One of the issues in the background of the discussion of the practice of decorating survey maps is the idea that there is a fairly formal, logical order in which a map should naturally communicate information. That is, there are some things a surveyor would want a map user to take in before others. It shouldn't just be a jumble of parts waiting for some other expert to assemble into something that means something.
The graphical conventions used in compiling the map can reinforce this logical order. For example, just the font size and darkness can make it call for the user's attention or recede into the background. The same thing is true of line weights and linetypes. One test is what information on the map is still available to the user as the map is progressively reduced. Another is what the user can still tell from the map if it's turned upside down, i.e. does it still "read".
The order of importance of the map elements pretty well determines graphical conventions, so it isn't unreasonable to begin with the order in which the surveyor wants the information on the map to naturally be taken in by the map user. Here is one order of priority of communication that comes to my mind for a map of a boundary survey of a tract without improvements or unusual conditions.
1.Outline of tract surveyed,
2.Caption describing purpose of map,
3.North Arrow,
4.Scale,
5.Identity of responsible surveyor,
6.Date of survey,
7.Boundaries of tracts contained within subject tract,
8.Boundaries of adjoining tracts,
9.Tract acreage,
10.Names of road(s) providing access to tract,
11.Indication of controlling monuments found upon which the boundary construction was based,
12.Indication of monuments set,
13.Citations of instruments by which present owners appear to claim title,
14.Citations of instruments originally creating boundaries shown on map,
15.Bearings and distances along tract boundaries,
16.Record bearings and distances (if needed to demonstrate discrepancies),
17.Detailed descriptions of controlling monuments found,
18.Detailed descriptions of monuments set,
19.Locations of plottable easements,
20.Citation of instruments by which easements were conveyed,
21.Necessary explanatory notes,
22.Surveyor's certificate.
I'm willing to guess that something as elementary as indicating which monuments shown on the map were taken by the surveyor to control the boundary construction may not be standard practice. If instead the surveyor is just indicating what sort of a something was found in place and without connecting it to any conveyance that either created or altered the boundary or any later survey that perpetuated some earlier work, then probably a really elaborate North arrow would serve as an efficient distraction.
Thanks Kent, I appreciate that!
Kent,
As usual you are thorough and I know your end product is the same with boundary work. This is a little off base but...Working in California in the early 90's one's boundary work is almost always under the scrutiny of either the city or county surveyor before approval or recording...Working in all the northern counties of California, I had one county surveyor insist on the symbols to be used on plats. It was: all boundary corners were either a closed filled symbol or an open symbol. When I asked why, the county surveyor stated when the plat is scaled down or at a different scale it makes it easy to discern that all closed filled symbols are found monuments and open symbols are set monuments. I still use that advice to this day.
Cheers,B-)
Pablo
Interesting post Kent.
One thing that concerns me is the fact that very few, if any, surveyors have ever taken even one cartography course. The visual presentation of evidence is a very interesting subject. "How to Lie with Maps" will make you as wary of maps, graphs and charts as Statistics made you of quoted statistical data...
> ............ (last:) 22.Surveyor's certificate.
Don't use that invisible ink though....they don't like that (if they can find out who you are.) 😉
In what location would you include
the following elements in your list: the firm's name, your (firm's) address, your (firm's) telephone number?
I know that you are, in fact, a modest man, but you should really employ a little P & R on your plats. You know, get your company's name out there. 🙂
> Working in all the northern counties of California, I had one county surveyor insist on the symbols to be used on plats. It was: all boundary corners were either a closed filled symbol or an open symbol.
Yes, that basic convention distinguishing found and set monuments is the same that has been widely used in Central Texas. The graphical weight of a filled-in symbol is heavier than the same left open, so the symbol mimics the effect of some found monument that holds a boundary construction fixed at some point, unlike the reconstructed and remonumented corners that are correct if they're correct.
The further distinction I use is adding an outer circle to the filled-in circle when the monument found is one that definitely controls the boundary, either because it's an original monument called for in the instrument that created the boundary it falls upon or for some other similar reason. That way, you can see at a glance the heirarchy of certainty in the findings:
1. Original monuments called for in instrument of writing found,
2. Monument found,
3. Monument set.
In what location would you include
> the following elements in your list: the firm's name, your (firm's) address, your (firm's) telephone number?
I lumped that in with "identity of responsible surveyor". I know that the larger offices where nobody's responsible for the work product prefer to hide behind a business name, but fortunately that's a problem I've never had. That's why I prefer to pretend that land survey products are the responsibility of some actual registrant, not the technician du jour.
> The visual presentation of evidence is a very interesting subject.
Yes, and it's easy to lose track of the real task when very many users of maps are unsophisticated and are simply looking for a piece of paper with a surveyor's seal and signature on it.
Naturally, after the order of graphical weight, there's the organization of the map to consider so that the information is efficiently communicated to the user.
In what location would you include
Boundary Surveying is really drafting on the ground. The order of importance lies with the propose of the Survey the evidence recovered and what was done with it. Same techniques as laying out mechanical drawings starting out with some knows and then using radials, intersections etc. etc. to get the job done, The narrative should be the guide used by those who follow and retracing your work. I consider a good and complete Narrative as the most important part of any Survey drawing, it provides the means of knowing the what and whys of what was done.
jud
In what location would you include
> I consider a good and complete Narrative as the most important part of any Survey drawing, it provides the means of knowing the what and whys of what was done.
Yeah, but I personally prefer to have a separate report and not pages of map sheets covered with text. I think of the Surveyor's Report and the Map of the Survey as two related, but separate products.
I realize that in California, the expectation is that the report should be compressed and stuck on the map, but that wouldn't be my first choice in Texas. You want a Surveyor's Report that is full and explanatory, not as brief as can be.
