More or Less

[kwilson]

A typical blank response on legal description reviews is to add the words "more or less" to the area shown.

Koen, one of our surveyors came up with a nice response to this request.

Thanks for taking time to provide feedback on this matter.

I understand and agree with the point that the area shown as a whole number is rounded off. Many, if not most, of our dimensions shown are rounded off to a generally accepted standard (.01’ for distances, 1” for bearings, 1 SF for area). These meet or exceed the necessary tolerances for the vast majority of the type of work that we typically perform.

In my experience, the ‘more or less’ designation is typically for an area where there is a much greater uncertainty regarding the dimensions. Typically, this is seen on older deeds and allows for a significantly higher variation of dimensions (perhaps even a few feet at times). If we were to add this to our description, it would imply that the survey was performed with a lower level of accuracy than it actually was.

Wattles’ ‘Writing Legal Descriptions’ section 3.12 comments on this, stating that ‘a good place to use this statement is where you know, or strongly suspect from extrinsic evidence, that there is a problem.’ Since this does not apply to this particular boundary resolution, we would prefer not to use this statement on this map.

[hellsangle]

Maybe in Wattles day . . .

But today some parcel sell for over $ 1,000 per square foot! (Sorry Mr. Wattles, I'll stick with "more or less".)

Crazy Phil

[Jim Frame]

I'm surprised to learn that a practitioner is balking at a suggestion that would decrease his liability exposure. I routinely append "more or less" to stated areas, and hope that no reviewer asks me to remove it.

[DWoolley]

The "more or less" is of personal annoyance for me.

When a description is written from a public record and closes mathematically, it is not "more or less". The math provides an area that is precise and not "more or less". Run the traverse as many times as you like, clockwise and then, counterclockwise, and the area will not change. Wattles understood it. I suppose it would be accurate to state "a field survey may result in a different area than shown" or similar. Simply stating "more or less" does not convey that message.

If the legal description is based on a field survey there is a true "more or less" that can be quantified from the measurements and equipment used. A sophisticated operator would add more or less and qualify the "more or less" with an accuracy statement. For example, "...being 45,000 square feet being plus or minus 250 square feet." Anything else is "more or less", ah, how much more or less? Completely meaningless without quantification. Pure donk. The most common counter I hear is "the area is not controlling and if I state 'more or less' readers will understand". I do not buy it.

I have went round and round on this topic with other, ahem, "professionals" and admittedly, I have a some donk "more or less" descriptions with my signature and seal rather than try to explain it someone. In litigation - usually with a field survey - the true area becomes important as part of a payment and the accuracy statement provides the range for which to negotiate a fair per square foot price. Admittedly, I struggles with the accuracy statement when I have curved lines and factoring net area versus gross in the settlement documents.

Readers, if you review another surveyor's legal descriptions, for fun, simply ask them why they put "more or less" at the end of their description when it is based on record. My experience has been they have no idea. They simply have always done it that way - little different than a monkey that can play one song on a piano.

DWoolley

[Warren Smith]

My use of "more or less" is in a situation where, say, a closing line is along a senior parcel's bearing into another senior parcel's bearing. The distance is - for future retracement purposes - one which will yield to that bearing-bearing intersect position.
Although it is based on today's mathematic closure, the position of controlling monuments for those lines will dictate future closures.
Dave Wooley's reference to an accuracy statement quantifies the amount of allowable imprecision.

[LS9200]

No measurement is perfect.

A 5 acre parcel measured to an accuracy of 1 part in 50,000 (second order class I) is going to vary +/- 4 square feet. At a more realistic 1 part on 10,000(Third order) it's +/- 22 sq. ft. Nebulous to some, but important to others - how do you compromise?

Are the public record courses stated to 1", 30" or 1' angles? Are the distances to 1', 0.1' or 0.01'? Is the acreage stated to 1, .1, .01, or ever so requested .001? (.001 acres is 43 sq ft)

[DWoolley]

Test yourself, what is the difference, if any, between 250+/- and +/-250 square feet?

