Tuesday, February 26, 2019
Hunting Parcels
The first parcel I looked at is the property my apartment building is on. That was not particularly interesting as it has been registered to the current owner since 1969, so I chose a plot in a subdivision up the river a ways at random and worked with that.
The property I chose has a PID of 01510387 . The property is located on Monteith Drive off of Woodstock road. The current owners of the parcel are Etienne Jacques Dupuis and Josianne Melida Charest. They purchased the property on the 24th of July, 2008 from Nicole Line Bourgeois and Jean Paul Robert Robichaud. They had purchased the property six years earlier on the 26th of September 2002 from John Walter Thompson and Florence Elizabeth Thompson. The Thompsons had held the property since 1992. The parcel sits on land originally granted by the crown to George Cyphers on the 3rd of October 1799.
Friday, February 22, 2019
Up in the Air
I find boundaries in general to be quite interesting. One type of boundary we have talked about recently that I find particularly interesting are those enclosing Air Space Parcels. While they are not common in places like New Brunswick, they are used heavily in some parts of the country, particularly in cities like Vancouver with significant numbers of tall buildings.
The idea of demarcating a boundary on the ground is a pretty simple one which is easily understood my most if not all. One can place markers on the ground and easily see precisely where the boundary is at all times and how structures relate to those boundaries. In the case of the land moving locally due to settling or other, markers move with the land and the boundaries persist in the same relationship to structures on the land as they are defined by the monuments in many cases.
An airspace parcel on the other hand is different. It is referenced to 3D geodetic coordinates meaning several things. First of all, there can not be markers placed at the corners of the parcel as it is just a point in the air. This makes it much more difficult to ascertain where they are. They can also have complex three dimensional shapes, making it even more difficult. Also, given they are referenced to geodetic coordinates rather than to ground monuments, if the ground moves locally, it moves with respect to the geodetic coordinates.
In the case where an airspace parcel contains a floor of a building this can be problematic as parts of the floor can become outside the airspace parcel quite quickly, and for everything to be neat and tidy legally, one must redefine the boundaries of the parcel.
In thinking about this, something we are expecting any day now on the West Coast is "The Big One". This would be an earthquake of magnitude 7.0 or up which is long overdue given historical evidence. Given the use of airspace parcels, and the fact that land can shift horizontally and vertically by meters in an instant in a large earthquake, Vancouver surveyors will likely be very busy following "The Big One" resurveying airspace parcels.
On a different note, but somewhat similar, I am very curious to see what happens with the land rights of the people displaced by the long lasting eruption on Hawaii last year. Hundreds of properties were completely obliterated and covered with many meters of fresh lava flows. I am very curious to see what happens to those properties as it is highly unlikely they will now be suitable to build on.
The idea of demarcating a boundary on the ground is a pretty simple one which is easily understood my most if not all. One can place markers on the ground and easily see precisely where the boundary is at all times and how structures relate to those boundaries. In the case of the land moving locally due to settling or other, markers move with the land and the boundaries persist in the same relationship to structures on the land as they are defined by the monuments in many cases.
An airspace parcel on the other hand is different. It is referenced to 3D geodetic coordinates meaning several things. First of all, there can not be markers placed at the corners of the parcel as it is just a point in the air. This makes it much more difficult to ascertain where they are. They can also have complex three dimensional shapes, making it even more difficult. Also, given they are referenced to geodetic coordinates rather than to ground monuments, if the ground moves locally, it moves with respect to the geodetic coordinates.
In the case where an airspace parcel contains a floor of a building this can be problematic as parts of the floor can become outside the airspace parcel quite quickly, and for everything to be neat and tidy legally, one must redefine the boundaries of the parcel.
In thinking about this, something we are expecting any day now on the West Coast is "The Big One". This would be an earthquake of magnitude 7.0 or up which is long overdue given historical evidence. Given the use of airspace parcels, and the fact that land can shift horizontally and vertically by meters in an instant in a large earthquake, Vancouver surveyors will likely be very busy following "The Big One" resurveying airspace parcels.
