to their earnest hacking (the sun gets in and new different overgrowth is a clue too): brush staubs hidden at ground level, cut branches and downed trees, the blazes on trees still standing or fallen, an odd empty tuna can, etc., a fun puzzle. Their marks are the still the best evidence of where the line is even in this world of GPS and coordinates.
Good stuff, Mike.
I'm not opposed to clearing lines if it's called for, I just don't think it is always necessary. I think finding those old stumps and staubs and blazes can help identify where the line was marked - hopefully leading to a monument. Also, I know that the rate of decay in the West is quite a bit slower than it is around here. I've found stump holes of old witness trees dating back a hundred years or so, but finding brushed out staubs from much past 20 years ago is rare around here. Much more humidity.
Jim,
Your post pretty much calls anyone not clearing line, negligent. I take exception to that. I don't think our mandate to follow the footsteps of the original surveyor is quite as literal as you are taking it.
Shawn Billings, post: 322847, member: 6521 wrote: Good stuff, Mike.
I'm not opposed to clearing lines if it's called for, I just don't think it is always necessary. I think finding those old stumps and staubs and blazes can help identify where the line was marked - hopefully leading to a monument. Also, I know that the rate of decay in the West is quite a bit slower than it is around here. I've found stump holes of old witness trees dating back a hundred years or so, but finding brushed out staubs from much past 20 years ago is rare around here. Much more humidity.
Jim,
Your post pretty much calls anyone not clearing line, negligent. I take exception to that. I don't think our mandate to follow the footsteps of the original surveyor is quite as literal as you are taking it.
Not quite right. Validated blazed trees define the line no matter how out of whack from a straight line between original corners. Typical is a steep forested side slope situation where the line bows downslope by sometimes hundreds of feet due to the difficulty of the original survey, even after proper random and true procedures mark the line. Topo calls for a stream crossing or a cliff in the original notes can bow the line radically. Cadastral surveying involves a careful field analysis of the returned plat and field notes, and walking the footsteps of the original survey for evidence. A line between two accepted monuments can be a Drunkard's walk if there's lots of evidence concerning where the original surveyor actually marked the line. It makes sense, owners should be able to rely on the line as marked for their boundaries, not a straight line between monuments miles away. The original survey, no matter how badly done, if properly marked defines the boundary. I tire of coordinate based surveyors who recover original monuments, then run straight lines between them and ignore (or don't bother looking for) the actual line as run on the ground.
Of course this is esoteric surveying, cheap land still in Federal possession, but sometimes it matters and must be done right.
I absolutely agree that calls for features along a line will bend the line. I don't agree that a blaze on a tree, uncalled for in the original survey, bends a line. This is why I said a cut line points to the corners. Now if the original survey calls for 'along a cut line' or similar, I'd think you may have a case that the cut line becomes a monument.
I would not follow an uncalled for cut line for a boundary. Too many possibilities that the cut line 'hundreds of feet' from the straight line had nothing to do with the boundary I'm retracing. Could be a local custom issue. You sound meticulous in what you're doing, but I would not do that here.
One of the reasons we follow old boundaries on line through bush (here in Tasmania) is that very reason. To hopefully find old marked trees along the way.
They were most often meticulously cut in the original surveys from mid 1800's onwards.
Old foresters would always leave those old marked trees. They, knew their importance.
These days with clear felling and fallers who most likely know nothing about boundaries, other than blue and pink flagging tied round trees, those precious boundary markers have little chance of survival.
Incidentally, marked trees carry a lot of weight, and if it can be shown that a supposed straight line is in fact a series of bends as indicated by marked trees, then that's where the boundary is.
We wouldn't cut a big tree just because it was on line. Rather place centre marks either side and just traverse around it.
Boundary work following old marked lines through the bush is what I grew up on as a young surveyor.
Few these days have opportunity to experience that type of surveying, and perhaps fair to say few would actively pursue those jobs.
Interesting discussion. Jim in AZ says it pretty well. If you want your bubble busted big time, just tell the judge how great your new GPS is & how accurate your measurements are. It is kin to good courthouse research. A good boundary survey (forensic surveys as they have been called) begins with THOROUGH courthouse research. Of course you don't have to always cut out the property line. That is usually left up to the discretion of the surveyor & his agreement with his client. You are responsible for locating any evidence along the property line. Not doing so can be very economically unfeasible. Found original monuments still govern last I heard & if you don't find them, you are wrong. Seems like not everybody has read anything about boundary control & legal principles.
Also, cutting line keeps me in shape. I could stay in the office & send a crew out to do all the work but it lets me take my frustrations out on the bushes so I can be nice to people that don't deserve it. A lot of places I have surveyed, you have to cut line to get there! If you don't have to cut a hole for a tree to fall in before you cut it, it ain't thick.
GEOMETRIC, post: 322967, member: 8346 wrote: You are responsible for locating any evidence along the property line. Not doing so can be very economically unfeasible. Found original monuments still govern last I heard & if you don't find them, you are wrong. Seems like not everybody has read anything about boundary control & legal principles.
Who in this thread has suggested otherwise?
Shawn Billings, post: 322905, member: 6521 wrote: I absolutely agree that calls for features along a line will bend the line. I don't agree that a blaze on a tree, uncalled for in the original survey, bends a line. This is why I said a cut line points to the corners. Now if the original survey calls for 'along a cut line' or similar, I'd think you may have a case that the cut line becomes a monument.
