Property boundaries represent the extent of ownership of an address in line with NSW Valuer General for the purposes of address verification and rating. The spatial layer is derived from land parcel boundaries (cadastre) originally supplied by NSW Spatial Services who remain the source of cadastral information. See SiX mapsThis spatial layer has been significantly changed and maintained by City of Sydney Spatial Services. This layer is not survey accurate.Geoservice API disabled, but geojson and download permitted.

The dataset identifies the location and types of Federal Land. These polygon boundaries should be verified using Federal Crown Land Survey Records and/or title searched at the local Land Registry Office. This data set may not include all Federally owned lands. Official GEO title: Federal Land Other

This dataset contains the boundaries of the Public Land Survey System (PLSS) – Township Range Section boundaries, as well as the boundaries of the Ranchos and Landgrants that pre-dated the PLSS. In general these match the USGS topographic Quad Sheets from the US Geological Survey.Note – some boundaries may not match parcel boundaries where that is logical – we haven’t had the time to complete that movement.These are historic boundaries that still have impacts upon the names and geography of Los Angeles county today. For example, where does the name “Verdugo Mountains” come from – it comes from the Rancho established there.BackgroundPLSS (from wikipedia)The Public Land Survey System (PLSS) is the surveying method used historically over the largest fraction of the United States to survey and spatially identify land parcels before designation of eventual ownership, particularly for rural, wild or undeveloped land. It is sometimes referred to as the rectangular survey system (although non rectangular methods such as meandering can also be used)RanchosThe Spanish and, later, Mexican governments encouraged settlement of territory now known as California by the establishment of large land grants called ranchos, from which the English word ranch is derived. Land-grant titles (concessions) were government-issued, permanent, unencumbered property-ownership rights to land called ranchos.Why this dataset?This dataset was created in order to integrate the boundaries from two different datasets – a Rancho Boundary file created by Mike McDaniel of El Segundo, and a parcel-accurate Township Range Section file created by the LA County Department of Public Works. Thanks to both of those entities for creating those valuable source files. There are many sources of this data out there, but the rancho are holes in the PLSS datasets and the TRS is a hole in the rancho files. This combines both of those.Method of conflationTo merge these two datasets together, they were combined, and then any holes and overlaps were conflated to match the Rancho boundaries that were created by Mike McDaniel. When there were questions I used the USGS topographic quad sheets to verify numbering and naming. We have not (yet) attempted to snap the boundaires to parcels where they most likely should be.FieldsThese fields contains information about ranchos/landgrantsLANDGRANT - name of the land grantNAME_2 - secondary name of the land grantGRANTEE_P - the Grantee NamePATENTEE_ - Secondary Grantee NameGRANT_NO - Grant NumberGRANTED - Date grantedPATENT_DAT - Date patentedSURVEYOR - Survery NameSURVEY_DAT - Survey Month and DateCO - CountyTYPE - Rancho (Ro) or PuebloACRES_1 - Number of acres of the grantThe fields contain information about the PLSSSECTION - Section NumberMERIDIAN - The meridianTOWNSHIP - Township NumberRANGE - Range NumberNOTES - Notes that show changes in informationFeatType - IF this is a TRS or a Rancho

This layer provides the latest captured boundary mark information that defines existing parcel boundaries and associated information such as the mark name.

A boundary mark is on a node which defines the boundaries of primary parcels or non primary parcels.

Not all boundary points have a physical monument (e.g. a peg) placed. In this case the boundary mark is recorded as “unmarked”

This dataset extends the Landonline stored data by including the network accuracy which is based upon its assigned Landonline order - refer LINZS25006 (https://www.linz.govt.nz/resources/regulatory/standard-tiers-classes-and-orders-linz-data-linzs25006?document=256).

The accuracy provided relates to the accuracy of coordinates of the mark and has little relevance to the accuracy of the boundary in relation to other boundaries. For example, if the coordinates of the mark were used to locate it, a user would expect to find the existing mark within the nominal accuracy (distance) stated.

