Part of Rondabel

Rondabel No. 124 Remainder

RE/124 on the cadastre · show on the map

The farm's own history, the grant, the original survey, sits on that page.

Farm number: No. 124
Portion: Remainder
Also recorded as: Rondabel RemainderDroë KloofSRC-436, 2023 valuation roll, printed there as "Dro Kloof" because the roll drops the diaeresisDrooge KloofFAMILY, the spelling this project has carried for the house C.J.J. Oosthuizen grew up in
On the cadastre: RE/124, remainderregistered as RONDABLE
District: Prince Albert
Modern surveyed area: 3008.9 ha

Why this farm is here

A piece of a farm already in this model. 11 km from Klaarstroom.

parcel Cut out of Rondabel

What the record holds, in order

undated boundary change subdivision: from Rondabel

Also bordered by, as the modern cadastre draws it

Ground that touches this farm on the Surveyor-General's current polygons and that none of the diagrams held here names. Derived from the geometry, not read off a document.

Cadastre

Surveyor-General diagram index for this parcel

Research notes

[1 Aug 2026] IN THE MODEL FROM THE CADASTRE PULL ONLY. The Surveyor-General has a polygon for it and this project has no document that names it, so it carries geometry, an extent and a name and no history. It is here because RONDABEL IS A CORE FARM of this project and the map was showing the parent outline with four of its nine modern parcels named, which reads as an absence in the record and is not one. It was absent purely because nobody had made the row, not because anything was missing from the pull: data/geo/prince_albert_farm_portions.geojson has held this polygon all along and match_cadastre.py can only match parcels that exist. Cadastre: 3,608.5 ha, LPI C06100000000012400000. The model already holds Ptn 3 Brand Kraal (PAR-000042), Ptn 5 Hartebeest Voedpad (PAR-000043), Ptn 6 Elandsfontein (PAR-000044) and Ptn 7 Klein Elandsfontein (PAR-000045), each off its own diagram. This row has no diagram behind it and no name beyond the cadastre's. [TO VERIFY] what it was called and who held it, from the Rondabel deduction tables and the CSG diagram index.

KEY CORRECTED 1 Aug 2026. First pinned to ...124000000, which is the WHOLE FARM polygon (16,646 ha) in the farms layer, so this row and PAR-000009 were claiming the same geometry and the Remainder was drawn four and a half times its true size. The Remainder is ...124000001. SAME REMAINDER-FLAG RULE as Van Aardsfontein RE/3: the last digit is 1 for a remainder and 0 for the portion itself.

[5 Aug 2026] extent_ha BLANKED. It held 3608.5 ha, which is this parcel's GEOM_AREA from the cadastre pull divided by 10 000 - the field the 5 Aug match_cadastre.py fix identified as inflated by 1/cos(lat), about 19.7% in this latitude, on 429 records. The fix corrected sg_area_ha (now 3008.9 ha, from Shape_Area) but extent_ha is hand-maintained and no check reads it, so the defective figure survived the correction and was being exported: extent_ha is in export_public.PUBLIC_COLUMNS. extent_ha means AN EXTENT A DOCUMENT STATES, and no document here states one for this parcel - this row's own note above says so. So it goes blank rather than being corrected to the polygon figure, which is what sg_area_ha already is.

[13 Aug 2026] Renamed to the one form this model uses for every portion - the portion's own name, then the parent farm, its number and the portion in brackets - so that a name is legible in a list, a search result and a map popup without the reader having to know which farm number is which. It read "Rondabel Remainder (No. 124)" before. Nothing about the ground changed.

The research behind this page, kept separate from it: dated working notes, open questions, and what is not yet settled.

Open questions

141 people are on this site linked to nothing priority 1 · LEAD-0074
Which parcels and people exist on the site as dead ends - reachable by a list, but linked to no document, story, owner or neighbour?

What would settle it For the 106 tree-derived rows, a parentage pass merged from the family-tree on tree id - which 6 already names as the direction of travel and which would connect them wholesale rather than one at a time. For the three floating names, find the document each came from and link it.
1,302 cadastre keys carry more than one polygon, of different sizes priority 2 · LEAD-0060
Is PRCL_KEY safe to use as a unique identifier in the Western Cape extract, and if not, what is?

What would settle it Either a rule that picks the right feature deterministically (PRCL_TYPE F vs FP already does most of it), or confirmation from the Surveyor-General that the extract has duplicates.

What the record is missing

Nobody is on record as ever having held this third order · B8 never-held
Rondabel No. 124 Remainder is in the model and drawn on the map, and carries no ownership record of any kind, not a grant, not a transfer, not an occupation.

What would settle it The Surveyor-General's diagram for the farm number names the grantee and the date; the deed reference on it opens the transfer chain.

Found by breaks.py reading the model against itself, not written by hand, each one is a shape of missing record, not a fault in the data. The whole set is on the questions page.