You all must be missing the point
This must be a local problem in your area. I have never seen or heard anything like that until your post.
but
I understand the problem. A few years ago, I had to survey a part of a s/d that was in development and ' blessed' by the planning dept. and recorded.
Part of the s/d was being sold off and developed for a new elementary school. The survey was developed and engineered by a prominent local engineering firm with political connections.
Along one of the boundary lines that I was surveying, there was a stretch of lots who had boundary along the rear lot lines which had an arc length of something like 450.25 ft. The tangent length of the curve was 450.23'.
Apparently, some cadd teach thought this was honky dory.
You all must be missing the point
I'm not sending them back for something like that. There is no regulation against being stupid. I'm just saying it makes surveyors look like idiots who can't layout a simple square of correct dimensions.
You all must be missing the point
Directing unacceptable language at other professionals on an open forum won't do anyone much good, especially the ones throwing it out there. Lets try being civil
May God bless and guide us in all our work. Maybe that will give us a little lift, if only in our ranks.
Charley:hi5: :party: :angel:
The reported difference is miniscule and irrelevant
When someone shows a 100 foot line as being 1 second off from the expected bearing, they are claiming they can measure 0.00097 feet with their equipment. Why would any reasonable surveyor then show such foolishness on their plat? It's because that's what the magic button gave them for an answer.
I have a different take on this delimma....
Personally, I like to see miniscule differences in measurements. To me it's a sure sign that the measurements were actually taken and in no way an indication that "his" measurements were better, more precise or more accurate.
I wish there was a truly "acceptable" method of reporting "miniscule", differences in measurements while still adherring to the original measurement as the acceptable, defacto measurement.
At one time, I used to indicate miniscule differences with a chart of sorts indicating that slight differences in measurements were nothing more than "expected" differences between surveyors' measurements and not an indication that one measurement was in any way better than the other.
I quickly found out that this only muddied the water more... huh?
I will also tell you this... I'm generally greatly bothered when I see a few surveys indicating EXACTLY the same distance and EXACTLY the same bearing... I'm left wondering... "did they realy measure that line?".
So my take on these miniscule differences, to me, tells me that the totality of measurements taken(ever so slightly different) by any number of surveyors, is much more reliable as a distance and/or bearing. When I see half a dozen surveys with miniscule differences, I feel rather certain of what I should expect.
BUT... just how does one show the difference(for posterity purposes), then "properly", ignore the difference in defference to a "good" previous measurement?
Perhaps it's justification to prove that you've done something. Carrying the same numbers and same all around look doesn't appear as though we're doing anything. Finding a hundredth difference or a few seconds in angle is like saying, "There! Now you KNOW I was out there and checked it. I was able to prove that I did something and now you have to pay me."
When the amount of error shown is as little as a few seconds, others can see that that person is just being intolerable. I'd be happy with a tenth and a few minutes myself. "It's close enough for what you're going to do with it." If it has to be closer, then you call in the watchmaker and get it all nice and perfect.
I have a different take on this delimma....
Dangit. You said this while I was saying it at the same time.
In this case YOU are the original surveyor
If you can't make it precisely what you intended it to be, why are you surveying?
You aren't checking against anyone else's work. You are the creator. Do it right.
Suggested procedure:
When the crew shoots and records the monument to prove it was set, put it on a different CAD layer for possible future use as control. Don't change the map numbers because the recorded position is 2 hundredths different. Don't bang and twist and spend 5 hours trying to get the pin perfect, because then it will be so loose as to not agree within tenths next time it's shot. Don't watch the monument as it goes down and keep telling the sledgeperson to move it back and forth; let them drive it, it will end up in essentially the same spot in the ground that they started to pound it in at. Or use a monument you can firmly set and then punch mark exact spot. Many ways to avoid appearing an idiot. Dont' know if I've avoided it with this post but sure someone will let me know if not;-)
In this case YOU are the original surveyor
> If you can't make it precisely what you intended it to be, why are you surveying?
>
> You aren't checking against anyone else's work. You are the creator. Do it right.
It all comes back to the 4 hundredths discussion; how precise is your measurement?
I have a different take on this delimma....
> Personally, I like to see miniscule differences in measurements. To me it's a sure sign that the measurements were actually taken and in no way an indication that "his" measurements were better, more precise or more accurate.
>
>
Exactly! I'm a big fan of reporting what you measure.
The reported difference is miniscule and irrelevant
> When someone shows a 100 foot line as being 1 second off from the expected bearing, they are claiming they can measure 0.00097 feet with their equipment. Why would any reasonable surveyor then show such foolishness on their plat? It's because that's what the magic button gave them for an answer.
This is just the same argument as those who fudge measured values to agree w. record.
You're just now realizing this? I realized it about 25 years ago, the first time I got a set of CAD created plans with lines & curves that don't match up and only about a third of the info needed to calculate what needed to be staked.
