Land areas reduced by satellite measure

Vandy West

Been seeing a lot of talk lately about farmers being penalized for overdeclaring land area. I have somewhat hilly land along the coast and when I measure the land using os maps or google planimeter, the land areas are always off from the land areas shown on the historical or land registry maps. Originally put this difference down to coastal erosion, but if I factor in the slope of the land the satellite vs historical areas are pretty close. So maybe the difference between historical acres and satellite acres is down to historical surveys being done with old style two man surveying which would measure the distance on slope versus the "plan" dimension a satellite would give... thoughts?

J.O. Farmer

I see what your saying but is satellite imaging not able to take into account the slope of the land. Very few farms in most parts of the country are completely flat with even in good land there can be steep slopewould skew the area if a plan view was used.
How big a difference are you talking %wise.
Ever body's field seems smaller than they thought. Is this down to greater accuracy with satellite or lesser accuracy with satellite. I wouldn't think erosion would be enough to make a noticeable difference unless it was a very long narrow strip running along the coast.

Vandy West

J.O. Farmer wrote: »

I see what your saying but is satellite imaging not able to take into account the slope of the land. Very few farms in most parts of the country are completely flat with even in good land there can be steep slopewould skew the area if a plan view was used.
How big a difference are you talking %wise.
Ever body's field seems smaller than they thought. Is this down to greater accuracy with satellite or lesser accuracy with satellite. I wouldn't think erosion would be enough to make a noticeable difference unless it was a very long narrow strip running along the coast.

My land is a long narrow strip with water on three sides, the difference was about 8-10%. Don't know if satellite takes into account slope of land, just got me thinking that satellite always seems to reduce area not increase it.

J.O. Farmer

That is a huge percentage even if it is eroding I don't think it could erode at that rate.
You could be right about the satellites and if you are it's yet another example of how the powers that be shaft as many people as they can.

Conmaicne Mara

Vandy West wrote: »

Don't know if satellite takes into account slope of land

It absolutely doesn't.

I know it's sometimes brought up at our meetings, that farmers with a slope of 1 in 4 (don't ask me how high or low that is, I don't know) have 30% more land on the ground than a satellite map.

This has been mathematically verified by an Irish university so not bluff nor bluster.

Birdnuts

I'd like to know are farmers in other EU countries subjected to such harassment?? Wait till they get their hands on drone technology!!:(

Conmaicne Mara

Birdnuts wrote: »

I'd like to know are farmers in other EU countries subjected to such harassment?? Wait till they get their hands on drone technology!!:(

I predict there will only be two sections of society monitored by drones, criminals and farmers.

Birdnuts

Conmaicne Mara wrote: »

I predict there will only be two sections of society monitored by drones, criminals and farmers.

There are many beneficial uses of such technology - however the way it is being deployed by the Dept of Agriculture as discussed in an earlier thread is a disgrace and cannot be justified on any grounds. Indeed there is a case for either farming or conservation bodies to make a complaint to the ECJ as it is clearly goes against the aims and objectives of a number of EU directives.

J.O. Farmer

Conmaicne Mara wrote: »

It absolutely doesn't.

I know it's sometimes brought up at our meetings, that farmers with a slope of 1 in 4 (don't ask me how high or low that is, I don't know) have 30% more land on the ground than a satellite map.

This has been mathematically verified by an Irish university so not bluff nor bluster.

That would explain why ever body's field is smaller. Why then is everybody being penalised for having less land now than in reference years if the method being used is inaccurate.

Bizzum

Conmaicne Mara wrote: »

I predict there will only be two sections of society monitored by drones, criminals and farmers.

They're already in use by at least one state agency, and coming down the tracks in at least another that I know of!

It's gettin to the stage fairly fast where ya have to be very careful where ya take a p1ss now.

Sharpshooter82

Conmaicne Mara wrote: »

It absolutely doesn't.

