What's wrong with typing in information??ÿ That's the simplest way to make sure parallel lines are parallel and lines of identical lengths have identical numbers listed.?ÿ Auto-anything is dumb.?ÿ Such software does not understand "what I really meant was......."
Auto-anything is dumb
Cripes Radars, throw the error(s) in the last lot like the old way of doing things. ?????ÿ
What's wrong with typing in information??ÿ That's the simplest way to make sure parallel lines are parallel and lines of identical lengths have identical numbers listed.?ÿ Auto-anything is dumb.?ÿ Such software does not understand "what I really meant was......."
When the annotation is "attached" to the line, and the line is moved, the annotation updates.?ÿ So, in your example, the lines have to be actually parallel for the annotation to so indicate. And when the lines are parallel, the annotation will so indicate.
I think that the advantages of having the linework actually reflect what the annotations say they do should be obvious.?ÿ ?ÿIf you are mapping one or two 4 sided lots those advantages may not be so great, but as you get into larger numbers of lots, and irregular formations, it quickly becomes a lifesaver well worth the effort to come to grips with. You deal with one thing - the linework - and everything else follows.
Naturally this does not?ÿ release you from the responsibility to do a good old fashioned check of the final product in whatever way makes you comfortable. But it sure cuts down on the f'ing around.?ÿ ?ÿ?ÿ
cuts down on the f'ing around
back in my day, we chiseled words into rocks; there was no margin for error. If you f'd around, and made a mistake, you had to start all over!
The surveyor "go to"...
It depends. ??? ????ÿ
I think that the advantages of having the linework actually reflect what the annotations say they do should be obvious.?ÿ ?ÿIf you are mapping one or two 4 sided lots those advantages may not be so great, but as you get into larger numbers of lots, and irregular formations, it quickly becomes a lifesaver well worth the effort to come to grips with. You deal with one thing - the linework - and everything else follows.
Naturally this does not?ÿ release you from the responsibility to do a good old fashioned check of the final product in whatever way makes you comfortable. But it sure cuts down on the f'ing around.
Non-dynamic/automated annotation is often the bane of my existence. Automation minimizes typos, speeds up drafting and cuts down on manual data entry. Once you get the label styles set up properly it is a massive time saver.
Not using it causes major problems on the design and construction staking side too. We get handed plansets all the time with grades that don't match up at all with spot elevations. Go into the CAD drawing file and yup, it's a bunch of dumb text. These are IFC plansets, stamped and signed. Then they get all huffy when we send in RFI after RFI asking them what they want us to do about it. There's only so much field fitting one can do, and if it's anything involving ADA compliance I'm not taking on that liability.
It's often not anything complicated either - parking lot, curb & gutter, sidewalk stuff. It blows my mind that so many engineers and surveyors pay for some pretty slick cost-saving and error-trapping functionality but totally ignore it.
This is what makes professionals appear to be inept.?ÿ You and I know a two second difference between the listed bearing of lines that are, by definition, parallel is irrelevant in a reach of 80 feet.?ÿ Someone else sees this difference and demands to know why the lines are not parallel.?ÿ FIX IT, DAMMIT?ÿ A 1000-foot line, per the prior deed that you are matching, measured 999.9949 between your two shots.?ÿ BS?ÿ That is a 1000.00-foot line.?ÿ Don't introduce problems that don't really exist.
My first computer teacher, back in the days of a computer taking up four classrooms worth of space, assured the entire class that computers are the stupidest things in the world.?ÿ They don't "know" anything.?ÿ The information provided to them by humans is the entire basis of their "knowledge".?ÿ If the humans do not feed them information of sufficient quality, the computer won't improve that information.
The term 'business model' is being used a bit today.?ÿ What works adequately for one may not work at all for the other.?ÿ So keep that in mind.
In my case, 95 percent of my jobs are small, one-off property boundary surveys where the end product is going to be printed on paper.?ÿ The product goes to the client and to the courthouse for recording/filing so the whole world can access what I did for the next millennium.?ÿ That product needs to be perfect.
If you are in a completely different business model and your work stays in a digital form for use by numerous others to insert into their work functions, that is quite a different end product.?ÿ Share the ignorance with everyone.?ÿ No one will care a year from now.
@dougie?ÿ
All data can be labeled as inaccurate.?ÿ All data can be labeled as accurate.
