One thing that gets to me quickly is the practice of spelling out numbers in addition to simply having the number.
Lot One-Hundred Ninety Eight (Lot 198).
I would think that spelling out a lot number, or other parts of a written description, would make it easier to mitigate any typo errors.
Lot One-Hurnded Ninety Eigt, becomes easier to comprehend than, Lot 199, as far typos go.
Looking up that word: immolate
"A distance of",?ÿ annoys me the same way as, "rate of speed", "pin number", and "plat map" do.?ÿ
There are plenty of things I see in written descriptions that stick in my craw.?ÿ And I agree there is way too much redundancy of the written word in descriptions. But to me the ultimate test is whether or not it accurately describes a boundary with no ambiguity; so much that it may not be determined to exist in any other place.
For years I've seen a format that goes back literally centuries.?ÿ And although some people wrinkle up their nose at this type of description, it does fit the bill I noted above.?ÿ Something like "The east 990 feet of the north 440 feet of the NW/4 of Sec. whatever..".?ÿ Although simplistic and possibly even archaic, it is concise and unambiguous.?ÿ?ÿ
I assure you that if such a description comes across my desk it will be well received.
I definitely believe in formatting my descriptions.?ÿ But everything on my maps and descriptions is capitalized to make it more readable on the inevitably poorly scanned copy.
But it is ambiguous. There are many ways that the "east 990 feet" can be located.?ÿ
There are some cases where the use of such form can be ambiguous, it is true. But in most common cases that is not so.
I use "a distance of" in all of my descriptions. Y'all can kiss my butt! (Just kidding).
?ÿ
My descriptions are fairly verbose with details, so I find using "a distance of" helps the reader identify the distance call from other information such as reference calls to other monuments and passing calls. You can skim my description and fairly easily find the distance call.?ÿ
?ÿ
I also use "to a point" to distinguish those boundary points that are not monumented from those which are.?ÿ
?ÿ
I agree with the importance of formatting for readability. Even more I agree with the importance of clearly stating the intent in the description and the unambiguous location of the boundaries. This is paramount.?ÿ
Last week it was abbreviations nobody could understand, so ..
Abbreviations for necessary words in many cases. Unrelated to inserting words that don't add meaning.
Abbreviations for necessary words in many cases. Unrelated to inserting words that don't add meaning.
Like Compendious ??
I have a friend who worked at a couple of different companies before ending up buying out the records when his then current employer passed.?ÿ At that last employer's direction, he began numbering his calls when typing a description.?ÿ Example:
Beginning at .....; thence
1. bearing distance, to an item; thence
2. bearing distance, to an item; thence
Nicely formatted and easy to follow.?ÿ I really don't think it is any easier to follow than pretty much any other well formatted?ÿ description that has line returns and punctuation.?ÿ However, he thinks it is the best method and that all other methods are inferior.?ÿ We all have preferences and they are generally based on how we did things while working for others (with the occasional good idea swiped from someone else's work that we saw or read about on RPLSTODAY.com).
A neighboring community has CAD standards for submitting subdivision plats for approval through their planning commission.?ÿ I do not like many of the small items they require (such as vicinity map on the wrong side of the page - in my opinion).?ÿ Looking at drawings prior to that body being enacted, the CAD standards are the local surveyors method of presenting data.?ÿ Great for reviewers as everything is identical, except for the property.?ÿ Unfortunately, it is a very bland layout and is poorly set-up to handle required information.?ÿ The legend must be in a particular size and location in the title block.?ÿ But, there is only enough room to place two symbols and a very abbreviated description.?ÿ So, it becomes necessary to place the legend somewhere else on the drawing and leave a useless square in the title block.
When the presentation of findings is reduced to a cookie cutter mold, it seems we lose some of the art of surveying.
Sounds like you have a reason for choosing to use the all caps - can't fault you for that.
Although I'm not crazy about all caps, the formatting is the main problem for me with the descriptions I referenced.?ÿ The guy who prepares them may have no issues with reading through them as is, so the problem is on me to deal with when I have one of his descriptions in hand.?ÿ There are probably things I do in my descriptions that he dislikes as well.
In what case is it not ambiguous? Maybe, if all the sides are exactly cardinal and exactly match the deed distances? Even then though you can find plenty of court decisions deciding that the "most obvious" answer is not the boundary. Or do you mean if the corners are monumented and called for? Then I agree, but it is only unambiguous becasue of the monuments, the 1/2 description doesnt add much except a hint for finding the monuments.?ÿ
That is how I learned to do it with the reasoning you've described - thank you for the reminder as to why.
The section doesn't have to be cardinal, just regular. And lengths of lines vs. record has nothing to do with it. Just the opposite, in fact. It seems so obvious to me that I have to wonder if we are thinking about different things.?ÿ?ÿ
I use "a distance of" on occasion, for reference monuments/witness corners usually: thence along said stream to a point referenced by a 3" brass cap per PLS xxx, bears N45dE, a distance of 32.33 feet.?ÿ
Not sure why it would bother anyone, I don't use it for most of the description but it helps to break out witness corners and reference monuments.
?ÿ
...When the presentation of findings is reduced to a cookie cutter mold, it seems we lose some of the art of surveying.
Therein exists the rub for me.?ÿ Descriptions are almost an art form in my book.?ÿ A perfect description should provide someone the ability to retrace a boundary without the aid of a drawing.?ÿ However many words one uses, or not, is up to the one creating the description.
Critique of other's work seems to me like a bunch of house painters sitting around and questioning Michelangelo's use of china blue or raw sienna.?ÿ
