Order of Graphical Weight for Example
For example, here's a part of a map that I've reduced so that the overall graphical heirarchy in the map can be easily seen. Note how using the special symbols for original monuments described in an instrument of record, the circle around filled-in circle, a merely filled-in circle for other markers found, and an open circle for monuments set helps clarify the boundary evidence and construction to the point that even at this reduction it's fairly readily discernible.
and a larger piece of the map even more reduced:
If it's shown on the map, at some point, it was used or considered in the analyzation, so they all control to some point.
I don't like legends and I don't use them, unless it's a really big as-built or some other reason, so I actually spell out, beside each corner, what was found or set.
That does more for the end user than flipping back between some silly legend.
> If it's shown on the map, at some point, it was used or considered in the analyzation, so they all control to some point.
>
> I don't like legends and I don't use them, unless it's a really big as-built or some other reason, so I actually spell out, beside each corner, what was found or set.
>
> That does more for the end user than flipping back between some silly legend.
Well, the problem that you immediately run into is you don't have enough room on the map to give a real description. So, instead of :
>Found old 1/2 in. Iron Rod (ladder pattern of deformations 0.33" o.c.), approx. 1.2 ft. South of old 6 in. Cedar Fence Post, taken for same rod set by Kristof Morgenstern, RPS in 1968 to mark the SW corner of the 20 ac. Glithero tract as described Vol. 1245 Pg. 34 RCDR
you end up with :
>Fd. 1/2" I.R.
which leaves the end user to guess what exactly you really found.
There is a heirarchy of information in monuments shown on a map, namely:
1. Original monument called for in instrument of record
2. Monument evidently intended to replace original monument
3. Monument of unknown origin not considered to control boundary
4. Monument set
5. Description of physical object
6. Description of local ties to monument to aid recovery (such as distances to fence post or sidewalk)
If you provide the information about items 1, 2, 3, and 4, then the description of the thing itself can be relegated to a table perfectly well and given a much better description than would fit within the picture of the tract.
In what location would you include
"Mixing capitals and small letters is good and sound drafting practice. It aids in readability "
Do you have any citations for this?
> > If it's shown on the map, at some point, it was used or considered in the analyzation, so they all control to some point.
> >
> > I don't like legends and I don't use them, unless it's a really big as-built or some other reason, so I actually spell out, beside each corner, what was found or set.
> >
> > That does more for the end user than flipping back between some silly legend.
>
> Well, the problem that you immediately run into is you don't have enough room on the map to give a real description. So, instead of :
>
> >Found old 1/2 in. Iron Rod (ladder pattern of deformations 0.33" o.c.), approx. 1.2 ft. South of old 6 in. Cedar Fence Post, taken for same rod set by Kristof Morgenstern, RPS in 1968 to mark the SW corner of the 20 ac. Glithero tract as described Vol. 1245 Pg. 34 RCDR
>
> you end up with :
>
> >Fd. 1/2" I.R.
>
> which leaves the end user to guess what exactly you really found.
>
> There is a heirarchy of information in monuments shown on a map, namely:
>
> 1. Original monument called for in instrument of record
> 2. Monument evidently intended to replace original monument
> 3. Monument of unknown origin not considered to control boundary
> 4. Monument set
> 5. Description of physical object
> 6. Description of local ties to monument to aid recovery (such as distances to fence post or sidewalk)
>
> If you provide the information about items 1, 2, 3, and 4, then the description of the thing itself can be relegated to a table perfectly well and given a much better description than would fit within the picture of the tract.
No Kent it doesn't. All of our maps carry a "note" section, and when the need arises, it can be and is noted in the "note" section, i.e. Note the Southeast corner of this tract. This 1/2" steel rod was set by someone on someday as shown in some volume and page. It was held for the original corner". Now, if that's not enough room, I'll get the surveyor's report out.
So, to sumarise, I don't use Fd., I use Fnd., 1/2" Steel Rod w/cap (where cap is annotated somewhere on the page and multiple caps {like w/McMillan cap} so that it's said once.
> All of our maps carry a "note" section, and when the need arises, it can be and is noted in the "note" section, i.e. Note the Southeast corner of this tract. This 1/2" steel rod was set by someone on someday as shown in some volume and page. It was held for the original corner". Now, if that's not enough room, I'll get the surveyor's report out.
Okay, so you recognize that it's important that the map communicates which monuments you found were what you concluded were original as described in some instrument of record, but you don't want to use a symbol on the map to immediately point them out to the map user, preferring to bury that information in a note?
