Reading RPLS is free for the whole profession. Members post, reply, and get the members-only rooms.
I'm working on a little boundary for a house addition.
The record plat closes nice and tight and I have irons that are off the record by a bit, but good enough to hold. The lot along the road is:
curve to left
tangent
curve to left
reverse curve into a cul-de-sac
I have a plat of the lot from a couple of years ago where the surveyor used non-tangent curves to fit the lines along the R/W to the existing irons. Our iron locations match quite well.
My inclination (generally) is to keep the curves and tangent sections normal to one another. I use Carlson "align" command which does a great job of apportioning the difference throughout the curvilinear lines and keeps the lines normal to one another.
Here's the kicker:
His plat appears to have been used for the design of the addition, and according to that, the addition fits inside the setback by 0.28'. My lines cause the addition to be 0.09' outside the setback.
So, would you hold to your way of nice, normal lines along the right of way or use the previous survey's broken-back lines?
One thought: He could at least have annotated the curves as non-tangent.
You obviously mis-measured the location of the addition. I'm sure it's at least 0.1 further in from where you erroneously have it located.:'(
JB-
Tiz too tight and the surveyor needs to always be in the position to CHA.
Unless we are there to put concrete nails in the footings we recommend shrinking the building by .30' on each setback as forms do move and so do set out pins.
Get out the Sanforization drawings ASAP !
Cheers
Derek
I would hold the irons and the previous record, just note that the curves are non-tangent. why cause trouble where there is harmony?
Rambleon is right... but note it.
N
One of those cases where holding the monuments causes the math to change. I hate non-tangent curves, but hey, it happens...
I would consider your differences to be diminimous.
Wait; you're both using the same points and you have a difference of 0.37'?
Something ain't right here; you should go back and check your math....:snarky:
I agree-hold the legal description but note non-tangent curve per previous survey so that the next surveyor down the line doesn't cuss you!
It is a rare occasion that I find R/W monuments or corner monuments along a curve that fit exactly as the description calls. They are usually not close enough to use the original data.
Many will cringe at this. When I find the monuments at the PC and PT of a curve, I use non tangent curve, I use a non tangent curve if the original data dose not fit.. To indicate it is non tangent I include the bearing and distance of the chord as the call to the next monument.
Monuments control location. The correct mathematical fix would be to change from a simple curve to a spiral or other transitional curve to fit what is on the ground.
I am not going to put a spiral curve into a description unless that is what the evidence on the ground supports, so I simply use a non tangent curve.
I will not disregard the original monuments and say they were set in error unless they are well beyond the standards at the time.
Most monuments I have found are either within a foot or out of position by at least 10 or more feet.
To me it would be the same as starting a pincusion of monument locations.
0.02
How old is the subdivision?
Did the approving authority allow for non-tangent curves? Does it change the road width? Who set these pins?
Can you create tangent curves with similar definitions to the original that match the monuments? I really do not care for non-tangent curves and I avoid them all.
Where do you set the PC and PT ROW monuments for a non-tangent curve? Do you have 3 different stations and offsets, one RT, one LT and one C/L?
jud