I know it's sometimes brought up at our meetings, that farmers with a slope of 1 in 4 (don't ask me how high or low that is, I don't know) have 30% more land on the ground than a satellite map.

This has been mathematically verified by an Irish university so not bluff nor bluster.

The 1 in 4 means that for every 4 foot you walk you drop or gain 1 foot on the land due to a slope.

Conmaicne Mara

Sharpshooter82 wrote: »

The 1 in 4 means that for every 4 foot you walk you drop or gain 1 foot on the land due to a slope.

Works out at +30% more area on the ground, which is 3D, than a sat photo which is 2d. It's not being pursued at the moment AFAIK, but it gets a mention every so often.

Sharpshooter82

Conmaicne Mara wrote: »

Works out at +30% more area on the ground, which is 3D, than a sat photo which is 2d. It's not being pursued at the moment AFAIK, but it gets a mention every so often.

Yeah it's a fair bit of area to be off by

manjou

When i had land based inspection this year the accuracey of their maps was serious.There were differences all over the place as the lines for areas on previous applications were done in marker and when they were adjusted back to the new lines i gained bits and lost bits all over the place but luckey enough that was just over in the end.if they adjusted your boundry all round by a small amount it adds up very quickly

Floody Boreland

Have fields here bordered by woods and looking at the aerial photographs a large area is hidden under overhanging branches.
The winter picture would tell a different story but it's always taken when trees are fully foliaged.

mickdw

Just to clarify, all Land measurement and surveying is carried out on a plan area basis. Slopes are never taken into account and even land measured many years ago by hand would not have calculated sloped areas. In theory if you are measuring land with a tape, it must be held horizontally.
When buying or selling land, again is the flat area that is recorded so it could be argued that there is great value to be had in buying a steep sloping piece of land as you are getting a significant amount of actual ground more than is recorded.
Having said all that, the Farm mapping system is beyond understanding at this stage. Everyone suddenly seemed to have an over claim this year even the majority of people have not altered a boundary in years and even though it would appear that it was the department who came up with the previous measure also. Is outrageous to them blame the farmer and delay payment. Even worse when you cntact them and all you can get is a computer says no attitude.

Victor

In measuring land area, slope is never taken into account.

Conmaicne Mara wrote: »

It absolutely doesn't.

I know it's sometimes brought up at our meetings, that farmers with a slope of 1 in 4 (don't ask me how high or low that is, I don't know) have 30% more land on the ground than a satellite map.

This has been mathematically verified by an Irish university so not bluff nor bluster.

Wrong. It's more like 3%.

The square root of ((4x4)+(1+1)) is 4.123

Divide that by the horizontal distance of 4 and you get 103.07%, that is 3.07% more than the horizontal distance.

Conmaicne Mara

Victor wrote: »

In measuring land area, slope is never taken into account.

Wrong. It's more like 3%.

The square root of ((4x4)+(1+1)) is 4.123

Divide that by the horizontal distance of 4 and you get 103.07%, that is 3.07% more than the horizontal distance.

It's not wrong, it's been verified by NUIG

mickdw

Conmaicne Mara wrote: »

It's not wrong, it's been verified by NUIG

What exactly had been verified by NUIG?
In the simplest terms, the post above is correct in that given a 1 in 4 slope, the sloped length is just over 3 percent greater than the horizontal length. Given a plot of land with slope on a single plain - slope in one direction, the area would increase by that 3 percent.

Timmaay

Victor was referring to the map being 30% out in a field that has a 1:4 slope, as he said its more like 3% (using 1st year maths!). A field with lots of hills/hollows would in fairness be more, but I ain't doing the maths on that ha.

rancher

Birdnuts wrote: »

I'd like to know are farmers in other EU countries subjected to such harassment?? Wait till they get their hands on drone technology!!:(

The EU is coming down on all countries the same, Most of the other countries have just penalised every farmer by a percentage, where as Ireland has decided to penalise only those that have over claimed.
As 75% of farmers have sent in correct applications, it wouldn't be fair to penalise those, and it is going to take a lot longer than just taking a straight percentage off every farmer.

mickdw

mickdw wrote: »

What exactly had been verified by NUIG?
In the simplest terms, the post above is correct in that given a 1 in 4 slope, the sloped length is just over 3 percent greater than the horizontal length. Given a plot of land with slope on a single plain - slope in one direction, the area would increase by that 3 percent.

