Old road running through Mordecai Swamp

manumuskin

Piney
Jul 20, 2003
8,583
2,494
59
millville nj
www.youtube.com
If the road was no there then the trenches that follow it were not either so Gabe would be right about those trenches,that would not explain however the ones further south where there is no apparent road,unless of course the trenches are older then the road and the road just happened to follow them,unlikely though.
 
Apr 6, 2004
3,616
558
Galloway
Al, I just looked back at past discussions between you and I on these trenches. We've been debating this for over 10 years! It is about time we've settled the issue and figured out what is what. I will admit that there is still a sense of mystery about these ditches, and I think you've raised some good points. But I think my original point about the folly of expecting the British to come into Mordecai Swamp (let alone to make the sort of preparations that you are entertaining) stands. Bear in mind that the 1808 road was laid out in, well, 1808...30 years after the Battle of Chestnut Neck.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Boyd
Apr 6, 2004
3,616
558
Galloway

Matter of fact looks like a breastwork to me encircling this coord to the east of it making a good blocking position approaching batsto from the east or the south (If the swamp was cleared for a field of fire so the British couldn't slide by them and hit Batsto further south.

If you are talking about this, then rest assured this is a natural feature. A dune.
 

Boyd

Administrator
Staff member
Site Administrator
Jul 31, 2004
9,571
2,818
Ben's Branch, Stephen Creek
@Boyd Is that higher quality of lidar still available somewhere?

Not really sure what you mean, there's more "high quality LIDAR" on my site than ever before. The source data for Ocean, Atlantic, Cumberland, etc. is a little higher resolution however, it was just too much data for me to handle so I down-sampled it to 1-meter to match the USGS LIDAR of Burlington, etc. Maybe you are thinking of the NJGIN site in this old thread?

https://forums.njpinebarrens.com/threads/2019-south-jersey-lidar.13666/#post-164081
 
Last edited:

bobpbx

Piney
Staff member
Oct 25, 2002
14,323
4,444
Pines; Bamber area
One section of trench is visible on 2021 LIDAR https://boydsmaps.com/#16.00/39.636107/-74.630076/lidar2021bw/0.00/0.00
Also where the trenches do follow the road why are they only on the southern side? The road is much bigger and higher then could account for the little bit of sand that would have been dug out of these trenches,besided the dirt dug out is obviously piled up in berms on the south side of the trench.

Of course then again why not just use the road as a breastwork in the area where it is convenient? Is it certain this road is as old as the Battle of Chestnut Neck? I"ll have to see if I cab research this.Apperars Chectnut Neck was fought Oct 6,1778. Now to find out the roads age.
You have yet to cite a source for the statement that patriots built these trenches. Did you read it somewhere?
 

bobpbx

Piney
Staff member
Oct 25, 2002
14,323
4,444
Pines; Bamber area
Al, there is a wealth of information in "Smugglers Woods" *(Arthur Pierce). The rebels did erect some defense at Chestnut Neck (pg 48):

"they ranged themselves in a breastwork erected on an eminence and showed themselves in a battery (which we afterwards found had no guns)."

The British had to land upstream from Chestnut Neck, and when they came close to the Rebel defense (who were firing on the British) "the Guns of the Galleys were remarkably well pointed, the Fire from the Rebels was effectually stifled, and the Detachment, landing with Ease, soon drove into the woods the Skulking Banditti that endeavored to oppose it".

Further, according to Captain Patrick ("Scotch") Ferguson (British), "had we arrived by surprise, we meant to have pushed foward with Celerity to the Forks, within 35 miles of Philadelphia. But as the alarm had been spread throughout the country, and the Militia there had been reinforced from Philadelphia by a detachment of foot, five field pieces and a body of light horse, our small detachment could not pretend to enter twenty miles further into the Country to reach the stores and small craft there; and the shallowness of the navigation rendered it impracticle for the Galleys to cooperate with us, it was therefore determined to return without loss of time and employ our force with effect elsewhere..."

They did later cross to the north side and create some havoc there, but they never even went upstream further than the area of Chestnut Neck. And it's a good thing they didn't due to the deployment of those field artillary from Philadelphia.

