I don't get it. ????
They do not agree.?ÿ Out of order.?ÿ Missing calls.
Hey, that means you get to choose the ones you want!
...right?
A reasonable working assumption is that the 12' jog is symmetrical.?ÿ Unfortunately, using that assumption the parcel doesn't close by 10 feet, so right now I've got nothing.
Maybe there's good reason for all those line changes and jogs, but I just shook my head and imagined the engineer designing that, never having left his CAD station.?ÿ Hope you don't have to set 4' bounds at all those points
?ÿ
Missing a bearing and distance on the eastern of the short legs.
The 17.14 ft and 12.00 ft legs are swapped.
The 17.14 ft line's bearing is NE not SE.
It would be good to have more than the minimum to define the curves.
Did I get them all?
?ÿ
Not too sure?
Nobody tried surveying???
?ÿ
????
It would be good to have more than the minimum to define the curves.
Not necessarily.
The Wattles book (iirc) describes how too much curve data can result in conflicting data that clouds the title.?ÿ Arc length, radius, and chord bearing are what I prefer.
Maybe there's good reason for all those line changes and jogs, but I just shook my head and imagined the engineer designing that, never having left his CAD station.?ÿ Hope you don't have to set 4' bounds at all those points
Once upon a time the Georgia DOT decided to reduce the amount of right-of-way that they had to purchase.?ÿ Instead of choosing an even offset (40, 50, 60, etc.) for jogs in the right-of-way, they decided to change the offset whenever the cut or fill slope extended beyond their standard right-of-way.?ÿ Sometimes the offset would change dozens of times in a mile or so of road.?ÿ Needless to say they wouldn't pay for a concrete monument to be set at every break.?ÿ Since we had done the survey and design we could stake the R/W initially, but 10 years down the road reestablishing the R/W became a frustrating situation.?ÿ Luckily they, eventually, decided that was a bad idea.
Andy
For curves I want to know four things: radius of the curve, arc length, chord length and chord bearing.?ÿ They do not tell you if the length provided is the chord length or the arc length.?ÿ On a large radius the two numbers are very similar but a few hundredths here and there add up over a long route survey.
?ÿI've seen too many with HUGE radii and a relatively short length where it is next to impossible to tell if it's an angle to the left or the right.?ÿ It would help if the curve data was ALWAYS given on the inside of the curve, but, that's seems to be asking too much.?ÿ That is where having both chord bearing and distance is quite helpful.
Yeah... unless it's potentially a non-tangent curve.?ÿ That's why I like chord data, it covers all the types of curves.?ÿ I mostly like chord data because it lets me quickly draw a boundary without having to change out of the BD tool.
@bill93 I think the bearing on the 17.14' line is correct but the detail drawing is rotated and missing a North arrow to show that.
Except the chord distance is rounded, typically to the hundredth. The radius is typically an even number, exactly, say 400' and the Delta is to the arc second. My experience is that if I construct the ends of a curve using a chord bearing and distance, the computed radius and delta will not be the exact numbers (or proper second) they are intended to be, so I have always gone through the radius point, going 400.00 feet (in my example and assuming a tangent curve or where a radial bearing is given for non-tangent), use the labeled delta (left or right) then then back the 400.00 to the EC. The integrity of the numbers remain intact that way.