Lands sloping in all directions such as a mountain might have a more significant error. I will stick up the error for a 1 in 4 sloped cone shape in a few mins.

Conmaicne Mara

Victor wrote: »

In measuring land area, slope is never taken into account.

Wrong. It's more like 3%.

The square root of ((4x4)+(1+1)) is 4.123

Divide that by the horizontal distance of 4 and you get 103.07%, that is 3.07% more than the horizontal distance.

It's not wrong, it's been verified by NUIG

Farmer

Conmaicne Mara wrote: »

It's not wrong, it's been verified by NUIG

There must have been a typo somewhere - a missing decimal point. Victor's maths certainly adds up

mickdw wrote: »

.....Having said all that, the Farm mapping system is beyond understanding at this stage. Everyone suddenly seemed to have an over claim this year even the majority of people have not altered a boundary in years and even though it would appear that it was the department who came up with the previous measure also. Is outrageous to them blame the farmer and delay payment........

This is the most valid point and the one that needs to be focused on. Our entitlements were calculated using the areas from their maps and data. If the satellite says there is less land there now, there was less back then as well and the entitlement needs to be re-adjusted upwards as well. Monetarily it amounts to the same thing and is particularly gauling that they should now use this to reduce payments

mickdw

Conmaicne Mara wrote: »

It's not wrong, it's been verified by NUIG

Just for completeness, the sloped area of a square field sloping to a point in all directions at 1 in 4 amounts to just over 3 percent error as does a circular field sloping in all directions at 1 in 4.
I love to know what you are referring to re NUIG.

Conmaicne Mara

There was a thesis done, I might be saying it wrong but 1 in 4 is how it was related to me and also I believe to the dept.

mickdw

I think you are doing the thesis a disservice here.
It was possibly taking an overall picture of a large portion of the country and considering we have steep mountains etc, overall the average figure would be higher than what we are quoting for a 1 in 4 slope but the figure of 3% for a 1 in 4 slope is accurate, not 30%. A 1 in 4 slope in 14 degrees or so so gentle enough.
Anyway, its not a valid concern. Land measurement is done and will continue to be done in horizontal areas.

Sharpshooter82

unless its 4 foot dropped for every 1 foot travelled, that would be nearly a cliff tho

Conmaicne Mara

mickdw wrote: »

I think you are doing the thesis a disservice here.
It was possibly taking an overall picture of a large portion of the country and considering we have steep mountains etc, overall the average figure would be higher than what we are quoting for a 1 in 4 slope but the figure of 3% for a 1 in 4 slope is accurate, not 30%. A 1 in 4 slope in 14 degrees or so so gentle enough.
Anyway, its not a valid concern. Land measurement is done and will continue to be done in horizontal areas.

I'm not, the 30% figure is correct.

Conmaicne Mara

mickdw wrote: »

Anyway, its not a valid concern. Land measurement is done and will continue to be done in horizontal areas.

It is a valid concern for farmers affected by it. SFP and other schemes are paid per hectare, if the mapping system is inadequate then that's a problem.

The Earth is not flat

mickdw

Conmaicne Mara wrote: »

I'm not, the 30% figure is correct.

You seem to be ignoring the fact that a 1 in 4 slope does not equate to a 30% error. For that reason, you are doing that research a disservice. 30% must relate to much broader research.

Conmaicne Mara

mickdw wrote: »

You seem to be ignoring the fact that a 1 in 4 slope does not equate to a 30% error. For that reason, you are doing that research a disservice. 30% must relate to much broader research.

