I did not have a surveyor in the family, but there were lots of lumbermen and farmers who had a few chains that were used for various jobs as they did their jobs. It would have been a job to drag those long heavy, chains. I guess that is what made the men strong and healthy. On Fri 21/12/07 11:08 AM , Malcolm Moody sent: Hi Deb, Just a couple of trivial observations to add to the excellent information you have been given: Perhaps this is obvious but just in case it wasn't; the "chain" and "link" measurements were quite literally that. One of the most important pieces of equipment a surveyor would take with him was his surveyor's chain which consisted of (I believe) 100 links (or it could have been 144.) The ones I have actually seen are a bit funny looking for a chain as each link is made up of a piece of fairly stiff wire or rod (1/8" to 1/4" in diameter) with a loop formed on each end. These interlink to give you the exact measurements already described. It is / was a very practical tool as it could be stretched out over the ground (or even through a pond or snow bank) without any fear of damage and then recovered by simply hauling it back in from one end. A tad on the heavy side perhaps but the old surveyors need equipment they could trust to survive! I said "is / was" earlier because I have seen a surveyor's chain being used fairly recently - well - within the last 10 years lets say. My personal favorite of this old system of measure is the "rod, pole or perch" although it has always been a mystery to me: a) why it would have three alternate names and b) why it was named such when it would seemingly be completely impractical to try and use a 5 1/2 meter long measuring stick! Perhaps one of your experts has an explanation for that one? Re, the comment about the "post" in the corner of the lot. Most surveys of land, as Robert so ably described, are based on the location of one "corner" of the lot relative to some larger plan. At that location the surveyor drives a stake into the round, primarily so he can always find his reference point, but also so that subsequent surveys don't need to go through the process of establishing the location on the larger plan - if they can find the stake. If you look at the survey plans of your property you will find reference to a single point and usually there is a metal spike in the ground at that point. This stake is also the origin of the phrase "staking a claim" but that's a whole different discussion. There, more useless information to add to the compost heap. :-) Malcolm Archive CD Books Canada Inc. President: Malcolm Moody PO Box 11 Manotick Ontario, K4M 1A2 Canada. (613) 692-2667 WEB SITE: http://www.ArchiveCDBooks.ca On 21 Dec, 2007, at 3:02 AM, can-ont-simcoe-request@rootsweb.com [1] wrote: > Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2007 11:07:04 +0000 > From: "Deborah Crawford" > Subject: [CAN-ONT-SIMCOE] Measures & chains & acres - oh my > To: can-ont-simcoe@rootsweb.com [3] > Message-ID: > Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed > > Good morning one & all. A question to any budding or current land > surveyor > experts......... > > I'm in the midst of transcribing conveyancing instructions from a > ledger > housed in the archives at the Penetanguishene Centennial Museum. This > ledger of mortgages, lease agreements, chattel loans, wills, etc > commences > in 1905 to ? (I haven't cheated and peeked at the end of the book > yet!). > One oddity I am encountering has me curious and I thought I'd see > if any of > our listers can explain this - the land descriptions are very > detailed, but > - in land descriptions I see the terms, which I have heard before, > of - > chains, measures, links, feet, yards, rods and acres - all in the same > paragraph or on the same page. It's not a matter of it being > entered by a > different author - these reports were all entered by W.H. HEWSON. > I was > just curious to know if there was any sort of standard which > determined when > various terms were used, i.e. chains, links, etc. Or was it > merely a > matter of Mr. Hewson writing down descriptions perhaps based on > previous > descriptions, or just writing whatever his little heart desired. Any > opinions? Methinks Mr. Hewson just did this, knowing that 100 > years hence > I'd be puzzled over the same...........No? ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to CAN-ONT-SIMCOE-request@rootsweb.com [5] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message Links: ------ [1] mailto:can-ont-simcoe-request@rootsweb.com [2] mailto:orkney5@sympatico.ca [3] mailto:can-ont-simcoe@rootsweb.com [4] mailto:BAY111-F30EDFAF667BE47733F9E8C805D0@phx.gbl [5] mailto:CAN-ONT-SIMCOE-request@rootsweb.com

Just one piece more about chains. They were carried around in a box by the lowly surveyor's assistant. The box was wide enough to hold a link. The links were carefully stacked into the box one along side the next. The box was long enough to hold 10 links, which then made one 'perch' in the box. The chain continued to fold into the box perch by perch. The box was tall enuff to hold 10 perches. Thus one hundred links per chain, or 10 perchs per chain. An acre can be one chain wide by 10 chains long. (or 2 x 5 or whatever). Doesn't this sound 'metric'? Well 100 chains = 1.25 miles = 2000 meters. so.. who came up with metric first? In Ontario farms were laid out 10 lots per 1000 acres. (metric/) In the York region these 1000 acres were 100 chains by 100 chains (ie 2 km along the concession and 2 km from the baseline to the 5th sideroad, etc) In Peel they were laid out 150 chains (3 km) from baseline to 5th side road and 66 chains (1.33 km) along the concession. In others they might be 200 chains by 50 chains. In Toronto (Old York) the concession roads parallel the lake shore (Queen, St.Clair, Eglinton) and the side roads ran north/south. These were Bathurst (5th sideroad W of Yonge St), Dufferin (10th), Keele (15th), and Jane (20th). Eglinton was the baseline for York Township. Lawrence was the 5th line N of Eglinton, Wilson (10th) Shepherd (15th) Finch (20th). Steeles is the baseline for King Township. This explains why there is a jog in the road at Eglinton as you moved into York twp which was surveyed differently at a different time. Since Magnetic North has been drifting, this may explain why Keele north of Eglinton is sloped eastward relative to its direction south of Eglinton ???. (I don't quite believe this statement) Enuff? Don