The Pine Valley Deeds

[Bryan Izatt]

Bryan,

First, I am not sure that the old topo was a result of a "USGS" survey.  Maybe I am thinking of a different topo, but wasn't it based on a survey conducted by New Jersey which began in the 1870s or earlier?  Some of the base information may have come from a US coastal survey, but the survey itself was conducted by NJ.

Second, my understanding is that the way these things worked is that these old maps (even the 1898 map) were created well after the fact, and based on the survey information from years before.  They didn't conduct an entirely new topographical survey every time they made a new map (that would have been an incredible undertaking) but rather used the already mined information from the original survey.   If this is the case, then some details and new development were obvious added later, even though they had nothing to do with the original survey.   In short, I don't necessarily think all of the roads, maps, and manmade structures were even part of the original survey.  Perhaps a more accurate way of viewing the survey would be to try to match up high points, especially if they were used as anchors in the actual survey.  Pine Hill apparently was.   

But I think the results will be the same.  The survey is just not that accurate, perhaps in part due to the methodology.   I found reference in the old literature (1886 Annual Report of NJ Geologist, I think) where the person in charge indicates that sketching/illustrations were a large part of of the survey process.   In other words, some of it sounds more like a guestimate than a survey.

I think we can agree that the old topo, whatever the source, is not precisely accurate.  It appears to me to be indicative of the terrain and the margin of error both horizontally and vertically appears to be significant.
_________________________________________


 

Remember that the old topo is USGS too.  Presumably they were both professionally done.  Perhaps the equipment and techniques of today are more likely to be accurate.  As to your specific points, the 1898 USGS has a high knob of 191 feet on the short course.  It's slightly displaced, but in the right area.  Maybe the measurement techniques of the day were just that much worse - out by 15 feet.  The old USGS topo would have the 6th closer to 160 if I slid it up a bit, so that the RR's aligned.  It might look better if I stretched the topo out so that the streams matched.

Again, I don't think it was a USGS survey.

Also, you can't just fudge things to make them work! 
1.  The 191 foot knob on the old map is NOT "on the short course." It looks to be over a quarter mile away from the 206 foot high point.
2.  It may not even be the same nob!  The 191 foot knob is much closer to a 200+ foot nob on the border of Pine Hill than to the Short course!    Maybe it is all part of the same knob or maybe not, and there is no way of knowing.
3.  Even if it is the same nob (which I doubt) it isn't even close to the same measure!  It is 15 feet off!

Same goes for sliding the map up a bit to align the RR.  If you slide it up a bit, then all your reference points are off!  And the one point I trust --Pine Hill, is off.  Are you really comfortable shifting everything that seems accurate so you can get a reading for the 6th fairway to your liking?

I said since the first posting that it was possible to match some points and not others.  I have no idea which points are most suitable for matching to provide a more precise picture of the landforms of the time.  Originally I posted this topo as indicative of what was available at the time.  Clearly, after some analysis, we could conclude it would not have been useful for Crump.  But we also know that Crump commissioned his own survey of his property.  That overlay is above.

I don't understand what your doing?  What is the point of analysis that allows you to move these points around as it suits you? If you don't explore possibilities, what do you learn?

The 189 foot ridge wasn't mined down.  It wasn't on Lumberton land.

First, given this topo, it is one heck of a stretch to assume there ever was a "189 foot ridge."   Maybe it was 189 feet or maybe it was not, but I'd have to believe that the surveyors of the time would have been able to distinguish that there was a knob there relative to the surrounding area.  Perhaps the mapping part is suspect, but the elevation changes were likely there.  Second, as for whether it was mined or not, I have no idea how you can make a definitive pronouncement about whether it was mined.  How far back did you go in the deeds?   What makes you think that mining activity or leveling activity would necessarily show up in the deeds?  Was Lumberton the only one mining or digging?  I don't think so; none of the three names I came across were "Lumberton."

That "189 foot" knob was owned by a developer, going back to 1902, not a mining company.  Before 1902, who knows. I should have added a "most likely" before "wasn't".   

I'll try to overlay the small portion of the 1913 topo to see if it gives you more comfort.  The picture was angled, so it will be difficult.

You can if you like, but don't do it on my account or to give me "more comfort."  As you know I've already done it.

It's done. See above.  Do you see serious flaws in it as you do in the 1898 topo?  The 6th is generally higher than it is today but the contouring is similar.  Do you think it possible that they did some cut and fill to level the fairway.

Where are you trying to go with this line of pursuit?

  Just exploring.  Trying to learn.  Keeping my mind open.

I originally looked at these things to help me understand those photos, but they don't explain the photos.  I thought we had agreed that the old topo was off, and then you posted that overlay.   How about you  Where are you going with this?

If the 1913 topo is close to correct, then it is possible that the picture was taken from 175 feet + 5 feet for cameraman or tripod, looking over a 155 foot cleared ridge.  That gives 25 feet of clearance plus the hills on the horizon have 20 or 30 or 40 or whatever foot trees on them, so the camera could see 45 to 65 feet of stuff over the 4th fairway ridge.  Do you think that there is still more than that showing in the picture? 
______________________________

As for whether the low slung building was a RR "station" I would have been very surprised if the building was part of the RR as opposed to owned by the land owner.  It looks like a storage building, equipment building, shop or something to similar to me.  But it could have been the location for the "flag station" with in reality wouldn't have to be much of a physical station at all.

If you look at the 1913 topo overlay, the station they had marked fits where the white parking lot is today.  Looks like a logical place for the station given that is where the road to Ireland's estate terminated and it's also where Crump decided to build his clubhouse.

By the way,  take a look at the deed you posted immediately above.  The 10 foot strip runs along side the RR right of way to the RR station.  Doesn't it sound like when this was first included (in a previous deed) the RR station was on the north side of the tracks?The 10 foot right of way was on the southwest side of the track.  The station was most likely on the northeast side (see the 1913 topo).  There was no easement or exception for property on the PV side for the RR.  There was a 100 foot exception along the northeast side on the Albertson land.  Plenty wide enough to accommodate a flag station.  It seems likely/logical to me that the 100 foot exception also applied to the Ireland property where the station likely was. 

