Ron Lang, post: 334640, member: 6445 wrote: Virginia standards are clockwise.
Really? Why would they care enough to make it a standard - something which all of us in the profession know means squawt?
JPH, post: 334652, member: 6636 wrote: Really? Why would they care enough to make it a standard - something which all of us in the profession know means squawt?
I don't know but it's in there.
We tried to run the traverse loop counter-clockwise so we ended up with less numbers. As far as legal descriptions go, I don't care which way they run. I've been putting my distances in parsecs now anyway.
WV doesn't have a direction standard as Virginia has. Here are the standards for a WV plat. Everybody here goes clockwise on the plats I've seen.
Sergeant Schultz, post: 334634, member: 315 wrote: UMMMM, what about (N+2)180 for CW traverses? Just sayin'....
Another reason for running counter clockwise was to turn interior angles. At the time, many surveyors cut a wide sendero and ran the boundary and occupied the actual monuments.
I can remember bringing in my first traverse at a new job in the early 70s and being ask what I had done cause they had never seen note keeping like that. That is my random traverse was met with "WTF is a random traverse". They just never had done that before. They had always run on a couple feet offset from line at most, much the same way as running with a compass.
It was like bringing them in out of the darkness and showing them fire.
Bottom line, a closure is a closure and better than a dead end survey any day, no matter which way it is run.
B-)
MD Surveyor, post: 334518, member: 10081 wrote: One County I work in requires as part of their subdivision approval process that all lots are labeled in a clockwise direction and all labels have to be on the inside of the lot line. So almost all lot lines end up being double labeled.
Who ever thought that up must a f.... Ahhh nevermind....
MD Surveyor, post: 334518, member: 10081 wrote: One County I work in requires as part of their subdivision approval process that all lots are labeled in a clockwise direction and all labels have to be on the inside of the lot line. So almost all lot lines end up being double labeled.
Turn in a plat with geodetic bearings and blow their minds.....
James Fleming, post: 334535, member: 136 wrote:
That explains the soulless people I deal with on a daily basis.
EDIT: Maybe it's time to go back to just showing angles instead of bearings.
rfc, post: 334497, member: 8882 wrote: Here's a deep one for the intelligencia:
Most of the surveys I've seen seem to have the metes and bounds going clockwise around the parcel. I've gotten used to running traverses counter clockwise, such that most of the Angle to the Right observations are acute. I know the DC doesn't care, nor does it impact the survey (angles are angles are angles), but it raises the question(s):
1. When drawing surveys, is it always proper to call them in a clockwise manner?
2. Is it usual to survey in one direction or another? Does it matter?
I always write my clockwise and tried to run counter clockwise. It made the numbers easier to handle when computing by hand. Now, I don't care which way a traverse is run, but the description, unless something FORCES me to, is written clockwise.
Always start at the Northwest corner also. 🙂 [USER=43]@Alan Cook[/USER]
Truthfully, I don't care one way or the other. If I can't tell by the north arrow which quadrant a bearing should be running then I shouldn't be surveying.
Like all of you, probably, I have seen hundreds of old descriptions. More have real problems than not. How could anyone possibly worry about Clockwise/Counterclockwise? I kind of hope they close, have calls to senior lines, and at least come close to matching the measurements in the field.
Clockwise for Fee, Counter clockwise for easement or at least that was what I was taught.
Had a county reviewer insist I replace a bearing of "WEST" on a subdivision map to "N90å¡00'00"W". Whatever.
I like to run mine clockwise and then about half way through flip the direction of my bearings. :woot: 😉
Pet peeve of mine. I could care less what direction they're going as long as they close and are consistently oriented.
Tom Adams, post: 334702, member: 7285 wrote: Like all of you, probably, I have seen hundreds of old descriptions. More have real problems than not. How could anyone possibly worry about Clockwise/Counterclockwise? I kind of hope they close, have calls to senior lines, and at least come close to matching the measurements in the field.
Consider this real world situation...
Mid 50's a parcel is sold using a counterclockwise description. The buyer constructs a cabin and fence. Everyone lives in harmony.
Late 90s the owner applies for a permit. The City won't accept the counterclockwise description. No problem, just type it in reverse. Well meaning title officer uses the 'corrected' description in the Deed at a later transfer.
A few years later a young surveyor from back east is asked to evaluate a survey. Curious about the remnants of a fence that don't match the boundary he pulls creation deeds. It is apparent the original description had a gross error in the closing call. The reversal moved the entire parcel 30 feet. The young Surveyor was reviled for exploding the budget.
My point is simple. The direction of a description is a critical part of the evidence. Changing it to meet our whims or some ludicrous policy can and does cause problems.
James Vianna, post: 334750, member: 120 wrote: Clockwise for Fee, Counter clockwise for easement or at least that was what I was taught.
Because???? ( insert rolling hand motion here)
Rankin_File, post: 334788, member: 101 wrote: Because???? ( insert rolling hand motion here)
Because......Hobgoblins.
1 person's hobgoblin is another's devine... That's when it's good to be the king.
RFB, post: 334682, member: 142 wrote: Maybe it's time to go back to just showing angles instead of bearing
If you measure angles, why not show angles? The tradition of bearings probably comes from recording what they measured with a compass.
rfc, post: 334616, member: 8882 wrote: I'd know better than to argue with the venerable Paden, but....
Isn't the appropriate colloquialism something slightly different?
Why? Because you always said it that way?
sorry, my self control sprung loose. I'm teasing you rfc.
