Scott Westlund, ALS

Searching “closures” in my own ALS News article folder indicated that I’ve written about closures in my CCR Phase 1 and Phase 2 Final Report, several PRB Annual Reports, and in ALS News articles in February 2015 and as recently as March 2022. Computing a closure is my favourite plan checking tool (and maybe my favourite ALS News article topic).

Unfortunately, it seems that not everyone shares my enthusiasm for closures because at the September 21, 2022, PRB meeting, 15 files with products were reviewed (5 RPRs, 2 dispositions, 1 right-of-way plan, 1 wellsite plan, and 6 subdivision plans) and three didn’t close (1 RPR, 1 disposition plan, 1 subdivision plan). Additionally, although the most recent subdivision plan I examined (it’ll be discussed by the PRB in October) included a nice closure report for the interior lots, they seemingly forgot to run the closure on the dimensions shown on the outside perimeter of the subdivision. It didn’t close and at least two dimensions on the perimeter seemed incorrect.

Computing a closure for every figure on the plan is a critical plan checking step because when a figure does not close (by an amount that is more than survey tolerance), it is a sure sign that there is at least one drafting error and further investigation (e.g., confirming each dimension) is necessary.

Computing a closure takes time but, in my experience, it is time well spent. While working through a plan closure I often find other drafting errors. For example, when I do a closure as part of my CCR plan examination, I regularly see spelling errors, overlapping text, note that dimensions are missing, duplicated, or just don’t make sense (e.g. two chains to the witness was shown as 40.12 on one plan and another plan showed a rogue dimension on a seemingly random line), find that the information in details doesn’t match what is shown on the body of the plan, see bold outlines, found and placed monument symbols, radial bearings, and evidence descriptions that are missing or incorrect, and note that point numbers are missing from Section 47 plans. Indeed, I identified these exact errors on 8 of the 15 products reviewed at the September PRB meeting. There are also other benefits to computing closures. For example, I use the information generated by doing closures to confirm areas and coordinates.

Tips for computing closures

• Compute closures using the bearings and distances drafted on the most current version of the plan.
• Do not snap to points, intersections, endpoints or use any existing linework for a closure.
• I personally like to open a brand new MicroSurvey project and create a new point #1 at 5000, 5000 to start from. I then use the COGO function and type in bearings and distances from a pdf of the plan.
• On a hybrid cadastre plan, I use the same point numbering as shown on the plan and start at the ground coordinate for point #1. After I’ve completed the closure, I convert my points to grid and compare each coordinate I created to the coordinate shown in the coordinate table or ASCII file to make sure everything I calculated matches what is shown on the plan. This method can also be used to check coordinates on a Section 47 plan.
• For longer right-of-way plans I like to work from one end and circle back to ‘close’ each portion using the shortest possible route for each figure. I continue along the right-of-way circling back whenever possible until I reach the other end where I circle back using the longer tie lines (often between Part 2 positions or tie lines). Sometimes dimensions have to be pulled from other plans.
• For large subdivisions I like to go around the perimeter first and then work through each interior lot based on what makes the most sense with respect to flow and curves, and so on.
• After closing a figure, I use the fast area command (in MicroSurvey) to check areas.
• If I see a misclosure, I try to figure out which dimension is incorrect based on the distance and bearing between my starting and ending point. If it isn’t obvious, I review what is shown on other plans and import the list of ASCII coordinates to confirm dimensions.
• Drafting errors that cause a misclosure are often:
  • Right beside an intersection (one distance is a total distance rather than being broken up based on the intersection point)
  • In a curve (the curve is not tangential, there is no radial bearing, curve information is incorrect)
  • In a busy area where there are lots of nodes/endpoints/intersections to inadvertently click on when dimensioning the plan
  • Caused by inadvertently dimensioning using underlying linework
  • Caused by inadvertently exploding dynamic text
  • Due to dimensions that are not updated to reflect design changes or after monuments are moved in the field
  • Dimensions that have been manually entered and typed wrong
  • A direct result of copying and pasting text

From time-to-time, drafting errors slip through even the most rigorous plan checking process but for 9 out of the 16 most recent products I examined to contain multiple obvious errors and for four of them to not close at all suggests that we can do more to prevent them. No one wants to make a drafting error because they can cause confusion, create boundary uncertainty and cost money to fix. I also think they could affect our credibility. Over the past five years it seems like I have received at least one survey related inquiry per week from a member of the public (on average). In the past two or three years, I have really noticed increasing frustration and what seems to be an erosion of trust in a professional’s opinion. I would hate to see obvious and avoidable drafting errors lead to declining trust in our work.

My final recommendation is that you make closures one of your key plan checking tools.

Speaking of closure… as you are likely aware this will probably be my last ALS News article as Director of Practice Review. I am moving to a new adventure starting December 30, 2022.

I have thoroughly enjoyed my work at the Association, and I have learned a great deal while conducting CCRs and while working with the Boundary Panel. On reflection, it has been a very interesting and fun twelve years. I would like to thank all ALSs who have received recommendations in the educational spirit that they were offered. I would also like to thank everyone who have sent me feedback on my ALS News articles. I’ve found this position to be very rewarding and look forward to helping a new DPR take the position to the next level.