Translation help needed!

[foxtrot_xray]

Okay you technical gurus. In planning my next trip out to Colorado, I'm thinking of taking Old US64 for a while. (What can I say, I'm a road geek, I like old roads.) Two marks are near my road that are a little confusing to me: GL1451 and GL1450. The names and info are as follows:

 GL1451  DESIGNATION -  BOUNDARY MI COR 19+23.39 CO NM
GL1451  PID		 -  GL1451
GL1451  STATE/COUNTY-  NM/UNION
GL1451  USGS QUAD   -  TRAVESSER PARK (1972)
---------
GL1450  DESIGNATION -  BOUNDARY MI COR 313 NM TX
GL1450  PID		 -  GL1450
GL1450  STATE/COUNTY-  NM/UNION
GL1450  USGS QUAD   -  TRAVESSER PARK (1972)

All fine and dandy. However, if you look at the name of GL1450, it has "New Mexico" and "Texas"., however, Texas is quite a ways to the east from here. That's not really the funky part tho. Atop from the fact they're right next to each other, the descriptions seem to have been cut and pasted. The "To Reach" directions are exactly the same, *AND*, both have the following nearly-identical paragraph:

GL1451'THE CONCRETE MARK (PROBABLY BOUNDARY MILEPOST 313) IS A PIECE
GL1451'OF SHEET METAL IN THE FORM OF A TRIANGLE SET ON TOP OF AN
GL1451'8-INCH SQUARE CONCRETE POST WHICH PROJECTS ABOUT 1-1/2 FEET
GL1451'ABOVE THE SURROUNDING SURFACE.  IT IS LOCATED S OF THE STATION
GL1451'AND AT ABOUT THE SAME LEVEL.
----------
GL1450'THE CONCRETE MARK (PROBABLY BOUNDARY MILEPOST 313) IS A PIECE
GL1450'OF SHEET METAL IN THE FORM OF A TRIANGLE SET ON TOP OF AN
GL1450'8-INCH SQUARE CONCRETE POST WHICH PROJECTS ABOUT 1-1/2 FEET
GL1450'ABOVE THE SURROUNDING SURFACE.

Both paragraphs refer to "Boundary Post 313". Now, that tells me it's referring to "BOUNDARY MI COR 313 NM TX", GL1450. So someone referred to Marker 313 IN Marker 313's description? GL1450 also has no marker information (Disk?) or setting information (Rock? Cement post?) These two are on my hit list, and I'm curious what I'd find regardless. Thoughts?

 

Mike.

[+jwahl]

I suspect the post 313 is essentially being used as an RM to the other station 1451 and were probably originally described on one station report and thus they have the same 'goto description'. It seems more confusing once they are separated into two data sheets. In 1451 it says

 

GL1451|---------------------------------------------------------------------|
GL1451| PID	Reference Object					 Distance	  Geod. Az  |
GL1451|														   dddmmss.s |
GL1451| CM9093 BOUNDARY MI COR 19 RM 1			  15.160 METERS 08039	 |
GL1451| CM9094 BOUNDARY MI COR 19 RM 2			  11.183 METERS 16237	 |
GL1451| GL1450 BOUNDARY MI COR 313 NM TX			 6.760 METERS 17951	  |
GL1451| CM9092 BOUNDARY MI COR 19 AZ MK						   3141519.0 |
GL1451|---------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

The TX part is also confusing, unless this whole thing is misplaced somehow. If I didn't know better from the marking described the one mark seems to be on the Colorado NM boundary at 23.39 chs west of mile marker 19, and the other is on a line coming up from the south being mile 313. There might be some history of an older survey that is being referenced. There were several attempts to run the texas line and this may be the remnants of one of them. Arthur D. Kidder was involved in investigations and the resurveys of both boundaries in the early 1900's. I think that the TX-NM line originally came all the way up to the colorado line before the cimarron strip was made part of Oklahoma.

 

I believe I have access to copies of the field notes of the Supreme Court CO-NM boundary survey, and perhaps it can shed some light, however it will have to wait for a few days for me to hunt them down and see what they describe.