The dataset identifies the location and types of Federal Land. These polygon boundaries should be verified using Federal Crown Land Survey Records and/or title searched at the local Land Registry Office. This data set may not include all Federally owned lands. Official LIO title: Federal Land Other

This dataset is refreshed on a weekly basis from the datasets the team works on daily.Last update date: 27 June 2025.National Highways Operational Highway Boundary (RedLine) maps out the land belonging to the highway for the whole Strategic Road Network (SRN). It comprises two layers; one being the an outline and another showing the registration status / category of land of land that makes up the boundary. Due to the process involved in creating junctions with local highway authority (LHA) roads, land in this dataset may represent LHA highway (owned by National Highways but the responsibility of the LHA to maintain). Surplus land or land held for future projects does not form part of this dataset.The highway boundary is derived from:Ordnance Survey Mastermap Topography,HM Land Registry National Polygon Service (National Highway titles only), andplots researched and digitised during the course of the RedLine Boundary Project.The boundary is split into categories describing the decisions made for particular plots of land. These categories are as follows:Auto-RedLine category is for plots created from an automated process using Ordnance Survey MasterMap Topography as a base. Land is not registered under National Highways' name. For example, but not limited to, unregistered ‘ancient’ highway vested in Highways England, or bridge carrying highways over a rail line.NH Title within RedLine category is for plots created from Land Registry Cadastral parcels whose proprietor is National Highways or a predecessor. Land in this category is within the highway boundary (audited) or meets a certain threshold by the algorithm.NH Title outside RedLine category is for plots created in the same way as above but these areas are thought to be outside the highway boundary. Where the Confidence is Low, land in this category is yet to be audited. Where the Confidence is High, land in this category has been reviewed and audited as outside our operational boundary.National Highways (Technician) Data category is for plots created by National Highways, digitised land parcels relating to highway land that is not registered, not yet registered or un-registerable.Road in Tunnel category, created using tunnel outlines from Ordnance Survey MasterMap Topography data. These represent tunnels on Highways England’s network. Land is not registered under National Highways' name, but land above the tunnel may be in National Highways’ title. Please refer to the definitive land ownership records held at HM Land Registry.The process attribute details how the decision was made for the particular plot of land. These are as follows:Automated category denotes data produced by an automated process. These areas are yet to be audited by the company.Audited category denotes data that has been audited by the company.Technician Data (Awaiting Audit) category denotes data that was created by National Highways but is yet to be audited and confirmed as final.The confidence attribute details how confident you can be in the decision. This attribute is derived from both the decisions made during the building of the underlying automated dataset as well as whether the section has been researched and/or audited by National Highways staff. These are as follows:High category denotes land that has a high probability of being within the RedLine boundary. These areas typically are audited or are features that are close to or on the highway.Moderate category denotes land that is likely to be within the highway boundary but is subject to change once the area has been audited.Low category denotes land that is less likely to be within the highway boundary. These plots typically represent Highways England registered land that the automated process has marked as outside the highway boundary.Please note that this dataset is indicative only. For queries about this dataset please contact the GIS and Research Team.

This layer provides the latest bearing (direction) and/or distance for cadastral boundaries.

When a cadastral survey is undertaken the relationship between boundary and non-boundary marks is ascertained or measured. • This commonly is in the form or a vector (bearing and distance), but occasionally just one component. • Some relationships are defined as arcs. In this data layer, the arc length is recorded in the distance field and a separate record holds the chord.

Only observations that have been captured in Landonline are available. This includes vectors that were re-captured in the Survey Capture Areas from survey plans lodged prior to Landonline and all survey observations since.

Analysis of ‘Tulare County Land Use Survey 2007’ provided by Analyst-2 (analyst-2.ai), based on source dataset retrieved from https://catalog.data.gov/dataset/24d8af24-fd48-4b6b-bd2a-f9aaed5bd880 on 12 February 2022.