DWoolley

[DWoolley]

No measurement is perfect.

... accuracy of 1 part in 50,000 (second order class I) is going to vary +/- 4 square feet

It is not an accuracy, that is a precision.

The five acres is 217,800 feet i.e. a four sided figure of 466.69'. If one line is 0.02' plus or minus, that makes 9', plus or minus, square feet on one side. I would expect the "more or less" to be several hundred square feet or more [or less] in five acres - depending on the configuration. Next, the "at 95%" needs to be added.

DWoolley

[hellsangle]

What's the harm?!

[LS9200]

No measurement is perfect.

... accuracy of 1 part in 50,000 (second order class I) is going to vary +/- 4 square feet

It is not an accuracy, that is a precision.

The five acres is 217,800 feet i.e. a four sided figure of 466.69'. If one line is 0.02' plus or minus, that makes 9', plus or minus, square feet on one side. I would expect the "more or less" to be several hundred square feet or more [or less] in five acres - depending on the configuration. Next, the "at 95%" needs to be added.

DWoolley

Detail, your right - I missed preceding that with closure ratio accuracy. Closure, is measure of accuracy not precision (We are indicating how closely the measured points return to the starting point, reflecting the overall correctness of the measurements). I thought it was obvious, but I'll try and keep up.

[DWoolley]

No measurement is perfect.

... accuracy of 1 part in 50,000 (second order class I) is going to vary +/- 4 square feet

It is not an accuracy, that is a precision.

The five acres is 217,800 feet i.e. a four sided figure of 466.69'. If one line is 0.02' plus or minus, that makes 9', plus or minus, square feet on one side. I would expect the "more or less" to be several hundred square feet or more [or less] in five acres - depending on the configuration. Next, the "at 95%" needs to be added.

DWoolley

Detail, your right - I missed preceding that with closure ratio accuracy. Closure, is measure of accuracy not precision (We are indicating how closely the measured points return to the starting point, reflecting the overall correctness of the measurements). I thought it was obvious, but I'll try and keep up.

[Actually, error of closure is not related to accuracy. I pirated my own writing from another forum in which a surveyor was asking about the "acceptable error of closure". I am posting my reply without edits for efficiency.]

The error of closure is a blunder detector, nothing more. The surveyor should be familiar with the instrument specifications to determine the standard error (theorical uncertainty) of the measurements – no measurements are absolute.

For example, if the surveyor were to traverse an equal sided figure of four 400′ legs with an theoretical uncertainty (tu) of 0.03′ (one sigma-68%) per setup for four setups. The math would be the square root of 0.03 squared x 4 = 0.06′ x 2 (two sigma) = 0.12′ theoretical uncertainty. Total traverse length is 400’x 4 = 1600’/0.12′ tu is a relative error of closure of 1:13k.

The relative error of closure is a range from 0.00′ to 0.12′ (two sigma means there is 5% outlier that will not fit in the range.) Think of a spinning a wheel or throwing a dart at a board with a numerical range of 0.00′ to 0.12′. The traverse closure is just as likely to be 0.00′ or 0.12′ or any other number in between. Restated, the error closure 1600’/0.01 = 1:160,000 is the same/likely as 1600’/0.12′ = 1:13,000 – or any number in between – are the same closure. The surveyor only concerns him/herself if the number is less than 1:13k as the survey exceeded the instrument specification – indicating a possible blunder.

In closing, the 1:60k, 1:40k, 1:15k are all equal and meaningless as to the accuracy or precision of the work. A 1:8k or similar is the only meaningful number as it indicates a blunder.

If this post was intended to clown the crowd, I fell for it.

Do not take my word for it. See Brown, Curtis M., Robillard, Walter G., Wilson, Donald A., pgs. 282-284, “Evidence and Procedures for Boundary Location”, 1981.

For those that do not have the book “The value has very little to do with the closure, except that the experienced discrepancy should fall within the expected range. It is just as likely for a closure to be zero as for it to be any other number within the expected range.” (pages 283-284).

DWoolley

[DWoolley]

What's the harm?!

