[Jeff_Brauer]

Patrick,

Honestly, I am still hung up on the fact that those photos we have been debating clearly show me that you could see through uncleared forest in what would be the pond on 5, from the 6th fw to the tracks. 

Still wondering why I should ignore that old construction saying that if you can see it/them, they can see you or your location?  What tells us better what we see, our eyes and pictures or our ears and words?

I vote pictures.

[DMoriarty]

David,

OK.  I get it.  You have no respect for Jeff's knowledge or opinion on surveying.

It doesn't sound like you "get it" and by his last post it doesn't sound like Brauer "gets it" either.  His knowledge or opinion on surveying has nothing to do with it.  Nor does it have anything to do with all the personal stuff he keeps trying to dump into the conversation.  

The problem is with how he wields his claim of expertise to justify proclamations that are well beyond the scope of his knowledge and experience.

He keeps confusing general knowledge/experience with specific knowledge about specific facts that are NECESSARILY outside his knowledge base.   Brauer has a long history of doing this.  He holds himself out as an expert, and then makes proclamations that go well beyond what the facts reasonably support.  It is rhetorical alchemy, where he thinks that his experience allows him to present as fact that which he could not possibly know as fact!  But he is no different than all the other self-proclaimed experts around here who ask us to take their word for things rather than following the facts.   This business about his 99.99% certainty that this survey was absolutely accurate is just the latest example.  

"Real world experience" is fine as far as it goes and can be enlightening when properly offered for what it is worth.  But it can also be very misleading when misused to overstep the limitations of that experience.  We ought not pretend that "real world experience" is a capable substitute for specific facts.   And that is what he had here --Jeff Brauer was trying to bootstrap his "experience" into factual claims he could not possibly justify.  It was and is ridiculous for him to attest to a 99.99% surety about the absolute accuracy of a a survey conducted in 1913, despite the FACTS that he knew nothing of the benchmark, how it was obtained, the data points, the distance between them, the competence of the surveyor, the timing of the survey, the role sketching played in extrapolating from those unknown data points, etc.

Brauer can keep on crying and whining about how I don't like him, but more often than not it is him lashing out at me with factually unsupportable accusations, and me addressing his fallacious arguments directly and honestly.

And he can keep on mocking me for actually becoming informed (that pesky book-learnin') on the relevant matters before I opine, but the record here isn't that convoluted or tricky --Brauer made a number of rather ridiculous pronouncements which were well beyond the scope of his knowledge, and those pronouncements have been thoroughly debunked.  

[Jeff_Brauer]

David,

Not whining really.  I can and have named many situations, including this one, where you have made proclamations that are more opinion than factual, and to be fair, most of these arguments on both sides are a matter of someone deciding this or that is more credible than that or this, mostly going on opinion, but being pretty sure its fact!  The problems come when anyone calls you out on it.  You like to argue!

You quote un named sources in the form of books about surveying that you apparently just found.  How the heck is anyone supposed to know what part of the process sketching applies to?  Not to mention the scale of mapping would affect that, too.  I have sure seen some sketching on field maps for the civil war in my research.  But, on a golf topo map, specifically commissioned, I have never seen a surveyor estimate a data point in any way.

How can you know standards of surveying have changed over the years after 30 minutes of Google research?  Is 30 minutes or book learning really a substitute for 30 years of surveying experience?  So, are your posts more factual than mine?

In making my post, I figured some real world experience might enlighten some folks, maybe entertain a bit.  For all your arguments, its still a matter of perspective.

And, for the record, most of my experience began back in the 1970's before there were any real changes in surveying tech, like the Total Station system and digital and using tools and techniques that really hadn't changed much in decades.  In fact, I think the first surveyors level I used probably was built in the early 1900's!

You are correct that I don't have the surveyors log book.   I do think I know what was going through their minds and generally how they did it.  Once you agreed in one post, in general, an on site survey is preferable for details to an aerial one, our only real point of contention is that I would only question the veracity of a surveyors work if I had a specific reason to do so.

