Check a project yesterday- plotted on 2 sheets 24X36 because it's a minor subdivision plat. Sheet 1, by administrative rule , must contain all certs and signatures. Sheet 2 was the drawing plotted at 1"=60 feet of a 17+ acre tract ( perimeter) roughly rectangular with 2 lots included inside. Shortest side was 59.xx feet, most courses were in excess of 150 feet long- anyway- this survey has every line numbered L1-L20 with the table on sheet 1.... and the numbers weren't systematic- ie L1-L5 were not five sequential courses..... it was.... less than helpful.....certainly not aiding in readily using the plat for any purpose..... :-@
Hey, it's so easy to use the line label function:-)
Just two clicks and it's done
And yet this plat probably met or exceeded your state's minimum technical requirements...go figure.
Rankin_File, post: 323774, member: 101 wrote: Check a project yesterday- plotted on 2 sheets 24X36 because it's a minor subdivision plat. Sheet 1, by administrative rule , must contain all certs and signatures. Sheet 2 was the drawing plotted at 1"=60 feet of a 17+ acre tract ( perimeter) roughly rectangular with 2 lots included inside. Shortest side was 59.xx feet, most courses were in excess of 150 feet long- anyway- this survey has every line numbered L1-L20 with the table on sheet 1.... and the numbers weren't systematic- ie L1-L5 were not five sequential courses..... it was.... less than helpful.....certainly not aiding in readily using the plat for any purpose..... :-@
I have been known to produce just such a plat just to enjoy the fireworks from the local GIS gal. Gotta find your fun where you can. But I would never do that to you (on purpose).
I hate line tables, and have never used them. Somehow I've been able to avoid them after all these years.
I also find it really strange and unhelpful when it reads, L1, L27, L3, L12, etc.
I only table annotation when the map courses are too short to annotate directly. I *hate* it when the table is on a different sheet; it means you have to turn to sheet x to figure out what's going on on sheet y. But, I don't think it should be within a planchecker's purview to ding a map for anno tables on a different sheet; technically, a multisheet map stands as a whole, each sheet need not stand alone.
Was in the gallery of a trial where the lawyer waved a sheet of a subdivision map at the expert witness and asked if this was the map of subdivision XYZ and the witness replied "No Sir, it is not. It is not ink on Mylar as required by Statue XYZ. It may be a copy of one sheet of the map but has no provenance; the map you're referring to is filed in the County Recorder's Office and consists of many sheets and must be considered in its entirety." That threw the proceedings into a tizzy because earlier witnesses had testified based on only that sheet.
I would say the Survey Portion of the subdivision requirement has not been met. All the non survey stuff I have no problem with being on a separate sheet, but the parcel survey must be capable of standing alone. I know of requirements that the outbound must proceed from the POB around the perimeter. On all the internal lines it is not possible to do likewise.
Mike Marks, was that sheet even a certified copy of the original?
I hate this format. If my comments are to a specific poster I want it to be clear to all readers where my comment belongs.
Paul in PA
Randy Rain, post: 323922, member: 35 wrote: And yet this plat probably met or exceeded your state's minimum technical requirements...go figure.
Minimum Technical Standards rarely make a great deal of sense... in fact, they often violate common sense!!
JPH, post: 324280, member: 6636 wrote: I hate line tables, and have never used them. Somehow I've been able to avoid them after all these years.
I also find it really strange and unhelpful when it reads, L1, L27, L3, L12, etc.
I have been unfortunate enough to have to try to follow in the footsteps of a surveyor who created a subdivision plat with over 250 line and curve labels! I will strangle him if I ever come face-to-face with him...
Paul in PA, post: 324352, member: 236 wrote:
I hate this format. If my comments are to a specific poster I want it to be clear to all readers where my comment belongs.
Paul in PA
That's what the quote function is for.
Paul in PA, post: 324352, member: 236 wrote:
Mike Marks, was that sheet even a certified copy of the original?
Paul in PA
Nope, it was an oversized blueline copy obtained during the discovery phase and entered as an exhibit without contest. No affidavits, etc. Of course, it clearly was a copy of the original if one went to the courthouse and looked at the original. But that didn't fly for the expert witness. Those guys are careful.
Seb, post: 324360, member: 7509 wrote: That's what the quote function is for.
; Seb
Seb, you happened to include my name in the Quote, but just above JPH quoted someone with reference. A quote must include a source or it is hearsay.
Paul in PA
