Rietvalley No. 91
91 on the cadastre · show on the map
- Farm number
- No. 91
- On the cadastre
- 91, whole farmregistered as RIETVALLEY
- District
- Prince Albert
- Modern surveyed area
- 6135.5 ha
Why this farm is here
In the model from the cadastre pull only, nothing in the record yet says who held this ground or why it belongs here. 78 km from Klaarstroom.
What the record holds, in order
No dated record on this parcel yet. It is on the map because the Surveyor-General has a polygon for it; the history is not transcribed.
Also bordered by, as the modern cadastre draws it
Ground that touches this farm on the Surveyor-General's current polygons and that none of the diagrams held here names. Derived from the geometry, not read off a document.
Cadastre
Surveyor-General diagram index for this parcel
Research notes
[13 Aug 2026] DISTRICT CONTEXT, AND NOTHING MORE. Added when Frans extended the western bound another 10 km- "many graves there", and he is right: ten burial grounds already recorded here sit in this strip, several of them named for the farms themselves. The name is the Surveyor-General's own P_FARMNAME (RIETVALLEY) and the polygon is his; the cadastre gives the whole farm as 6140.4 ha. Nothing here records who held this ground or when.
The research behind this page, kept separate from it: dated working notes, open questions, and what is not yet settled.
What the record is missing
-
Nobody is on record as ever having held this
third order · B8 never-held
Rietvalley No. 91 is in the model and drawn on the map, and carries no ownership record of any kind, not a grant, not a transfer, not an occupation.
What would settle it The Surveyor-General's diagram for the farm number names the grantee and the date; the deed reference on it opens the transfer chain.
Found by breaks.py reading the model against itself, not written by hand,
each one is a shape of missing record, not a fault in the data.
The whole set is on the
questions page.