Invalid Parcel Type

Question

I added a parcel type to track parcels that have poor or unacceptable legal descriptions so that our organization can document  work on any particular document and that we have found that it contains errors.   In this case it's a legal description from 20+ years ago, and a title company is wondering why the document is not reflected in our parcel data.  'Invalid_Parcel' is the name I came up with.  And I think in general I am thinking of it as a bit of a trash heap.

I want to make some attribute rules around this parcel type that perhaps trigger additional accounting within the parcel fabric like marking the record as "invalid" (invalid attribute = True when record contains Invalid_Parcels), and preventing it from being displayed unless the user is specifically looking for invalid parcels.

Our standard practice will be to add "--Invalid" in the Record Name field; aka "20400033--Invalid".  So that we can continue to search for this record in the future and understand it was deemed 'in error'.  I also have a comments field to capture some information about the record.

I feel like there is a nuanced difference between this type of parcel vs a 'retired parcel' or another record supplanting it, in that this record was not corrected by a subsequent record instrument, it was simply ignored by previous staff.

I am interested if there are additional ideas or thoughts.  It doesn't seem to me that this would be the only solution.

AmirBar-Maor · Answer

Thanks for the explanation @SamMontoia1

I think everybody in the community encounters problematic legal descriptions from time to time.

'Quality' is not 'black and white' and users apply their experience and judgement to decide what to do. In some cases, like the one you show, things don't fit and require additional research. A metes and bounds description that doesn't close might contain an error, but those that close and appear to be wrong have a different intention. 
@FrankConkling presented on reading legal descriptions and their intent.

My recommendations:

* Use a field in the records table and/or the parcels to denote there is an issue with the feature
* Use 'Symbolize by Unique Values' to symbolize those parcels/records differently. This will perform better than creating a separate layer using a definition query. ArcGIS Pro 3.4 will have a new option to turn on/off the visibility of categories in the layer. It is beneficial to see the problematic parcels when you edit the data.
* There are other quality indicators on parcels, like the misclose ratio. One could also get creative and use a custom symbology 'by unique values' that relies on a custom Arcade expression that takes into account multiple fields.

I hope this makes sense and hope other community members can contribute to this discussion from their experience.

SamMontoia1 · Answer

@AmirBar-Maor

Question or Idea; this post seems like it has elements of both. And I would be happy to move it to questions; though I might also ask if I should just start a new post over there at questions or transfer this thread somehow?  I added the previously described parcel type to our parcel fabric ecosystem.  But a reconfigure could be in order.

A field or attribute tracking validity or acceptance or something along this line is perhaps a better idea than a separate parcel type.  Would you recommend a definition query filter for parcels and parcel lines like the method used for historic parcels?  Or maybe a definition query and a symbology distinction in the Historic Parcels feature could be an efficient methodology.

I was presented with a legal description recorded 20ish years ago, and until I COGO-ed it in: I didn't know why it wasn't a part of our parcel dataset.  Then I found that it did not close; seemingly intersected some buildings on the property; its starting point did not match previous boundaries; and overall it did not match up with the road that was referenced in the description very well.  I thought that a future person or myself might be aided if they could see the way I mapped this document; and reasons why it was excluded.  Thus I had the idea of a new parcel type that I could dump all of this work in and save it for the future.

I also have a more current legal description that has errors; that I am also likely to exclude and I am in the process of asking the record-instrument filers (aka Grantors/Grantees) to re-do the lengthy legal description.

The records-driven workflow, along with the principle of "fix it later" for the ArcGIS Pro parcel fabric when it comes to the over all quality of the entirety of our parcel dataset has really helped us move forward with parcel management.  Though, if you told me that my mindset had a type of "Records-Driven hammer-like quality" and it locked me into thinking of documents as narrow "nails"...

I think the bottom line here is that this invalid parcels layer is a type of purgatory for documents that are excluded from our Parcel Fabric; These certainly don't belong in our Current Parcels, but also lack a document that retires them.

Invalid Parcels are shown in Pink; Lighter Pink are Invalid Parcel Lines.

AmirBar-Maor · Answer

@SamMontoia1

This seems more like a question than an idea. Is it possible to move this to the Question board?

Your idea to track suspicious parcels and associate them with their invalid record is great.

Instead of adding a parcel type, wouldn't it be easier and more performant, to add a 'status' field on the parcels and records? You could easily symbolize them differently and even create a separate layer for these parcels and records.