mining claim coordinates

[1637]

where can i find all four corner pole coordinates for a claim. iam working pretty close to one corner and that post is missing.the claim is near randsburg calif.
thank you brad

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

How to Research for Treasure Hunting and Metal Detecting From Lead Generation to Vetting - Grab it through Amazon!

[Clay Diggins]

Claims aren't described by coordinates. Claims are described by metes and bounds or aliquot parts. Those are the only legal land descriptions. There is nowhere to find claim corner coordinates in latitude/longitude or UTM.

IF the claim is a placer claim and IF it is located by aliquot part you can calculate the lat/lon corners from the PLSS (Public Land Survey System). That requires knowledge of the PLSS, an accurate grid and an accurate location notice. It's an essential skill if you intend to be a prospector but it's got a pretty steep learning curve. If the claim locators didn't have a good understanding of those systems it's unlikely their corner posts ended up where they described them anyway.

This is the same problem prospectors and miners have had for thousands of years. If a prospector could work it out in 1880 or 1542 I'm pretty sure with some effort you can figure it out today. A good place to start would be the Land Matters Tutorials section. There are books articles and videos there to help you get started.

Heavy Pans

 

[et1955]

Clay what about GPS coordinates to describe claim boundaries ?

 

[Clay Diggins]

Clay what about GPS coordinates to describe claim boundaries ?

I presume you mean lat/lon or UTM zone coordinates? There is no such thing as "GPS coordinates".

You can add any reasonable location description to a location notice but the actual legal description of your claim location has to be in either aliquot parts or metes and bounds (legal land description). It was common in the past to include descriptions of permanent physical features to a claim location notice. Something like "600 feet south of the large rock outcrop known as Lover's Leap" is acceptable as long as it is in addition to the required legal land description.

Heavy Pans

 

[Goldwasher]

where can i find all four corner pole coordinates for a claim. iam working pretty close to one corner and that post is missing.the claim is near randsburg calif.
thank you brad

Also a placer claim does not have to have corner markers if it is located using a aliquot part. So, there won't be a corner post to find.

Last two days bushwacking on our new claims.

Found two different corner markers. Both in places where there weren't corners. When it was previously claimed.

Kind of wasted work if your not even gonna put them in the right spot.

 

[cjoej]

When using the GPS it is important to know which "datum set" you are using. Use the wrong datum set and you will be WAY off of the mark. As far as the official records are concerned the ways and means is what counts. For finding the site a GPS can be handy, but, only accurate to within about 10 to 12 feet. An official survey by a professional surveyor can nail it down to a legal exactness but that can be expensive.

 

[bug]

Thats the problem most miners are not surveyors, myself included, so posts in the ground, if any, may not match the written legal description on the location notice.
Sometimes its just an estimate where the claim lies. One gps tip, usgs topo base maps are pretty nice to use in the field. Been using US Topo Maps app. on the phone, which can get you pretty darn close when figuring aliquot parts

 

[KevinInColorado]

Also a placer claim does not have to have corner markers if it is located using a aliquot part. So, there won't be a corner post to find.

Last two days bushwacking on our new claims.

Found two different corner markers. Both in places where there weren't corners. When it was previously claimed.

Kind of wasted work if your not even gonna put them in the right spot.

From what I understand, the markers on the ground are what define the actual claim. The paperwork doesn’t override the corner markers, it’s the other way around. Right?

 

[Goldwasher]

From what I understand, the markers on the ground are what define the actual claim. The paperwork doesn’t override the corner markers, it’s the other way around. Right?

Not if your corner markers are in the wrong spot. Or if signage is an attempt to appear to claim more than what has legally been put to paper.

Claim notification signs are not "claim markers"

The corners on the ground that count are survey benchmarks. As well as any claim corner set based on them. or a legal metes and bound claim. If you claim an aliquot part it is based off of those section corners/section lines.

So, the aliquot part is claimed by description. To me that is how it is "defined"

It's the person going in the field that has the responsibility of knowing where those lines are.

Those lines existed before the claim was made. They are used to "define" the claim when you claim the aliquot part.