Sound surveyor logic, almost scientific. Do we play anything other than "Roll Out the Barrel"?

DWoolley

[LS9200]

I think you are conflating a lot of ideas and are not portraying them correctly.

The error of closure is indeed used as a measure to detect blunders or errors in surveying. However, it's also important to note that it's a quantitative measure of the accuracy of the survey, not solely a blunder detector.

You went from trying to critique the post about relative closure accuracy - stating that I was talking about precision (which is in interesting jab considering the only way to state that in the context of this profession is the way that I did "Second order class I" - a measure of closure). When that didn't work you went on the tangent above, saying it isn't a measure of accuracy at all.

The ultimate goal of this was about the plus or minus in an acreage, which you just confirmed the thesis of what I portrayed "no measurements are absolute" (Second paragraph of your post). If no measurements are absolute how can you give an absolute area?

Also - Two sigma does not necessarily imply a 5% outlier. It corresponds to approximately 95% of the data within that range in a normal distribution. Outliers are usually defined based on a specific criterion, not directly tied to sigma levels. If I have 100 measurements it doesn't mean 5 will be outside of the range.

Interesting analogy of a dart board for relative accuracy, maybe just roll a barrel.

[DWoolley]

I think you are conflating a lot of ideas and are not portraying them correctly.

The error of closure is indeed used as a measure to detect blunders or errors in surveying. However, it's also important to note that it's a quantitative measure of the accuracy of the survey, not solely a blunder detector.
...
The ultimate goal of this was about the plus or minus in an acreage, which you just confirmed the thesis of what I portrayed "no measurements are absolute" (Second paragraph of your post). If no measurements are absolute how can you give an absolute area?
...

Nate:

I do not have a bone to pick with you or a desire to put my finger in your eye on a public forum. It is not a word game or merely semantics. This particular topic clearly demonstrates our community weaknesses. The citations for these discussions is in Wattles and Brown.

An error of closure, in the example I provided, of 1:60k is no different than 1:13k. Restated, 1:60k is not more [or less] accurate than 1:13k. It is in Brown. If you do not have a copy I will send you one of my six copies with that chapter bookmarked. Take my same example, tell me how accurate the measurements are for the 1:60k, 0.0025 per leg? Pfft.

A legal description based on record information is not based on measurements, therefore no plus or minus/more or less is applicable. Again, as suggested earlier, run the traverses and look for the variation. I would sincerely welcome learning the error of my ways - it would keep me from being triggered on this particular topic. My second favorite meal is crow.

DWoolley

[Scott]

A Title Company will remove the whole area sentence from your description as soon as they use it for a Report or any subsequent transfers.

[LS9200]

Nate:

I do not have a bone to pick with you or a desire to put my finger in your eye on a public forum. It is not a word game or merely semantics. This particular topic clearly demonstrates our community weaknesses. The citations for these discussions is in Wattles and Brown.

An error of closure, in the example I provided, of 1:60k is no different than 1:13k. Restated, 1:60k is not more [or less] accurate than 1:13k. It is in Brown. If you do not have a copy I will send you one of my six copies with that chapter bookmarked. Take my same example, tell me how accurate the measurements are for the 1:60k, 0.0025 per leg? Pfft.

A legal description based on record information is not based on measurements, therefore no plus or minus/more or less is applicable. Again, as suggested earlier, run the traverses and look for the variation. I would sincerely welcome learning the error of my ways - it would keep me from being triggered on this particular topic. My second favorite meal is crow.

DWoolley

Nor do I, but a particular gripe of mine is when someone insists on correcting a minor factual detail that doesn't affect the overall understanding or meaning of what I am saying that distracts from the main topic. Also, you went from error of closure is not related to accuracy, to error closure is meaningless past a point (two different concepts).

[Mike Mueller]

A Title Company will remove the whole area sentence from your description as soon as they use it for a Report and any subsequent transfers.

Not to sidetrack from the original post, but OMG does that bother me. After seeing that happen a few times I have just started burying all the important stuff inside the description. Anything in the header and after the last course is almost always trimmed, especially in the PTRs which sometimes get copied and recorded...

