Curious how you chained long lines.
Did you pull and measure full length of chain, or just add a mark of some sort and measure?
I could see if pulling full length then it's only the last measurement that is unique.
Personally I just measured and recorded each leg individually. Never tried to pull 100/200 metres.
That was for cadastral work.
Engineering in the days of 20/50/100 metre cross sections saw us drive pegs or spikes at required interval.
Then follow up with level and cloth tape cross sections all recorded in level book.
Then! The tedious job of rises and falls and reductions of levels.
Add up rise/fall columns and check against start end elevation.
Again EDM revolutionised things.
We were surveying a road along a river valley and designers wanted slopes of valley walls. (we used to give clinometer readings at each section, from toe/top of bank)
I sent a chainman along the upper slopes and took EDM readings.
Designers were rapt.
We were on a new revolutionary curve that didn't really take of until data recorders arrived.
Wild T2000 probably broke the mold and we never looked back.
Jp7191, post: 384626, member: 1617 wrote: I bet you were a geodetic engineer too!
Naw, its not a local thing! Some things should not change, and yelling 'CHAIN' is one of them. Land Surveying is Land Surveying, not geometronics and when there are a couple of us we are still a 'Survey Party"! my 2 cents, Jp
So jp7191 when do you want to start sending me my money for the bet you lost? It was for $100,000 was it not.
NO I have never called myself a geodetic engineer, ever.
JOHN NOLTON
People have been calling the 100' steel tape a chain for many years. I was calling it that before I had ever even seen a chain. It's ingrained into our surveying lexicon. But John's right of course. And, technically you don't want to be telling people that a steel tape is a chain without qualifying that it is just called that by surveyors. There are a lot of people out there that don't know that the historical measuring device was an actual chain and they only know it as a steel tape.
Similarly, I got hung up with "Right of Way" being a corridor which is sometimes acquired by fee-simple or by right-of-way easement. Jim in AZ told me that a right of way is an easement-period. Many of us call to the highway or the railroad "right-of-way" when they are referring tot the corridor that occupies the RR or hwy. But Jim's right of course. And you better keep the difference in mind. If you are writing a deed for a highway or roadway fee parcel you don't want to refer to it as being for a right of way. that could limit it's purpose and, therefore, make it an easement.
And of course the infamous "legal description" terminology issue. Everyone calls any description of land a "legal description" or even a "legal". Even more non-surveyors "land people" are stuck on thinking that a legal description is strictly a metes-and-bounds. They often have a hard time accepting that lot 2 of block 8 of the xx subdivision can be a legal description. But we do need to keep in mind in some circumstances that the real legal description is one that is attached to a deed. If a client wants the "legal description" they might want your created property description (or whatever it's called in your state) or they may need the actual description that is on the deed.
Okay enough of my "tangent" (which, by the way, the straight stretch of a roadway should only be a "tangent" if it is tangent to an arc of highway - a lot of highway guys refer to any straight stretch as a tangent section).
JOHN NOLTON, post: 385178, member: 225 wrote: So jp7191 when do you want to start sending me my money for the bet you lost? It was for $100,000 was it not.
NO I have never called myself a geodetic engineer, ever.JOHN NOLTON
Lets go double or nothing! I bet you survey out of a Volvo station wagon 🙂
Tom Adams, post: 385187, member: 7285 wrote: Similarly, I got hung up with "Right of Way" being a corridor which is sometimes acquired by fee-simple or by right-of-way easement. Jim in AZ told me that a right of way is an easement-period. Many of us call to the highway or the railroad "right-of-way" when they are referring tot the corridor that occupies the RR or hwy. But Jim's right of course. And you better keep the difference in mind. If you are writing a deed for a highway or roadway fee parcel you don't want to refer to it as being for a right of way. that could limit it's purpose and, therefore, make it an easement.
So what is the proper name of a road way you purchased in fee? Jp
Jp7191, post: 385235, member: 1617 wrote: Lets go double or nothing! I bet you survey out of a Volvo station wagon 🙂
Jp7191 I got a good laugh about the Volvo, Thanks. I did use my Jeep Grand Wagoneer for one week doing some leveling. 3 Meter rods inside
and Wild N3 Level.