I will not adhere to fuzzy buffer zones especially if it seems that they are just where the dog went along "marking his territory"

I will respect the actual territory. I know how to find those lines so I'm not worried about being in the wrong spot.

I would figure a court would be lenient on a locator that accidentally misplaced a corner(s) by a little bit. Calling for an on the ground relocation to the proper corner(s) However I do not see the court favoring a claimant in a trespass case against someone who was obviously not on an "actual" part of a claim just because it was "nearby" and the locator "thought" he had marked it correctly.

 

[Goldwasher]

From what I understand, the markers on the ground are what define the actual claim. The paperwork doesn’t override the corner markers, it’s the other way around. Right?

Would you want to be the guy who say only really got 16 acres when you claimed a 20 acre claim because your gps helped you put in inaccurate corners?

Some one comes along and says..."I know you claimed 20.. but, your corners set it at 16. So, that's mine now because its the markers on the ground that count."

Luckily it doesn't work that way.

 

[johnnysau]

Aliquot parts - 1 SECTION roughly 640 Acres =
160 Acres x 4 = 4 of them
40 Acres x 4 = 16 of them
20 Acres x 2 = 32 of them in a SECTION usually. In a perfect square world !

LINK - http://dnr.alaska.gov/landrecords/docs/landrecords.pdf

Thank you internet
johnnysau

 

[Clay Diggins]

Aliquot parts - 1 SECTION roughly 640 Acres =
160 Acres x 4 = 4 of them
40 Acres x 4 = 16 of them
20 Acres x 2 = 32 of them in a SECTION usually. In a perfect square world !

LINK - http://dnr.alaska.gov/landrecords/docs/landrecords.pdf

Thank you internet
johnnysau

That applies to placer claims only. Lode claims are neither square nor aliquot. They aren't restricted to an aliquot or government lot system.

The reason that distinction matters is that more than 85% of all mining claims are lodes.

Lodes are located by distance and direction (metes and bounds) in relation to a natural object or permanent monument and the strike of the discovery. Commonly used objects for lode claim locations are survey markers but they need not be PLSS corners. Just as common is tying the metes and bounds to existing mineral survey marks or a registered bench mark. Other objects often used are prominent rocks.

Heavy Pans

 

[Clay Diggins]

It is possible to amend a mining claim location when needed due to error or poor description in the original. An amendment doesn't invalidate the original claim and it isn't considered a relocation. Specifically lode claims can move their centerlines also so as to better follow the strike as their exploration develops. In neither case can a claim amendment include more ground than the original location or take in ground already reserved or claimed by another.

The BLM addressed this issue in their most recent regulations changes (2003). The BLM does have some legal influence here since they are the designated agency for mining patents. Here is how they explain the situation in the Federal Register:

"Several comments objected to the requirement for a metes and bounds description of a lode claim, saying that it would be unnecessary, not required by law, and burdensome, especially if it made a survey necessary. We have not changed the regulations in the final rule in response to these comments. This is not a new requirement. Lode claims cannot be described by aliquot part because of their parallelogram shape. We have retained in paragraph (a)(2)(iv) the provision that professional surveys are not necessary. We do not believe that it is burdensome to provide a metes and bounds description. The previous regulations at section 3841.4-5 required descriptions by courses and distances from the discovery monument. Courses and distances are part of a metes and bounds description, so we are merely correcting our terminology. Since the monuments on the ground govern, the courses and distances in the metes and bounds description need not be derived from a professional survey, but must be sufficient to allow a surveyor to identify the tract unambiguously on the ground if at some time in the future you seek a patent. Of course, a mineral survey is a prerequisite for a patent."

A bunch of court cases say the same thing. You don't have to be a surveyor and minor errors can be corrected but where you put your monuments does matter. Put them into a considerably larger area than the claim type allows and your claim could be challenged on that basis. If it is challenged you will be given an opportunity to correct it.

Heavy Pans

 

[KevinInColorado]

Would you want to be the guy who say only really got 16 acres when you claimed a 20 acre claim because your gps helped you put in inaccurate corners?

Some one comes along and says..."I know you claimed 20.. but, your corners set it at 16. So, that's mine now because its the markers on the ground that count."

Luckily it doesn't work that way.

