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
ALT0177 = ?ñ
Yes, it's kind of what I said, early on.?ÿ But I'm ok with the inconsistency of doing it differently in numbers vs words
All measurements have error, and acreage is a calculation, which in my mind is definitely worthy of a +/-.
Also, your CAD will come up with a slightly different square footage than when another surveyor punches in your plan and/or surveys it and comes up with the boundary by holding monuments.?ÿ
It's not always about area (which is a derived value), but when a course recites a "more or less" distance to a closing line or point, the intent is to hold the position of the established line or point.?ÿ That is, the stated distance is explicitly junior to what it ends up being to reach that end point.
No...in your case it is never 2.54 or 2.55...truth is 2.5, any additional digits is obscuring the truth.
Not that I am always "holy" when it comes to significant digits. Certain precisions are required by code. For "more or less" or +/- to have any use, we would need to define how much more and less.
That is always the case, right? When making a call to a bound (whether the starting point or a creek or a margin of a road) I have always taken the distance call to be "more or less" as needed to make the close. Meaning, it is implicitly "more or less" with or without those words. I don't know that making it explicit is needed. (And if it is not needed...perhaps the fact of the calling to a bound makes it explicit? Need an english teacher!)
when a course recites a "more or less" distance to a closing line or point,.
Not just closing point of a traverse, but any found physical point.
A surveyor, an engineer, and a statistician were hunting deer and they see a big buck. The surveyor takes a shot and misses 5 feet to the left; the engineer takes a shoot and misses 5 feet to the right. The statistician yells, WE GOT THAT SUCKER!
@holy-cow?ÿ ?ÿEither you don't deal with title companies much, or you have an answer they understand about who has title to the extra 0.01 acres you surveyed.
How about for a condo survey?
?ÿ
0.01ac is a whole condo or at least a big room.
I use +/- values all the time. When the boundary is a water boundary, such as mean high water, mean low water, etc., the area of the property and ties from monuments to the water boundary is always +/-.
One time we were asked by a HOA that was having a beach access dispute with one of the members. It was a sandy beach area. We surveyed it, topo'd to death. Determined the horizontal location of the MHW line, we went back 2 weeks later to stake the line and the location of MHW had changed significantly. In the intervening 2 weeks we had a king tide coupled with a strong nor'easter which moved the sand around, and therefore the ownership line.?ÿ