I agree that the differences in macro elevations were a good reason for you to question it, but I think Bryan provided the most logical reason why the two topos were different.  Hell, I will even agree that a USGS map would be suitable for the general long distance purpose you used it for - broad cross sections.  It turns out you picked a site line that was awfully close to not making the background visible.

In any event, I would think that someone with my experience would qualify as credible vs someone who has never done it, but in the internet world, maybe not.

and, in reality, what exactly does the last five pages of this prove anyway?  That the photo wasn't taken from the 6th fw or green?  That Tillie couldn't see out of a train?  I forget what this tangent is even about, as it relates to learning about the development of PV.

[DMoriarty]

Sort of ironic that Brauer tries to mock me for being able to defeat his various false proclamations with only a bit of Google research.   Isn't this much more of an indictment of his bogus proclamations than it is of anything I have done?    Why the hell is the supposed expert on surveying making bogus proclamations that can easily be refuted when held up to the shallowest of scrutiny?    Some expert. 

As for his haughty claim that I owe him a source, I did my research before I brought up the role of sketching.  Had he bothered to do even the scantest research before ridiculing me, he'd have known I was correct!   But instead he shoots from the hip and as usual completely misses his target.

For those actually interested in the role of sketching in early surveying, there are a number of books and manuals available on the subject for the relevant time period in question, and ALL address the importance of sketching in the surveying process.   There were even text books entirely devoted to the subject of the role of sketching in surveying.   

In short, Brauer's claim that sketching was not a crucial part of the process, and that surveyors were never taught to sketch was flat out wrong.  Were he capable of even the shallowest research he'd be able to figure this out himself. 
___________________________

As for the rest, just more misrepresentations of my posts and my methodology on his part.  He keeps talking about 30 minutes of internet research.  Wrong again.  But even if he were correct, this would only goes to the superficiality of his claims. 

"Book learning" is a very good substitute for experience when "book learning" actually directly addresses the issues at hand and experience does not, like with the role of sketching in surveying in 1913.  And facts are always a better option that "experience,"  and "experience" never an adequate substitute for fact. 

One real problem with "experience" is that it tends to give people of false sense of what they know and what they don't know.    We see this again and again in these conversations. For example, even now, Brauer claims to know what was "going through the minds" of the surveyors in 1913!   Really?    Give me a f-ing break!
___________________________________________________

David and Bryan,

I get glossed over while reading the tech posts but it looks like you guys agree that it's impossible to prove which topo may be exactly right or wrong right now, is that accurate or no?

I hate to speak for Bryan, but I think we agree that the 1913 survey has elevations which are generally higher by around 10 feet (or more) than any other survey or data set to which we currently have access.  I also think we agree that this difference is widespread enough across the site that it is very unlikely that the difference can be explained by the construction process.  I think we also generally agree that the shape of the land depicted by the contours on the 1913 map probably reflects the general shape of the ground pre-construction.

We disagree on whether or not we can reasonably conclude that the absolute elevations on the 1913 were wrong.  As far as I can figure, Bryan has some doubts about the accuracy of the various other sources of information we have (the 1953 survey, the 1/3 data set, the 1/9 NED, the 1/3 NED, the 1 Arc Sec NED) all of which contradict the 1913 map.   While I share many of his specific concerns about these datasets and maps, it seems to me that at least some of the data points underlying these various data sets are very likely accurate, and so even with the problems I have no qualms about drawing conclusions about the overall accuracy of the absolute elevations on the 1913 map.   

Another thing I assume we agree upon is that there is absolutely no reasonable justification for claiming to a 99.99% certainty that the 1913 map is accurate as to the absolute numbers. 

. . . a dozen or so posts ago you put up an overlay of a current topo and suggested it was strange in some way, I'm curious what it is about it that strikes you? I notice the elevations look lower across the board, is that it?

I think my concerns are similar to Bryan's, I think. As he said, the contours look smoothed and they lack detail. Another concern I have is that I don't know what data  they used to create the data.  Bryan specuates it was the same data used for the 1913 map, but I cannot really think of many reasons why this would be the case.    Whatever the data,  the contouring application does not appear to be good for much other than providing a very rough approximation of the lay of the land.

