CV Nevada, post: 456149, member: 13195 wrote: Maybe I'm TDD?:p LOL!
No. You're not NEARLY arrogant enough to be Kent and too nice for Ted Dura.
AND YOUR NOT TDD BECAUSE YOU DIDN'T PUT ANYTHING IN ALL-CAPS.
Bill93, post: 456200, member: 87 wrote: AND YOUR NOT TDD BECAUSE YOU DIDN'T PUT ANYTHING IN ALL-CAPS.
YOU GOT ME ON THAT ONE! ! :laughing:
CV Nevada, post: 455620, member: 13195 wrote: What say you?
There is a lot of room for error, and I would think 20 sf would be within a fair tolerance. Calculating it by different means, using the raw numbers from your CAD file which may have numbers going beyond the significant digits you are publishing to vs. using the published numbers. Also, it's a strip description. I don't know if there are any hard angle-points vs. curve bearing changes, but if there are hard angle-points, holding 5' on the outside angle sideline from the centerline angle point would produce an arc vs the sidelines meeting at a point that is more than 5' from the centerline angle point. area significant digits, is (are) a little more complicated than simple sig. digits. What sort of accuracy were the distances in the description? did it say 10 ft wide 5 feet on each side of the center? Did it say 5.00'? If it is published as 5', you have only one significant digit on the width. That brings down your published value precision a lot. It might be more correct for the author to publish his area to the correct sig. dig. but that can be hard for us to do when we have it calculated to the nearest sq foot, and we round to the tens place or the hundreds place (ie; 47,483sq feet rounded and published as 47,500sq feet because of significant digits.
Also, take into account (as someone else mentioned) the end-lines. If you are beginning or ending at a property line, is it perpendicular to the direction of your strip line, or is it ending at an angle that might affect the area?
Kris Morgan, post: 456157, member: 29 wrote: No. You're not NEARLY arrogant enough to be Kent and too nice for Ted Dura.
I was thinking Cam or Tam or whoever.
Tom Adams, post: 456206, member: 7285 wrote: There is a lot of room for error, and I would think 20 sf would be within a fair tolerance. Calculating it by different means, using the raw numbers from your CAD file which may have numbers going beyond the significant digits you are publishing to vs. using the published numbers. Also, it's a strip description. I don't know if there are any hard angle-points vs. curve bearing changes, but if there are hard angle-points, holding 5' on the outside angle sideline from the centerline angle point would produce an arc vs the sidelines meeting at a point that is more than 5' from the centerline angle point. area significant digits, is (are) a little more complicated than simple sig. digits. What sort of accuracy were the distances in the description? did it say 10 ft wide 5 feet on each side of the center? Did it say 5.00'? If it is published as 5', you have only one significant digit on the width. That brings down your published value precision a lot. It might be more correct for the author to publish his area to the correct sig. dig. but that can be hard for us to do when we have it calculated to the nearest sq foot, and we round to the tens place or the hundreds place (ie; 47,483sq feet rounded and published as 47,500sq feet because of significant digits.
Also, take into account (as someone else mentioned) the end-lines. If you are beginning or ending at a property line, is it perpendicular to the direction of your strip line, or is it ending at an angle that might affect the area?
It's refreshing to hear someone mention significant digits!
Significant digits is a lesson that I have to teach routinely to fresh (and not so fresh) cad techs (not to mention the occasional engineer) all of the time. The subject is a huge pet peeve of mine.
Ha! Significant digits is the killer of TrigStar exam victims! I always give the talk about using 4 decimal places for calculations and rounding correctly, and I still get a significant number of students that would be potential winners but they miss by 0.01' on multiple answres!!
"The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn??t exist. And like that ?? poof ?? he??s gone!?
foggyidea, post: 456239, member: 155 wrote: Ha! Significant digits is the killer of TrigStar exam victims! I always give the talk about using 4 decimal places for calculations and rounding correctly, and I still get a significant number of students that would be potential winners but they miss by 0.01' on multiple answres!!
I'm always preaching significant figure to the County Flood Plain Coordinator. A Base Flood Elevation is determined from a drainage area which was planimetered from a 40 foot contour map. Run through a statistical model , and published as 1 foot, not 1.0 feet. They constantly want to proportion them to tenths and even hundredth of a foot. The input data does not support that precision. I doubt even FEMA people understand that.
Anyone that has learned slide rule knows about significant digits.
A Harris, post: 456253, member: 81 wrote: Anyone that has learned slide rule knows about significant digits.
Anyone that has worked long-division or multiplication probably has a good understanding. You want to know when to quit when you figuring out coordinates and not keep running the number past where it doesn't matter. The digital age and calculators have dumbed-down the basic understanding of exactly what you have.
Am I mistaken or did the OP yank his profile from the thread/forum?
Anyway, I would like to suggest the OP post the easement description in question and let whomever is interested calculate the area by their preferred method and post their results here.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
James Fleming, post: 456250, member: 136 wrote:
"The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn??t exist. And like that ?? poof ?? he??s gone!?
He didn't say that he could calculate it with a banjo. Or anything about 50BMG or MRE stockpiles or kittens. I'm skeptical.
He's been here before and for quite a while. TDD was invited to leave quite a while back.
Shawn Billings, post: 456324, member: 6521 wrote: He didn't say that he could calculate it with a banjo. Or anything about 50BMG or MRE stockpiles or kittens. I'm skeptical.
He's been here before and for quite a while. TDD was invited to leave quite a while back.
it does have that trollish flavor...
probably some kid in his mama's basement
I assume the OP was a known troll and was simply poking a stick in the muck to see what came out.
Back on topic and being serious, what is the best way to calculate the area of a centerline description? My vote is L x W, that being the simplest method that almost any layperson could readily comprehend and check.
vern, post: 456363, member: 3436 wrote: I assume the OP was a known troll and was simply poking a stick in the muck to see what came out.
Back on topic and being serious, what is the best way to calculate the area of a centerline description? My vote is L x W, that being the simplest method that almost any layperson could readily comprehend and check.
You have issues if there are hard angle points. Also you need to consider the end-lines if they're not perpendicular to the centerline. I would have to try out the differences along an arc. can you use the centerline of the arc times the width? I will have to try it. Comprehensively it seems like that might work.
I don't know if he was a troll, per se, but he was pretty rude to Evan. He was checking a legal description of a PLS and wandered if he should correct it. That might be a bit out of line. I mean, who is taking responsibility for the description? But I guess it would be a fair question. It's not like he was questioning a difference of 1.2 square feet. He obviously has been around a while since he is the one who mentioned TDD.
Tom Adams, post: 456384, member: 7285 wrote: You have issues if there are hard angle points. Also you need to consider the end-lines if they're not perpendicular to the centerline. I would have to try out the differences along an arc. can you use the centerline of the arc times the width? I will have to try it. Comprehensively it seems like that might work.
Hard angle points and curves wouldn't matter, one side would still average out the other. The termination points would too unless there is an angle point within the width of the easement.