In regards to the original post. I am happy to add "more or less" to all areas, mainly in the context of how the rest of the world will use my description, but also supporting the hierarchy of calls. When I have to explain to a client that when their "half acre lot" is surveyed, it will almost certainly not be exactly 21,780 sq/ft. it is helpful to have such plainly understood words like "more or less" in the description.

When a description is written from a public record and closes mathematically, it is not "more or less". The math provides an area that is precise and not "more or less". Run the traverse as many times as you like, clockwise and then, counterclockwise, and the area will not change. Wattles understood it. I suppose it would be accurate to state "a field survey may result in a different area than shown" or similar. Simply stating "more or less" does not convey that message.

How does "more or less" not convey that message? Their are two audiences to consider, 1)other surveyors and the increasingly rare competent title officer and 2) everyone else. We in the first group all know that area is generally the least controlling and most inaccurate part of the description, whereas the "everyone else" group seems to only care about the area. In my experience explaining area to the "everyone else" group, more or less means it might change, or not be correct. When I try to explain the nuances of what is controlling within their deed and how it will result in different distances and angles than what is written I lose most folks. Pointing out that there is a more or less on the area is often the "Aha!" moment.

Like rule 5 of Orwell's guide to writing, "Never use a foreign phrase, a scientific word, or a jargon word if you can think of an everyday English equivalent" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_ ... h_Language

"More or less" seems pretty clear to me, and likely even more clear to non surveyors.

Mikey Mueller, PLS 9076
Sonoma County

[DWoolley]

Thread hijack...[scratchy PA system] next up, donk rodeo fans, bucking out of chute 3, all legal descriptions must be metes and bounds. An all to common request with no legitimate purpose or citation.

A request for metes and bounds plus the more or less on a description is enough to make a fella run out into traffic.

DWoolley

[DWoolley]

...
In regards to the original post. I am happy to add "more or less" to all areas, mainly in the context of how the rest of the world will use my description, but also supporting the hierarchy of calls. When I have to explain to a client that when their "half acre lot" is surveyed, it will almost certainly not be exactly 21,780 sq/ft. it is helpful to have such plainly understood words like "more or less" in the description.

When a description is written from a public record and closes mathematically, it is not "more or less". The math provides an area that is precise and not "more or less". Run the traverse as many times as you like, clockwise and then, counterclockwise, and the area will not change. Wattles understood it. I suppose it would be accurate to state "a field survey may result in a different area than shown" or similar. Simply stating "more or less" does not convey that message.

How does "more or less" not convey that message? Their are two audiences to consider, 1)other surveyors and the increasingly rare competent title officer and 2) everyone else. We in the first group all know that area is generally the least controlling and most inaccurate part of the description, whereas the "everyone else" group seems to only care about the area. In my experience explaining area to the "everyone else" group, more or less means it might change, or not be correct. When I try to explain the nuances of what is controlling within their deed and how it will result in different distances and angles than what is written I lose most folks. Pointing out that there is a more or less on the area is often the "Aha!" moment.

...

"More or less" seems pretty clear to me, and likely even more clear to non surveyors.

Mikey Mueller, PLS 9076
Sonoma County

From above:

"Anything else is "more or less", ah, how much more or less? Completely meaningless without quantification. Pure donk. The most common counter I hear is "the area is not controlling and if I state 'more or less' readers will understand". I do not buy it."

I doubt the "everyone else" has any understanding of bearings and distances displayed in hundredths of a foot and the "more or less" ties it all together.

Bucking out of chute 5, adding "access by prescriptive easement" or "road by prescription" or similar on the plat. I ask for the court case determining the prescriptive right. I have received zero to date.

Bucking out of chute 6, successive lot line adjustments to circumvent the "four or fewer lots" provision in the Subdivision Map Act.

Bucking out of chute 7, adding "to a point" after a bearing and distance when the scrivner is not intending to drop off a point to pick up on later in a description. This is straight out of Wattles.