You say the elevations look lower across the board . . . lower than what?   

[DMoriarty]

I'm curious as to whether you think the tree lines drawn on the 1913 topo represented where they had been cut back to by March 1913 or where they planned to cut them back to at some point after the topo was draw. 

I don't know.  I don't remember the extent of the tree lines drawn on the map, and they may all be difficult to make out. Was the entire property marked with tree lines, or just the portion where they were first laying out the course?  Is it possible that they had cleared only this portion?   I keep thinking of the two different methods used of surveying.  Perhaps these had something to do with visibility?   I don't remember what they were so I don't know.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Well now I have spent 20 minutes or so wasting time in looking at the first dozen or so Google results on sketching in surveying.

Not much there.  One mentions sketching a site before starting as part of a work plan.  Another mentions sketches as supplementary info to clarify other information, both of which match my surveying experience.  No wonder David didn't cite his sources!

To correct David's statement above, it should read, "Book learning" is a RARELY very good substitute for experience and when in the wrong hands, can really lead to false conclusions, expecially when in the hands of David Moriarity.

And given the references to sketching are mostly false, please tell me what "facts" are presented in his post 378 above?  Nada, of course.  Just his usual insults and blow hard opinions, most of which are wrong.

The only reason I keep this going is to make this point - knowing what I know from 30 years of being around and using surveying, it is kind of scary to see what David is capable of willingly misrepresenting if he disagrees with someone.  It should make readers wonder just what other things he has sounded authoritative about, with no real facts to back him up.  In my view, everything he says has to viewed as very suspect.  Not that many of us didn't already suspect him of being very untruthful anyway, or taken exception to his many claims, theories and analysis.

Back on topic a bit more, it is an interesting question of what "absolute" elevations are.  Obviously, all are related to sea level, but I wonder if the definition of that has changed over the years and if that has contributed to any changes in benchmarks.  It would seem that absolute would be absolute, but the USGS has changed some benchmarks over the years, according to all of this. 

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick,

Honestly, I am still hung up on the fact that those photos we have been debating clearly show me that you could see through uncleared forest in what would be the pond on 5, from the 6th fw to the tracks. 

Still wondering why I should ignore that old construction saying that if you can see it/them, they can see you or your location?  What tells us better what we see, our eyes and pictures or our ears and words?

I vote pictures.

Then you should have no problem voting for this one.




Please show me, what you could see from the tracks, when looking south, at the area to the right of the 2nd and 3rd holes.

Tell me, what could be seen from the tracks, through the woods to the crest of the hill to the right of the 3rd tee.

Also, I've asked you, Jim, Mike and Bryan to pinpoint for us, Crump's location on the RR tracks, as he was heading East at 60mph, when his "chance glimpse" revealed rolling hills and valleys.

To date, not one of you have addressed, let alone answered that question.

Carr and AWT declared the site an inpenetrable, dense forest, yet, you grant visual clarity for over a half a mile, despite the landform/s that block views to the south.

And, for the record, the RR Tracks don't run on the 6th fairway, they run far away and far below it, hence, any view that Crump would have from the RR tracks is not represented by any view one would have from the 6th fairway, which is beyond/below the horizon line when viewed from the tracks. 

[DMoriarty]

Here are just a few quick references to the role of sketching in the relevant literature from the period.  There are more, but these give some idea of the role sketching played in the process . . .

From Plane Surveying (1907) By John Clayton Tracy:
In order to sketch topography successfully in the field, one must have a faculty of selecting the most important topographic features and transmitting them to paper in their proper relations. This sense of topography comes only from long experience. In ordinary class work the beginner first plots points of known elevation, as fast as they are determined, and, guided by these points, he sketches in each contour; his imagination aided, perhaps, by the conception of a water surface. (See suggestion p. 237.) Successive points on the same contour should be joined as soon as they have been plotted, by an irregular line which corresponds as nearly as possible to the actual contour which it represents. If contours are interpolated, they should be carried along in a similar manner. . . .


