Explaining "North" to an Attorney Today

Hmmm...he sounds just like a few Engineers that I know. All you need is one control point to start, right? OK. You can have two, but why the hey would you need anymore in this perfect fitting world? I mean your majik box spits out gospel coordinates four places past the decimal point. I mean how accurate do you need to be?...

You should have tried to come up with a golfing analogy.

> You should have tried to come up with a golfing analogy.

One that didn't require knowledge of geometry would have been best.

> ....and it waded into quicksand from there.

Digging a hole in quicksand can make you wish you'd never started, that's for sure.

I've only attempted explaining such matters but a few times to people and it never ends well.

My best attempts have centered around a scenario where I say "the original surveyor had a bent needle on his compass and it made everything 2 degrees off. Once you understand how far off he was, retracing his steps is easier."

But therein I am implying there is a true and inarguable North. Explaining there are several norths is a deep and dark crevasse....

Explaining the flippant use of bearings by surveyors is embarrassing, but actually I believe it's our own damned fault as surveyors. Somewhere along the line (in the not so distant past) we started substituting "bearings" as a way to graphically represent transit angles measured around a boundary. Today we can still probably prepare our plats with deflection angles shown instead of bearings, but there are sooooo many deed descriptions that rely on "bearings".

For now I guess we're stuck with having to explain how our "basis of bearing" was derived, on every survey. :bored:

> > ....and it waded into quicksand from there.
>
> Digging a hole in quicksand can make you wish you'd never started, that's for sure.
>
> I've only attempted explaining such matters but a few times to people and it never ends well.

The question came up in regard to the rather simple question of whether the locations of lines described in two different deeds were the same or not. My client was under the impression that if the bearings were the same, the lines would be as well.

It was sort of like a casual conversation one might strike up with someone on some elementary subject that ended with them asking "Why is a duck?" The basic problem, I recognize, is that we understand the situation completely differently and my explanation should have dropped back and explained a number of things about how that bearing made its way into the deed in the first place, but without mentioning any principles of geometry or mathematics, of course.

> Hmmm...he sounds just like a few Engineers that I know.

I think I'd rather take my chances with the engineers since they should at least understand geometry and have some notion of the operational difference between theory and practice where the real world is involved.

Would this be something like John Smith born March 28, 1915 is a different person than John Smith, born March 28, 1915, are not the same person, and it's easy to tell, because they were born on different days?

I start off by telling them that the (magnetic) North Pole moves around. Most people have heard of that at some time and starts jogging their memory. If you can get past that, things get easier.

I have a similiar story. I retraced a TVA substation boundary in a neighboring county many years ago. I guessed that the other surveyor probably used a magnetic compass, maybe with a very bent needle, and then applied the wrong declination to come up with a boundary survey description that was about twelve degrees out. I used that as a probable reason figuring the proximity of high voltage power lines in the vicinity may have affected a magnetic compass reading. That was going to be my story, and I stuck to it.

Anyway, I found one monument on the highway right-of-way and went along the right-of-way to find another. I actually had a copy of the old survey plat that showed the monuments set with monument numbers, and I had about eight more monuments to recover. The written record description did not mention any monuments set. As usual, I took a solar observation that morning and proceeded to work. I was using a total station and an HP48 data collector. I got started with the survey using the deed bearings and found all but one monument which had been destroyed by utility work. All monuments found were stamped with monument numbers, which matched the old survey plat. "All is well," I thought as I set one mark and went back to the office to prepare the survey plat.

Well, the solar observation said something different, and matched within one minute of the DOT right-of-way plans, so I figured an error occurred with the original scrivener of the deed. I re-wrote the boundary description with the new bearings and called for the found and stamped monuments. Each line had a different bearing than the record and a very close distance match. I placed on the plat the basis of my bearing and put the "as per deed" and "as per survey" notations on each boundary line.

The dookey storm started when the attorney got the survey plat. He thought that we had spun the world and now there was going to have to be a lot of work done to correct the situation. The property was an out-parcel from only one adjoiner, so he was glad that he was only going to have to work up transfer of title for all the little slivers of land for only one person in order to move the boundary lines to their correct position. I pointed out that I found the original monuments and the property lines had not moved at all. I just wrote a better description that more accurately described the property using a common and accepted method to determine the basis of my bearing. He was one of those that thought a bearing was true, absolute, and could not be changed no matter what.

It took some convincing, but in the end, I think he finally understood that there is more than one north. He was perplexed that magnetic north and true north were different, but where we live, that difference is very small. The light came on when he realized that a magnetic compass can be affected by the pull of other magnetic fields or local attraction. Tied with the fact that I found original monuments in their original positions made everything OK.

Calamity avoided. B-)

I've always thought that may be a great way to do it and much more realistic.

Good job Harold. Well done.

I look forward to meeting you some day at a MAPS event.

It is like believing that every judge will rule verbatim on every decision in every court for the same offense.

One would think the concept would come easy to a practitioner of a profession where there are 90 billable minutes in an hour.

Here's how I do it.

"Go to your local hardware store, and look at a pile of thermometers. The sign above them says SALE $9.99 Guaranteed accuracy!
Pick one up, and it reads 65°. Pick up the next one, and it reads 68°. Pick up another, and it reads 69°. And, still another reads 63°.
It's the same with a magnetic compass. They all read just a little different. Often by up to 3-4°.

There are many different versions of north.

Until you start doing sun shots, or using other precise means."

This usually gets the brain wheels turning.

Nate

Isn't north the direction you are going when the little display on your dash reads "N"?

When I graduated eighth grade, I had the fundamentals necessary to do surveying. Least squares, statistics, and GPS isn't part of that, but the basics were all there.

It was one 6"x8" book about 2" thick. Every single math concept you need outside of a science degree. Why do so many people not understand basic math and geometry?

> Why do so many people not understand basic math and geometry?

Excellent question, but the problem is pervasive.

These guys?