[Bryan Izatt]

Patrick,

I see you've gone offline on this debate, but to draw you back online, are you really saying that the right flank of the current 6th green is 10 feet higher than the left?

As to the 6th green being 10' above the fairway, the right side and right flank of the 6th green is probably 6 to 10 feet higher than the left side of the green and the 7th tee, but the front of the green is at or slightly above the fairway  DZ

These pictures don't seem to support that claim.






Back in March 1913, would you agree that it appears from Crump's topo that the land that would become the left side of the fairway was a good 10 to 15 feet higher than the what would become the right side of the fairway.  Would you agree that there was  a 175 foot and a 180 foot nose up near where the green would be sited.  Would this suggest that there was some fair amount of grading done to level the land to the current configuration?  Would it have been a more interesting hole if that 10 or 16 foot canting from left to right had been kept in the fairway?




Also, when you say that the "landforms" along the RR track would have blocked AWT's views of the rolling hills, are you calling hills and ridges landforms.  I assume you are not calling trees landforms. Following is a picture of the elevation profile as you progress along the track to the east.  The landform (not the trees) blocking the view of the interior seems to rise and fall as you progress.  Would that not suggest to a reasonably intelligent observer that the interior beyond might also be rolling hills.

[DMoriarty]

Happy Thanksgiving Everyone.  
__________________________________________

Bryan,

I really respect and appreciate your efforts with these topos and overlays and such.    One correction:  I believe the USGS map is 10 foot intervals, not five foot intervals.

Frankly I am at a loss regarding some of your interpretations and analysis of these things.  Two examples:

1. On the previous page, you asked, "would you agree that it appears from Crump's topo that the land that would become the left side of the fairway was a good 10 to 15 feet higher than the what would become the right side of the fairway."   This is apparently based on your overlay of the skewed photograph of the Crump topo!  I for one do NOT agree.  
    A much more reasonable explanation is that, through no fault of yours, your overlay is not properly aligned. Shift the overlay slightly and the shape of the land seems pretty close to the USGS topo (provided we ignore the actual numbers on the 1913 topo and instead look at the land shape.)  How can you go from thinking it was futile to even try this overlay to having so much faith in your overlay that you think you got the exact edge of the right side of the fairway correct?  
  
2.  You seem to draw similar conclusions regarding the USGS topo:  "For comparison, here is a close up of the modern topo of the 6th hole. . . . Does it look correct based on what is actually there on the ground?   . . . Is the left side of the fairway really 10 to 15 feet higher than the left?[right?] . . . Does anyone believe that the fairway turned out that level without grading; without some cut and fill?"   Again Bryan, this is just an overlay, and I don't think it is nearly perfect enough to draw start making assumptions about exact elevations at the edge of the fairway.
   Here is a capture of the same overlay, of the RR and club road.  The RR is supposed to be between those two black lines.    And the road is supposed to be between the perpendicular black lines.  The entire overlay is significantly shifted.   Shift your closeup very slightly and again it seems to work pretty well.


_______________________________

Both the modern USGS topo and the 1913 top seem to have flattish areas at the top of the more abrupt drop to the right of the fairway.   There looks to be a slight rise toward the green but I don't know how anyone could quantify it.
______________________________________

As for the accuracy (or lack thereof) of the modern USGS map, here is what the USGS has to say about it:

Because engineers, highway officials, land use planners, and other professionals use USGS topographic maps as tools, map accuracy is vital. Dependable maps are also important to campers, hikers, and outdoorsmen.

The National Map Accuracy Standards were developed to ensure that Federal Government maps meet the high expectations and requirements of such users. Originally issued in 1941, the National Map Accuracy Standards apply to all Federal agencies that produce maps. These standards require horizontal and vertical map precision. For example, at least 90 percent of horizontal points tested on a 7.5 minute, 1:24,000-scale map must be accurate to within one-fiftieth of an inch on the map (40 feet on the ground). Vertical testing requires that at least 90 percent of the elevations tested must be accurate to within one-half the map's contour interval. For example, on a map with a contour interval of 10 feet, tested points must be within 5 feet of the actual elevation. These and other standards of accuracy and content ensure consistency in both the detail and the appearance of maps. They also ensure compatibility among USGS maps made at different times.

Within five feet elevation seems pretty accurate to me.  
__________________________________________________

Bryan, is it your theory that the elevations on the 1913 map are accurate and your fairway edges on your overlay are also exact, so that this entire ridge used to be 10-15 feet higher, but they lowered and flattened almost entire fairway by 10-15 feet to build the existing fairway?  

[Bryan Izatt]

Here's the deed for Virginia Ireland conveying 45 acres to Crump in 1915.

[Bryan Izatt]

And, the deed conveying the 45 acres Crump bought from Virginia Ireland to Pine Valley Golf Club.

[Bryan Izatt]

David,

You asked why I explore ideas like I do.  One reason is that sometimes you discover things.  For instance, your quote from the USGS about accuracy.

As for the accuracy (or lack thereof) of the modern USGS map, here is what the USGS has to say about it:

Because engineers, highway officials, land use planners, and other professionals use USGS topographic maps as tools, map accuracy is vital. Dependable maps are also important to campers, hikers, and outdoorsmen.

The National Map Accuracy Standards were developed to ensure that Federal Government maps meet the high expectations and requirements of such users. Originally issued in 1941, the National Map Accuracy Standards apply to all Federal agencies that produce maps. These standards require horizontal and vertical map precision. For example, at least 90 percent of horizontal points tested on a 7.5 minute, 1:24,000-scale map must be accurate to within one-fiftieth of an inch on the map (40 feet on the ground). Vertical testing requires that at least 90 percent of the elevations tested must be accurate to within one-half the map's contour interval. For example, on a map with a contour interval of 10 feet, tested points must be within 5 feet of the actual elevation. These and other standards of accuracy and content ensure consistency in both the detail and the appearance of maps. They also ensure compatibility among USGS maps made at different times.

