As a general rule - we avoid color. Using color is typically not a good business decision.
Sometimes color seems like an excellent tool to convey information - when we think that's the case we run the drawing through one of the color blind simulators http://www.color-blindness.com/coblis-color-blindness-simulator/ or http://www.vischeck.com/vischeck/vischeckImage.php (there are more). If it doesn't work for everybody - we don't do it.
If you fail to communicate or you miss-communicate with a fairly large portion of the population (10% or so) because you are relying on color that those folks can't normally see then you are jeopardizing 10% or so of your client base. Additionally, color blind clients often don't like to mention this limitation - you may simply produce a product that they can't use or will miss-use. This alienates folks. Alienating 10% of clients and end users (when it can be avoided) is simply a bad business decision.
If you have to use color - check the colors you use to see how they work to a color blind person - it'll save you heartache in the long run.
For your interest and edification here are a couple of kiwi examples
Firstly an old style colour plan
.JPG "Canterbury-DP 20797_ImperialPlan(Col).JPG")
and a modern digital plan
I know which I prefer to look at
jim.cox, post: 421893, member: 93 wrote:
and a modern digital plan
I know which I prefer to look at
I assume that the point i.d. nos. annotated by various corners on the above plan also refer to some list of coordinates and descriptions? If so, what is the logic of showing all of the radiations (radial ties) from what I assume are control points that may no longer exist?
That is excellent. We have some surveys done by our early County Surveyors that have color on them that look similar. I will try to post some tomorrow.
Kent McMillan, post: 421895, member: 3 wrote: I assume that the point i.d. nos. annotated by various corners on the above plan also refer to some list of coordinates and descriptions? If so, what is the logic of showing all of the radiations (radial ties) from what I assume are control points that may no longer exist?
NZ's survey system is vector based - its is the relationship between marks that is important, not their absolute position (coordinates)
Unless annotated 'Adopted' all control points shown on the plan existed at time of survey
jim.cox, post: 421899, member: 93 wrote: NZ's survey system is vector based - its is the relationship between marks that is important, not their absolute position (coordinates)
Unless annotated 'Adopted' all control points shown on the plan existed at time of survey
Yes, but how does that work out in practice if not by simply generating the coordinates of the various lot corners? Over an area the size of that drawn on either of the plans above, shouldn't one expect to have a homogeneous coordinate system represented (if somewhat clumsily) in the radiation data?
Kent McMillan, post: 421900, member: 3 wrote: Yes, but how does that work out in practice if not by simply generating the coordinates of the various lot corners? Over an area the size of that drawn on either of the plans above, shouldn't one expect to have a homogeneous coordinate system represented (if somewhat clumsily) in the radiation data?
In actual practice yes we can have coordinates for all those marks. The coordinate systems (projections and geoid) are all predefined so we do have a consistent basis of bearings and can calculate radiations, missing lines etc. But the coordinates are generated by the system but are not held by it. They are a product of the system. They do not define boundaries.
Mike Marks, post: 421785, member: 1108 wrote: Can't use color in Record of Survey and subdivision maps in California; it's against the law...There's a good reason for this; most color plotters use organic dyes, which are not archival and fade with time.
I think the reason has more to do with reproduction than with fading of the original. The B&W ROS requirement dates to a time when blueline was the only widely-available large-format copying technology, and large-format color copiers are still uncommon in most offices.
I've filed many Records of Survey that were plotted on an HP-450C without complaints from the Recorder; is the HP inkjet black ink not based on organic dye?
These days the durability of the mylar map is of declining importance anyway because they're scanned upon filing and saved in digital format.
jim.cox, post: 421903, member: 93 wrote: In actual practice yes we can have coordinates for all those marks. The coordinate systems (projections and geoid) are all predefined so we do have a consistent basis of bearings and can calculate radiations, missing lines etc. But the coordinates are generated by the system but are not held by it. They are a product of the system. They do not define boundaries.
Am I right in thinking that what you're really saying is that in practice coordinates do define boundaries in that they represent the best evidence of where various marks no longer in existence had been, but only in relation to some local monument that remains? That is, while seismic activity continues to shift New Zealand around in more or less discrete blocks, as long as a coordinate system is tied to a particular block through permanent marks, the coordinate system is in practice what is used?
Jim Frame, post: 421905, member: 10 wrote:
These days the durability of the mylar map is of declining importance anyway because they're scanned upon filing and saved in digital format.
You know that and I know that....
I do, too ...
Kent McMillan, post: 421906, member: 3 wrote: Am I right in thinking that what you're really saying is that in practice coordinates do define boundaries in that they represent the best evidence of where various marks no longer in existence had been, but only in relation to some local monument that remains? That is, while seismic activity continues to shift New Zealand around in more or less discrete blocks, as long as a coordinate system is tied to a particular block through permanent marks, the coordinate system is in practice what is used?
This can take a wee bit to get your head around, but...
No - the coordinate carries NO definition value.
It is the relationship between the monuments - boundary and witness - that counts.
