SHORTAGES & OVERAGES . . . unrecognized

It's been a number of times now that I have applied a "sizable" constant to agree with distances & acreages.

Usually the constant rings something somewhat realistic(like a 17' rod or a 16' rod) and the new number, applied to the deed calls begins to fit like a glove . . . sometimes on projects that encompass thousands of feet.  Of course, the acreage is then recalculated and agrees with actual.

Now I'm doing a job that should have about 229 acres and it actually contains about 247 acres.  This is a constant of about 1.08.  

I'm having a really tough time trying to figure what a 1.08 constant might mean.  The application of this constant just doesn't seem to fit anything that rings a bell to me.  NOTHING stands out.

At this, I took my client's property's constant and applied it to the entire lot and when I added all the parcels together and multiplied this new number by the same constant my result almost exactly agreed with the computation of the entire lot(using a Mr Sid overlay).

Another parcel(96 acres) which was included in the overall lot was then separated out and upon the application of this same constant, agreed with the physical amount of acreage that  really exists.

The constant varied 1.079 or so to 1.086, with the applied constant roughly in the middle.

So . . . the entire lot of 300+ acres, as well as the original splits of large acreages between 50 acres and 160 acres all, and each on it's own indicated less acreage than the actual, existing acreage . . . each by this 1.08 constant.

I wonder if anyone recognizes what a 1.08 constant might be(or result from) and if there might have been a purposeful application of this constant.  It does not result in a 16' rod or a 60' chain.  There's nothing that gives me an "aha" moment regarding this constant, but still it appears to exist all through the entire original lot. 

I'm hoping that someone might see a relationship that I don't see.

The difference in areas means you take the square root of the constant to find a constant for distances.

Because most land is not perfectly square it will not be 1.0386 exactly but 1.04 is a good place to start.

You may also need different constants for each lot, the common line being the key.

Paul in PA

Okay . . . let me spell it out a little more completely

In the 1800's the entire lot listed 575 acres.  I measured(the entire lot) at being about  4430' x 5950'. which is about 605 acres. An excess of about 30 acres.

EACH and every large parcel of land seems to suffer this enigma(sp).  

My observation of this makes me think that someone had to have measured with an odd-ball unit of measure.  Otherwise why are the acreages so far off . . . consistently?

. . . and at that . . . why?

I mean did we have rogue surveyors that sat around figuring out how to screw someone over.  Or maybe, they couldn't afford a metal tape(or chain) and used a mis-measured rope?

This really doesn't make any sense . . . to be off so far in the acreages.  A few here and there, yes.  BUT . . . well, maybe I should start subtracting the wetter areas or something.  Maybe the acreages are only for tillable land or something.

I've run into enough instances of this type thing in different areas of Trumbull County, such that I'm thinking we must've had our own way of doing things, here.

This posting was made to find if anyone else had ever run into these type of issues.  For sure, whatever practice took place here(or whatever really happened), must've happened in other places. 

We know some surveyors always gave an extra inch(or more) to measurements in order to guarantee, at least the reported distance.  Maybe this is something like that.

I sure don't know the answer or explaination, but I know there is one, somewhere.

((Oh stent  . . . BTW), I just had 2 put in my descending artery(90% blockage) . . . so far good-bye all those problems I was having) . . . feeling much better lately.

Just in case an error shorted the parcel, surveyors intentionally included more. The overage was not always a uniform factor, as it would be if the surveyor put an extra link or two in the chain.

Your last example 575 ac to 605 ac may indicate 2 or 3 extra links in the chain.

OR

It indicates that 2 chains were dropped in the count each way, 67 ch x 90 ch being reported as 65 ch x 88 ch.

Dropping chains in the count is as common as purposefully giving a longer count than reported.

The head chainman has to see that he set a pin before moving on at every chain. The rear chainman can easily forget to pull the pin, or drop it once he pulls it.

Paul in PA

PS, John, you are in Ohio. There was no standard manual yet in place plus private people were buying land from corporations or individuals that had excessively huge tracts and were charging too much. The surveyors may have sympathized with the buyer, or the sellers may have said to the surveyor make sure they get more that the contract calls for so I do not have to deal with complaints and lawsuits.

I find it's quite the opposite around here.  Deeds were written and intentionally understated the area to reduce property taxes....

I can't even begin to imagine a surveyor making an area larger just to cover up a potential mistake in their work.

Don

I can't forget that not only does the lot(we call it a section even though it's not) have substantially more acreage than recorded, but that  the large lots(we used to fall them something like farm lots . . . way back when), that were sold off through the years (from 1797 to about 1890's or so), also suffered this enigma.

This almost certainly means that there was collusion(unlikely), or that the reporting(measuring method) was purposeful.  To what end, I don't know.

Virtually all acreage in this lot is farmable/tillable, so this isn't a case of only counting useable land.

In this county, through the years of rummaging through long-forgotten records or records that were "misplaced", I've seen a number of surprising things that make me wonder where all the equipment came from.

Most records do not indicate the use of surveying equipment(either by relatively accurate bearings/with declinations, angles or  distances(measured to links)), and those that do, seem to be work performed by the more note-worthy surveyors.

Almost a hundred surveyors in the early 1800's . . . including the time when the original townships were still being laid out.  So we kinda need to include those surveyors too.

Lots and lots of surveyors, going hither and yonder.  Many surveyors are mentioned only a few times before their name disappears, once and for all, from the recorded survey books.

There's no way, I can believe that they all had surveying "equipment". I've seen too many instances of measurements to 1/4 chains, single degrees or whole rods(with no links).  I envision many settlers measuring things for whatever reason and I wonder if the bulk of these many surveyors made due with what they had . . . equipment-wise.

I've run into too many instances of relatively precise measurements that are far from accurate . . . but none-the-less . . . precise.

This entire lot and all the large lots that were split off, early on is just another example of this.

I wonder if the logistics of having enough equipment for nearly 100 "surveyors" was  near-impossible and explains the lack of more precisely described notes(and more precisely described measurements) for the less proliferate "surveyors"?