Talk:Gunter's chain

Picture
Picture anyone?

JoeyGWilliams (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:18, 21 February 2008‎

Usage in picture on Dutch map from 1607
http://www.archiefalkmaar.nl/beeldbank/9a5bede0-ce28-4584-9494-06c0abef1af9

Map in the archives of the city of Alkmaar, by Pieter Cornelisz. Cort

The picture in the lower left corner is self explanatory. He has the device in his hand (and an angle measuring circle in front of him). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erik Springelkamp (talk • contribs) 14:24, 15 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Interesting .... but how do we know whether this is actually Gunter's chain, so the fields are measured in English units and corrected afterwards, or this is a Dutch version, or this is a separate Dutch "invention" of a chain, of n links of length x Dutch inches? (Etc etc) Imaginatorium (talk) 09:10, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gunter's chain. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150523035303/http://www.nzisltsurveybook.org.nz/land-title-surveys/chapter-2/section-8 to http://www.nzisltsurveybook.org.nz/land-title-surveys/chapter-2/section-8

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 09:10, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

discussion at Chain (unit)
There is an ongoing discussion at Chain (unit) that affects this page. Comments welcome. Dondervogel 2 (talk) 10:34, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Proposed split
Following discussion at talk: chain (unit), it is proposed that this article be split so that it contains only material about Gunter's Chain. Material about surveying chains in general and non-UK chains in particular are to be moved to a new article. Any comments by Wednesday 12:00 UTC please, as I believe that it to be a non-controversial change. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:38, 22 July 2018 (UTC)


 * SupportI am a little ahead of myself, but have placed a dubious tag against one reference based on modern material. It is the assumed motive that concerns me. I read
 * ref to the short perch
 * medieval measure of fields two method in parallel and the article seems to be saying that the chain was a multiple of feet rather than a subdivision of the mile ( Roman and statute). Acres of course in this time were variable units of fiscal measurement- and topological measurement. A field could be so many acres for sowing (seed needed-topographical), and a different number for reaping (fiscal- number of mandays required). Dubious-discuss seems a relevant tag. But we can wait for

Wednesday 12:00 UTC. ClemRutter (talk) 21:19, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose (quite strongly). Wikipedia needs articles on topics, not stubettes on factoids. (See my independent comments below.) Imaginatorium (talk) 08:58, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Notwithstanding [as m'learned friends might say] the clarification below, I don't expect this article to change much, it is mostly ok and I understand and agree with the point you are making [that the topic should be covered adequately so the the reader only should only have to go off to another article if they need to drill down for more information or up for a wider context]. The more serious problem of bloat and duplication is with the unit article. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 20:36, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Clarification
I really ought to have stated the full proposal rather than assume that all interested parties were already following, so let me do so now:
 * we already have two articles, chain (unit) and Gunter's chain, that overlap so much as to be in effect wp:forks. Each discusses surveing chains in general, Guntner's chain in particular, other measuring chains, the statute chain as a legal measure, other chains that are de facto but not de jure measures. All in all, a mess that [IMO] needs disentagling.
 * we have a third article surveying chain that at present is a redirect to Guntner's chain, even though there are 'competitor' surveying chains.
 * so the proposal is that we have these three articles
 * 1) chain (unit) be only about the statute chain [measure], with a main link to its basis, Guntner's chain.
 * 2) surveying chain be about all types of surveying chain, with main links to the unit and the detailed article [with a summary] on Gunter's chain, but describes all the other chains itself.
 * 3) Gunter's chain is about that - and only mentions [via link back to the surveying article] that other chains exist[ed].

Does that change anyone's view? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:17, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
 * To avoid duplicating the discussion I propose editors all respond at Chain (unit). Dondervogel 2 (talk) 19:39, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
 * yes, I agree. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:53, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Insufficient consensus
I can't claim to have a consensus for the change as I originally proposed and so it fails. I accept and agree with the argument that the article Gunter's Chain is satisfactory and should be left alone. I still believe that chain (unit) is a mess and would support a proposal to split it [rather than just delete the extraneous material]. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 13:26, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I concur but will look to a soultion for the redirect for Surveying chain ClemRutter (talk) 23:22, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Note how New York City Subway chaining uses the term surveyor's chain as an alternative name for Gunter's chain. So it may wise to check the "what links here“ articles (for surveying chain) lest there are similar pitfalls. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 22:00, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

On "systems" and "inventions"
This article seems to suggest that Gunter "invented" the idea of measuring distances by using a flexible but linearly inextensible object to mark off a distance. Sure, he came up with a particular convenient specification of a practical item, a chain of 100 links, but that's all. This really is not an "invention" in any real sense (i.e. an invention as defined by an intelligent person, not the US Patent Office); nor is there any distinct "system". Since time immemorial people have been measuring things by holding known objects (feet, arms, whatnot) against the object. So the pedestrian description of how to measure a distance with a measuring standard really could be lighter. The many variant forms -- need only the slightest mention: (roughly) "Ramsden's chain was of length xyz, with n links". This is one reason for opposing any split: we end up with countless tedious explanations of how to measure things. Imaginatorium (talk) 09:06, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Using photos as evidence
We have spent a lot of energy debating how to define surveyers and engineers chains and it appears that the museums have had the same problem. Gunter invented/discovered/documented the chain in 1620, and the US gov used the term in legislation in 1785, and after that any chain in the states with 100 links per 66ft seems to be called a 'Gunters Chain'and any engineers chain with 100 links per 100ft a Ramsden chain. There is a wiki link on how to make a 'Gunter' chain- (excellent) but Gunter would not have recognised it. THere is an wiki link to a chain made by Baker. Read the caption and it suspect- refering to it as a 20m chain! We have been there! I believed that the original chain took the measuement from the exterior of the handle, but the chain in UK Railway use, and used in the US cadastral surveys swivelled on a pin placed somewhere in the handle. We are short of adequately captioned images.ClemRutter (talk) 08:19, 2 August 2018 (UTC)