We've got a bunch of woodland that's partly on our property and partly on
a neighboring (vacant) plot. Runs for about 300' or so, and there's a
boundary marker either side of the woods.

I'd quite like to add a few more markers within the trees, just so we know
where the boundary is (and maybe fence at a later date) - question is, how
to mark it out? The woodland's too dense to see through to the other side,
even at night with a flashlight on one of the markers, so I can't just
walk and "home in" on it.

I'm not sure that GPS is accurate enough to do it that way - any other
clever tricks?

Did wonder about running two lines, meeting at one of the markers. All I
need to do is get them straight through the trees (which might be a
challenge in itself) - then I can presumably measure distance from each
to the other marker at the far end, translate that to a scrap of paper,
and calculate where the "true line" is between the two markers for any
given distance along one of my guide lines. Does that make sense? Maybe
there's a simpler way, though...

Ideas on a postcard, or on usenet, whichever is easier.

cheers

Jules

On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 16:54:28 -0500, Kurt Ullman wrote:
> You did not say why.

Ahh, there's a possibility that the vacant lot is going to be sold, so I
figured I should maybe mark the line a bit better than just the two
boundary poles. The lot's shaped such that any buyer would be unlikely to
pull trees down to put a building in (it's about 4 acres I think and the
extra effort of taking down an acre of trees doesn't seem sensible) - but
some folk can be strange :-)

We might just buy it ourselves eventually, but have too many financial
commitments for the next 3 months to think about that (OTOH once the snow
hits I bet it won't get much interest until next Spring)

> If you want to
> actually do something like build a fence, etc., then you probably should
> get it surveyed.

Yes, calling in a professional is one option, although I'm curious how
they do it when they don't have line-of-sight either. I doubt 6" either
way is any big deal (it's just not the sort of place where people get
****ed about that kind of thing!) but I'm not sure if GPS is quite that
accurate (at least not the civilian stuff)

cheers

Jules

On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 15:42:37 -0600, Jules
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>
>We've got a bunch of woodland that's partly on our property and partly on
>a neighboring (vacant) plot. Runs for about 300' or so, and there's a
>boundary marker either side of the woods.
>
>I'd quite like to add a few more markers within the trees, just so we know
>where the boundary is (and maybe fence at a later date) - question is, how
>to mark it out? The woodland's too dense to see through to the other side,
>even at night with a flashlight on one of the markers, so I can't just
>walk and "home in" on it.
>
>I'm not sure that GPS is accurate enough to do it that way - any other
>clever tricks?
>
>Did wonder about running two lines, meeting at one of the markers. All I
>need to do is get them straight through the trees (which might be a
>challenge in itself) - then I can presumably measure distance from each
>to the other marker at the far end, translate that to a scrap of paper,
>and calculate where the "true line" is between the two markers for any
>given distance along one of my guide lines. Does that make sense? Maybe
>there's a simpler way, though...
>
>Ideas on a postcard, or on usenet, whichever is easier.
>
>cheers
>
>Jules
>
>

Run a line parallel to the existing markers but outside the wooded
area. Then from any point you like on the reference line, measure
perpendicular into the woods the same length as the offset of the
outside line from the end markers.

On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 16:08:45 -0600, Jules
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 16:54:28 -0500, Kurt Ullman wrote:
>> You did not say why.
>
>Ahh, there's a possibility that the vacant lot is going to be sold, so I
>figured I should maybe mark the line a bit better than just the two
>boundary poles. The lot's shaped such that any buyer would be unlikely to
>pull trees down to put a building in (it's about 4 acres I think and the
>extra effort of taking down an acre of trees doesn't seem sensible) - but
>some folk can be strange :-)
>
>We might just buy it ourselves eventually, but have too many financial
>commitments for the next 3 months to think about that (OTOH once the snow
>hits I bet it won't get much interest until next Spring)
>
>> If you want to
>> actually do something like build a fence, etc., then you probably should
>> get it surveyed.
>
>Yes, calling in a professional is one option, although I'm curious how
>they do it when they don't have line-of-sight either. I doubt 6" either
>way is any big deal (it's just not the sort of place where people get
>****ed about that kind of thing!) but I'm not sure if GPS is quite that
>accurate (at least not the civilian stuff)
>
>cheers
>
>Jules

No, a GPS is definitely not accurate enough for that purpose.

