Robert M Posted February 9, 2011 Author Share Posted February 9, 2011 Yes, I realize the buildings are existing. I'm assuming one or both will be renovated in some fashion. Is that correct? Well Remark I just use this as a sample to work from, I am not really putting any structure on the site Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReMark Posted February 9, 2011 Share Posted February 9, 2011 I see. OK. I printed it out but even with a 8.5x11 in hand it is still pretty difficult to read. If I only had this printout to work with I would tape it up to my digitizing tablet, digitize it into AutoCAD, then rescale it based on a known dimension such as M3 to M6 which I read is 65.2' (is that correct?). I would also digitize in the outline of each house. Digitizing is an electronic form of tracing an object. Being a board draftsman you must have had ocassions where you laid tracing paper or vellum over a drawing and traced off some portion of it right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReMark Posted February 9, 2011 Share Posted February 9, 2011 Alright. I kind of have a sense for how the drawing may have been done originally and how it can be laid out in AutoCAD. This observation is based upon recreating the 4,146 s.f. lot on the left. It seems to me all angles are being turned in a clockwise direction. North is the default 0deg 00' line. After drawing the four property lines based on the angles and distances given and calculating the square footage of the lot using the Area command I came up with 4,147.7463 s.f. which is pretty darn close. I did make one assumption. I assumed the distances were in decimal feet (that's how we did it when I used to be in a survey crew). Example: The distance between M3 and M6 I took to be 65.2' and not 65'-2". Did I assume incorrectly? Using the example cited, 65.2' translated into feet and inches would be 65 feet 2 3/8". While the difference may seem small it would affect the outcome. Do you understand? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReMark Posted February 9, 2011 Share Posted February 9, 2011 Followup. I recreated the second lot. When I put the final line (from ??? to M4) in and checked it against the numbers of the surveyor's drawing I was almost spot on with the distance but my angle was off by 0deg06'. I think because of the poor resolution of my printout I may have introduced an unintentional error. But if you look at the finsihed drawing of the property lines they are almost the same. Pretty cool. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReMark Posted February 9, 2011 Share Posted February 9, 2011 The end result of my attempt at reconstructing your site plan boundaries. Addendum: The square footage for the second lot calculated out as 6,729.9219 s.f. The original drawing lists it as 6,726 s.f. Pretty darn close. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert M Posted February 9, 2011 Author Share Posted February 9, 2011 Alright. I kind of have a sense for how the drawing may have been done originally and how it can be laid out in AutoCAD. This observation is based upon recreating the 4,146 s.f. lot on the left.It seems to me all angles are being turned in a clockwise direction. North is the default 0deg 00' line. After drawing the four property lines based on the angles and distances given and calculating the square footage of the lot using the Area command I came up with 4,147.7463 s.f. which is pretty darn close. I did make one assumption. I assumed the distances were in decimal feet (that's how we did it when I used to be in a survey crew). Example: The distance between M3 and M6 I took to be 65.2' and not 65'-2". Did I assume incorrectly? Using the example cited, 65.2' translated into feet and inches would be 65 feet 2 3/8". While the difference may seem small it would affect the outcome. Do you understand? Yes i understand, the distance is 65.2' for bounary lines, so the drawing come out just as it on the paper?(as the angles of the line) which line did u draw first? I try to draw it and the lines goin in at a direction to the paper Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert M Posted February 9, 2011 Author Share Posted February 9, 2011 The end result of my attempt at reconstructing your site plan boundaries. [ATTACH]26113[/ATTACH] Addendum: The square footage for the second lot calculated out as 6,729.9219 s.f. The original drawing lists it as 6,726 s.f. Pretty darn close. Ok GUD but where u started (as in which line first)? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert M Posted February 9, 2011 Author Share Posted February 9, 2011 Followup.I recreated the second lot. When I put the final line (from ??? to M4) in and checked it against the numbers of the surveyor's drawing I was almost spot on with the distance but my angle was off by 0deg06'. I think because of the poor resolution of my printout I may have introduced an unintentional error. But if you look at the finsihed drawing of the property lines they are almost the same. Pretty cool. Ir.la to M4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReMark Posted February 9, 2011 Share Posted February 9, 2011 I started with the line I could read best...that would be M3 to M6. I made sure my direction for 0d00' was North. This can be established by using the Units command and clicking on the Direction button thensetting the Base Angle accordingly. I also made sure to set my Angle > Type (in first dialog box) to Deg/Min/Sec. When you do this you enter your angles like this at the command line: 337d26'. You can use direct distance entry along with the angle by typing @65.2' Does "Ir" stand for Iron rod? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert M Posted February 9, 2011 Author Share Posted February 9, 2011 I started with the line I could read best...that would be M3 to M6. I made sure my direction for 0d00' was North. This can be established by using the Units command and clicking on the Direction button thensetting the Base Angle accordingly. I also made sure to set my Angle > Type (in first dialog box) to Deg/Min/Sec. When you do this you enter your angles like this at the command line: 337d26'. You can use direct distance entry along with the angle by typing @65.2' Does "Ir" stand for Iron rod? No it just label for the bounary point Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert M Posted February 9, 2011 Author Share Posted February 9, 2011 Remark it still giving me problems with angles Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReMark Posted February 9, 2011 Share Posted February 9, 2011 Remark it still giving me problems with angles In what way? Did you follow my directions for setting the Base Angle? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReMark Posted February 10, 2011 Share Posted February 10, 2011 The Units dialog box - Direction Control Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert M Posted February 10, 2011 Author Share Posted February 10, 2011 The Units dialog box - Direction Control [ATTACH]26138[/ATTACH] Ok i finish doin all of that and it is still going in a different direction, The line u drawing from the paper (Surveyor's Plan) should look the same as in the angle rite? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReMark Posted February 10, 2011 Share Posted February 10, 2011 That is correct. What line are you attempting to draw? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert M Posted February 10, 2011 Author Share Posted February 10, 2011 That is correct. What line are you attempting to draw? Ok I am trying to draw the same boundary line M3-M6 Which bearing : 337d26' and distance: 65.2' rite, that line suppose to go up (AS IN THE END POINT OF THE LINE SHOULD BE AT THE TOP OF SCREEN BUT GOING TO THE BUTTOM OF SCREEN) which is does not look like what is on the paper at all, so do not what i am doing wrong? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReMark Posted February 10, 2011 Share Posted February 10, 2011 What are you doing wrong? Not sure. Hold on, let me check something. I believe I know what your problem is. You are not putting the "@" symbol before your distance. Type it as: @65.2' Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert M Posted February 10, 2011 Author Share Posted February 10, 2011 What are you doing wrong? Not sure. Hold on, let me check something. I believe I know what your problem is. You are not putting the "@" symbol before your distance. Type it as: @65.2' YES REMARK @ was what was giving me the problem THANKS VERY MUCH Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReMark Posted February 10, 2011 Share Posted February 10, 2011 One problem solved at least. Let's hope that is all you run into. You're entirely welcomed. By the way, although the surveyor called them bearings it is not the term I would use. I would call them plain old angles. A bearing would be written thusly: N22d34'00"W. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert M Posted February 10, 2011 Author Share Posted February 10, 2011 One problem solved at least. Let's hope that is all you run into. You're entirely welcomed. Well u know of any that i should be aware of from here? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.