--- Dataset description provided by original source is as follows ---

--- Original source retains full ownership of the source dataset ---

NZ Parcel Boundaries Wireframe provides a map of land, road and other parcel boundaries, and is especially useful for displaying property boundaries.
This map service is for visualisation purposes only and is not intended for download. You can download the full parcels data from the NZ Parcels dataset.
This map service provides a dark outline and transparent fill, making it perfect for overlaying on our basemaps or any map service you choose.
Data for this map service is sourced from the NZ Parcels dataset which is updated weekly with authoritative data direct from LINZ’s Survey and Title system. Refer to the NZ Parcel layer for detailed metadata.
To simplify the visualisation of this data, the map service filters the data from the NZ Parcels layer to display parcels with a status of 'current' only.
This map service has been designed to be integrated into GIS, web and mobile applications via LINZ’s WMTS and XYZ tile services. View the Services tab to access these services.
See the LINZ website for service specifications and help using WMTS and XYZ tile services and more information about this service.

The dataset identifies the location and types of Federal Land. These polygon boundaries should be verified using Federal Crown Land Survey Records and/or title searched at the local Land Registry Office. This data set may not include all Federally owned lands. Official LIO title: Federal Land Other

This data set can be used to identify areas of land over which the Federal Crown has exclusive jurisdiction and/or ownership, excluding Indian Reserves. These polygon boundaries should be verified using Federal Crown Land Survey Records and/or title searched at the local Land Registry Office. This data set may not include all Federally owned lands.

Supplementary tables can be used and are available for download from the additional documentation section.

For large areas, like Washington State, download as a file geodatabase. Large data sets like this one, for the State of Washington, may exceed the limits for downloading as shape files, excel files, or KML files. For areas less than a county, you may use the map to zoom to your area and download as shape file, excel or KML, if that format is desired.The Boundary layer consists of lines representing the boundaries of Parcels and Legal Descriptions. (See the metadata for those two layers.) Boundary lines are the places that are surveyed in order to delimit the extent of Parcels and Legal Descriptions. The character and accuracy of Boundary locations is held in the attributes of the Points that are at the ends of Boundary lines. All the boundaries of Parcels and Legal Descriptions are covered by a Boundary line. Currently the Boundary layer has little functionality. The only distinction it makes is between upland boundaries and shorelines. In the future Boundary lines will have a richer set of attributes in order to accommodate cartographic needs to distinguish between types of boundaries.WA Boundaries Metadata

This dataset is available on Brisbane City Council’s open data website – data.brisbane.qld.gov.au. The site provides additional features for viewing and interacting with the data and for downloading the data in various formats.

This dataset combines Brisbane City Council property information with the Queensland Government Digital Cadastral Database (DCDB) to show property holdings in Brisbane City Council area.

A property holding is a Council-defined and managed information entity. Its boundaries are generally based on land parcels. A property holding may consist of one or multiple land parcels.

The Digital Cadastral Database (DCDB) is the spatial representation of every current parcel of land in Queensland, and its legal Lot on Plan description and relevant attributes. It provides the map base for systems dealing with land related information. The DCDB is considered to be the point of truth for the graphical representation of property boundaries. It is not the point of truth for the legal property boundary or related attribute information, this will always be the plan of survey or the related titling information and administrative data sets.

Taken from sections of the report:

Introduction

In broad terms the Surveying Program aimed to verify new or existing mapping or lead to better quality mapping through higher quality and more extensive survey control in the Prince Charles Mountains. The various tasks will be dealt with in the following paragraphs in terms of the techniques used and results achieved. I have also included some comments regarding the performance of equipment and clothing in the Antarctic.

Time Frame

The NPCM summer field party departed Hobart at 5 Pm on Friday the 21st. of November 1990 aboard the Aurora Australis. The fast ice edge, some 50kn off Mawson (It is assumed that this measurement is incorrect, as "kn" likely means "km", but the distance of 50 is excessive - AADC data officer), was made by approximately 6am on Thursday the 7th of December 1990. Due to bad weather and logistic considerations it was not until Friday the 21st of December that I departed Mawson for the NPCMs. I returned to Mawson on the 25th of January 1991 and did not depart until the 13th of February 1991. The Ice Bird docked in Hobart on the 24th of February 1991.

