In what location would you include
That is an example of my visual hierarchy. And Kent, you are very correct in that aspect, there should be a hierarchy and the prominence of an item in the hierarchy should correspond to the actual item's importance in regards to the purpose of the survey.
I would place record bearings and distances much lower down the scale, I depict them with a different and smaller font and with a much lower line weight. That pretty much sums up what I think of record bearings and distances.
Also, as you can see in my example, I don't diffentiate between found and set monuments. I treat them the same and let their annotations tell the tale. They're all the same to the land owner, anyway.
I should note that this example is a 200 scale overview page of a six page survey. There is a lot more information on the pages of the actual survey map. Still, it gives a good idea of my visual hierarchy.
Stephen
In what location would you include
> 
I assume that you're not wanting a critique of that bit of a map, which I appears to be a part of a new subdivision plat, not of a resurvey of an old tract with existing boundaries. As a rule, the least demanding maps are subdivision maps since everything aside from the boundaries of the tract subdivided is newly minted.
If that were a map of an existing tract, the first thing one would remark upon is the relative ineffectiveness of the symbols used to depict boundary corners. A much better scheme, in my view, would be to use a special symbol for a monument that was described in the instrument of record by which the line or corner upon it was originally created.
The other problematic element of that format is that there is no provision for annotating record calls for comparison with what the resurvey found.
In what location would you include
In what location would you include
This example contains a set of actual and record bearings and distances.
Stephen
In what location would you include
Well, critique away if you like, but it would only make sense to do so from the standpoint of communicativity of the map. That is what this discussion is about. But no, I posted it, so it's fair game. Whatever commment you care to make is fine with me.
And no, it is a boundary survey, plain and simple. But like I said, it is an overview map only at 200 scale. The 5 pages of survey map were at 100 scale.
Stephen
In what location would you include
Lol, typo'd your name from Kent to Keny in first post. I fixed it.
Stephen
In what location would you include
> Well, critique away if you like, but it would only make sense to do so from the standpoint of communicativity of the map.
Well, assuming that it's a map of a resurvey, the first thing a user would reasonably expect to see on the detail is some identity of the tracts. Another is some demonstration of how the boundaries shown on the map were determined. By using a very light open-circle symbol with an abbreviation of some sort beside it, it seems to me you've lost an important opportunity right at the start to clearly distinguish the different types of survey markers in a functional way that means something in terms of retracement.
There may be other clues elsewhere on the map, but a better scheme would do it with obvious symbols, I think.
The wiggly leader arrows seem to me to be a solution that adds noise and little information to the map. I think they would benefit from being cleaned up.
In what location would you include
> Well, assuming that it's a map of a resurvey, the first thing a user would reasonably expect to see on the detail is some identity of the tracts. Another is some demonstration of how the boundaries shown on the map were determined. By using a very light open-circle symbol with an abbreviation of some sort beside it, it seems to me you've lost an important opportunity right at the start to clearly distinguish the different types of survey markers in a functional way that means something in terms of retracement.
>
> There may be other clues elsewhere on the map, but a better scheme would do it with obvious symbols, I think.
>
> The wiggly leader arrows seem to me to be a solution that adds noise and little information to the map. I think they would benefit from being cleaned up.
The tracts are all owned by the same person, they're just different contiguous parcels. They are idenitified by tract number and acreage. Page 6 of the survey is all of the legal descriptions by tract number.
The boundaries were determined by shovel, machete, pin finder, and about 6 gallons of sweat.
The legend contains the meanings of the circle by itself, RBRF, CRBF, OTIF, CTIF, and CONC. MON. Everything else such as the size and name on the rebar cap is handled by the annotation. The property owners don't give a rip as to whether the irons were found or set. Not that the info is not there, it is, but I don't agree that it needs to have a high visual prominence.
It is very good drafting practice to have the leaders curve in to their item. It visually separates them from actual objects being depicted. This is a time-honored and sensible method.
Stephen
In what location would you include
>
I personally find the use of "Actual" and "Record" to be unfortunate when merely parenthesizing the record call can the same thing more compactly and efficiently (and allows for multiple record calls to be cited from different sources with an additional annotation as to source).
