Anyone prorate bearings in lot and block retacements? Any examples of how this is done and why?
> Anyone prorate bearings in lot and block retacements? Any examples of how this is done and why?
Would that be comparable to a "best fit" line along the r/w lines between found corners. That seems to be a common practice for some folks to establish centerline control.
I've just never thought that just because CAD offers that option, it is necessarily the best solution.
Howdy Dane,
Well, I'm not really sure what you mean by “prorate,” but I assume that you mean something along the lines of an “average rotation” relative to some specific “Basis of Bearing.”
In some situations, this involves TWO unique “rotations” (LOCAL East-West lines & LOCAL North-South lines).
If this is what you are asking about, then:
Yes...sometimes...
I generally use a weighted mean solution that is based on the LENGHTS of the observed lines (all together or split by North-South and East West lines as separate suites). So longer LINES get more weight than shorter (observed) lines. Sometimes the relative rotations between the East-West and North-South Lines are trivial, sometimes they are NOT.
I am currently working on a project that involves a 20 square mile Townsite in which the LOTS and BLOCKS are a series of rectangles, parallelograms, trapezoids, and trapeziums (it varies depending on where you are in Town). A real freaking nightmare to say the least.
Loyal
> Anyone prorate bearings in lot and block retacements? Any examples of how this is done and why?
Dane, You mean like in a city block?
The party chief I worked for in 1982, 60 years old at the time, would proportion the bearings for lots. I think this is what you are talking about. Example: The lot lines on the west and east ends of the blocks were North on the original plat, and holding north on one end after traversing around the block, you might get N 0º 10' E. on the other end. (Made up scenario). If you had 10 equal-sized lots, you would proportion the first bearing to n 1'e, the second to n 2' e, etc.
Of course everything wasn't to the even minute....but that is for example purposes.
Did that make sense?
Tom
Peter
I am interested in what folks in other parts of the country do. That is why I posted here without reference to another message board. I did not want folks views tainted by the other discussion.
loyal
Thanks for your precision in language. I was intentionaly vague,so as to elicit a wide range of comments.
Peter
excuse me.
I was not aware you had seen that post.
I Might consider that, given the "RIGHT" set of circumstances, record, evidence found, etc.
I would be more inclined to work thru the distance issues first and let the brgs fall where they may.
If the basis of the boundary is by bearing alone, like in a radial layout, that would be appear to be appropriate.
Mostly distances are subject to prorate values and the bearings fall as they may.
Hey Rankin and A Harris
Do you two have some weird kind of psychic connection?;-)
