EISPIRATEN

We just went to Alder Creek and skirted Lummis Ranch. I wanted to get some details about the specific locations of the property boundaries, and came across something strange. Here's what the caltopo "parcel data" layer looks like, overlaid with the OSM map:
Note that

• The locations of the Loomis Ranch properties and the Chilao properties are shifted
• The shift is different for the two clusters of properties
• A chunk of the Chilao property is owned by the ghost of Dracula himself!

So that's weird. At least the Loomis Ranch property is where OSM says it is: we hiked it just now, and the buildings and river are right on OSM. If the "parcel data" layer is right, then the buildings sit outside their property boundary. So is the parcel data layer wrong? It's not! Because:

• The assessor's map shows the lines consistent with the caltop property boundaries
• The assessor's map of Dracula's property references it off the "SW 1/4 of the SE 1/4" of section 16 of T3N R11W. We can see the location of section 16 on the USFS caltopo map:

So that's consistent with the assessor's location. Interpreting the Loomis Ranch maps is more difficult, and I haven't tried to decipher them. So where are those properties, really? Are the "No Tresspassing" signs legitimate?

Cool!

Is the assessors map of Loomis ranch properties wrong? With the caltopo parcel data being derived from that? And the assessor's map is *only* wrong for the Loomis ranch properties, since they seem correct for Dracula's family?

Also, looks like its The Son Of Dracula who owns the property behind Chilao. I wonder if he has a cabin or something? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bela_G._Lugosi

Better add a crucifix to your ten essentials.

I would assume the assessor's lines are wrong. The difference is substantial and I'm sure that they haven't had the need to get this accurate due to the remote area. The location also doesn't make much sense. I've seen similar situations when people purchase properties, they have to go back to the original documents and find out the lines used are incorrect.

My guess is that the assessor data is correct but doesn't properly overlay on the topo map due to technical issues not worth exploring.

Prior to this I thought the assessor lines are correct by definition. But if that were the case, the ranch buildings are definitely outside of their legal property. So like yall say, maybe this hasn't been worth anybody's time to actually go and fix. The OSM geometry comes from the "Los Angeles County Cadastral Database", so maybe some other govt agency knows where everything is. The data is here: https://dpw.lacounty.gov/general/dgn/ Looking...

Sean wrote: ↑Tue Jun 25, 2024 10:40 am Better add a crucifix to your ten essentials.

And some garlic for a dozen essentials.

dima wrote: ↑Tue Jun 25, 2024 2:34 pm The OSM geometry comes from the "Los Angeles County Cadastral Database", so maybe some other govt agency knows where everything is. The data is here: https://dpw.lacounty.gov/general/dgn/ Looking...

I pulled the cadastral data from the county, and.... it says that stuff is exactly where the assessor says it is! I think we can all legally go squat at Loomis ranch, and use their "NETGEAR 26" wifi.

Dima, we gotta go all the way back there, post up in the bushes, and hack their wifi! They'll never see it coming!

dima wrote: ↑Tue Jun 25, 2024 8:31 pmI pulled the cadastral data from the county, and.... it says that stuff is exactly where the assessor says it is! I think we can all legally go squat at Loomis ranch, and use their "NETGEAR 26" wifi.

Thankfully that's not how legal property rights work. Besides, there is a disclaimer on the assessor site which covers the error.

The property lines are depicted accurately on other maps, but leave it to the county to find a flawed way of representing the data!

Sean wrote: ↑Wed Jun 26, 2024 9:11 am The property lines are depicted accurately on other maps, but leave it to the county to find a flawed way of representing the data!

Well yeah. I'm not going to go lay claim to their buildings

Have you seen ANY map that shows these property lines correctly? Matt Maxon added the correct-looking OSM data, and I just asked him about it. He says that he used the county cadastral database that, at least as of right now, shows the same shifted boundaries that everybody else does.

dima wrote: ↑Wed Jun 26, 2024 10:34 amHave you seen ANY map that shows these property lines correctly?

MapBuilder and OSM are correct at CalTopo.

Those are all using the OSM data from Matt Maxon, and it's the least official dataset of any of them. And the database that he says he used has the shifted boundaries today. I suspect that all the official documents contain the shifted coordinates. But if it ever begins to matter (if there's any litigation or if they want to develop new mining claims, or something), the lines will be re-surveyed, and the official locations corrected. That's my guess, anyway.

Is the USGS National Map site using Matt's data?

Where is the "WITNESS COR SEC 5,6,7,& 8"? It's 8009.10 feet from the NW corner of the property.

Is it due to the different Datum - WGS84 vs NAD27?

Sean: I can't find the property layer on the National Map. What's it called?

HikeUp: the corner between sections 5,6,7 and 8 is to the NW of this property. A range ring 8009ft in radius from that point looks like this:
Close-ish, but doesn't clearly match anythind. Do you know how to read the text? Where on the 8009ft ring would the corner be?

dima wrote: ↑Wed Jun 26, 2024 10:27 pm Sean: I can't find the property layer on the National Map. What's it called?

