Topic: Leading zeros

[Dent Cermak]

I think that the concept of leading zeros being shown is to remain consistent with the previously recorder instruments.
A careful read here http://www.acsm.net/ALTA2005.pdf will verify Marks' question of the 'necessity' of leading zeros not being specifically called for.  That being said, I know that in various places we have endeavored to create various line label styles that performed mathematical conversion of the cad distances into the original recorded documents units of measure, i.e., Rods & Chains, Wagon Wheels, etc.  The need for such conversion isn't spelled out anywhere other than a standard of practice, to make it easy to verify that the cad distances matched as closely as practicable to the document that those land titles were originally deeded in.  I think that the 'need' for the leading zeros isn't driven by ALTA, it is driven by unskilled persons attempting to read and interpret a survey document (lawyers, title officers).  To these unskilled consumers of the data, a missing zero anywhere in measurement is wrong even IF that zero is an insignificant value.
Perhaps the argument isn't do we 'need' leading zeros, the question is what is the industry standards of practice? If that practice is archaic so be it, however if the industry wants those zeros, autodesk needs to give us the option, which I'm relatively sure was available in earlier releases of C3D. I may need to go reload an older version to verify this last statement, anyone still rolling a version of 2005 please test and verify.

Our state Minimum Technical Standards require the leading zero on all numbers 1-9, not to mention the reviewing attorneys. If you will read in the BLM manual it states the same plus the preference of the cardinal ordinates to NOT be shown as  N00°00'00"E, but rather North. Plus this has long been a standard practice in the world of cartography. The zero is to help clarify the the readings.
PLUS, remember, many items not stated in State minimum Technical standards are covered in associated checklists and will be noted upon review by the stat boards. Our State Board is VERY active in reviewing plats. Those that do no measure up are called in for review and a surveyor can have his/her license suspended and be fined for not complying with the boards directives.

[Jeff_M]

Our state Minimum Technical Standards require the leading zero on all numbers 1-9, not to mention the reviewing attorneys. If you will read in the BLM manual it states the same plus the preference of the cardinal ordinates to NOT be shown as  N00°00'00"E, but rather North. Plus this has long been a standard practice in the world of cartography.

Dent, can you point me to where this is stated? I have read the MS State Rules & Reg.'s (Rule 21) and scoured the BLM Manual and cannot find anything pertaining to the leading 0 in angles. In addition, there are MANY illustrations in the BLM Manual that show the use of NO leading 0's....I'm attaching one here.

Prior to this discussion I had always thought it was a generally accepted practice to use these 0's, but based on my review of many maps (both recent and older) and the reading of the rules & regulations of my state, your state, and BLM I sure cannot find anything that says one way, or the other, is acceptable, or not.

I would like to be proved wrong, however, because I prefer the look and readability of angles which use the leading 0.

[Jeff_M]

Continuing my search for answers to this, I found a PDF prepared by CalTrans for use by prospective LSIT/LS examinees. There are many examples used that COULD have benefited from the leading zero, but did not use it or suggest that any other way would be preferred.

Then in BLM's Specifications for Descriptions of Plats of Land there is, again, no mention of leading zeros and, in fact, also has examples that do NOT use them when they could have.

So this really starting to sound like "but it's the way I've always done it so it must be right". But I sure can't find anything to legally support the leading 0. I would still like to see the option to use it if I want to.

[Dent Cermak]

We get memos and revised check lists from the board from time to time. This is just one area that the Board has chosen to zero in on lately. There other thing that is not really listed anywhere is labeling your "Basis of Bearing' line and showing it on all plats. Around here it's more and more a "Do as I say, not as I do world". There are several "standards" enforced by attorneys and our board that are not really spelled out in the documentation. The leading zero has always been taught in cartographic courses (that's really my area more than the surveying end) and was spelled out in numerous Army CofE pubs all the way from the TM-S1 to the TM-23A. It was also emphasizes in the classes that I took from the CofE on the BLM Manual. I have had lawyers kick back plats and descriptions that did not show the leading zeros. So many of the old time pubs are no longer available that many of these "standards" are disappearing.
It's not so much a case of "we have always done it" as it is the way I was taught to do it, the way that looks best and the way the client wants it. It is not the first oversight by AutoDesk, nor will it be the last.

