admittedly i've been skeptical from the beginning about the increasing presence of surveys plotted/transmitted in color. because, like most people, i'm inherently resistant to change.
now that i've spent the last half a year doing almost nothing other than reviewing surveys, i can say this without hesitation: surveys shouldn't be in color.
or, at least, until such a time by which some industry standards are developed that constrain the use of color to some useful level. which... how is that gonna be done? so, basically, please go to your nearest office printer/plotter and do your local reviewer a solid: remove the C, the M, and the Y cartridges from it.
i know it's thrilling, i know your surveys suddenly look 10 times more exciting than they ever did before, but trust me- save all your uninitiated creative urges for instagram, where a complete lack of restraint is celebrated.
I've been using the ANSI D Instagram filter. Pretty sweet. 😉
For those monkeys that insist on plotting with a full color palette: Swap your CAD background for white instead of black. Then you'll have pretty good idea of what your mess looks like. 😉
ps - get rid of the yellow too....
I like using color in topographic surveys. I don't use them in boundary surveys. I definitely think it's unwise for information on a boundary map to rely on colors (see red line, note dashed blue line, etc.). I also see some occasionally poor choices for colors. Cyan and yellow are not easily legible. Hatch patterns in colors should probably be screened. Here is an example of a color plat that I did a couple of months ago. I'm pretty pleased with it aesthetically.
Shawn, please start teaching a class. I'll refer your first two students:
Just curious. How do you feel about hatches for concrete or bricks, etc?
I agree that color should be eliminated from boundary or filed maps. Except for any logos of the creating company. IMHO.
Mapman, post: 421631, member: 6096 wrote: Just curious. How do you feel about hatches for concrete or bricks, etc?
I agree that color should be eliminated from boundary or filed maps. Except for any logos of the creating company. IMHO.
about the same, which is to say: experience tends to lead to restraint and/or more sensible use. i mean, i could get all crazy and draw some kind of parallel to watching the method by which my older daughter's male friends might try to show their excitement toward getting my daughter to pay the slightest bit of attention. but that's kind of what it seems like- everyone is figuring out how to transmit a PDF or plot in color, and more often than not it's reminiscent of watching some teenager try to hit on a woman. my reaction is "just chill, dude, your survey is acting like a spaz."
Shawn Billings, post: 421626, member: 6521 wrote: I like using color in topographic surveys. I don't use them in boundary surveys. I definitely think it's unwise for information on a boundary map to rely on colors (see red line, note dashed blue line, etc.). I also see some occasionally poor choices for colors. Cyan and yellow are not easily legible. Hatch patterns in colors should probably be screened. Here is an example of a color plat that I did a couple of months ago. I'm pretty pleased with it aesthetically.
Now those are good looking prints with a good selection of colors. I not only don't mind prints of that caliber, but they can really accent a topo to the "useful" level. I'll see if I can dig one up..but we've got a guy around here that prints in FULL 256 color..and (I'm not kidding) I'm pretty sure he's color blind. They make me dizzy to look at.
I use green for Headright lines on occasion when there are many details that black would have covered and not shown clearly.
flyin solo, post: 421628, member: 8089 wrote: Shawn, please start teaching a class. I'll refer your first two students:
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.
flyin solo, post: 421628, member: 8089 wrote:
[SARCASM]....and that is why we're allowed to drink alcoholic beverages.....[/SARCASM]
flyin solo, post: 421621, member: 8089 wrote: admittedly i've been skeptical from the beginning about the increasing presence of surveys plotted/transmitted in color. because, like most people, i'm inherently resistant to change.
now that i've spent the last half a year doing almost nothing other than reviewing surveys, i can say this without hesitation: surveys shouldn't be in color.
or, at least, until such a time by which some industry standards are developed that constrain the use of color to some useful level. which... how is that gonna be done? so, basically, please go to your nearest office printer/plotter and do your local reviewer a solid: remove the C, the M, and the Y cartridges from it.
i know it's thrilling, i know your surveys suddenly look 10 times more exciting than they ever did before, but trust me- save all your uninitiated creative urges for instagram, where a complete lack of restraint is celebrated.
Couldn't agree more! As a member of the 10% of North American males who are color-blind their efforts are useless to me. It pretty much makes the drawings look amateurish.
flyin solo, post: 421621, member: 8089 wrote: Now that i've spent the last half a year doing almost nothing other than reviewing surveys, i can say this without hesitation: surveys shouldn't be in color.
