Roasting George Washington’s Field Notes: A Modern Land Surveyor’s Take on 18th-Century “Best Practices”

 

Because even the Father of Our Country would fail a modern QA/QC review.

Introduction: Respect the Man, Roast the Notes

Let me be clear right up front: George Washington was a giant. A revolutionary leader. A founding father. A general. A president.

He was also… a land surveyor.

And if George Washington turned in some of his hypothetical field notes to a modern surveying firm today, there would be a very polite—but very firm—meeting scheduled with the survey manager.

This post is not an attack on Washington the man. It’s a loving, good-natured roast of Washington the 18th-century land surveyor, viewed through the lens of modern surveying standards, technology, ethics, documentation requirements, and QA/QC expectations.

Because nothing reminds us how far the land surveying profession has come quite like looking at how it used to be done—by candlelight, with chains, compasses, vague descriptions, and an alarming amount of confidence.

So grab your coffee, your field book, and your sense of humor. Let’s review George Washington’s hypothetical field notes… as if they just landed on your desk in 2026.

---

Exhibit A: “Commencing at a Large White Oak…”

Ah yes. The classic.

“Beginning at a large white oak standing near the creek…”

George. My guy. Which white oak?

Modern Surveyor Translation:

• No coordinates

• No monument ID

• No witness ties

• No photos

• No metadata

• No survivability assessment

Just vibes.

Why This Wouldn’t Fly Today

In modern land surveying, a boundary description starting with “a large white oak” is basically an invitation for:

• Boundary disputes

• Lawsuits

• Expert testimony

• A judge asking you uncomfortable questions

Trees die. Trees fall. Trees get cut down by a guy who “didn’t know it was important.”

Today, we’d expect:

• State plane coordinates or grid values

• Monument type (iron pipe, rebar, capped pin, stone, etc.)

• Bearing and distance ties

• Photos with scale

• Possibly even GNSS observation logs

Washington’s note gives us none of that. Just… oak-based optimism.

---

Exhibit B: Bearings by Compass (a.k.a. Magnetic Chaos)

Washington frequently used a surveyor’s compass. Totally normal—for 1750.

Absolutely terrifying—for 2026.

Hypothetical Field Note:

“Thence N 45° E, 320 poles…”

Modern Surveyor Reaction:

“Okay, but… magnetic declination when?”

The Problem

Magnetic north:

• Changes over time

• Varies by location

• Was not consistently recorded

• Was often guessed

Washington’s compass bearings might be off by several degrees when translated into modern grid bearings.

In today’s world:

• We document grid vs ground

• We apply convergence

• We record declination values

• We tie everything to a known datum (NAD83, NAD83(2011), NAD83(2022), etc.)

Washington’s notes? No datum. No epoch. No correction. Just raw magnetism and faith.

---

Exhibit C: Chains, Poles, and Creative Math

Let’s talk about measurement precision.

Washington measured with:

• Gunter’s chains

• Poles

• Human pacing (occasionally)

And before you say “that was accurate enough,” remember: chains stretch, sag, kink, and lie.

Hypothetical Note:

“Distance measured carefully by chain…”

Ah yes. Carefully. The most dangerous word in field notes.

Modern Standards:

• Steel tape calibration records

• EDM calibration certificates

• GNSS baseline residuals

• Redundancy and closure checks

Washington’s closure was probably:

“Close enough, looks right.”

And to be fair—sometimes it was. But sometimes it wasn’t. And modern surveyors spend a lot of time cleaning up those “close enough” moments.

---

Exhibit D: No Error Analysis, No Adjustments, No Apologies

One of the biggest differences between historical and modern surveying is error management.

Washington:

• Rarely documented misclosure

• Rarely adjusted traverses

• Often relied on judgment over math

Modern surveyors:

• Perform least squares adjustments

• Analyze residuals

• Balance traverses

• Document everything

If George submitted a plat today without a closure report, the reviewer would ask:

• “What was your angular misclosure?”

• “How did you adjust?”

• “What’s your positional accuracy?”

George would reply:

“Sir, I looked at the land.”

---

Exhibit E: Boundary Logic Based on Vibes and Neighbors

Washington’s era relied heavily on:

• Adjoiners’ statements

• Local reputation

• “Everyone knows where the line is”

Hypothetical Note:

“Along the line of Mr. Jenkins’ land…”

Which Jenkins? From when? According to what deed?

Modern boundary surveying requires:

• Chain of title analysis

• Junior/senior rights evaluation

• Calls hierarchy interpretation

• Monument vs record evidence weighing

Washington’s notes often skipped the legal reasoning entirely. The logic lived in his head.

Which is great… until he’s not around anymore.

---

Exhibit F: Zero QA/QC (Because He Was the QA/QC)

Today, surveying firms have:

• Independent checks

• Field/office separation

• Stamped review processes

• Liability insurance concerns

Washington had:

• Himself

• A quill

• A strong sense of confidence

No second checker. No peer review. No CAD technician asking, “Hey, this doesn’t close.”

Just George.

To be fair, when you’re surveying land that no one else has mapped, you get a little leeway. But modern standards demand verifiable repeatability, not personal reputation.

---

Exhibit G: Field Notes That Would Never Survive Discovery

Let’s talk about documentation quality.

Washington’s field notes were often:

• Brief

• Narrative

• Non-standardized

• Missing sketches

Modern field notes must:

• Be clear enough for another surveyor to retrace

• Include sketches, ties, offsets

• Record conditions, equipment, crew, date, weather

• Hold up in court

If Washington’s notes were subpoenaed today, opposing counsel would have a field day.

“Mr. Washington, where exactly was this ‘stake near the creek’?”

George:

“It was there.”

---

The Harsh Truth: We Still Deal with This Every Day

Here’s the part every modern land surveyor feels in their soul.

We still have to interpret notes like this.

Every week:

• Old deeds

• Colonial surveys

• Metes and bounds from the 1700s

• Ambiguous calls

• Missing monuments

We’re not laughing because it’s bad—we’re laughing because we’re still cleaning it up.

And that’s the irony.

Washington’s surveys shaped property boundaries that still exist today. Even with their flaws, they matter.

---

Why This Roast Actually Honors the Profession

Here’s the serious takeaway beneath the humor.

1. Surveying Has Always Required Judgment

Technology changes. Judgment remains.

2. Documentation Is Our Legacy

Your field notes will outlive you. Write them like someone else will depend on them—because they will.

3. Future Surveyors Will Roast Us Too

In 2126, someone will laugh at:

• Our GNSS drift

• Our CAD workflows

• Our “ancient” LiDAR

And that’s okay.

---

Final Verdict: Would George Washington Pass Today?   

 

Category	Modern Standard	Washington
Datum & Coordinates	Required	❌
Monumentation	Required	⚠️
Precision	High	⚠️
Documentation	Extensive	❌
Legal Analysis	Required	⚠️
Professional Judgment	Required	✅

Would he pass licensure today?

Probably not on the first try.

Would he become an excellent modern surveyor?

Absolutely.

Because the fundamentals—observation, judgment, integrity—were already there.

---

Closing Thoughts from a 30-Year Surveyor

George Washington surveyed with:

• The best tools of his time

• The standards of his era

• A responsibility to define land where none had been defined

We survey with:

• Satellites

• Lasers

• State plane coordinates

• And the benefit of everything he and others started

So laugh at the field notes. Roast the compass bearings. Mock the oak trees.

But also remember: we stand on those lines, crooked as they sometimes are.

And somewhere, George Washington is probably looking at our GNSS rover saying:

“You trust that thing?”