California Surveyors Forums

Civil Engineer wrote:11x17 is the largest standard size used by standard copy machines and scanners. Anything else is non-standard.

Not sure why there is so much debate about various non-standard sizes: It's "broken", but it's insignificant, and has no momentum to right itself.

* Plotters print in large format, supporting multiple medium to large paper sizes. I think you should spend some time researching those sizes before you classify them as non-standard. See the American National Standards Institute and the International Standards Organization websites for more information. My link to the Wikipedia article on paper sizes also has a lot of pertinent information.
* I do not think anything is broken. The format is outdated.
* Momentum starts with a small push, that initial energy must come from somewhere.

1) Each size listed except 11x17 requires special ordering and handling, and will not print on a standard copy machine. Standards organizations have standard specifications for all sorts of things that have to be custom made, or are only readily available in other countries. For me a "standard" is something readily available and widely used, as opposed to "standards" which are specifications and measurements for things that may not be "standard".

2) Most professions, businesses, and government agencies are switching exhibits and maps to 11x17, and making everything electronic and easily printable. The current poll shows 89% of the members of this site are for keeping the paper size "outdated". For me, outdated with overwhelming entrenchment could be construed as "broken".

3) The momentum is for 11x17, but clearly not here...it is just a matter of time, because 11x17 makes the information more accessible to the public, more transparent, better for business and the public.

Doesn't really matter. Nice post and poll. Thanks for that, but now I must get back to the things that matter.

strange Mr. CE... at this moment I see a total of 28 votes, 13 are for No Change (46%)
maybe you are seeing something different
so I guess your "outdated" category is your opinion

so, who you are and where you are would be the determining factor ... for me, 8.5x11 and 24x36 are the most readily available sizes... but all the copy shops can handle printing, scanning, and copies at minuscule cost differences. Like you said, not highly important

I do admit I draft my maps for reduction, such as larger text sizes and
try not to jam a lot of information in small area, just use more sheets.

Most copies of plans and maps used in the field are reduced to 11 x 17, Some
of the older surveys are almost unreadable at that reduction.


Brian

The STANDARD IS 18 X 26 according to California state law. Our law is not concerned with paper sizes around the world but rather what is needed to preserve mapping that is recorded by the county recorders around the state.... we have far more pressing issues to consider over paper size.

Peter Ehlert wrote:strange Mr. CE... at this moment I see a total of 28 votes, 13 are for No Change (46%)

He lumped every vote together except the votes for 11x17, which is now higher at ~90% (48%+17%+14%+7%+3%=89%; there appears to be a rounding issue)

Mr. Smith wrote:I do admit I draft my maps for reduction, such as larger text sizes and
try not to jam a lot of information in small area, just use more sheets.

Most copies of plans and maps used in the field are reduced to 11 x 17, Some
of the older surveys are almost unreadable at that reduction.

The reduction of ANSI D (22x34) by 1/2 is ANSI B (11x17). It would make a lot of sense to go to this size as it would provide a lot of extra space and reduce scaling problems when printing on ledger sheets. It would also make a lot of two sheet RoS only one sheet, saving ourselves some dollars.

dmi wrote:The STANDARD IS 18 X 26 according to California state law. Our law is not concerned with paper sizes around the world but rather what is needed to preserve mapping that is recorded by the county recorders around the state.... we have far more pressing issues to consider over paper size.

Statute does not always mean standard. The word standard actually only appears in the PLS Act once, in Section 8714, which calls for us to strive for 'high professional standards'. I think that adhering to Standards organizations like the ANSI elevates the Profession and would make it easier to archive. I agree, this isn't a "hot button" issue, but that doesn't mean it should ignored.

Hi Caleb,

I personally don't see the need, but if you would like to pursue this, have your chapter directors bring it to the board of directors meeting in November by having them include it in the agenda to request the Legislative Committee to look into changing the paper size. It seems there are about half that do want it to change (although it is a very small sample size out of about 4000 practicing land surveyors and 10000 practicing pre-82 RCE's that file recorded maps). You may have to be the one that champions it.

Ryan.

The momentum is for 11x17, but clearly not here...it is just a matter of time, because 11x17 makes the information more accessible to the public, more transparent, better for business and the public.

The cost ramifications of going to a smaller size, like 11x17, would be big for some of us. I'd have to double the number of sheets on just about every ROS I file. At $530 per sheet, that adds up fast. It's hard enough convincing clients to authorize work without adding another $500 or $1,000 to the tab.

Dictionary.com defines the word standard as below

1. something considered by an authority or by general consent as a basis of comparison; an approved model.

18x26 is the accepted and mandated medium.

Why stir the bucket over something so trivial, as said in prior posts there are far more pressing issues the profession should address.

As we continue moving into the digital age, paper size will become irrelevant.

mpallamary wrote:As we continue moving into the digital age, paper size will become irrelevant.

