Comments for Tractplotter.com Development Blog http://www.tractplotter.com/blog Plotting Tracts, one day at a time Thu, 26 Mar 2009 20:23:26 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1 hourly 1 Comment on Welcome! by JRBinkley http://www.tractplotter.com/blog/?p=3&cpage=1#comment-750 JRBinkley Thu, 26 Mar 2009 20:23:26 +0000 http://www.tractplotter.com/blog/?p=3#comment-750 I was thinking of the angles as those in the tract itself -- 90 degree angles because the tract was a perfect rectangle, skewed so its middle axis ran from NW to SE. Now I see you are saying 45 degrees OFF from the true E-W axis. If your website is to help those of us who are working from 18th century info and have never done any land platting, it would be helpful for you to say what the degrees refer to. Thanks. I was thinking of the angles as those in the tract itself — 90 degree angles because the tract was a perfect rectangle, skewed so its middle axis ran from NW to SE. Now I see you are saying 45 degrees OFF from the true E-W axis.

If your website is to help those of us who are working from 18th century info and have never done any land platting, it would be helpful for you to say what the degrees refer to.

Thanks.

]]> Comment on Welcome! by admin http://www.tractplotter.com/blog/?p=3&cpage=1#comment-748 admin Thu, 26 Mar 2009 07:03:55 +0000 http://www.tractplotter.com/blog/?p=3#comment-748 JRBinkley, Your angles are formatted incorrectly. The first part of the angle must be N or S. The second part must be a number, and the third part must be E or W. But, in the case of exact cardinal directions, you can just use N, S, E, and W. So, based on the calls you gave, my best guess for your tract would be <a href="http://tractplotter.com/?calls_string=W+150p%0D%0AS+226p%0D%0AE+150p%0D%0AN+226p&Submit=Submit" rel="nofollow">W 150p S 226p E 150p N 226p</a> However, you say that your tract is actually set at an angle. If it is a 45 degree angle, this is how it would look: <a href="http://tractplotter.com/?calls_string=N45W+226p%0D%0AN45E+150p%0D%0AS45E+226p%0D%0AS45W+150p&Submit=Submit" rel="nofollow">N45W 226p N45E 150p S45E 226p S45W 150p</a> If it is a 30 degree angle, this is how it would look: <a href="http://tractplotter.com/?calls_string=N30W+226p%0D%0AN60E+150p%0D%0AS30E+226p%0D%0AS60W+150p%0D%0A&Submit=Submit" rel="nofollow">N30W 226p N60E 150p S30E 226p S60W 150p</a> A 90 degree angle doesn't make sense (90 degrees are the cardinal directions North, South, East and West). JRBinkley,

Your angles are formatted incorrectly. The first part of the angle must be N or S. The second part must be a number, and the third part must be E or W. But, in the case of exact cardinal directions, you can just use N, S, E, and W. So, based on the calls you gave, my best guess for your tract would be

W 150p
S 226p
E 150p
N 226p

However, you say that your tract is actually set at an angle. If it is a 45 degree angle, this is how it would look:

N45W 226p
N45E 150p
S45E 226p
S45W 150p

If it is a 30 degree angle, this is how it would look:

N30W 226p
N60E 150p
S30E 226p
S60W 150p

A 90 degree angle doesn’t make sense (90 degrees are the cardinal directions North, South, East and West).

]]> Comment on Welcome! by JRBinkley http://www.tractplotter.com/blog/?p=3&cpage=1#comment-673 JRBinkley Mon, 16 Mar 2009 17:43:35 +0000 http://www.tractplotter.com/blog/?p=3#comment-673 I have a rectangular plot set at an angle running NW to SE the long sides. Description is from 1737, in perches, starting at the NE corner Here's what I put in, assuming the directions surrounding the angle show the slope of the line from beginning corner to ending corner. Your website said there was a 60% closure error: n90w 150p w90s 226p s90e 150p e90n 226p What have I done wrong? I have a rectangular plot set at an angle running NW to SE the long sides.
Description is from 1737, in perches, starting at the NE corner
Here’s what I put in, assuming the directions surrounding the angle show the slope of the line from beginning corner to ending corner. Your website said there was a 60% closure error:
n90w 150p
w90s 226p
s90e 150p
e90n 226p
What have I done wrong?

