:good: Wattles
I thought Wattles was pretty clear on the subject: If you have a pure bearing and distance there is no need to use “a distance of.” If, however, there is a call between the bearing and the distance then you should use “a distance of” for clarity.
THENCE Easterly along the North line of said Section 2,456.23 feet is ambiguous. Much better to write THENCE Easterly along the North line of said Section 2 a distance of 456.23 feet.
However THENCE N89º44’22”E 456.23 feet is clear. Adding “a distance of” is simply verbiage, as would be adding “on a bearing of” before the bearing.
That’s what old Gurdon Wattles thought, and I follow Wattles.
Since We Are Perpetuting The Record, Let The Record Decide
I very often let the current deed of record dictate the style that is used to perpetuate the record.
That is the first step in following in the footsteps.
Paul in PA
> > If another surveyor can stake it with certainty, it is correct.
> >
> > However, the reason we write legal descriptions is so lay people can read them.
>
> There's no requirement that lay people be able to comprehend a legal description; only your first sentence is salient. Other surveyors (and the courts) are the target audiences of legal descriptions.
Well, put me down as one who totally disagrees with your statement and the others here who have chimed their agreement.
One of the problems that I have seen here regularly is the under estimation of clients' knowledge and intelligence.
I have found clients to be smart and knowledgable about survey descriptions in general. I find that your assessment of the public understanding is flawed in regards to this topic. I write land boundary descriptions .
I know. If you want your surveyors to write descriptions then you should want feedback and discussion about them. If you prefer not to have feedback and discussion about them then dictate your descriptions to a secretary. I like the second method because it allows talking it out while studying the map, but would still ask for feedback as a check (if there were another surveyor in the office).
> >What do y'all think of this?
>
> Legal description, haven't written in a while.
> Where is Wattles, he's the guru of style
> And do you think that since we were taught differently?
> Both seem the same, 'a distance' seems unspoken to me.
>
> So let's leave it alone 'cause we can't see eye to eye.
> There ain't no right way, there ain't no wrong way,
> There's only you and me and we scribe differently.
> Ooh-ooh-ooh, oh-oh-oh.
Took me a second but very good......
Since We Are Perpetuting The Record, Let The Record Decide
Sometimes_we are writing a new and unique description. However I still agree in that we must do it with respect to the larger parcel we are cutting it out of,
The supervisor is claiming to cite Wattles, is making a one-size-fits-all rule, and is taking Waffles out of context to boot. I would, if it's possible, try to have a philosophical discussion on writing styles, and try to be able to come up w/your own Waffles citations, since she apparently has some respect for his book.
That's the same as I do. At the end of the description I place a statement "All iron pins set are 5/8" x 30" with an orange cap marked Lock Two Surveying, P.S. 7988" or something to that affect. I haven't typed out the whole thing in years, it's in the template. All found monuments are "to a 1" iron pipe found" or "1/2" iron pin with Smith cap found", it's just seems to flow better and sounds like a person would actually speak. Been doing it for years and haven't had to explain anything to anyone on that part of the description.
6 to one half-dozen to the other.
Not something I would lose sleep over.
FWIW, your style is more concise.
I use the style suggested by your boss, which is the way I was taught.
My opinion is "it is better to have something redundant than confusing."
With the copy and paste option there isn't much extra typing.
:good:
So which one is easier to follow?
thence N 89d46'23" E 425.88 ft, to a 5/8" Iron at the intersection of the South ROW...
Every course always on its own line, and always bear, then dist, then descriptive elements. Makes keying it in much easier having all the math up front, and the descriptive stuff in the back.
Is that from the Dave Mason performs "Song of the Surveyor" album?
> 1. I have always written calls as "North XXXXX West, 548.90 feet". She told me I need to put "a distance of" prior to the distance. My opinion has always been, if 548.90 feet isn't a distance just what the hell is it? To me it looks like extra typing for no valid purpose.
I consider "a distance of" to be excess baggage except in rare cases where a separator or clarification is needed. For example on a line that gives distances at which various objects are passed either along it or offset from it, "a total distance of" clarifies that the distance that follows the phrase is the length of the whole line.
> 2. I have always described monuments as "to a 1/2-inch rebar with cap set". She told me that "set" needs to be in front of the monument. Doing it that way sounds backwards. Of course it should after doing it my way for 13 years.
In my opinion, a description that resembles grammatical English is usually best and "a set monument" or "a found monument" are as awkward as "a 1/2 in. Iron Rod with badly weathered red Plastic Cap imprinted "XYZ SURVEYS" found marking the Northeast corner of the Burt Lancaster tract" or "a Standard Rod and Cap set (approximately 0.5 ft. East of an old Cedar Post) to mark an Angle Point on the North line of the Gloria Swanson tract" are natural.