If the North line of the 18.2 acres (which would be 18.229 acres to be consistent with the area in s.f.) is an existing boundary, one would expect to see something that indicates which is the senior tract. This might be transparent if a special symbol were used for original, controlling monuments and another for markers that are merely found in place.
To my mind, the fact that the 18.2 or 18.229 acre tract is known as "Parcel 2" described in the Real Property Bk, (I assume) noted is what I would want to see before the fact that the surveyor thinks it contains 794,050 s.f. of land.
This is how the surveying process logically progresses, beginning with the identity and description of the land, finding its corners, making measurements to locate them, noting discrepancies, and giving the calculated area.
The same goes for the adjoining parcels.
In what location would you include
> The property owners don't give a rip as to whether the irons were found or set.
Well, the property owners probably do care whether the boundaries are correctly shown and without the details of the identities of the objects presented as marking the boundaries, that would necessarily have to remain a mystery for someone else to figure out, wouldn't it?
> Not that the info is not there, it is, but I don't agree that it needs to have a high visual prominence.
Yes, the absence of information showing the logic or rationale of the boundary construction is a giant red flag of careless practice. Why would a surveyor want to make his or her plat look as if no real consideration had been given to the boundaries, as if anything found somewhere near a corner was good enough?
In what location would you include
>
> I personally find the use of "Actual" and "Record" to be unfortunate when merely parenthesizing the record call does the same thing more compactly and efficiently.
>
> If the North line of the 18.2 acres (which would be 18.229 acres to be consistent with the area in s.f.) is an existing boundary, one would exppect to see something that indicates which is the senior tract. This might be transparent if a special symbol were used for original, controlling monuments and another for markers that are merely found in place.
>
> To my mind, the fact that the 18.2 or 18.229 acre tract is known as "Parcel 2" described in the Real Property Bk, (I assume) noted is what I would want to see before the fact that the surveyor thinks it contains 794,050 s.f. of land.
>
> This is how the surveying process logically progresses, beginning with the identity and description of the land, finding its corners, making measurements to locate them, noting discrepancies, and giving the calculated area.
>
> The same goes for the adjoining parcels.
Strongly disagree with your comment about actual and record. I really don't like the fact that we are required to show both. In the two states that these survey examples are from it is required to show both. The survey is about Atual. That is what the property owners care about. The discrepancies between actuals and records... only interesting to other surveyors, Kent, and especially to those of a millimetric bent. And I think your comment about placing record in parenthesis and expecting the non-surevying owners to know that that means is almost absurd.
Also, no one cares which is the senior tract, not even other land surveyors. The line was monumented when it was split. So, it is the monuments that determine the line location, not senior rights.
I usually go three places after decimal for acreage, but in this case there is over a 1,000 feet of an extemely wavy creek centerline, therefore, one place after the decimal.
Yes, RPBk is Real Property Book. It's in the legend.
Stephen
In what location would you include
> > The property owners don't give a rip as to whether the irons were found or set.
>
> Well, the property owners probably do care whether the boundaries are correctly shown and without the details of the identities of the objects presented as marking the boundaries, that would necessarily have to remain a mystery for someone else to figure out, wouldn't it?
>
> > Not that the info is not there, it is, but I don't agree that it needs to have a high visual prominence.
>
> Yes, the absence of information showing the logic or rationale of the boundary construction is a giant red flag of careless practice. Why would a surveyor want to make his or her plat look as if no real consideration had been given to the boundaries, as if anything found somewhere near a corner was good enough?
Only someone whose interlocution is as devoid of logic as yours would draw such unwarranted conclusions.
Stephen
In what location would you include
> Strongly disagree with your comment about actual and record. I really don't like the fact that we are required to show both. In the two states that these survey examples are from it is required to show both. The survey is about Atual. That is what the property owners care about.
Again, you'll be surprised how interested property owners get about boundary survey mistakes that would have been disclosed by showing discrepancies between resurvey results and record description, but which a surveyor declined to do. In many cases, it would be pure negligence.
