TheSwamp
CAD Forums => Vertically Challenged => Land Lubber / Geographically Positioned => Topic started by: Mark on April 22, 2009, 10:47:46 AM
-
No offensive but I get a kick out of watching some of the GIS folks trying to plot legal descriptions, the following should drive them absolutely crazy.
:)
-
If I saw a description that bad, I'd have to side with the GIS guys... :-D
-
I only read the first 4 lines and my head exploded.
What a mess that made.
-
No offensive but I get a kick out of watching some of the GIS folks trying to plot legal descriptions, the following should drive them absolutely crazy.
:)
Yeah... that is a really BAD font!
-
some one needs to go back to Creative Writing Class.....
or write a CLEARER Legal Description...the idea being to be able to retrace the survey...Not get paid by the word!
-
I assume that the whole "concave to the curve" stuff means it goes the other way. Here all this time I thought that was the only way a reverse curve could be.
-
:ugly:
-
That's just mean :(
-
No offensive but I get a kick out of watching some of the GIS folks trying to plot legal descriptions, the following should drive them absolutely crazy.
:)
Arrrr me hearties. Tis Pirate time again? :lmao: :lmao:
-
I don't object to excess verbosity in a description as long as there is some relevancy and at least he gave almost every parameter possible to describe that first curve. This guy went out of his way to tell us three times the direction that first curve was going and although I didn't plot it out, I suspect he was concerned that the curve was not tangent to the previous course or the boundary may have been in dispute due to previous error. The main problem I have with it is the unusual terminology used.
-
That whole thing about following "along the arc of said reverse curve" is not something I would have written... It's improper use of "along", but that happens a lot. But we don't follow a reverse curve; we follow an arc of curve to the right or left, and two consecutive arcs may meet at a "point of reverse curve", but we don't follow a reverse curve.
Of course, as long as you can get it drawn, the only really important thing is "does it close?"
-
... It's improper use of "along", but that happens a lot.
What would be proper?
-
It isn't strictly wrong (and we see property descriptions often enough that use "along" in this manner), but it would be better to say "on", as in "on an arc of curve to the left".
In Surveying, the generally-preferred usage of "along" is in situations where two items tend in the same basic direction, but not precisely on top of each other. For example, we might say "N45°00'00"W along a fence line", for a fence that isn't exactly a straight line, and might wander back and forth on either side of a true line, but overall follows the stated course.
Along: Lengthwise of, implying motion or at or near, distinguished from across. By, on, up to, or over, according to subject matter and context. The term does not necessarily mean touching at all points; nor does it necessarily imply contact.
So according to the definition in Black's Law Dictionary, "along" can be used to mean "on", but it does not necessarily mean "touching at all points". But with legalese, it's best to say precisely what you mean, so if you mean "touching at all points", it's better to use the word "on".
-
Plot a point on a GPS and walk in a circle around it? :lol:
-
It isn't strictly wrong (and we see property descriptions often enough that use "along" in this manner), but it would be better to say "on", as in "on an arc of curve to the left".
I don't think I've ever seen "on" used used in that way.
-
I'm not surprised. Technically, the term "legal description" doesn't make any sense, but people use it anyway. :-)
-
I'm not surprised. Technically, the term "legal description" doesn't make any sense, but people use it anyway. :-)
We won't get into that "discussion" again. :)
-
I'm not surprised. Technically, the term "legal description" doesn't make any sense, but people use it anyway. :-)
We won't get into that "discussion" again. :)
Sales Jargon for "someone else is to blame" :ugly:
-
......... "Trailing Zeros"........... *runs away snickering*
-
But really...
"TO THE POINT LEFT OF CURVATURE OF A REVERSE CURVE CONCAVE TO THE SAID CURVE"...
That's pretty disgusting. :ugly:
-
too much time on ones hands? :lol:
Seriously it is like describing the position of every hand on a clock instead of saying 4:30 pm or 16:30 hrs..
-
Actually, I'm working on our C3D template revamp, and trying to keep my sanity. :pissed:
I've finally figured out a bunch of things that cause MOO errors or corrupted styles, anyway, and have finally figured out some "tricks" that let me deal with such issues without deleting corrupt styles and creating them from scratch. It's still very mind-numbing and frustrating, though... I can only take so much before I have to take a break.
-
Actually, I'm working on our C3D template revamp, and trying to keep my sanity. :pissed:
I've finally figured out a bunch of things that cause MOO errors or corrupted styles, anyway, and have finally figured out some "tricks" that let me deal with such issues without deleting corrupt styles and creating them from scratch. It's still very mind-numbing and frustrating, though... I can only take so much before I have to take a break.
corrupted styles? I do not know that I have seen any of those...what happens to them, or what do they stop doing?
