Plat Drawing & Coordinates Disagree

A Little Light On The Ink For Decimal Points.

One should first assume all distances have 2 decimal places until proven otherwise.

To be consistent with the long line the bearing should be read as S 86°08'38" E.

That is not an error, every line has 2 directions.

The bearing along ???NTT or ???NTY ROAD is on a portion of the map that your do not have.

There is sufficient ninformation nfor a surveyor to calculate it, but my first guess would be perpendicular to the sideline.

Paul in PA

Ditto Curly. I was going to say the same.

And in order to check closure, we need the bearing on that short western side.

In most (not all) cases, found monuments that are in general agreement with the plat will control over the numbers. The plat is the "treasure map" to help you find the monuments. Knowing what to do with discrepancies between the numbers and what's on the ground is what licensed surveyors get paid for. They have to evaluate all the evidence; plat, deed history, monumentation, occupation, etc.

One Does Not Check For Closure Of A Plat

You check it for consistency with the record. Generally on a plat there are numerous routses that one might take for closure. No one of them is better than any other.

Without a prior record even the outbound cannot be properly checked.

In looking at this map, I would assume this to be a tract in a colonial State.

Paul in PA

A Little Light On The Ink For Decimal Points.

> One should first assume all distances have 2 decimal places until proven otherwise.
>
> To be consistent with the long line the bearing should be read as S 86°08'38" E.
>
> That is not an error, every line has 2 directions.
>
> The bearing along ???TTY ROAD is on a portion of the map that your do not have.
>
> There is sufficient ninformation nfor a surveyor to calculate it, but my first guess would be perpendicular to the sideline.
>
> Paul in PA

I found 4 errors in the bearing calls just during my initial study of the map. The assumption is S 86-08-38 E doesn't look correct either. On the Eastern side of the property it calls N 4-40-15 E which I believe should be N 4-40-15 W. On the Northern line on 12B, the bearing S 86-44-26 E is wrong as well.

We have to make some assumptions on where North is. If it is vertical to the paper/photocopy/scan, then the southern boundary looks a bit wrong as well, since it is called S 72-50-40 E, it shouldn't be as parallel to the other lines running E-W.

Maybe I'm being too critical, but it appears on the surface that this thing will never close with the given information.

Using a distance-distance intersection the lots closes fine, using the available data. You can certainly understand the intent of the plan. The angle at the western end of the north line is wrong of course, but the intent is clear.

Sometimes I wonder how some of you folks ever get anything done when all you see are problems and not solutions!

One Does Not Check For Closure Of A Plat

I would suggest that it is useful to check closure in order to be certain one has read the (sometimes indistinct) numbers correctly, to catch major transcription errors, and to get an idea of how carefully the prior survey was done. Among other things, knowing what size of discrepancies exist can be useful when deciding whether questionable monuments have been disturbed.

One Does Not Check For Closure Of A Plat

I check the closures of recorded Plats before I do any internal comps and often do a Cradal Rule Adjustment, holds bearing and adjusts distances, in other words it puts the thousandths back in the distances so I have matching bearings to the second in my comps, something I find useful.
jud

A Little Light On The Ink For Decimal Points.

> To be consistent with the long line the bearing should be read as S 86°08'38" E.
>
> That is not an error, every line has 2 directions.

Even if it read as S 86°08'38" E, the long line is not drawn to be "N-E" in relation to your SE line, it would be deflecting the other way from the "S-E" line. There is definite problems with this plat.

I like to try to resolve obvious typos (not necessarily that "obvious" per se, but typos where, if you correct the apparent typo, you suddenly have closure and your area matches the published area. or that sort of thing. But regardless, I, as a surveyor, might find an obvious (in my opinion) error, but the subdivision could have already been staked. This can create ambiguities, in that you can interpret the legal description in two different ways, and the first surveyor may have held one of the published bearings and distances that I find to be erroneous. Situations like these need to be worked out and all of the discrepancies drawn up, and a solution to the problem should be worked out with the landowners if possible; and a new drawing/legal description, or boundary line agreements, should possibly be worked out so as to have a proper legal description in the records resolving the ambiguous or inadequate legal descriptions.

As to precedence of coordinates vs. bearings and distances, many will tell you that bearings and distances take precedence over coordinates. However, in my humble opinion, the surveyor needs to find out what is in harmony and where possible typos or blunders occurred, and not just apply some hierarchy to a real problem. It is clear to me that if you change a bearing (for instance from NE to NW) and then you have coordinates and areas that work to the published values, as well as good closure, you would not apply some hierarchy holding the bogus bearing and changing all the other data.

