If a jurisdiction has a requirement that a lot must be an acre minimum to build on, but based on a survey you find the area to be 0.96 acres, is there anything unethical about reporting that figure to the nearest 1 decimal place, being 1.0 acres?
That's an important question, of course it depends, but for most cases an acreage that's been accepted and recorded is the acreage to use. A 6500 sq ft lot that you go out and measures 6490 sq ft when you do the survey can cause that lot to be out of compliance.
But the city/county has already signed off on the original area and that is what should be used.
I've done similar with setbacks and haven't lost any sleep over it.?ÿ When you've explained over and over that for setback purposes 4.8' = 5' and no one will listen, then I think it may be appropriate to list 5' on your drawing.?ÿ Area is a slightly different animal in that people can get worked up over insignificant amounts of area.
To flesh out this example, 0.96 acres would be about 1,742 square feet under an acre. Assume that you have a survey that calls for monuments at all the corners, you recover all of these and they all fit the record configuration by a tenth or so. If the parcel is a square, the four sides would be about 208.7 feet. To make up the difference of 1,742 sq. ft. one of the sides would have to be about 8.3 feet different than record, well under our ability to measure. This is not a subdivision, and there is nothing in the public record stating the area.
Is there a problem, ethical or otherwise with reporting an acreage of 1.0?
?ÿ
To flesh out this example, 0.96 acres would be about 1,742 square feet under an acre. Assume that you have a survey that calls for monuments at all the corners, you recover all of these and they all fit the record configuration by a tenth or so. If the parcel is a square, the four sides would be about 208.7 feet. To make up the difference of 1,742 sq. ft. one of the sides would have to be about 8.3 feet different than record, well under our ability to measure. This is not a subdivision, and there is nothing in the public record stating the area.
Is there a problem, ethical or otherwise with reporting an acreage of 1.0?
?ÿ
Maybe there is a problem. What activates issues of compliance here is when something is going to be done with the property. At the point a building permit is issued, it may be rejected because the property is too small for the zoning requirements. It just depends on many factors.
The people that can not resolve that problem do not understand their numbers.
1 in 10,000 relates to?ÿ being within 0.03ft along the closing distance and relying the first 3 legs are much better.
I would have a decent day with those numbers being 10sqft different without changing record info.
The closure data controls what number of decimal places reported.?ÿ
To flesh out this example, 0.96 acres would be about 1,742 square feet under an acre. Assume that you have a survey that calls for monuments at all the corners, you recover all of these and they all fit the record configuration by a tenth or so. If the parcel is a square, the four sides would be about 208.7 feet. To make up the difference of 1,742 sq. ft. one of the sides would have to be about 8.3 feet different than record, well under our ability to measure. This is not a subdivision, and there is nothing in the public record stating the area.
Is there a problem, ethical or otherwise with reporting an acreage of 1.0?
?ÿ
Maybe there is a problem. What activates issues of compliance here is when something is going to be done with the property. At the point a building permit is issued, it may be rejected because the property is too small for the zoning requirements. It just depends on many factors.
Right, this comes up when something is going to be done with the property. If you prepare a map showing 1.0 acre which is the technically correct way to display 1 significant figure of the number 0.96, would this be a problem? In other words, no one else besides you knows exactly what the parcel area is, they are using your map and area to determine whether the parcel can be developed. If you were to show 1.0 acres, is that misleading, unethical, illegal...
The people that can not resolve that problem do not understand their numbers.
1 in 10,000 relates to?ÿ being within 0.03ft along the closing distance and relying the first 3 legs are much better.
I would have a decent day with those numbers being 10sqft different without changing record info.
The closure data controls what number of decimal places reported.?ÿ
Is there some law that states that closure data controls what number of decimal place are reported? I've never heard of that. I could see that there could be local codes that state areas need to be reported in square footage v. acreage or even specify how many significant numbers must be shown in acreage figures. Assuming none exists in the situation, is there a problem??ÿ
To flesh out this example, 0.96 acres would be about 1,742 square feet under an acre. Assume that you have a survey that calls for monuments at all the corners, you recover all of these and they all fit the record configuration by a tenth or so. If the parcel is a square, the four sides would be about 208.7 feet. To make up the difference of 1,742 sq. ft. one of the sides would have to be about 8.3 feet different than record, well under our ability to measure. This is not a subdivision, and there is nothing in the public record stating the area.
Is there a problem, ethical or otherwise with reporting an acreage of 1.0?
?ÿ
Maybe there is a problem. What activates issues of compliance here is when something is going to be done with the property. At the point a building permit is issued, it may be rejected because the property is too small for the zoning requirements. It just depends on many factors.
Right, this comes up when something is going to be done with the property. If you prepare a map showing 1.0 acre which is the technically correct way to display 1 significant figure of the number 0.96, would this be a problem? In other words, no one else besides you knows exactly what the parcel area is, they are using your map and area to determine whether the parcel can be developed. If you were to show 1.0 acres, is that misleading, unethical, illegal...
I would not do that, .04 acres is not insignificant with respect to 1 acre. Now if it's historically defined as 1.0 acres from old accepted deeds and a chain of title or a recorded subdivision, then it's a different story.