If a missing monument was, say 183 degrees and 50.52 metres from a witness mark, the boundary will be likely be 183 degrees and 50.52m from there now.
The fact that the boundary point may have, at one point in time, been at 804566.77N 309457,55E carries no weight.
Take a look at those plans - they show bearings and distances, not coordinates.
jim.cox, post: 421915, member: 93 wrote: This can take a wee bit to get your head around, but...
No - the coordinate carries NO definition value.
It is the relationship between the monuments - boundary and witness - that counts.
If a missing monument was, say 183 degrees and 50.52 metres from a witness mark, the boundary will be likely be 183 degrees and 50.52m from there now.
The fact that the boundary point may have, at one point in time, been at 804566.77N 309457,55E carries no weight.
Take a look at those plans - they show bearings and distances, not coordinates.
Actually, those bearings and distances are local polar coordinates. So, what you're saying is that boundaries are in fact defined by coordinates, but coordinates relative to some local permanent mark? That is, polar coordinates of 183deg, 50.52m in relation to some identifiable mark have rectangular components that yield rectangular coordinates in relation to the same mark, right? When the local mark from which the original radiations shown on the plan were taken is itself no longer in place, you have to re-establish it by coordinates in relation to other marks, right? So, what it would all appear to boil down to over small extents in which crustal movement isn't significant are relative rectangular coordinates in relation who whichever permanent marks still exist, would it not?
Kent McMillan, post: 421917, member: 3 wrote: Actually, those bearings and distances are local polar coordinates. So, what you're saying is that boundaries are in fact defined by coordinates, but coordinates relative to some local permanent mark? That is, polar coordinates of 183deg, 50.52m in relation to some identifiable mark have rectangular components that yield rectangular coordinates in relation to the same mark, right? When the local mark from which the original radiations shown on the plan were taken is itself no longer in place, you have to re-establish it by coordinates in relation to other marks, right? So, what it would all appear to boil down to over small extents in which crustal movement isn't significant are relative rectangular coordinates in relation who whichever permanent marks still exist, would it not?
I think we are splitting hairs here Kent.
The boundary is defined by the monument.
Where the monument is not present the best evidence of the boundary is the relationship to other local monuments - which may be expressed, as you say, by polar coordinates.
I think Fiji (being somewhat administered in various areas by NZ, Aussi, and UK) has similar DP (Deposited Plan) "system" as NZ. And we as engineers who do topo surveys often need to take into account boundary info, like on this Fiji example below. What appears to happen sometimes is that a "starting point" is not obvious on some of these, in the case that we need to plot or stake boundary information in our engineering models and field work.
Richard Imrie, post: 421920, member: 11256 wrote: I think Fiji (being somewhat administered in various areas by NZ, Aussi, and UK) has similar DP (Deposited Plan) "system" as NZ. And we as engineers who do topo surveys often need to take into account boundary info, like on this Fiji example below. What appears to happen sometimes is that a "starting point" is not obvious on some of these, in the case that we need to plot or stake boundary information in our engineering models and field work.
I can see the Kiwi style in that plan - looks very like the black & white metric plans we used to do before the advent of Landonline and its digitally generated plans
jim.cox, post: 421918, member: 93 wrote: Where the monument is not present the best evidence of the boundary is the relationship to other local monuments - which may be expressed, as you say, by polar coordinates.
Or by rectangular coordinates, right? I would have thought that SOP for surveying the boundaries of the parcels shown on a plan similar to the modern one you posted would be to calculate the rectangular coordinates of all of the points positioned as shown on the plat. Unless extensive obliteration of boundary markers is completely unknown in New Zealand, what other efficient choice is there to find the remaining markers in the first place?
Kent McMillan, post: 421924, member: 3 wrote: Or by rectangular coordinates, right? I would have thought that SOP for surveying the boundaries of the parcels shown on a plan similar to the modern one you posted would be to calculate the rectangular coordinates of all of the points positioned as shown on the plat. Unless extensive obliteration of boundary markers is completely unknown in New Zealand, what other efficient choice is there to find the remaining markers in the first place?
NZ moves - parts of it alot
Rectangular coordinates are really not much use except perhaps for searching.
Our survey system, including the computerised Landonline is NOT based on them....
Shocker: some members of the public are color blind.
Just as we don't like to discriminate against farmer john by giving him a map of only coordinates- something he may not understand as a layman, we should have a basis for the least among us in order to protect the public.
Plus, down the line, it inevitably gets copied in B&W because it's cheaper and looses its aura and of course its intended effectiveness.
jim.cox, post: 421925, member: 93 wrote: NZ moves - parts of it alot
Rectangular coordinates are really not much use except perhaps for searching.
Our survey system, including the computerised Landonline is NOT based on them....
It's the same here, many boundary plats get filed with coordinates, but the monuments control over any coordinates which are a function of the vectors shown on the plat. As long as the coordinates of the monuments and local control points as shown on the plat holds it works ok. Even here in the middle of the continent coordinates are moving along briskly over short time periods.