I'm ignoring nothing, I told you 1 in 4 is how it was related to me. This has been discussed with the Dept already to the best of my knowledge. Anyone knows give the same perimeter hilly land will equal more hectares than flat land. Look at a physical map of Ireland, we're not short on hills & mountains. Fact is the mapping system is inadequate. If the Dept can take the time to fine people €0.01c then I hope it is giving them practice for reimbursing farmers owed money over a long period of time.

Sauce for the goose.

mickdw

Official Land Registry rules for measurement of land require that ONLY horizontal measurement is relevant. That is fact and although there is obviously more surface area in hilly land, that is not recorded. Department of agriculture will not be paying back money based on how people think land should be measured.
The rules are the rules.
I measure land regularly and while I have equipment that can reasonably digitally recreate and measure the actual surface, I would only do that in cases where it is important such as for positioning a building on the landscape or some such.

Now I believe that there are errors in the agriculture maps even when measuring to these rules and I do agree that the system is crazy in that they have now decided lands are smaller than they were last year even though no alteration took place.

Conmaicne Mara

mickdw wrote: »

Official Land Registry rules for measurement of land require that ONLY horizontal measurement is relevant. That is fact and although there is obviously more surface area in hilly land, that is not recorded. Department of agriculture will not be paying back money based on how people think land should be measured.
The rules are the rules.
I measure land regularly and while I have equipment that can reasonably digitally recreate and measure the actual surface, I would only do that in cases where it is important such as for positioning a building on the landscape or some such.

Rules is rules, if that was the case all maps from year dot would be correct and this thread wouldn't exist.

The mapping system is inadequate for purpose. Farmers need to realise that they're being done out of money because, wait for the violins, it's too difficult to do the job right.

Yet there is no difficulty in fining farmers retrospectively. I'm not worried about Land Registry, I am talking about Agricultural schemes paid on by hectare. That should include all hectares on the farm, not just the easy ones to measure.

The rules can change. Already a € figure has been attached to getting that done. So don't bet the equipment on it just yet.

Probably the largest problem in farming in Ireland is the passivity of people working in the industry.

5live

Floody Boreland wrote: »

Have fields here bordered by woods and looking at the aerial photographs a large area is hidden under overhanging branches.
The winter picture would tell a different story but it's always taken when trees are fully foliaged.

A neighbour had a deduction due to an overclaim on a field bordering a farm road. They put the road in at 20 feet wide due to overhanging trees clouding the queried area. He appealed and got the area returned to him and has now cut down the trees to prevent any further queries.

The accuracy of the images are incredible. In a recent cross-compliance presentation, they were able to count the number of round bales stored in the corner of a field and reduce the area of the field by that amount because it wasnt available for grazing. They also deducted the roadway on the paddock from the farm road to the bales as roadway in the field is the same as the farm road under their new definition.

Conmaicne Mara

5live wrote: »

A neighbour had a deduction due to an overclaim on a field bordering a farm road. They put the road in at 20 feet wide due to overhanging trees clouding the queried area. He appealed and got the area returned to him and has now cut down the trees to prevent any further queries.

The accuracy of the images are incredible. In a recent cross-compliance presentation, they were able to count the number of round bales stored in the corner of a field and reduce the area of the field by that amount because it wasnt available for grazing. They also deducted the roadway on the paddock from the farm road to the bales as roadway in the field is the same as the farm road under their new definition.

If you spread turf out to dry on land included on your maps as grazing they can do you on that also.

5live

Conmaicne Mara wrote: »

If you spread turf out to dry on land included on your maps as grazing they can do you on that also.

:eek:

Power corrupts.

Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

mickdw

Conmaicne Mara wrote: »

Rules is rules, if that was the case all maps from year dot would be correct and this thread wouldn't exist.

The mapping system is inadequate for purpose. Farmers need to realise that they're being done out of money because, wait for the violins, it's too difficult to do the job right.

