Does anyone else get irate over looking a survey from someone else and seeing the area labeled in decimals of a square foot?
I think anyone doing so ought to be hauled before the board and made to explain what procedures they use to measure that accurately.
Oh, I don't get irate over that kind of thing any more?ÿthan I get over the highway department's crews resetting a corner from references (with a stretched-out rag tape)...and then turning in a survey with bearings carried out to the hundredth of a second and distances to the thousandth of a foot.?ÿ
We all know it's BS, but I guess it makes them feel good about their ignorant and futile efforts. ??ÿ
I do get a chuckle, but it doesn't bother me, it's a calculation, much like seconds in the bearings along a lot line.
I now see many areas carried out to 3 decimal places of a foot while the acreage is only rounded to 2 decimal places. It truly boggles the mind.?ÿ
One of the small local firms, of whom I am friends with the survey dept, will publish control sheet to 4 decimals. Obviously the drafter wont change c3d defaults. But I love teasing them and asking how they got it that tight when I am happy to hit .02
I was inadvertently sucked into this trap when I was young by a City reviewer. He would reject Plats because of misclosures of 0.01'-0.02'. I tried explaining the mathematical reason but he was incapable of comprehending. I countered by showing bearings to the tenth of a second and distances to a thousandth of a foot. After doing this several times I told him it was stupid and I wasn't going to do it anymore. Never heard another word about it...
Mine also.
I worked with a scientist on a mandatory salt marsh restoration.?ÿ We staked out everything and they set the materials just inside the stakes.?ÿ They wanted reports to the nearest 0.01 SF and they were confused how they were short by 7 SF.
I asked if in all their science classes if they recalled significant figures.?ÿ They said oh yeah...?ÿ?ÿ
And they installed more mats for marsh.