Every published digital survey is designated as either ‘Final’, or ‘Provisional’, depending upon its status in a peer review process.Final surveys are peer reviewed with extensive quality control methods to confirm that field attributes reflect the most detailed and specific land-use classification available, following the standard DWR Land Use Legendspecific to the survey year. Data sets are considered ‘final’ following the reconciliation of peer review comments and confirmation by the originating Regional Office. During final review, individual polygons are evaluated using a combination of aerial photointerpretation, satellite image multi-spectral data and time series analysis, comparison with other sources of land use data, and general knowledge of land use patterns at the local level.Provisional data sets have been reviewed for conformance with DWR’s published data record format, and for general agreement with other sources of land use trends. Comments based on peer review findings may not be reconciled, and no significant edits or changes are made to the original survey data.The 2005 Shasta County land use survey data set was developed by DWR through its Division of Planning and Local Assistance (DPLA). DPLA was later reorganized into the Division of Statewide Integrated Water Management and the Division of Integrated Regional Water Management. The data was gathered using aerial photography and extensive field visits, the land use boundaries and attributes were digitized, and the resultant data went through standard quality control procedures. Land use polygons in agricultural areas were mapped in greater detail than areas of urban or native vegetation. Quality control procedures were performed jointly by staff at DWR’s DSIWM headquarters and Northern Region, under the supervision of Tito Cervantes. The finalized countywide land use vector data is in a single, polygon, shapefile format. This data was developed to aid DWR’s ongoing efforts to monitor land use for the main purpose of determining current and projected water uses. The associated data are considered DWR enterprise GIS data, which meet all appropriate requirements of the DWR Spatial Data Standards, specifically the DWR Spatial Data Standards version 2.1, dated March 9, 2016. DWR makes no warranties or guarantees - either expressed or implied - as to the completeness, accuracy, or correctness of the data. DWR neither accepts nor assumes liability arising from or for any incorrect, incomplete, or misleading subject data. Comments, problems, improvements, updates, or suggestions should be forwarded to gis@water.ca.gov. This data represents a land use survey of Shasta County conducted by DWR, Northern District Office staff(ND), currently known as Northern Region Office, under the leadership of Tito Cervantes, Senior Land and Water Use Supervisor. The field work for this survey was conducted during the summer of 2005. ND staff physically visited each delineated field, noting the crops grown at each location. Field survey boundary date was developed using: 1. Linework developed for DWR’s 1995 survey of Shasta County was used as the starting point for the digital field boundaries developed for this survey. Where needed, Northern Region staff made corrections to the field boundaries using the 1993 Digital Orthophoto Quarter Quadrangle (DOQQ) images. After field visits had been completed, 2005 National Agricultural Imagery Program (NAIP), one-meter resolution imagery from the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Farm Services Agency was used to locate boundary changes that had occurred since the 1993 imagery was taken. Field boundaries for this survey follow the actual borders of fields, not road center lines. Line work for the Redding area was downloaded from the City of Redding website and modified to be compatible with DWR land use categories and linework. 2. For field data collection, digital images and land use boundaries were copied onto laptop computers. The staff took these laptops into the field and virtually all agricultural fields were visited to positively identify agricultural land uses. Site visits occurred from July through September 2005. Using a standardized process, land use codes were digitized directly into the laptop computers using ArcMap. For most areas of urban land use, attributes were based upon aerial photo interpretation rather than fieldwork. 3. The digital land use map was reviewed using the 2005 NAIP four-band imagery and 2005 Landsat 5 images to identify fields that may have been misidentified. The survey data was also reviewed by summarizing land use categories and checking the results for unusual attributes or acreages. 4. After quality control procedures were completed, the data was finalized by staff in both ND and Sacramento's DPLA. Important Points about Using this Data Set: 1. The land use boundaries were drawn on-screen using orthorectified imagery. They were drawn to depict observable areas of the same land use. They were not drawn to represent legal parcel (ownership) boundaries or meant to be used as parcel boundaries. 2. This survey was a "snapshot" in time. The indicated land use attributes of each delineated area (polygon) were based upon what the surveyor saw in the field at that time, and whatever additional information the aerial photography might provide. The DWR land use attribute structure allows for up to three crops per delineated area (polygon). In the cases where there were crops grown before the survey took place, the surveyor may or may not have been able to detect them from the field or the photographs. For crops planted after the survey date, the surveyor could not account for these crops. Thus, although the data is very accurate for that point in time, it may not be an accurate determination of what was grown in the fields for the whole year. If the area being surveyed does have double or multicropping systems, it is likely that there are more crops grown than could be surveyed with a "snapshot". 3. Double cropping and mixed land use must be taken into account when calculating the acreage of each crop or other land use mapped in this survey. A delineated field of 40 acres might have been cropped first with grain, then with corn, and coded as such. For double cropped fields, a “D” will be entered in the “MULTIUSE” field of the DBF file of the shapefile. To calculate the crop acreage for that field, 40 acres should be allocated to the grain category and then 40 acres should also be allocated to corn. For polygons mapped as “mixed land use”, an “M” will be entered in the “MULTIUSE” field. To calculate the appropriate acreages for each land use within this polygon, multiply the percent (as a decimal fraction) associated with each land use by the acres represented by the polygon. 4. All Land Use Codes are respresentative of the current 2016 Legend unless otherwise noted. Not all land use codes will be represented in the survey. The primary focus of this land use survey is mapping agricultural fields. Urban residences and other urban areas were delineated using aerial photo interpretation. Some urban areas may have been missed, especially in forested areas. Before final processing, standard quality control procedures were performed jointly by staff at DWR's Northern District, and at DPLA headquarters under the leadership of Jean Woods, Senior Land and Water Use Supervisor. After quality control procedures were completed, the data was finalized. The positional accuracy of the digital line work, which is based upon the 9' x 9' color photos, is approximately 23 meters. The land use attribute accuracy for agricultural fields is high, because almost every delineated field was visited by a surveyor. The accuracy is 95 percent because some errors may have occurred. Possible sources of attribute errors are: a) Human error in the identification of crop types, b) Data entry errors.