On a different note, but somewhat similar, I am very curious to see what happens with the land rights of the people displaced by the long lasting eruption on Hawaii last year. Hundreds of properties were completely obliterated and covered with many meters of fresh lava flows. I am very curious to see what happens to those properties as it is highly unlikely they will now be suitable to build on.
Heartstrings, Metes, and Bounds
This is an advertisement that clearly uses pathos as a method of persuasion. Pulling on our heartstrings with a baby is almost always an example of pathos. The large text is definitely pathos. The small text is more of a logical appeal however. It talks about the construction of the tires and talks about how although their tires are more expensive to buy, they last longer and are cheaper to own. There is also an appeal to ethos in the first part of the small text. They talk about how tires are their only focus, and they use only the best materials and only release them after huge amounts of testing. All that said, the main appeal is that of pathos.
Lutz v. Kawa (1980) 15 R.P.R. 40 This case is important because of the views it sets out on adverse possession, and on when the period of limitations starts outside of the condition of outright sale. It contradicts several previous cases slightly which upon review of previous precedent appear to not have followed that precedent.
All that certain lot, piece or parcel of land situate, lying and being in the Township of Hawkesbury, County of Prescott in the Province of Ontario, being more particularly described as follows:
Beginning at the center of the one inch square iron bar lying in a southwesterly direction along the bearing S16°51'30"W a distance of 13.06 feet from the road allowance between concessions 6 and 7 near the telephone pole with a guy wire; Thence in a northwesterly direction along the bearing N67°29'30"W a distance of 199.00 feet to the center of the 5/8 inch square iron bar; Thence continuing in a southwesterly direction along the bearing S16°51'30"W a distance of 220.00 feet to the center of the 5/8 inch square iron bar; Thence in a southeasterly direction along the bearing S67°29'30"E a distance of 209.00 feet to the center of the 5/8 inch square iron bar on the boundary with Lot 25; Thence following the post and wire fence along the boundary with Lot 25 in a northeasterly direction along the bearing N16°51'30"E a distance of 220.00 feet to an unmarked point along the boundary with Lot 25; Thence in a northwesterly direction along the bearing N67°29'30"W a distance of 10.00 feet to the place of beginning.
The herein-before described parcel of land contains 1.010 acres more or less and is designated as Part 1 of Lot 26 of Concession 7, and is shown as described on filed plan number 46R-5593.
Tuesday, February 19, 2019
Research Sources Research
How can Precise Point Positioning be used to improve accuracy of a Global Navigation Satellite System survey using a single receiver. There are many ways to answer that question and many levels of detail, depth and accuracy different sources can provide. Below are an assessment of three sources of different types which could be used to start to answer that question. All citations should have the second and subsequent lines indented but I cannot seem to make Blogger do that.
1. Novatel. (2015). Precise Point Positioning (PPP). Retrieved February 06, 2019, from https://www.novatel.com/an-introduction-to-gnss/chapter-5-resolving-errors/precise-point-positioning-ppp/
This resource is a website produced by a producer of GNSS products. It is designed as an introductory and explanatory document to help potential users understand more about they technology they produce. It does not have an author cited and does not include references. This means one must take them at their word for anything discussed on the page. It does include a year of publication in this case from a parent directory, however it difficult to ascertain if that is the last time this page was edited. There is likely some bias built into the information provided as it is compiled by a corporation with a financial interest in the use of the information.
2. Lou, Y., Zheng, F., Gu, S., Wang, C., Guo, H., & Feng, Y. (2015). Multi-GNSS precise point positioning with raw single-frequency and dual-frequency measurement models. GPS Solutions, 20(4), 849-862. doi:10.1007/s10291-015-0495-8
This resource is a web accessed journal article published in GPS Solutions, also in 2015. The authors come from two organizations: the GNSS Research Center of Wuhan University, Wuhan, China, and the Science and Engineering Faculty, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Australia. It contains many references to other articles from within just a couple of years before its publication which lends credence to it being up to date. It is quite specific which could mean that it does not have a broad application to answering my question, however it could be a great resource for a specific part of my question.
