MorePosted By paul plutae on 2/8/2009 at 9:19 PM
I have seen on this board, now and then, folks saying that the old chaining was OK back then, but nowhere close to what it measures today...
Here's a few snippets of some chaining and todays electronic wonders..
December 1949..
A length was chained and after temperature and tension corrections the distance was recorded as 1120.345'
March 1982
Using the ties and control on the north end of that line, a spike and washer was placed at an intersection.
February 2009
Recovering the south end of the line and measuring to the spike and washer set in 1982, the electronic wonder did prove that the chaining of 1949 was incorrect...it measured 1120.349'
Is this a case of material discrepency??
To read the rest of this thread go to www.i-boards.com/bnp/pob/messages.asp?MsgID=1360081&ThreadID=129303&IsResponse=False#1360081
I have seen on this board, now and then, folks saying that the old chaining was OK back then, but nowhere close to what it measures today...
Here's a few snippets of some chaining and todays electronic wonders..
December 1949..
A length was chained and after temperature and tension corrections the distance was recorded as 1120.345'
March 1982
Using the ties and control on the north end of that line, a spike and washer was placed at an intersection.
February 2009
Recovering the south end of the line and measuring to the spike and washer set in 1982, the electronic wonder did prove that the chaining of 1949 was incorrect...it measured 1120.349'
Is this a case of material discrepency??
To read the rest of this thread go to www.i-boards.com/bnp/pob/messages.asp?MsgID=1360081&ThreadID=129303&IsResponse=False#1360081
