That everyone refers to and is looking for!!
and they call that surveying?
> That everyone refers to and is looking for!!
>
>
Oh... and it's 0.04'. 0.04" is... well, I can't even think how small that is....
Look at the 0.16' and the 0.15' calls on the left hand edge? Is this normal? What size are these concrete bounds? How definite is the center/marked point? What year was this drawn/surveyed?
I know the humor you were aiming at Don, but I think you opened a whole different can of worms.
Carl
I found that mysterious 0.04' >Carl
This land court plan was prepared in 1978 by my predecessors at my previous place of employment.
Personally I can't imagine a good reason (in 1978) would be to reference a bound 0.04' offline,. unless you could see that whole line, bound to bound, and it's obvious that the point is off line. But, in this case, that wasn't done. I have just re-run all those lines for the home owners assoc. who want to have the green space delineated on the ground.
To answer your question,though.... The concrete bounds are 4" square for the most part, with a mixed bag of 6" diameter home made round bounds...
The reason that this happens is because the Original "A" land court done in 1939 and showed bonds at the end of the line. Later divisions of this property located additional bounds on that line, but they did not conform to the "A" Plan. it used to be that the numbers ruled at the Land Court and you were OBLIGATED to find two bounds to rotate and translate the traverse to, then reference the other bounds "out"....
Luckily for us MA surveyors the current Chief Engineer understands surveying much better than previous Chiefs....He understands that numbers can change to reference the bonds as the corners...
Didn't mean to kick a hornets nest here, but I'm sure this might turn into some fun!
I found that mysterious 0.04' >Carl
> This land court plan was prepared in 1978 by my predecessors at my previous place of employment.
>
> Personally I can't imagine a good reason (in 1978) would be to reference a bound 0.04' offline,. unless you could see that whole line, bound to bound, and it's obvious that the point is off line. But, in this case, that wasn't done. I have just re-run all those lines for the home owners assoc. who want to have the green space delineated on the ground.
>
> To answer your question,though.... The concrete bounds are 4" square for the most part, with a mixed bag of 6" diameter home made round bounds...
>
> The reason that this happens is because the Original "A" land court done in 1939 and showed bonds at the end of the line. Later divisions of this property located additional bounds on that line, but they did not conform to the "A" Plan. it used to be that the numbers ruled at the Land Court and you were OBLIGATED to find two bounds to rotate and translate the traverse to, then reference the other bounds "out"....
>
> Luckily for us MA surveyors the current Chief Engineer understands surveying much better than previous Chiefs....He understands that numbers can change to reference the bonds as the corners...
>
> Didn't mean to kick a hornets nest here, but I'm sure this might turn into some fun!
The part that I put in bold explains it all. I get it now. Excellent explanation and post.
Peace!
Hmmmm.....wonder what their closure on the traverse was.
Must be a certain area thing. By the looks of things this is not a recent map. Right?
At the time of the 1978 survey, I believe a 1/10,000 (maybe 1/5000 for rural land)closure was the minimum allowed. now they have bumped it up to 1/15,000 LOL....
Ok....I just edited and you posted what my "edit" question was. Thanks
(another Edit:) Lot 26 cracks me up....:)
Send that to Lucas and tell him the monument just didnt agree with the math.
Don-
One could think that at least the surveyor was trying to be honest about the answer s/he found in distance to the CB.
Cheers
Derek
PS-
How's the 'barefoot gal with GPS of Don' ?
I found that mysterious 0.04'> For DEREK, up north
here's a pic of the "barefoot gal" when we were visiting her brother up in VT last week. We got a personal tour of the F-16's at the air guard base. my friend is a chief mechanic there...here she is with her brother and shoes on! This weekend April (the barefoot gal) will be stuck with me!! She's only 15 but is often confused for a college girl when we attend functions at either of her brothers schools...
Here she is withstanding an attempt to be swayed into joining the Air Force!
Carl
> > That everyone refers to and is looking for!!
> >
> >
>
> Oh... and it's 0.04'. 0.04" is... well, I can't even think how small that is....
>
> Look at the 0.16' and the 0.15' calls on the left hand edge? Is this normal? What size are these concrete bounds? How definite is the center/marked point? What year was this drawn/surveyed?
>
> I know the humor you were aiming at Don, but I think you opened a whole different can of worms.
>
> Carl
Yes, It was pretty normal at that time, the LC standards specified holding the record math and showing offsets to the found corners; obviously in some places it got carried to extremes. I think the attitude may have een to show even the smallest discrepincy and let the engineers for the Court sort it out.
> > That everyone refers to and is looking for!!
> >
> >
>
> Oh... and it's 0.04'. 0.04" is... well, I can't even think how small that is....
>
> Look at the 0.16' and the 0.15' calls on the left hand edge? Is this normal? What size are these concrete bounds? How definite is the center/marked point? What year was this drawn/surveyed?
>
> I know the humor you were aiming at Don, but I think you opened a whole different can of worms.
>
> Carl
Oh....good catch. I missed that 0.04" (for hundredths of a second) symbol. Let's see now: would that be seconds of latitude?
boy, 0.04 minutes would be huge.
> > > That everyone refers to and is looking for!!
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Oh... and it's 0.04'. 0.04" is... well, I can't even think how small that is....
> >
> > Look at the 0.16' and the 0.15' calls on the left hand edge? Is this normal? What size are these concrete bounds? How definite is the center/marked point? What year was this drawn/surveyed?
> >
> > I know the humor you were aiming at Don, but I think you opened a whole different can of worms.
> >
> > Carl
>
>
> Oh....good catch. I missed that 0.04" (for hundredths of a second) symbol. Let's see now: would that be seconds of latitude?
>
> boy, 0.04 minutes would be huge.
I think he meant 0.04' (feet) and wrote is as 0.04" (inches). 0.04' is a long running joke amongst the long-timers here.
It was also just me being overly analytical too.
Carl.....I guess I should have added a smiley-face. I got your joke and expanded on it. Sorry I have to explain that. (By the way, I was poster number 76 on the old board under my name as shown on my profile here).
I found that mysterious 0.04'
hmm, 0.04' is what my subject line says 🙂
(I noticed it right after posting it and when I went to edit it someone had already responded so it was un-editable...) LOL....
> Carl.....I guess I should have added a smiley-face. I got your joke and expanded on it. Sorry I have to explain that. (By the way, I was poster number 76 on the old board under my name as shown on my profile here).
Roger that. 😉
Everyone!!!!...on the count of three...correct yourself N78°16'54"E 0.04'.
I am not sure if my micrometer will measure that close?
This is machine tool building measurements?
Keith