If it's irrelevant than why not change it?

If it's irrelevant than why not change it?

Um...because it's irrelevant? (Is this a trick question?)

I agree. Yes, a trick question. If we make electronic submittals there will be no need for conventional storage provisions.

:)

Good points, Michael and others.

The "digital" format likely to be used would be the PDF file. Since that format is not proprietary and is in use by a number of programs/apps, the real question is the availability of the 18" x 26" format size. From experience, some setup routines make it very easy to create and save a non-standard size sheet; others damned near need the developers to custom create the sheet size.

It pains me to think of all the wasted mylar lives when I have to trim down a sheet and throw a slice away.

It also bothers me to see the level of acrimony over such a simple item. Imagine what it would be like if we tried to discuss a more complex item, such as who we should elect as our next Pesident-Elect...

Ian

I would keep it the same but I don't consider it a religious conviction.

If you really want to come to the electronic age, convert to a GIS based format, totally and completely electronic. All monuments found or set are tied to the NSRS and a click reveals a detailed text description. The vector based mapping we use now would slowly disappear (that is the 19th century style of labelling every line with a bearing and distance, this was based in that is how they did it. Their bearings and distances were their actual unadjusted measurements).

I'll support legislation to change sizes, any size bigger just not smaller,.... providing that the legislation enabling such a change also contains a rider that eliminates ROS checking fees. Jim noted one county charging $530 per sheet. Absurd.
ROS's are a valuable public resource. There shouldn't be a cost barrier inhibiting the development of such a valuable public resource.

Don't hate the playa, hate the game.
- Ice-T

Dave Karoly, PLS wrote:If you really want to come to the electronic age, convert to a GIS based format, totally and completely electronic. All monuments found or set are tied to the NSRS and a click reveals a detailed text description. The vector based mapping we use now would slowly disappear (that is the 19th century style of labelling every line with a bearing and distance, this was based in that is how they did it. Their bearings and distances were their actual unadjusted measurements).

Baby steps, Dave. If there is this much division over the paper size then what you're suggesting will find you being weighed on a scale vs a duck.

Joking aside, I do think there is a place for drawings, digital or otherwise, being a 2D non-GIS product. Historical references and the narrative of the survey are told with our maps, something that isn't captured by GIS metadata, especially regarding older record measurements and how they compare to more recent surveys. I find that historical data highly valuable for analysis. Maybe I'm just nostalgic.

Jim Frame wrote:

If it's irrelevant than why not change it?

Um...because it's irrelevant? (Is this a trick question?)

If the size of maps eventually will be irrelevant due to the digital submittal and retention policies that are apparently imminently upon us then the 18"x26" size is also equally trivial. Therefore, if it is trivial then it should be of no consequence if it is changed. If you truly feel that this issue doesn't matter then blocking inertia to change it is dismissive of valid arguments.

The only arguments I have seen pro status quo are:

1. Change is bad (or some variant thereof)
2. This is inconsequential/trivial (or some varient thereof)
3. We have bigger problems (or some varient thereof)

I need not address point 1, for obvious reasons.

I already addressed point 2 above.

We have problems as an organization, that is true. However, there will always be bigger fish to fry, sexier issues to deal with, and more pressing matters. Details like this don't get attention, which is evident by it remaining unchanged for 83 years. I think it might be time to take a step forward, or at least make contact with the Count Recorders Association of California to see how this and the digital submittal era should be handled in the next few decades. I will be talking with my chapter and chapter director to bring this to the attention of the board of directors at the next meeting.

Caleb you omitted pro status quo response 4... there is no perceived problem
best wishes in your efforts

Caleb, I have discussed this topic with the County Recorders Association and I have lectured at their annual conference. You might want to reach out to them to see what their latest position is. I can pretty much assure you that they would not have the desire or interest to change things like this right now. They are moving towards the electronic storage age and they are more interested in electronic filing.

Here is their website:

http://www.craconline.org/

Good luck.

I think Mike's suggestion is best. Whether we (surveyors) want to change is doesn't matter because it won't change unless the Recorders Association agrees to it. Now if we went to them with 90% of land surveyors on board with ACEC, PECG and CEAC backing, maybe they would listen, but even then I believe they could still nix it and it would be dead in the water.

From the survey (which admittedly is a small sample size of land surveyors) it appears there is no consensus on the best size to change to and half don't want to change at all. I think it's a tough road to climb. Go for it, but I don't see any traction on this.

I have already reached out to them Michael. If what you say is true then I think the argument for a size change is perfect as both movements can happen simultaneously.

With all due respect for the idea, I do not think it will go anywhere. It will cost a lot of money and I don't see the recorders investing in it.

Good luck though.

mpallamary wrote:It will cost a lot of money and I don't see the recorders investing in it.

Why would it cost any money to change it if they're going to digital anyway? It seems like you are now arguing against yourself.

Good luck!

Thanks!