I've wondered this when I'm drawing topos and thought I'd get some varied opinions... When drafting topos, I have a standard block for deciduous and coniferous trees, one for each. That's all well and fine but typically, each tree gets the same size block, whether it's 4" or 16". They don't all look the same on the ground of course, but in the drawing they get the same block at the same size, and this doesn't really convey the mass of the trees on paper.
I don't want to be shooting the canopies of every tree, because it's not necessary for 95% of the drawings I need (and would be a hassle), but I would like to have a more accurate graphic representation of them. What do YOU think? I usually do note the diameter of the trunk when I shoot the tree. Maybe some kind of block that scales proportionate with the caliper?
Allen Wrench, post: 383800, member: 6172 wrote: Maybe some kind of block that scales proportionate with the caliper?
That's what I use as a default. However, so many of my clients want to know where the dripline is that I typically shoot the drips.
I use an insert at scale that increases the tree shot to 10X the scale of the drawing, for instance, my blocks insert at 1:1, so a tree shot will plot at 4' at 40 scale. I then insert a tree symbol at the diameter, so a ten inch tree will get inserted at 10 scale instead of 1. This creates a tree symbol with a drip line equivalent to 1" diameter = 1' of drip line. That is what I learned sometime ago when I worked a landscape architect.
Yes, I do it for each tree. I am just now finishing a job where the clearing and what trees are left is important and there are about 200 trees.
Dtp
Allen Wrench, post: 383800, member: 6172 wrote: What do YOU think?
We use both blocks that scale & often locate the dripline as well.
I've found that putting as much detail to scale in your topo drawings as possible, rather than just symbols (trees, manholes, vaults, pipes, etc.), helps to counteract the almost certainty that, down the line, your drawing will be used by a designer who is a moron.
We just made a block for each tree size that is fairly close to a real world drip line. Each block gets inserted when we download. Yes its a lot of blocks but they are really easy to create.
Typically we use the same block for all trees and then show a "tree table" using the point information giving number, size and type. If it's for a City, most have a standard and require the drip line and CRZ (here in Texas anyway). You can use a block for each size, just make your block annotative.
T. Nelson - SAM
I used a lisp routine that for individual trees it would place a circle at the diameter of the trunk and the dripline would be placed at approximate size and label the trunk size and type of tree. For clusters of trees, the driplines are trimmed out after insertion to an overall dripline.
I always have an aerial image as a backdrop in my drawings. The blocks are scaled up to cover the outline of the tree in the image, or to my best estimation.
Not exacting, but at least it's some what representative.
Having a drone and rubber sheeting/geo-referencing the image would provide a very nice image for this purpose. It would also be very useful for connecting the dots and making sure nothing obvious was drawn in error or missed.
One useful feature of MicroSurvey does this very thing.
The way the tree symbol (blovk) works is controlled by the distance from a measured dripline to the tree centre as surveyed.
It scales the block to suit.
It is quite neat in use.
Try Carlson Survey:
The tree survey works with three attributes for each tree: trunk, drip and tag. Trunk is the diameter of the tree trunk. Drip is the radius of the tree canopy. Tag is an id for the tree for reporting.
I have about 8 different size blocks for trees. I pace the spread radius and code accordingly. Trunk size gets recorded with the description but the trunk size is all the same size in the blocks. I must look into the Carlson Survey method as I would like the trunk block to be the correct size on the drawing.