3. Kaplan, E. D., & Hegarty, C. (2017). Understanding GPS/GNSS: Principles and Applications (3rd ed.). Boston, MA: Artech House.
This resource is a book accessed online. It was published in 2017 so is the most recent of the three sources, but it is the third edition so it would be difficult to tell when precisely any part of the book was added. There are just two authors, but they cite a long list of contributors from a large variety of organizations around the world. The book covers all of the principles and science of GNSS including an entire chapter just on PPP and has references from many sources all through it giving it additional weight.
1. Novatel. (2015). Precise Point Positioning (PPP). Retrieved February 06, 2019, from https://www.novatel.com/an-introduction-to-gnss/chapter-5-resolving-errors/precise-point-positioning-ppp/
This resource is a website produced by a producer of GNSS products. It is designed as an introductory and explanatory document to help potential users understand more about they technology they produce. It does not have an author cited and does not include references. This means one must take them at their word for anything discussed on the page. It does include a year of publication in this case from a parent directory, however it difficult to ascertain if that is the last time this page was edited. There is likely some bias built into the information provided as it is compiled by a corporation with a financial interest in the use of the information.
2. Lou, Y., Zheng, F., Gu, S., Wang, C., Guo, H., & Feng, Y. (2015). Multi-GNSS precise point positioning with raw single-frequency and dual-frequency measurement models. GPS Solutions, 20(4), 849-862. doi:10.1007/s10291-015-0495-8
This resource is a web accessed journal article published in GPS Solutions, also in 2015. The authors come from two organizations: the GNSS Research Center of Wuhan University, Wuhan, China, and the Science and Engineering Faculty, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Australia. It contains many references to other articles from within just a couple of years before its publication which lends credence to it being up to date. It is quite specific which could mean that it does not have a broad application to answering my question, however it could be a great resource for a specific part of my question.
3. Kaplan, E. D., & Hegarty, C. (2017). Understanding GPS/GNSS: Principles and Applications (3rd ed.). Boston, MA: Artech House.
This resource is a book accessed online. It was published in 2017 so is the most recent of the three sources, but it is the third edition so it would be difficult to tell when precisely any part of the book was added. There are just two authors, but they cite a long list of contributors from a large variety of organizations around the world. The book covers all of the principles and science of GNSS including an entire chapter just on PPP and has references from many sources all through it giving it additional weight.
Friday, February 8, 2019
Reflections Take Two
I am very interested in the question of preservation or redevelopment of heritage buildings. Coming from a geography background, there are very interesting questions of land use and urban planning and human values. that come into play. There is no right answer to this question, just less worse ones.
It can likely be agreed by almost all that not every heritage building should be kept. By the same token, it can likely be said that not every heritage building should be replaced. The trick is to find the balance both on the community level and the individual lot level where that balance should lie. The issue is made even harder by the secondary question: what even makes a building a heritage building?
That secondary question is one that certainly begs investigation. Is it simply age? If it is, what is the cut-off? If the cut-off is 100 years what suddenly changes to make a 99 year old building which is not a heritage structure become one the next year? Should it be defined instead by a date of construction? What if that original building has been modified and renovated over the years? Should it instead be a building with specific historic ties such as a notable resident? Can it be defined by looks? That line of questioning is essentially infinite and does not necessarily lead anywhere productive - though it often leads to heated debate - as it is not truly quantifiable. This is where human nature starts to enter this picture.
What if instead we set that question aside for the moment and assume we have some sort of a satisfactory definition of what a heritage building is. The question now is which do we protect, which do we replace, and which do we leave it up to the market to decide. Attempting to come up with those sorts of criteria for what stays and what goes is to enter another rabbit hole of human emotion competing against socioeconomic and environmental realities.