 

Jerry

 

http://www.amerisurv.com/PDF/TheAmericanSu...ecember2006.pdf However this article describes a discrepency that is only 4 or so miles and not 16...

--------------------

 

Both paragraphs refer to "Boundary Post 313". Now, that tells me it's referring to "BOUNDARY MI COR 313 NM TX", GL1450. So someone referred to Marker 313 IN Marker 313's description? GL1450 also has no marker information (Disk?) or setting information (Rock? Cement post?) These two are on my hit list, and I'm curious what I'd find regardless. Thoughts?

 

Mike.

 

All fine and dandy. However, if you look at the name of GL1450, it has "New Mexico" and "Texas"., however, Texas is quite a ways to the east from here. That's not really the funky part tho. Atop from the fact they're right next to each other, the descriptions seem to have been cut and pasted. The "To Reach" directions are exactly the same, *AND*, both have the following nearly-identical paragraph:

 

Both paragraphs refer to "Boundary Post 313". Now, that tells me it's referring to "BOUNDARY MI COR 313 NM TX", GL1450. So someone referred to Marker 313 IN Marker 313's description? GL1450 also has no marker information (Disk?) or setting information (Rock? Cement post?) These two are on my hit list, and I'm curious what I'd find regardless. Thoughts?

 

Mike.

Edited July 18, 2008 by jwahl

[foxtrot_xray]

Some notes. (I'll reply to the responce in a sec, I gotta type this out before I forget.)

 

I did a search for "NM TX" to find other monuments the same as the "BOUNDARY 313" one. I found GL0809, which is marker 292. It's located south of Texline, on the N/S border between New Mexico and Texas, under Oklahoma's panhandle. 291 is a mile south of that. Therefore, going 21 miles north puts "313" right here, give or take a hundred feet or so. (I projected by hand.)

 

I realize that my logic may be flawed - I'm 'assuming' things were numbered in order.

 

I also just found from a different "NM TX" ''COR'' mark:

 GL1470'PIPE WHICH PROJECTS 1 INCH.  IT IS STAMPED CLARK BOUNDARY
GL1470'1859 MILE CORNER NO 286 REESTABLISHED 1911.

So the "COR" are Mile Corners. (Not sure what a Mile Corner is.. a PLSS thing?)

 

As an another aside, the GL1451 says "Boundary Mi Cor 19+..." which is Approximate 19 miles from the extended line of the Texas / New Mexico border at the start of the Oklahoma panhandle. The Oklahoma panhandle is recessed from that line 2.2 miles. (Which, therefore, dosen't explain the "23.39" part of that name.

Edited July 18, 2008 by foxtrot_xray

[Bill93]

A few years back we discussed the CO-NM boundary at length, concentrating on a region far west of Oklahoma, but with some reference to the Texas and Oklahoma lines and their relationship to the starting point(s) for surveys of the rest of the CO-NM boundary. JWahl was very helpful in posting the portion of those notes he said he is trying to locate that covered the region then being discussed.

First thread

Second Thread

 

For the boundary lines, COR will usually mean a mile point along that line, whether or not anyone made it a corner to a piece of land. Surveyors were in the habit of calling any monument a corner because most of them were. One problem is making sure that you are projecting from a survey using the same numbering system, as there are multiple attempts to establish some of these lines.

 

When projecting north, you are probably better off going in the direction of the land sections, often where the roads are, rather than assuming they are perfectly true north.

 

Also, anyone going to hunt in that area should take note of the pictures and info that StripeMark posted very recently on the "Proud Finds" thread.

Edited July 18, 2008 by Bill93

[foxtrot_xray]

When projecting north, you are probably better off going in the direction of the land sections, often where the roads are, rather than assuming they are perfectly true north.

Good point. Like I said I just did it all by hand to get approximate locations. All the other marks up along that line are proper in the fact that they coincide with the 19+23 one. This one's the only one that sticks out with "TX" and "313". Go figure.

 

Also, anyone going to hunt in that area should take note of the pictures and info that StripeMark posted very recently on the "Proud Finds" thread.