Yet there is no difficulty in fining farmers retrospectively. I'm not worried about Land Registry, I am talking about Agricultural schemes paid on by hectare. That should include all hectares on the farm, not just the easy ones to measure.

The rules can change. Already a € figure has been attached to getting that done. So don't bet the equipment on it just yet.

Probably the largest problem in farming in Ireland is the passivity of people working in the industry.

No. Maps from 100 years ago were very inaccurate. The rules were the same. we now have the tech to accurately measure within those same rules. That is where changes come from.
Your argument from start to finish is heavily flawed. Firstly you inaccurately refer to whatever thesis was done because the details you quote were out by a factor of 10. Next, you claim that farmers will be claiming back money based on land not being measured as you might like. What basis is there for a claim when lands are being measured to the legal standards.

Conmaicne Mara

mickdw wrote: »

No. Maps from 100 years ago were very inaccurate. The rules were the same. we now have the tech to accurately measure within those same rules. That is where changes come from.
Your argument from start to finish is heavily flawed. Firstly you inaccurately refer to whatever thesis was done because the details you quote were out by a factor of 10. Next, you claim that farmers will be claiming back money based on land not being measured as you might like. What basis is there for a claim when lands are being measured to the legal standards.

No, you're stickling to the 1 in 4 for the sake of a boardsgument. Discussed it with you, no longer interested. I am not the thesis author.

As for the tech to "accurately measure", no, you don't. Find a rug, surround it's outside edges with masking tape, put a football or traffic cone underneath it. Do all of the rugs edges still touch the masking tape? Do they bullocks. Land is being inaccurately measured in 2d and diddling farmers out of eligible hectares.

If I or other farmers are to be fined retrospectively or continuously have payments held over while the Dept - or whoever does their mapping - then farmers should not just swallow all they're fed. If the Dept is able to do the work, and they are, of fining farmers retrospectively then they should be as able to reimburse farmers who may have been underpaid due to inaccurate mapping leading to a loss of eligible hectares.

As some one said, the satellite never seems to make a field bigger, maybe it's time they should. All laws and maps are subject to change, I'm not one bit worried about that.

Map accurately once and for all, instead of lazily.

Have you got a connection with the Dept mapping?

mickdw

Its like banging my head off the wall. I fully understand what you are saying and I get your point but land is measured on Plan area. Its fully legit and other form of measurement to attempt to inflate area is not legal and as such to claim that back money will be payable is just silly.
Ok, I will give you that in the future, it is possible (however unlikely) that we will be dealing with fully digitised renderings of the surface of a field for the purposed of measurement. As I say its available and easily done for other appplications, its just not applicable to area measurement as, as Ive said, thats not the rules for measuring.
Ive never heard of a farmer offering to pay for another few hectares over what is recorded when he is buying a hilly field.
Here are some valid queries in relation to measurement if the all singing, all dancing method of measurement was taken up.
A farmer with a bumpy field would have a greater area than a farmer with a reclaimed identical field next door. Hardly correct
I farmer would increase his area by draining his field as the shape of the drain would have greater surface than the flat field. Hardly correct
If a farmer was to plough and create V shaped drills in his entire field, he would instantly create about 1.4 times the surface area versus a flat field. Certainly not correct yet these are the details that would be recorded under your system if would appear.
Perhaps, a realistic alternative if the department had the appetite to entertain additional payments for sloping ground would be that some form of rate correction bands would be introduced. If for example a farmer had a certain percentage of lands within an area of steep incline, he could get a 10% top up.
I will leave it at that as this is just going around in circles.

Vandy West

Farmer wrote: »

This is the most valid point and the one that needs to be focused on. Our entitlements were calculated using the areas from their maps and data. If the satellite says there is less land there now, there was less back then as well and the entitlement needs to be re-adjusted upwards as well. Monetarily it amounts to the same thing and is particularly gauling that they should now use this to reduce payments

Think this is the most important point.
Measuring in 3d while more accurate would probably just create more problems with only very hilly areas significantly affected.
Would say CM is prob right about the 30%, if fairly hilly prob have rise of 3m for 4m plan distance, which would be 5/4 or 25% increase.
Still think unless all land being lost is due to roads, a lot of people must be gaining the land being lost.