Later when I have a little time, I need to think about this and it's implications to using the modern topo as some kind of base fact and comparing that to the March 1913 topo.

Some questions: 

What's the data spacing on USGS maps (maybe 30 X 30M?)

Is the modern topo 1:24000?

Are the roads and houses on the modern topo more accurately placed than the contours?  In other words, are they better points of alignments in overlays?

Who do you suppose overlaid the topo onto Google Earth.  Somebody working for NJ?  Or an interested internet geek?  Why can't they get them aligned more accurately? Are they uniformly shifted?

What is the scale of the 1913 topo - certainly not 1:24000?

What was data spacing was likely used? 

So, there are two possible issues with the modern topo.  The location and elevation are both subject to a margin of error.  And, the overlay of the topo on Google Earth may be misaligned.

[DMoriarty]

Bryan,

I've read that all of the USGS quad maps for the Continental US are 7.5 minute, 1:24000.  As for the other questions, most of what I know is what is the statement I quoted, which came from a information page on the USGS website.

As for the overlay, that NJ State Atlas site is apparently maintained by an individual who had previously worked for a NJ planning body.  It looks like it was created by overlaying the quad maps over the google earth data   I zoomed in on what I believe is the intersection point for the relevant quad map and it looks like the entire quad map is shifted slightly.

Out of curiosity I captured two images from that site, one with the topo completely opaque and one with it completely transparent, and then I recreated the overlay without changing the scales but with a slight shift to align the RR and roads I highlighted in the previous post.  The contours seem to be much more in line with the golf holes.



I suspect that the USGS and the 1913 topo line up pretty well too, but that the elevations are off on the 1913 topo, but I don't have a clean enough copy to tell.  

[Bryan Izatt]

David,

As you previously posted:

The National Map Accuracy Standards were developed to ensure that Federal Government maps meet the high expectations and requirements of such users. Originally issued in 1941, the National Map Accuracy Standards apply to all Federal agencies that produce maps. These standards require horizontal and vertical map precision. For example, at least 90 percent of horizontal points tested on a 7.5 minute, 1:24,000-scale map must be accurate to within one-fiftieth of an inch on the map (40 feet on the ground). Vertical testing requires that at least 90 percent of the elevations tested must be accurate to within one-half the map's contour interval. For example, on a map with a contour interval of 10 feet, tested points must be within 5 feet of the actual elevation. These and other standards of accuracy and content ensure consistency in both the detail and the appearance of maps. They also ensure compatibility among USGS maps made at different times.

And, from the USGS data users guide, the data spacing for the modern topo appears to be 30 x 30 meters. 

7.5-Minute DEM (30- x 30-m data spacing, cast on Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) projection). Provides coverage in 7.5- x 7.5-minute blocks.

The contour lines are created using an interpolation algorithm using the nearest four data points.

So, as I read it, 90% of the points are within 40 feet of accurate horizontally.  And, 10% could be more than 40 feet horizontally misplaced.  And, elevations for 90% of the points is within +/- 5 feet of accurate, while 10% might be wrong by more than +/- 5 feet.  It strikes me that the modern topo does not have the precision to use the way we've been trying.

The 1898 topo was 1:62500 so it is likely even less precise, which may account for the discrepancies you see.  Presumably they were using a data spacing that was more than twice as wide as the current one.  I would imagine that the interpolation algorithm has probably improved over a hundred years too.

The 1913 Crump survey, based on my perception of the physical size of the map, from pictures, must be more like 1:12000 or even 1:8000.  It'd be easy to figure out if we could estimate the dimensions of the map.  I'd also assume that since it has 5 foot contours that the data spacing would likely have been 15 x 15 meters or less.  So, in some ways I'd expect that 1913 map to be more accurate.

I see you have shifted the contours based on  aligning the roads.  I'm not sure how we know that the roads are more precisely accurately located, but it seems a reasonable premise.  I have also realigned the 1913 topo a bit.  I think the 170 foot contour very closely matched the right edge of the fairway.  I've overlaid the modern topo and 1913 topos on GE.

The general shape of the contours are similar, but the 1913 lines seem to me to show a greater degree of refinement.  The 140 and 150 foot contours are more or less along the same line.  The contours along the fairway and the green are about 10 feet higher on the 1913 map.  Given the margin of error on the modern topo, it is conceivable that the entire 160 foot contour is out by -5 feet, and should be 165 feet.  It is also conceivable that the 170 foot contour line is out by +2.5 feet and should have been 167.5 feet.  But, that's assuming the maximum error in one direction currently and the maximum error in the opposite direction in 1913 to get the contour lines within 2.5 feet.  It seems more likely to me that that land was higher in 1913 and was graded to its current levels.  That grading could be somewhere between 2.5 to 10 feet.  At the very least it looks to me like the 180 (170) foot nose, where the green is situated, was flattened out for the green, with the bunkers excavated out of the sides of it. 



As I recall, you were doubting the location and direction of the 6th fairway picture because you couldn't reconcile the amount of ridge line showing on the horizon based on current elevations in GE and USGS surveys.  With a better understanding of the accuracy and margin of error in the tools we were using, are you more or less doubtful now.  Based on the 1913 topo, it would appear that there was 20-25 foot clearance over the 4th fairway ridge, plus the trees of whatever height on the ridge across the RR tracks.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Bryan,

I wouldn't question the site specific survey done for Crump at all.  The large area maps by necessity use limited data points, but if Crump surveyed the ground to build a golf course, it is implicit that it be accurate.

The surveys I have seen and done by hand usually set up a 50 or 100 foot grid for broad slopes on a site, and add specific high points, creeks, and other unusual features where more accuracy is necessary.

The debate about which topos are accurate is just wrong - I am 99% sure you can count on the 1913 field survey as being accurate as to what was there.  Nor would there be any shifting of a site topo as there are with aerial photo methods.  And, I believe the scale of that one is 1 ft = 100 feet, as that was most common. (1:1200, not 12,000) It might be 1"= 50 or 60 feet as you say, but that would be less common. (Not unheard of though, as I have a project now that was draw at 60 scale, which threw me for a bit!)

