This is on a Certificate of Survey I'm reviewing today.... it's correct if you slap a scale against it... not sure of any benefits of constructing it that way......
My college profs would have given that a failing grade for having strange increments.
Our graphs were allowed ONLY 1, 2 or 5 times a power of 10 per division. That was a little too restrictive, perhaps, but I still agree with the general sentiment.
To me the 400' and 800' on the bar may be an indication there was aerial work scaled up. Back in the day our contact prints were usually 400 or 800 ft./in.
Immaterial though, the example is really weird.
I love it. I bet some cad munkey had fun with that... and it made it through the checkers.
Could be an autogenerated scale bar some engineering/surveying CAD software produces, which blows up if a nonstandard scale is selected. It would make a lot more sense were the subdivisions groups of 4 instead of 5.
Isn't it: Principal Meridian Montana 😎
Oy vey. Albert Pennequin would never have approved of this.
MightyMoe, post: 399286, member: 700 wrote: Isn't it: Principal Meridian Montana 😎
Actually, that is the one correct thing shown. Many surveyor's and legals do use what you have shown, but that is incorrect. That would be like saying Boise Meridian Idaho.
Kurt Luebke, post: 399398, member: 681 wrote: Actually, that is the one correct thing shown. Many surveyor's and legals do use what you have shown, but that is incorrect. That would be like saying Boise Meridian Idaho.
I used to ascribe to that same opinion, but its been shown to me that I was incorrect.;)
It is the custom of AutoCAD draftsmen at the place where I work to put the graphic scale in paper space. Yes, I know that's wrong, but everyone finds my objections incomprehensible.
