
What is the standard way to handle the errors introduced to descriptions, with rounding of numbers?
I had the honor of retracing a survey, that had some 30 courses, which were all rounded to the nearest tenth, and minute of bearing. It was some 15 acres, but failed to close by 0.64′.
I kinda sorta “Adjusted ’em back in”.
I have heard the literal approach, of “Throwing it into the last course” (Well, it SAID to the POB!) is the logic for that.
And, I have gotten in the habit of sort of “adjusting it back in” because rounding is generally throwing less than 0.05′ of error into each distance, and 0Ã¥Â¡0′, and 29.5″ into each course.
Then, after tying into enough of the POINTS on that survey, I get it “Close ’nuff” and go home.But, it seems to me as semi problematic, when you know that it is random, and occurs at some places, and not at others. And, if there is NOT MUCH to tie into, as in only a few monuments left, then you just “Do the best you can” with it.
Now, what is happening, is land that WAS worth 2000 per acre, is now becoming worth 10,000 per acre. And, you don’t really want trouble… you want the mechanics of your survey to be as sound as possible.
And, so I publish my plats to the hundredth, and second of bearing… but it’s STILL a given that the survey is NOT that accurate.
Anyway, what do you do with this somewhat innocuous item, and what do you think is the MOST professional way to handle it?Thank you,
It’s just up for discussion.
BTW, I did have a girl at the tax office, inquire about it… “Is that as accurate as surveyors can compute it”?
I said, no, but when you know that the accuracy of your work is about that, then you in a sense are leaving it for a re tracer to “Find out” where the little slop shots are… I showed her one of mine, and what I do, and why…
Two philosophies, of looking at the SAME problem….N
Log in to reply.