In short a hand site survey vs. a large scale photometric or even hand survey has to be more accurate.  Surveyors are accurate by nature and trade when commissioned for such a task.  There are some limitations in mapping large territories for general purposes, but those aren't present when being commissioned to survey for specific site development.

[DMoriarty]

Bryan,

While I respect your effort and don't doubt your intentions, I think you are misunderstanding and/or misapplying the regulatory standard.  
  The regulation requires at least 90% of the samples to be within their limits.  This means that the accuracy of these maps falls somewhere between 90 and 100%.   As you say it could be 90% but it also could be 99% accurate, and given that the USGS claims that their drafts very rarely fall outside of the regulation, it is highly unlikely that the USGA maps are walking the thin line between pass and fail. I read these tests as quite strenuous, and so do others, which is why the USGS maps have been the standard for so long.   So your statement that they aren't accurate enough for our purposes is a bit perplexing.  All I am using them for his the approx elevation of these two ridges.   Why shouldn't these topos be more than adequate for that?
  The regulation requiring between 90-100% accuracy has been in place since 1947.  So in 1947, the USGS was able to come up with topos passing this requirement.  Do you doubt they have better technology now?
  Perhaps most importantly, when we critique the USGS data, it is crucial to ask, In comparison to what?   An oblique, difficult to decipher, rough photo of a 1913 topo with so many scribbles and lines, and changes it is hard to tell what is ongoing, on one in which YOU doubt the very existence of major features of the photo?  Really?  
-- What is the margin of error on the 1913 topo?
-- What is the quality control?
-- From where did they get their basis points on which their calculations and measures were based?  
-- Were those points accurate?  
-- etc.  

The USGA may not be perfect, but at least we are lucky enough to know the requirements and quality control for the USGS topo.  We little or no idea when it comes to the 1913 topo.  Let's not again get caught up favoring unknowables over the best information we have.

As for Jeff Brauer attesting that he is "99% sure you can count on the 1913 field survey as being accurate" . . . if that turns out to be good enough for you, well then you are not as bright as I think you are. If nothing else his affinity for throwing around how he "99% sure" of the accuracy of something like this ought to tell us plenty about his willingness and/or ability contribute meaningfully on the topic.
_____________________________________________________________

As for the rest of your message:

1.    I agree that the 1913 topo shows a greater degree of refinement.  It sure should, given the difference in scale.  What I question are the absolute elevations, not necessarily the relative elevations.  The absolute elevations seem well out of whack.

2.    I don't quite get your supposition that they must have graded up to 10 feet off of virtually the entire length of the fairway.  A few questions about this?
- Why?  What you think of as the before and after topos are very similar.  So why was it that they were grading down this relatively flat land?  
- When and How?  The map is from March, correct?  And they didn't begin clearing until February And the first six holes were essentially ready by the AWT article(s) in April/May?   So when do you think that they took the fairway down 2.5-10 feet?  And why was this kind of major dirt moving never mentioned?

3.  Hypothetically, if I told you that the measures on the 1913 topo were high by as much as 10 feet across the 4th fairway, would you conclude that this hill must have been taken down as well?  After all, it seems a more logical place for grading given the golf of 1913.   

[Bryan Izatt]

Bryan,

I wouldn't question the site specific survey done for Crump at all.  The large area maps by necessity use limited data points, but if Crump surveyed the ground to build a golf course, it is implicit that it be accurate.

The surveys I have seen and done by hand usually set up a 50 or 100 foot grid for broad slopes on a site, and add specific high points, creeks, and other unusual features where more accuracy is necessary.

The debate about which topos are accurate is just wrong - I am 99% sure you can count on the 1913 field survey as being accurate as to what was there.  Nor would there be any shifting of a site topo as there are with aerial photo methods.  And, I believe the scale of that one is 1 ft = 100 feet, as that was most common. (1:1200, not 12,000) It might be 1"= 50 or 60 feet as you say, but that would be less common. (Not unheard of though, as I have a project now that was draw at 60 scale, which threw me for a bit!)

In short a hand site survey vs. a large scale photometric or even hand survey has to be more accurate.  Surveyors are accurate by nature and trade when commissioned for such a task.  There are some limitations in mapping large territories for general purposes, but those aren't present when being commissioned to survey for specific site development.

Jeff,

PV appears to be a relatively hilly area (at least for this area of NJ) with few flat areas.  Is it your experience on hilly sites that surveyors use a finer regular grid than 50 or 100 feet plus high or low points?  A 100 foot grid would be essentially the same as the USGS uses on large scale areas.  I would think that if you were producing 5 foot intervals and a much finer scale map that a grid at less than 50 feet would be more likely to be useful.

Upon further reflection, if the 1913 topo map were 36 inches side to side and that correlates to 4500 feet in real life, then the scale is likely around 1:1200 (inches on the map:inches in reality) or 1" = 100 feet or thereabouts.  That would be a scale that is 20 times finer than the standard USGS map.  I guess I would expect that the data spacing would have been commensurately finer.  Certainly 1.5 meter data spacing seems unlikely, but I would have expected something finer than 15 meters (50 feet).

As to the accuracy of the 1913 topo, I guess I would say on general principle that it is hard to claim exact accuracy.  There is a margin of error in any measurement scheme.  Even the USGS with the latest technology has margins of error.  On the other hand, on general principle, I would think the 1913 topo is more accurate depiction of the PV property because it was site specific and being a substantially smaller area than the USGS does, there would be less room for measurement error to creep in.

I am left wondering what Crump's comment on the map itself that the greens staked out on the ground didn't match those on the map.  I suspect that that means whoever transcribed the locations onto the map or vice versa had some difficulty placing where exactly the stakes were.  On the core property there were only the stones mentioned in the deeds.  I would guess that those were the starting point for the survey.  If the surveyor didn't plant additional markers/stones/stakes then it must be a real effort to know exactly where you are on an 184 acre property. 

[Bryan Izatt]

Bryan,

While I respect your effort and don't doubt your intentions, (And, here I thought you doubted everything  )  I think you are misunderstanding and/or misapplying the regulatory standard.
 