I completely disagree, but then I'm also a geologist. My first geology laboratory should have been called "Colored Pencils 101". Geologists would be irretrievably lost without their Beryl Verithin set of 36 colored pencils. When used properly, color can greatly improve the readability of a plat. However, I also know surveyors and you have all been trained to use line weight, line types and symbols to make your plats "readable".
Obviously, the major problem with using color on a recorded document is getting a copy in color. Until then, b/w plats will have to suffice. When I prepare a surveyor's report all of the "illustrations" are in color. It helps my client understand all the information contained on a mineral survey plat, esp. when the mineral survey consists of several discontiguous tracts. I also find it informative when plotting up BLM dependent resurvey plats consisting of several mineral surveys. I color code the monument types and find that much easier than having to go find where I left my magnifying glass to see the monument symbol.
I'm betting that most of those that have used AutoCAD for many years have plats that look as garish as flyin solo's example. That way you could assign a Leroy pen number to each color. The final plot of course was all in black.
I know that most here understand that I'm an odd duck that restricts my practice to mineral survey retracements/resurveys and GPS control surveys, so my endorsement of color shouldn't come as much of a surprise.
Carry on. 🙂
While on the kick, maybe try to teach a planning or GIS department that zoning maps are IMPOSSIBLE to read when they insist on using colors that are only SLIGHTLY different than others on the same map.
Here is a portion of a Caltrans Appraisal Map. The colors are extremely helpful in identifying the existing ownership limits, proposed RW takes, remainder parcels and easement parcels.
[GALLERY=media, 32]RW000279-23 by Ryan Versteeg posted Apr 4, 2017 at 12:35 AM[/GALLERY]
I think it makes sense for standards. Like.. Line work should be black for primary/original work, and dark grey for underlying ancillary data.
Light colors for solid open spaces may not be best practices. Landscape architect, subdivision plan ... sure. But it takes a lot of ink.
I think the criteria should be: will it photo copy well? Is the new and purposeful data obviously presented above background data or GIS grade information.
However the purpose of the map may be multidisciplinary.
Ryan Versteeg, post: 421665, member: 41 wrote: Here is a portion of a Caltrans Appraisal Map. The colors are extremely helpful in identifying the existing ownership limits, proposed RW takes, remainder parcels and easement parcels.
[GALLERY=media, 32]RW000279-23 by Ryan Versteeg posted Apr 4, 2017 at 12:35 AM[/GALLERY]
I have always really appreciated CALTRANS' use of color on their ROW maps. Really makes them easy to read.
Many times, I would very much appreciate the use of colors.... in moderation. I wholeheartedly agree that yellow should be out of bounds since it is so hard to read in print.
In a number of cases, the use of a few colors would help immensely in differentiating between a distance label (straight leaders with arrows) and the part I am attempting find in all the mess. Some items are a horrid mess which could be Much better shown with colors.
A few weeks ago, a customer sent a drawing to us with the item in question highlighted with a yellow marker. Wonderful. Until the sales person copied the page in black and white and gave it to me. The once yellow highlight became white, totally obliterating the item I was supposed to draw. Some people just have no common sense. At all. Not one iota.
There is a local surveyor that uses the continuous line type and one line width for all lines. Can't tell what's what on his drawings.
While I don't plot in color on any plats, I could see how it can be useful and/or messy when used improperly. I have used color for show and tell as in Ryan's example. I also have used a colored quad on a vicinity map for the reason that it makes a better copy then plotting in black and white.
flyin solo, post: 421621, member: 8089 wrote: admittedly i've been skeptical from the beginning about the increasing presence of surveys plotted/transmitted in color. because, like most people, i'm inherently resistant to change.
now that i've spent the last half a year doing almost nothing other than reviewing surveys, i can say this without hesitation: surveys shouldn't be in color.
I think that I'd put it this way: survey maps should clearly represent the information they are intended to convey and with a definite heirarchy or priority of content. That is, one can make a standard list of the content of, say, a map of a land title survey in the order in which it should spring to the eye of the beholder and the graphical conventions used should follow that heirarchy.
As long as color supports that clear and orderly communication of content, it's good on condition that the end use of the map won't be as an illegible black and white image or copy, that is.
USGS 7.5-minute quadrangle maps are a good example of a colored map that also works in black and white, if not quite nearly as well.