From Topographical Surveying (1900) By Herbert Michael Wilson:
Mr. A. M. Wellington aptly said of topographic surveying that "the sketching of the form of the terrane by eye is truly an art as distinguished from a science, which latter, however difficult it may be, is always susceptible to rigorous and exact analysis. An art, on the other hand, is something which cannot be taught by definite, fixed rules which must be exactly followed, though instruction may be given in its general principles."
   In representing the heights and slopes of a given piece of country by contour lines, every case presents some peculiarities which must be met, as they are presented, by the topographer's own resources. No hard-and fast limit of minuteness of detail can be previously fixed. The scale chosen for the topographic map limits this to a certain extent, but its exact limits must be set by the topographer's own experience and good judgment, that he may discriminate between important and trifling features; those which are usual and common to the region being mapped, and those which are accidental or uncommon, and which should therefore be accentuated. Above all, the topographer must exhibit an alertness to distinguish as to what amount of detail should be omitted and that which should be included. Hesitancy in this is the chief source of slow progress. Valuable time may be wasted in the representation of features which may be lost on the scale of the work and which are common in all localities to the topographic forms being sketched; while features characteristic of such special topographic forms as those produced by eruption, erosion, or abrasion, or those indicative of the structure of the region and which give distinctive character to its topography, may be lost sight of or be covered up in the map by too careful attention to minute details.
  The characteristic features of a terrane are best observed from a point nearly on the same level; and as between sketching features from above or below for a reasonable range, sketching from below is the better, as features viewed from any considerable height above are apt to appear dwarfed and much detail of undulation of the surface lost sight-of. Yet, as a precise representation of the land requires sketching its forms from numerous positions at intervals not far apart, the necessity will rarely arise of observing surface forms from points of observation much above or below the surface represented, excepting in case of very small scale geographic or exploratory surveys. [from the Chapter on "Small-Scale Surveys," section called "The Art of Topographical Sketching," which is followed by a section on Optical Illusions and Sketching Topography.]

These are not rare or unusual examples, nor to they defy common sense.   An infinite number of data points are an impossibility, so between data points, it was up to the surveyor to try and capture the elevations and the terrain through the contour lines.  This was commonly done through sketching.      

Earlier in this thread or the last, I discussed this in relation to the original survey in NJ which may have been used to create the 1898 map.   The head of the survey openly discussed the role of field sketching in the process.    

The funny thing about this discussion is that Brauer knows I am correct and has acknowledged it by changing his position.  He originally claimed that they surveyors did not use sketching at all in creating such plans and that they were not trained to do so.   He has since changed his position to say that they did not "sketch data points" whatever the hell that means.   I never said they "sketched" the actual data points.  I said they sketched between data points, which is why having some understanding of the underlying data points is essential.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Pat,

That's just it.  I see lots of areas in that photo where you could see exposed sandy stretches.  No matter what the words say, there are areas that are not a dense jungle, both on the property and on adjacent property (which might give you an idea of pre construction tree cover)  There are some more open areas, and some areas of scrub.  I just cannot see how you stand on Tillie's words about dense jungle, but discard his words about seeing it from a train.  

A picture is worth a thousand words, but you don't need to try to equal its value!

And, once again, if you could see from 6FW to the tracks, as the photo in our long standing debate shows, you could see back.  And related to that, while I do agree the dogleg bend is the most open, if you look carefully right under 6 green, you see an area that appears to be brushy or regenerating in this aerial which might have provided a nice view corridor for the photo in question.  Not sure, but I have always thought that photo was taken from more of that angle, as you know.

All Crump had to see was some sandy exposed banks, not micro contours to pique his interest in golf.

I think I have answered this question before, but am glad to answer it again.

[DMoriarty]

I don't care about the RR discussion, but I don't like conclusions based on false premises.   I have no idea what seeing "sandy stretches" through already cleared terrain has to do with visibility of the course prior to clearing.

