Thanks Fred--the inconsistent entry is a problem for sure, and perhaps part of why I'm getting confused! This one in particular does not close--like you said, many of them do not. However, as long as it's pretty close...<br>
<br clear="all">Darren Cope<br><a href="http://darrencope.com">http://darrencope.com</a><br><a href="http://dmcope.freeshell.org">http://dmcope.freeshell.org</a><br>
<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">2011/5/18 Fred LaPlante <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:flaplante@flos-inc.com">flaplante@flos-inc.com</a>></span><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
OK, looks like we are both talking about the same 'English' system of metes & bounds. Your parcel looks just like mine. And none of the bearings look nearly precise enough to guarantee closure. The most conspicuous absence is lack of a True vs magnetic notation. For Canada that can be a killer - and magnetic can easily vary 40min in ten years. Also I see that the surveyor didn't enter the bearings in a consistent way as he walked around the property so the bearings have to be reversed manually, or a negative sign used.<br>
<br>
Anyway, I'll get a copy of qGis running and see what I can do with your drawing.<br>
<br>
Fred<div class="im"><br>
<br>
On 5/18/2011 1:19 PM, Darren Cope wrote:<br>
</div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div class="im">
Thanks Fred,<br>
<br>
I've (re)attached the image example--the coordinates we deal with in Ontario (and most of Canada) seem to (almost all) come in the format shown in my attachment. It doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me from a 'usability' standpoint, but...<br>
<br>
Darren Cope<br>
<a href="http://darrencope.com" target="_blank">http://darrencope.com</a><br>
<a href="http://dmcope.freeshell.org" target="_blank">http://dmcope.freeshell.org</a><br>
<br>
<br></div>
2011/5/18 Fred LaPlante <<a href="mailto:flaplante@flos-inc.com" target="_blank">flaplante@flos-inc.com</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:flaplante@flos-inc.com" target="_blank">flaplante@flos-inc.com</a>>><div><div>
</div><div class="h5"><br>
<br>
Wow! voices from the past.<br>
<br>
Darren,<br>
<br>
I haven't done anything with qGIS for over a year now. But this<br>
does remind me I need to get back to it again just to catch up on<br>
some things here on my desk. Unfortunately I 'upgraded?' my<br>
computer system to Windows7 since then and qGIS didn't make the<br>
transfer (though the data did make it!). So I will have to answer<br>
your questions from memory.<br>
<br>
I think Mauricio got it all right. Here in Maine, USA, land<br>
boundaries in property deeds and maps are given in 'metes and<br>
bounds' that is nnn.nn feet North/South xxdeg East or West. (For<br>
example 950.5 feet N 30deg 45Min 20Sec East). So what I would do<br>
is to establish a starting point from whatever corner I could pin<br>
down on a map and then 'walk' around the property entering the<br>
distance and heading as given on the deed or property map. I have<br>
done this with the Az & Dist plugin for many land parcels in my<br>
home town. But having said that let me add that getting 'closure'<br>
is seldom achieved. I found the accuracy of the property deeds or<br>
maps even with signatures and seals of licensed surveyors was very<br>
poor. Sometime I got definitions like "900feet N 40deg E (plus or<br>
minus)". It seems only the surveyors markers mean anything and the<br>
legal description is only a guide to help find them. Surveyors<br>
tell me "Here in Maine everyone knows how to get to their property<br>
but no one really know where it is."<br>
<br>
Unfortunately your plan didn't get to me so I can't be sure just<br>
what the difficulty is. If you could send me a copy, I will try to<br>
enter it into qGIS and see what happens. Perhaps a bug has gotten<br>
into the code since I last used it. But I still have my original<br>
plugin code so we should be able to get things working again.<br>
<br>
Here is an extract from some instructions I wrote for the local<br>
town government. Perhaps this will be helpful.<br>
<br>
Fred LaPlante<br>
Mercer, ME, USA<br>
<br>
<br>
5.4 Survey Data<br>
<br>
Deeds normally provide a list of bearing and distance from a<br>
starting point around a property boundary in a consistent<br>
direction until returning to the start. The process describe here<br>
should accept most property descriptions as written.<br>
<br>
Survey maps may be consistent as well, but sometimes a direction<br>
my appear as a ‘back bearing’ due to the nature of the survey.<br>
These can be handled with the addition of a minus ‘-‘ sign at the<br>
beginning of a bearing.Failure to catch this detail can produce<br>
some fascinating, but useless,drawings.<br>
<br>
1. Open or create a layer for your new feature.<br>
2. Use properties to set transparency to 50-75%<br>
3. Enable editing of the layer.<br>
4. Open the ‘Azimuth & Distance’ Plugin.<br>
5. Verify both the Layer and Coordinate System (CRS) shown are<br>
correct.<br>
6. For most surveys, Boundary type survey is correct.<br>
7. Select North type that applies (enter magnetic declination if<br>
appropriate)<br>
8. Select Distance units. In USA this will probably be feet.<br>
9. Select Angle Type: Azimuth is a compass heading, Bearing is of the<br>
form N xx deg E<br>
10. Click ‘Capture from Map’<br>
11. Move mouse to location of starting point on base map.<br>
12. Under ‘Next Vertex’ enter direction and distance from survey<br>
or deed.<br>
13. Click ‘Add to Bottom’.<br>
14. Repeat above 2 steps as needed.<br>
15. Click ‘Export List’ to save your entries for a later time.<br>
16. Click Draw.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
