That's called a bastard scale and I won't use it.
"Appropriate Scale"
In these days of copied, scanned, faxed and PDF'ed drawings, does the original scale have that much meaning anymore?
That being said, I only use the standard 10,20,30,40,50,60 engineer's scales.
I always hated 80 scale plans (until I got an 80 scale for the drafting machine).
Architects scales don't make any sense to me!
Jeff
So 1" = 33' or 66' Is Out ?
Not to me!
1"=2640', 1"=1320', 1"=660', 1"=330', 1"=66', 1"=33' covers just about everything. Just because they make engineering scales doesn't mean there aren't other scales out there, and other ways to make a map.
So everyone has an engineering scale in a drawer, therefore that's the only scale that can be ALLOWED. And some board is going to write a REGULATION that makes it so.
Seems like a waste of time at best.
> > We're revising our survey manual. In the chap concerning cadastral surveying, it states that surveys will be draw at an "appropriate scale" - one comment was that this means a scale found on an engineer's scale.
> >
> > our state administrative rules say, "(The scale must be sufficient to legibly represent the required information and data.)
> >
> > My opinion is that the drawing can be a scale to legibly portray the data while keeping the number of sheets to a minumum.
> >
> > Your Opinions?
>
> Funny, I thought about asking the same question recently. I don't even think VA addresses it, but logical thought to me would be: anything that could be found on an engineers scale, or by divisible by some even number thereof.
>
> I had a survey project that was a really squirrelly shape and to get it to fit on 1 - 11x17 sheet I had to use a 1" = 150' scale to show some short lines and detail. So by that reasoning, you could use a 30 scale, and multiply by 5 or a 50 scale and multiply by 3 to scale something in. Oddly enough, I'm expanding that project and I'm starting to draw the plat, and it's just not fitting with the typical scales. I'm at 1" = 60' right now, and if I need to get a little more room for notes, I'd go to 1" = 80'. 1" = 100' is just a little small.
>
> Basically, I don't believe in scales that end with a 5 (except 5 or 25) and something like a 70, 90, 130, 140, 170 scale wouldn't be kosher either... Does that make any sense at all?
>
> Carl
While I haven't seen one in 40 years, I have seen a physical scale that was a 1"=70.
It was on a quad(not a tri) scale that had scales of 10,20,30,40,50,60,70 & 80 on it.
I wish I could still find one.
For a manual, I go with a scale that matches the sandard engineers scale. If there is a special circumstance, well, maybe, but that should be an exception and not the standard. If you are going to have actual plots, it should be easy to have a sense of scale, and a scale that works.
Yes, a minimum number of sheets is the next standard, but one of the cheapest part of a project is the paper it's printed on. Better to have ease of reading (and scaling) over saving a few sheets of paper in my opinion.
It takes a lot longer to have to "calculate" a distance than to just read it off a scale.
I agree with not making it a state statute like someone mentioned, but within a firm or an agency, make some standards that keep your products consistent and quality. You shouldn't have to argue over whether a certain text size is legible or not, or a scale is appropriate or not. Nor should the employee have to guess what you might like, and then have to change a whole drawing that was done per the manual, because you didn't like it. (Okay, some things, but changing the scale of a drawing also means changing a lot of text sizes, and rearranging the location of the text, and the linetype scales, and a lot of other possible things.)
"Appropriate Scale"
> In these days of copied, scanned, faxed and PDF'ed drawings, does the original scale have that much meaning anymore?
>
>
> That being said, I only use the standard 10,20,30,40,50,60 engineer's scales.
>
> I always hated 80 scale plans (until I got an 80 scale for the drafting machine).
>
> Architects scales don't make any sense to me!
>
> Jeff
In my set of flat scales (4 each of 6" and 12") I have scales of 1"=80 and 1"=100. You need a magnifying glass for the 100 scale and some do for the 80 scale. 80 and 100 marks per inch sure do get close together.
There was an old surveyor one county over that drew EVERYTHING on a legal sheet, regardless of the size of the tract. Many times, they were 1"=400'. No problems with fences EVER showed up.
My personal belief is that, if you need a bigger sheet to keep the scale right, then do it. Recently, I did 700 acres in one county on a 24x36 at 1" = 300' and another 700 acres in my home county on a 36"x48" at 1"=400' with a helluva lot of details.
Scale is important, but making the drawing clear enough that the end user can decipher the plat is more, and that is the professional judgement on scale we all must make.
Since I've had an 11x17 printer for a few years now, I love to do lot jobs on that paper so I can keep the scale 1"=30' or smaller.
"Appropriate Scale" - Always!!
Maps are scaled one time in my area, when they are in map check..so scale is low on the totem pole. It's the information that is on the map that counts.
Once recorded or filed, maps are filmed and prints of them can be enlarged at the users whim when making copies at the county surveyors office.
http://dpw.lacounty.gov/sur/nas/landrecords/survey/RS246/RS246-067.pdf
For this RS I made a scale for the checker...least I could do
"Appropriate Scale"
>The only reason to use an engineering scale is habit. Any surveyor or engineer should be capable using a ruler and the very simple math required to find a distance from the plat. Landowners are unlikely to have an engineering scale anyways. As long as the plat is at a scale that clearly shows what needs to be shown everybody should be happy. No?
