# Community Forums

Reviewer Does Not U...

Share:

# Reviewer Does Not Understand Rounding

Page 1 / 4
Posts: 32
Member
(@armichael)
20+ posts
Joined: 6 months ago

This is probably old hat to some of you guys but I’m dealing with a certain jurisdiction in Maryland for the first time, doing a resubdivision plat submission. This reviewer keeps complaining that the Total Area shown for Buildable Lots is “incorrect” when you add up all of the incremental areas shown in each individual lot. Maybe it’s because we label these lots to the nearest square foot, and sometimes we round them up to the next square foot when it is past the 0.49 square foot mark? Hmm.

I don’t sign plats here (yet) so I don’t have too much concern when my boss says to just go with it, but is this ridiculous? I understand that if a lot is 11,600.60 sqft it’s not the end of the world to call it 11,600 square feet. But why not show the CLOSEST area for each lot instead of fudging things so we don’t have to face the harsh realities of rounding? Somebody please explain, I am not smart enough to comprehend.

19 Replies
Posts: 435
Member
(@peter-lothian)
250+ posts
Joined: 8 years ago

You will still be hit with the harsh realities of rounding, if you do it your way (my way, too). 21.4 + 33.3 = 54.7 rounded to 55, but 21 + 33 = 54. Of course our CAD algorithms calculate out to umpteen decimal places. Maybe send the reviewer a note with a table of the lot areas out to three decimal places, summed up to the total area, then round the total. That should shut him/her up.

Posts: 15465
Member
(@holy-cow)
10,000+ posts
Joined: 9 years ago

I hope you realize that if you went out and surveyed the corners of your tract three times you would get three different answers for area.    It might be 11,600.44 and it might be 11,600.22 and it might be 11, 600.85.  We like to believe we would get exactly the same answer every time.  Unfortunately, we are not as precise as we pretend to be.  Let's say you believe you have a perfectly square tract.  The square root of 11, 600.60 is 107.7060815.  But, the square of 107.71 is 11601.44  Or, the square of 107.70 is 11599.29.  Any of us would be mighty lucky if we could get the number to come out so close when we are reporting to the nearest one-hundredth of a foot to begin with.

Member
(@armichael)
Joined: 6 months ago

20+ posts
Posts: 32

@holy-cow

Yes I do realize it is a microscopic difference, and that another surveyor would without a doubt measure different bearings as well.But I still label to the nearest second. When we set the corners in the field the Rodman will surely not be tapping the pipe back and forth until it’s dead on line to the nearest second. And also that area is the least important element in the priority of conflicting title elements.

Its just the premise of saying ok, let me add up the sqft of every single lot to see what this guy got, then changing labels and tables when the numbers were already correct (mathematically).

Posts: 2294
Member
(@tommy-young)
1,000+ posts
Joined: 9 years ago

Any one labeling areas on land surveys to less than a square foot should be called before the board to give a statistical explanation of their methods.

Posts: 858
Member
(@monte)
500+ posts
Joined: 3 years ago

I feel for you.  Everyone above has made the point.  But some folks just don't get it. An organization that shall remain nameless here that I have to turn work in to that has actual surveyors on staff has rejected my plats because my distances did not add up in total to what my individual lines were, out to 3 decimal places.  Same with acreage.  I am, much like you, meaning 0.001 or maybe 0.002 of a unit difference, but it was enough to get my plat kicked back.  By a registered surveyor.