On 5/18/2011 11:14 AM, Maurício de Paulo wrote:<br>
<br>
Hi Darren,<br>
I haven't worked on the plugin for a long time now.<br>
The terms are about what angle is given to the plugin.<br>
Bearing is measured from a given direction but with 180<br>
degrees for each side (Ex.: 90e means right. 90w means left).<br>
Azimuth is measured from a given direction but with 360<br>
degrees clockwise. (Ex.: 90 means right. 270 means left)<br>
<br>
The polar/Radial means that the angles area going to be<br>
centered on the point given. It's usefull when you did angular<br>
measures from the same point. It's used when you measure<br>
angles and distances from a single point to draw a curve.<br>
The Boundary means that the angles are relative to the last<br>
point you measured. It's commonly used in the descriptive<br>
documents when the next point is calculated with angle and<br>
distance from the current point.<br>
<br>
I think Fred can help more with the meaning of each term as<br>
many of them I couldn't translate to a common english idea.<br>
Fred Laplante is also involved in the project and implemented<br>
many of these concepts.<br>
Best regards,<br>
Mauricio de Paulo<br>
<br>
2011/5/18 Darren Cope <<a href="mailto:darrencope@gmail.com" target="_blank">darrencope@gmail.com</a><br></div></div>
<mailto:<a href="mailto:darrencope@gmail.com" target="_blank">darrencope@gmail.com</a>> <mailto:<a href="mailto:darrencope@gmail.com" target="_blank">darrencope@gmail.com</a><div class="im"><br>
<mailto:<a href="mailto:darrencope@gmail.com" target="_blank">darrencope@gmail.com</a>>>><br>
<br>
<br>
Hi Mauricio,<br>
<br>
I'm curious if you are still working on the Azimuth and<br>
Distance<br>
Plug in for QGIS? I am back to it again, and still having<br>
difficulties. I would like to be able to help you test if<br>
you are<br>
still developing. I have an example (attached) of a plan that<br>
needs to be entered using the distances and bearings shown (in<br>
that exact format). How would I go about doing so? I have tried<br>
every possible combination that makes any sense to me! I'm<br>
fairly<br>
certain I just don't fully understand the implications of the<br>
"Polar/Radial" and "Boundary", and "Azimuth" and "Bearing"<br>
settings. Perhaps you could explain?<br>
<br>
Cheers,<br>
<br>
Darren Cope<br>
<a href="http://darrencope.com" target="_blank">http://darrencope.com</a><br>
<a href="http://dmcope.freeshell.org" target="_blank">http://dmcope.freeshell.org</a><br>
<br>
<br>
2009/11/11 Darren Cope <<a href="mailto:darrencope@gmail.com" target="_blank">darrencope@gmail.com</a><br>
<mailto:<a href="mailto:darrencope@gmail.com" target="_blank">darrencope@gmail.com</a>><br></div>
<mailto:<a href="mailto:darrencope@gmail.com" target="_blank">darrencope@gmail.com</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:darrencope@gmail.com" target="_blank">darrencope@gmail.com</a>>>><div><div></div><div class="h5">
<br>
<br>
<br>
Hi Mauricio,<br>
<br>
I'm not 100% sure what is going on with the precision. I<br>
suspect the snapping feature will solve this, as the<br>
difference is quite small. I zoomed in to 2:1 (e.g. as<br>
far as<br>
I could) and clicked as close as I possibly could to a<br>
corner<br>
vertex, and then when I drew my feature, it doesn't line up<br>
(although the difference is minute in terms of actual<br>
distance)<br>
<br>
I guess I'm still not 100% clear on how the coordinates are<br>
entered. What does the 'zenith' column mean? I have a<br>
lot of<br>
plans that give angles relative to north or south (so<br>
they are<br>
displayed as Nxxdxx'xx"W or Sxxdxx'xx"E for example). I can<br>
convert these to a 360-based azimuth, but it would be<br>
nice to<br>
be able to enter these without doing any prior conversions.<br>
<br>
It looks like the zooming issue is fixed now!<br>
<br>
Thanks for all of your work on this--please let me know<br>
if I<br>
can provide any further information or testing for you.<br>
<br>
Cheers,<br>
<br>
Darren Cope<br>
<a href="http://dmcope.freeshell.org" target="_blank">http://dmcope.freeshell.org</a><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
2009/11/7 Maurício de Paulo <<a href="mailto:mauricio.dev@gmail.com" target="_blank">mauricio.dev@gmail.com</a><br>
<mailto:<a href="mailto:mauricio.dev@gmail.com" target="_blank">mauricio.dev@gmail.com</a>><br></div></div>
<mailto:<a href="mailto:mauricio.dev@gmail.com" target="_blank">mauricio.dev@gmail.com</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:mauricio.dev@gmail.com" target="_blank">mauricio.dev@gmail.com</a>>>><div><div></div>
<div class="h5"><br>
<br>
<br>
Ok, thanks for the ideas. But could explain some of<br>
them<br>
to me?<br>
What happened with the precision of the starting point?<br>
I've made some tests here and the precision should<br>
be ok.<br>
I've made a teste with 0,0,0 and it drew fine.<br>
Could you<br>
tell me how to reproduce the bug?<br>
The snapping feature is my main priority now. I<br>
think this<br>
is a great improvement.<br>
DMS should be second in the list. But actually I<br>
need some<br>
inputs on how is best entered a coordinate. We're<br>
talking<br>
about azimuth here. And a DMS should have 3 numbers.<br>
Something like 10o14'52'' is possible and easy for the<br>
user. Is it ok?<br>
About the much larger extent... Hum... Fixed on zoom to<br>
selected feature. I think that should solve it.<br>
Gratefully<br>
Maurício de Paulo<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
-- Mauricio de Paulo<br>
Engenheiro Cartografo<br>
MapeandoOBrasil <<a href="http://mapeandoobrasil.blogspot.com" target="_blank">http://mapeandoobrasil.blogspot.com</a>><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
</div></div></blockquote>
<br>
</blockquote></div><br>