This is however a question that must be answered. It must be an answer that takes into account the competing human, social, economic and environmental realities and balances them as best as is possible. It also must evolve with changing patterns in those competing realms of reality.
In reality this is actually a process that is happening around us all the time. Most if not all communities will have some sort of a development plan that tries to take into account these factors, some better than others.
As was discussed in class the way it usually works is that city planners work on these issues behind the scenes and come up with a set of goals and a plan of action to achieve them through zoning changes, infrastructure projects, and development incentives. They will then put this plan to the public in the form of an open consultation and take any comments from interested parties about how the plan could better address issues they feel strongly about. They then take these comments and examine them, weighing them against the findings of the planning professionals and economists. Changes are then made and the plan is put back to the public again, and the process is repeated some number of times before a master plan is made and set in action.
It is a process that must have a finite end in order to ever achieve anything, however it is an indefinite process in the sense that the plans should be revisited frequently to update them for changes in any of the parameters it is using to project into the future. It is difficult to conceive of another reasonable way this process could function.
We live in a society made up of individual humans with individual views of the world, how it works and how the future should be managed. We also however live in a world of social, economic and environmental realities that can be quantified in some sense and by which we must abide. This is the situation we are all in, and while there will never be a balance of those that satisfies everyone, we must strive to find the least worst outcome for all.
It can likely be agreed by almost all that not every heritage building should be kept. By the same token, it can likely be said that not every heritage building should be replaced. The trick is to find the balance both on the community level and the individual lot level where that balance should lie. The issue is made even harder by the secondary question: what even makes a building a heritage building?
That secondary question is one that certainly begs investigation. Is it simply age? If it is, what is the cut-off? If the cut-off is 100 years what suddenly changes to make a 99 year old building which is not a heritage structure become one the next year? Should it be defined instead by a date of construction? What if that original building has been modified and renovated over the years? Should it instead be a building with specific historic ties such as a notable resident? Can it be defined by looks? That line of questioning is essentially infinite and does not necessarily lead anywhere productive - though it often leads to heated debate - as it is not truly quantifiable. This is where human nature starts to enter this picture.
What if instead we set that question aside for the moment and assume we have some sort of a satisfactory definition of what a heritage building is. The question now is which do we protect, which do we replace, and which do we leave it up to the market to decide. Attempting to come up with those sorts of criteria for what stays and what goes is to enter another rabbit hole of human emotion competing against socioeconomic and environmental realities.
This is however a question that must be answered. It must be an answer that takes into account the competing human, social, economic and environmental realities and balances them as best as is possible. It also must evolve with changing patterns in those competing realms of reality.
In reality this is actually a process that is happening around us all the time. Most if not all communities will have some sort of a development plan that tries to take into account these factors, some better than others.
As was discussed in class the way it usually works is that city planners work on these issues behind the scenes and come up with a set of goals and a plan of action to achieve them through zoning changes, infrastructure projects, and development incentives. They will then put this plan to the public in the form of an open consultation and take any comments from interested parties about how the plan could better address issues they feel strongly about. They then take these comments and examine them, weighing them against the findings of the planning professionals and economists. Changes are then made and the plan is put back to the public again, and the process is repeated some number of times before a master plan is made and set in action.
It is a process that must have a finite end in order to ever achieve anything, however it is an indefinite process in the sense that the plans should be revisited frequently to update them for changes in any of the parameters it is using to project into the future. It is difficult to conceive of another reasonable way this process could function.
We live in a society made up of individual humans with individual views of the world, how it works and how the future should be managed. We also however live in a world of social, economic and environmental realities that can be quantified in some sense and by which we must abide. This is the situation we are all in, and while there will never be a balance of those that satisfies everyone, we must strive to find the least worst outcome for all.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)