After perusing the top 3 I just wondered what others thought of the products produced by our professional cohorts. Link http://www.nsps.us.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=Page.viewPage&pageId=665&parentID=524&nodeID=2 Thanks, Jp
Nice. Although;
I am not a fan of curve and line tables on sheets other than where they apply.
I also note that the ALTA/ACSM certifications include "successor and assigns" "as their interest may appear" (what does that mean?).
I am mildly a fan of color although I have not done much of it myself. However, wouldn't the blues and greens not print very well on a black and white copier?
You would think that in order to qualify for competition that the map must me signed by the surveyor?
Dan
I thought most of the plats looked good. I am not a big fan of color, and upside down text on bearings & distances bothers me a bit. On one of the sub plats I noticed it appeared to be plotted on a 24"x36" border. Which made for a very clean subdivision plat.
Here in VA we are restricted to 16"ÌÑ24" which can make drafting large subdivisions quite a challenge.
A fourteen sheet subdivision is the most sheets I've platted.
Third place plat seems odd to me that the lot dimensions/line/curve labels aren't on the inside of the lot.
While I think they are all great looking maps they all have room for improvement. I can't help thinking that just about anyone who wanted to spend a little time on it could produce a map worthy of a "Best Map of 2016" prize to hang on the office wall.
Great looking always bugged me! Can I survey off the map, is the question, and can I follow how you established what you surveyed. The first place Alta is what got my attention. Did he find or set the re-bars and what did he use to set the re-bars if he set them? I guess surveying changes within regions. The difference in surveying across the country is very interesting for the age of the profession. My 2 cents, Jp