[mjfarrell]

Continuing my search for answers to this, I found a PDF prepared by CalTrans for use by prospective LSIT/LS examinees. There are many examples used that COULD have benefited from the leading zero, but did not use it or suggest that any other way would be preferred.

Then in BLM's Specifications for Descriptions of Plats of Land there is, again, no mention of leading zeros and, in fact, also has examples that do NOT use them when they could have.

So this really starting to sound like "but it's the way I've always done it so it must be right". But I sure can't find anything to legally support the leading 0. I would still like to see the option to use it if I want to.

Yes, that might be the case, although not a justification for NOT having the option to include them if one believes they have a need to do so.

[Jeff_M]

Yes, that might be the case, although not a justification for NOT having the option to include them if one believes they have a need to do so.

True. What I was attempting to do is be able to provide proof to the development team that we are legally required to use the leading 0. With proof, we might stand a chance of getting some kind of HotFix for this....instead of waiting for personal wishes (albeit a good many of them) to rise to the top of the WishList.

[Keith™]

I did a little digging and couldn't find any specific requirement for distance/bearing label formatting, however, if this is any indication of the formatting requirements, BLM does specify the proper formatting of other data, specifically the township and range labels. They are required to be in the format T^nn^x and R^nn^x where ^ is a space and nn is filled with a number using zeros as place holders as required.

I also just checked my taping and measuring handbook and it lays out angle conversions in the format of dd^omm'ss"

Don't know what that means, but there it is ... you need to decide what it means

[mjfarrell]

dd^omm'ss"

The meaning all depends on the surveyor, for some it translates into DuhDegrees MmmmMinutes, and Sh..Seconds

For some it's just Duh Duh Mmmm Mmmm Ssss......I forgot the plans in the office!





<edited for missing bracket KEB>

[Keith™]

I know what the text mean as I am the one who put it together, but whether it infers a leading zero is the question. In the reference book, it showed the actual conversion something like:

5^o =  05d00'00"

Now whether that means you should use the leading zeros or not is the question.

[Dinosaur]

I don't think they are using the use of the leading zero a rule but it is obvious they thought using them was important  to clearly show what they were describing, which is a major consideration.  Using them makes the intent clear.  There is no question if the absent "placeholder" is really a saved keystroke of an unnecessary character or an error such as an omission in typing or accidental deletion when editing.
There is still one requirement that keeps being pushed aside in this discussion though.  I share the opinion of my boss, our chief of survey and the local plan reviewing bodies that every identifier, course and call on the plans must match those contained in the description and where the subject property abuts adjoining tracts, any descriptions of those tracts much be referenced as written.  It doesn't matter if the old course were described without leading zeros and precision to the minute and tenths of a foot those are referenced as they appear in both the description and on the drawing.  If we determine it necessary to use a different call it is called out both deed and measured, again in both drawing and description.
Now there IS a way around this and stay within Civil 3D, but it means creating a special child style from the style we would normally be using with all the extra information added as text component to the label.  This won't help for the leading zeros but at least makes the deed & measured calls work and I even use one of the "one use" styles for my section line IDs.  You can also make ones for easement and setback line on plats.  Rampant style inflation is a poor solution at best, but so far the only way short of exploding the label to primitives and permanently losing the associativity.  After a while it doesn't taste so vile . . . I have expanded this technique to pipe and structure labels with fair success as well.

back more on topic -

I just checked out the augi poll Mark posted.  It sits at 11 yes 00 no and 01 that doesn't care.  I can think of several observations I would like make about those numbers but they would have zero (leading AND trailing) objectivity attached.

[sinc]

Now there IS a way around this and stay within Civil 3D, but it means creating a special child style from the style we would normally be using with all the extra information added as text component to the label.  This won't help for the leading zeros but at least makes the deed & measured calls work and I even use one of the "one use" styles for my section line IDs.  You can also make ones for easement and setback line on plats.  Rampant style inflation is a poor solution at best, but so far the only way short of exploding the label to primitives and permanently losing the associativity.  After a while it doesn't taste so vile . . . I have expanded this technique to pipe and structure labels with fair success as well.

...and once again, a task that should be simple takes 3x as long as it should.