That strikes me as a backwards set of priorities since the legal status of a monument is much more important than what the monument actually consists of. Some solutions are more like what I call "survey kits", just a set of raw information from which an expert could produce an actual survey map.
> > All of our maps carry a "note" section, and when the need arises, it can be and is noted in the "note" section, i.e. Note the Southeast corner of this tract. This 1/2" steel rod was set by someone on someday as shown in some volume and page. It was held for the original corner". Now, if that's not enough room, I'll get the surveyor's report out.
>
> Okay, so you recognize that it's important that the map communicates which monuments you found were what you concluded were original as described in some instrument of record, but you don't want to use a symbol on the map to immediately point them out to the map user, preferring to bury that information in a note?
>
> That strikes me as a backwards set of priorities since the legal status of a monument is much more important than what the monument actually consists of. Some solutions are more like what I call "survey kits", just a set of raw information from which an expert could produce an actual survey map.
Exactly. I want the map to convey exactly what it should. Legends, especially when there are many different types of corner markers, leave the scriver with having to become very creative with filled in shapes versus open shapes to convey whether it's set, found, or what and what type it is.
On subdivision maps I will typically have a symbol for all corners set, except as otherwise noted, where I don't have to label every corner inside, but the parent corners and other accessories are.
I don't like legends. There is one surveyor around here who uses SO MANY DIFFERENT SYMBOLS, it leaves the reader running back and forth between the legend to see what is what. I think that detracts severely from what a map is attempting to convey.
Now, I agree on nuances with you, for instance all survey names be in a like layer of like font so that when you see one, they all jump out and when you're not looking, they fade to the background, and the same with the rest of the map.
A well drawn map is very similar to those books that have the picture jump out at the reader. IT's not seen until the reader needs to see it.
I really do hate legends though.
> I want the map to convey exactly what it should. Legends, especially when there are many different types of corner markers, leave the scriver with having to become very creative with filled in shapes versus open shapes to convey whether it's set, found, or what and what type it is.
I think the point is that it is of secondary importance whether a monument is a 1/2-inch re-bar, a 2-inch iron pipe, a pine knot, a set stone, or whatever, as long as it is the original monument that controls the postion of the line or corner.
When I and the surveyors I know look at a map, we want to see quite easily what the the evidence amounts to upon which the boundary construction was based and the status of a monument is much more important than its material.
If you just mention the material of the monument and bury its status in a note, you're basically providing a survey map kit.
As for notes, In my opinion they aren't that much of an overhead as long as they are graphically organized on the map and are well keyed to the picture part of the map as needed. Here, for example is the entire map posted above, although greatly reduced. You can see how the map notes can be easily differentiated even in the reduced version.
In what location would you include
I'm not sure why, but it irks me when I see arrows pointing in the opposite direction of the bearing. Does anyone else rotate the bearings to go in the direction of the line? Is the arrow added by the software? What's up with these arrows? Just a thought I have every time I see them.
In what location would you include
I have to go with Kent on this. Senior rights are very important to me and the law. Don't get your junior line in my senior property. You'll have a problem. I don't necessarily show Jr/Sr ownership on my map every time, but when there is a discrepancy between calls like Actual and Record, you'd better have your chain of title ready. Had this problem a couple years ago and ownership of the wind turbine were in play: Money was changing hands and then changed direction. Our tract was senior and the line was struck accordingly.
That's an overwhelming amount of information. That's not something you just look at and say, "There's my ground and those are my corners." You really have to study that bad boy. Very thorough though. Makes me want to see the full size map to start my investigation.
o.O
I think, except for the legend, we are effectively saying the same thing. As "artisans" we can come to this from many directions. We don't have to agree, but if the end user can discern our survey then our job has been done properly.
I still think you should give more consideration to your North arrow. The rest of your map ebbs and flows like a fluid stream, a work of art if you will, then you get to the stick man drawn by the kindergartner with your North arrow.
But hey, if you're happy, I'm happy. I agree that it should not detract from the survey, but there is no reason not to let your geek flag fly with a little artistry with it.
> I still think you should give more consideration to your North arrow. The rest of your map ebbs and flows like a fluid stream, a work of art if you will, then you get to the stick man drawn by the kindergartner with your North arrow.
