Saw this today, a description where all distance shown are grid & scale factor given, area in acres. Just wanted to see what others think? Good Idea or not?
I don't do it often, but I'm working on one now. It's for a parcel on a university campus, and the campus survey system is on the CCS83 Zone 2 grid, so the whole thing -- boundary and topo -- is going to be on grid. The site abuts a freeway, the right-of-way for which was mapped on the grid, which is convenient. The combination factor across the site runs around 0.99996, so scale isn't a problem for design or construction.
Deeds are written to describe tracts on the surface of the ground, they are almost always used by owners and others to convey and until there is a problem or further division, a surveyor never gets involved. We need to remember who uses our work and why. Grid is not a lay persons area of knowledge and any surveyor who uses grid in descriptions is just not thinking far enough ahead and a bit lazy.
jud
I've been required to do legals in state plane twice in the past two years. One had a scale factor of 1.00068 and the other had a scale factor of 1.00035. The client required it for first one and the second one had to be done in state plane NAD27 to match permitting legals that had been filed at the state dating back to 1983.
But those are the only ones I can think of that I've ever done in state plane.
Our state DOT acquires and disposes many thousands of parcels on a continuing basis. Much of their work is based on state plane systems, and consequently so are much of their title transfer documents.
That does not make the rest of the country wrong, it just makes those demanding such a thing short sighted. Probably want state plane so they can take a coordinate, put in their handheld and go there or those doing the comps in the office thinking they are the only ones in the world. Ownership is surface described, traditionally it is located by measuring on the surface and the deed descriptions should remain on the surface to match the surrounding tracts. If you want grid within the description it should be done using coordinates at the corner monuments as a supplement to the traditional description, that way, over a long time, most descriptions could be modernized with coordinates if the trend is not found wanting. Seems that ground measurement remain stable, when you get into coordinates they become subject to many adjustments over time, plate movement also has an effect on grid unless a local point is held, but then you are not on SPC, one reason why the Hwy Dept is localizing their grid systems another being that grid to ground has little effect on what is physically in place by using local grids.
jud
My only caution is that if the line being described is one based on the latitudinal arc, that the description containing grid bearing provides notice that the grid bearing is a mean bearing and not an absolute bearing.
Probably not a big deal in most cases, but something to consider for technical correctness.
I question who is being short sighted. We live in a GIS world now. Deal with it.
Unless the parcels are very large and the distances are thousands of feet per course, no landowner will be capable of measuring accurately enough to ever be affected by the differences created by using a grid distance to measure on the ground. If the goal is to use distances that reflect surface distances to help the landowners measure their own property, why don't we use slope distances instead of horizontal distances? Most landowners would have no understanding of how to properly measure a horizontal ground (or grid) distance along the surface of their mountainous parcel. That error will create a much bigger problem than a grid to ground error.
As has been mentioned, some agencies or specific projects require the use of State Plane Coordinates. I see no problem with using grid distances in a description as long as the correct combination factor is included so that the people who understand the difference, surveyors, can adjust accordingly on the ground if needed.
Bottom line - hire a surveyor.
I think it's silly.
Deed Descriptions should be based on monuments, and numbers secondary.
Let's not confuse conveyancing with GIS!
Right. Let's discuss important issues like capping or not capping found irons.
[sarcasm]Just curious and playing devil's advocate, if a landowner had a tract which included a 20:100 slope and the property ended on the toe of the slope. Would it make more sense to measure the slope distance so that the Landowner could visualize easier? [/sarcasm]
> Unless the parcels are very large and the distances are thousands of feet per course, no landowner will be capable of measuring accurately enough to ever be affected by the differences created by using a grid distance to measure on the ground. If the goal is to use distances that reflect surface distances to help the landowners measure their own property, why don't we use slope distances instead of horizontal distances? Most landowners would have no understanding of how to properly measure a horizontal ground (or grid) distance along the surface of their mountainous parcel. That error will create a much bigger problem than a grid to ground error.
>
> As has been mentioned, some agencies or specific projects require the use of State Plane Coordinates. I see no problem with using grid distances in a description as long as the correct combination factor is included so that the people who understand the difference, surveyors, can adjust accordingly on the ground if needed.
>
> Bottom line - hire a surveyor.
:good:
Just say NO!
Never, ever, ever, under ANY circumstances!! Not even if the contract required it!!
Just because geodesy exists doesn't mean I should be required to use it where it shouldn't be.
Just say NO!
What about grid bearings?
Just say NO!
Don't use grid bearings on the surface, nor use grid distances either. People are not purchasing property on the grid, they are purchasing on the surface what they can see. You guys and your fancy new toys are really going to create havoc with land ownership.
Caltrans requires all work in grid. I see it everyday.
Just say what needs to be said
Just say NO!
This has nothing to do with fancy new toys. Many agencies have been doing all of their work based on the State Plane Coordinate System for decades or more. Therefore, the Basis of Bearings for all of their data is the SPC, or grid. Again, I see no issues at all with using grid bearings and distances in a description, on a Record of Survey, or any surveying product. In California, it is provided for in the Public Resources Code, which covers all the associated information that must be included when a survey is based on the State Plane Coordinate System.
Can the drawings be labeled in both grid and ground? A little clumsy but makes things very obvious.
