I am working on a project that involves both the history and origin of a town. I have analysed many deeds and maps relating to the surveying aspects for this history project. As a result I have gained a great respect for the surveying that was done in the 18th century. Because of the agricultural and rural nature of these surrounding there is still evidence remaining of the original tracts and boundary lines. So I have done a little surveying here too and made a substantial map of boundaries through the years.
My colleague has begun to write about our efforts in uncovering the historic nature of the town's origin. Unfortunately, and perhaps inadvertently, he has made some rather disturbing observations about surveying and surveyors. I am post part of the text here.
Historic boundaries and conservation efforts.
I am thinking that part of his problem is placing too much emphasis on mathematics.
Historic boundaries and conservation efforts.
Why do you describe this text as disturbing? It's fairly common knowledge that surveys run with a compass at 1/2 or 1/4 degree reading tend to be less precise than those run with a 20" transit. The comment about dropping the fractional rods is not so surprising, either. What mattered was the line as blazed on the trees, and marked with stakes and/or stones. If the new owner of a lot could find those, he was good to go clearing, fencing and planting.
My colleague has begun to write about our efforts in uncovering the historic nature of the town's origin. Unfortunately, and perhaps inadvertently, he has made some rather disturbing observations about surveying and surveyors. I am post part of the text here.
Posted by: ?ÿPeter Lothian
Why do you describe this text as disturbing? It's fairly common knowledge that surveys run with a compass at 1/2 or 1/4 degree reading tend to be less precise than those run with a 20" transit. The comment about dropping the fractional rods is not so surprising, either. What mattered was the line as blazed on the trees, and marked with stakes and/or stones. If the new owner of a lot could find those, he was good to go clearing, fencing and planting.
Peter's response is correct as regards finding original corners.?ÿ The courts have recognized that original corners control over written descriptions. The surveying process was and still is bound by this legal fact.?ÿ The result is that the reported measurement and description of the corner monument need only be sufficient to find the reported monument.?ÿ These facts are not well understood today even by some surveyors and lawyers.?ÿ The result has been court battles over insignificant differences in measurements between multiple surveys.
The article highlights converting 5 rods to 82.50 feet which suggests a precision not present in the description.?ÿ The description suggests a precision of more like 82.50 feet +/-8.25 feet.
You are exactly right in terms of the marks being held as a boundary rather than the measurements. This is true in all cases. Even today I find surveyors who have ignored clear and obvious measurements and used a calculated corner for a result.
I guess what is disturbing to me is that my colleague is focusing too much on the precision of surveys done in the 18th century without making his reader aware that the intent and the physical marks matter more than these measurements.
A surveyor would know how the deed is only a guide. The fact that the courts have recognized that original monuments control over descriptions would be wise to include in the text rather than leave the reader with only the fact that early surveyors were primitive.
Historic boundaries and conservation efforts.
Thank you Dave Karoly.?ÿ
I meant to write clear and obvious monuments in my previous posts.
Even today I find surveyors who have ignored clear and obvious monuments and used a calculated corner for a result.
Historic boundaries and conservation efforts.