In my opinion, robrob needs a good, competent surveyor who knows his stuff to see what is going on out there, and what his options might be. Who knows, it might be properly marked on the ground and built with all the discrepancies resolved. And if not, he needs to know his options and what kind of expenses corrections might incur.

(no offense in referring to robrob in the third person. Just addressing it that way since my reply is to Paul)

foggyidea ?

So you are sure S 18°27'18" W is consistent for the next lot and the plat?

At a minimum one determines that bearing 3 ways from the information given. i.e. around Lot 12B, around Lot 12-A and around the perimeter of both. One then determines the best fit of the 3 solutions. One could still not agree with the plat, which you do not have. A surveyor must be very cautious when proceeding without proper research.

Paul in PA

:good:

I just saw this after I made my long post talking about the "problems"....:-D

This is just where you start Paul, not finish...

After 30+ years doing this I've figured out a thing or two, and one of the first is to check the plan for obvious errors.

Of course since: 1) I'm not the surveyor doing this job, 2) I don't know what state this is in, 3) and I'm not doing the field work, ever, for this lot, I'm not qualified to make a decision on the question.

However, that doesn't preclude me from offering steps towards a solution rather than just pointing out problems.

A Little Light On The Ink For Decimal Points.

Even if it read as S 86°08'38" E, the long line is not drawn to be "N-E" in relation to your SE line, it would be deflecting the other way from the "S-E" line. There is definite problems with this plat.

Thanks Tom, that is the problem I noticed with my southern boundary. This lot is in Hays County, Texas.

The southern boundary line on the plat does not match the bearing & distance numbers. Using all the bearings and distance numbers this lot does close so that's why I believe the northern line of the map foggyidea posted below is what the surveyor was trying to do, he just deflected his line the opposite direction and then simply closed the plot by drawing from that point to the far southwest corner point.

I haven't tried to look for pins or monuments on the property yet.

Thanks for all the help guys,

Rob

Foggyidea, that's what I plotted when I ran all the bearings and distances. Using that line I was able to close the lot within 1 foot using Sketchup and Google Earth.

My lot is 12-B and the point of contention is labeled 9 and 9N. The line on the plat uses 9N and the bearings and distances from points 8 and 10 give point 9.

North is up in the graphic below. The lot is in central Texas and no one has built on lot 12-A or 12-B. I haven't looked for pins or monuments yet.

The bearing and distance for the short western side of the lot is N17 15 25E 50' and the lot does close when using the bearing and distance numbers on the plat but Lot 12-B's southern border bulges south, not north like in the drawing.

That dogleg was placed there for a reason, looks like an existing road would provide access the the rear of the Northerly tract if the elbow pointed South. Don't see any terrain problems preventing or making it difficult for the owners of the lot to the South having access to the rear of their lot.
jud

is there an acreage associated with the parcel? That might help. looks like someone wrote NW instead of NE (or SW)....

Yes, I have the plat acreage for my Lot 12-B as 5.057 acres and Sketchup gives 4.676 acres when the southern boundary line is followed and 5.067 when the bearing and distance numbers are used. The acreage of the other lot, 12-A, agrees with what Sketchup calculates when the numbers are followed. So everything seems to fit if the bearing and distance numbers are used. Next time I'm out there I'm going to take the metal detector and look for monuments at Point 9.

The original Lot closes...

The original Lot 12-B is a platted lot in Longview II, a plat of record in Vol. 3, Pgs. 141-143, Plat Records Hays County, Texas.
Apparently, 12-C has been cut out of the original lot.

Mapcheck of Original Lot:

Select figure: Figure Name: LOT 12-B
Course: N 17-15-25 E Distance: 50.00
Course: N 50-43-00 E Distance: 235.21
Course: N 56-43-40 E Distance: 117.48
Course: N 40-49-11 E Distance: 319.93
Course: S 34-43-25 E Distance: 75.00
Course: N 88-50-25 E Distance: 251.44
Course: S 37-02-55 E Distance: 232.87
Course: S 04-40-15 W Distance: 206.98
Course: S 84-18-16 W Distance: 701.46
Course: N 86-08-38 W Distance: 224.31

Perimeter: 2414.68

Area: 291741.42 6.70 acres
Mapcheck Closure - (Uses listed courses & COGO Units)
Error of Closure: 0.005 Course: S 49-14-24 W
Precision 1: 501551.94

I formerly worked for the surveyor of record of this plat and quit their firm about a year or two before this plat was recorded (1984).

The signing surveyor has been deceased for about a decade now.
My office is about 20-25 minutes away from this site. There are several survey firms in this area, I have worked for most of them and know the rest.

Bryan...

It looks like the south line of 12B is drawn wrong? At least per your data.