← The land

Farm PAR-000122

Part of Van Aardsfontein No. 109

Van Aardsfontein No. 109 Ptn 7

· show on the map

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

Farm number
No. 109
Portion
7
District
Prince Albert
Modern surveyed area
1593.3 ha

Why this farm is here

A piece of a farm already in this model. 35 km from Klaarstroom.

Before this ground was cut out

This is the history of Van Aardsfontein No. 109, the farm this ground was cut from, on a date the record does not give. It is shown here because this ground was that farm, and separately from what follows because before the cut the record says the farm's name and not which part of it. Not everything below necessarily happened on this piece.

  1. undated boundary subdivision: becomes Swartgrond (Van Aardsfontein No. 109 Ptn 3)
  2. undated boundary subdivision: becomes Meriba (Van Aardsfontein No. 109 Ptn 5)
  3. undated boundary subdivision: becomes Van Aardsfontein No. 109 Ptn 6
  4. undated boundary subdivision: becomes Van Aardsfontein No. 109 Ptn 7

What the record holds, in order

  1. undated boundary change subdivision: from Van Aardsfontein No. 109

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

Surveyor-General diagram index for the whole farm, where the original survey of this ground sits.

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 the parent farm PAR-000064 is on the map as a whole-farm outline and its own panel said in so many words that four modern parcels inside that outline were not in this model. These are those four. 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: 1,907.7 ha, LPI C06100000000010900007. Van Aardsfontein is in the model because it is NAMED ON THE BOUNDARY of ground we hold, and as of 1 Aug 2026 the farm on the other side of that boundary is also in the model: Klipgat No. 114 (PAR-000103), whose 1911 diagram names "Remainder Van Aardens Fontein" as its eastern neighbour N-O.

[5 Aug 2026] extent_ha BLANKED. It held 1907.7 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 1593.3 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 "Van Aardsfontein Portion 7 (No. 109 Ptn 7)" 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

What the record is missing

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.