I found a plat during my research that has something I've never seen before. Two points, designated GIS # 172 and GIS # 175, are tied to a section line by angles and tied to a section corner by distances. The angle point is the section corner. GIS # 172 is south of the section corner and the line is labeled 10460.67'. GIS # 175 is north of the section corner and the line is labeled 5167.34'. There are no bearings on the lines. The line from GIS # 172 passes right through a plat corner. It's a very nice-looking plat. I don't know why the GIS point symbols aren't described in the "general notes" section. The plat was approved in 1991.
Could those be other section corners one and two miles distant.
Maybe, but they're not labeled as such. Please take a look at the right side of the plat.
Perhaps our buddy from Florida can answer that.
@flga-2-2
It seems likely the county put in GPS points with spacing of a few miles but in convenient places and probably not at section corners. Then they had the area flown and bases their GIS on that data.
They possibly had a requirement for new subdivisions to tie to the nearest GIS points for integration into the GIS.
Yeah, pretty frustrating that they don't say what that symbol is.?ÿ Tried calling that surveyor and asking them directly?
And the basis of bearing seems problematic as well.?ÿ I remember someone else posted a plat like this on this forum where the basis of bearing for plat A was line on plat B.?ÿ How do you build an entire map off a line that apparently has no monumentation?
It appears to be an odd coincidence that the one line appears to pass through one corner of the tract but it is a line from a quarter-quarter corner to a GIS point.
With clear and ancient possession you generally have three choices.?ÿ
1. Hire a mathemagician to slap the math on the ground and throw the community into endless turnoil.
2. Fly naked while your boundary evidence continues to degrade.?ÿ
3. Hire an actual surveyor to recover and memorialize the evidence (including the actions of the owners).
In my opinion options 1 and 2 are unwise. I equate them with buying a new car and never changing the oil. You may get lucky for a while, but probably not.?ÿ
Where do the lines go?
They clearly have bearings and distances.
I would plot them to see if there is a point of interest there.
I'm guessing that the GIS #'s indicate local community control points and may have been a condition of approval circ. 1991.?ÿ
It is odd that the two distances each are close to even miles.?ÿ
That probably means they sit on a roadway and not that they are actual sectional points.?ÿ
1991? these probably aren't GPS points, my guess would be control for community mapping.
?ÿ
I will also say that a cursory look at the posted plat, from my professional standpoint, is that the surveyor did a very good job.?ÿ
I could probably find something to quibble about on any plat, but if I encountered this plat while doing a survey I would begin very happy.?ÿ
This is from 1991, some surveyors didn't have CAD then, I really started with Autocad a few years before that, and very few surveyors had GPS. GIS was just starting and it wasn't GPS generated then.?ÿ
?ÿ
FD
Hey Bud, why are you concerned with what??s outside the plat boundary? I??m playing devils advocate here. Other than checking boundary monuments and centerline PCP verification Orange County does not have any authority to reject a plat because someone questions external boundary issues unless blatantly obvious. However the County Surveyor (at least in Orange County) can reject it for inconclusive information. ?????ÿ
I admire the fact you are so inquisitive and wanting to learn. I have a feeling that you will be very successful. Keep on asking! Warning: us old farts ain??t much good for anything other than opinions. ?????ÿ
1991? these probably aren't GPS points, my guess would be control for community mapping
I found out this morning, that they're azimuth points set near section corners for the purpose of tying in those corners to the SPC system.