]]> Comment on Percent Error and Area by jimithy http://www.tractplotter.com/blog/?p=5&cpage=1#comment-232 jimithy Wed, 21 Jan 2009 17:25:17 +0000 http://www.tractplotter.com/blog/?p=5#comment-232 I have been writing my own closure software for years. Each new deed required some variation of the previous software. TractPlotter is heaven sent and YES you should be getting money for this service. I am a former software developer and I know the difficulty of producing simple straightforward interfaces that produce professional results. Here is a comment you can take or leave as you wish. It seems it would be simple to allow an "Enlarge" button for your image result. Although your software is not meant for high precision CAD work... a use my wife and I have is to take aerial and satellite images and overlay a plot outline on them. A somewhat higher precision map could allow resizing and/or rotating your image without introducing major artifacts in the result. Thank you very much! jimithy I have been writing my own closure software for years. Each new deed required some variation of the previous software.

TractPlotter is heaven sent and YES you should be getting money for this service. I am a former software developer and I know the difficulty of producing simple straightforward interfaces that produce professional results.

Here is a comment you can take or leave as you wish. It seems it would be simple to allow an “Enlarge” button for your image result. Although your software is not meant for high precision CAD work… a use my wife and I have is to take aerial and satellite images and overlay a plot outline on them. A somewhat higher precision map could allow resizing and/or rotating your image without introducing major artifacts in the result.

Thank you very much!
jimithy

]]> Comment on Welcome! by Rose http://www.tractplotter.com/blog/?p=3&cpage=1#comment-210 Rose Tue, 06 Jan 2009 20:36:43 +0000 http://www.tractplotter.com/blog/?p=3#comment-210 Great program! I'm a researcher at a power company in North Carolina, and find this program invaluable (although eventually I would get something that can do arcs, as well as print comments). However it would be a plus to be able to print out just the completed plot and acreage information -- I've been using my SnagIt program to print just that region of the screen, and enlarge it. Sometimes when there are a lot of calls those numbers overlap and it's hard to see just where the points are. Perhaps the output screen can be configured to be proportionate with the completed plot? Just a suggestion ... Great program! I’m a researcher at a power company in North Carolina, and find this program invaluable (although eventually I would get something that can do arcs, as well as print comments). However it would be a plus to be able to print out just the completed plot and acreage information — I’ve been using my SnagIt program to print just that region of the screen, and enlarge it. Sometimes when there are a lot of calls those numbers overlap and it’s hard to see just where the points are. Perhaps the output screen can be configured to be proportionate with the completed plot? Just a suggestion …

]]> Comment on Welcome! by Curt Redden http://www.tractplotter.com/blog/?p=3&cpage=1#comment-127 Curt Redden Thu, 13 Nov 2008 18:48:00 +0000 http://www.tractplotter.com/blog/?p=3#comment-127 Excellent software! Congratulations on this and what is to come. As an investor, I usually only need to see a plot / map and verify the square footage from a legal description so your free package is perfect! Dropping an actual photo over the plot would be great. Thanks for a much needed, easy tool. Excellent software! Congratulations on this and what is to come. As an investor, I usually only need to see a plot / map and verify the square footage from a legal description so your free package is perfect! Dropping an actual photo over the plot would be great. Thanks for a much needed, easy tool.