See post immediately above this one. Boom.

 

[Goldwasher]

See post immediately above this one. Boom.

Boom really Kevin?

Clay did not say that legally if you mark your claim at sixteen acres instead of twenty.

That your markers were so powerful they negate whats legal on paper.

It is not the case that "all" markers or corners on the ground "override" the paperwork.

I'm referring to valid legal markers.

Not misplaced invalid one's. There is a huge difference.

So, yea your statement I responded to is not accurate at all times.

A metes and bounds survey. Does make those markers what matters. The paper work and corners do have to jive that's why there are amendments.
Your either going to have to change the corner to match its described location. or change the paperwork whole, redo the survey to make it fit where you described it properly. or amend it because say you accidentally included private property or another claim.

Surveying across private land and putting down markers does not BOOM you into land ownership all of a sudden.

For a claim laid out using an aliquot part. There is a legal land description. If the corners are not place correctly.(if even required) They do not change that legal land description.

They just create confusing on the ground land marks.

 

[Mine Shaft]

Thank God all i had to do was stake a claim where i found Gold lol. Good luck 1673.

 

[Clay Diggins]

I think not Boom so much as sorta kinda floom?

If a placer claim in California is described by aliquot parts there is no need for monuments or a discussion of where they belong.

On the other hand the physical monuments for a lode claim are definitive if there is a discrepancy between the location record and the actual monuments on the ground.

If those monuments for a lode claim describe an area significantly larger than a 600 X 1500 foot parallelogram the claim is not valid. That leaves the junior claimant with a few choices other than griping on the internet:

1. Ignore the senior claim monuments and assume the senior claim is invalid for lack of a proper location = court.
2. Sue the senior claimant and overclaim their assumed excess = court.
3. Examine the senior claimants location notice, monument locations and intent and work with the senior claimant to get a more definite and legally compliant location established = happy claim owners. (or start over at 1)

I always advise cooperation among claimants if possible. It almost always works out for the best and beats the heck out of spending your mining time fighting with another miner in court. I know of several times the adjacent claim owners ended up cooperating in their mining ventures to their mutual benefit.

Heavy Pans

 

[KevinInColorado]

Barry, I love you man!

Also, the CA life claim rules match the CO rules for ALL claims. Not everywhere is CA despite what some folks seem to think 🤔

 

[Goldwasher]

Barry, I love you man!

Also, the CA life claim rules match the CO rules for ALL claims. Not everywhere is CA despite what some folks seem to think 樂

So, in Co. Placer claims have center lines that the other corners are measured from? No

Are placer claims in Co. maxed out at 20.66 acres? No.

And if Co. wants you to put corners on placers. If they are on an aliquot part. That aliquot part (legal subdivision of) remains intact even if the corners aren't placed right. If it is metes and bounds or aliquot and the locator. Claims an area larger than legally allowed per claimant or a measuring mistake. It doesn't make the claim markers legal and permanently "defining"
If they are wrong description vs. legal size. it is the claimant that will have to adjust.. Not the mining law. Again if you accidentally claim 23 acres on the ground. As a single locator. Blm catches it. You will have two options. Amend your or the ground corners or get another locator to claim the 3 acres over (or another 20 if its there) or you may have to get another locator and amend your metes and bounds. If you really just want 23 acres. Blm is not going to allow you as a single locator to have 23 acres on a new staked claim. Just because you put corners in.

So, actually in Co. placer claims do not match Ca. lode claim rules. They just have a few similar aspect.

No where in this thread has there been confusion or misunderstanding about claim staking rules. In fact the state a claim is located in has had nothing to do with it.

The question was where can I find claim coordinates. That was answered.

State regulations do not change federal mining law in regards to acres per locator for placer. Or maximum size for Lode claims.

This goes along with asmbandits question about signs outside of an claims actual boundary.

Do those signs outside of a claim line or corner markers placed outside of the actual claim as described. Make that claim legally match those placements?

Absolutely not.

 

[bug]

Guys what about Lot claims? Is a metes and bounds description still necessary to describe a surveyed government lot. I though only if a portion of it is wanted, or lode is filed.
Otherwise legal description would just mention, entire portion of Lot #1, for example.