[JESII]

Pat,

This is about the 10th time I'll repeat to you that I gave you a thorough answer to your question immediately after you asked. I know you read it because your response was another ludicrous attempt to tell us where and how Crump was sitting on the train and how that made something or other impossible to see. Go find the posts.

I would love for you to answer the question of why Crump would have gone hunting on horseback through terrain so impenetrable...it's always been ann odd little wrinkle in your theory that AWT was a liar sometimes but to be taken as the gospel in others...Any brilliance to share?

[DMoriarty]

Here again is one of the images (w/guidelines I added.)  It was publish in the May 1913 AG.  According to the caption the man is standing on the third tee.  At the very least, the distant hill makes certain that the camera is pointing in a similar direction as the camera in the other photo.  



So where is the RR?  It ought to be less than a quarter a mile away, and over 50 feet below where the man is standing.  And there ought not be any topography blocking the view between the man and the tracks.   Just some trees.

So where exactly in this photo are the RR tracks?

Are the trees to thick to see it?  They sure don't look think enough to me to completely block the view of the RR tracks.   But assuming they were think enough, then what of this notion that they could see substantial portion of the course from the train?    

And or those who insist the RR station was in its current location, where is the station?    

[JESII]

You say the elevations look lower across the board . . . lower than what?   

I was really looking at the 150 contour and it seems to be lower than 1913 topo and todays Google Earth...might be wrong but just a look.

[Jeff_Brauer]

David,

Thanks for sharing that. I read several like that, and they don't differ from my experience nor my understanding of how contour maps are produced, and the relative accuracy thereof.  I didn't change my positon at all, but maybe you and I talk a different language.  

Surveyors obtain data points and do so accurately.  Sketching is an important part of drawing the contour map, and there is some interpolation between any two points in any method - aerial, computer, or hand drawn.     If two nearby points are surveyed at 10 and 15 elevation, on a one foot interval contour map, the map maker splits the distance into five equal segments to draw the intervening 11, 12, 13 and 14 contour lines.  If there are micro differences smaller than the contour interval, then yes, at any point, it might read 14 and actually be 13.4 or something else.  

A typical technique for equally dividing the space between two known points was to put marks on a rubber band, stretched out between any two points to add the necessary tick marks as to where the contour would be.  With enough known and interpolated dots and points, we then "sketch" in the contour lines.  

If you agree to that, then we agree.  Of course, the contour lines themselves are representations that are sketched in using the elevation shots used.  I never disputed that, but believed you represented that hand surveying was less accurate because of sketching.  Maybe we just use different language, because in several previous posts you seemingly agreed that on site surveys were more accurate than broad scale ones, etc.  

I don't disagree with a lot of what you say, other than when you seemingly argued that USGS maps were more accurate than surveying.  That I know is not true, mostly because of the techniques used to produce them over the years.  Also, any topo map is a representation of reality.  And the reality is that someone mapping the entire state or country cannot be as immersed in the details as someone hired to run a topo for a client.

Any competent surveyor actually has an advantage over a computer generated meter square (or whatever) data set.  If he was surveying the ridge on 6 for example, rather than going 100 foot intervals, if he found an area that was noticeably different than other slopes he would take the top and bottom of that slope as opposed to ten even shots down the fw.  That way, the interpolation of contours is more likely to be precise compared to a broad scale aerial that just cannot discern this.

That is what I meant by saying that they don't sketch data points.  They establish as many points as necessary in whatever shape necessary to describe the topo and minimize the error that comes via estimation or interpolation between points.  On a broad scale map shot mostly via aerial photos and only a few control points on the ground, that isn't possible.  Even today, LIDAR could collect a point every foot but the computing power and time to produce a national map to that level probably isn't worth it for how it is going to be used.

I think we can move on.

[DMoriarty]

Typical.   Brauer falsely accuses me of posting incorrect information, then demands i produce facts backing up my claims, then when I do, he says, well then we agree, apparently forgetting his original bogus claims!   What B.S.  Shouldn't he have bothered to get his facts straight BEFORE HE ACCUSED ME OF POSTING INCORRECT INFORMATION?