  The regulation requires at least 90% of the samples to be within their limits.  This means that the accuracy of these maps falls somewhere between 90 and 100%.   As you say it could be 90% but it also could be 99% accurate, and given that the USGS claims that their drafts very rarely fall outside of the regulation, it is highly unlikely that the USGA maps are walking the thin line between pass and fail.  I'm not focusing in the 90%.  It's still their standard, but, sure maybe it's closer to 99%.  But, I was focused on that it meant that the horizontal measurement was within 40 feet of accurate and the elevation was within 5 feet of accurate.  The 90% could be 100% at PV and all the points could be out by 40 feet horizontally and 5 feet vertically.  Now, I'm not saying they are out by that much, but that is their standard, so it would be foolhardy to think that some are out by that much.  It seems to me that that is how the 1898 topo has the roads relatively right, but the streams relatively wrong - at 1:62500 it would take more than 3 or 4 points to be a little out of whack.    I read these tests as quite strenuous, and so do others, which is why the USGS maps have been the standard for so long.   So your statement that they aren't accurate enough for our purposes is a bit perplexing.  All I am using them for his the approx elevation of these two ridges.   Why shouldn't these topos be more than adequate for that? I thought you were doubtful because you didn't think there was enough clearance of the 4th ridge.  The margin of error seems to me to be possibly large enough to bring into doubt whether there is enough clearance or not.  If you want to argue that the current topo is accurate to the foot and that the topography has not changed in the 100 years since the pre-construction picture and that the 1913 site specific topo is less accurate, and that you know how tall the trees were back then and how far away they were, then go for it.  Seems a long shot to me, but it's only my opinion.

  The regulation requiring between 90-100% accuracy has been in place since 1947.  So in 1947, the USGS was able to come up with topos passing this requirement.  Do you doubt they have better technology now?  No doubt.  Why haven't they changed the standard?
 
  Perhaps most importantly, when we critique the USGS data, it is crucial to ask, In comparison to what?  I wasn't critiquing it.  I was just trying to understand the possible margin of error.   An oblique, difficult to decipher, rough photo of a 1913 topo with so many scribbles and lines, and changes it is hard to tell what is ongoing, on one in which YOU doubt the very existence of major features of the photo?  Really? 
-- What is the margin of error on the 1913 topo?
-- What is the quality control?
-- From where did they get their basis points on which their calculations and measures were based?   
-- Were those points accurate? 
-- etc.

Surveying has been around for a long time and 1913 wasn't the dark ages.  I don't know the answers to the above questions and neither do you.  Nevertheless it was survey done on a finer scale and it was done at the time on the landform of the time.  Do you really think that a more gross scale survey of the land, after construction, and after 100 years is a more accurate depiction of what was there then?  Really? 

The USGA may not be perfect, but at least we are lucky enough to know the requirements and quality control for the USGS topo.  We little or no idea when it comes to the 1913 topo.  Let's not again get caught up favoring unknowables over the best information we have.  I thought you were in favor of contemporaneous information.  Why are you throwing this surveyor under the bus?

As for Jeff Brauer attesting that he is "99% sure you can count on the 1913 field survey as being accurate" . . . if that turns out to be good enough for you, well then you are not as bright as I think you are. If nothing else his affinity for throwing around how he "99% sure" of the accuracy of something like this ought to tell us plenty about his willingness and/or ability contribute meaningfully on the topic. There's no need to demean Jeff in this posting.
_____________________________________________________________

As for the rest of your message:

1.    I agree that the 1913 topo shows a greater degree of refinement.  It sure should, given the difference in scale.  The scale isn't really that relevant to the accuracy.  The data spacing is.  We don't know what it was, but it must have been finer than the USGS since they were doing 5 foot intervals.  What I question are the absolute elevations, not necessarily the relative elevations.  The absolute elevations seem well out of whack.  Compared to what?  A survey conducted on a coarser scale around 100 years later after a lengthy construction process.  Have you checked any other points on the 1913 topo?  Are they all uniformly out of whack?  Are you suggesting the surveyor was uniformly 10 feet too high on the 6th?  Or was it just on the 6th?

2.    I don't quite get your supposition that they must have graded up to 10 feet off of virtually the entire length of the fairway.  A few questions about this?  It's a supposition and certainly not uniformly 10 feet.  Do you think the ground was entirely flat on the fairway or were there hollows and hillocks, maybe as much as 5 feet within the then 170 foot (current 160 foot) contour line.    After they pulled up a bunch of tree root balls, did they grade?  How much would that have dropped the overall elevation.  Did the fairway slope at all to the ravine?
- Why?  What you think of as the before and after topos are very similar.  So why was it that they were grading down this relatively flat land? 
- When and How?  The map is from March, correct?  And they didn't begin clearing until February And the first six holes were essentially ready by the AWT article(s) in April/May?   So when do you think that they took the fairway down 2.5-10 feet?  And why was this kind of major dirt moving never mentioned?  In a lame attempt at humor, probably when the weren't building your dam and excavating the pond in that same period.

3.  Hypothetically, if I told you that the measures on the 1913 topo were high by as much as 10 feet across the 4th fairway, would you conclude that this hill must have been taken down as well?  After all, it seems a more logical place for grading given the golf of 1913. Hypothetically, I'd ask how you know exactly what the highest part of the ridge is, either then or even currently.  Currently I suppose we could get Jim and Patrick an altimeter and have them go out and specifically verify it.  Hypothetically if it turned out that the highest part of the ridge was exactly 10 feet lower than the same spot on the 1913 topo, then I'd suspect some cut and fill took place.  Why do you suppose that the 140 foot contour lines to the right of the 6th fairway line up so well if the overall measurement back then were out of whack?  Just coincidence? 

[Jeff_Brauer]

Bryan and David,

My comment could have been 99.99% sure about a site specific survey vs. a regional survey by NJ or the USGS.

It came from my experience in both surveying, commissioning surveys for golf development, and using USGS maps for preliminary planning before a detailed site survey was available.  From that, I can tell you that a USGS map is pretty useless for any sort of detailed site design, AND usually has some pretty big errors, even circa 1977 until present.  It's just not that accurate compared to an on site survey because of the scale and the intended use being general, as opposed to site specific.

