Why 18"x26"? Revisited

[L9100]

Hey Everyone,

I have never been able to find an answer to what I thought would be a simple question: Why are Records of Survey sheets 18" x 26" format?

A couple searches of these forums led me to part of the answer, thanks to this discussion http://clsaforum.californiasurveyors.or ... ize#p27184

The Statute of 1933, Chapter 506, Section 11(d), paragraph 2:

"Such record of survey shall be a map made in good draftsmanlike manner on one or more sheets of tracing cloth of good quality, of the uniform size of eighteen by twenty-six inches..."

My assumption is that this size was standard for "tracing cloth" at this time in the industry, but I can't find any proof of that, and you know what they say about assumptions. I would love it if someone has any additional information on the background of this size requirement. However, whatever the reasoning ultimately is, no modern paper size in any of the standardized systems has an exact equivalent to 18"x26", though there is an 18" US Web roll that exists. Web rolls are miles long and are intended for newsprint or other mass produced magazines, not single sheet products.

Paper sizes that come close:

ARCH C is 18" x 24" - 2" shorter in width. I have heard of people getting 18" ARCH C rolls, but most ARCH C rolls are in landscape width at 24".
ISO A2 is 16.5" x 23.4" - 1.5" shorter in height and over 2" shorter in width.
ANSI C is 17" x 22" - 1" by 4" shorter.

If we wanted to go to a larger size, giving ourselves more real estate instead of less:

ARCH D is 24" x 36"
ISO A1 is 23.4" x 33.1"
ANSI D is 22" x 34"

After 83 years of 18"x26" I think we might want to consider conforming to a recognized standard paper size. I know this isn't a "hot button" issue, and is probably trivial in the eyes of some, but I think adhering to national or international standards would be another step forward for the profession.

Is there a reason that 18"x26" should be kept as the requirement? Can we put those paper cutters to bed?

-Caleb

[dmi]

they need the extra length over a standard 18"x 24" to bind the map in a book... it is a standard BTW, it just happens to be a CALIFORNIA standard.

[L9100]

Thanks for the reply Dane.

Wouldn't binding vellum/film together be a very bad idea? Wouldn't the ink heat up and stick to the map above it?

This is 2016, I would hope we could come up with better reasoning than "because: California". Binding comes in a lot of different sizes, and I would think it would be easier to find binding for standard sized sheets than non-standard. The 2" extra isn't applied to one side specifically, but all sides, meaning the existing binding only needs a 1" margin, if this is indeed how they are archived.

Are there some County Surveyors, current or former, who could chime in with their Counties archiving procedure?

[Warren Smith]

Maps are now scanned by the Recorder, so the binding issue is not what it once was. All it would take is to sponsor legislation to modify the traditional statutory requirement.

Even back when blue line copies were made, it was a process - one that I don't miss.

[Lee Hixson]

Personally, I've always thought that 11x17 would be a great option for those uncomplicated RofS maps. Why can't we have more than one option? A large portion of the maps I've done over the years could have been placed on ledger size. The big advantage being that there would be no reduction necessary when running copies, emailing to whoever, producing clearly readable text. And the recorder could put them into a ledger-sized binder if they wanted to. Ledger size is great.

[Ian Wilson]

OK, I'm on vacation, floating in the Pacific on a cruise, but I'm weighing in on this one.

18"x24" is a standard sheet size. Is is cut down from a "parent" sheet, which is much larger.

The 2" were added to create a binding edge but that edge disappeared many years ago and the extra 2" was just kept.

About 10 or 12 years ago, I tried to sponsor legislation to remove the odd 2" and return to the paper industry standard 18"x24". I state that it was for environmental reasons...less waste paper and my myear.

You would have thought was advocating eating babies.

One county surveyor commented that it was a "hairbrained, cockamamy idea".

With so much vehemence against the idea, I dropped it.

Now, back to my "fruit-topped" drink...

[L9100]

Warren - Thanks for your input, I was hoping you would get involved in the discussion and your insight is invaluable.

Lee - I saw you make this argument in doing my research on the forum, and 11x17 is ANSI B size, which is a standard. My only issue with this size is that I think once you put seals and text at full scale on the sheet you will lose a lot of real estate. Comparing 11x17 to 18x26 is a net loss of 58% of sheet space, that's a lot of room. However, if you multiply ledger by 2x you get ANSI D size, 22x34, which is quite a bit larger, but obviously reduces quite easily to ledger size, killing two birds with one stone. Perhaps only final mylar could be at ANSI D size and all other submittals at 11x17?

Ian - I had heard it was brought up in the past, interesting outcome. I think we may be able to get the ball rolling at this point in time. Enjoy a Pina Colada for me.

I will put a poll up for the forum to voice their opinions and discuss it with some in person at our local chapter meeting tonight.

-Caleb