> The discrepancies between actuals and records... only interesting to other surveyors, Kent, and especially to those of a millimetric bent. And I think your comment about placing record in parenthesis and expecting the non-surevying owners to know that that means is almost absurd.
Well, the reason for a resurvey in the first place is to disclose discrepancies that may exist and to reveal whether the discrepancies are so large that some corrective action is needed. This is fairly garden-variety stuff.
> Also, no one cares which is the senior tract, not even other land surveyors.
Actually, how do you think that boundaries are determined if not by considering the sequence of their creation?
> The line was monumented when it was split. So, it is the monuments that determine the line location, not senior rights.
And why exactly are senior rights nothing that a surveyor would need to know about?
> I usually go three places after decimal for acreage, but in this case there is over a 1,000 feet of an extemely wavy creek centerline, therefore, one place after the decimal.
You can see how the giant letters giving the tract area in square feet is problematic, then, if the result actually has an uncertainty on the order of +/-0.1 ac.
In what location would you include
> Yes, the absence of information showing the logic or rationale of the boundary construction is a giant red flag of careless practice. Why would a surveyor want to make his or her plat look as if no real consideration had been given to the boundaries, as if anything found somewhere near a corner was good enough?
I'm just telling you what best practice consists of. It makes it possible for a viewer of the map to readily assess what the legal basis of the boundary determination was. A good map shows you at a glance where the original, controlling monuments were found, which monuments were not original but thought to be acceptable replacements, which were newly set based upon some theory of construction that is to be examined.
It's mainly a matter of using a symbol that makes the most important monuments stand out. Alphabetic codes may in theory contain the information, but are a very inefficient choice compared to better alternative methods of representation.
In what location would you include
>
> Again, you'll be surprised how interested property owners get about boundary survey mistakes that would have been disclosed by showing discrepancies between resurvey results and record description, but which a surveyor declined to do. In many cases, it would be pure negligence.
>
They aren't interested, Kent. They are just looking at you, smiling slightly, nodding their heads, and hoping like hell that you wrap it up quickly.
>
> Well, the reason for a resurvey in the first place is to disclose discrepancies that may exist and to reveal whether the discrepancies are so large that some corrective action is needed. This is fairly garden-variety stuff.
>
No, that's not the reason for a resurvey.
>
> Actually, how do you think that boundaries are determined if not by considering the sequence of their creation?
>
> And why exactly are senior rights nothing that a surveyor would need to know about?
>
There are times when senior rights are important. This isn't one of them.
> >
> You can see how the giant letters giving the tract area in square feet is problematic, then, if the result actually has an uncertainty on the order of +/-0.1 ac.
Significant digits, Baby. The tract's area is reported in the nearest 10'.
Stephen
In what location would you include
Well, in most of the surveying universe, an important function of a resurvey is to disclose errors and discrepancies in the description of the tract of record so that the interested parties may make an informed choice about whether corrective action is necessary or not. You can pretend this isn't so, but I'm afraid you're going to be in for a rude awakening one of these days after you're licensed.
Now, if a surveyor hasn't bothered to research the history of the tract and those adjacent, then I can see that he or she wouldn't have any basis for knowing whether there were any discrepancies or not. I don't think that minimal standard of care is normal, though.
> > You can see how the giant letters giving the tract area in square feet is problematic, then, if the result actually has an uncertainty on the order of +/-0.1 ac.
>
> Significant digits, Baby. The tract's area is reported in the nearest 10'.
There are two problems. The obvious one is that the uncertainty of a tract area reported to the nearest 10 s.f. is quite different than that of a tract area reported to the nearest 0.1 acre. It's easy to fix. If 18.1 acres is as good as it gets, then just put the area in acres on the map. If for some reason you're required to have it in s.f. as well quote 18.1 ac. +/- 0.05 ac. = 788,000 s.f. +/- 2,000 s.f. as the tract areas to make it plain that the areas are merely crude approximations.
By putting the deceptively precise area in s.f. in larger font, you emphasize it in a way that suggests somehow it is the more reliable figure.