Ironically, the fact that so many things like this exist in C3D gives me hope about the product.  I am currently more-productive in C3D than I was in LDT (albeit probably not enough to offset the cost of transition in any timely fashion), and I waste considerable amounts of time on things like this.  If Autodesk simply fixed all the problems like this, I would see significant productivity gains.

Unfortunately, it seems to take Autodesk an awful long time to integrate anything.  They already have largely decided what's going into the 2009 release, so any comments that they receive now are highly unlikely to be incorporated before the 2010 release.  And that's in the best-case - I STILL haven't seen many of the simple requests I made when using the 2006 version, such as adding "Close Drawing" and "Switch To" to the Settings tab in toolspace, so that it's like the Prospector tab.  That's such a simple thing that would add significantly to the usability of the UI, and I got a response from Autodesk that they liked the idea and would be incorporating it into the product, but it still isn't there.

And that doesn't even get into major problems, such as the errors in design for Parcels, the poor design in Label Styles, the lack of PM in the core product, the poor survey support, the failure to integrate Map, etc.

[mjfarrell]

Part of the problem Sinc is that some users... no names.... are complacent.  I've been called many names because I am not. Personally I would rather be known as a rabid dog howling all night about these things than to be Autodesks Lap Dog, and just go along to get along.  The that AU handout on pipes that was sent me, has many areas where the author used phasing that sounded a lot like "these things don't work well, so we just live without them".  Basically accepting the shortcomings as is, and what a wasted opportunity if you ask me, to point out to an entire room full of users right at AU of the deficiencies in the product, so that they could storm the product reps at AU and demand that they be fixed.  Instead, just a passing mention that these don't work, and those are difficult to use....and well that was it.  What some don't get is that IF Autodesk were more responsive to the customer I would probably be out of work, and a lot quieter about their product and business model. 

But I guess these Lap Dogs don't want to 'bite the hand that feeds them' because they are part of the machine.

[jpostlewait]

Part of the problem Sinc is that some users... no names.... are complacent.  I've been called many names because I am not. Personally I would rather be known as a rabid dog howling all night about these things than to be Autodesks Lap Dog, and just go along to get along.  The that AU handout on pipes that was sent me, has many areas where the author used phasing that sounded a lot like "these things don't work well, so we just live without them".  Basically accepting the shortcomings as is, and what a wasted opportunity if you ask me, to point out to an entire room full of users right at AU of the deficiencies in the product, so that they could storm the product reps at AU and demand that they be fixed.  Instead, just a passing mention that these don't work, and those are difficult to use....and well that was it.  What some don't get is that IF Autodesk were more responsive to the customer I would probably be out of work, and a lot quieter about their product and business model. 

But I guess these Lap Dogs don't want to 'bite the hand that feeds them' because they are part of the machine.

Late for me Friday night and I can't help myself.
Stay away from AU.
If you have any idea what goes on there and I'm guessing not, storming the developers with ultimatums is just idiotic.
Influencing product development requires a certain amount of tack.
If you want some links to before I learned this lesson I can supply them.
I'm not a lap dog and I try to focus on my firms best interest.
At this point I believe that implementing Civil3D as is in our best interest.
I didn't call you any names in here that I recall but I would suggest you reexamine your marketing strategy as being the guy that can teach you the product but it sux.

[Dinosaur]

Thank you Michael and John, you both undoubtedly have numerous tales of past battles with both the product and the developers at Autodesk that could entertain us at length and provide some valuable lessons as well.  I have had enough personal interaction with both of you to be looking forward to as many of these experiences that you care to share with us.  All Mark and the moderators ask of either of you is to follow the FORUM GUIDELINES and keep your comments and responses to others respectful to each other and anyone else participating or following along quietly.
The official Swamp "take a shot" scorecard for this match is hereby deemed a DRAW- EVENT OVER . . . NO REMATCHES SCHEDULED.  Some consideration is given for the boards that are open for member only viewing and some indiscretions may be allowed in them at times provided things don't get out of hand.  Land Lubber though is wide open viewing for anyone on the web who manages to stumble into it and we try to keep things so those folk do not regret doing so.  In fact we would kind of like it if they were impressed enough to become memberS and share THEIR experiences.