Conmaicne Mara

mickdw wrote: »

Its like banging my head off the wall. I fully understand what you are saying and I get your point but land is measured on Plan area. Its fully legit and other form of measurement to attempt to inflate area is not legal and as such to claim that back money will be payable is just silly.
Ok, I will give you that in the future, it is possible (however unlikely) that we will be dealing with fully digitised renderings of the surface of a field for the purposed of measurement. As I say its available and easily done for other appplications, its just not applicable to area measurement as, as Ive said, thats not the rules for measuring.
Ive never heard of a farmer offering to pay for another few hectares over what is recorded when he is buying a hilly field.
Here are some valid queries in relation to measurement if the all singing, all dancing method of measurement was taken up.
A farmer with a bumpy field would have a greater area than a farmer with a reclaimed identical field next door. Hardly correct
I farmer would increase his area by draining his field as the shape of the drain would have greater surface than the flat field. Hardly correct
If a farmer was to plough and create V shaped drills in his entire field, he would instantly create about 1.4 times the surface area versus a flat field. Certainly not correct yet these are the details that would be recorded under your system if would appear.
Perhaps, a realistic alternative if the department had the appetite to entertain additional payments for sloping ground would be that some form of rate correction bands would be introduced. If for example a farmer had a certain percentage of lands within an area of steep incline, he could get a 10% top up.
I will leave it at that as this is just going around in circles.

Measured in 2d and fined in 3d. Who is to say a patch of gorse or bracken isn't in the 3D area that hasn't been measured but will still be removed from the 2D map on a visual inspection.

Silly & unimportant aren't words I'd use to describe the basis of farmers payments.

Buying land, land registry, and rules don't interest me. The fact is the farmer is fined in both 2D and 3D, yet only eligible for payment in 2D. That is clearly unfair. It is also unfair some farmers are losing out with up to 30% of their land not being taken as eligible as the mapping system isn't able for it. Sheep & cattle are still grazing it, should be treated no different than any other land.

You bring up another issue "if the department had the appetite to entertain additional payments", as if they are the final arbiter on issues, they're not. It's possible to go way above their heads. Go ask the Dept where these retrospective fines are originating from, they won't take credit for it.

longgonesilver

The most annoying thing about this is that it is in relation to Single Farm Payment.

A farmers Single Farm Payment was established as the average of payments over three reference years. It was an average of beef, slaughter, suckler cow and sheep premiums claimed plus an allowance for milk quota.

There was NO AREA involved in establishing a farmers Single Farm Payment. The department attached it to the area farmed to make the SFP tradeable/transferable,

cjpm

Conmaicne Mara wrote: »

Measured in 2d and fined in 3d.

What do you mean fined in 3D?

A satellite image is 2D.

You've lost me...

Conmaicne Mara

cjpm wrote: »

What do you mean fined in 3D?

A satellite image is 2D.

You've lost me...

Your map is in 2D. If your land is sloping there is a % of it you're not getting paid on. So if you have a visual inspection on the ground, and you get cut for a patch of rushes or something like that. Who's to say that patch of rushes doesn't form the % of your ground you're not being paid on in the first instance?

The system won't differentiate between the two, you'll get fined. That's unfair.

My gripe is with the back dating, and doing lads over on shadows of trees or in valleys and delaying payment etc. All the nit picking is one sided.

Victor

In general, if land is traded, slope itself is meaningless, without taking aspect into account. All other things equal, a south facing or relatively flat field is more valuable than a north facing one as they will get more sun.

Measuring on plan isn't doing anyone out of money. The regime is based on hectares measured on plan not hectares measured on slope. If the payment related to land is traded, then the price should be based on hectares measured on plan, nothing else.

