Bob
Once on that line, 1.1 feet out would sound normal.
I generally use the singular if it's less than 1, and the plural if it's greater. Sometimes I slip and use the plural even if it's less than one. However, the discussion got me curious, so I did some searching. I find a lot of support for "always plural," though without authoritative citations. The one cite I did come across:
"according to Alred's Handbook of Technical Writing, when we write about measurements, we should always express the units of measurement as numerals. If the measurement is one or less, use the sigular form of the unit. (His scar was only 0.5 inch long; I still refuse to walk even 1 foot toward him). "
Anyone got a copy of Alred's handy?
feet or foot? Steve..Their survey is just fine
After all, the fence calls agree with the
>They called that pipe 1.07' South of the property corner.
I came across a situation similar just this past weekend. Fences were not involved but an OLD pipe was, and a new (10 year old) capped rebar that had a CR filed on it.
Some surveyors will never be able to recognize what a boundary corner looks like.
This RS will have an interesting note on it.
Back to the fence..
Was the fence leaning at all? I don't think so else you would have mentioned it but had to ask anyway.
Personally, I do not say feet unless it is at least 2.0
1.99 foot
2.00 feet
feet or foot? Steve..Their survey is just fine
No, the fences were plumb. The only thing I can think is that they took some sloppy topo shots on the fence corners and the draftsman used them to calc the fence ties in the office. I don't know why it's so hard to pull out a pocket tape and measure from the thing you're kneeling next to over to the fence after you set it and write it down in the field book, but that's just me. The other thing that could have happened is that the fairly recently licensed surveyor changed his mind on the boundary determination and changed the boundary dimensions but not the fence ties.
This boundary is shaky at best, in my most humble opinion. They found one mon. purporting to be at an old, old large lot corner and the other three lot corners were "calc'd" by no discernible method, then they proceeded to measure in the deed corners from those "calc'd" corners and disagree with monuments and surveys adjoining their parcel by 1.07'. (?!!?)
The attorney kept asking me if I agreed with the survey and I explained to him that I hadn't completely analyzed it but there were some things about it that I know I would have done differently. He asked me if I would buy the lot with these discrepancies in the boundaries and I told him that even if some neighbor disputed the survey, the most that would be at stake would be about a foot, so it would not be a factor in my decision to buy it. The sewage disposal and access issues it has would be way more important to me. He's a real estate attorney and we both agreed that there are way better things to spend one's money on than fighting about a few inches of dirt.
This survey is kind of similar to the one you posted the picture of except that the surveyor in this case didn't monument his pincushion, it's more like a virtual pincushion that only appears on paper.
I use what sounds best when I am proof reading it.
feet or foot? Steve..Laymen know more about boundaries
>.. fairly recently licensed surveyor
I knew he was a newbie I just hope his life age is as immature as his surveying experience..
> This survey is kind of similar to the one you posted the picture of ...
When I delivered the map to my client yesterday I told her that there was a second monument near the pipe. There were two other workmen in the house arranging furniture for her, the contractor and his employee and I started to explain a few things about why the pipe is the corner and the re bar is not, even though a CR was filed on the re bar.
The pipe was most likely set in the mid 1930's. The RE was probably RE 1216. He did loads of work in the Pasadena area and has always been known for high quality work. The pipe was set for someone who paid to have it set and who acknowledged it as the corner. Possibly this acknowledgment was also the same of the adjoining neighbors who were informed of the pipe being the corner. They would not have to actually see the pipe to do that. The properties sell over the years and new owners are brought into the picture, the validity of the pipe grows over time. An unrecorded private map probably accompanied the invoice that was presented to the original client for whom the pipe was set. This map may have been transferred through out the title transfers and may also be in some safe place in 2011 in a safe deposit box or safe or cigar box where title insurance is kept. At a bare minimum, the pipe is 40 years old.
I generally asked the people in the room "What gives any surveyor the right to come to a lot corner and re mark it with a new monument?"
All three of them said "No right at all". Honestly Steve, surveyors are at times worse than attorneys when it comes to confusing the issue and lying their way out of it with hogwash explanations and "professional" opinions.
PS.. A good surveyor has to be able to recognize two things. Boundary corners and negligent work.
feet or foot? Steve..Laymen know more about boundaries
OK, I'm with you on that. Now how about me coming in 5 years after the newbie filed his map and set his rebars with questionable methods? Who am I to say his pins that somebody paid for and presumably accepted to be correct are not like gold? Three of the four corners of this 1/2 acre were never marked before he got there. The one where he virtual pincushioned the old pipe is easier to argue about but what about the ones he set in 2006? I told the attorney/client that if I was hired to survey the adjoiner, I might not be able to agree with the pins at the corners of the parcel he's buying. Am I a dreaded pincushioner because once it goes in the ground and it's made of iron, it's gospel?
feet or foot? Steve..Laymen know more about boundaries
> OK, I'm with you on that. Now how about me coming in 5 years after the newbie filed his map and set his rebars with questionable methods?
