Property line

[amirhossein.jafarii]

Hi all! 

I would like to draw the property line of a project using distances and bearings. 
every time I enter the information Revit gives me a different shape. 
Can someone kindly help me to draw the property line correctly? 
I have attached the property I would like to draw 

[barthbradley]

Not enough info shown here. Can you post a screenshot showing more of the Plat?   

[amirhossein.jafarii]

Sure, Attached PDF is the assessor's map.

I also attached the picture of the plan. 

[barthbradley]

Do you have bearings for these two lines?

...do you have a Plat Map?  Post that.  

[amirhossein.jafarii]

For the line number

80.29' 
N 64 57'59" E

The little line is :  8.07 I don't have the bearing 

[barthbradley]

what about the 49.06 curve? 

Give me the delta.  Revit can compute last line.  Hopefully it's 8.07.  😉

[bin · Accepted solution]

Try this:

Step 1:

Draw the title of 162 except the arc, finish it with a 178 radius arc.

Step 2:

Draw a second arc starting from the end of the previous arc with the same radius. Then create the arc dimension (degree). Type this in the dimension "=49.06*360/(2*pi()*178)", this will make the second arc 49.06 long.

Step 3:

Draw a line connecting the start and endpoint of the second arc, get the length of this line.

Step 4:

Draw a vertical line and get the angle between this vertical line and the line in Step 3.

Step 5:

Create the property line using @barthbradley 's method, use the length of the line instead of the arc, finishing with "Add line to close"

I guess the length next to the arc is the arc length, not the chord length. Please let me know if I am wrong.

[bin · Accepted solution]

[barthbradley]

---

@bin wrote:

Create the property line using @barthbradley 's method, use the length of the line instead of the arc, finishing with "Add line to close"

---

That not my "method" @bin.  The curved, Right-of-Way line segment has a Delta Curve that is most certainly on the Recorded Final Map for the Parcel.  Same for the 8.07 property line segment.  Both bearings are also shown on the Map.  So, if the OP is preparing an official document, such as a Plot Plan, the proper method is to use  exactly  what is shown on the official, recorded map for the tract.  

[lucdoucet_msdl · Accepted solution]

@amirhossein.jafarii ,

In reading the Hayward assessor's plan, you can assume that they follow surveyor's conventions that lines that appear parallel are so unless a new bearing is given. In this way, the drawing has the minimum information required to understand it all the wise minimizing the amount of text.

Your short 8.07 unit segment for lot 164 is in line with the rear limits of lots 164 thru 168. This line will have the same bearing as it is between the front limit of SCRIPPS street and the front limit of lots 117 thru 199 of BELHAVEN street which both have a heading of N 5d 30m 39s E.

By the same reasoning, the 80.29 unit segment of lot 164 has the bearing N 64d 57m 59s E.

With these two assumptions, you have four sides with lengths and bearings which your can draw the property lines. Then close with an arc segment of radius R=178 units.

Since that arc segment of 49.06 units does not have a bearing, you draw it last. If there is a discrepancy in the precision of units and angles, this is where I would allow for it (ie. the arc length or radius would be off calculations).

If the condition of the street front radius or arc length is critical to your layout, you should draw all the lots sharing the same curve (lots 162 thru 165) which again share the same radius and center point by convention.

Hope this helps.

-luc

[lucdoucet_msdl]

@amirhossein.jafarii 

The site closes with a 2" error which is reasonable with the precision of a surveyors trade.

You will need to start with the northernmost point and reverse the NW to SE direction of the 127.81 ft segment. Close with a distance and radius, then subtract the 0.151 ft error.

-luc

 

 

[barthbradley · Accepted solution]

Another explanation is that the hand-written information is wrong.  Just saying. 😉

[lucdoucet_msdl · Accepted solution]

@barthbradley 

I agree and the rounding errors are most likely in the headings and lengths of the two long sides.

My best bet would be to recreate the street geometry (front and back) and redraw the adjacent lots. Think reverse drafting the subdivision design. But all this is academic in that required precision of a suburban lot is rarely measured to a 1/100 ft.

-luc

[amirhossein.jafarii]

Thank you all for your help!