Jim Frame, post: 421905, member: 10 wrote: 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.
I've submitted many [B/W] HP inkJet maps to the Counties too. Their black ink does not fade based on my wall test, unlike the color inks, red and yellow, especially. According to HP their black ink is metal complex black dye(?):
" [HP]
Black ink compositions generally include a mixture of two or more black dyes in balanced concentrations to obtain neutral colour, light fastness and grey scale properties. A black ink composition may include a mixture of pacified Reactive Black 31 and Direct Black 168."
Possibly from this patent:
"An ink jet ink comprising: a) at least one first metal complex black dye that when printed alone on a receiving element gives a CIELAB a* value>0 and at 1.0 Status A visual density; b) at least one second metal complex black dye that when printed alone on a receiving element gives a CIELAB a* value<0 and at 1.0 Status A visual density;
I think the heart of the issue here is that as a whole, the surveying profession has regressed in terms of our drafting skills. Look at some of these old maps, many understood composition, clarity and presentation much better than we do today. We don't all have to have an eye and aesthetic on Kent's level, but we can do much better. This increasing prevalence of color is just highlighting (literally) our weaknesses.
Color maps look like poo poo
roger_LS, post: 422017, member: 11550 wrote: I think the heart of the issue here is that as a whole, the surveying profession has regressed in terms of our drafting skills. Look at some of these old maps, many understood composition, clarity and presentation much better than we do today. We don't all have to have an eye and aesthetic on Kent's level, but we can do much better. This increasing prevalence of color is just highlighting (literally) our weaknesses.
nicely said.
Edward Reading, post: 421908, member: 132 wrote: You know that and I know that....
And our Recorder does not have a color scanner, so color is moot...
roger_LS, post: 422017, member: 11550 wrote: I think the heart of the issue here is that as a whole, the surveying profession has regressed in terms of our drafting skills. Look at some of these old maps, many understood composition, clarity and presentation much better than we do today. We don't all have to have an eye and aesthetic on Kent's level, but we can do much better. This increasing prevalence of color is just highlighting (literally) our weaknesses.
Amen. Is a Cartography class required at any of the four year survey schools? Not at OIOT.
I've always been interested in Cartography and have many books, etc. As surveyors we all should include the study of effective ways to convey information through maps as part of our journey. For a tasty view of leading edge award winning Cartography, visit Imus's website: http://www.imusgeographics.com/
Mike Marks, post: 422028, member: 1108 wrote: Amen. Is a Cartography class required at any of the four year survey schools? Not at OIOT.
I've always been interested in Cartography and have many books, etc. As surveyors we all should include the study of effective ways to convey information through maps as part of our journey. For a tasty view of leading edge award winning Cartography, visit Imus's website: http://www.imusgeographics.com/
I've wanted to attend a Cartography class for decades, but never could work it into my schedule - there are none locally even though we have a University here... How to Lie with Maps is fascinating...
roger_LS, post: 422017, member: 11550 wrote: I think the heart of the issue here is that as a whole, the surveying profession has regressed in terms of our drafting skills. Look at some of these old maps, many understood composition, clarity and presentation much better than we do today. We don't all have to have an eye and aesthetic on Kent's level, but we can do much better. This increasing prevalence of color is just highlighting (literally) our weaknesses.
I pick up some of those old hand drawn plats and they look so much better than a modern CAD version..........
Of course, then there are some that look like they were drawn on a napkin at the local bar.......
MightyMoe, post: 422037, member: 700 wrote: there are some that look like they were drawn on a napkin at the local bar.......
I just finished a survey of lot 39, block 4 (see attached):unamused::dizzy:
Shawn Billings, post: 421648, member: 6521 wrote: That's terrible. If anyone is interested, my solid hatch pattern colors are screened to about 15%. I like using the green for unpaved areas because I think it does have a utilitarian purpose beyond just being pretty. I think it helps readers easily see the difference in paved areas and pavement. That's not always easily apparent. The blue for the water is just showing off honestly, but I think it looks nice. I like using dark gray and dark green for the contours and index contours. I also make the index contours a little more bold.
