The rounded precision should reflect the expected accuracy, typically with one questionable digit.
This is really quite a farce, you know.?ÿ Our accuracies are dependent on so many different things for every measurement we obtain.?ÿ Most such reportings are?ÿ as silly as saying about 177 people attended yesterday's function.?ÿ You cannot have "about" 177 people.
You cannot have "about" 177 people.
I do it all the time. We need to get away from saying significant digits are the only way to say 177.000 feet. Least squares identifies the issue quite well.?ÿ
It says 177.0000?? within a tolerance of +- 3.00925'
Now we have actually addressed the problem. ?ÿEach number on a plat has a variable. And the number of places of decimal to define this is in fact a form of fiction.?ÿ
n
Please show me 0.351 people.
I don't believe I have the legal authority to adjust every course in a description just to make it close mathematically.
You absolutely have the authority - and obligation - to interpret the terms of the deed in an equitable manner. Bearings to the minute and distances to the tenth can absolutely be adjusted to produce a closed figure whose dimensions round to the deed figures, and that is a much better solution, IMO, than throwing all this into a final leg - which may not be the final leg of the adjoiners deed.?ÿ
What gives us the absolute authority to adjust between 15 to 30 courses in a filed deed??ÿ We don't write deeds and, in most cases when these lots date back decades, a century, or more in some cases, there sometimes is no way to conclude what the original intent was.
I work in an M & B state where farmlands and other large tracts tend to have a large number of courses, some of them to water courses that have changed in location over time and some with both major and minor blunders.?ÿ Averaging everything out arbitrarily without respect to the original deed calls would be doing an injustice.
Our job is to follow in the foot steps of the original Surveyor, while it's true that we have the ability to measure with far greater accuracy, it doesn't change the hierarchy of evidence.?ÿ?ÿ
"BTW - finding and holding all the monuments isn't a catchall solution to this problem.?ÿ First off, they frequently don't exist. If they did it may be that a surveyor wouldn't be employed in the first place. Second, they may not be called for in the deed. Uncalled for monuments acquire their dignity through acceptance by the adjoiners, not their mere existence, and that acceptance will have to be proven by clear and convincing evidence."
Finding and holding all monuments certainly isn't the catchall solution to this problem but if the monuments presumed not to be original fit the deed calls they are our best evidence of intent, especially if they are in harmony with longstanding possession lines.?ÿ Even if 100% of the original markers were in place surveyors would still be needed to recover and verify them.?ÿ Acceptance of non original markers when their location differs from deed calls significantly is not the answer, the deed call is the more convincing evidence and surveyors are not called in for the deed.?ÿ We write legal descriptions, not deeds.?ÿ Deeds are legal documents prepared and filed by an Attorney, not a Land Surveyor.
Also keep in mind that in some places, a few square feet of land amounts to big money.?ÿ I work in the Philadelphia and New York metro areas regularly.?ÿ Land is valued in these areas by the square foot and in some cases, a mere 10 square feet in deficiency can break a multimillion dollar deal only a few acres of ground.?ÿ
?ÿ ?ÿ
What gives us the absolute authority to adjust between 15 to 30 courses in a filed deed?
It??s an adjustment, performed. Before going into the field. Some of these are ??a fence Cor?. Etc. it??s just an in-house tool, to improve it by a small margin, before going into the field. And finding any and all remaining evidence. It??s my preferred mechanism. It??s just an evidentiary interpretation mechanism.?ÿ
n
15 to 30 courses in a number of old deeds. They all come back to the POB less than a foot away. I thought you said they don't close, sounds to me like they do close. ?????ÿ
.... if the monuments presumed not to be original fit the deed calls they are our best evidence of intent ...,
In that case they are the best evidence of what the surveyor thought the intent was. Which intent may have existed solely in the mind of the surveyor. The writings themselves are the best evidence of the intent of the parties.?ÿ
If you can show that the monuments were set contemporaneous with the originating deed that carries more weight. But you must prove that they were so set by clear and convincing evidence, not assume that it happened that way.?ÿ
Is there a legitimate reason to round numbers to the minute and tenth, assuming the work is tighter than that?
I might believe that my measurements are good to the thousandth, but since my state statute, and local custom, requires quoting distance to the hundredth that is all I might offer.?ÿ
@nate-the-surveyor I thought there was no error, just rounding.
Rounding is an intentionally introduced error.
It's not an error! (Unless you round the wrong way)?ÿ
What gives us the absolute authority to adjust between 15 to 30 courses in a filed deed?
It??s an adjustment, performed. Before going into the field. Some of these are ??a fence Cor?. Etc. it??s just an in-house tool, to improve it by a small margin, before going into the field. And finding any and all remaining evidence. It??s my preferred mechanism. It??s just an evidentiary interpretation mechanism.?ÿ
n
Sure, but what is the point of adjusting a 1' misclosure? That won't help you find the corner any better than the raw numbers.?ÿ
Rounding is an intentionally introduced error.
It's not an error! (Unless you round the wrong way)?ÿ
Yes it is an error.?ÿ You are changing from the best value you have to something that statistically will not as accurate.
?ÿ
Rounding is an intentionally introduced error.
It's not an error! (Unless you round the wrong way)?ÿ
Yes it is an error.?ÿ You are changing from the best value you have to something that statistically will not as accurate.
?ÿ
?ÿ
Rounding should reflect the precision of our measurements. The concept is not "rounding" but "significant figures".?ÿ
In that context, rounding produces a more accurate statement that recognizes the precision of our measurements. In that context, rounding does not (cannot?) introduce error.?ÿ
If I can measure to +/-0.1, is 4.678 more accurate than 4.7? You might argue that the 4.678 is more precise, but it is not. You cannot increase precision simply by adding numbers. In fact, you decrease the accuracy of your statement with 4.678
On to significant digits: I measure a square with my tape and I estimate the distance between hundredths at 4.04' x 4.13'.
The area calcs to be 16.2812 sqft, but that answer would be less accurate than saying 16.3 sqft. Rounding is not introducing an error.
?ÿ
@bill93 The "rounded" value is more statistical accurate.?ÿ
It's not an error to measure 1.21m and report 1.2m. It would be an error to repot 1.20m. 1.2m would be more statistically accurate because instead of 75% of the correct measurements being rounded to 1.21m, 99% will be correct rounded to 1.2m. (Numbers made up for illustration purposes).