I selected the USA Topo basemap. I believe it was created by ArcGIS. Here is the map viewer at their website. They claim to be creating detailed USGS topo maps, but I don't know how to figure out exactly where they get the property line data.
By the way, I mentioned this issue to another friend who knows a lot about this stuff. She suggested that it might be human error, when some county employee failed to properly overlay the property line layer with the map layer. Thereby messing up the county assessor's data. If they were lazy about overlaying the layers in each section of the map, that could explain why Loomis and Dracula's son have different offset issues.

dima wrote: ↑Wed Jun 26, 2024 10:27 pm Do you know how to read the text? Where on the 8009ft ring would the corner be?

From the corner between 5,6,7,&8 you take a bearing "South 34 degrees 53 minutes East". True south (not magnetic) then rotate counter-clockwise (east of south).

Once you've located that NW corner of the Loomis property, you can draw the rest of the boundary by going clockwise using the bearings and distances given on each straight segment. So from the NW corner go almost due East (89 degrees 31 minutes east of north) 650.76 feet, then turn south on a 2 degree 48 minute bearing east of south for 891.66 feet...and continue around the property and you will end up at the NW corner again. Round off errors may result in your last point being off a few feet. I think you always march around the properties in a clockwise direction.

I was messing around with range circles a bit last night but couldn't figure out how to "easily" put in bearings. I'm not gonna get my protractor out!

Thanks for the explanation! Following the bearing line puts the NW corner slightly E of the "true" location (i.e. the whole parcel once again closely misses the houses, but this time on the other side). Maybe Sean is right: some human messed up somewhere.

dima wrote: ↑Thu Jun 27, 2024 8:09 am Thanks for the explanation! Following the bearing line puts the NW corner slightly E of the "true" location (i.e. the whole parcel once again closely misses the houses, but this time on the other side). Maybe Sean is right: some human messed up somewhere.

The datum used might have an effect too.

Sean: thanks for the link. It shows the Chilao property where OSM says it is and the Alder property where the assessor says it is. So we probably have multiple errors. For the upper one, OSM is simply wrong probably. For the lower one, maybe it's a datum thing, like HikeUp says. I think I'm now at the point where I no longer care

So...
The property line was changed to hide gold that was buried by Vasquez to meet Dracula, whom the whole time being a bat, flies in from the school.
And Sassquatch wasnt the wiser to it...Chilao is known as a good place to watch ufos....not that the illuninati go there. There have been traps setup to see if black helis circle..or Caltrans knows whats going on. Theres some line that goes straight into the ground...no doubt talking to the grave.

Geez, and really they just went to Newsomes for a drink.

AW~ wrote: ↑Thu Jun 27, 2024 9:46 am So...
The property line was changed to hide gold that was buried by Vasquez to meet Dracula, whom the whole time being a bat, flies in from the school.

In 1922 two boys died near Loomis during a snow storm and were buried at the ranch. People assume they froze to death, except that there were strange puncture wounds on their necks.

I went to Bela Lugosi's grave right before Halloween, this is what I found:

Sean wrote: ↑Thu Jun 27, 2024 10:09 am In 1922 two boys died near Loomis during a snow storm and were buried at the ranch. People assume they froze to death, except that there were strange puncture wounds on their necks.

wow....it was noted for the rattlesnakes in the area. The perfect cover.
" I wondered why Captain Loomis, at almost fifty years of age, decided to move his family to the mountains to start a new life. Why did his three grown daughters and two son-in-laws join him? What happened to them? What changes have taken place at the ranch?"

What happened to them? You just have to use sense here. "Dracula"

"And finally in 1913, as he approached fifty years of age, he began the third phase, his journey into the mountains, to create the life he wanted, one marked by hard work, joy, and peace; to "sit down quietly", and to ultimately find the happiness he yearned.
"
keyword ..."marked"...and "ultimately find the happiness he yearned"..wow. he bit the whole family.

"Captain Loomis does not discuss Mr. Moffatt's participation in their adventure, beyond mentioning that he was a member of their party when they left Los Angeles. Captain Loomis does describe a man he calls only "Jim" (the only person in Loomis' account of the trip with no last name given). "Jim" suffers from a number of problems"...Jim huh...how convenient...suffers from problems...you think?.

So, let me get this straight. Dracula keeps Sasquatch in the Alder Creek culvert under Upper Big Tujunga Canyon Road. As gate keeper to the Alder Creek trail Squatch emerges to confront hikers with 3 questions. If you fail to answer correctly, squuatch will take your water, eat your clif bar and send you on your way to certain death by vampire. Meanwhile...I've forotten where I was.

Crap.

Yeah...but if its Chilao, you'd think Sass would have been under red light. The last thing you want to do is be ignorant to non-humans.
Especially surprising Mr Lugosi. I mean you could go thermal or nightvision. Idk...could be a scene from Mandy if it doesnt work out.