The people that can not resolve that problem do not understand their numbers.
1 in 10,000 relates to?ÿ being within 0.03ft along the closing distance and relying the first 3 legs are much better.
I would have a decent day with those numbers being 10sqft different without changing record info.
The closure data controls what number of decimal places reported.?ÿ
Is there some law that states that closure data controls what number of decimal place are reported? I've never heard of that. I could see that there could be local codes that state areas need to be reported in square footage v. acreage or even specify how many significant numbers must be shown in acreage figures. Assuming none exists in the situation, is there a problem??ÿ
He is not referring to a statute, but his statement is?ÿ in compliance with mathematical law. Many of us no longer calculate our precision based on closed traverses though, so that method isn't as useful anymore.
?ÿThere may be a problem if you change your ordinary practice to circumvent a regulation,?ÿ
I am simply trying to explain why it is not necessary to show an accuracy beyond what is required by using the examples of mathematical closure and BOR required accuracy to state my reasoning.
Why report nat's hair accuracy in remote rural locations.
That is reserved for when nat's hair is needed.
It is when your accuracy falls below the BOR requirement and you are reporting more accuracy than you acheived on the project for you to circumvent anything.
When a client asks more of us than our BOR asks, that is when we must tighten our grip on the reigns and charge accordingly.
1st order costs much more than 2nd order and 3rd order and within a foot is reserved for topo and GIS.
I got a copy of a drawing for 10.0000 acres.
That means that the surveyor is guaranteeing that he measured the property to withing 43.56sqft of accuracy and that no monument if off over 0.015ft.
Why subject yourself to that overkill.
Wouldn't that be 4 acre feet
I guess I meant 4 square feet
Yes, 4 sqft.
That would be where no measurement can be vary and be less than 0.0017ft of called distance.
Overkill..........
Two decimal places followed by "more or less".?ÿ?ÿ ??ÿ
Into how many divisions is the United States split?
,
,
,
58, more or less
?ÿ
That is how I view the use of "more or less" despite the fact that I use it in every description. ?ÿOff the top of my head I do not know the correct answer to the above question about the U.S. but I am fairly confident it is somewhere close to 58. ?ÿThe answer is not 50. ?ÿOf that I am sure. ?ÿDivisions are not the same as States. ?ÿThey include Puerto Rico, Washington D.C. and all sorts of island groups or single islands. ?ÿUsing 58 is merely a guess that invites anyone wanting to dispute that number to try to prove there is a better estimate. Also, the answer may be correct on the day it is written but it may tally differently at some future date.
To flesh out this example, 0.96 acres would be about 1,742 square feet under an acre. Assume that you have a survey that calls for monuments at all the corners, you recover all of these and they all fit the record configuration by a tenth or so. If the parcel is a square, the four sides would be about 208.7 feet. To make up the difference of 1,742 sq. ft. one of the sides would have to be about 8.3 feet different than record, well under our ability to measure. This is not a subdivision, and there is nothing in the public record stating the area.
Is there a problem, ethical or otherwise with reporting an acreage of 1.0?
?ÿ
Maybe there is a problem. What activates issues of compliance here is when something is going to be done with the property. At the point a building permit is issued, it may be rejected because the property is too small for the zoning requirements. It just depends on many factors.
Right, this comes up when something is going to be done with the property. If you prepare a map showing 1.0 acre which is the technically correct way to display 1 significant figure of the number 0.96, would this be a problem? In other words, no one else besides you knows exactly what the parcel area is, they are using your map and area to determine whether the parcel can be developed. If you were to show 1.0 acres, is that misleading, unethical, illegal...
I don't think that you are trying to circumvent a regulation.?ÿ I think that you are trying to circumvent land use administrators' misunderstanding of significant figures.?ÿ That being said, the practice that you are describing could be misleading and less than best practice.?ÿ It could leave your survey open to questions from future surveyors.?ÿ I know that I question surveys when the levels of precision between measurements don't match, such as distances listed to the tenth with bearings to the minute and areas listed in acres to the fourth decimal place.?ÿ Often on our plats, we have a section with various notes, such as "subject parcel lies with flood zone x ....".?ÿ Maybe you could add a note saying that the subject parcel meets the definition of a 1 acre lot per subdivision ordinance xxxx ....?ÿ
I had 1 instructor say to use as few decimal places as possible since it's the least accurate call.?ÿ I had another one say to use as many as your instruments will give you because that's what it's measuring.?ÿ So I dunno, I think less is probably better.
Here's my take on it:
10 ac. square - 660.00' x 660.00'.?ÿ Alta survey, just meeting tolerance, so uncertainty in lengths is ?ñ0.103'.?ÿ?ÿ
Then the uncertainty in the area would be: ?ñsqrt((660 X 0.103)^2 +(660 X 0.103)^2) = ?ñ96 sq. ft. = ?ñ0.002 ac.
How then can you confidently report area to 0.001 acre?
My favorite was the map of a 90-something acre tract in REALLY inhospitable terrain that reported the acreage to six decimal places.?ÿ Something like 6 square inches? Ahhahahahaha.....
The 0.0001 is in the topography.
The 0.0001 is in the topography.
