Farm 215 Ptn 2 (cancelled)

· on record 1990 · show on the map

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

Farm number: No. 215
Portion: 2
District: Prince Albert
Extent, as the diagram states it: 1728,8890 hektaar

This parcel has no matched survey polygon, so it cannot be drawn on the map. That is a gap in the cadastre match, not an absence from the record.

Why this farm is here

A piece of a farm already in this model. Not yet placed on the map.

parcel Cut out of Farm 215
border Shares a boundary with Zeekoegate Zeekoegate
document A document in the collection describes this ground DOC-0266

What the record holds, in order

July 1990–August 1990 document SG diagram 4296/2003
T 46190/2004

Bordered by, as the diagram names them

W Caroluspoort Nr 105
N Restant (Farm 215)
E Gedeelte 1 van Zeekoegat Nr 22
S Restant van Jansenkraal Nr 104

Documents

catalogued, no scan held

Surveyor-General diagram, 4296/2003, July 1990–August 1990
10R1VK01 215 2.jpg

Research notes

[10 Aug 2026, SRC-354/DOC-0266] A PORTION THAT NO LONGER EXISTS, which is why no polygon will ever be found for it. L.G. 4296/2003 is stamped GEROJEER, 'sien PLAAS 222 (cu T46191/2004)', and annotated 'Included in Consol Vide Dgm 4295/2003 FARM 222'. So it was consolidated into FARM 222 (PAR-000136) in 2004. Surveyed July-August 1990 and September 2003 by W M van den Heever PLS 0633. Its face named Caroluspoort Nr 105 to the west, the Restant of 215 to the north, Gedeelte 1 van Zeekoegat Nr 22 to the east and Restant van Jansenkraal Nr 104 to the south. NO-POLYGON is correct here and is not a gap.

[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 "Farm 215 Portion 2 (cancelled)" 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.

What the record is missing

“Caroluspoort Nr 105” is named as a neighbour 4 times and we hold no parcel for it second order · B3 unheld-farm
4 separate surveys in this model put Caroluspoort Nr 105 on the boundary of ground we do hold (PAR-000134, PAR-000136, PAR-000184, PAR-000185). It has no parcel of its own here, so nothing is known about who held it or when, while it borders farms at the centre of the project.

What would settle it The Surveyor-General's farm index for the registration division will give it a farm number and a diagram; the cadastre pull in `data/fetch_cadastre.py` then places it on the map.
“Restant (Farm 215)” is named as a neighbour 2 times and we hold no parcel for it third order · B3 unheld-farm
2 separate surveys in this model put Restant (Farm 215) on the boundary of ground we do hold (PAR-000184, PAR-000185). It has no parcel of its own here, so nothing is known about who held it or when, while it borders farms at the centre of the project.

What would settle it The Surveyor-General's farm index for the registration division will give it a farm number and a diagram; the cadastre pull in `data/fetch_cadastre.py` then places it on the map.
Nobody is on record as ever having held this third order · B8 never-held
Farm 215 Ptn 2 (cancelled) is in the model, 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.