|
|
Post by Brent George on Dec 3, 2021 0:18:21 GMT
This space is for reserved for Member reports of specific Landonline/2021 Rules functionality problems.
The intention is to alert Landonline Users about specific issues as they are identified, and report solutions or work-arounds as applicable.
(Hopefully, these "issues" will disappear as the functionality problems are repaired and the CSR2021/Landonline tool progresses.)
|
|
|
|
Post by Brent George on Dec 3, 2021 0:22:45 GMT
Issue Category: RENEWED MARK:
Issue: A problem relating to selecting "renewed mark" in the "Mark Detail" screen. A glitch was caused because the “renewed” functionality isn’t fully working with the new rules yet.
Solution: Change the plan (mark details) by not using the renewed function, and just link the mark like a reinstated or adopted mark.
Other: Suggest you note the mark was renewed clearly in the Survey Report.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ian Gillespie on Mar 2, 2022 1:32:50 GMT
This isn't an issued more a case of just in case you missed it. (like I did).
The rules regarding re-pegging boundaries that have conflicts are different in the new rules.
I applied for dispensation from pegging when re-calculating a boundary in terms of the old observations.
Something that is commonly done when a parallel roadside has been erroneously calculated from half angles on an old plan.
LINZ kindly advised that it is no longer necessary to apply for dispensation because the new wording in the rules refers to boundary points and not boundaries.
Here is their explanation:
“The new rules differ slightly from the RCS 2010 in that rule 6.2(a)(vi) referred to “a boundary or boundary point that is subject to conflict” and the new rule 35(2)(a) CSR 2021 refers to “a boundary point that is subject to conflict”.
In the scenario described in your request, it would appear that the boundary is in conflict but not the boundary points. Accordingly rule 35(2)(a), 13(d) and 31(a) are not applicable and no dispensation from the rules is required to recalculate this boundary.
The rules do require the conflict and how it was resolved to be reported on however (rule 72(f)) and the adopted vectors used to define the boundary to be included in the survey diagram (r89(d)).
No dispensation is required. Please include this request number in your survey report.”
|
|