As to the grid size, what I was trying to convey is that it might have even varied across the site, being 100 feet on gentler areas, 50 or 25 feet on steeper slopes, etc., and would usually include the specific high points, low points and creek bottoms, several points around ponds or swamps to describe the shape, etc.  They do what it takes to get an accurate map, and for sure, high points like No. 6 green would have had an actual survey shot on them.

If anyone thinks that me saying 99% sure, or using my experience in the actual field is somehow indicative of my faulty thought process, I have to say it simply strikes me how much of the "historical analysis" on this site has really been about just about everyone then, now, and 100 years in between being wrong, or the possibility that the writer of records back then, or surveyor, or club minutes being wrong in the case we are discussing.  To me, that has been the rancor causing element here.

And, back on point, gentleman, trust me, surveyors survey with great accuracy at site specific scale.  Whenever I have questioned one, they have turned out to be right! While golf architects do deal in generalities, site wise, surveyors are simply trained to be precise, to measure twice, map once, etc.

However, I guess all I know for sure is that if Crump got a commissioned survey with elevations 10 foot off or things out of place, I hope he got his money back, because that would have been far outside surveying standards in 1913!

[Tom MacWood]

I am left wondering what Crump's comment on the map itself that the greens staked out on the ground didn't match those on the map.  I suspect that that means whoever transcribed the locations onto the map or vice versa had some difficulty placing where exactly the stakes were.  On the core property there were only the stones mentioned in the deeds.  I would guess that those were the starting point for the survey.  If the surveyor didn't plant additional markers/stones/stakes then it must be a real effort to know exactly where you are on an 184 acre property. 

"Am not sure the greens are marked on the map as I marked them on the ground."

This is GAC's comment on the map. It seems pretty straightforward, doesn't it? What is not known is when precisely he wrote it and who the comment was intended for. Was it intended for Colt who spent a week on site, or was it intended for one or more of the other seventeen men who originally were going to design one hole each, or was it intended for someone else.

Bryan
What is the purpose of this exercise/thread? Is there something you are trying to prove or discover?

[DMoriarty]

All I am using them for his the approx elevation of these two ridges.   Why shouldn't these topos be more than adequate for that? I thought you were doubtful because you didn't think there was enough clearance of the 4th ridge.

I am doubtful because the information I consider most reliable indicates that there is not nearly enough clearance of the 4th ridge, my doubt is based upon the apparent elevation of these two ridges.   Given that it is really not that close a call, surely the USGS map is accurate enough for this purpose.

If you want to argue that the current topo is accurate to the foot and that the topography has not changed in the 100 years since the pre-construction picture and that the 1913 site specific topo is less accurate, and that you know how tall the trees were back then and how far away they were, then go for it.  Seems a long shot to me, but it's only my opinion.

Please don't saddle me with your straw man arguments.  I'd be glad to give the captions the benefit of the doubt if the data was even close, but it doesn't appear to be to me.   IMO, your attempts to cast doubt on the accuracy the USGS survey fall well short.   That said, I am still open to suggestions as to how on earth those pics could be what that caption -- written a half century after the fact -- says it is.

Surveying has been around for a long time and 1913 wasn't the dark ages.  I don't know the answers to the above questions and neither do you.  Nevertheless it was survey done on a finer scale and it was done at the time on the landform of the time.  Do you really think that a more gross scale survey of the land, after construction, and after 100 years is a more accurate depiction of what was there then?  Really?

I've already said that the "finer scale" [if there was one -- we don't know the data grid] ought to produce better details, or as you said,  a "greater degree of refinement."  But the "degree of refinement" isn't really at issue here, at least not to me.  What is at issue are the elevations of these two ridges, not every nook and cranny of the edge of the ridge line.  And for that, I am very surprised you would go with a 1913 topo over a modern topo, given even what you have written about the standards for the modern topo, and given the complete lack of info about the other.  You didn't answer my questions above, but perhaps you could try to consider just one of them?  If not from a government survey, from what basis point do you suppose the surveyor was working?

I'm no Jeff Brauer, so I couldn't possibly claim near absolute certainty as to the practice, technique, and error (or lack thereof) on a 1913 survey based on holding a stick almost a century later.  (Perhaps he is living at a Holiday Inn?)  But I have a rudimentary understanding of the science and geometry underlying surveying, and it is my rudimentary understanding that such surveys must necessarily have been reliant upon a KNOWN ELEVATION AT A SPECIFIC LOCATION.  (A visible location, I believe.) And if the surveyor happened to be mistaken about that basis point, the elevations would necessarily be off.  In other words, surveying was a bit of a garbage in, garbage out scenario.

So where do you suppose these surveyors got their basis information for the 1913 survey?   And who measured and compiled such information?  I find it ironic that you guys would put such relative faith in the numbers on this survey given from where the basis point information most likely came.

I thought you were in favor of contemporaneous information.  Why are you throwing this surveyor under the bus?

I haven't thrown anyone under the bus. But we have apparently conflicting information, and I am just trying understand why.

There's no need to demean Jeff in this posting.

Perhaps.  But over the years I have grown weary of his many definite pronouncements about things he couldn't possibly know with any real degree of definiteness --that is unless his self-proclaimed and self-hyped 'expertise' has opened a window to time travel.  Anyway, you know as well as I do that his 99% pronouncement is way outside the realm of possibility.  Shouldn't we fill in any readers who might not know better?

This whole thing reminds me of the old discussion of the 10th at Merion, where I accurately provided the actual distance of the hole as it reportedly (1930 GI) played in 1930, based on comparing the GI aerial images (and diagrams) to actual measures on Google Earth.  (You eventually if reluctantly confirmed the measures.)  Seems rather trivial now but at the time my use of Google Earth measures sure ruffled some feathers.  As you may recall I was repeatedly called a liar and worse by self-proclaimed experts on the site, and amongst the insults and outrage there were challenges, promises, proclamations, and such, none of which ever came to fruition, nor could they.  You and I relied on the best facts available, not the opinions of self-proclaimed experts who obviously did not have actual facts.  Like with Jeff's pronouncements here, the others failed to understand the limits of the scope of their self-proclaimed 'expertise.'  

