roger_LS, post: 379173, member: 11550 wrote: Don't agree, I think exaggerations are confusing and especially to any non-surveyor that may happen to look at the map. If you need to exaggerate, you should probably be using a detail, or even another sheet at a smaller scale if needed.
I like all the information at the point. I hate looking all over the map for the information. If it can be put at the point then put it there. I think it comes from my days of traversing and searching for boundary monuments with the rolled up record maps under my arm. Last thing I wanted to do is unroll the set to get the description of the monument or to have to look for note "A" to find out the monument was set on a 2' offset. It is all different now with CAD but it does not have to be. My 2 cents, Jp
Jp7191, post: 379252, member: 1617 wrote: I like all the information at the point. I hate looking all over the map for the information.
It's a tradeoff. There isn't any way to squeeze a good description with a leader to each marker onto most maps without either creating a blizzard of text over the picture or lapsing into "FD/SET IR/IP/CM" abbreviations. This is what generates the overly brief and non-descriptive descriptions that are in common use as opposed to descriptions that actually describe the thing recovered or set.
One good thing about having a table of mark descriptions is that they can be photocopied onto letter-sized pages for the field. Same thing with a coordinate table.
Kent McMillan, post: 379255, member: 3 wrote: It's a tradeoff. There isn't any way to squeeze a good description with a leader to each marker onto most maps without either creating a blizzard of text over the picture or lapsing into "FD/SET IR/IP/CM" abbreviations. This is what generates the overly brief and non-descriptive descriptions that are in common use as opposed to descriptions that actually describe the thing recovered or set.
One good thing about having a table of mark descriptions is that they can be photocopied onto letter-sized pages for the field. Same thing with a coordinate table.
I agree. I should of preferenced my statement with , when there is room. I too would rather have good descriptions in a table then overly brief descriptions at the point. I guess my pet peeve is when there is room but the drawing is standardized in cad to use tables when not needed. Jp
Jp7191, post: 379277, member: 1617 wrote: I guess my pet peeve is when there is room but the drawing is standardized in cad to use tables when not needed. Jp
Yes, I definitely agree with that. The objective should be to make is possible for a map user to get the information as quickly as possible,
One convention that I use, but that I don't see followed anywhere close to universally is using different monument symbols to indicate different functional categories of boundary monuments, i.e.:
- original land grant corners,
- replacements of land grant corners,
- original corners described in the records by which boundaries were created,
- replacements of those corners,
- recognized corners that may only be locally controlling,
- survey markers described in instruments of record,
- markers of undetermined origin, and
- survey markers set by the survey,
with the object being to make the controlling boundary markers stand out on the map, separate those with a pedigree from those that don't have one, and clearly identify what was placed in the course of the work. This should enable the map viewer to readily get some idea of the key evidence from which a boundary determination was based just from the symbols alone.
If three markers are all original land grant corners that control the original locations of the lines between them, I don't really care whether all three are completely different as to material or identical, and the same goes for the rest.
Probably it was Douglas Casement. We are often mistaken for one another.
I'll take that as a compliment...
One of you guys that knows him needs to get Kent back in here, it has been too long.
Yes, he actually seems like quite a good surveyor; despite his measurement abilities.
If that doesn't get him back to castigate me I don't know what will:)
lol
He is one of those guys that if I had a lot of money I would want him surveying my property.
Ditto. I too have always had great respect for Kent. Also, I admired Kent for the ability to argue his point long and hard, and maintain civility.