-
corrupted styles? I do not know that I have seen any of those...what happens to them, or what do they stop doing?
They look like the attached image. They can't be edited, only deleted.
It's related to the MOO errors. There are at least a couple of ways to create the problem; the simplest is to create styles in a parent/child relationship, and then try to move styles between drawings. (I know some who have basically decided to avoid using child styles, as the "brute force" way to avoid this problem.)
I'm hitting them right now because I'm trying to avoid creating all my styles from scratch, and am moving styles between drawings. I also have some styles that I had to go back to C3D 2007 in order to create, because they use Expressions in Reference Text, and I have been dragging those into my C3D 2009 template.
But like I said, I think I'm finally getting a good handle on how to deal with them. Sometimes, though, a couple of styles in a tree of related styles will end up like this and I can't get them cleaned up. In those cases, I simply have to delete the bad ones, and recreate them from scratch.
The good news is that this problem doesn't crop up much once all the styles are set.
-
Likely MTEXT or RTEXT with a missing or odd character in the line.
Try BURST to change the block Attribute to text?
Not that it is a solution to aec labels by a long shot.
-
This is a Civil 3D label. They are their own entities, not found in other Autodesk products. And they are simply buggy.
I know Autodesk did some work in this area for the 2010 release, but I haven't had a chance to check it out there yet, to see what all might be different. Hopefully, it's much harder to get MOO errors now.
-
Parent-Child Style coping issues, eh? Boy, am I going to make your day easier.
Here is how I get around the MOO problem and still move Child style.
Drag the most senior style over first, follow it up the tree
Style 1
|-Style 1 [Child]
| |-Style 1 [Child][Child]
|-Style 1 [Child]
Then re-drag the same style in again.
Redragging the styles in and overwriting seems to correct any dangling or duplicate references that then produce MOOs.
Have a great weekend all!
Shannon
-
Yeah, that's one of the tricks I've been using. It works ALMOST all the time, but I've run into a couple of times where it wouldn't work.
-
Thanks for the heads up for sure, I haven't had to contend with that yet...crossing fingers, knocking on wood... but at least I have some insight.
-
Any pattern to the styles that don't make the transfer? Styles with expressions perhaps?
-
No, no pattern. Some others that are basically the same, identical except maybe for text style or text height, will be fine. It probably has something to do with whatever is going wrong internally that creates the MOO errors. Or maybe once there are MOO errors, it's possible to compound the errors by doing certain things... Hard to say.
It took a lot of trial-and-error just to figure out that I could "fix" MOO errors by dragging all the items in the tree between drawings in a specific way.
-
Hehe. MOO errors are milking you of your time.
-
:lmao:
-
...But if your Styles explode in dark foreboding goo, I'll see you on "The Far Side" of the MOO error...
-
...But if your Styles explode in dark foreboding goo, I'll see you on "The Far Side" of the MOO error...
That is a work of pure genius. I salute you, Sir!
dJE
-
I'm not surprised. Technically, the term "legal description" doesn't make any sense, but people use it anyway. :-)
We won't get into that "discussion" again. :)
I'm intriqued. Any chance of a link?
dJE
-
Not sure about a link, but the basic problem is that "legal description" simply doesn't make sense. Instead, we actually write "property descriptions". Then these descriptions may be included in legal documents. But there is nothing "legal" about a property description that is not part of some other document.
But having said that, you can go anywhere in the US and say "I need a legal description" and people will know exactly what you mean. Even in our company, we still say "we need to prepare a Legal for that job", and stuff like that. But when I actually create documents for recording, I usually put "Property Description" in the document, not "Legal Description".
It's one of those things that gets mis-used so often that the mis-use has become "normal", even though it doesn't really make sense. Kind of like people who say "I could care less". You mean you could care less, but you choose not to?
-
An old surveyor acquaintance told me long ago what he believed to be the origin of the term "Legal Description". Whether true, or not, I have no idea, but it made sense to me at the time. He said that back in the 1800's ONLY lawyers were allowed to prepare the legal documents, including the description of the property. Since the description was prepared by an attorney, it was a "Legal Description".
FWIW....
-
I worked for a surveyor some years ago who refused to label a description "Legal Description". That was his contention also......only a lawyer can draw up a legal description. I worked there for twenty years and every description that left the building was a "Property Description".