Shadow Fonts

[Jim Frame]

I like to use a shadow font on my maps to display background information (e.g. lot and block numbers). Recently the Yolo County Surveyor started redlining all my shadowed text with the notation, "There is a trend among Recorder's Offices to reject maps which use 'shadow' fonts. I suggest changing the shadow fonts to something more solid - see redlines." A map isn't a text document, it's inherently graphical, and it seems to me that the Recorder has no authority to control the graphical content of a map presented for filing. As long as the text isn't screened (which can cause legitimate reproduceability problems), shadowed text is just another graphical element of the map.

I've been disregarding the suggestion to change fonts, but I'm curious: which County Recorders are rejecting maps that use shadowed fonts, and what is their stated legal basis for doing so?

[Warren Smith]

SMA section 66466 (b) speaks to the Recorder giving notice to the Developer if the office rejects the map for filing, giving the reasons for the rejection. My experience has been that it is for reasons of clarity and reproduction.There likely is a section in the Government Code relating to such issues concerning recorded documents. Since maps are filed, and the original made available for viewing, there is an alternative to the specter of an illegible counter copy.

In the case of a final map, appeal is made to the approving authority - the Board of Supervisors or City Council. For parcel maps, it would be the County Surveyor, as would be the case for a record of survey.

Good luck with making your case.

[Jim Frame]

For parcel maps, it would be the County Surveyor, as would be the case for a record of survey.

It seems to me if the County Surveyor has checked the ROS for compliance with the B&P Code and has presented it to the Recorder for filing, the Recorder has no basis for rejecting the map.

[Warren Smith]

You'd think so.

I've had success informally by pointing out that originals - and the mylar sepias that we are provided - are sufficient for those doing research and have questions about 'fuzzy' images. It was a bit tougher argument in the old blueprint era.

[dedkad]

Legibility is in the eye of the beholder. Tough to argue subjective opinion. Might be worth a call to the County Surveyor to see if has seen the maps be rejected by their Recorder or if the Recorder is just thinking about it. Haven't had any shadow font rejections at our local Recorder's office.

[Edward M Reading]

I've never had a problem with shadow fonts with the SLO County Recorder's Office. It seems outside of their purview to me.

[PLS9196]

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, as long as the notation is legible the public is benefited by the map recording. This is not a technical aspect and I opine it is not within CS office purview. That being said if its a quick fix just change the darn map. To answer your original question, Orange County requires a font that outlines the letters for adjoiners, similar to children's building blocks, I will admit it is extremely legible on most plot sizes. LA, SD, Riv Co, SB, don't seem to get hung up on these minor ascetics, they tend to focus on getting the map into public record.

[Jim Frame]

That being said if its a quick fix just change the darn map.

I don't subscribe to this approach. Public agencies are bound by statutes and regulations, and when they overstep those boundaries I believe it's important to push back. In the case of a discretionary approval (i.e. a Final Map), I understand the need to knuckle under sometimes in order to move a project forward. When I file a Record of Survey, however, I'm not submitting something for discretionary approval -- it's simply a record of my survey, done the way I do surveys and drawn the way I draw maps. If the County Surveyor has approved it, the Recorder has no business refusing the file it.

I've had mostly good relationships with County Surveyors. For many years we had one here in Yolo County who was so knowledgeable of local conditions (born and raised in the county seat, spent his entire career in Yolo and Solano Counties), so helpful, so accommodating and just so darned nice that I would relax my otherwise line-in-the-sand attitude on occasion to change something he wanted changed even when it wasn't legally required. Alas, he was thrown overboard for a distant consultant to save money, and relations with the CS aren't as genial anymore.

[Peter Ehlert]

I don't subscribe to this approach. Public agencies are bound by statutes and regulations, and when they overstep those boundaries I believe it's important to push back.

Thank you

[hellsangle]

Hang in there, Jim!

I support you 150%!