Generally, these have been Benson Bullseye issues, except chute 6. We have plenty of that to go around locally.

DWoolley

[DWoolley]

Next questions for the "more or less" crowd;

1. Using the same logic, why don't subdivision maps show the area as "more or less"?

2. Why not round the area in a legal description to the nearest 100 square feet to take advantage of your training in significant figures? Would the map checker types accept it after you submitted a closure to hundredth of a square foot? Nope.

3. Why not use the same logic i.e. significant figures rounding for subdivision map areas?

4. In your mind's eye, why is the area shown for a lot in q subdivision different than a written legal description having "more or less"? Lots in a subdivision are conveyed without the more or less area.

5. Or, do we simply play the one piano song, an old rendition of "Roll Out the Barrel", because "that's the way I have always done it"?

DWoolley

[hellsangle]

You've got to be kidding . . .

A subdivision lot with area to the umpteenth place - doesn't mean crap!

For discussion purposes, (and not so far from the real world experiences): an original monument is out of position and the "expert measurers" have measured over and over and over. The area changes with each "expert measurers" opinion. Because the monument holds!

Example description: " blah blah blah to a concrete monument with bronze disk stamped . . . thence blah blah blah, MORE OR LESS(!!!) to a concrete monument with bronze disk" . . . and so on. The "more or less" shows the layperson/attorney/etc. - intent.

What's the harm in "more or less"? Are we all so infallible? (according to one poster on this discussion page - the GIS people make better maps than surveyors!) Where are the metrics to show that the sky is falling when using "more or less"?

Think like a surveyor . . . not like an engineer "all caught up in the numbers"!

[Scott]

I started new thread about successive lot line adjustments so as not to hijack this one.

[DWoolley]

....
Example description: " blah blah blah to a concrete monument with bronze disk stamped . . . thence blah blah blah, MORE OR LESS(!!!) to a concrete monument with bronze disk" . . . and so on. The "more or less" shows the layperson/attorney/etc. - intent.

What's the harm in "more or less"? ...

According to Wattles, Section 3.12:

"More or Less

This statement is ofttimes used extraneously. In one description it followed every course and when the matter was taken to court, the judge knocked out all of the statements of "more or less." The theory expressed was that inasmuch as they were used throughout, they carried no meaning whatsoever.

When a course ties to a matter which is on record, or ties to a monument, the tie will hold regardless and so it is unnecessary to say "more or less." Also, when this statement "more or less" is put in the last course when going to the point of beginning, it has no value because the call is mandatory to go to the point of beginning regardless of the bearing and/or distance. If a course recites, "thence to the northwest corner of Forbes' land," the surveyor must first establish that northwest corner and then measure to it and report whatever the bearing and distance is. Here again, there is no reason to use "more or less.""

[Emphasis mine]

Clear, concise and without ambiguity. There is nothing for me to add to Wattles.

I do not need to look, there is no book that states otherwise.

DWoolley

[DWoolley]

Wattles, Section 3.13:

"To a point," "at a point," "to the point of intersection." The end of a line is a point so it is not necessary to state the fact. An intersection of two lines is a point. It is really unnecessary to make a point of "to a point" or "point of intersection" unless there is a lateral tie that must be held in which case the "point" becomes a qualified control.

Clear, concise and without ambiguity. There is nothing for me to add to Wattles.

Wattles has been the standard in California since the early 1940s.

DWoolley

[DWoolley]

Readers:

Doesn't it strike you as peculiar the uniformity of the legal descriptions throughout California? Surely, folks did not think that was happenstance. It was not.

In 1943 Wattles published and taught from a 68 page syllabus - that later became the book with which we are all familiar. At the time, the State of California, Department of Public Works required the syllabus to "be placed in the hands of each Right of Way Agent and Right of Way Engineer for their information and guidance."

Nearly 50 years later it was placed in my hands as guidance and used as the textbook for my classes. It remains the gold standard in all jurisdictions today. If Wattles didn't write it, it is witchcraft.

As always, do not take my word for it. Read the attached memo for yourself.

DWoolley