> Tommy,
> I also use "for a distance of", but I use "to a one-half inch capped iron pin found (or set)". Saying "to a set (or found) iron pin" sounds backerds to me, but I don't reckon there ain't nothing wrong with either style.
Side bar/pet peeve: Capped with what? I don't know if you're in a recording state, but if I only have your description (very rare to have the survey in hand) to work with, how do I connect that description with what I find in the field, if you don't tell me what is inscribed on it, and the material (plastic, aluminum, etc., color would be helpful if it's plastic in case a shovel or lawn mower hits it, rendering it illegible)?
I see descriptions like this all the time. How can you enable retracement if you don't adequately describe what you set or found? If there's a pincushion with a second "capped" rod, how do I know which is yours?
Why not "to a one-half inch rod with yellow plastic cap stamped "RPLS 1234" set (hereinafter "1/2" YCIRS) for corner"? It only takes a few more seconds.
> > 1. I have always written calls as "North XXXXX West, 548.90 feet". She told me I need to put "a distance of" prior to the distance. My opinion has always been, if 548.90 feet isn't a distance just what the hell is it? To me it looks like extra typing for no valid purpose.
>
> I consider "a distance of" to be excess baggage except in rare cases where a separator or clarification is needed. For example on a line that gives distances at which various objects are passed either along it or offset from it, "a total distance of" clarifies that the distance that follows the phrase is the length of the whole line.
>
> > 2. I have always described monuments as "to a 1/2-inch rebar with cap set". She told me that "set" needs to be in front of the monument. Doing it that way sounds backwards. Of course it should after doing it my way for 13 years.
>
> In my opinion, a description that resembles grammatical English is usually best and "a set monument" or "a found monument" are as awkward as "a 1/2 in. Iron Rod with badly weathered red Plastic Cap imprinted "XYZ SURVEYS" found marking the Northeast corner of the Burt Lancaster tract" or "a Standard Rod and Cap set (approximately 0.5 ft. East of an old Cedar Post) to mark an Angle Point on the North line of the Gloria Swanson tract" are natural.
One distinction to note between Kent's example here and others above, is that Kent actually defines/describes what a "Standard Rod and Cap set" is at the beginning of the description.
> One distinction to note between Kent's example here and others above, is that Kent actually defines/describes what a "Standard Rod and Cap set" is at the beginning of the description.
Yes, where the same style of rod and cap monument is set or found numerous times in a description, I use shorthand phrases that are defined at the beginning of the description, i.e.:
> In the following description:
> "Hardacre Rod and Cap" denotes a 1/2 in. Iron Rod with a Red Plastic Cap affixed to it imprinted "HARDACRE, RPLS 9876"
> "Standard Rod and Cap" denotes a Punchmark on a 2 in. Aluminum Cap stamped "KENT MCMILLAN, SURVEYOR, RPLS 4341" and numbered as noted, affixed to a 5/8 in. Iron Rod
This doesn't really address your question exactly, but perhaps it addresses your situation:
I've worked in a couple of different offices with several different PLSs and styles. One office said "do it all the same" another office said "do as you want". It really didn't seem to make a difference either way, but the "do as you want" cut back on a lot of wasted time arguing and screwing around. Although it did make it a little harder to jump onto someone else's project and make it look similar (for the client's sake) if that became necessary. Either way works, as long as what everyone agrees to meets the state standards.
If it was me, I would probably ask her to figure out how exactly she wants lines and curves dimensioned, and then write that into an automatic generator (such as q-legal or the reports manager in C3D). Once everyone in the office agrees to the wording, then it isn't a matter of you doing anything differently. You just push a button and it spits out in the language everyone has agreed to. All you have to do then is add in the calls in between (and the found or set mon descriptions).
This also allows you to have your own standards setup and to switch between them at will... For a little passive aggressive fun. 🙂
Who is signing and sealing. It gets done how they want it done.
Greetings 1037,
As long as it provides all required correct information, I personally will have no problem with style. I have been writing legals since 1959, and have just about seen it all. It has been my observation that in the last couple decades here in Florida, more and more surveyors are getting away from use of symbols in their descriptions. Most of the lay people I have heard reading a description out loud when they get to ' (minutes) they say "feet", and when they get to " (seconds), they say "inches", etc., etc. Also, when they get to (the symbol for degrees that I can not type) they say "little round thingy". However, when I write out "degrees", "minutes", and "seconds", their reading (and perhaps comprehension) becomes much better. But, nobody has to agree with me. I'm just old and probably stuck in my own habits.
ubenhavin(?)
