Geez, I see several variances between platted and measured. After reading some peoples comments below, are you sure you shouldn't have reset all those found corners in the correct place?
The local municipality around here works in grid (ie: the GIS maps are all on grid) and all the title companies, realtors etc. are comfortable with grid distances. I think it is good form to show your combined scale factor even though the average person would not get much out of it. More for the surveyors following you to get on the same system.
I usually show convergence angle at the POB. Civil3D 2010 is handy to include that data in the point list, so not hard to figure it.
Dan
> I understand where Carl is coming from, but even if I aggreed with him that the pipe was into the right of way, I still would not have set another corner there.
> Thanks for the kind words. I've not had the fortitude to do this until Carl got it in the earlier thread.
>
> I still maintain it was a pin cushion, but now he can shoot back. 🙂
To each their own. I still have the utmost respect for the both of you, and most all others on this site. Especially Mr. McMillan and Mr. Williams.
A fine weekend to both of you. 😀
Carl
Kris - my thoughts.
Kris,
I have several small things, and then something kinda big...
I'm with the guys with the text in the linework... just not clean and 100% legible.
In Lots 2 & 3 you have arrows in the text when you could probably move them around.
And the biggie... Your curves (C1 & C4) are non-tangent. Is there a particular reason for that? I'm not a big fan of that... But have had to use them in the past, but not on a newly designed subdivision....
Nice and clean overall plat though!!
Just my thoughts...
Carl
Glen
> I always put the color of the cap that I find or set, so that when the mower, grader, shovel, etc. hits it and renders it illegible, the retracing surveyor will have a good idea that he has found the correct rod/cap, and not a pincushion nearby that may have a different color. It's very easy to add to your legend and description.
>
> Do you normally label the POB? I didn't see any text there.
>
> This is personal preference, but I always, if possible, label the object found or set next to the corner. Sometimes I have used symbols only and labeled in the legend, similar to what you've done. If I'm retracing a boundary, it's nice to be able to glance at the drawing and instantly see what I need to be looking for at the corners.
>
> Kudos to you for posting it.
I don't label the pob, personal preference. The notes say all corners are set 1/2"'iron rods with plastic cap unless otherwise noted.
Thanks for the kind words.
Kent
1. I've uped my line weights since this play
2. I disagree with different symbols but see your logic. Personal preference.
3. That is a good idea and I will probably incorporate it.
4. That tract, if I remember right, was like 1
Acre in the form of a square out of the sec or something, hence the lack of a call.
Thanks for the input.
Dan
Most planning around here don't know grid from surface so they don't care. In Texas, the only thing really required of the Plat is the owners dedication.
Thanks,
Dan
Those were utility lines in place before my survey. Note the water line. I had to show it so the next cat could locate the easement. Normally, I do as you say.
Thanks
Matthew
If I survey it in grid, I report it in grid. I suppose if my jobs led me out of an area where it became noticeable, id rethink and show grid bearings and surface distances.
Thanks,
Carl
I think it's clean, but to each their own. As far as the curves, yes your right. I was best fitting the road that was already built and thats what I came up with.
Thanks,
Jim
You mean show metadata? I felt it prudent to retrace my survey.
Kent
> 1. I've uped my line weights since this play
> 2. I disagree with different symbols but see your logic. Personal preference.
I'll bite. What purpose is served by using the same symbol for all monuments, both set, recovered, of record dignity, and otherwise?
> 3. That is a good idea and I will probably incorporate it.
> 4. That tract, if I remember right, was like 1
> Acre in the form of a square out of the sec or something, hence the lack of a call.
Well, what raised the question in my mind is that by showing what appears to be the occupied line significantly different than the boundary, it seems to me that you're particularly obligated to show how you resolved the boundary. Otherwise, it seems as if you've documented a potentially problematic situation. On a more simple-minded note, I believe that under the minimum technical standards you'd be obligated to show all of the survey evidence from which the boundary common to the 1 ac. parcel was determined.
Kent
I like circles, what can I say.
Obviously, the 1 acre is contingent on the tract of which it is a part of, which has its east line in the road as my west line was, hence, no conflict otherwise,'i would have shown it.
Carl
The feeling is mutual.
Carl
Kris,
I have to agree with Carl on the non-tangent curve thing.
If I were retracing and discovered that, I would think that a CAD techie made the error and it went unnoticed by the PLS. I feel it is better to be slightly out of parallel with the existing road than to have a NT curve.
Gregg
That's okay. Call me a cad techy. Not all curves require tangency.
Kent
> Obviously, the 1 acre is contingent on the tract of which it is a part of, which has its east line in the road as my west line was, hence, no conflict otherwise,'i would have shown it.
Well, to a third party, it doesn't look as if you've provided enough information to convince some future surveyor that you actually correctly located the SW line of the 1 ac. parcel. I'm just saying.
Kris, thanks for posting.
Re Note 6:
Should a building be built on the division line between two lots (that instead of and) are owned by the same owner, then the building (sp) lines and utility easements cease to exist. I know, picky spelling errors (buidling) and all. You tend to not see them on your own maps until later, but sometimes they're easy to see on somebody Else's.
Our common terminology for what you call a building line would be a building setback line, reserving the term building line for an as-built or proposed building line.
We also have standard designs for cul-de-sacs that might become County roads, that have a little reverse curve going into the bulb.
All in all, a nice style, but quite a few differences from Hawaii. Here is a randomly selected, but what I would call fairly representative of a subdivision map here.
Typical File Plan
I respect your courage to post your plat. You know we will naturally try to get you to bend to whatever each of us deems normal or best practice. But, you wanted some comments, so here we go.....
Spell check would catch some of the glaring typo's: buidling, coordinat and desingated.
This is the first time I have ever seen grid distances rather than ground distances on a plat of any boundary survey.
Consistency is nice. In the boundary description, one bearing does not include the seconds, which happen to be 00, but, their lack makes one wonder if something was forgotten and forces the reader to search out this detail on the plat.
In our area there would be no more need for your Lot 11 than for the platted street and cul-de-sac. Such areas are considered to be dedicated as road rights-of-way even if previously considered to be so dedicated. Lot 11 would not be deeded to the county except in unusual cases.
I would not give a plug nickel for Lot 6 if any of the other lots were available. The screwy little chunk added to get it to be 0.50 acres is not good form and provides a need for excess fencing with little possibility for construction of anything.
What is the uniform width of the street? Are the lot lines directly opposite one another across the street? I do not want to have to draw your entire plat to arrive at the answer to those two basic questions. This is further confused by the minor difference in lengths on either side of the street between the last lot line and the beginning of the curves forming the cul-de-sac. I see no reason to not allow the cul-de-sac to be a uniform cicle with a specific radius from an identifiable point. A layperson can not look at your plat and know quickly the effective turning radius in the cul-de-sac area. This is commonly mandated to be no less than a specific radius so as to permit reasonable turning of emergency vehicles, including fire trucks.
.