Author Topic: (OT) Drive the GIS folks crazy!  (Read 5932 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Mark

  • Custom Title
  • Seagull
  • Posts: 28762
(OT) Drive the GIS folks crazy!
« 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.
:)

TheSwamp.org  (serving the CAD community since 2003)

sinc

  • Guest
Re: (OT) Drive the GIS folks crazy!
« Reply #1 on: April 22, 2009, 11:05:23 AM »
If I saw a description that bad, I'd have to side with the GIS guys...   :-D

Maverick®

  • Seagull
  • Posts: 14778
Re: (OT) Drive the GIS folks crazy!
« Reply #2 on: April 22, 2009, 11:36:46 AM »
I only read the first 4 lines and my head exploded.

What a mess that made.

Matt__W

  • Seagull
  • Posts: 12955
  • I like my water diluted.
Re: (OT) Drive the GIS folks crazy!
« Reply #3 on: April 22, 2009, 11:39:18 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.
:)

Yeah... that is a really BAD font!
Autodesk Expert Elite
Revit Subject Matter Expert (SME)
Owner/FAA sUAS Pilot @ http://skyviz.io

mjfarrell

  • Seagull
  • Posts: 14444
  • Every Student their own Lesson
Re: (OT) Drive the GIS folks crazy!
« Reply #4 on: April 22, 2009, 01:12:57 PM »
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!
Be your Best


Michael Farrell
http://primeservicesglobal.com/

Bob Wahr

  • Guest
Re: (OT) Drive the GIS folks crazy!
« Reply #5 on: April 22, 2009, 07:54:59 PM »
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.

ronjonp

  • Needs a day job
  • Posts: 7531
Re: (OT) Drive the GIS folks crazy!
« Reply #6 on: April 22, 2009, 08:31:35 PM »
 :ugly:

Windows 11 x64 - AutoCAD /C3D 2023

Custom Build PC

CHulse

  • Swamp Rat
  • Posts: 504
Re: (OT) Drive the GIS folks crazy!
« Reply #7 on: April 23, 2009, 08:01:30 AM »
That's just mean :(
Cary Hulse
Urban Forestry Manager
Wetland Studies and Solutions

Civil 3D 2020 & 2023

Alan Cullen

  • Guest
Re: (OT) Drive the GIS folks crazy!
« Reply #8 on: April 23, 2009, 08:23:56 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.
:)



Arrrr me hearties. Tis Pirate time again?  :lmao: :lmao:

Dinosaur

  • Guest
Re: (OT) Drive the GIS folks crazy!
« Reply #9 on: April 23, 2009, 08:28:45 AM »
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.

sinc

  • Guest
Re: (OT) Drive the GIS folks crazy!
« Reply #10 on: April 23, 2009, 10:17:59 AM »
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?"

Mark

  • Custom Title
  • Seagull
  • Posts: 28762
Re: (OT) Drive the GIS folks crazy!
« Reply #11 on: April 23, 2009, 10:31:22 AM »
... It's improper use of "along", but that happens a lot.

What would be proper?
TheSwamp.org  (serving the CAD community since 2003)

sinc

  • Guest
Re: (OT) Drive the GIS folks crazy!
« Reply #12 on: April 23, 2009, 10:54:24 AM »
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.

Quote from: Black's Law Dictionary
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".

KewlToyZ

  • Guest
Re: (OT) Drive the GIS folks crazy!
« Reply #13 on: April 23, 2009, 01:12:48 PM »
Plot a point on a GPS and walk in a circle around it?  :lol:

Mark

  • Custom Title
  • Seagull
  • Posts: 28762
Re: (OT) Drive the GIS folks crazy!
« Reply #14 on: April 23, 2009, 01:31:14 PM »
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.
TheSwamp.org  (serving the CAD community since 2003)