By the way, for those who may be interested in metes and bounds descriptions, here's a link to the written description that I prepared for the 90.00 acre Tract 1 shown on the sketch below.
The idea is that the written description both gives the main evidence upon which the boundaries of the tract from which the 90 acres was severed were determined as well as actually describing the boundaries of the 90 acres.
As with other examples I've posted before, this one also gives a list of geodetic grid coordinates of pretty much every point mentioned in the description on the theory that it will make future resurveying very light work. If it doesn't, I sure want to know why.
Written Description for 90 ac. (pdf)
I suppose the KISS method doesn't work well in Tejas. I like being thorough, but all that is ridiculous.
> I suppose the KISS method doesn't work well in Tejas. I like being thorough, but all that is ridiculous.
Well, every part of that description serves a purpose. What would you want to eliminate?
I like it. I really like it. Will your clients pay you for it? In other words, I can't believe this was cheap in cost. The product certainly isn't cheap and I would expect a similar price to be associated with it.
In today's price competitive market, this level of detail is hard to get paid for in many localities.
But I still like it. Great work!
Well, #1 would be the coordinates. OR, write a description that is easy for others to follow and leave all the minutia in a report if you are going to be that detailed. I understand everything you mentioned serves a purpose, however, there is a thing as TOO much info in a description.
> I like it. I really like it. Will your clients pay you for it? In other words, I can't believe this was cheap in cost. The product certainly isn't cheap and I would expect a similar price to be associated with it.
Well, when you consider that the main product of a survey is the actual description that will be used to convey the land, at some point paring things down results in a genuine loss of quality. The other element is that in Texas a surveyor is obligated to report all the evidence upon which a boundary determination was based, not just describe some little island of land floating in the Sea of Geometry.
It took a day to write three of those and prepare the sketch, so they didn't really cost that much. As for the price competition angle, that particular client had been referred to me by his attorney who described the work we did as top quality, not fastest and not cheapest. That was what had brought him to me, and I was glad to try to meet that expectation.
> Well, #1 would be the coordinates.
What purpose would that serve? Reporting the NAD83 coordinates of all sorts of old corners makes it possible for the next surveyor to easily integrate his or her work into the pattern of evidence.
> OR, write a description that is easy for others to follow and leave all the minutia in a report if you are going to be that detailed.
The obvious problem with a separate report is that it will be effectively lost to posterity. Embedding the details in the written description insures that the information will be more apt to be preserved.
>I understand everything you mentioned serves a purpose, however, there is a thing as TOO much info in a description.
Well, the question still stands. You've said that you'd like to omit the geodetic grid coordinates, which are one of the single most useful parts of the description. What else would you like to omit?
Well actually
"The other element is that in Texas a surveyor is obligated to report all the evidence upon which a boundary determination was based, not just describe some little island of land floating in the Sea of Geometry."
To be honest, this is really a requirement of boundary determination ANYWHERE in the country. That is if you actually do what you are supposed to do.... Much of the time you get 2 mons and clace record.... yippee job is done...
Thanks for sharing
That's how you file or record a survey when, well, you can't file or record a survey because they basically don't do it in Texas. A picture is worth a 1000 words, so in reverse it takes a thousand words to depict a picture.
Kent is very good at it. Be interesting what would be done if he could publicly record (file) his surveys (in the form of a plat or map). You can put a lot of very good stuff on a survey plat. When you can't apparently you write very prolifically.
I can only imagine what kind of out of the box problem a full blown GIS must present to Texas public records. Maybe they'll do it without the maps, a WIS (Word Information System). Kent's providing the parcel stuff they need for a GIS, good coordinates. So in the WIS when you pull it up you get a list of numbers without the map.
Unfortunately
Unfortunately, the attorney's assistant will write the deed and decide what is included in the description, editing out all of the metadata, point numbers, etc. She might even add a typo into a bearing or distance, which will add some confusion into a well written documentary.
Unfortunately, we surveyors, in Texas, cannot stop that process from happening. Unfortunately, that very scenario happens every day in Texas.
The key to communication is brevity.
Washer or Cap?
"Standard Spike and Washer" you describe as a spike with an aluminum cap. Is it a washer or a cap? (Page 3)
Kent
I have to admit I'm fascinated that you have basically flipped what I tend to think of as a 'showpiece' survey upside down. When I want to show someone an example of my work, I tend to dig out a really slick MAP, not a report. You have pared the map part down to the barest of bones and made it work. I think what makes that most interesting is the irony that you have a real artists eye and skill with drawing. I would think that if anything, your maps would look more like something from the history books. My guess is that this is something that you've put a lot of thought into, in terms of putting the focus on what is important in a survey, not what looks pretty.
Andy
I also saw it as TMI.
On the other hand, if I were retracing this survey at some point in the future, shame on me if I can't come up with exactly the same parcel(s) as Kent did.
> The key to communication is brevity.
I'm not sure I can agree with that. For instance: a brief statement to an exaggerated brevity, such as "a tract of land totaling 90 acres" (or, perhaps simply "90 acres") would not appropriately describe key elements such as where on earth the property lies, nor the shape of the acreage.
I have seen a number of definitions for legal descriptions, but one common theme is that a legal description is adequate if it can be identified on the ground.
I might question whether the precision warrants three places behind the decimal place in the coordinate values. If it does, shouldn't the acreage also be written to a common precision? 90.00 acres is to a precision of ± 200 square feet. Bearings and distance to the nearest hundredth of a foot would also imply coordinates to around the same hundredth of a foot. Even still, too precise, is better than not precise enough.
Regardless, having coordinates might be an extremely supportive element in a legal description. It can help the retracing surveyor confirm the other calls, isolate errors, help the retracer easily find a search-area for the monuments, and/or provide a precise location to replace an obliterated monument. Whining about too much information seems to be the silly stance in my humble opinion.
Unfortunately
> Unfortunately, the attorney's assistant will write the deed and decide what is included in the description, editing out all of the metadata, point numbers, etc. She might even add a typo into a bearing or distance, which will add some confusion into a well written documentary.
>
> Unfortunately, we surveyors, in Texas, cannot stop that process from happening. Unfortunately, that very scenario happens every day in Texas.
Actually, I don't think I've ever had a metes and bounds description rewritten by an attorney or his assistant. They all just use the document I provide as an exhibit.
Washer or Cap?
> "Standard Spike and Washer" you describe as a spike with an aluminum cap.
Good catch. Yes, that should read "washer".
Kent
> Actually, I don't think I've ever had a metes and bounds description rewritten by an attorney or his assistant. They all just use the document I provide as an exhibit.
You've lived a charmed life then.
What will happen 75 years from now after 5 land transactions when 2 or 3 paragraphs of the written description have been left off?
The parties involved will consult the MAP to figure out what was the INTENT.
Target
What would happen 75 years from now if you wrote a sub-standard description and information was left off?
One cannot put LESS information on a description because one thinks somebody will leave it off some years down the line...what kind of rationale is that?