A question on this problem came up several years ago, either on this site or the old POB site. The whole Problem A-4 1988 LS is poorly written with a lot of pertinent data left out in order to properly answer quite a few of the requested portions of the test. The "corn-nuts" for the S.C. Sections 31 & 32 (Point 1) are bogus compared with what is shown to the West. Therefore positioning anything in the South Line of Section 31 can??t be done. Since this problem was dated 1988, the 1973 Manual is/was the latest Manual in existence at that time. What Manual did exist at the time the survey was supposedly executed? Which also might have some bearing on deriving an answer for Part I.
Question G, No. 3, appears to have an error in how it was written. Says East and West Lines 20 chs. I think they meant to say North and South Lines 20 chs, if you look at the two distances for the North and South Lines of Lot 7.
Question I should have given the record call pertaining to how the W.C. was established when it was set. Makes a difference in placing the ?¬ corner to do the proportion. The only answer that calc??s is No. 3 and the W.C. would become an angle point.
?ÿ
You can't prorate, there's nothing to prorate. I think that's probably the purpose of this question. Can the test taker recognize when not to do it. The answer key is a misprint.
The best available evidence is a line was run from se corner and a monument couldn't be set at e1/4 exactly so they set a wc a bit further along on the line. There's no error to prorate because there's no record distance to the wc. The corner is 1.07 back along the line as run, that's all we know. Had there been a monument set at 60 ch we might have an argument for a prorate, but nothing was set there either. As for the rest of the line you run from the wc toward the cc 18.93 and set that, then continue using cc for line and set one on the parallel if cc is not on it.
You can only retrace real markings not fictional ones. So yes, this line is partially retracement and partially subject to original marking.
I don't think it is a variant of indexing. I look at it as a natural extension of the need to follow in the foot steps. We have to assume the original surveyors did what they said they did, unless we have evidence that they didn't.?ÿ In the case of the exam question?ÿ we assume the surveyor said he measured in a straight line from the section corner to the W.C. When he passed the unmonumeted position for the 1/4 corner his notes called out that position. Our goal is to find that position. In most cases there is no evidence to support a change in bearing anywhere except the monument. Proportioning the distance makes sense to me, because there would be no reason to assume the error in the distance was all on one side of the unmonumented 1/4 cor.?ÿ?ÿ?ÿ
An index correction would make sense for an interior section corner with only one W.C., but?ÿ you would use an extension of the 1/4 cor. to W.C. bearing, not the record bearing, because the record would normally nor support the idea that the surveyor turned at the W.C.
For an offline W.C. the only record we normally have is?ÿ a calculated bearing and distance that is only monumented at one end, so we don't have the information to do anything other than accept the record.?ÿ
The record for an accessory usually represents a direct measurement from the monumented position, so it is independent of any measurement from a distant monument. In the rare cases where the distance to the accessory approaches the distance to the nearest monumented point on the line, other methods might be warranted.?ÿ
I think the answer key has a misprint.?ÿ The graphic gives the impression that the intermediate monument?ÿ (not identified as a WC, might be a line tree) is on line.?ÿ Graphics for exams are necessarily simplified, so if that intermediate corner were not intended to be interpreted as being online, they would have drawn it clearly as being off line or included a note stating it's off line.
If the reasoning for "4. None of the Above" were that the intermediate corner should not be assumed to be on line, that would be considered a trick question and would not be on the exam.
I don't find any reason in the problem graphic & statement why the answer would not be at the proportioned location between the SE Section Corner (#11) and the intermediate line monument (#8).
?ÿ
Hi Everyone,
I recently started reviewing the Caltrans videos on YouTube, but can't seem to find a copy of the workbook anywhere.?ÿ It looks like all of the links to the document on Caltrans' website are no longer valid and I couldn't find it elsewhere on their site.?ÿ Unfortunately with new state-level ADA web content laws coming soon in CA, I suspect we will see a lot of non-ADA content get removed because it is the easiest/cheapest option.?ÿ Does anyone have a copy that they could make available via Google Drive/Dropbox/etc??ÿ Thank you in advance!
You can find links to to the files on the internet archive here, https://github.com/elil/Caltrans/
Hi Everyone,
I recently started reviewing the Caltrans videos on YouTube, but can't seem to find a copy of the workbook anywhere.?ÿ It looks like all of the links to the document on Caltrans' website are no longer valid and I couldn't find it elsewhere on their site.?ÿ Unfortunately with new state-level ADA web content laws coming soon in CA, I suspect we will see a lot of non-ADA content get removed because it is the easiest/cheapest option.?ÿ Does anyone have a copy that they could make available via Google Drive/Dropbox/etc??ÿ Thank you in advance!
Section 508 compliance was internally mandated by CalTrans over a decade ago.?ÿ Unfortunately "WebMasters" were recruited from admin and rarely engineering personnel, who were given a copy of DreamWeaver and told to get 'er done.?ÿ IT was minimally involved as they had their hands full keeping business servers and networks from crashing at a less than alarming rate.?ÿ The result was a sad mish-mash of totally non ADA compliant Websites which only looked good on the WebMaster's computer using his/her browser of choice at a single resolution, with lots of gadgets, frames, splashy intros and near non existent navigability.?ÿ Their pages sucked for?ÿ ?ÿYour govm'nt at work.
Here's how an actual ADA compliant WebPage should look.?ÿ Not too sexy, minimal Chrome, obvious links and blind, web compromised users, low vision can get it done.?ÿ Of course links don't work but try resizing or text changes to understand how it functions good on a tablet or desktop.
?ÿ
?ÿ
Are ADA compliant WebPages also known by the State of California to cause cancer?
?ÿ
Our tax dollars being well spent, I am sure... ????
I was able to get all of the PDFs, with the exception of unit 11 ("The California Coordinate System"), downloaded, so thanks for the help y'all!
Are ADA compliant WebPages also known by the State of California to cause cancer?
?ÿ
"Everything gives you cancer, there's no answer?ÿ .?ÿ .?ÿ .?ÿ "