Crazy-Surveyor-to Recorder Phil - Sonoma

Hmmmmm, Jim . . . you've illuminated another problem: The Recorder!

[Edward M Reading]

This is the bottom line:

... If the County Surveyor has approved it, the Recorder has no business refusing the file it.

[David Kendall]

Hmmmmm, Jim . . . you've illuminated another problem: The Recorder!

Sounds to me like an overzealous contract map review person is warning of a potential problem that may not really a problem.

I have heard of the Humboldt County recorder rejecting submittals for signing over the stamp (which is apparently a common practice for engineers)
If any part of the pen stroke is touching a stamp letter (legibility is not entirely the issue it seems to be more OCD vigilantism) then the document is rejected

The only time I heard of the shadow font issue the map reviewer on a Tract Map requested what he called a Ghost Font for background text (adacent maps) so I complied. No reports here of Recorder rejecting survey maps over fonts

[dedkad]

This is the bottom line:

... If the County Surveyor has approved it, the Recorder has no business refusing the file it.

But the shadow font comment came from the CS, which is why I suggested the OP call the CS and talk to him. Is their Recorder routinely rejecting maps due to font? Is he doing you a favor by pointing this out while you still have time to change it? Is the CS willing to go to bat on this issue and risk getting on the bad side of the Recorder if the Recorder has a strong opinion about legibility of the shadow font? Probably not. As with most things in life, you need to pick your battles and a simple font change isn't one I'd be willing to go to the mat on. Alternately, the OP could go down to the Recorder's office, ask their map person to take a look at it and if they are OK with it, document the name of the person who looked at it and make note of that in your response to comments.

[leevining209]

Is the shadow font in black and white (no gray)? The PLSA (8763) does require that it be in black. Just a thought.

[goodgps]

Shadow fonts can be hard to read sometimes. I used to Love making them on maps. thought they were cool.
Then I noticed they were hard to read and many of them look alike, like 5 and 6 1 and 7 and 4
What I have found to be even worse, is the "dotted" font. can barely make those out sometimes.

Now, I use a plain italic which seems to separate the information from other data.

My two cents

[bruce hall]

I use dotted font for the ghosting and I think it looks great. imho

[Jim Frame]

Is their Recorder routinely rejecting maps due to font?

No, he only notes that "there is a trend" among County Recorders (without citing an example) to reject shadow fonts and suggesting that I change it. He makes this same suggestion on every ROS I submit, and I offer the same response every time: I choose not to change it.

My reason for starting this thread is to assess the magnitude of this "trend," but so far no one has been able to provide an example.

[Gromatici]

I my experience, if they are redlining your line types, text type, or fonts, it means your an awesome surveyor, and the only thing can nitpick is your style. Take it as a compliment!

If shadow fonts are not screened, it shouldn't be an issue. If they are really rejecting shadow fonts, it means the recorder is living in a world where that matters (not the world we all live in) and it might be less grief to just change the style. It shouldn't be this way, but if you're busy, and have better things to do, it might be easier to just go with the flow.

[T. S. Higgins]

Is their Recorder routinely rejecting maps due to font?

No, he only notes that "there is a trend" among County Recorders (without citing an example) to reject shadow fonts and suggesting that I change it. He makes this same suggestion on every ROS I submit, and I offer the same response every time: I choose not to change it.

My reason for starting this thread is to assess the magnitude of this "trend," but so far no one has been able to provide an example.

To me, this is immaterial; even if every County Recorder was rejecting maps with the shadow font, it doesn't change that they have absolutely no authority to do so. The County Surveyor may choose to cite legibility under 8763 if there's a concern there, but if they've signed the map per 8766, the recorder is compelled to file as-is. I'd dig my heels in.

[bruce hall]

down here in the OC I haven't seen anything about shadow fonts regarding the recorders office. in fact the CS has told me a couple of times to shadow font the adjoiners when my draftsman doesn't think and I think it looks good enough without the shadow.