Here at the office we are discussing the "plus or minus" symbol while preparing a parcel description. We know when to use it, the discussion is more of "where" the +/- should be in the description.
2.5+/- acres (after the number)
2.5 acres +/- (after the acres)
What say you?
2.5+/- acres
That's the way I write it.?ÿ But the contrary can be shown, as in when you write it all out, "containing 2.5 acres, more or less", the +/- (more or less) comes after
I know this was common practice at some time in the past, but I prefer to not use either "+/-" or "more or less".?ÿ In my opinion, when i see these used i also see uncertainty in what immediately proceed them.?ÿ Being a big fan of the works of Gurdon Wattles, I agree with his suggestion that we not use these terms unless we suspect there is uncertainty in the associated measurement.?ÿ In his words "This signals a warning to anyone reading the description."
?ÿ
My 2 cents worth, anyway ........
2.5 ac. +-
We have kept it.?ÿ
The old reason was in fact due to some uncertainty. (This was more or less a constant).
The modern reason is in case a title issue pops up, such as an un-recorded deed, or a judgement, or a taking, or a divorce, and someone is looking to sue, and the surveyor gets into a situation, that is beyond our general knowledge.
Such it is....
N
2.5 ac., m/l
We have become a world of nitpickers.?ÿ Run the traverse today and it is 22.54945 acres.?ÿ Run it tomorrow and get 22.55555 acres.?ÿ Run it next year and it is 22.54444 acres.?ÿ Same monuments. No visible reason to not be precisely where they were on day one.?ÿ So is it really 22.55 one day and 22.56 the next and only 22.54 a year later??ÿ For all intents and purposes it doesn't really matter what the number is we obtain on a given day other than to provide a level of precision for the layperson to apply. The plus/minus clarifies that nothing in this world is absolute except death and taxes.
And Enoch, and Elijah skipped out on death....
So, that leaves taxes. Jesus sent Peter fishing, to pay the temple tax.
🙂
So, here we are taxes. More or less!
2.45 <= 2.50 <= 2.55 ac. 95% confidence level
I don't like to see the +/- or its symbol used unless followed by an uncertainty value. More or less has been very traditional and preferred if either is used.
One legal question to consider. A string of lots is laid out, 60'x100' or 6000sq. ft. lots. The subdivision is platted and accepted by the city/county. The minimum R-1 zoning at the time is 6000sq ft lots. Not to harp on what kinda idiots think laying out lots at the exact minimum are, but I can say I've met a number of them this isn't an abstract issue.?ÿ
We all know these lots aren't going to be 6000.0000 sq ft, they are something else, hopefully a bit larger, however legally they are 6000 sq ft even if they measure more or less. The county/city accepted and signed for them, they stay what they are until lot lines are moved then the process begins anew. Same with patented acreages, a 40 acre patent continues to be 40 until it's broken up.?ÿ
So at times the +/- is incorrect to use.?ÿ
Putting 6000 sq.ft. +/- on the platted lot is wrong, cause it becomes 6000 sq ft by acceptance. Other times you may argue it's correct but first consider the reason for the survey.?ÿ
?ÿ
ALT-241
2.5 ac ~
Let them nitpick that.....?ÿ ???? ??? ??? ???? ???? ?????ÿ
Thank you everyone for the responses. To clarify, one of the P/L's would be the C/L meandering creek. Hence the +/-.
I've seen a plan recently that had distances, 245.365'+/-
Wattles comments on using the phrase "more or less" (Section 3.12 of Writing Legal Descriptions for those playing at home) are in reference to qualifying bearings and distances, not areas.?ÿ
The main reason for adding the qualifier to areas is because people are often setting the price for buying/selling property on a by area basis, so when a new survey quotes a slightly different area people tend to get in an uproar and want?ÿ refunds -leading to irksome litigation. That and the fact that sometimes a specific exact area is intended.
Definitely after the number.
we not use these terms unless we suspect there is uncertainty in the associated measurement
Not to be pedantic, but the first line in every textbook on measurement is basically the same.....
?ÿ
John R. Taylor - An introduction to Error Analysis; The Study of Uncertainties in Physicals Measurements, Preface to First Edition
"All measurements, however careful and scientific, are subject to some uncertainties"?ÿ
?ÿ
Charles D. Ghiliani - Adjustment Computations: Spatial Data Analysis, Preface
"No measurement is ever exact. As a corollary, every measurement contains error"
?ÿ
PS - Who am I kidding, this was totally to be pedantic 🙂
If you substitute the phrase "more or less" for "+/-"?ÿ it is clear. You would not write "2.5, more or less, acres" or "45.9, more or less, feet". Therefore, if you are going to substitute "+/-", for "more or less" it would properly come after the dimension qualifier as in "2.5 acres +/-" or "45.9 feet +/-".
That said, I would never use +/- in a legal description. Perhaps on a drawing, but never in a legal description.?ÿ ?ÿ