Does paragraph #2 require record data to be shown on the survey drawing, or, does it merely allow record data, if shown, to be in other units.
To me it says that measured data must be in feet, and allows other units for record data. In other words, we don't have to convert chains to feet to comply with the first sentence.
2. Bearing and basis of bearings and length of lines to the nearest one one-hundredth of a foot and ties to witness monuments. Other record data may be shown in chains, varas or other units of measurement as implemented by older surveys.
> Does paragraph #2 require record data to be shown on the survey drawing, or, does it merely allow record data, if shown, to be in other units.
>
> To me it says that measured data must be in feet, and allows other units for record data. In other words, we don't have to convert chains to feet to comply with the first sentence.
>
> 2. Bearing and basis of bearings and length of lines to the nearest one one-hundredth of a foot and ties to witness monuments. Other record data may be shown in chains, varas or other units of measurement as implemented by older surveys.
I agree. I generally show record data in the unit in which it was shown and to the significant figure as originally show. IE if the OG plat calls 229 feet. I put (229')..... not 229.00
If it's a call for 10 chains I'd put (10 ch).
If I was holding the 660 feet or 10ch due to no monuments or lines of possession etc to reestablish a line then I may also show the conversion of (10ch = 660') on the line, or at least show the conversion in my legend for the common folk.
I ditto the McGrath methodology....
Needs be a ongoing discussion to NOT introduce false accuracy to
record "whole" units just to make a map "look" more uniform.
My two cents...
I don't think stating record dimensions using more significant digits than did the original alters the accuracy of anything. If the value of the survey is diminished by doing so, there's something wrong with the survey.
My usual practice is to use the same number of significant digits for both record and measured, but I'll occasionally drop some superfluous zeroes from a record citation if I need to conserve space.
Note that reducing the stated precision of a record dimension is a different matter, and in some situations could even be fraudulent.
I'm thinking 0.000001894 miles is a pretty tight unit.
In days of old we would jokingly try to convert velocities into furlongs per fortnight.
I read ARS §33-105(C)(2) to mean that measured data must be shown in feet to the hundredth of a foot and allows record data to shown in the units used in the record. To me, paragraph 2 does not explicitly require that record data be shown. However, paragraph (C) (5) does if it is germane.
