> The problem is that it indicates that the user does not know which meta-data was actually needed, which indicates that they may not PERSONALLY know what is going on.
> N
I'm not ready to crucify the guy yet. I followed an EXCELLENT surveyor the other day from an adjoining county. In 1996, he surveyed a large tract on the grid with GPS. His basis of bearing left much to be desired from what we now use today; however, in the early infancy of the user with the new black box, he was TRYING to tell you what happened. Zone lines were crossed and no statement about which zone was picked was stated. He provided enough collateral data within the description to figure it out though, but it took a bit. This may be the case with Kent. He may have been trying to be on a true meridian but fell short and didn't realize that you really can't, with GPS survey in a true bearing environment, and still enjoy all of the bennies that you do with classical surveying techniques, without rotation and various points.
That being said, if he picked a point, rolled on, and used that and pushed it out, it should not be (as Kent says) mental heavy lifting to retrace the tract. However, IF, they used multiple bases, each with a "true" bearing, and then tied them together, then their description may close, BUT it will NEVER fit on the ground like the deed says. Only time will tell when the monuments are tied in whether or not the individual made a poor choice in wording of a meta-data statement, or really screwed the pooch with a disastrous procedure for surveying a massive tract. For this reason, and it's just so darn simple, I stay on the grid. It's too easy. I don't worry about silly things like convergence, unless I want to look at an old line from how it was supposed to be done, and then, voila, I know what the geodetic/true bearing of the line IS, and can then compare it to what it SHOULD have been and make decisions from there.
I'm hoping the guy was just learning how to work meta-data statements out. Mine have surely evolved over time and when I look back 10 years ago, they were "rough". Mine even evolved to a point that, today, I think was just too darn much. Now, they have the meat and taters and anyone can retrace my bearings from a multitude of ways and get back on my coordinates from a multitude of ways. I catch crap from colleagues about inserting the coordinates in the description, but I feel that they are as much a part and parcel to the bearing as anything and are representative of the meta-data (with regard to epoch) so the end user literally has a check on my meta-data statement. I did not always survey like this, but we learn as we do and tweak based on what others have done for better, or for worse.
We must not forget that in 2001, the MAJORITY of surveying firms did NOT have GPS equipment and some are still working their way down the learning curve.
right on Kris. When we first started, our metadata was not entirely technically correct. Close enough to figure out what we did, but still not quite there. Then, as you described, our metadata turned into a three paragraphs. Now we've got it paired down to three sentences. Ten years from now I may look back and think, "What an idiot!" But I don't think so. I'm pretty sure we're moving forward and not sideways.
> > IF.... (maybe big IF) the statement "True bearings,", is "TRUE"...then what is the problem?
>
> Well, true bearings would be really dumb in Texas, for starters since the PLSS stops in Oklahoma.
Do "true bearings" stop at the Oklahoma border too? IMWTK
>
> > In the PLSS States, the concept is (or should be) well understood (and well defined in the LAW).
>
> You're referring, of course to the cookbook that y'all have to follow up there in PLSSia, but which hardly anyone actually does? That's what I thought.
>
> > I'll stipulate that the "basis of bearing statement" as POSTED, is rather minimalist, but so are your North Arrows, but that's OKAY....
>
> Well, I'd hardly call it "minimalist". It probably seems so in comparison to the half page of metadata that all those customer projections used in PLSSia instead of true bearings require, but what is striking about the note is how rich with extraneous, useless detail it is, while saying nothing much more than "bearings sort of refer to a Northish direction, but I'm not telling"
>
Since going to LDP, my metadata has actually become shorter than with State Plane. YMMV
> The problem is that it indicates that the user does not know which meta-data was actually needed, which indicates that they may not PERSONALLY know what is going on.
Yes, that's exactly the point. There is really no telling what sort of RTK nonsense is possible when someone thinks that the *date* when GPS vectors were determined is important and what brand of survey-grade equipment was used.
Kris
What you say is true.
BUT it illustrates a NEED in continuing education, to address the concept of projections, and to leave behind a solid set of footsteps.
We all have needs, in this.
I have thought of a BOB like this:
Basis of Bearings, True north, taken at the central meridian, of the state of Arkansas. Some folks would get it, but some would not.
🙂
Nate
> > > IF.... (maybe big IF) the statement "True bearings,", is "TRUE"...then what is the problem?
> >
> > Well, true bearings would be really dumb in Texas, for starters since the PLSS stops in Oklahoma.
>
> Do "true bearings" stop at the Oklahoma border too? IMWTK
I can think of only one example in Texas surveying where true bearings were used and that is in Powell's construction of the Texas and Pacific Rwy. Co. 80-Mile Reservation West of the Pecos. The much more common practice that has been used was to express bearings in a local grid oriented true North at some point on the survey, thus producing trueish bearings.
In the more culturally remote parts of the State, such as East Texas, it wouldn't surprise me if this latter practice of using trueish North isn't still followed, producing descriptions that give different bearings on the same line of adjacent properties (which in East Texas would be a fence, of course) as a natural result.
> I think that "Basis of Bearings: Assumed". I think that is a lower wattage, at least the guy above sort of tried to tell you something.
>
> I run into lots of "assumed".
>
> N
Ditto Nate. It feels like you might as well not call out anything as saying it's "assumed". If they were "assuming" a bearing, why wouldn't they assume a bearing of "North" on one of the lines that looks like it might run north; instead of some bearing written out to the nearest second of arc like N 5º 23' 18". You know dang well that the bearings are based on something else, so why don't they say exactly where they got the bearing.
Maybe Bearings are based on assuming xxx-line being xxx based on the plat by so-and-so dated such and such as found wherever.... And maybe a description of the monuments found that the bearing goes between...?
The only time in the past few years I've had to be concerned with true north was when I had to stake it out for a radio tower to be built. In reality, it was so close to grid north that it really didn't make much difference.
Thanks Tom.
Continuing ed should address the big pic of what is going on, so we as surveyors can use fluently the tools we have, and express it properly.
N