Taken from sections of the Report:

Introduction and Project Outline

The 2000/01 MAGIP field program for the Antarctic survey season has been scoped to continue and extend the objectives of the Mapping and GIS section of the Antarctic Division in support of the ANARE mapping program (ANAREMAGIP) as well as providing survey support for other ongoing ANARE science programs.

The field component of the program in the Davis/ Mawson area for this season was to primarily establish ground control for existing 1:30000 photography in the Larsemann Hills. Additional tasks included updating of station summaries and the retrieval of data from the tide gauges at Law Base, Mawson and Davis Stations.

The original Antarctic Division's Brief to Surveyors is included as Appendix A of this report.

David Hurd from the Survey and Geographic Information Services Group of Hydro Tasmania and Arthur Moerke, a volunteer assistant, have been the field operatives throughout the season.

The survey program consisted of the following major areas: * Photo control - Larsemann Hills * Completion of various tasks relating to the Davis tide gauge - Installation of second tide gauge at Davis - Downloading the existing tide gauge at Davis. - Timed water-level measurements. - Precise levelling connection of the tide gauge bench marks with the ARGN GPS site at Davis. * Completion of similar tasks described for the tide gauge at Davis Base with the gauge located at Law Base. * Lake levels within the Vestfold Hills. * Inspection and analysis of the reader board and pole at Deep Lake. * Providing GPS coordinates for all uncoordinated survey marks in the Vestfold Hills

Additionally other unscoped inclusions in the program included * Update of station summary for Mawson station * Engineering surveys at Davis, Zhongshan, Progress 2 and Law Base. * Completion of similar tasks described for the tide gauge at Davis Base with the gauge located at Mawson station.

