Ditto.
I cogo to the PC, then at right angles the radius distance to the radius point, then right or left the delta the radius distance to the PT then at right angles for the next tangent. If the bearing on the next tangent doesn't match then either I did something wrong or there is a mistake in the description.
I thought radius and chord bearing and distance was a Sacramento County oddity that you don't see elsewhere.
Maybe Joe Spink (a very busy CE from the 1930s to 1960s) brought it from Oregon.
> If I were going to go with only 2 I think I'd make radius one of them. That is the parameter you usually want held.
>
Having the radius does make for quicker longhand calcs. But, I don't see that one length is better than another providing that significant figures are taken into account. For longer radii, I usually use the length of curve as the radius point is not a field located position. If I'm trying to find a r/w monument in the field, I'm going to pace off the curve length. Its the one measurement that helps me most in locating positions.
I find it interesting that some states require more than 2 of the variables. I am curious as to any valid reasoning behind that.
I subscribe to the avoiding potential conflicts theory primarily because of my work putting together construction plans and specs. We try to avoid saying the same thing more than one way. Redundancy has its place, but not when it is a potential source of conflict and introduction of error.
> 
>
> Given the information from the sketch, or whatever else you please, describe the curve from tangent in to tangent out in your format of choice.
THENCE NORTH 56°13'49" EAST ###.## FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A 160.00 FOOT RADIUS CURVE CONCAVE SOUTHEASTERLY; THENCE NORTHEASTERLY ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE 92.97 FEET, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 33°17'28", (THE CHORD OF WHICH BEARS N 72°52'33"E 91.66 FEET); THENCE N 89°31'17" E ###.00 FEET
I like concavity over left and right and I also use all caps.
Does California have anything in the way of a Minimum Standard of Practice governing legal descriptions?
> I like concavity over left and right and I also use all caps.
Other than that we are very similar.
.....thence N 56°13'49"E, ###.## feet to the beginning of a 160.00 foot radius curve to the right; thence along the arc of said curve 92.97 feet, through a central angle of 33°17'28", (the chord of said curve bears N 72°52'33"E, 91.66 feet); thence N 89°31'17"E, ###.## feet ......
> Does California have anything in the way of a Minimum Standard of Practice governing legal descriptions?
now thats funny right there.
California has several thousand standards of practice. It just depends on who you talk to as to which one applies.
Subtended and concavity? I actually had to look up subtended.
I do it the same way most of you are.
Curve to the right list radius and delta then the arc length to a point (or monument)
THENCE N 56°13'49" E 100.00 feet to a point of curvature of a tangent curve concave to the South;
THENCE Easterly along the arc of said curve, to the right, having a radius of 160.00 feet, with a chord of N 72°52'33" E 91.66 feet, and a central angle of 33°17'28" for an arc distance of 92.97 feet to a point of tangency;
THENCE N 89°31'17" E 100.00 feet…
And I pitched a fit about the Chord requirement. Didn't do any good though.:pissed:
> I find it interesting that some states require more than 2 of the variables. I am curious as to any valid reasoning behind that.
Redundancy.
> I subscribe to the avoiding potential conflicts theory primarily because of my work putting together construction plans and specs. We try to avoid saying the same thing more than one way. Redundancy has its place, but not when it is a potential source of conflict and introduction of error.
With only two parameters you will never contradict yourself, but by the same token if you make an error, and describe something other than you intend, something impossible, there is no way for the surveyor of the future to resolve it.
My personal preference is to give the information as needed to plot in CAD. Most namely, Carlson since that is what I use. I always say by a curve to the right, with a radius of xxx.xx' and an arc length of xx.xx' (Chord S00d00'00" E, xxx.xx')to a point. And so on. That way if it is non tangent to the previous segment, it can easily be plotted in CAD. I provide all the info on the plat (delta, radius, arc, tangent, and chord) but only use the radius and arc in the description.
Why tangent. I haven't actually used a tangent in the field since 1965 or so. Seriously.
"thence North 56°13'49" East, a distance of ###.## feet to a point on a tangent curve concave to the Southeast and having a radius of 160.00 feet; thence Northeasterly along said curve through a central angle of 33°17'28" for an arc distance of 92.97 feet;"
I know that everyone in this office believes in standards. We all have one of our own.
No, California does not have technical standards like other States do.
"thence along the arc of a curve to the right, having a radius of 100.00', a length of 62.11', and a chord bearing and distance of, N 13 35'01" W, 61.12' to a point...blah blah blah...
What do use to measure with, your chord is longer than the arc length.
jud
Thence N56°13’49”E a distance of 100.00 feet; thence 92.97 feet along the arc of a 160.00 foot radius curve to the right, the long chord of which bears N72°52’33”E a distance of 91.66 feet; thence N89°31’17” E a distance of 100.00 feet…
It's all about style in this thread,Jud.