Well, if you consider the communication problem, no North arrow should be worth more than a glance. Early in the examination of the map, you want to know which way is North to orient the picture part of the map, but once you know that, what else is there you need to get from it other than which North the bearings shown as survey results on the map refer to? Nothing?
So, at that point, the North arrow is contributing clutter to the map if it is busy with detail. It just needs to be prominent enough to be easy to find in the first place, but no more.
The decorative North arrows are like a person with ADD who can't describe anything in any logical order. "Okay, this is a map of a property as surveyed by ... Hey, look at that North arrow, will you? Uh, I mean it's a map of a survey that ... Don't you just love the way that the draftsman made the North arrow look as if it's being shot from a crossbow toward some star? What does that mean? ... So, it says here that this tract contains ... Wow! I just saw that isn't a star but a leprechaun that the arrow is being shot at! Do you think the draftsman knew our name was O'Shaunessy?"
> That's an overwhelming amount of information. That's not something you just look at and say, "There's my ground and those are my corners."
No, that's a map of a land title survey that was made in connection with a purchase prior to development of the tract. There was a title insurer involved and coverage was being extended to delete the survey exception from the policy.
> > I still think you should give more consideration to your North arrow. The rest of your map ebbs and flows like a fluid stream, a work of art if you will, then you get to the stick man drawn by the kindergartner with your North arrow.
>
> Well, if you consider the communication problem, no North arrow should be worth more than a glance. Early in the examination of the map, you want to know which way is North to orient the picture part of the map, but once you know that, what else is there you need to get from it other than which North the bearings shown as survey results on the map refer to? Nothing?
>
> So, at that point, the North arrow is contributing clutter to the map if it is busy with detail. It just needs to be prominent enough to be easy to find in the first place, but no more.
>
> The decorative North arrows are like a person with ADD who can't describe anything in any logical order. "Okay, this is a map of a property as surveyed by ... Hey, look at that North arrow, will you? Uh, I mean it's a map of a survey that ... Don't you just love the way that the draftsman made the North arrow look as if it's being shot from a crossbow toward some star? What does that mean? ... So, it says here that this tract contains ... Wow! I just saw that isn't a star but a leprechaun that the arrow is being shot at! Do you think the draftsman knew our name was O'Shaunessy?"
Wouldn't that be the same as you using that gold foil? Just clutter to an otherwise logical plat??? LOL!
> Wouldn't that be the same as you using that gold foil? Just clutter to an otherwise logical plat???
Not when you consider that it's a security feature of the map copies. I realize that there are some parts of Texas where they'd be trying to peel the foil seal off a map to see if it had any pawn value, but so far I've done a pretty good job of weeding out those types of clients.
LOL!!! Whatever. Embossing is as good of a security device as needed, and the plat says so. The foil is an over-the-top, look at me, I'm special, la-ti-da frill for the plat. Any other attempt to explain it is a justification for, and an overcompensation for a poor North Arrow!!!!
LOL!!!
> Embossing is as good of a security device as needed, and the plat says so.
Actually, most of the title companies seem to know how to rub graphite on an embossed seal on paper so that it reproduces well. I've never encountered one that knew how to convert an embossed foil seal into anything other than something that was obviously a photocopy of a foil seal. If the office supply stores don't stock them in your neck of the woods, you should be able to order them on line.
In what location would you include
> "Mixing capitals and small letters is good and sound drafting practice. It aids in readability "
>
> Do you have any citations for this?
I don't have any on me, Jim, but I do know what I'm talking about. Text in lower case letters is always easier to read because the words can be recognized by their shillouette. I know that this is explained pretty well in most of Erwin Raisz' cartography textbooks, of which I have two, and in Robinson's Cartography which I have and have read. But, I am traveling with my work now and don't have access to them.
Just ask yourself why every book, magazine, and newspaper ever written is done so in lower case text aside from the grammatically called for capitals. Why should drafted survey maps be any different.
Stephen
In what location would you include
> I'm not sure why, but it irks me when I see arrows pointing in the opposite direction of the bearing. Does anyone else rotate the bearings to go in the direction of the line? Is the arrow added by the software? What's up with these arrows? Just a thought I have every time I see them.
I don't understand what you mean. You're referring to the bearing arrows, right? Yes, they are added by the software in Civil 3D. I modify their appearance usually, and probably did so on my map examples shown here. What don't you like about them and what do you mean opposite direction of the bearing? They are indicating the direction of the bearing. I think they are extremely useful to the people using the survey map.
Stephen