BLM/GCDB PIDs

 

Okay, here's a serious question for the GIS/GCDB experts:

 

The BLM “PID” (Point identification ID) used by the GCDB system is explained in the link below:

 

http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/blm/nv/cadastral_survey/documents.Par.46227.File.dat/nvgcdb.pdf

 

Okay FINE! It's a SIX-digit code that works dandy when there is ONLY ONE [say] Northeast Corner of Section 10. What the linked document FAILS to address, is situations where there are TWO (or MORE) Northeast Corners of Section 10.

 

YEAH...I know...that isn't supposed to happen, but it DOES!

 

We have been asked to furnish these BLM-PIDs on an ongoing project that contains a LOT of these double corners (about a Townships worth).

 

Both of these Monuments/Corners evidence Approved GLO Surveys (1850s & 1880s/90s), and BOTH of these corners CONTROL Federal Patents, and BOTH of these Corners have been used historically to build fences, convey land, etc. etc. In other words, THEY have BOTH been relied upon at one point or another, and in some cases BOTH still are (but that's a whole 'nuther' problem).

 

So in the case of the NE Cor. of Section 10, the BLM-PID would be 500600. Well what about that “other” NE Corner of Section 10 (situate some 479 ft. North, & 249 ft. East of the Original Corner)????

 

507604 (proportioned PID)????

 

I dunno...I like 500600(a) & 500600(b) but that ISN'T SIX digits!

 

Any ideas?

 

Loyal 

Loyal,

Your question leaves alot to interpretation. Can you provide me with the example you are speaking of? There can only be "1" NE corner of Section 10. If you are working in a township where there is a completion survey (meaning only a portion of the subdivisional lines within the township were surveyed, and then at a later time the rest of the township was surveyed and the junior section lines closed in on the senior section lines) you would have a northeast corner of section 10, and then the NW of 11, SE of 3, or SW of 2. These are termed as "offset interior section corners".

Utah's GCDB has a method to name these offset interior section corners, with the senior section corner being the "500600".  Unfortunately the link on the UT BLM site doesn't describe the method of naming for circumstances such as this one. I may be able to dig up the old GCDB collection manual I have that has this information and get you a copy, but this issue has been addressed by BLM.
.

I didn't see your post until just now (sorry).

 

It's kinda hard to explain...

 

In 1856 Columbus Craig surveyed a particular Section (actually all or part of 21 Townships). Homestead and Cash Entry Patents were issued based on that survey and life was good.

 

In 1886 Edward Koeber came along, and RE-surveyed (dependent) all of one Township and part of another, and of course additional Patents and State Selections followed.

 

Okay fine... The problem IS, there are (in the case of say Section 11) 8 Craig Corners, and 8 Koeber Corners, and they are OFFSET about 500 feet North-South and about 200 feet East-west of each other. This “offset” is quite CLEAR even in Koeber's returns (extant fences and occupation) back in 1886! Exactly HOW this happened is still somewhat of a mystery.

 

We have Patents, occupation, reliance, etc. etc. that conform to Craig-Craig, Koeber-Koeber, and even Craig-Koeber/Koeber-Craig (quite a diagonal to say the least).

 

So in effect, we have 2 Northeast Corners of Section 11 (and ditto the other 7 standard corners), BOTH (or all) of which represent APPROVED GLO Surveys AND related Patents, occupation, reliance, etc. etc... in combinations unique to each corner and/or combination of corners.

 

So BOTH corners are the NE Corner of Section 11 depending on which Patent, fence, deed, agreement, Plat, WHATEVER that you look at.

 

It's a MESS! Not only that, this MESS affects parts of NINE Townships and God only knows how many Sections.

 

As far as which CORNER “controls” what...well that's a good question! IT DEPENDS. My question is basically “how do you assign BLM PIDS” in this kind of situation. We ARE working with the BLM on this, so I hope that a good answer will be forthcoming (from them) at some point. Right now it's kinda up in the air.

 

Loyal  

Okay...I think that worked

Loyal,

Interesting, sounds like a huge mess they have created with the double set of corners. Thanks for the clarification. Clearly there is not a standard for assigning corners with your situation.

It sounds to me like they need to sort out all the mess(es) before they could begin to assign PID's. Such as creating tracts of land that were part of the Dependent Resurvey (Tract 37 and so forth). Then they have a system of PID's for such cases.

Wow, what a mess. Thanks for the post Loyal, and best of luck sorting it all out. I would be curious to hear of the results you get.

Yeah...it's a MESS alright!

I have pretty much been working on this nearly 24/7 for over a year now (and somewhat involved for over 4 years), and there is no end in sight. The BLM is in the final stages of a survey just a couple of miles East of the above Section, and when it's posted online (approved)  I'll link it. It's a real doozy, and I'm REALLY glad that they are involved.

Loyal