Round the sucker off
Um...I would think there is a 0.005' error in any prism bubble...so rounding it off to the nearest 0.01' is not a problem.
1920 to 2010: A Spatial Measurement Odyssey
Ken,
The problem is HUGE
BTW it is not you
Don't forget to move the irons over the 0.005'!!
> > >
> But why do they care? What is the point they make about this when it has come up?
>
> (Also the issue of the closure calculation implies I have to edit the closure to make it appear to work.)
This is why:
As a more useful reply, I don't show distances to a greater precision than the nearest 0.01'. It's unrealistic that I or any other surveyor can actually measure that close. My normal practice has been to do as your map checker is insisting, but I like Jim's solution. Round each up to the next whole hundredth (52.67') and use Jim's "rounding" note, perhaps also stating that the intent is to create two equal parcels.
Who is in charge? You, the surveyor, or a reviewer? Sometime you need to just say no.
"The sum of the individual parts of a given line or curve may not equal the overall quantity due to rounding."
This is a requirement on maps/plats? Unbelieveable!!
> Who is in charge? You, the surveyor, or a reviewer? Sometime you need to just say no.
I choose to play that type of card when I think it really counts. I can keep it in the sleeve for .005'. I deal with this city often.
I will make a comment on this. I have not had the time to get back to it.
This "problem" smells of a GIS button-clicker ...
Too much geography and too little physical science and mathematics in their curriculum.
Bryan,
I had a long response last night, but after a couple of beers I fat fingered it into cyber space. Here goes the second and far more coherent response....At one time I was responsible for AARCO AM-PM sites in all of northern California. As you know the parcel map process requires county or city or city/county approvals. This would also involve not only parcel maps but improvements to properties depending on county/city regs. The request that you mention by the county (or city?) was far too often requested in 92. We just utilized our programmers and cad people to do a plat/map check, fix it and move on. I once had a city surveyor review my parcel map and request via redline that the street distance measured between found existing monuments be changed from 60.01' to 60.00' citing California Street and Highway code only allows a R/W for the full benefit and use of the public and only that amount of R/W platted i.e. 60.00'.....I changed it, I had more important fish to fry and to this date could not find the Street and Highway Code he referred to. I thought maybe it was something you idigenous California surveyors readily accepted. Am I wrong?
Paul
Perhaps the CA people here are more anal about it, but I did have a corner record returned to me in a county I rarely work in where the guy did not like my side lot line being a whole .01' different from record, so I changed it, and chewed my fingernails down to the quick because that would mean my lot misclosed as a result. Gives me the chills thinking about how my client is going to deal with that 1/8" out there.
> But why do they care? What is the point they make about this when it has come up?
>
It is all about Power and Control, it has nothing to do with land and boundaries...
but don't tell them that, they don't need to understand their true motivation.
If you have a job to correct "errors" on a map, then you have to find something.
Bryan,
I only wished I had your problems. While I loved working in California because the problems were minute' compared to other states. Some day I would really like to sit down in a beer session and chat with many CA surveyors about "other states" and the problems we deal with. I remember in about 84 taking the U.S. Mineral Surveyor exam and discussing with a few Fresno State grads about problems we deal with in not so far west west states. The eyes lit up like deer in the headlights with the expression "Wow that sounds like the real frontier". Moving on...I'm going to take the opportunity to wish you a prosperous new year and sharing of the professionalism of land surveying.
Paul
There are problems in California, you just have to know where to look hee hee hee.
"I choose to play that type of card when I think it really counts."
No comprende - "play that card"? Aren't you in charge of the product you produce? Isn't that why we become licensed? In my state reviewers only have the authority to comment on code-related issues, and those are the only comments I ever respond to.
Next time Bryan
Add 0.01' to the dimensions so they divide equally.
Next time Bryan
> Add 0.01' to the dimensions so they divide equally.
I could do that also. It would look odd in terms of proration in relation to the whole block, but I can apply that rounding note of Jim Frame's.
Boy, sure would hate to have my pipes called off by .003' or so though.
Next time Bryan
> > Add 0.01' to the dimensions so they divide equally.
>
> I could do that also.
It's being realistic. You have that error at the bare minimum in the survey. A concrete nail head is about 0.02' wide, like any of this matters anyway.
On the other hand, there is NO WAY I would succumb to the whims of any checker regarding the dimensions I show on a map. I have done what you have done before, dimensioned to 0.005'. That practice has been around before you or I were even born. I am sure quite a few of us have seen bearings to the nearest tenth of a second. These pieces of information that appear on maps are there for calculation purposes only and will never be of any use in the practical day to day, onsies and twosies surveys the majority of us do.
Next time Bryan
Change the parent lot to 105.3 and drop the hundredths on it. You never find a pin precise to the hundredth anyway (well almost never).
Just kidding. It is tough enough to make some of the professional judgments you have to make without some plat-checker (who isn't stamping anything or taking any liability whatsoever) micromanage your calls. If the intent is to break the line in 1/2, then the number should be 1/2 of the whole. But having numbers to a greater precision than 0.01, is silly.
I could see logic in any of the suggestions, but the real problem is the moron who is exercising a power that s/he shouldn't have. They are wasting your time and you or your clients money. Tell them to put their demands in writing and sign and stamp their decision. (okay I wouldn't do that either. I would probably just pick my battles and not worry about complying for the most part. But there should be a way to make a complaint against someone like that).
Distract them!
Distract them Bryan! Put something in there you will change anyway. Then maybe they will leave you alone on the dumb stuff. I know someone that does it (not me personally) and he says it works.