[Jeff_Brauer]

David,
I understand you are tired of me, as I am of you.  Even that withstanding, I just have to call BS on your last post.  

In this case, my “definite pronouncements” are based on my experience.  I think I can know about that survey with a real degree of definiteness – no self-proclaimed and self-hyped 'expertise' necessary.  If you want to harp on “window to time travel” take it up with Patrick, who acts as if he knows what folks saw from a train on a winter day.

If we want to fill in any casual readers who might not know better, it’s to tell them that in this case you are the one really full of bull.  But people can believe someone who has done and used the mapping or someone who looked up the definition in a book.  

At this point, I type this out for the few on this site who still want to learn something.  I am not interested in your specific argument about the photo not being taken from the 6th fairway, because the lowest tech instrument available – my own eyes – tell me the features fit.  How you can be analyzing distant hills to try to make a case, I just don’t have a clue.

I have no doubt that you have a rudimentary understanding of the science and geometry underlying surveying, but you got it from a book.  Perhaps as I have a rudimentary idea of what a lawyer does because I have been sued, been a witness, etc.  I even got a chance to play lawyer years ago in a public hearing regarding a superintendent. 

With all due respect, and I have as mentioned, I have done site surveys, worked with them and understand their methods.  I still keep an old transit at home “just in case” I need to go shoot a few grades.  Much of this post is written just for the fun of reviewing stuff I did more of in the old days (circa 1973-1990 or so)
 

And having used both site topo surveys and USGS aerial quad maps for the same purpose as Crump and on the same project, I know which is more accurate.

I didn’t mention it, but I took an aerial survey class in college and actually produced a USGS type map using the same stereoscope aerial photos.  If you saw that method, where you trace over “stereo” (slightly off set aerial photos) and you try to trace along a line that makes the stereoscope appear to remain on the ground, but if you go too low it looks as if it’s digging a hole or too high and it jumps off the page at you, you would realize it just isn’t as accurate as hand surveying, and really depends on the diligence of the user.  And, those topo maps are made from relatively few known ground elevations.

Also, there is distortion in varying rates in any aerial photo.  It varies with if the plane was truly vertical (Not always possible in high winds, but made easier with the advent of gyroscopes which stay steady)

The methods are such that the computer and photographically generated topos have much more chance of garbage in, garbage out than a survey instrument.  (That phrase wasn’t even invented until computers came around!)  Surveyors are trained by nature to be accurate.  Aerial photo mapping can sure cover more ground, but its at the expense of detailed accuracy.

BTW, there are different levels of hand surveying.  While Golf Course Architects prefer aerial topos because they are good enough for our use, housing developers nearly always prefer the hand surveyed topos to this day, because they give them the accuracy they need.

Of course, for those of you trying to re-write history to make names for yourselves are prone to believe that every darn thing done by some old guy is wrong…but in the case of surveyors, I know that 99.99% accuracy rate is probably very accurate to how they work.

As to your specific questions about what the reference elevations were, they all relate to sea level.  One of the early tasks of the USGS was to establish true benchmarks related to sea level at regular intervals so other surveyors could do their work with confidence.  There are numerous elevation markers around the country, generally at intervals so a surveyor doesn’t have to go very far (a few miles) to tie into the national coordinate system.  If the benchmark is not visible, then they have to traverse to it, perhaps using many set ups of the instrument in locations that eventually get that benchmark back to their site.  

Is it possible they failed?  I know of no known instance of a USGS bench monument to be wrong.  I know of only a miniscule percentage of qualified surveyors who would make such a mistake.  Properly done, there is absolutely no doubt that a fine scale, hand surveyed map is more accurate than an aerially obtained USGS Map.  None.

“Holding a stick” as you call it is actually very precise.  It has markings to either 0.1 or 0.01 feet.  Looking through the transit or level it is very easy to read at distances up to 600 feet or so.  (Optics probably got better over the years, but they could surely see 300 or more feet even in 1913)  If you know the level of your instrument from the benchmark, something like 184.55, then you read the stick and if it reads, say 12.22, then you subtract that and the pole is sitting at an elevation of 172.33.  Voila.  Taken from right on the ground, not 1000 feet in the air.  Which do you think is more accurate?

Besides that, the method of surveying a grid has built in checks and balances.  If I survey four grid points and they are on reasonably flat ground, but they register as elevations 180.23, 181.45, 184.56 and 122.00, do you think a conscientious surveyor would notice his one data point mistake and do it over?  How would a pilot know if he was askew a bit, and how qualified/motivate is the guy running the stereoscope but never having seen the actual ground going to know if there is a mistake?

Mostly, the purpose of the USGS maps must be considered as general, and not construction specific, and they were never intended to be accurate.  But if you want to hold out hope that Crump’s surveyor was one of the 0.0001% of mistaken surveys by a registered surveyor, and mistaken to the degree that their elevations were consistently off by more than the minimum accuracy of the USGS maps, then go ahead.

Unless proven otherwise by another on site survey, it is not at all unreasonable or ironic to put faith in a site survey.  Builders, property buyers, courts, etc. have done it for centuries, but only on golf club atlas would someone question all that went before in favor of deciding after a few moments of thought that it was very likely that everyone else gets it wrong until we come along to prove that very fact.

LOL

BTW, I will admit that after careful review, your work on the 10th at Merion was pretty accurate.  I believe I said that when I came to your way of thinking, at that time.

That is why, while I am convinced that your search for an alternate location of this photo is a bit of a herring, I wouldn’t ever discourage it.  It’s not that commonly held assumptions are never wrong, but in the last few years, IMHO, just far too many of our arguments are based on such presumptions.  You aren’t always wrong either, but I do believe you are wrong on your assessment of this photo, and the lengths to which you are going to attempt to prove it.
As always, just MHO.

Cheers to all.