In what location would you include
> Well, in most of the surveying universe, an important function of a resurvey is to disclose errors and discrepancies in the description of the tract of record so that the interested parties may make an informed choice about whether corrective action is necessary or not. You can pretend this isn't so, but I'm afraid you're going to be in for a rude awakening one of these days after you're licensed.
>
> Now, if a surveyor hasn't bothered to research the history of the tract and those adjacent, then I can see that he or she wouldn't have any basis for knowing whether there were any discrepancies or not. I don't think that minimal standard of care is normal, though.
>
Been licensed for 12 years, thanks.
When a parcel is split and the adjoining deeds match each other for bearing and distance, then there is no source of conflict for which to rely on senior rights doctrine. This is so, even if the line isn't monumented. If it is monumented, which this one was, then it doesn't matter if the deeds match each other or not, and there still is no need to call on senior rights doctrine. Just find the monuments.
> There are two problems. The obvious one is that the uncertainty of a tract area reported to the nearest 10 s.f. is quite different than that of a tract area reported to the nearest 0.1 acre. It's easy to fix. If 18.1 acres is as good as it gets, then just put the area in acres on the map. If for some reason you're required to have it in s.f. as well quote 18.1 ac. +/- 0.05 ac. = 788,000 s.f. +/- 2,000 s.f. as the tract areas to make it plain that the areas are merely crude approximations.
>
> By putting the deceptively precise area in s.f. in larger font, you emphasize it in a way that suggests somehow it is the more reliable figure.
Looks like the same font size to me.
Stephen
In what location would you include
> When a parcel is split and the adjoining deeds match each other for bearing and distance, then there is no source of conflict for which to rely on senior rights doctrine.
Actually, that isn't true. The question is the sequence of conveyance. If parcel A is conveyed first and parcel B later using descriptions that supposedly match, the fact of parcel A being senior is directly material to the treatment of excess and deficiency when there are no original monuments to control the common line.
This is why any resurvey should show the sequence of creation of adjoining parcels and the record measurements called for in those conveyances as a general rule. It's simple enough to do by simply noting the original conveyances by which the parcels were created and by noting the calls from those records in parenthesis.
If in this example you're suggesting that you've concluded that a certain set of monuments is that called for in the senior conveyance, and is therefore controlling, how does the map communicate that fact as directly as it would if you used a special symbol for original controlling monuments?
> Looks like the same font size to me.
I had to look again. By mixing the smaller and larger capital letters in the units, the value in acres manages to look smaller than the other in s.f.
In what location would you include
When I said the descriptions match, I am implying that there is no excess or deficiency, which is the case here.
Also, the monuments don't have to be called for in either conveyance, although I like it when they are, and they don't have to be original either, although I like it when they are. If the monuments are there and they represent a perpeutation of a marking of the line between the parcel split, then you don't use senior rights to control excess or deficiency. I have a feeling that you are going to say, "well, as long as it was monumented correctly...". But, I say if it was monumented then it was monumented correctly. There are exceptions, but I have found them to be few.
Mixing capitals and small letters is good and sound drafting practice. It aids in readability and therefore makes the map more commmunicative, which again is what this discussion is about.
Stephen
In what location would you include
> When I said the descriptions match, I am implying that there is no excess or deficiency, which is the case here.
> Also, the monuments don't have to be called for in either conveyance, although I like it when they are, and they don't have to be original either, although I like it when they are.
Well, that merely sounds strange. Are there no original monuments whatsoever anywhere on any of the boundaries shown on that map, nothing that connects the lines shown on the map to the boundaries as originally created aside from the fact that there is a marker set some time much later by someone other than the original surveyor? In that case, it seems genuinely bizarre that the map doesn't reflect the record calls for course and distance in the deeds that created the boundaries if those are to be the sole means by which the later, non-original markers are to be shown to be correct.
> Mixing capitals and small letters is good and sound drafting practice. It aids in readability and therefore makes the map more commmunicative, which again is what this discussion is about.
Actually, mixing large and small capitals adds visual clutter to the map and produces less legible text than had upper and lower case letters been used. There's a good reason why large and small caps are used very sparingly in conventional typography.