Discussions with Mapping Officer Henk Brolsma prior to departure (26/9/00) agreed that the Auslig Surveyors working in the area this season would utilise their equipment to complete the height connections between the tide gauge benchmarks at Davis Station and AUS99 and to complete the level run as detailed in priority 2

Similarly with the height connection to the Law Base GPS station NMS278 and AUS99 at Davis.

The scope specified that GPS locations were to be processed relevant to the base station at Casey. It was assumed that this was an error and was intended to specify AUS99 at Davis.

Later discussions with the Auslig surveyors also lead to the extension of their involvement to include the tide gauge benchmark at Law Base and the benchmark located on the peak overlooking Law Base, C1.

Recommendations

Several recommendations can be made from the experiences over the summer.

It is understood that there is a differential GPS transmitter system at Davis, which is either not functioning or is turned off. During the stay at Davis we were advised that the expeditioners last winter spent days digging to locate a series of junction boxes that required repair. A GPS unit could be provided with accuracies capable of locating the assets in a very short time. The ability to locate these buried assets could have a significant effect on station life when considering the importance of quick repairs before anything freezes. A system for all station may be worthwhile as a safety measure.

Alternatively, the establishment of a more visible control network possibly in combination with cane line locations and the basic training of one or two expeditioners in the use of a theodolite and tape, which could stay on station, may enable relatively rapid relocation of junction boxes etc.

The tide gauge location was not possible at Mawson station because of the amount of algae/vegetation that accumulated beneath the ice. Also there was significant difficulty in accessing the gauge at Law Base because the ice had broken up but not out. It was fortunate that the weather conditions provided a pond which allowed for access. Assuming that a similar level of growth was present below the ice at Law Base prior to the break up then accessing the gauges in the future should possibly be based on a balance of growth conditions and the condition of the ice.

It is recommended that all poles related to the tide gauge at Davis be repainted annually to ensure that they are readily available when boating allows.

Considering the anticipated shutting down of the old tide gauge at Davis, the establishment of the new gauge may justify a higher priority listing. The installed mounting block for the new gauge has not been painted with anti-fouling paint and because of this will continually be subjected to weed growth. Perhaps it could be arranged so that the barge at Davis could be used to install the new gauge and a replacement mounting block in a single operation. Possibly it could be deployed adjacent to the unused, installed block.

Some form of shore mounted interface with the tide gauges would save significant amounts of time and avoid many logistical issues in regard to boat time and organisation of drivers. Law Base does not have boats or drivers so any future access to the Law Base gauge will need to either arrange for the transportation of these resources or ensure that they are in the area before the ice breaks up.

The timed water level measurements could be made more efficiently and over a longer period with the summer deployment and retrieval of some form of GPS buoy similar to what the university has been using. Alternatively the timed water level measurements using a video camera with timed exposures may be an option.

A handheld GPS with some form of computer interface would be a great asset in the location of benchmarks in the ice-free areas. Having a list of coordinates that could be loaded into a lightweight unit would allow for rapid location of marks prior to deployment of heavy equipment or confirmation of mark identification for levelling. This should be seen as highly desirable.

As mentioned in the 98/99 report the use of a digital camera for documentation purposes should be seen as essential in the antarctic environment.

Logistically, it would seem that registration in the ASAC system ensures that expeditioners are not left off lists and that equipment and resources are more easily available. While this did not represent any immoveable barriers, some form of registration may make things easier.