>In these days of copied, scanned, faxed and PDF'ed drawings, does the original scale have that much meaning anymore?
:good:
> For a manual, I go with a scale that matches the sandard engineers scale. If there is a special circumstance, well, maybe, but that should be an exception and not the standard. If you are going to have actual plots, it should be easy to have a sense of scale, and a scale that works.
>
> I agree with not making it a state statute like someone mentioned, but within a firm or an agency, make some standards that keep your products consistent and quality. You shouldn't have to argue over whether a certain text size is legible or not, or a scale is appropriate or not. Nor should the employee have to guess what you might like, and then have to change a whole drawing that was done per the manual, because you didn't like it. (Okay, some things, but changing the scale of a drawing also means changing a lot of text sizes, and rearranging the location of the text, and the linetype scales, and a lot of other possible things.)
:good:
Mark, as someone who has been involved in producing a survey and drafting manual for a large agency, I can say you nailed it.
> Why does our profession have to have every little detail covered by state statutes, guidelines, etc.? Is every licensed profession as regulated and mandated as surveyors are? If we truley are professionals, do we really need to have everything legislated, if so why?
One thing to remember is that most government regulation comes about due to complaints or problems by consumers or other professionals.
I'd be willing to bet that if you looked at every single provision of state regulations, somewhere in the past, surveyors cut corners and did other things that conscientious surveyors would never consider doing. And, these regulations are supported by professional advocacy groups (like your local state association) because they (at least theoretically) are supposed to help level the playing field.
After all, how can you compete with guys who don't even do the minimum to get a boundary solution? And, judging by what we've been seeing over the past few years, "the marketplace" isn't making any correction......the "low bidder" gets the job the majority of times.
After all, one of the most common complaints on this board is "lowballers"....think about how bad things would be if the "average lowballer" didn't have to at least attempt to comply with the regulations.
Personally I see scales on surveys or plats as being more and more obsolete in this day and age. 95% of the survey copies we obtain in Idaho or in Washington are 11x17 pdfs or smaller and therefore the scale is meaningless, if not illegible. I haven't put a scale on a survey in years, no kidding. Sure, there are a few counties in the area that only deal in full size prints but in time they too will go digital.
"Appropriate Scale"
> I haven't put a scale on a survey in years, no kidding
That is a Standards of Practice violation in Alabama.
There are federal laws that allow the metric system under some conditions. You would want to have a lawyer connected with whatever agency is making this rule investigate if you have the authority to require non-metric scales.
I noticed that in Alabama some local cops really went out of their way to give high-ranking businessmen who were working for some huge manufacturing plants for foreign-based auto makers a really hard time. Don't be like those guys. If some day Siemens decides they want to build a plant in your state, and wants metric plats, make their life easy.
Also, plats are not only by surveyors, for surveyors. If you want to make some genuine improvement, you might look into how the scale is to be stated. Any American with reasonable experience in math and/or mapping can understand 1" = 200', but a lot of people would be puzzled by "200 scale".
:good:
Wierd. I was just thinking about making a 25 scale prototype to try out. Sometimes 20 is a hair too large to fit on legal size, and 30 gets too cramped with all the required info...
"Appropriate Scale"
Same here in Colorado (at least in all areas I'm aware of)... A scale is required. And they limit the required scales to something on a traditional tri-scale, or at least an even multiple of one of those scales.
That said, it's also typical to create a 24x36 drawing of most plats, and that doesn't reduce exactly to an 11x17, unless you use a 22x34 title block on the 24x36 plat. Some like the 22x34 page size, so you can do a 1/2 size print on 11x17.
And while I scale things at times off of a 24x36 that has been reduced to 11x17 at approx 1/2.1, I don't particularly like to do so. Sure, I can do the math. But I also only do so in rare circumstances where the precision isn't that important.
In general, I try to make sure that everything I make is dimensioned properly on all important dimensions, so that the text works instead of scaling. That's independent of scale, and requires no mathematical manipulations.
So I suppose that like most of us, I can work with whatever I have. But I try to also make it as easy as possible for others down the line, and prefer to use "standard" scales, which is also what our local laws require. Although the 24x36 reduced to 11x17 throws a monkey-wrench into things, which aren't really addressed in our local laws.
Surely I am not the ONLY one here that owns an Allen Miscellaneous Scala, AKA a "fan fold scale"?
As a mapper working for a company owned by an engineering firm, I generally keep it to the standard engineering scales, but sometimes I resort back to the representative fraction and do a 1:1000 up to 1:20000 or use the 1"=660' or whatever fits best.
They are ALL standard scales in the mapping field. It all usually depends on what the client wants.
> It all usually depends on what the client wants.
The county where I do most of my work requires a vicinity map be at a scale of 1"=1/4 mile...:-S
That's crazy. Vicinity maps should be based on the size of survey vs. the distance between major roads in the vicinity, so that it's easy to find the site. There's no single scale that works.
And Vicinity Maps don't need to be any real scale at all... The important thing about them is that they allow ANYONE to find the Site, even people who are not familiar with the local area. If they do that, then they do their job.