[DMoriarty]

This is not a matter depending upon of levels of expertise, not even self-proclaimed expertise.  It is a matter of fact.   Brauer has no idea the accuracy of the basis point on which that survey was dependent.  He has no idea of the quality control, or lack thereof.  He no more has access to the original data set than I don. At best he can generalize about the relative value of site specific focused surveys over larger scale surveys (for some purposes) but then that really has never been at issue.   He obviously has no concept of the limits of his expertise, and apparently thinks that being a self-proclaimed expert gives him license to pretend he is aware of facts about which he could not possibly be aware.   TEPaul, Morrison, and others thought they had range finders in their eyes.  Shivas thought he had perfect one yard gait.  Brauer thinks a survey class taught hem to travel through time to check the accuracy of unknown data from a century ago.  So he makes pronouncements that, given his lack of specific knowledge of what happened then, are nonsensical on their face.

It is not even a knock on Brauer's expertise, as it has nothing to do with it.  The foremost expert on such surveys would not be able to attest with 99 percent certainty that this survey was accurate, at least not with much more factual information than we currently have!   Yet Brauer knows it with 99% certainty?   Absurd.  Apparently his survey class taught him he could just make things up.

[DMoriarty]

Bryan,

The elevations on the 1913 topo appear to be off by around 10 feet or more, and not just on the 6th hole ridge.  Rather than using the Quad map, I've used the USGS National Elevation Data set (NED) at 1/9 arc second resolution (approx. three meters spacing) gathered by means of light detection and radar (LIDAR) technology.  

Is that an acceptable data source, or are you still going to try and rely on numbers on the 1913 topo over the USGS data?   Was Crump a barber?  Did they take around 10 feet off the top of much of the course?

At least we have learned how much faith we can put in Brauer's proclamations of 99 percent certainty.

[Jeff_Brauer]

David,

You are really just full of BS on this one.  Why don't you go on a wild goose chase to see what percentage of surveys have major errors?  How many lawsuits as a % of surveys are filed?  I will guarantee you it is very very small.  As in so many other cases, you try to raise reasonable doubt, like a lawyer would, but it shouldn't be the case here, and for that matter, only the dumbest juries in the world would buy it.

I was going to mention LIDAR technology in my last post, and you beat me too it.  Just what was your source for that LIDAR map?  I have seen them commissioned for individual projects but don't recall off hand what the resolution of those were.  Are you using some new national or regional mapping?  It would be interesting to know, if there is a 10 ft difference from new technology 100 years later what the source of that might be. 

But, barring any reasonable proof of a mistake, I would still go with contemopraneous source material rather than new maps as to what existed back then.  Surveying by that method was both well established and very accurate for centuries until computers came along.

That said, my own eyeballs tell me that the picture was taken from 6 green or thereabouts by comparing easily visible topo features, and I have no idea why anyone would pursue such a line of thinking.  Of course, if anyone would pursue it, it would be David, Pat, or possibly Tom MacWood. 

[DMoriarty]

Why try to figure this stuff out when we have Brauer to just make things up?  Now he is an expert on lawsuits, too?  

Yet I am the one who is full of BS?  Just me, the USGS, and that newfangled technology.  

[Jeff_Brauer]

David,

Simple point really.  Surveying did quite well and quite accurately for centuries before airplanes and computers.

If we are to accept your premise that a surveyor made an error, the burden of proof should be on you.  I get tired of you telling us that you are the only one capable of figuring shit out, and that everyone until you were born was apparently incapable.

If the survey is wrong, tell us why, don't just tell us there is a great chance it is wrong.  Because, I know they usually aren't.

Not to mention the fact that the entire premise of your last few dozen posts seems to be to reach to prove the photo was not taken where it was said to be taken, despite a pretty good correlation of nearby topo features that correspond well with what was and is on the ground.  You are trying so hard to find exceptions to prove its wrong, its almost comical.

If for some reason, I am wrong, I will freely adimit it.  No problem there, but I have looked at that thing 100 times, and casually looked at your (and Bryan's) work in trying to find descrepancies and I really just don't see the point.

But, as usual, carry on.  You never know when you might be on to something.

BTW, never said I was an expert on lawsuits, just pointing out that you are not an expert on surveying.  Nor did I make anything up.  I really get tired of Pat calling me a liar and you saying  I make stuff up, but maybe that's just me.....

Cheers.

[Bryan Izatt]

On September 10, 1917 Pine Valley Golf Club bought a tract of land at the Southeast end of their core 184.31 acre property from Edward Y. Swope for $1.00 and other valuable considerations.  The boundaries of this property are outlined in blue on the following map.

This is the last deed that we searched, although there are assuredly more properties that were added after 1917 to round out the 600+ acres that Pine Valley holds today.

[DMoriarty]

The burden of proof is on me to prove that a 1913 survey is wrong, even though on its face it conflicts with multiple USGS maps?  Where does this guy come up with this stuff?  

The NED 1/9 arc second data conflicts with the 1913 topo. It is not my "burden" to spoon feed Brauer such data, notwithstanding his silly pronouncements about 99% certainty.   He is the self-proclaimed expert so he can surely access it look it up himself if he doesn't believe me.    But then that would take more than baseless pontification on his part, so I won't count him so doing.

[DMoriarty]

Bryan,  I found reference to a sale of some land by Pine Valley, I think around 1916 or 1917.  Did you guys come across any information on sales in your search?  

[Jeff_Brauer]

David,

Again, very simple.  A specific site survey done for construction is inherently more detailed than a large scale map done by aerial photograhy.  That is just a well known fact in the golf design and other related fields, whether you care to believe it or not.

Once again, having used both types of maps on the same site on numerous occasions, I can tell you that in no case has the USGS map ever been more accurate than the hand surveyed map.

So, if you are going to maintain that new technology from 1000 feet up trumps a good old fashioned survey, you would have to show me some actual facts as to why the hand survey is wrong, not just offer up newer tech that is still by design for more general mapping.

Anyway, I have offered my opinon on that subject, and I will say no more.  Not worth it to me, so you guys can just enjoy the heck out of the debates if that is what floats your boat.  Have fun.