Subject: Re: mnndsd ideas
Date: Jul 14, 2003 @ 00:52
Author: bjbutlerus ("bjbutlerus" <bjbutler@...>)
Prev Post in Topic Next [All Posts]
Prev Post in Time Next
--- In BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "acroorca2002" <orc@o...> wrote:
> also it may actually be useful to bear in mind here
> the term
> indefinite boundary
> has a definite meaning
> or rather at least 3 possible definite meanings
>
> either
> a boundary that has been approximated because it has not yet
> been officially surveyed
> or
> a boundary that has been approximated from outdated info
> or
> a boundary known to exist but for which accurate verification is
> lacking
>
> in this case damn could belong to either of the latter 2 of these 3
> categories
> since it is known to have followed the bois de sioux thalweg
> which was at the time of the first survey & may coincidentally now
> be again exactly 9 chains or 594 feet east of the witness mark
>
> & that original thalweg could easily have accreted back to within
> 80 feet of the witness mark as presently depicted by usgs
> before being frozen there forever at the time of the first avulsion
> subsequent to the monumentation
>
> & no matter whether it was a natural or manmade rechanneling
> or if other avulsions followed it
> etc etc
> mnndsd was presumably frozen forever there & then
>
> but we & the usgs just havent yet been able to identify the
> moment or circumstances of that supposed first avulsion
> tho they continue to depict it as if it might be verifiable somehow
>
> & that is why i think we may find the county tax assessors quite
> able to describe more or less exactly not only the geographic
> proportions & results but even the exact circumstances & date of
> that presumptive avulsion
> since it was & is their business to keep track of such things
>
> & their data may therefore not only be as definitive as any that are
> available anywhere
> but they also stand a chance of validating & vindicating the usgs
> tripoint depiction here
>
> in the meantime
> i believe the most presumptive position we have
> remains & is likely to continue simply as follows
>
> the fact that the usgs mnndsd position appears to fall 80 feet
> east of the witness post along the trace of a historic channel
> does strongly suggest it accreted there 514 feet westward from
> its original position by the time the first avulsion froze it as
> depicted
> probably many decades ago
>
> --- In BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "bjbutlerus"
> <bjbutler@b...> wrote:
> > We have noticed it. In fact there are many examples of
> "indefinite"
> > state lines on the topo maps. I know of at least three state
> > tri-points that are incorrectly depicted on the maps. Your
> comment
> > raises an interesting issue - is the boundary really indefinite, or
> > did the USGS simply not know the definition when the map
> was drawn?
> > Boundaries seem to be the weakest element in USGS topo
> maps, no doubt
> > because they are imaginary features that don't show up on
> aerial photos.
> >
> > BJB
> >
> > --- In BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "Lowell G. McManus"
> > <mcmanus71496@m...> wrote:
> > > Has anybody noticed that, along MNND about two miles
> north of the
> > tripoint and
> > > along MNSD about 3.5 miles south, the same map says
> "indefinite
> > boundary"? This
> > > is a disclaimer by the feds saying, "Hey, we only put this
> dotted
> > line were we
> > > did because we had to put it somewhere. Don't take it to the
> bank!"
> > >
> > > Lowell
> > >
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "m donner" <maxivan82@h...>
> > > To: <BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com>
> > > Sent: Sunday, July 13, 2003 8:00 AM
> > > Subject: [BoundaryPoint] mnndsd ideas
> > >
> > >
> > > > just noticed on the mnndsd topo
> > > > http://tinyurl.com/grbw
> > > > wherever the elusive damn line & with it the tripoint may
> actually
> > fall
> > > > today in terms of the ndsd line
> > > > whether 594 feet east or 80 feet east or some other
> distance east
> > of the
> > > > witness monument
> > > > nevertheless
> > > > in terms of the underlying public land system
> > > > the tripoint will still fall along the south edge of a mnnd
> > section & the
> > > > north edge of a mnsd section
> > > >
> > > > these interstate sections btw & fyi are respectively
> > > > section 34 of range 47 west in township 129 north
> > > > to the north of the tripoint
> > > > & section 3 of range 47 west in township 128 north
> > > > to the south of the tripoint
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > so first i have to wonder if the 2 sections or subsections
> > involved have
> > > > ever been legally subdivided by the river
> > > > or by the damn line
> > > > if different
> > > > to produce in either case 4 unistate parcels of land all
> meeting
> > at the
> > > > tripoint
> > > > or whether the public land sections or subsections involved
> remain
> > undivided
> > > > by the damn line
> > > > & produce interstate parcels of land merely sandwiching
> the tripoint
> > > > while continuing to incorporate & straddle the river &or the
> damn line
> > > >
> > > > but more to the point
> > > > i also have to wonder exactly how the county land offices
> have
> > distributed
> > > > or delineated the affected sections for dividing up the tax
> bills
> > > > regardless of whether the acreages are split between
> different
> > landowners or
> > > > merely allocated for the benefit of single landholders
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > & since these 2 sections arent the only mnnd & mnsd
> sections
> > requiring such
> > > > treatment
> > > > they should not present obscure & difficult cases to
> research
> > > > but rather i would expect them to represent routine
> instances of a tax
> > > > allocation method that must be used all along the bois de
> sioux
> > > > where the public land sections are routinely divided by the
> river
> > > >
> > > > so my guess is that the tax assessors will not be put out or
> > embarrassed at
> > > > all by our questions
> > > > but will have the answers to them readily available for us in
> > their standard
> > > > verbal &or platted descriptions
> > > >
> > > > we simply need to ask in wheaton mn
> > > > where is the sw corner of the mentioned section 34 in
> minnesota
> > > > & where is the nw corner of the mentioned section 3 in
> minnnesota
> > > > while making sure that it is indeed the same point they give
> us
> > > > & then to ask for the corresponding corners on the other
> side of
> > the damn
> > > > line
> > > > in wahpeton nd & in sisseton sd respectively
> > > > which will incidentally be the same as ndse & sdne
> respectively
> > > > making them that much easier to refer to & identify
> > > > but again
> > > > being careful that there is indeed full agreement & a single
> > geoposition
> > > >
> > > > & with any luck all these data should agree & may well be
> > obtainable by
> > > > phone
> > > >
> > > > but in any case what fun even if they dont agree or cant be
> had so
> > easily
> > > >
> > > > any thoughts
> > > >
> > > >
> __________________________________________________
> _______________
> > > > STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months
> FREE*
> > > > http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >