Just had a request to allow a software configuration so that legal descriptions could be written to the nearest minute. Out of curiosity I checked a legal from 1990 that was reported to the nearest minute and it closed 1/214. I have reason to believe modern equipment was available and used at that time.
Is there any justification to discard precision like this? I can't see any reason to allow it and consider the nearest second to be a practical minimum.
> Just had a request to allow a software configuration so that legal descriptions could be written to the nearest minute. Out of curiosity I checked a legal from 1990 that was reported to the nearest minute and it closed 1/214. I have reason to believe modern equipment was available and used at that time.
>
> Is there any justification to discard precision like this? I can't see any reason to allow it and consider the nearest second to be a practical minimum.
How about using the supplied "legal" as "Furnished by Client" for the description and show those deed courses compared to your measurements (made to the precision you've determined sufficient) on the sketch?
> Just had a request to allow a software configuration so that legal descriptions could be written to the nearest minute. Out of curiosity I checked a legal from 1990 that was reported to the nearest minute and it closed 1/214. I have reason to believe modern equipment was available and used at that time.
>
> Is there any justification to discard precision like this? I can't see any reason to allow it and consider the nearest second to be a practical minimum.
I can see a very valuable, practical use for "rounding" bearings to the nearest degree. Have many times wished that was one of the options.
Before I go to the ground on any boundary job I plot the existing legal description with described corners. I then take a fiberglass tape and hand compass to help me hunt for the corners. Trust me, you can't get a hand compass to help closer than the nearest degree. All the extra digits just get in the way.
Would I give a final work product to a client listing bearings to the nearest minute? Of course not. But not every thing I do is intended to be a final work product. Sometimes, getting the general idea of what is going on is very helpful.
Larry P
If you are writing software or setting configurations for an end-user to use, I would try to accommodate what they need, and not make them justify what they are asking for. I might ask them out of curiosity, but, for instance, Larry has a point about possibly wanting it for a specific purpose. They may want a report for whatever reason to help them.
I don't know your situation, but I am only responding this way, because I have had to argue with software developers about what I am asking them to do. Sometimes the software engineer looses sight of the fact that they are creating a tool for someone else to use. Instead of making them use their hand-calculations and then typing in the language they want to use, a software could be helpful only if it works the way they need it to work.
To your point, however, I have worked with old descriptions that have incredibly wide misclosures, and it is frustrating. (but also don't forget that if I am trying to retrace those boundaries, there is at least that much play in the search I am doing. If I rewrite their legal to have a higher precision, it doesn't mean I have moved those pins to be within my new error circle):-)
I am persuaded that some "MDR" surveyors do it this way, to AVOID any necessary precision. MDR = Minimum Daily Requirement. They do Minimalist plats, Minimalist monuments, and Minimalist data on said plats.
N
> Is there any justification to discard precision like this? I can't see any reason to allow it and consider the nearest second to be a practical minimum.
It would depend on the length of the line wouldn't it? In 250 ft, you are really only talking about .07 ft. Usually not a big deal.
Do we really think we are actually measuring to the nearest second in most surveys? Probably not. (Kent excepted of course) 😉
There is no good reason to report bearings on boundary surveys to the nearnest second.
The latest BLM Plats that I have worked with...
Bearings to 0.1 arc-minutes (6 arc-seconds).
Distances to 0.001 chains (0.066 feet).
I think that is quite reasonable, and PLENTY "precise" for their purpose.
Those (recent) BLM surveys that I have retraced bear this out (I'm always "on the cap")
Loyal
> Do we really think we are actually measuring to the nearest second in most surveys? Probably not. (Kent excepted of course)
No, I definitely don't think *you* are measuring any direction to the nearest second. You'd need a microscope to read your compass, wouldn't you? :>
> There is no good reason to report bearings on boundary surveys to the nearnest second.
Well Tommy, I'm on your side here. There are lots of super measurer surveyors out there kidding themselves, but in the big picture they're just kidding themselves. Back in the 80's I worked for a guy who rounded to 20 seconds, made perfect sense to me. But we used a K & E and steel tape.
One reason to report seconds, and decimals thereof, could be to satisfy lawyers and potential chain of title issues. Aside from that, I can't think of much else.
What's next, coordinate's to 6 decimals? They must be really good. :-S
I have entered a number of descriptions, that did not close by 0.6' and they had maybe 20 courses in them. It is not the pretension that we survey that good, it is the idea of keeping needless error from accumulating.
N
> .. it is the idea of keeping needless error from accumulating.
Couldn't agree more Mr Nate. It may be broke, but we can't solve world peace when the mosquito's are buzzing us. The point is where it is and it be what it is, so don't fix it unless it's really broke. Then what??
Then Only Report Distance To 0.1'
Why have needless precision.
Paul in PA
Legal Descriptions to the Nearest 1/4 degree
> Just had a request to allow a software configuration so that legal descriptions could be written to the nearest minute.
I think that just to be on the safe side, you ought to consider rounding bearings to the nearest 1/2 or 1/4 degree and offer the option of converting distances to units of yards or paces, taking care to eliminate those pesky fractions that might cause some surveyor somewhere to freak out as needlessly precise.
I'm voting with Kent here!
:good: :stakeout:
I would rather have a description to the nearest minute and link with good bounding calls than one with a perfect closure and no bounds...
But then you can go to the nearest second and still use bounding calls. Nearest minute was quite common around here all through the '80's. My former boss (and mentor) had us do drawings to the nearest minute back then in the belief it saved him some liability. So descriptions were written to match the drawing. After I'd been out on my own for awhile I checked and discovered that nearest second had become the norm. To which I switched at that point. A lack of bounding calls is a big headache for all. Never was on that bandwagon.
Legal Descriptions to the Nearest 1/4 degree
> > Just had a request to allow a software configuration so that legal descriptions could be written to the nearest minute.
>
> I think that just to be on the safe side, you ought to consider rounding bearings to the nearest 1/2 or 1/4 degree and offer the option of converting distances to units of yards or paces, taking care to eliminate those pesky fractions that might cause some surveyor somewhere to freak out as needlessly precise.
I think to keep it simple it should be to the nearest 1/2 or 1/3 degree and every measurement changed should be changed to feet/inches. Of course to the nearest inch.
When you worked in the field, what did the instrument person record the angle measurement?
How does your crews record the angle today?
Rounding adds + or - error to the number, and so should be chosen to preserve nearly all the useful precision and not much false precision.
If you compute the effect the likely centering error and distance have on the numbers, that should be a guide to the precision to express.
If the next guy finds the monuments, your measurements were close enough regardless of precision expressed. If he doesn't find them then he needs all the useful precision in your measurements to decide where it probably was.