> BTW Kent, I can NOT see how adding the word Indicates would constitute Dumbing Down a map.
Well, it assumes that the user of the map is too dumb to know what a "Legend" is, for one. I mean, for most people of normal intelligence isn't the "denotes" bit understood if the symbol and some descriptive words appear in a tabulated list beneath the word "Legend"? And if you want to go full Forrest Gump, why stop with "indicates"? Why not explain every polysyllabic word on the map and numerical convention? Why not explain that the distances noted are not measured along the slope of the land, for example? Why not explain what a "bearing" means?
I use....
Mathematically incorrect, no?
Stephen
Mr. Kent, I couldn't agree with you more.
Stephen
Tangential Interrogative
Last week I saw on a set of plans "Bold face type dimensions are indicative. Normal type dimensions are nominal."
What does indicative mean in this instance? Does that mean the bold face type dimensions are whatever they turn out to be?
Meant to ask project engineer and never got around to it.
Stephen
>
> Wasn't the point that if every symbol listed in the legend must be explained as "indicating" or "denoting" something, then there is a whole lot of indicating or denoting going on. So it seems reasonable to ask whether the repetition of the word is really necessary for every symbol listed in the legend.
You're right of course and as usual. I guess I would only approach it at an advisory capacity. Frankly, I would have never thought of recommending someone take out a perfectly legitimate word because it was a bit redundant. Maybe it is because I have seen so many bad plats and/or legal descriptions, that I am irritated more by plats that don't close, or numbers that are too obscured by linework, or other ambiguous or incomplete information. Redundancy seems like the least of my worries. Saying it again and again doesn't bother me.;-)
(p.s. the symbol 😉 denotes that I am joking)