Subdivision needed to run a mile post?

[rail.jersey]

Quick question for those in the know, when placing a mile post along a line, does it always require the subdivision to be formally defined first? I'm sorting through some historical docs and noticed inconsistencies where posts appear without clear subdivision boundaries. Is that normal, or was it just loosely done in the past?

 

[runaway_train]

Quick question for those in the know, when placing a mile post along a line, does it always require the subdivision to be formally defined first? I'm sorting through some historical docs and noticed inconsistencies where posts appear without clear subdivision boundaries. Is that normal, or was it just loosely done in the past?

Hmm. Ok so I guess in general it's really common that miles are placed before formal subdivision boundaries were established. Mile posts were there since ages ago to mark for distance or practical reasons or whatever. The formal boundaries follow suit. That's what I know.

 

[YardDog]

Sure, it's pretty normal for mile posts to be put up before official subdivision lines were marked. They mainly served as handy distance markers, and the boundaries were usually determined later. So it's not strange at all to find old mile posts without clear subd boundaries

 

[Fr3ightRunn3r]

Sorry for joining late. You're right, mile posts usually appeared before the official subdivisions. They served as practical markers for distance, with the actual boundaries being established later on

 

[Alan]

Hey @rail.jersey. What you’re seeing is pretty normal. Mile posts often went up before formal subdivisions were defined, mostly just to mark distances. The official boundaries usually came later, so inconsistencies in older documents aren’t unusual at all.