JOHN NOLTON
Tom Adams, post: 385187, member: 7285 wrote: They often have a hard time accepting that lot 2 of block 8 of the xx subdivision can be a legal description.
I'll go a step farther, contending that there's nothing "legal" about a "legal description." I don't use the term in my practice; all of my descriptions have a header that says, simply, "description."
Jp7191, post: 385236, member: 1617 wrote: So what is the proper name of a road way you purchased in fee? Jp
well, uh, er.....it's clearly an,,,,,um..... wellllllll?
Touche.
We call it right-of-way all the time, but not in a legal descrription (and not in front of Jim in AZ). We always refer to it as a "Tract or Parcel of Land" in our descriptions. We do not add any language that would limit its use. Of course if it goes to condemnation I would wonder. You condemn for it to build your road under the guise of eminent domain. If it's for roadway purposes.....would it be an easement? I always treat it as fee-simple ownership, but maybe technically it isn't in that case. I bet there is some case law somewhere on that very subject.
Jim Frame, post: 385249, member: 10 wrote: I'll go a step farther, contending that there's nothing "legal" about a "legal description."
Not on the one that you write anyway. If you transfer a property, the description used to transfer it is the "legal" description of the parcel being transferred. But I do agree with you that it would be improper for you to call it "legal" when you describe it on your plat or for a client.
Tom Adams, post: 385305, member: 7285 wrote: well, uh, er.....it's clearly an,,,,,um..... wellllllll?
Touche.
We call it right-of-way all the time, but not in a legal descrription (and not in front of Jim in AZ). We always refer to it as a "Tract or Parcel of Land" in our descriptions. We do not add any language that would limit its use. Of course if it goes to condemnation I would wonder. You condemn for it to build your road under the guise of eminent domain. If it's for roadway purposes.....would it be an easement? I always treat it as fee-simple ownership, but maybe technically it isn't in that case. I bet there is some case law somewhere on that very subject.
I'm a city surveyor that writes many road take descriptions usually for widening. I take a lot of direction from the city engineer that wants to purchase the additional road in fee (mainly because we have to pay fair market price and he acts like it is his money). I have argued until I am blue in the face, that when we are taking along an existing dedicated or petitioned road we should purchase the dedication for public road purposes. When we are taking along a road owned in fee then we should purchase the taking in fee. The problems all arise when the road is vacated sometime in the future. The other part of my job is deciphering old problems created by piss poor agency procedures and processes. So it is not my concern that the agency refuses to follow my advice because I won't be the one who has to fight it out in the future when we are all beamed around instead of driven around, but I would like to make it as easy and clear for the abutting property owners to regain control of the vacated and no longer used road bed that abuts their property. But damn, what will the attorney's do. 🙂 Jp
I had to do some old chaining last month. The robot decided to stop working and I had one more pin to set on a boundary survey. Went back to the office to get 25 year old Topcon instrument, the 100' chain is always in the truck and plumb bob always on my belt. Finished the job the old way. Felt great.
bobsurveyor, post: 385437, member: 526 wrote: I had to do some old chaining last month. The robot decided to stop working and I had one more pin to set on a boundary survey. Went back to the office to get 25 year old Topcon instrument, the 100' chain is always in the truck and plumb bob always on my belt. Finished the job the old way. Felt great.
[SARCASM]You heathen! You didn't first calculate it through least-squares to compute the error of ellipse before staking that remaining pin? I am sure you missed it by more than the allowable error of closure of 1/1000000000...[/SARCASM]
We used 100' and 200' depending on the job. We began with 6 chaining pins, the tail chain-man holding 1 pin and the front man holding 5. At every length of chain a pin would be stuck in the ground marking either 100' or 200'. When the front man would stab the 5th pin that would be either 500' or 1000'. Standing at the last pin set in the ground the head guy would wait for the tail guy to bring him the 5 pins, 1 he started with and and 4 he collected, the 6th still in the ground
We measured miles and miles of pipelines this way.
Stations were shouted by the front man so the tail man and party chief could hear.