It seems that the levelling in the Vestfolds is given a low priority but is an ongoing project. The number of lakes levelled varies from season to season from around seventy to three or four. While the lakes are currently levelled on an opportunistic basis a suggestion may be to either place a higher priority on completing the extensive lake list or reduce the number of lakes to be levelled so that a continuous data set may be generated. I am under the impression that there has been a thesis written on the lake levels and maybe this could be used as a guide to which lakes should be levelled annually. Possible continuously levelling lakes throughout a season may also provide indications of movement throughout the season in addition to the annual snapshot. This could be particularly relevant in regard to accessing the deep lake reader board.

The rock drill battery is incapable of holding enough charge to complete more than three drill holes. It may be worthwhile to either recondition the battery or replace it.

Taken from sections of the Report:

The 2002-03 Mapping and Geographic Information Program (MAGIP) field season was undertaken from Davis Station. Nigel Peters from Sinclair Knight Merz undertook this season's fieldwork, the results of which are described in the following report.

The main objective for this season was to provide photo control mapping in the Rauer Group, with photo control also required at Davis Station and Marine Plains. A number of other tasks were undertaken in support of various scientific and engineering programs.

The tasks outlined in the surveyors brief are varied and numerous and have been included to provide the surveyor with a full and appropriate work program. The tasks are prioritised, usually with one or two major tasks with a number of minor tasks listed to be undertaken if the opportunity arises. This season's Survey Brief has been included in Appendix A with a summary of achievements listed in Appendix B.

The following report covers the fieldwork undertaken by myself during the 2002/2003 ANARE Summer Field Season. Data collected in support of other scientific programs has been included in this report primarily as a record of work undertaken by the mapping program. These data have been supplied to the various scientists for inclusion in their studies.

Sequence of Events

4th November - 12th November 2002 - Pre-Departure Training

• Field training for expeditioners at Bronte Park prior to the departure of V2.
• Survey briefing at Antarctic Division by Mapping Officer, Mr Henk Brolsma

20th November -5th December 2002 - Voyage 2

• Final preparation and checking and replacement of damaged equipment
• The Aurora Australis departed Hobart on the evening of 22nd November en route for Zhongshan, Davis and Mawson
• The Aurora Australis arrived of Zhongshan on the 3rd December where Chinese personal were deployed
• The Aurora Australis stopped approximately 1km off shore from Davis on the evening of the 4th December and arrived at Davis Station 5th December

6th December - 10th December 2002 - Davis Station

• Davis Resupply involving unloading and storage of food and equipment

11th December - 31st December 2002 - Davis Station

• Down loading Tide Gauge at Davis Station
• GPS measurements AUS303
• Coordination and levelling building Heights
• Coordination of control points Rauer Group
• Coordination of control points Davis

1st January - 20th January 2003 - Davis Station

• Coordination of control points Rauer Group
• Antenna Farm levelling
• Surveys at Brooks, Bandits and Watts huts

21st January - 26th January 2003 - Law Base

• Law Base Tide gauge downloading
• GPS connections to Davis

27th January - 9th February 2003 - Davis Station

• Tarbuck Crag repeater survey
• Skyline Survey Antenna Farm
• Establish new Tide Pole at Deep Lake
• Station duties loading equipment on to Ice Bird

10th February - 22nd February 2003 - Voyage 5

• Depart Davis
• Arrive Hobart 22nd February

Scope of Work

The Antarctic Mapping Officer Mr Henk Brolsma provided the scope of works within the Surveyors Brief for the 2002- 2003 field survey program (Appendix A). The following is a summation of the survey requirements for this season.

Rauer Group

• Photo control are required throughout the Rauer Group at specified locations

Davis

• Down Load Tide gauge
• Timed water level measurements
• Levelling between tide gauge benchmarks, including GPS observation
• Update station map and determine levels for all building floors, roof levels and the ground at the corner of every building
• Photo control for orthophoto at Davis and at Heideman Bay

Zhongshan

• Download tide gauge
• Timed water level measurements
• Height connection from Law Base to tide gauge bench mark
• Level between tide gauge benchmarks
• Check existing marks established for tide gauge location

Vestfold Hills

• Deep Lake depth pole
• Take pole readings
• Repair depth pole
• Lake levelling
• Location of bench marks

Examining Survey reports are documented evidence of an investigation to check a particular Deposited Plan. A Deposited Plan defines the legal boundaries of land.

