Subject: Re: dcmdvan & mdvawv retries continued
Date: Sep 29, 2004 @ 18:53
Author: aletheiak ("aletheiak" <aletheiak@...>)
Prev Post in Topic Next [All Posts]
Prev Post in Time Next
> For what it's worth, a metadata document dated February 10,2000, from the
> Virginia Office of Mapping and Geographic Information isquoted on the Loudoun
> County web site athttp://inetdocs.loudoun.gov/omagi/docs/metadata_/county/county
>
> as follows:continued
>
> Loudoun's boundary with Maryland is the
> mean low water mark of the Potomac River
> on the Virginia side; it has not been surveyed.
>
> Lowell G. McManus
> Leesville, Louisiana, USA
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "aletheiak" <aletheiak@y...>
> To: <BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, September 29, 2004 1:32 AM
> Subject: [BoundaryPoint] Re: dcmdvan & mdvawv retries
>definitions
>
> an unexpected bonus document entitled
> vawv boundary survey project report
> was also enclosed in the same email
>
> its introduction indicates
> the surveyor was contracted by loudon & jefferson counties to
> establish the top of the blue ridge watershed from the tripoint
> with clarke county va to the tripoint with washington county md
>
> which latter point it then restates parenthetically as
> the mean low water mark of the potomac river on the virginia
> side
>
>
> so it could be significant that the word
> m e a n
> was added
>
>
> but that would still not get us anywhere near the veggie line
>
>
>
> however
> unless it is just an idle & meaningless word someone added
> it might help us to establish which of several possible
> of the low water mark might have been meant1997
> first by the 1877 arbitrators & later the 1910 supremes
> if they actually said or meant it that way
> & then as recited by the surveyors or whoever hired them in
> assuming they were parroting something real in some originalmean
> text somewhere
>
> i mean it might help us if the task of determining the low water
> mark falls to us
> as i am beginning to think it may well do
> since nobody else seems to care very much
>
> but
> perhaps equally or more significantly
> there is nothing in the accounts of these decisions given by
> mathews & nelson nor in bus&ss that indicates the word
> was ever usedhere
> whether in the adjudications or in any connection with these
> boundaries at any time or place
>
> & as for what the specifically mean low water mark means
> i dont know if it can have any meaning for rivers other thancycle
> perhaps the average annual low water mark
> tho in maritime use it can refer to an averaging of a full tidal
> of 19 consecutive years of low water marksretries
>
> but anyway i am racing ahead as well as possibly off on a
> tangent here
>
> so lets first see what the phonecall turns up tomorrow
>
> --- In BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "aletheiak"
> <aletheiak@y...> wrote:
> > staggering news
> >
> > the vawv legal description
> > which has just arrived by email
> > & is nothing but a metes & bounds description of the survey
> > indicates unquestionably
> > that the point we already know as the vawv terminal point
> > & which you may recall was shown in the plat on the veggie
> line
> > is situated 79point56 feet from the terminal marker we also
> > already know
> > tho my own great circle computation had it at 79point52 feet
> > but no matter
> >
> > & moreover it flatly indicates that this point is at the
> > low water mark
> > of the potomac river
> >
> > yikes
> >
> > & is common to the counties & states of
> > loudon va & jefferson wv & washington md
> >
> > yikes
> >
> > i kid you not
> >
> > yikes
> >
> > in other words
> > they all believe the veggie line & the low water line are the
> same
> > thing
> >
> > yikes
> >
> > & this is all perfectly legal yet
> >
> > yikes
> >
> > so my suspicion that they might not have known what they
> were
> > doing is beginning to look justified
> >
> >
> > & the error was probably never noticed because the lands
> > involved are probably in the public domain & probably dont
> > appear on the tax rolls of any county
> >
> >
> > needless to say
> > i will be back on the horn with kevin in the morning
> >
> > but in the meantime
> > what does anyone else make of this
> >
> > --- In BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "aletheiak"
> > <aletheiak@y...> wrote:
> > > just got off the phone with kevin again
> > >
> > > & the vawv legal description is already on its way to cream
> hill
> > >
> > > & he too is now actively pondering the question of exactly
> how
> > vawv
> > > gets down to the low water mark from the terminal point of
> his
> > survey
> > >
> > > --- In BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "aletheiak"
> > <aletheiak@y...>
> > > wrote:
> > > > --- In BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "Lowell G.
> > McManus"
> > > > <mcmanus71496@m...> wrote:
> > > > > Please see my two insertions below.
> > > > >
> > > > > Lowell G. McManus
> > > > > Leesville, Louisiana, USA
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > From: "aletheiak" <aletheiak@y...>
> > > > > To: <BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com>
> > > > > Sent: Sunday, September 26, 2004 6:07 PM
> > > > > Subject: [BoundaryPoint] Re: dcmdvan & mdvawv
> > > > continuedeast.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > yes
> > > > > > kevins my man
> > > > > >
> > > > > > & tho i agree his excellent report does not directly
> > address
> > > > the
> > > > > > question of the tripoint
> > > > > > it certainly provides a new clue that could well lead to
> the
> > > > tripoint
> > > > > > for it reveals the existence of a legal description of the
> > > > boundary
> > > > > > previously unsuspected by me
> > > > > > in addition to the plat & marker description reports
> > already
> > > in
> > > > my
> > > > > > possession
> > > > > >
> > > > > > aha
> > > > > >
> > > > > > & this already sounds like
> > > > > > practically if not exactly
> > > > > > the extra tidbit you suggested i might find on file in the
> > > county
> > > > > > courthouses alongside the survey
> > > > > > aha
> > > > > >
> > > > > > so that already looks like some pretty sharp shooting
> with
> > > > both
> > > > > > barrels by you
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I'm glad to be of help!
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > & you can bet i will be on the phone with kevin in the
> > morning
> > > > > > about this missing & possibly critical document
> > > > > >
> > > > > > & yes possibly just another red herring too
> > > > > > i concede
> > > > > > but due diligence demands i track it down in any case
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > & another footnote to the dcmdvan try too
> > > > > >
> > > > > > it also just occurred to me
> > > > > > an additional essential bit of data i need to remember
> to
> > pull
> > > > off
> > > > > > the paper topo is the compass bearing of the
> dcmd&arfa
> > line
> > > > > > yikes
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > The bearing was supposed to be north 45 degrees
> > > > BUS&SS says:anywhere
> > > > >
> > > > > The lines do not bear exactly 45° from the
> > > > > meridian, but the greatest variation is only 1¾'.
> > > >
> > > > right but we need to know the actual bearing along this
> > segment
> > > > of the border
> > > > which we can pull from the paper topo as well as
> > > >stake
> > > > perhaps as much as millimeters of difference are at
> > > >the
> > > > >
> > > > > The footnote on that says:
> > > > >
> > > > > For data regarding surveys and boundary
> > > > > marks see Baker, Marcus, Nat. Geog. Mag.,
> > > > > vol. 6, pp. 149-165, 1894."
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > obviously
> > > > > > since we cant count on marker wm1 to give us the
> angle
> > of
> > > > > > approach to dcmdvan but only to indicate a point on
> > > > > > dcmd&arfa line some 49 or so feet away from it
> > > > > > aha
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > so things keep cooking nicely on both fronts
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links