@holy-cow Perhaps if we stopped acting like engineers with our perfect repetition folks might understand what we really do (and what we can't do). The flip side of your statement is that my 999.98 dimension is in agreement with a prior 1000' dimension. I'm not calling someone wrong by two hundredths, I'm saying the record measurement is repeatable within modern tolerance. I'll publish a map of the same line 10 years later with a few hundredths difference if that's what I happen to measure at the time. In 42 years I've had one person try to reject my map over this very example. He gained an understanding that day and my map recorded without an issue.
There are arguments both ways but at the end of the day I report evidence, part of which is my imperfect measurements. My way isn't the only way but it certainly is valid and professional.?ÿ
My position is that if a property description, that has NEVER been surveyed, calls for a distance of 1000 feet, then the surveyor should establish monuments that are 1000.00 feet apart.?ÿ The next guy may claim to find them a few hundredths long or short.?ÿ But, there is no excuse for inept reporting simply because it was a bit windy on the day an attempt was made to set two bars 1000.00 feet apart.
if you're attempting to set 2 points, precisely 1000.000' apart, on a windy day, you're doing it wrong...
I love it when a survey map shows a 200 plus acre parcel to 3 decimal places.?ÿ If they only knew!
One of my favorites,,,,or the lots shown to one hundredth of a square foot.?ÿ
if you're attempting to set 2 points, precisely 1000.000' apart, on a windy day, you're doing it wrong...
.... with RTK and your dc set up in a State Plane zone....
OK, so I'm now moving off in another direction. If you have a deed dimension of 1000' (as an example) that has never been surveyed .... . The first to survey that line should make every effort to place a monument at 1000' as exactly as reasonably possible, and the property owners will have every right to act in good faith in reliance on that monument's position. Future surveyors who find that monument at 999.90' or 1000.10' have to realize that their error ellipse certainly intersects the record number, that is, that your number du jour is certainly plus or minus an amount that makes it include the record number. So call it 1000.00' because you really can't be certain that it isn't 1000.0000'.?ÿ Nevertheless the monument so placed is not controlling, the deed dimension is, until, perhaps, the monument has been in place long enough, and the adjoiners have done enough things in reliance upon it, to constitute evidence of an unwritten agreement.?ÿ
In my case, 95 percent of my jobs are small, one-off property boundary surveys where the end product is going to be printed on paper.?ÿ
As I wrote, in such a map of just one or two lots the "auto-annotation" is less of an advantage.?ÿ With maps having even a half dozen parcels it is going to be worth it to use auto-annotations, and it is absurd to if you are doing hundred lot subdivision maps to try it without. I fell this as strongly about this as I do about topographic mapping without Field to Finish.?ÿSomeone wrote the intemperate blanket remark that "auto anything is dumb", which is what I challenge.?ÿ "Auto anything doesn't help me much with the sort of work I usually do" is a more accurate statement. Words mean things and there are impressionable minds reading these postings.?ÿ ?ÿ ?ÿ ?ÿ
The recording agency is going to be the first line of defense for answering the stupid questions
For a long time, in Washington State, the Surveyors stamp had the expiration date on it. Your license needs to be renewed ever 2 years, on your birthday. So your stamp had your birthday, but the year was blank.
Enough people asked the stupid question: Is this when my survey expires? So they made us take it off. If you had a rubber stamp, you took an X-acto knife and scraped it off.
Digital was easier...
Yes. That is when your survey expires!
This is what makes professionals appear to be inept.?ÿ You and I know a two second difference between the listed bearing of lines that are, by definition, parallel is irrelevant in a reach of 80 feet.?ÿ Someone else sees this difference and demands to know why the lines are not parallel.?ÿ FIX IT, DAMMIT?ÿ A 1000-foot line, per the prior deed that you are matching, measured 999.9949 between your two shots.?ÿ BS?ÿ That is a 1000.00-foot line.?ÿ Don't introduce problems that don't really exist.
My first computer teacher, back in the days of a computer taking up four classrooms worth of space, assured the entire class that computers are the stupidest things in the world.?ÿ They don't "know" anything.?ÿ The information provided to them by humans is the entire basis of their "knowledge".?ÿ If the humans do not feed them information of sufficient quality, the computer won't improve that information.
Why not just draw the lines parallel? Then the auto works. It seems like a strange idea to not have the lines actually be parallel in the dwg.