Conmaicne Mara wrote: »

There was a thesis done, I might be saying it wrong but 1 in 4 is how it was related to me and also I believe to the dept.

Can you link to this thesis?

Are you saying cliffs should attract extra payment?

Farmer

Victor wrote: »

....Measuring on plan isn't doing anyone out of money....

That is true, at least in the current scheme, and if that is the way it has been measured all along. then we probably have to live with it. We're not going to get the world re-mapped just to suit a few fellows on hills (myself included)

What is costing people money is more accurate mapping being applied within the lifespan of a scheme which began in 2002/3 where less accurate mapping was available,as summarized here

longgonesilver wrote: »

A farmers Single Farm Payment was established as the average of payments over three reference years. It was an average of beef, slaughter, suckler cow and sheep premiums claimed plus an allowance for milk quota.

There was NO AREA involved in establishing a farmers Single Farm Payment. The department attached it to the area farmed to make the SFP tradeable/transferable,

Now let me demonstrate this with a somewhat simplified example
Year 2003 : €10,000 premium divided by 40ha =====> €250 per ha
Year 2013: 39 Digitally mapped hectares @250 / ha ======> €9,750

Thus, the rules were changed during the lifetime of the scheme, but changed only to benefit the department. To apply them correctly, the year 2003 value of the entitlement (€250) would need to be recalculated as

€10,000 premium / 39ha ======> €256.41 per ha

You can't change the rules half way through a game. If you do,then they have to be re-applied right to the beginning

Re-measure if you want, but this can only be applied post 2013 when the scheme was scheduled to end

Conmaicne Mara

Victor wrote: »

In general, if land is traded, slope itself is meaningless, without taking aspect into account. All other things equal, a south facing or relatively flat field is more valuable than a north facing one as they will get more sun.

Measuring on plan isn't doing anyone out of money. The regime is based on hectares measured on plan not hectares measured on slope. If the payment related to land is traded, then the price should be based on hectares measured on plan, nothing else.
Can you link to this thesis?

Are you saying cliffs should attract extra payment?

Not interested in land trading.

Grazing area is what's measured, out of that is taken rock, scrub, sheds, roads, lakes, rivers etc.

A slope with grass on it is as grazeable as a flat field with grass on it. Go for a walk on Muckanaght before you disagree.

The regime IS doing a number of people out of money. The area of a flat field is not the same as a hilly area with the same perimeter. If, on a visual inspection a farmer is fined for scrub in such a situation then he may be being fined for something he's not being paid on in the first instance.

Have no link to the thesis.

I never mentioned cliffs. Areas of rock aren't eligible for payment, a misconception in some circles. Steep areas which can be grazed should be included IF grazeable.

Nekarsulm

Was the area of every field in country not surveyed by military surveyors back in the 1800's? using actual chain measures and triangulation? Thus the actual figures on the map was the actual sq. yards in the field, irrespective of the length of perimeter? Open to correction on this one, as I could have read it somewhere about another country................

Rovi

Nekarsulm wrote: »

Was the area of every field in country not surveyed by military surveyors back in the 1800's?

Yep, that's where the 'Ordnance' part of Ordnance Survey comes from.

It was only ever as accurate as the surveyor on the ground, and while that was generally very accurate indeed given the technology available at the time (the early 1800's), the technology has moved on an awful lot and an equally awful lot of the boundaries and landmarks have changed in the intervening 150 years.

mickdw

Nekarsulm wrote: »

Was the area of every field in country not surveyed by military surveyors back in the 1800's? using actual chain measures and triangulation? Thus the actual figures on the map was the actual sq. yards in the field, irrespective of the length of perimeter? Open to correction on this one, as I could have read it somewhere about another country................

Yes but the land was measured on the horizontal distance. The plan area if you like to call it that. So the guy with chains would have been holding the chains horizontal at all times which will give an accurate plan Area but will not account for slopes etc.
This was not an error, it was a very sensible approach to allow boundaries to be accurately represented on paper maps.