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.
_________________________________________
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 don't understand what your doing? What is the point of analysis that allows you to move these points around as it suits you?
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." 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."
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.
Where are you trying to go with this line of pursuit?
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?
______________________________
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.
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?