I want to add that this post does not prove the patriots did not create entrenchments upstream. In fact, they did have to place those 5 guns somewhere, but maybe they didn't have time and the Brits skedaddled anyway.
 
Last edited:
Apr 6, 2004
3,616
558
Galloway
Not really sure what you mean, there's more "high quality LIDAR" on my site than ever before. The source data for Ocean, Atlantic, Cumberland, etc. is a little higher resolution however, it was just too much data for me to handle so I down-sampled it to 1-meter to match the USGS LIDAR of Burlington, etc. Maybe you are thinking of the NJGIN site in this old thread?

https://forums.njpinebarrens.com/threads/2019-south-jersey-lidar.13666/#post-164081
That looks like the same imagery, but you had made it available for much of Burlington County before taking it down. I was wondering if there was by any chance anywhere I can find that imagery for Burlington County.
 

Boyd

Administrator
Staff member
Site Administrator
Jul 31, 2004
9,571
2,818
Ben's Branch, Stephen Creek
Sorry, I think you are mistaken. The Burlington County imagery is from the USGS and (AFAIK) has never been available in a browser anywhere. But it is included in all my own maps at the native resolution of 1-meter per pixel. I never "made it available" aside from my own maps, and it goes all the way back to the original "LIDAR in the Pines HD" in 2017. The only thing NJGIN ever offered was the "South Jersey LIDAR project" at the link I posted above.

Before I made the new maps, I hacked together some code to display South Jersey LIDAR data so this might be what you're thinking of when say I "made it available". However, that was the exact same imagery for Ocean, Atlantic, Cumberland, etc at the link I posted above. It definitely did NOT include Burlington.
 
Last edited:
Apr 6, 2004
3,616
558
Galloway
Sorry, I think you are mistaken. The Burlington County imagery is from the USGS and (AFAIK) has never been available in a browser anywhere. But it is included in all my own maps at the native resolution of 1-meter per pixel. I never "made it available" aside from my own maps, and it goes all the way back to the original "LIDAR in the Pines HD" in 2017. The only thing NJGIN ever offered was the "South Jersey LIDAR project" at the link I posted above.

Before I made the new maps, I hacked together some code to display South Jersey LIDAR data so this might be what you're thinking of when say I "made it available". However, that was the exact same imagery for Ocean, Atlantic, Cumberland, etc at the link I posted above. It definitely did NOT include Burlington.
I believe I'm thinking of the 2019 lidar. I can only say for certain that it was a higher resolution than the 2021 lidar and that it included imagery of Mordecai Swamp.
 
Last edited:

Boyd

Administrator
Staff member
Site Administrator
Jul 31, 2004
9,571
2,818
Ben's Branch, Stephen Creek
Oh, you're talking about the old LIDAR site, that is long gone as you should know. But it was the exact same data used in the new maps, it wasn't "a higher quality of LIDAR", the rendering was just a bit different.

In the past year I have created 7 different LIDAR-based maps, each covering all of South Jersey and four of them are full, seamless 3d maps. The old LIDAR site only covered a tiny portion of the pines with an awkward user interface. There was virtually no traffic at all, it needed to go.

The new LIDAR maps are much more accessible and fully integrated into my app. But whatever I offer, you always seem to want more. Sorry, to disappoint, guess you'll have to find another way to win your argument with Al. :D
 
  • Haha
Reactions: pinelandpaddler
Apr 6, 2004
3,616
558
Galloway
Oh, you're talking about the old LIDAR site, that is long gone as you should know. But it was the exact same data used in the new maps, it wasn't "a higher quality of LIDAR", the rendering was just a bit different.

In the past year I have created 7 different LIDAR-based maps, each covering all of South Jersey and four of them are full, seamless 3d maps. The old LIDAR site only covered a tiny portion of the pines with an awkward user interface. There was virtually no traffic at all, it needed to go.

The new LIDAR maps are much more accessible and fully integrated into my app. But whatever I offer, you always seem to want more. Sorry, to disappoint, guess you'll have to find another way to win your argument with Al. :D
I take, of course, no umbrage at your decision. You've done an amazing job. I will say, however, that, to my eyes, the rendering of the old LIDAR clearly yielded a higher resolution. But I'm not complaining.

P.S. I have many tools in my arsenal with which to defeat Alfie.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Boyd
Top