Kurt Ullman wrote:
> In article <(E-Mail Removed). com>,
> Jules <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 16:54:28 -0500, Kurt Ullman wrote:
>>> You did not say why.
>> Ahh, there's a possibility that the vacant lot is going to be sold, so I
>> figured I should maybe mark the line a bit better than just the two
>> boundary poles. The lot's shaped such that any buyer would be unlikely to
>> pull trees down to put a building in (it's about 4 acres I think and the
>> extra effort of taking down an acre of trees doesn't seem sensible) - but
>> some folk can be strange :-)
> Then it would have to be surveyed, at least according to the way
> they do things around Indy.

But all they would do would be to confirm the location of the existing
boundary corners--no need to survey where the straight line between two
marks actually runs for the legal description so they won't do so.

As for finding the line itself lacking line-of-sight, manually it's
painstakingly working one's way thru from one sighting to another.

I don't know what the inexpensive handheld GPS gizmos can do; I've never
had one or looked to see as never really cared that much. BUT, US WAAS
static accuracy is +/- (roughly) 30". This is what's freely available
but not guaranteed availability.

Additional corrections can be made to a single signal but afaik these
are all subscription services and whether the cheapie devices include
that cost in the upfront purchase cost I don't have a clue.

We use John Deere AutoTrac(tm) with their proprietary SF2 subscription
service on the tractors/spray rigs/etc. which has an absolute static
accuracy of +/- ~10" but repeatability of tracking of better than half
that (the latter is the more critical for our purposes of controlling
row spacings and spray coverage as opposed to your desire to know where
a point is physically located).

So, all in all, I don't know what you could get inexpensively but I'd
expect more like the 30" rather than the 10" numbers.

FSA (USDA Farm Service Agency) uses GPS to do monitoring/compliance on
acreages but they, of course, have access to whatever level of
technology the DOA(griculture) has access to. They routinely print out
computer-generated maps down to the 0.0001 mile (1/2") but I seriously
doubt the data are that accurate only that that's what their silly
compter output formats are. I'd guess they're roughly at the 10" value
overall although I don't think any of the technicians nor even our
office director have that level of knowledge of the technical
details--only how to use the supplied equipment and software systems.

I routinely measure fields by the rolling wheel technique for waypoints
in the total field for operations such as haying or similar and ignore
anything less than roughly 1/10A (which is a strip roughly 1/2-ft wide
over a half-mile row) and have never been called to task. That close is
reasonably easy to get as each revolution on a rod wheel is 1/4 of
16.5-ft or 4+ ft so 1-ft is a quarter revolution. 1-rod by 1/2-mile is
1A and most of our land is farmed in quarters which are 160A or 1/2-mi
square so that's far more convenient measure rather than feet-inches by
hand. The JD AutoTrac readouts can be switched to whatever units one
wants since it's all computer-based, of course.

But, all that to say the higher accuracy GPS numbers above don't come
cheaply (at least w/ green paint (or red, either, for that matter).

--

On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 17:19:25 -0500, salty wrote:
> Run a line parallel to the existing markers but outside the wooded
> area. Then from any point you like on the reference line, measure
> perpendicular into the woods the same length as the offset of the
> outside line from the end markers.

Aha - yes, that's a good plan. There are really too many buildings on our
side of the line to do that, but I can do it from the vacant plot (the
folk who own it currently are good enough that I know they won't mind)

cheers

Jules

Jules wrote:
> We've got a bunch of woodland that's partly on our property and partly on
> a neighboring (vacant) plot. Runs for about 300' or so, and there's a
> boundary marker either side of the woods.
>
> I'd quite like to add a few more markers within the trees, just so we know
> where the boundary is (and maybe fence at a later date) - question is, how
> to mark it out? The woodland's too dense to see through to the other side,
> even at night with a flashlight on one of the markers, so I can't just
> walk and "home in" on it.
>
> I'm not sure that GPS is accurate enough to do it that way - any other
> clever tricks?
>
> Did wonder about running two lines, meeting at one of the markers. All I
> need to do is get them straight through the trees (which might be a
> challenge in itself) - then I can presumably measure distance from each
> to the other marker at the far end, translate that to a scrap of paper,
> and calculate where the "true line" is between the two markers for any
> given distance along one of my guide lines. Does that make sense? Maybe
> there's a simpler way, though...
>
> Ideas on a postcard, or on usenet, whichever is easier.