Although there is no specific legislation, Examining Surveys, also referred to as Check Surveys, are undertaken by staff surveyors to check registered Deposited Plans where a requirement for investigation or checking has been identified. This may be due to a boundary difference or to check for accuracy and completeness of a survey plan prior to lodgement. Notations are made over the original details as part of the examination. The information contained on the Examining Surveys relates to the function of investigation or audit although this does not mean that the survey details alone indicate the outcome of the survey investigation.

Deposited Plan numbers from the 400000 series were allocated to identify examining surveys as available for public viewing whereas access to Examining Surveys that were allocated Deposited Plan numbers from the 900000 series required the permission of the Examining or Principal Surveyor or nominated staff member.

The first year of Examining Surveys to be allocated a Deposited Plan number was in 1925. Although Examining Surveys were allocated Deposited Plan numbers, and although the two types of plans are closely related, the Examining Surveys is a separate series of records to the Deposited Plans. Not all Deposited Plans are subject to this kind of examination and the investigative function used in preparing Examining Surveys is different to the process of examining Deposited Plans used by Plan Examiners for the purpose of plan registration. Further, not all Examining Surveys are allocated a Deposited Plan number.

The reports contain the original instruction or notes as to why the report was required, along with related correspondence. The classification is prefaced with ‘ESR’, Examining Survey Report, followed by the year of the report and a sequential number, for example, ESR/1918/42-56.

In September 2002 the manual updating of all Land and Property Information paper maps was discontinued. All notations, status and subdivisional changes are made in the Integrated Titling System (ITS) and the Digital Cadastral Database (DCDB). All charting information regarding subdivision and status changes since September 2002 is provided to the public through the Cadastral Records Enquiry (CRE) also known as the Property Location Map. (1)

End notes
1. NSW Government, NSW Land & Property Information, Searching the Registrar General’s Maps and Plans, March 2013, p. 21 http://www.lpi.nsw.gov.au/_data/assets/pdf_file/0019/150706/Searching_RG_Maps_Plans.pdf

Federal Land, Other refers to an area of land over which the Federal Crown has exclusive jurisdiction and/or ownership excluding Indian Reserves and Federal Protected Areas. These polygon boundaries should be verified using Federal Crown Land Survey Records and/or title searched at the local Land Registry Office. This data set may not include all Federally owned lands.Additional DocumentationFederal Land Other - Data DescriptionFederal Land Other - DocumentationStatusOn going: Data is continually being updatedMaintenance and Update FrequencyAs needed: Data is updated as deemed necessaryContactOffice of the Surveyor General, landtenuremapping@ontario.ca

This dataset is available on Brisbane City Council’s open data website – data.brisbane.qld.gov.au. The site provides additional features for viewing and interacting with the data and for downloading the data in various formats.

This dataset combines Brisbane City Council property information with the Queensland Government Digital Cadastral Database (DCDB) in Brisbane City Council area.

Land Parcels are the building blocks of Council properties. Land parcels (also called lots) are mapped and the title details shown on a Plan of Subdivision. The parcel is a graphical representation of surveyed boundaries together with identifiers such as Lot/Plan description and house numbers.

The Digital Cadastral Database (DCDB) is the spatial representation of every current parcel of land in Queensland, and its legal Lot on Plan description and relevant attributes. It provides the map base for systems dealing with land related information. The DCDB is considered to be the point of truth for the graphical representation of property boundaries. It is not the point of truth for the legal property boundary or related attribute information, this will always be the plan of survey or the related titling information and administrative data sets.

Warning. Downloading this entire dataset in shapefile format exceeds the current 2GB download limit set by ESRI. Information from ESRI has the following suggestions. Consider the following options: Output to a file geodatabase instead of a shapefile or Process the data in sections.