:-D:-$:excruciating::-):-P
Aye read watt ewe rote butt mist thee airer.
Suggested legal description:
THENCE by a curve 0.11' to a punch on the same capped pin thanks to some CADMonkey
Stephen Ward, post: 325666, member: 1206 wrote: Dang English language and its homophones.....what I meant to type was "can be led astray."
words are hard.
Stephen Ward, post: 325555, member: 1206 wrote: All too often I find subdivision plats with ridiculously short line and curve segments along the roads where the side lines intersect the R.O.W. Often it appears that no one bothered to see if the lot lines could be tweaked to eliminate the short segments while still maintaining minimum lots area, width, etc. This one goes on my wall of shame as an example of what not to do:
Read it and weep. Yes, Ladies and Gents, that is a genuine curve segment with a length of 0.11'. :pinch:
This stuff has been bugging me for quite a while, and the .11 feet isn't probably the worst thing there, imagine where the fence is going to be built with 2 corners 1.9' apart. They always seem to go to the wrong one.
You are right, just a little extra time and you can put corners together along a common back line or make the PC of a curve also be the property corner instead of one less than 2' away
Depending on the age of the original plat... it could be an honest problem. I have one subdivision near me that was done by a computer (before they were as common as they are today) where you sent the boundary and parameters via a phone connection and you would just get back coordinates (1970's). Now the surveyor should of paid more attention to his drawing. But being overwhelmed by tons of coordinates and having to hand draw probably didn't see this. I agree that they should be the same point.
CAD jockeys are a problem too. Doing a mile stretch of ROW and marking centerline pi and pvi and had two only 0.10 apart.
mattharnett, post: 325681, member: 6458 wrote: thanks to some CADMonkey
It isn't a new issue. The 1958 plat I sometimes complain about on here has distances like 0.9 between back corners of opposing lots.
Scotland, post: 325723, member: 559 wrote: Depending on the age of the original plat... it could be an honest problem. I have one subdivision near me that was done by a computer (before they were as common as they are today) where you sent the boundary and parameters via a phone connection and you would just get back coordinates (1970's). Now the surveyor should of paid more attention to his drawing. But being overwhelmed by tons of coordinates and having to hand draw probably didn't see this. I agree that they should be the same point.
CAD jockeys are a problem too. Doing a mile stretch of ROW and marking centerline pi and pvi and had two only 0.10 apart.
Old copies of the California Surveyor magazine have advertisements for the computer services. They can be viewed on the CLSA website.
Robert Hill, post: 325665, member: 378 wrote: You might find 4 pins 0.11' apart.
Yes it's cadd monkeys using automated software and incompetent surveyors stamping with no review.
I had one a few years ago where the rear lines of a s/d of some the lots were 365.43' on a curve. The tangent of the curve was 365.38'. The s/d was a bust so the engineer/developer who had some local stroke sold off part of the s/d to the school board for a new middle school. I got the boundary and design survey for the project and had to deal with staking the lots that were never staked.
The developer walked away with tax payer money to bail his failed development and cut his losses too.
I totally disagree! A good cadmonkey would have fixed that and would have thrown a "BS Flag" in the face of the engineer that designed it that way.
Scotland, post: 325723, member: 559 wrote: Depending on the age of the original plat... it could be an honest problem.
You're correct, but in this case the plat was recorded in 2004. C42 (the 0.11' curve) was out of order with the other curve labels around the cul-de-sac. I believe it was added when someone discovered that the subject lot didn't close. Oddly, they failed to change the arc on the adjacent lot so it overshoots the sideline by 0.11'. Gotta love it.
I had a plat where I had to match another surveyors R/W plan that ended up in a line segment of 0.05'. I hated doing it but it
was either that or call several other lines off by seconds. I didn't like it but it was cleaner in the long run.
A lot of times this sort of thing is the result of trying to match an engineer's design to a subsequent on the ground survey. It's a poor effort in marrying the two (design and survey). I take all engineering designs as conceptual and redo the CAD work myself to insure that the line work is neat. Most engineers I'm familiar with don't use CAD properly anyway.
Not too dissimilar to a set of road construction plans I saw just a couple of weeks ago. They show a drainage ditch alignment with one of the curves having a total length of 0.80 feet. Go figure.
If I "HAD" to do that, the corner would be a short section of 3 or 4" pipe so BOTH values would fit in the pipe. 🙂
Otherwise, I wouldn't let that happen.
Where are the delta angles? Without them, it will not pass S.O.P.
JPH, post: 325559, member: 6636 wrote: I see a few other shorties there too. What the heck. I mean, who does that kind of stuff?
Civil Engineers, and Landscape Architects, and
newbies".....
Sadly, have seen this many times in my career. Typically stems from taking the preliminary & final platting out of the Surveying Department's hands so that "we can keep the other folks busy". When the Surveyor is asked to review, stamp & sign the final plat that contains this nonsense and he/she then asks the design team why these tiny segments are in the plat geometry and why they weren't caught and fixed in the final plat stage, the "design professionals" just stare at you like you have 3 heads growing out of your shoulders.
In a world of mediocrity, it's easy to excel...
When I practiced I always kept PC's & PT's at corners ... if possible
BUT ... I would NEVER attack another surveyor's work for the use of such a short segment.
I take note of your later post and see that C40 is followed by C42, and would like to see the section of map that shows what happened where C41 might have been.
I'm also curious if the three differences(C42 between) in radii are the result of fitting a compound curve?
In any case, maybe we should blame the software companies and the survey equipment companies for giving us instruments that measure to 0.01' or less ... it's overkill and it's useless ... NO ONE EVER argues over less than a foot???????
Oh ... and let's not forget the government regulations that wreak havoc on complex descriptions that require 3 decimal places to close within their "requirements", unless a surveyor is willing ... in those "special" situations to fudge that last call by a hundreth or two on a 250 acre survey with all sorts of twists and turns.
At least the surveyor(the one who signed the plat), isn't going to short circuit your calculator with radii that are anything but even numbered feet ... be thankful.
BTW ... I never ... NEVER used 3 decimal places on my maps/descriptions(I bastrsized the 1 or 2 hundreths if I had to "please" the goverment gods ... something I'm generally not proud of ... making a 1:40,000 closure, just a little better) ...
BUT I NEVER %#$*&@$#!&^#$%&^@$#!&^#^%&# cussed under my breath at a surveyor who did it ... especially if their work was precise and accurate otherwise.