I would not follow an uncalled for cut line for a boundary. Too many possibilities that the cut line 'hundreds of feet' from the straight line had nothing to do with the boundary I'm retracing. Could be a local custom issue. You sound meticulous in what you're doing, but I would not do that here.
I've been sloppy in my messages. I'm writing only about retracing GLO (BLM) Cadastral boundaries, Section Lines for example. A blazed line tree most definitely deifnes the line, and is required to be noted in the field notes.
In particular, from Chapter 3, Section 126 of the 1973 Manual of Surveying Instructions:
"The technical and topographical features which are to be carefully observed and recorded in the field during the progress of the public-land survey are:
[. . .]
(4) Trees on line. The name, diameter and distance on line to trees which it intersects, and their markings.
(5) Intersections by line of land objects. [. . .]"
Thanks Mike. I suspected that you might be surveying under a particular set of requirements. I'm not terribly familiar with PLSS instructions. But, what you quoted from the BLM Manual sounds right regardless of PLSS or M&B.
But wait, there's more! Note even cut underbrush can define the line's location (bold text).
From Section 125:
"A hack is a horizontal notch cut well into the wood, also made at about breast height. Two hacks are cut to distinguish them from other, accidental marks. A vertical section of the finished hack marks resembles a double-V extending across a tree from two to six inches depending upon the diameter of the tree.
The blaze and hack mark are equally permanent, but so different in character that one mark should never be mistaken for the other. The difference becomes important when the line is retraced in later years.
Trees intersected by the line have two hacks or notches cut on each of the sides facing the line, without any other marks whatever. These are called sight trees or line trees. A sufficient number of other trees standing within 50 links of the line, on either side of it, are blazed on two sides quartering toward the line, in order to render the line conspicuous and readily to be traced in either direction. The blazes are made opposite each other coinciding in direction with the line where the trees stand very near it and approaching nearer each other toward the line the farther the line passes from the blazed trees. Figure 63.
The lines should be so well marked as to be readily followed and the blazes plain enough to leave recognizable scars as long as the trees stand. This can be accomplished by blazing just through the bark into the live wood tissue. [. . .]
Figure 63. - Marking a line throgh timber. Click to enlarge.
Lines are also marked by cutting away enough of the undergrowth to facilitate correct sighting of instruments. Where lines cross deep wooded valleys, by sighting over the tops, the usual blazing of trees in the low ground when accessible will be performed. The undergrowth will be especially well cut along all lines within distances of 5 chains of corner monuments and within 2 chains of arteries of travel, [. . .]"
Mike Marks, post: 322991, member: 1108 wrote: But wait, there's more! Note even cut underbrush can define the line's location (bold text).
From Section 125:
"A hack is a horizontal notch cut well into the wood, also made at about breast height. Two hacks are cut to distinguish them from other, accidental marks. A vertical section of the finished hack marks resembles a double-V extending across a tree from two to six inches depending upon the diameter of the tree.The blaze and hack mark are equally permanent, but so different in character that one mark should never be mistaken for the other. The difference becomes important when the line is retraced in later years.
Trees intersected by the line have two hacks or notches cut on each of the sides facing the line, without any other marks whatever. These are called sight trees or line trees. A sufficient number of other trees standing within 50 links of the line, on either side of it, are blazed on two sides quartering toward the line, in order to render the line conspicuous and readily to be traced in either direction. The blazes are made opposite each other coinciding in direction with the line where the trees stand very near it and approaching nearer each other toward the line the farther the line passes from the blazed trees. Figure 63.
The lines should be so well marked as to be readily followed and the blazes plain enough to leave recognizable scars as long as the trees stand. This can be accomplished by blazing just through the bark into the live wood tissue. [. . .]
Figure 63. - Marking a line throgh timber. Click to enlarge.Lines are also marked by cutting away enough of the undergrowth to facilitate correct sighting of instruments. Where lines cross deep wooded valleys, by sighting over the tops, the usual blazing of trees in the low ground when accessible will be performed. The undergrowth will be especially well cut along all lines within distances of 5 chains of corner monuments and within 2 chains of arteries of travel, [. . .]"
Shawn said, "Who has suggested otherwise". Specifically, nobody that I am aware of & hopefully we are all in agreement on that point. The title of the thread & the question posed was, "why cut line?" I was attempting to answer the question. I don't know where you survey but around here you won't have much to go on in most cases unless you cut line. Cutting out the property line is a different question.
Using GPS, I still "walk the lines" looking for evidence of old fences/occupation. I take a ground location shot and measure over to the fence where possible and get a fixed position.
If I have to use a total station, I do cut line along and near the property line, and survey pretty much the same way - take a ground location shot and measure over to the fence.
Cutting line is still a necessary part of walking the footsteps of the original surveyor while gathering evidence of my retracement. Many times, I have found that the fence corner does not "line up" with the oldest fence lines. One has to consider all of the evidence to properly establish or re-establish the old lines and corners. Locating just the endpoints is not enough.
One can walk a line and observe evidence without cutting. I knew a surveyor who located every fence post down a 2000' line. Most of his convoluted deed calls were less than 10'. Perfect is the enemy of good.
I took the initial post as inferring that it would be more economical to hire grunts to cut line rather than pay a survey crew.
imaudigger, post: 380296, member: 7286 wrote: I took the initial post as inferring that it would be more economical to hire grunts to cut line rather than pay a survey crew.
It was. If I can save a client money I will. It gives the client a satisfactory feeling that I am looking out for his/her financial interests. And that has led to lifelong clients.
