> Rounding adds + or - error to the number, and so should be chosen to preserve nearly all the useful precision and not much false precision.
In modern practice, though, the purpose of the calls for course and distance is to be able to accurately reconstitute the coordinate system of the survey that is described. This may include verifying the consistency of coordinates given for various points on the boundary with the courses and distances recited connecting them. On a typical modern survey where GPS is used, it should be sufficient to give estimates of the uncertainties of the coordinates of boundary markers found and set, i.e. stating that they don't exceed some threshold value.
While it would look a bit silly to give a bearing to the nearest second on a course 100 ft. long, it's quite harmless. A statement about methods and accuracies would be more useful (and easier to implement) than bearings rounded course-by-course to attempt to suggest some estimated uncertainty (without, of course, actually stating that estimate uncertainty).
Bill, you are hinting around at the issue now
When a large portion of the mons get destroyed, and the desc does not close by 0.6', then it puts a larger error ellipse on every replaced monument. If there is only 1 or 2 mons left, then well, it makes it poor.
N
Kent,
I wish I'd a said that.
Nate
I'd say if you were still surveying with a 1' mountain gun and a highway chain, then you wouldn't be wrong. If you're not, then it's silly.
Why not just give the coordinates instead of some numbers to compute the coordinates?
> Why not just give the coordinates instead of some numbers to compute the coordinates?
Ok, assuming a sarcastic comment on your part, I'll offer a follow up. My SWMBO has a little yellow sticky note affixed to her next to computer bulletin board which states:
"Did your ears hear what just came out of your mouth? I didn't think so.."
I still laugh
Yeah maybe sarcastic but think about it. What do we do with a bunch of bearings and distances with our modern computers, COMPUTE COORDINATES. Well if only coordinates are given what if a mistake in a number? True, but if a bearing or distance is wrong I'll get the wrong coordinate. Bearings and distances are sort of messy compared to coordinates. Degrees, minutes and seconds compared to a plain number (that I usually convert to a coordinate before the search). Seems to me we mostly work in coordinates that we then convert back to bearing and distance for reporting.
Where is bearing and distance on the list? Next to the bottom just above coordinates!
> Why not just give the coordinates instead of some numbers to compute the coordinates?
Did you really mean to use the word "instead"?
Yea LR, I'm a bit cynical myself. It seems to me that the pecking order goes along the lines of a direct call to either a geographic or monumental something or other, then distances trump bearings, then scriveners errors get forgiven, but bearings still are somewhat re-traceble. Then come coordinates, mostly because they are based on distances and bearings and the decision making guy computing them so they are last. Then come lawyers, judges, and hopefully my retirement. I'll likely be pushing my grand kids daisies by then, but it's calming in it's own regard because I know it's on my daughters lot.
Give it 5 or 10 yrs. There will be no monuments anymore. We will all be surveying in a virtual world dictated by the numbers NGS provides us. Just look at your yellow box, maybe even some gizmo watch band or sun glasses. Sadly, to say the least....
...now where did I park my quad to get away.... 😉
There will be no monuments anymore. We will all be surveying in a virtual world
[sarcasm]More like if a landowner wants something he can see a county GIS drone will be sent out to the coordinate to drop a paint bomb![/sarcasm]
So between my HP 48 and the local paint bomb store, I won't have to survey anymore. Maybe those daisies will just have to wait.... and I can just go golfing & fishing.
cheers 😉
Boundary stuff, 5" is plenty good.
