Subject: Re: [BoundaryPoint] Re: dcmdvan & mdvawv retries continued<br/>
Date: Sep 27, 2004 @ 03:58<br/>
Author: Lowell G. McManus (&quot;Lowell G. McManus&quot; &lt;mcmanus71496@...&gt;)<br/>
<a href="15612.htm">Prev</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Post in Topic&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="15618.htm">Next</a>&emsp;[<a href="topic15567.htm">All</a> Posts]<br/>
<a href="15615.htm">Prev</a>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Post in Time&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="15617.htm">Next</a><br/>
<br/><br/>
<div id="ygrps-yiv-2010469946">Please see my two insertions below.<br/>
<br/>
Lowell G. McManus<br/>
Leesville, Louisiana, USA<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<blockquote><span title="qreply"> ----- Original Message ----- <br/>
From: &quot;aletheiak&quot; &lt;<a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="mailto:aletheiak@...">aletheiak@...</a>&gt;<br/>
To: &lt;<a rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="mailto:BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com">BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com</a>&gt;<br/>
Sent: Sunday, September 26, 2004 6:07 PM<br/>
Subject: [BoundaryPoint] Re: dcmdvan & mdvawv retries continued<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
&gt; yes<br/>
&gt; kevins my man<br/>
&gt;<br/>
&gt; & tho i agree his excellent report does not directly address the<br/>
&gt; question of the tripoint<br/>
&gt; it certainly provides a new clue that could well lead to the tripoint<br/>
&gt; for it reveals the existence of a legal description of the boundary<br/>
&gt; previously unsuspected by me<br/>
&gt; in addition to the plat & marker description reports already in my<br/>
&gt; possession<br/>
&gt;<br/>
&gt; aha<br/>
&gt;<br/>
&gt; & this already sounds like<br/>
&gt; practically if not exactly<br/>
&gt; the extra tidbit you suggested i might find on file in the county<br/>
&gt; courthouses alongside the survey<br/>
&gt; aha<br/>
&gt;<br/>
&gt; so that already looks like some pretty sharp shooting with both<br/>
&gt; barrels by you<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
I&#39;m glad to be of help!<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
&gt; & you can bet i will be on the phone with kevin in the morning<br/>
&gt; about this missing & possibly critical document<br/>
&gt;<br/>
&gt; & yes possibly just another red herring too<br/>
&gt; i concede<br/>
&gt; but due diligence demands i track it down in any case<br/>
&gt;<br/>
&gt;<br/>
&gt;<br/>
&gt; & another footnote to the dcmdvan try too<br/>
&gt;<br/>
&gt; it also just occurred to me<br/>
&gt; an additional essential bit of data i need to remember to pull off<br/>
&gt; the paper topo is the compass bearing of the dcmd&arfa line<br/>
&gt; yikes<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
The bearing was supposed to be north 45 degrees east.  BUS&SS says:<br/>
<br/>
    The lines do not bear exactly 45° from the<br/>
    meridian, but the greatest variation is only 1¾&#39;.<br/>
<br/>
The footnote on that says:<br/>
<br/>
    For data regarding surveys and boundary<br/>
    marks see Baker, Marcus, Nat. Geog. Mag.,<br/>
    vol. 6, pp. 149-165, 1894.&quot;<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
&gt; obviously<br/>
&gt; since we cant count on marker wm1 to give us the angle of<br/>
&gt; approach to dcmdvan but only to indicate a point on the<br/>
&gt; dcmd&arfa line some 49 or so feet away from it<br/>
&gt; aha<br/>
&gt;<br/>
&gt;<br/>
&gt; so things keep cooking nicely on both fronts </span></blockquote></div>