One of the tasks on my desk this weekend was writing a metes and bounds description of a certain 4.080 acre parcel of land that I'd surveyed about a year ago. It was a tract of land that was essentially a building lot, not an easement or strip of a road, but it had a total of twenty-eight different courses around its boundary, roughly half of which ran along a State Highway and half of which followed the meanders of a very irregular wire fence, or, rather, where that fence had been once upon a time about forty years ago. Add in the ties to the original land grant corners recited to show how various lines were determined and add in the ties to other right-of-way markers on the opposite side of the highway used in constructing the highway line bounding the subject tract and its various curves, and the whole works ran to twelve pages.
I'm pretty sure that twenty eight courses for four acres is a personal record. Elsewhere, where fences are commonly used as boundaries, it probably isn't anything out of the ordinary.
Do the courses with the fence PIs deflect very much or are we talking McMillimeter stuff.
When the new fence is built, everything will be copacetic...
Robert Hill, post: 340088, member: 378 wrote: Do the courses with the fence PIs deflect very much or are we talking McMillimeter stuff.
When the new fence is built, everything will be copacetic...
The fence deflections are easily seen by eye. Most of the deflections are well more than 10å¡.
The fence deflections are easily seen by eye. Most of the deflections are well over 10å¡.
I am familiar with your description style. It begs the question, how many pages does that equate too?
Kent McMillan, post: 340087, member: 3 wrote: Add in the ties to the original land grant corners recited to show how various lines were determined and add in the ties to other right-of-way markers on the opposite side of the highway used in constructing the highway line bounding the subject tract and its various curves, and the whole works ran to twelve pages.
Fences are always a problem because fence posts make substandard boundary monuments and you end up having to set reference monuments by each Angle Point to meet minimum technical standards.
That reminds me of a survey of about five acres that was the remainder of a cemetery. 10' feet up 20 across and any variation that you could imagine. I do not remember the number of courses. However, we did not go twelve page with the description even calling out each occupant.
1.3 acres with 13 sides was the weird one for me. Follow this corral fence to the loading chute, then along the south side of the loading chute to the west end of it, then along the west end of the loading chute, then west to the east gate post, then.................
That, of course, became all metes and bounds with no mention of fences, etc.
Kent McMillan, post: 340093, member: 3 wrote: Fences are always a problem because fence posts make substandard boundary monuments and you end up having to set reference monuments by each Angle Point to meet minimum technical standards.
Sorry. I skimmed over that. I should have been asleep already when I read it.
I enjoy the luxury of having other surveyors available to read the cuneiform and Sanskrit that bubbles from my keyboard...but that doesn't make me sloppy. On the contrary, as we check each other's work we compete to see which one can make a "perfect" score. I don't think that happens very often. Oh, maybe in the description itself, but there's always some little something somewhere...
Which begs the question of Kent; do you check your own work?
I'm not trying to be funny here. I do take Mr. McMillan seriously. But a 12 page, 28 course description wouldn't have a snowball's chance in hell of making it out of my office before the fifth or sixth draft. And please don't assume this means descriptions around my office are taken lightly. I myself write probably seventy-five a month. We produce R/W and easement documents here by the truckload....and errors are frowned upon. We have multiple filters in place.
Like I said, I hesitate to be critical of other surveyors that have my respect...but that puppy is going to take some checking. And if the person that prepared it is also the person checking it...the chances of a boo-boo making it out are increased.
Read carefully Kent. When you think you're done, put it down for an hour and then check it again!
There's just something about descriptions that's makes them difficult to write. I try to have someone else ALWAYS read mine before they get a seal, but even then things slip by,,,
While the acreage was much greater, I did have a description for a proposed golf course housing development that was 11 pages long. Thank god for 'Legal Aid', paid for itself in one description.
paden cash, post: 340120, member: 20 wrote:
Which begs the question of Kent; do you check your own work?
I'm not trying to be funny here. I do take Mr. McMillan seriously. But a 12 page, 28 course description wouldn't have a snowball's chance in hell of making it out of my office before the fifth or sixth draft.
Sure, of course I check my own work. There's a step-by-step procedure that I use, proofing the whole description several times using different criteria on each pass to catch things that require revision or correction. I don't use an automated description writer, so the proofing even includes running a closure check on the courses and distances from the description.
Providing the geodetic coordinates of all points connected by the description, identified by point number that is also given in the description has simplified/eliminated quite a few sources of error.
Writing metes and bounds descriptions in outline style also makes them quite a bit easier to proof.
Kent McMillan, post: 340142, member: 3 wrote: Writing metes and bounds descriptions in outline style also makes them quite a bit easier to proof.
Here's a snippet of what I mean by "outline style":
Kent McMillan, post: 340142, member: 3 wrote: Writing metes and bounds descriptions in outline style also makes them quite a bit easier to proof.
Here's an example of what I mean by "outline form":
Kent McMillan, post: 340142, member: 3 wrote:
Writing metes and bounds descriptions in outline style also makes them quite a bit easier to proof.
And here is a snippet of what outline style looks like (with the margins trimmed):
You guys in Texas make it so complicated. A good plat could show all that information a lot more clearer. Here a record is survey would be recorded and the deed description would be "all the land included in plat #2015-xxx"
A plat is not a description...
I suppose that if land surveyors can't write good metes and bounds descriptions, a map or plat would be a fairly good work-around. The GIS folks probably like it quite a bit. :>
Kent, what was behind the decision to retain varas?
(Oh, wait... Did you already answer that? Let me go reread the entire post real quick. LOL.)