I did a fairly good job finding my lines using an "engineers compass"
and a plot plan. The "engineers compass" is like a tiny cheap hand held
version of a transit, but worse, it came from WalMart. Very very basic.
Wait for all the leaves to fall. I went to the one and only corner
marker I could find and using the compass turned the plat map so North
is North. Aimed the compass site using the compass markings and lining
it up with the line on my map. Sighted through a tiny lens and a single
cross hair as far as the next tree it hit. Walked to that tree and did
it again. Kept doing that until I found the other corner markers, and
in 600 or so feet I was off by 6 feet. Sure that's a lot for some
things but I just wanted an idea of were the corner of my property was,
and there it was, well marked.

Turns out the other land owner had some pro's come through a couple
months later. He showed me one place I had marked, about half way
between corners, I was off by only 6 inches there and he acted like that
was a lot. Only reason I ended up 6 feet off in the end was due to the
terrain. A lot of it was literally stretching and climbing up the
mountain a couple feet at a time and getting myself on the uphill side
of the next tree to rest against. I accidentally rode down the mountain
on my ass with a **** load of leaves under me and in front of my feet.
It was kind of fun.

As far as markers, they use an ax and take off the topmost part of the
bark, it didn't get down to fresh wood. Then those spots were painted
blue. Some with 4 blue lines like a square, some just 1 or 2 marks.
I'm guessing the marks meant something that had to do with were the
exact property line was... in front or in back of the tree.

There was one spot where I am close to the property line and they marked
it with the 4 blue marks and a small yellow no trespassing sign in the
middle. It seemed to stick out like a sore thumb and from the driveway
it drew your attention. So I mixed up some mud, real mud, dirt and
water, and plastered over the blue marks. And I got a few large leaves
to stick on the nail holding the little sign. Now I don't see it, but
it's still easy to find if you are close and looking for it.

On Nov 19, 4:42*pm, Jules <jules.richardsonn...@remove.this.gmail.com>
wrote:
> We've got a bunch of woodland that's partly on our property and partly on
> a neighboring (vacant) plot. Runs for about 300' or so, and there's a
> boundary marker either side of the woods.
>
> I'd quite like to add a few more markers within the trees, just so we know
> where the boundary is (and maybe fence at a later date) - question is, how
> to mark it out? The woodland's too dense to see through to the other side,
> even at night with a flashlight on one of the markers, so I can't just
> walk and "home in" on it.
>
> I'm not sure that GPS is accurate enough to do it that way - any other
> clever tricks?
>
> Did wonder about running two lines, meeting at one of the markers. All I
> need to do is get them straight through the trees (which might be a
> challenge in itself) - then I can presumably measure distance from each
> to the other marker at the far end, translate that to a scrap of paper,
> and calculate where the "true line" is between the two markers for any
> given distance along one of my guide lines. Does that make sense? Maybe
> there's a simpler way, though...
>
> Ideas on a postcard, or on usenet, whichever is easier.
>
> cheers
>
> Jules

How tall is the tallest tree between the markers?

The products shown here range from 18 feet (Sale Price: $6,050) to 41
feet (Sale Price: $28,315).

http://www.artificialplantsandtrees....big_trees.html

Buy 2 that are just higher than the tallest existing tree, tie a
string to the top of each one and stand them up right next to the
markers..

QED

The only thing comes to mind to me. Use a high power laser,
and burn through the trees and leaves. There should be
enough visible burn damage to follow with the string.

No, I don't have a high power laser listed on Ebay for such
a purpose.

I doubt this is workable, but it's fun to imagine.

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..


"Jules" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote
in message
news(E-Mail Removed) ail.com...

We've got a bunch of woodland that's partly on our property
and partly on
a neighboring (vacant) plot. Runs for about 300' or so, and
there's a
boundary marker either side of the woods.

I'd quite like to add a few more markers within the trees,
just so we know
where the boundary is (and maybe fence at a later date) -
question is, how
to mark it out? The woodland's too dense to see through to
the other side,
even at night with a flashlight on one of the markers, so I
can't just
walk and "home in" on it.

I'm not sure that GPS is accurate enough to do it that way -
any other
clever tricks?

Did wonder about running two lines, meeting at one of the
markers. All I
need to do is get them straight through the trees (which
might be a
challenge in itself) - then I can presumably measure
distance from each
to the other marker at the far end, translate that to a
scrap of paper,
and calculate where the "true line" is between the two
markers for any
given distance along one of my guide lines. Does that make
sense? Maybe
there's a simpler way, though...

Ideas on a postcard, or on usenet, whichever is easier.

cheers

Jules

well the buyer will normally have to get their purchase surveyed. you
might be able to get their surveyor to stake the line for a few extra
bucks,,

espically if you are planning on a fence