The minimum standards here have recently be amended and one of those requirements is....(xii) at least one record measurement reference for each line and curve, if available, must be shown;
showing record data was dropped in 2000, and now it's back.... and the question on a busy drawing is how to effectively show that data without clutter.
there are several methodologies to show the record- different font& size etc., but most of my work is ROW stuff which is by nature crowded to begin with...
My solution for the current drawing is using a table to code each record line and have the full data on another sheet- or maybe the same sheet but off to the side.
My take is the record info is useful, but shouldn't confuse the pertinent data of the current survey....
I'd go with the table idea. Maybe move it off to a corner well out of the way.
I don't agree with the idea of requiring record data, but if you have to do it, you have to do it. Ideally I think it should be left up to the surveyor to decide in each case.
Ya know Rank, I hate line and curve tables..... really hate them.
But in your case thats the best solution. And, I have never used line or curve tables since left TN.
> My take is the record info is useful, but shouldn't confuse the pertinent data of the current survey....
I'd agree with that, except in the unusual case where some significant discrepancy is to be emphasized. An asterisk after the resurvey data or some other means of flagging the particular course or tie should work as well or better, though.
N 45*15'45" W 2902.13'
(N 45*15'30" W 2902.00')
Like that except in L.A. County, they don't show record data.
Multiple docs - (()) or ()D1 or [] or {}, etc.
Working on some intensly recorded areas in California, I've used the R1 thru as much as R15 in the LEGEND i.e. R1= per record PM 143 Page 93 Yolo County Records R2- per Parcel Map 135 Page 93....R-3 per Yolo County Commissioners Records Book 12 Page 124 circa 1932... Then with the infamous (M) for measured and R1 per record. Works very well.
Pablo B-)
> Working on some intensly recorded areas in California, I've used the R1 thru as much as R15 in the LEGEND i.e. R1= per record PM 143 Page 93 Yolo County Records R2- per Parcel Map 135 Page 93....R-3 per Yolo County Commissioners Records Book 12 Page 124 circa 1932... Then with the infamous (M) for measured and R1 per record. Works very well.
I think what Rankin was referring to, though, was how to keep the record data from occupying real estate on the picture part of the map and keep it somewhere else where it wouldn't clutter the presentation.
Even in a tabulation of record vs. measured survey data off the picture part of the map, you'd still need to reference the source and the R# convention would do that if a direct reference was too lengthy for the table.
Since you are only required to show one record I don't see how one extra line of text along a line or curve would make the map too busy.
Of course choosing proper scale, and emphasizing and de-emphasizing with text size and lineweight.
Be thankful you only need to show one.
> Since you are only required to show one record I don't see how one extra line of text along a line or curve would make the map too busy.
Well, on a curve it isn't just one line, it's all the elements of the curve, right?
Right-of-way maps tend to be cluttered with all sorts of other information such as stations and offsets. So pruning the record information, if it is purely a matter of form, doesn't exactly seem like the end of Western Civilization, does it? :>
Nebraska requires the plat to show record distances, but since many surveyors don't bother to research existing surveys of record anyway, it doesn't make it to their plats.
To avoid clutter on one of my plats, I showed only my measured distances on one drawing as (M), and then had another sheet with the same linework, but only with the record distances from other surveyors.
The first link is the plat with my measured distances and the second is the same plat showing the record distances.
Sorry... I was viewing the problem through my own prism. I typically annotate curves with a table. So a measured and record curve table is the simple solution in my mind.
> Ideally I think it should be left up to the surveyor to decide in each case.
WHAT???? Allowing Professional Land Surveyors to actually use their professional judgment on a case by case basis? Are you nuts?
[sarcasm]Just how is the licensing board supposed to objectively judge each and every action/decision we make?[/sarcasm]
Here is how I do it. It is a study in Emphasis / De-emphasis.
Act. is for Actual and of course is in the legend, as is rec. Sometimes I spell them out, but not this time.
Stephen
The problem is not the clutter. The problem is someone, like an engineer or an architect, using the record data when they ought to be using the measured data for the plan. You'd be surprised at how record and measured confuses professionals.
Shades of gray aren't allowed in California; Statute 8763.
"The record of survey shall be a map, legibly drawn, printed, or reproduced by a process guaranteeing a permanent record in black on tracing cloth, or polyester base film, [ . . .]"
Similarly for other record maps.
> ... a study in Emphasis / De-emphasis.
And that's also a contribution to the recent "cartographic principles in survey plans" discussions that have taken place here :good: .
Make em really, really tiny above the measured;-)
Think about all the time put into showing record measurements against the actual benefit, I think I had one client ask me once why he is losing 10 feet. The only time I can think of record ever coming up. I was taken aback, not by the question, but by someone looking at it:-O
> Shades of gray aren't allowed in California; Statute 8763.
>
> "The record of survey shall be a map, legibly drawn, printed, or reproduced by a process guaranteeing a permanent record in black on tracing cloth, or polyester base film, [ . . .]"
>
> Similarly for other record maps.
If that is what you are basing "shades of gray aren't allowed" on, then I question that. To my mind this doesn't preclude one from lightening the black until it appears gray. Has this come up in discussions with the board or with the CA professional society?
I sincerely hope that it isn't truly disallowed. Surveyors, cartographers, drafters have used shading throughout history. That would be really sad if it's true.
Stephen
You have a Dennis D. Simonds and a Dennis D. Zieman that both survey in the same area? That would drive me nuts :'(
As with other data specific to a particular point or line, I prefer to place it at or along that point or line if it can be done without unduly crowding the data in. If it gets too busy, I may place a "See Note #_" and then place the data in the note at some place reserved for general notes on the map. If there are several similar crowding situations, I'll make tables.
Usually, if there are only a couple records for any given point or line, crowding isn't an issue. Much more than that and it gets too busy pretty quickly.