]]> Comment on Welcome! by Marty Pena http://www.tractplotter.com/blog/?p=3&cpage=1#comment-19 Marty Pena Wed, 30 Jul 2008 04:19:16 +0000 http://www.tractplotter.com/blog/?p=3#comment-19 Hello, I have been doing research on some property that had questionable plots and courses. With the tractplotter I've been able to establish true acreage and locations of property that old deeds provided. Thank you very much for making my research easier. It would be great if there was an ability to approach other subjects relating to plots and descriptions. For instance such as mineral rights or interests for sale or for leasing. Only reason I'm mentioning this is because you mention you are a landman for the Barnett Shale area. I would appreciate any insight you might have on mineral acres. Thanks again, Marty Pena Hello,

I have been doing research on some property that had questionable plots and courses. With the tractplotter I’ve been able to establish true acreage and locations of property that old deeds provided. Thank you very much for making my research easier. It would be great if there was an ability to approach other subjects relating to plots and descriptions. For instance such as mineral rights or interests for sale or for leasing. Only reason I’m mentioning this is because you mention you are a landman for the Barnett Shale area. I would appreciate any insight you might have on mineral acres.
Thanks again,
Marty Pena

]]> Comment on Welcome! by zeddock http://www.tractplotter.com/blog/?p=3&cpage=1#comment-12 zeddock Mon, 14 Jul 2008 01:45:26 +0000 http://www.tractplotter.com/blog/?p=3#comment-12 This gives me options for a move to Ubuntu instead of staying in MS land. thanx. This gives me options for a move to Ubuntu instead of staying in MS land.
thanx.

]]> Comment on Welcome! by admin http://www.tractplotter.com/blog/?p=3&cpage=1#comment-9 admin Sun, 06 Jul 2008 02:30:09 +0000 http://www.tractplotter.com/blog/?p=3#comment-9 Steve, Your comment shows two descriptions which appear to be identical. I got the same plot from both of them. I am sure that you will have a problem though, as I have not included Links as a unit of measure, and the site does not yet support combining two units in one distance call (e.g., feet and inches don't work in the same line -- in fact, inches don't work at all, I guess I should add them). If you try decimalizing the links as 1/25 of a pole (e.g. 3 links = 0.12 pole) then it might work better. So in your example of 9P 9.6971L, try 9.387884p instead. But thanks for bringing this to my attention - I will be sure to fix that problem and add links and poles properly as native units! Steve,

Your comment shows two descriptions which appear to be identical. I got the same plot from both of them. I am sure that you will have a problem though, as I have not included Links as a unit of measure, and the site does not yet support combining two units in one distance call (e.g., feet and inches don’t work in the same line — in fact, inches don’t work at all, I guess I should add them). If you try decimalizing the links as 1/25 of a pole (e.g. 3 links = 0.12 pole) then it might work better. So in your example of 9P 9.6971L, try 9.387884p instead.

But thanks for bringing this to my attention – I will be sure to fix that problem and add links and poles properly as native units!

]]> Comment on Welcome! by Steve http://www.tractplotter.com/blog/?p=3&cpage=1#comment-8 Steve Sat, 05 Jul 2008 11:27:11 +0000 http://www.tractplotter.com/blog/?p=3#comment-8 I tried one legal and received what I believe is a correct answer. s20e 9p 10L s69w 36.6 n20w 9p 9.6971L n68e 36.6 then I entered a very similar older description for the same property s20e 9p 10L s69w 36.6 n20w 9p 9.6971L n68e 36.6 Wow -- those are the same. However, the diagram on each showed a rectangle but one showed the 36.6 (feet) to be the longer side. They were two distinctly different rectangles. I am excited to see your site but at this time I am concerned about relying on the results it provides. I tried one legal and received what I believe is a correct answer.
s20e 9p 10L
s69w 36.6
n20w 9p 9.6971L
n68e 36.6

then I entered a very similar older description for the same property
s20e 9p 10L
s69w 36.6
n20w 9p 9.6971L
n68e 36.6

Wow — those are the same. However, the diagram on each showed a rectangle but one showed the 36.6 (feet) to be the longer side. They were two distinctly different rectangles. I am excited to see your site but at this time I am concerned about relying on the results it provides.

]]>