I have three plot styles: color, monochrome and grayscale. In all three, the first ten colors print black. Yellow is a nice color on the black model space screen in CAD, but is very poor for visibility on a print, so I make it black and use it for my buildings. I have friends who use red for boundary. It's okay. Makes it pretty obvious on the print. Personally I use red for boundary in model space, but again, it's set to print as black in my print style. I like trying to make my colors match the natural world as best I can. Sometimes you can't get away with that, but I try. Concrete hatch is dark gray, wire fences are a rusty brown, tree symbols and tree lines are a dark green. Building hatch is a light gray or tan (depends on my mood). About the only thing I use unnatural colors for are utilities. Dark blue for water (cyan would look more natural, but cyan isn't legible), red for electric, dark orange for telephone, green for sanitary sewer. I haven't really found a color I'm happy with for gas (would generally be yellow, but again yellow isn't legible).
At the end of the day, the client sees only a few tangible things from our survey. The plat is one of them. I want them to be wowed when they see it, not because I want to hide poor work behind a pretty picture but because I want the pretty picture to convey the quality that it represents.
I find CAD cannot handle large hatches, so I went to MPOLYGON objects and I use them to lost areas. I also use a dot, 5 10, 20, 25 value depending on scale. Here's a project represented.
http://www.ese-llc.com/nelson
Really nice presentation, Thad. Thanks for sharing. I've thought of using other patterns, but solid seems to work okay the times I've needed it. Do you screen the green or does the dot density do that for you?
RADAR, post: 422040, member: 413 wrote: I just finished a survey of lot 39, block 4 (see attached):unamused::dizzy:
That is where a good magnifying glass is invaluable. Scale is way off. Resulting in massive overcrowding. Seen that before and it is really frustrating to clearly see the intent of the map. My condolences.
flyin solo, post: 422019, member: 8089 wrote: nicely said.
In the modern surveyors defense, we are putting together mapping that is far more complex and information heavy than those 100 years ago. Underground utilities, multiple easements coming across the property, contours, spot elevations and in generally more topographic detail than was mapped in the past. Our presentation and drafting skills are more important than ever. I see many times too much info is crammed on to one sheet when really multiple sheets at larger scales are needed.
Hi Gene,
Am starting to gather some material for a book focusing on the Mineral Surveyors who worked in the Bohemia Mining District of Oregon 1900-1960. About 35 years ago I retraced 25 patented claims by several of them and they left a lasting influence on me. I am looking for photo or portraits of these folks with little luck so far.
Specifically photos of; Edward L. Haff, Charles M. Collier, John A. McQuinn and a few others. Any ideas?
I saw you had some old Mineral Surveyor Instruction Books for sale awhile back. Do you still have any of those in Pdf form? OR, CA, AR, NV?
Much thanks,
Mark
today's entry. mi ojos!
flyin solo, post: 427836, member: 8089 wrote: today's entry. mi ojos!
I really don't like it or think it looks good when they use color for text.
RADAR, post: 422040, member: 413 wrote: I just finished a survey of lot 39, block 4 (see attached):unamused::dizzy:
In defense of Mr. Fisher, the attached is a copy of the original plat as evidenced by the lack of signatures. I suspect that who ever made the copy was not the surveyor. I find Mr. Fisher's work reliable and not like what you see here.
Daniel Ralph, post: 429475, member: 8817 wrote: I find Mr. Fisher's work reliable and not like what you see here.
Yes, I agree, I don't have a problem with his work, either. It's copies of copies that are unreadable, on file, at the auditor's office.
A couple of times I have asked for readable copies; they were provided as paper copies and were very easy to read; I was like WTF?! Why isn't this the scanned version, available on line?
I'm sure there's a bureaucrat somewhere with a darn good reason, though...
