William L. Harvey wrote: > > Bob Saftenberg wrote: > > > > Hi fellow researchers, > > (snippage) > > > Now my question. While tracking down some of the family's deeds, I > > came across several references to measurements taken in chains and > > links, especially in deeds druing the period 1880-1900. I vaguely > > seem to recall these being related to rods & acres, etc. as units of > > land measurement. Could someone please refresh my memory, > > especially with the modern (foot/yard) equivalents, if possible. > > > > Thanks in advance, > > > > Bob > > Hi Bob; Here's a slight correction!! I was trying to beat Judy with an answer to your question and I lost by 3 + minutes. Haste makes waste. < sheepish g > .66 ft = 7.92 inches which = "a little under 8 inches" > > This goes back about 30 years for me also! A "link" was specified as > .66 "FEET" in length with 100 links thus making a "chain" of 66 feet. > 80 chains thus measured 5,280 feet which is still our standard for a > mile. (If memory serves, a rod is a 1/4 of a chain = 16.5 ft.) > The western states were surveyed in this manner, being gridded into 36 > sections (6x6) per Township/Range combination, with each section > theoreticaly being a square with each side measuring 80 chains. A > section ideally contained 640 acres with each acre being 43,560 sq. ft. > The Earth's curvature created some interesting problems for the General > Land Office contract surveyors of those days in order to compensate for > square grids imposed on a gradually curving surface. > > Incidentally, the word Township as used in the west has none of the > "political" connotation of the eastern "Town". I first encountered this > while researching in VT and CT and I have since benefited from several > "online" discussions about the political and geographical nature of > Towns in the east. > > Hope this cleared more than it muddied! > Bill Harvey (in N. Calif.) > wlh@foothill.net