In a thread below, Leon Day posted a map and I offered a critique of how the information was presented on the map, pointing out certain ideas that I try to follow.
Here's an example of a map that uses a number of the conventions I suggested to Leon. As you'll see, it was produced by relatively crude means: old CAD and old pen plotter using only three different line widths. I think that even within those constraints the map communicates well.
This is equivalent to looking at the map from a distance to see which elements can be "read" visually to get some initial sense of how things are organized.
One of the conventions I use that both cleans up the map tremendously and keys it to the written description is to annotate survey markers and points with the point i.d. nos. That means that the actual descriptions and even coordinates can be set out in a separate table instead of sprinkled around the boundaries shown on the map.
and
The legend can be fairly minimal since the monument descriptions are in a separate table.
Here, for example is a part of the table of monument descriptions:
By annotating survey corners and points with i.d. numbers, survey data can be more flexibly presented in tables without needing a flurry of leader arrows on the map to show which points some "L24", say, refers to:
Note that this also provides a ready means to compare multiple record values to the values presented as survey results.
Notes and remarks can likewise be cleaned up:
Naturally, the beauty of using standard projections is you don't have to explain much or clutter the map with a description of some projection that is unique to the map.
Great post. As a newb, I'm interested in more of these illustrative posts.
I don't know, Kent....
Looks about the same from a distance to me, except for the north arrow of course.
I don't know, Kent....
Well, for starters, from the distance at which the entire map appears to be seen in the image above, you should be able to:
- spot the boundaries of the tract that is the subject of the survey.
- note the North direction in passing (without spending several minutes distracted by decorations that suggest it had been stolen from the court of Louis XIV or the Country Music Hall of Fame,
- generally see how the information is organized on the sheet so that as you zoom in, you'll know where to look (the circled letters on the map and circled letters by the notes, for example clue you in even at a distance. The different tables read as separate things, not just an undifferentiated mass of text, and have captions that explain what those separate things are, and
- find the real focus of the map information is within the center of the sheet without any inappropriate distractions like a scale bar as the center of attraction.
Looks good. Personally, it annoys me to be forced to look back and forth to tables, but many people prefer it.
> Looks good. Personally, it annoys me to be forced to look back and forth to tables, but many people prefer it.
I agree that survey data that can be annotated directly on the boundary should be done so instead of relying entirely upon line and curve tables. However, tables have the advantage of being able compare multiple record measurements, which on many maps would create extreme clutter on the map if directly annotated there.
The good compromise is ti annotate resurvey data to the extent feasible and tabulate the record data.
Coordinates are another story. Coordinate tables are much easier to digitize than a whole bunch of values sprinkled around the sheet.
As for monument descriptions, as long as the legend distinguishes by use of symbol monuments that are taken to be controlling marks found from marks placed by the resurvey, I think tabulating descriptions is superior practice because it allows a full description and commentary instead of having to mash a proper description into a few words.
The other advantage to annotating the map with the point i.d. numbers of the various monuments and points shown on the map is that you can carry those same i.d. numbers through the written description, both to key to a coordinate list in that description and to make it as easy as possible to follow the map.
Examples:
Coordinate List in Written Description
Courses in Written Description accompanying map shown above
It does look clean. I'm not crazy about tables because you can't make a copy of a small area and expect there to be enough information. But I can see the merits.
Nice map Dave. Is it in support of Kent's suggestions?
It appears you California surveyors need to reserve a lot of space for others to sign off.
> It does look clean. I'm not crazy about tables because you can't make a copy of a small area and expect there to be enough information. But I can see the merits.
The way that I envision some future surveyor using the resurvey data is by digitizing the coordinate list directly and just checking it against the values annotated on the map by inversing. I know that's what I'd do.
A coordinate table with from-to point i.d.s should be easier to use for that checking than annotations on a boundary.
As far as flagging discrepancies goes, I'd prefer to have problems specifically noted, rather than rely upon the user to identify them by comparing survey data. I mean, discrepancies are context-dependent. A 3 vara discrepancy in an 800 vara line originally surveyed in 1915 isn't the same sort of potential problem as the same size discrepancy found in work from five years ago.
That's nice Kent. If that was submitted to one of my local title companies it would all disappear before you could blink. They'd think it arrived from another solar system and certainly does not belong in ours.
I'm for going to complete digital, no need to digitize, just attach a spreadsheet, database, kml, text, or similar file to a pdf file. No paper required.
Just another example.
The Surveyor, County Surveyor and Recorders Statements are prescribed by Statute.
I'm talking about making a small (letter size) copy of a part of the c or d size plat to fax or carry in the field for reconnaissance. Such a copy of your plat would contain very little useful information.
> I'm talking about making a small (letter size) copy of a part of the c or d size plat to fax or carry in the field for reconnaissance. Such a copy of your plat would contain very little useful information.
Why wouldn't you just download the coordinates into a handheld for recon? Maybe I'm not understanding the problem, but if you have accurate geodetic coordinates of monuments to be found, don't you search using them? The old days of dragging a tape around a 50-acre tract have pretty much gone in Central Texas.
Bleh.
More to recon than coordinates. More to a plat too. You know that. What am I looking for? What references are there? How do the points connect?
Thank you Kent for posting this. Very educational!:good:
> Bleh.
>
> More to recon than coordinates. More to a plat too. You know that. What am I looking for? What references are there? How do the points connect?
Are you expecting a 50-acre tract to fit on a letter-size map? The map shows both the point i.d. nos. assigned to the monuments and shows the linework between them. I'd want to xerox the "Key to Survey Marks" that gives their descriptions, but beyond that I'd be doing recon with a handheld to find the monuments shown on the map.
The beauty of having a full list of all the coordinates is you can make your own dot-to-dot diagram without breaking a sweat. Just connect the dots using the metes and bounds description if for some reason you don't want to use the map and you're there.
Fairly logical plat. I would like to see "taken" more of accepted per Billy H. Trimble survey circa 1984 with reference thereto.
Pablo B-)
> Fairly logical plat. I would like to see "taken" more of accepted per Billy H. Trimble survey circa 1984 with reference thereto.
First of all, I see I neglected to cite Billy Trimble as Billy Trimble, RPLS. That was an oversight on my part. Probably the fact that I know Billy is why the reference was a bit informal.
As for "taken" versus "accepted": for some reason the fact that I took a rebar to be that shown upon the 1984 subdivision plat expresses the idea that the critical faculty was engaged more than simply that I accepted it as such. "Accepted" seems passive and non-judgmental (although I'm sure in practice that is not what is involved in acceptance in PLSSia).