I NEVER claimed they obtained "data points" by sketching (that is nonsensical on its face.)   To the contrary, I have repeatedly stated that they used sketching between data points.  This was true from my first mention on the process in the last thread regarding the 1885 NJ survey!   Yet here is Brauer's response to my various mentions of the incorporation of sketching into the survey process:

They would NOT in any circumstance “sketch” the plans as David suggests in one post.  That is not how surveyors are trained and not how they work.

Seems clear enough, and nothing about data points.  So why all this backtracking and explanation?  

Keep in mind that it was BRAUER WHO WAS CHALLENGING ME, and not visa versa.  And he was wrong.  Sketching was part of the process of creating the plans, and those creating the plans were trained in sketching.  So now he claims that wasn't really what he meant??  As if it is I who challenged him??

This is my issue with him in a nutshell.   He keeps making pronouncements about the accuracy of my representations before he even bothers to consider whether or not they are correct!   As if it up to me to keep correcting his misrepresentations!  Fortunately this time it is only about surveying and not about my honesty or integrity, as has often been the case in the past!    

[Jeff_Brauer]

David,

I am not going to go back and analyze or word parse every bit of info from last month.  All I wanted to point out that USGS Maps are certainly not as accurate as hand surveying, and you and I debated that quite a while.  You went nuts when I challenged that, and it is a pretty well known fact in the biz, but you went postal, and still are.

Sorry if I misrepresented your technical details or thoughts.  As I suggest, perhaps we simply use separate language to describe similar things, or each left out some key details in our thoughts that led the other to believe something else.  It happens.  IMHO, as long as we are talking about topos, maybe the phrase "mountains from molehills" is apt.

I think we can move on, to other completely irrelevant points to the development of one of the worlds great courses........sigh

[JESII]

David,

I think the tracks are behind the darker colored trees to the immediate right of his shoulder/bicep area and would run pretty much parallel to thatin both directions. The trees to his left are much closer to him than the fence line trees to his right so it's not worth identifying anything there. I think that row of trees would look quite similar today if we went to the same spot.


As to your question..."But assuming they were think enough, then what of this notion that they could see substantial portion of the course from the train?" I think you'd better let Patrick be Patrick instead of trying to steal some of his thunder...


This should be the west edge of the property...I believe the initial deed provided a right of way along the tracks for some several hundred feet to about where the station was in the early pictures and where the crossing is today.

[DMoriarty]

Jim,

Looking over the first green, the RR tracks are only about 360 yards from middle 3rd tee.   The crest of the ridge in the distances is over 1000 yards beyond that.      

If the the RR tracks are only about 360 yards away, then how come we cannot see them on the right side of the photo?  

How far away do you suppose the trees are beyond the sandy area on the right side of the of the photo?    

I don't think they would completely block the view of the RR, but if these trees completely block the view of the RR, then why wouldn't they block the view from the train?

[JESII]

I think there are a couple trees short of the sandy patch but the others are just beyond it. I think the trees continue to the right and on the golf course side of the tracks. Is the resolution really good enough to think we could see a simple train bed? Today the tracks themselves are just at the level of the tee...not sure how that compares to ground level in this picture but we would not be looking for a 15 foot high bed as on the East end of the course.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat,

This is about the 10th time I'll repeat to you that I gave you a thorough answer to your question immediately after you asked. I know you read it because your response was another ludicrous attempt to tell us where and how Crump was sitting on the train and how that made something or other impossible to see. Go find the posts.

I'll do that, but, I don't recall that you ever pinpointed the exact location that YOU feel he executed his "chance glimpse"

I would love for you to answer the question of why Crump would have gone hunting on horseback through terrain so impenetrable...i

For the simple reason that, THAT'S WHERE THE GAME WAS.  

t's always been ann odd little wrinkle in your theory that AWT was a liar sometimes but to be taken as the gospel in others...Any brilliance to share?

