Surveying / maths question

[joe greiner]

Not sure if it changes the numbers or not, but just on the off chance it does and no-one else spotted it..



3mm's actually about 118 thou. 12thou's around 0.3mm. (Check these numbers again, they're off the top of my head. Don't have a calculator handy.)

Nah. The middle one was haywire. 0.01ft = 0.12" ~= 3mm.

Tempest in a teapot, though. The only matter of significance is the level of precision required by council for approval of the subdivision. However accomplished, "exact" halving of 1.9955ha would be 0.99775ha, which rounds to 0.9978ha, which rounds to 0.998ha, which rounds to 1.00ha. (Bingo?) Or does council require 1.0000ha?

I think Phill has enough (more than enough) information for further consideration.

Joe

[ian]

Hi Joe, I just couldn't resist

0.01ft = 0.12" ~= 3mm.

Nah 0.01ft = 0.12" = 3.0mm or 3.05mm or 3.048mm as you expand the precision

However, you are quite correct, all that really matters is the number of square metres Council can be persuaded they need before they have one hectare.

AND this will depend largely on things other than the size of Phil's lot.

if the most of the lots in Phil's subdivision are larger than 2ha then it will be possible to persuade Council that a lot a bit smaller than 1ha (say 9978sq.m) is OK on the basis that it would be silly to have 2 or 3 ~2ha lots in the middle of a subdivision where all the other lots are ~1ha. One reason will be that Phill will be paying twice as much in rates compared to his neighbours.

The persuasion will be a lot more difficult, if most of the 2ha lots in the subdivision are actually less than 20,000 sq.m, because in this case Phil would be halving his rate bill compared to his neighbours.


ian