Yeah, actually I had 'found' Old US64 first, and then while scanning around that area saw the tri-state area, and figured I'd go and get that one as well. I can't take his pride for finding it, as his picture pretty much made it easy for myself. But, I like the idea of being at the corner of three states.

[+jwahl]

As an another aside, the GL1451 says "Boundary Mi Cor 19+..." which is Approximate 19 miles from the extended line of the Texas / New Mexico border at the start of the Oklahoma panhandle. The Oklahoma panhandle is recessed from that line 2.2 miles. (Which, therefore, dosen't explain the "23.39" part of that name.

 

Usually that format which is a line distance or stationing format means 19 miles + 23.39 chains. Where we are talking about the Gunter's chain of 66 feet of which there are 80.00 in a mile. If this were along a railroad or highway the stationing would be in feet, but since I am relatively sure about the context of this survey this format is miles plus distance in chains. FYI

 

- jlw

[2oldfarts (the rockhounders)]

foxtrot_xray - you might be interested to know that some other boundary marks in Colorado have been confusing before.

 

A thread from years ago.

 

Shirley~

[+jwahl]

Before I try to look up Kidder's notes, I thought of another possibility. Whoever is describing these stations is perhaps confused. They are after all a C&GS control survey crew trying to describe a station and here is this other monument they are not necessarily all up on exactly what is supposed to be out there.

 

There are boundary monuments relating to attempts to establish the CO-NM line from several surveys. In particular Kidder preserves the position of some of the Carpenter monuments. (see preliminary information in the field notes provided in the thread from a year or two ago).

 

If those monuments were numbered in miles from the west (From 4 corners), it comes out to be very nearly 313 miles. So I am going to speculate that the monument referred to does not say TX on it at all, but is a Kidder remon of the Carpenter monument done in the course of his 1908 era retracement of the Darling line for the Supreme court.

 

I'll see if I can find the notes this weekend. The mystery will be hopefully more fully resolved when someone visits and takes a nice picture of the thing.

 

It doesn't fit well for mile 313 up the NM-TX boundary and it is not at this locatin by about 16 miles anyway.

 

- jerry

 

PS some more info as background

Background

 

If that link doesn't come through because of the need for a password, perhaps I can cut and paste, but it is pretty lengthly case with a lot of the history.

Edited July 19, 2008 by jwahl

[foxtrot_xray]

Usually that format which is a line distance or stationing format means 19 miles + 23.39 chains. Where we are talking about the Gunter's chain of 66 feet of which there are 80.00 in a mile. If this were along a railroad or highway the stationing would be in feet, but since I am relatively sure about the context of this survey this format is miles plus distance in chains. FYI

 

- jlw

Holy freakin' cow. Learn something new every day! That is most interesting! Especially when you can go to Google, and type in the search box: "23.39 chains = ? feet" and get: "23.39 chain = 1 543.74 feet". Thanks for that tip. Sad that I never knew that!

[foxtrot_xray]

foxtrot_xray - you might be interested to know that some other boundary marks in Colorado have been confusing before.

 

A thread from years ago.

 

Shirley~

That is a GREAT thread. I feel dumb now - I should have searched before posting now. I can't even read all of it tonight, I gotta hit bed. However, you just made me waste my Saturday!!

 

If those monuments were numbered in miles from the west (From 4 corners), it comes out to be very nearly 313 miles. So I am going to speculate that the monument referred to does not say TX on it at all, but is a Kidder remon of the Carpenter monument done in the course of his 1908 era retracement of the Darling line for the Supreme court.

 

It doesn't fit well for mile 313 up the NM-TX boundary and it is not at this locatin by about 16 miles anyway.

Interesting. If that is indeed the case, than they just happened to pick the same naming scheme as other marks. i.e. The one I originally asked about was "BOUNDARY MI COR 313 NM TX". Then there's "BOUNDARY MI 276 NM TX". Technically, it's missing the "COR" but everything else seems to match. Of course, if they were all re-traced then they would all be renamed, right?

 

Me.

[+GEO*Trailblazer 1]

Yes I think a bunch of them are re-named.

I did a research once upon a time upon that line.

 

I will have to dig a little maybe I can find it.