It's only an odd wrinkle if you accept Jeff Brauer's categorization of my premise.
My initial categorization wasn't that AWT was lying, that was Jeff Brauer's categorization of my take on the train story.
I think AWT got it wrong in terms of one word, "FIRST".
I don't think that GAC "first" saw PV with a "chance glimpse" from a train traveling east at 60 mph.
Neither the terrain/topography/landform nor the dense forestation and undegrowth allow for that.
I've said, dozens of times, which you either forgot or didn't read, that GAC, already familiar with the property, pointed it out to AWT and others on a trip to AC.

Why do you keep misrepresenting my position ?
 

[DMoriarty]

Jim,

So how far would you estimate it is to the trees just beyond the sandy patch?  

Is a "simple train bed" like a game trail which winds through the trees unnoticed?   Because most of the  train beds I have seen, whether at grade or not, were hardly simple or discrete.  They generally cut a pretty good swath through the forest.  Are you saying that such a swath would not be visible on a photo overlooking such a swath from only 360 yards away?  From around 60 feet above the tracks?

And as you mentioned, it is not just the train bed, but the right of way to get to the station mentioned in the deeds. You don't think that the Sumner-Ireland's (or whatever) were dodging trees on the way to the station, do you?    

I think the RR right of way is marked on the 1913 map.  Bryan, since I am so untrustworthy, do you mind telling us what the width of the RR was?  Both before and after it expands?  

And what of the station?  Don't some of you think the Sumner station ought to be front and center in this photo?  

And what of old mill road across the tracks?

[Joe Perches]

While I hesitated to chime in, the lack of tree height in this photo does make me wonder.
Does anyone know if ever or the last year the land was harvested for lumber/wood?

[JESII]

David,

I think a line just a couple trees deep would obscure anything you're thinking about, including the right of way (which could easily have just been a sandy path unless something I haven't read has been posted). Tom Paul thinks this view points over across the first hole as well, that would point towards the station...I think it points more straight down the 2nd hole with that sandy path being near the first green ridge.

What old mill road across the tracks?

50 feet over 360 yards sounds like you're looking over a cliff, but it's only a 4.5% slope. the 2nd green is steeper than that...

[Bryan Izatt]

Patrick,

Why do we even bother.  Re, the following, we have all answered in our own way.  Why do you always seem to miss the answers?

Also, I've asked you, Jim, Mike and Bryan to pinpoint for us, Crump's location on the RR tracks, as he was heading East at 60mph, when his "chance glimpse" revealed rolling hills and valleys.

To date, not one of you have addressed, let alone answered that question.

To give you a different perspective of rolling hills, consider the following elevation profile, which you ignored when I posted it before. It is of the landform parallel to the track.  So, as you would have Crump's view blocked by the landform as he wizzed by on the train, do you think he may have noticed that the land form blocking his view was rolling in nature - flat as he passed the swamp along the 18th, then a rising hill, then a rolling landform after that before he passed the end of the property at the 14th.  Do you think a moderately intelligent person might infer that the hills rolled away from the tracks as well as along them.  Especially given some of the places that Jim has identified where he might look a bit inland?

[Bryan Izatt]

David and Bryan,

I get glossed over while reading the tech posts but it looks like you guys agree that it's impossible to prove which topo may be exactly right or wrong right now, is that accurate or no?


....................................

Sorry you gloss over.  Maybe they're good bedtime posts to read. 

I think that it is impossible to say which one is absolutely right as it relates to contours or absolute elevation. Or, even if there is a measure that is absolutely correct.  Even the USGS has changed their  super benchmarks over time and allows that even those supposedly super precise measures have a margin of error in them.  Anybody want to guess how much mean sea level has changed in the last century?  Nothing stands still in nature.

The absolute elevation is a red herring leading nowhere useful, in my opinion.

I think, but am not positive, that we agree that the 1913 topo is the best representation that we have of what was there at the time.  Whether it's good enough to move forward on discussion of its implications for the design and building of PV - I think it is. You'd have to ask David his view.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()