new computer & more inserts less hurriedly
--- In
BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "aletheiak" <aletheiak@y...>
wrote:
>
> inserts hurriedly
>
> --- In BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com, "Lowell G. McManus"
> <mcmanus71496@m...> wrote:
> > Mike,
> >
> > I'm basing my statement on the lack of a monument at the
> quadripoint in question on: (1) no monument indicated on USGS topo;
>
> as you know
> this in itself is neither here nor there
>
> >and (2) the 1991 aerial photo that shows it located in a partially
> harvested field of what looks like it might be wheat. If the
> tractors, combines, or whatever were purposely avoiding a "dire
> penalty" sign, I think that we could see some irregularity in the
> field.
>
> ok but you must understand it is still a presumption by you then
>
> so please dont offer it as a fact yet
> as you have done in 16342
> & have reiterated albeit less confidently in 16349 & again now
> even as you progressively cover your tracks by cutting the texts
>
> you just did the same thing with the atwood initial monument last
week
> & it is silly to expect others to have to keep sifting your
> presumptions from your facts
>
> & the players in the field will just stop trusting you quite so
much
> if they have to keep pulling all your stuff apart like this
>
> > I see no reason why there might be any federal marker at the
site.
> It's not a USC&GS vertical control benchmark.
>
> ok
> me too
> i see no reason
> but thats not the same as being sure
>
> >This is Texas that we're talking about, so the land was never part
> of the federal public domain nor of the federal public land
survey.
> Original patenting of land titles to private owners, as well as the
> county boundary surveys, was under the purview of the General Land
> Office of Texas, and I have pointed you to their files.
> >
> > Unfortunately, I am unable to assist with the actual content of
the
> county boundary files due to my extremely slow dial-up connection.
> (I'm far into the country, and my phone line is relayed, modulated,
> multiplexed, or whatever to such an extent that my top speed is
about
> 26 K.) Downloading such large files would be virtually
impossible.
> Getting topos is hard enough. (I do plan to get satellite
broadband
> as soon as the new WildBlue service rolls out, now expected in
second
> quarter, 2005.)
>
> ok
> really running out of time now
> but there is more
> so please expect more comments
>
> > I can give you an example of the contents of the Texas GLO files
> found in the indexing. The 1908 plat of the Borden-Howard boundary
> is at https://scandocs.glo.state.tx.us/arcmaps/pdfs/1694.pdf . The
> scanned original is on a rolled piece of tracing cloth, 23.7 by
125.7
> inches, at a scale of 500 varas per inch, drawn by the two county
> surveyors. I estimate that it would take me 7.5 hours to download
> it! Most public libraries have the broadest of broadband, so you
> might be able to get it.
ok thanx
& i am still working on it
> > The area in question is an odd region of Texas in which the state
> GLO's land survey is a rectangular grid rotated about 15 degrees
> counterclockwise from the cardinal points. The road grid follows
the
> survey grid. The county boundaries, on the other hand, were
> specified by the legislature as north-south and east-west lines.
> Nothing matches! Certainly the county boundaries were marked
somehow
> by their surveyors (perhaps on cadastral boundaries), else the
> surveys would have had no practical purpose.
exactly
& therefore we may not be so foolish in looking for their leavings
wherever they have left them & wherever we may find them
& the multipoints are among the likeliest of all places
or dont you agree
Everybody already knew
> that the counties were neat 30-mile rectangles.
> >
> > Remember that you scoured northern Virginia in vain for a marked
> tertiary tripoint. That, too, is an area where county and
cadastral
> boundaries don't typically coincide.
> >
> > You might look for other Texas tertiary quadripoints that are
shown
> as monumented on USGS topos. I will try to assist as well. I
would
> expect that some of them are monumented/marked, especially in the
> regions where the boundaries do conform to the state's survey
grid.
> I'll keep you informed.
ok
thanx
end of inserts
with apologies for the rough edges
> > Lowell G. McManus
> > Leesville, Louisiana, USA
> >
> >
> >
> > ---- Original Message -----
> > From: aletheia kallos
> > To: BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Sunday, December 26, 2004 2:54 PM
> > Subject: Re: [BoundaryPoint] arrowhead az Re: no mxus for xmus
> after all but its ajo ho
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > "Lowell G. McManus" <mcmanus71496@m...> wrote:
> > Mike D. wrote:
> >
> > > but does unmonumented necessarily mean unmarked
> > >
> > > & how then do they mark or even know the county lines there
> anyway
> > > let alone the corners
> > >
> > > & please let me know if you find any better hope for any
texas
> > > megapoint visit to be made class a
> > >
> > > that is
> > > one that is definitely marked
> >
> > I was using "unmonumented" to mean "unmarked." It would be
> difficult for any
> > physical mark to survive in a plowed farm field.
> >
> > aha then first you precluded but now you merely doubt that
such
> a hypothetical marker could also survive by virue of being
protected
> say by one of those ubiquitous uscgs signposts in its vicinity
which
> warn
> >
> > do not disturb nearby boundary marker under dire penalty etc
etc
> >
> > &or that such a marker would not also have been designed to
> withstand such an otherwise obvious demise as you describe
> >
> > & therefore that it couldnt exist
> >
> > or do i misread you in this
> >
> >
> >
> > & being so far unable to follow all your protocols here in
> surprise tho i will keep trying i cant yet see what you are talking
> about in regard to plats surveys notes etc
> >
> > but since you can access them maybe you could describe how
> these 4 county boundary descriptions describe this megapoint
> >
> > & maybe you could find some mention in any of the 256 of
these
> county boundary descriptions of any boundary markers &or multipoint
> markers of any kind
> >
> > for otherwise you appear to be predicting a complete washout
of
> texas tertiary markers not only for the megapoints but for
everything
> >
> > & moreover you seem to be indicating that these boundaries
were
> surveyed but never durably marked
> >
> > yikes
> >
> > but can that be what you mean
> >
> > or its consequences
> >
> > for perhaps i am merely racing too far ahead while actually
> lagging too far behind you
> >
> > There might be signage on the
> > nearby highway. There seems to be a change of pavement color
> at about the right
> > place to the north in the aerial photo.
> >
> > The General Land Office of the State of Texas has most of
> its "County Boundary
> > Files" (usually including original plats and field notes) on-
> line in PDF format.
> > Go to
> http://wwwdb.glo.state.tx.us/central/arcmaps/ArcMapsLookup.cfm ,
> select
> > the name of the county in the upper drop-down box,
> select "County Boundary" in
> > the lower scroll box, ignore all of the parameters in
between,
> then click the
> > "Search" button. You'll get an index to all boundary files
for
> that county. In
> > that index, you can click "More Details..." on each item for
> dates, surveyor's
> > names, etc. The drawback is that these are huge files
suitable
> for broadband
> > only.
> >
> > Lowell G. McManus
> > Leesville, Louisiana, USA