In what location would you include
Some of the drawings with the Narrative included take more than one page, not a problem because it all can be found at one location. The Narrative and graphics should complement each other and may need some details to do so. Not a problem, other than some narratives are very brief and say more about the Surveyor than they realize.
jud
In what location would you include
> Some of the drawings with the Narrative included take more than one page, not a problem because it all can be found at one location. The Narrative and graphics should complement each other and may need some details to do so.
Well, in Texas it isn't any trick at all to need ten or fifty pages for a Surveyor's Report to give a proper account of the work that can be mapped on one 24" x 36" sheet. That's why a separate report usually makes the most sense to me.
I understand why the California system of archiving Record of Survey maps would favor slapping the report on the face of the map and would also favor compression of the report into a simple review of how the surveyor located various lines and corners shown on some series of previous Record of Survey maps.
In what location would you include
If a 10 page or more is needed for a Surveyors Report, then it must be a windy document. I am not talking about a short sloppy Narrative as you seem to imply. Question, where does California come in, I practice in Oregon, Statute follows, we do have the option of a separate Narrative, seldom see them. Some of mine have used the whole 18" X 24" page, except for the borders to tell all.
ORS Chapter 209
209.250 Survey by registered land surveyor; requirements for map, narrative or report of survey; waiver of required filing; effect of noncompliance. (1) A registered professional land surveyor making a survey of lands within this state wherein the surveyor establishes or reestablishes a boundary monument shall, within 45 days thereafter, submit for filing a permanent map of the survey to the county surveyor for review. When filed, the map is a permanent public record in the office of the county surveyor. In establishing or reestablishing a public land survey corner, the surveyor shall comply with ORS 209.070 (4), 209.130 and 209.200. If the surveyor is unable to complete the survey and submit a permanent map within 45 days, the surveyor shall, within 45 days of establishing or reestablishing a boundary monument, provide written notice to the county surveyor containing the reasons for the delay, an estimate of the amount of time reasonably necessary to complete the survey but not exceeding 180 days, and a temporary map showing the position of monuments established or reestablished.
(2) The permanent map must have a written narrative that may be on the face of the map. If the narrative is a separate document, the map and narrative must be referenced to each other. The map and narrative must be made on a suitable drafting material in the size required by the county surveyor. The lettering on the map and narrative must be of sufficient size and clarity to be reproduced clearly. The narrative must explain the purpose of the survey and how the boundary lines or other lines were established or reestablished and must state which deed records, deed elements, survey records, found survey monuments, plat records, road records or other pertinent data were controlling when establishing or reestablishing the lines. If the narrative is a separate document, the narrative must also contain the following:
(a) Location of survey by one-fourth section, Township and Range.
(b) The date of survey.
(c) The surveyor’s seal and original signature.
(d) The surveyor’s business name and address.
(3) A permanent map must show the following:
(a) Location of survey by one-fourth section, Township and Range.
(b) The date of survey.
(c) Scale of drawing and North Arrow.
(d) The distance and course of all lines traced or established, giving the basis of bearing and the measured distance and course to a monumented section corner, one-quarter corner, one-sixteenth corner or Donation Land Claim corner in Township and Range, or to a monumented lot or parcel corner or boundary corner of a recorded subdivision, partition or condominium.
(e) Measured bearings, angles and distances that are used as a basis for establishing or reestablishing lines or monuments separately indicated from those of record together with the recording reference. Metric measurements may be used if a conversion to feet is provided.
(f) Monuments set and their relation to older monuments found. A detailed description of monuments found and set must be included and monuments set must be separately indicated from those found.
(g) The surveyor’s seal and original signature.
(h) The surveyor’s business name and address.
I believe the geometry of the subject tract is the primary message communicated by the plat. You appear to concur by listing that (outline of tract surveyed) first on your list. It surprises me that the bearing and distances of that linework is not item 2 or 1(b) if geometry is 1(a). I would think them equally important because showing linework without courses is virtually worthless and listing courses without linework is the purpose of the narrative/report.
I would agree on the caption being the next item.
In what location would you include
> If a 10 page or more is needed for a Surveyors Report, then it must be a windy document. I am not talking about a short sloppy Narrative as you seem to imply.
Well, I'll have to reserve judgment until I see some examples. A basic part of a Surveyor's Report in a metes and bounds state is the historical review of the sequence of grants and surveys. That's at least two pages right there and often quite a few more before getting to a discussion of the evidence and boundary construction.
> It surprises me that the bearing and distances of that linework is not item 2 or 1(b) if geometry is 1(a).
The annotations of bearings and distances only come into play later in the examination of a map. What's more important is the evidence found upon which the construction was based. If a surveyor doesn't show any evidence, what difference does it make what the bearings and distances around the supposed "boundary" of the tract are? None?
Conversely, if the map indicates original monuments found at either end of a line, the actual bearing of the line is of secondary interest, since the best it will show is a significant discrepancy that needs explanation.
So, actual bearings and distances are not as important graphically as other elements of the map. What "graphically" means is that they aren't the very first or second thing the eye is drawn to since they only mean something in the context of other more important elements that should ordinarily be examined first.
Item 15, huh? I disagree.
The annotation for my monument descriptions is smaller and thinner lineweight. Still readable, but not as prominent. Perhaps I misunderstand what you mean by graphical weight order.
> Perhaps I misunderstand what you mean by graphical weight order.
What order of graphical weight means is what your eye is drawn to if you look at a map upside down or as you approach it from a distance. There are different ways of making symbols and text that bring them forward in the map space (metaphorically speaking) or make them recede. The idea is that you don't make some element in a way that really emphasizes it if the element only makes sense after other information on the map has been processed by the user. This is if you expect the map to communicate efficiently, that is. It's like telling a story in a logical order.
In what location would you include
