Why do people not understand the difference between recording data in state plain (grid) and the need to write the descriptions in ground?
Why is the sky blue?
What's the problem?
If somebody writes it in grid, and supplies proper metadata, isn't that everything?
Or
Writes it in ground, and provides Reverse Metadata, to place it on grid?
More info is always better than less.
Nate
?ÿ
How can shooting the same three points result in an angular difference that works out to over 0.5 feet in a half mile??ÿ Both surveyors using GPS.?ÿ Wide open to sky.
Does anyone still understand what a station offset is to determine right-of-way points?
How about grid distances in the description provided to the client with no way for any user of the deed to be aware of the discrepancy.?ÿ New tract.
Sat through a whole seminar where the speaker railed against using ground distances in descriptions. I asked what to do when the scale shrinks the ground by .8' per 1000' and he didn't think that was an issue.?ÿ
I like to get it within 5ppm or less if possible, seems like a surveyor should be able to do that for small flat jobs.?ÿ
This is yet another argument in favor of Low Distortion Projections. The ground and the grid distances are practically the same.?ÿ?ÿ
Just say 'You're right, silly me, I'll just advise my clients to drop 30K on a pair of receivers so they can locate their property".
@holy-cow And I assure you even if you add a plain English statement saying this description is on the grid (with an explanation of grid vs ground) someone somewhere will remove that statement.
Except when they are off about 4 to 6 inches per mile.
We argue about adjustments the width of half a gnat's ass but ignore a half a foot per mile.
Out here in the Mountain West, the vast majority of (but not all)?ÿ Deeds, Descriptions, Patents, etc. are based on "True Bearings & True (ground) Distances." I believe that (to the extent practical) modern descriptions should follow that lead.
HOWEVER, the Earth ain't flat! Elevations can very several thousand feet in a given Section, AND here in the mid-latitudes, two "True North" lines a mile apart (East-West) ain't parallel (by nearly an arc-minute).?ÿ
As near as I can tell (after 50+ years of surveying), there is no silver bullet (except proper metadata)! Some folks (surveyors) are pretty good about that, but "most" (around here) are not.?ÿ
Bottom line is...there is more than one "grid" (SPC, UTM, LDP, whatever), and around these parts, NONE of them are perfect. A well designed (and documented) LDP can come close, but it will never be "perfect."
Grid to ground fudge factors can come close, but that doesn't "fix" the bearing difference between "true and grid" (in less you happen to be straddling the Central Meridian of the "grid').
I don't have a real problem with Surveys returned in SPC or UTM, so long as that fact is clearly stated, AND the values returned are REAL SPC/UTM values (no modifrickingfied crap). Although even the modifrickingfied stuff is fine, IF the recipe for that concoction is clearly stated.
There is more than one kind of footsteps that NEED to be passed on for the next guy/gal to follow.
Just my 2 bits,
Loyal
Except when they are off about 4 to 6 inches per mile.
We argue about adjustments the width of half a gnat's ass but ignore a half a foot per mile.
Or 2-3 feet per mile (or more).
???? Is that a response to my LDP comment? Typical LDP scaling would be more like 0.05'/mile.?ÿ
I get it, I really do.?ÿ But, aren't we splitting hairs a bit??ÿ Doesn't a call for monuments trump everything??ÿ Isn't this the reason we use proration, to match the others surveyor chain?
(and yes, always state grid in legal descriptions if used, but mainly to differentiate between grid north and true north.)
The inclusion of described monuments is not universally practiced.
Listing one's perfect (grid) measurements while showing on the plat that the earlier surveyor's work is wrong by whatever the distance is between grid and ground is arrogance and impugns the other surveyor.
?ÿ
If the only people using our maps were competent surveyors, SPC would be less of an issue. We record for the public benefit, which brings in a range of thinking and reasoning abilities. Then you get to explain to the planner that my grid 9986 square foot lot is really a compliant 10k at ground. It just creates more problems and solves none. Bring it to ground using the best tool in your box and move on.
My .02, Tom?ÿ
Doesn't a call for monuments trump everything??ÿ Isn't this the reason we use proration, to match the others surveyor chain?
I think the real answer is even more simple than that.?ÿ Writing a description in GPS mumbo jumbo doesn't do the landowner any good.?ÿ If I'm a landowner and I hire a surveyor to locate my deed I'm going to be pretty pissed if I can't roll out there over the next 50 or 100 years with some relatively low-tech tools (compass/protractor/tape, etc) and find my pins.
It seems like there's a shift towards writing complex descriptions that only surveyors can use, and this doesn't make sense to me.?ÿ Most people aren't surveyors and most people live on the surface, so make the information accessible for the people that will actually use it!
No.?ÿ I was referring to the recent lengthy thread on closure calculations, STARNET, etc.?ÿ Fighting over miniscule measurement differences.?ÿ Then leave a half a foot, or in Loyal's case multiple feet, ignored.
I don't have a real problem with Surveys returned in SPC or UTM, so long as that fact is clearly stated, AND the values returned are REAL SPC/UTM values (no modifrickingfied crap). Although even the modifrickingfied stuff is fine, IF the recipe for that concoction is clearly stated.
There is more than one kind of footsteps that NEED to be passed on for the next guy/gal to follow.
Amen.
I get it, I really do.?ÿ But, aren't we splitting hairs a bit??ÿ Doesn't a call for monuments trump everything??ÿ Isn't this the reason we use proration, to match the others surveyor chain?
I wouldn't call it splitting hairs so much as being thorough and fulfilling our professional responsibilities.
Sure, original monuments hold over course and distance, but if two individuals are using similar industry-standard equipment and employing?ÿ industry-standard techniques, they should be able to match each other within a reasonable tolerance. If there is a significant discrepancy between them that can cast doubt upon either surveyor's methods, the "true" location of the monument or line, or both. As a result we can cause harm to the public, not to mention damage to our individual reputation and the reputation of our profession as a whole.
But if two surveyors use two different, equally valid methods that can be reconciled, and both of them document their actions, it's an easy win for both our clients, the public, and our reputation.
?ÿ
In my experience the reluctance to place such information on a survey or description often stems from the licensee not wanting to sign off on language (and technical concepts) that they do not understand.
tate plain
plane