If it's questionable then it may be a negligent survey.
> Three of the four corners of this 1/2 acre were never marked before he got there.
Expanding a search usually works, but you know that.
> Am I a dreaded pincushioner because once it goes in the ground and it's made of iron, it's gospel?
Steve..am I an incompetent surveyor because I have rejected an 11 year old capped re bar that is shown on a Corner Record?
PS A second surveyor also makes a call on a CR for the capped re bar, and still no mention of the very old concrete filled 2" iron pipe on either of the two CR's. The second CR was filed in 2001,
feet or foot? Steve..A view
Steve... I hijacked your thread.
Here is a view of last weekends survey. The green lines connect red dots which are *very old* found iron pipes. The white arrow is where the capped re bar and 2 inch pipe are. The re bar surveyor who did this job was licensed maybe a year prior to it being set. I know he was striving for a pure map math placement from C/L control for that re bar, and did get it right on a map math line, but unfortunately, he missed distance by a bit more than a tenth. So, now his re bar is not the *true corner*..right?
feet or foot? Steve..A view
Well, it's a funny thing how we look at these surveyors as punks because they don't accept the old pipes, but yet I'm inclined to disagree with their monuments because I think I can do better.
You had a good point there when I said the corners where the new rebars were set had never been marked before. I didn't find anything and there's nothing of record but how did those fences get there within a foot of the new rebars? Somebody measured and marked something sometime, didn't they?
feet or foot? Steve..A view
> .... I didn't find anything and there's nothing of record but how did those fences get there within a foot of the new rebars? Somebody measured and marked something sometime, didn't they?
Sure does sound like it Steve. If curbs/walks front the parcel, someone a long time ago could have pulled the tax/deed distance back from the walk/curb line and laid the fence in like that...or...could have paid for a survey and dropped the fence post corners on top of the pipes. Seems that is the case where you could not get flagging on the pipe your dad found because it was so close to the fence.
I don't look at the inexperienced as punks, just, inexperienced and full of proration, map math and pure deed calls. In 20-30 years all that will get knocked out..hopefully!
What are you doing up so late? I have a cold so it's OK if I am up late.
Excuse me now Steve..I have (2) In 'n Out double doubles waiting on me.
As to why the one-lot Parcel Map was done, I don't see that there were any thoughts poffered.
In the late 90's, a city in SO. Cal. required a "One-Lot Parcel Map" on a lot in a subdivision, so that they could rezone the lot for a Condominium. Apparently, they cold not just rezone a particular lot without rezoning the whole block. This Parcel Map separated the lot from the adjoinglots, so that it could be treated as a unique identity.
I suggested it was kind of ridiculus. They claimed it was the ONLY way.
I did it.:-P
geezer
If it's decriptive it's foot if it's described it's feet. So my wife the english teacher tells me.
So..A thirty foot wide easement, fifteen feet each side of a centerline....
The easement is being described by the foot which becomes an adjective so the singular is used.
the fifteen is describing the feet which becomes a noun and the plural is used...unless it's one foot.
> ...unless it's one foot.
What if it's one point zero feet(foot)?
Radar
Then I'd just say 1.04 feet;-)
[flash width=480 height=390] http://www.youtube.com/v/in1eK3x1PBI?fs=1&hl=en_US [/flash]
You've got stink foot....
[flash width=640 height=390] http://www.youtube.com/v/kf8TM4CIk5g?version=3 [/flash]
feet or foot? Paul
No curbs, walks. This is sort of semi-rural in the middle of a block with all the parcels on private drives. In fact this 0.55-acre Parcel A of the one-parcel Parcel Map was land-locked until they obtained easements from four parcels between this and the nearest public street. Maybe that had something to do with it requiring a Parcel Map. Without the off-site easements, it wouldn't be buildable so maybe they couldn't get a Certificate of Compliance.
If there was a question whether it was a separate legal parcel, I would have applied for a Certificate of Compliance and obtained the necessary offsite easements to make it buildable, then if the owners wanted it monumented, file a Record of Survey. It seems to me that would have saved tons of time and County fees. The attorney/client had the approval documents for the Parcel Map and he showed them to me. Nothing in there explained why the Parcel Map was necessary.
I believe I agree with the general consensus. But the way I word it is that it's how you "read" it. 1.00 feet definely implies a precision and you would read it as "one point zero zero" feet. if you instrument man says "one foot left" that would be proper, but if he said "one point four" feet left, or "one point zero" feet, that would also apply.
A person might read 0.8 as zero point eight feet. If they read it as "eight tenths" it should possibly have 'of a foot' behind it to clarify. 'eight-tenths foot' sounds funny and I would think the "of a" should be inserted to imply the appropriate intended pronunciation.
I think I'm going to ask on that wordcraft page.
Tom
