I'm sending in a water distribution plan for a new subdivision.?ÿ
Lots are allocated irrigation water from an old appropriation, in this case a territorial appropriation so it's good water.?ÿ
Anyway the norm used to be to round up or down areas to the nearest acre, now it's become the nearest .1 acres which is a bit silly.
These are large acreage tracts and each tract has to show acreage in each 40, some cross into 3 1/41/4's.?ÿ
One tract happens to just clip a 40 and the checkers want to show how many acres are covered. Turns out it's 400 sq. ft.
So rounded to the nearest tenth it comes out to 0.0Acres.?ÿ
Rather than change the lines and thus making two tracts get readjusted I'm labeling 0.0 Acres,,,,,,a first for me.?ÿ
400 SqFt rounds to 0.01Acre.
I think you have to show the relevant decimal. you can lose it when you add it all up.
Paul in PA
The question is, where do you stop? 400 sq ft is 0.00918274 acres. Adding rounded numbers can always lead to some degree of mismatch at the total.
In my experience outside the surveying world, we had two choices. First, we could show the actual total and the rounded subparts and the qualify the result by saying, "Parts may not add to the total due to rounding." Or, and this was my preferred method, we could adjust the largest piece by the difference. Adjusting the largest one created the smallest percent error in the individual piece.
I would show it as 0.0 and, if the pieces didn't add up, I would fudge the largest one.
My area specs:
?ÿ
In addition the unit area will be rounded as follows:
- areas less than 100m2?ÿwill be depicted in square metres and rounded to the nearest 0.1m2
- areas greater than 100m2?ÿand less than 1 ha (10 000m2) will be depicted in square metres and rounded to the nearest 1m2
- areas 1 ha to 9999 ha will be depicted in hectares expressed to four significant figures, and rounded to the nearest significant figure.
- areas 10000 ha and greater will be depicted in hectares rounded to the nearest hectare.
how about if you labeled it like this: "<0.1 acres"?ÿ
Who can argue with that!
That invoked the standard....Some lawyer would!
I wrote an easement for FOUR square feet yesterday.?ÿ
@flyin-solo I am curious!
city required owner to get an easement for their little entry sign that falls within the platted p.u.e.- I??m at the point where I don??t even bother pointing out that it is superfluous, or would probably qualify as a license agreement, if anything.
Standard fare municipal brilliance around these parts.
@flyin-solo Wow, I wonder how much the owner had to spend on that.
@bill-c well, 500 bucks at minimum... ????
I don't want to set any precedent, .1 acre is already an overreach. There isn't any way to exactly measure where water will go without building barriers. It's always been understood that these areas are rough estimates, hence the old standard of nearest acre. Even a pivot is effected by topographical features, wind patterns, the uncertain coverage of big guns attached to the end. Areas are often mapped that get missed by flood irrigation or corners a big gun can't quite reach, those are generally winked at by the regulators.?ÿ