California Surveyors Forums

The recent threads comparing Corner Records to Records of Survey got me thinking about 11" x 17" maps and what a beautiful size it is, for so many reasons. I would venture to say that upwards of 70% of the RofS maps that I've produced over the years could easily have been placed on ledger-size paper/mylar, keeping the standard 0.1" lettering and without crowding of information.

1. It's a common, standard size.
2. Most offices have printers that handle that size.
3. Clear, beautiful maps could be shared via email with attorneys, title companies, realtors, etc.
4. They would greatly reduce the cost of duplication and sharing.
5. Easy to 3-hole punch and fold for existing CS's Cor. Rec. binders.
6. Though I've never tried, I'm thinking that standard printers could handle mylar for a RofS. But if not, run them through our plotters when it's time to record.
7. A valuable, useful alternative for tentative maps, topo maps, site plans, etc.
8. Eliminate many of those terrible, unreadable map reductions.
9. RofS map check packages could be submitted via email.
10. Ledger-size binders are available, allowing Co. Recorders to easily punch and insert for archiving without folding.
11. Far easier & cheaper to scan!
12. As pointed out in another thread, the cost of a RofS vs. a CR is a very important factor to surveyors, but even more so for our clients. One of the primary reasons for choosing a RofS is that a standard CR is just too small for all the information. A ledger-size CR would allow us to avoid to overcharging a client in situations where the only reason for opting for a RofS is the need for more map space.

I'm sure there are even more good reasons for adopting this practice. It's a major win-win for everyone involved with maps: a cheaper, easier, fantastic alternative to the old 18" x 26" size that's so "20th Century." I don't see any defensible rationale to restricting RofS maps to one size only.

Couldn't be that hard of a change to incorporate into law. Well worth it in my humble opinion. (CLSA, are you listening?)

So you would like to see two different sizes of record of surveys, because the standard 18" x 26" will still need to be used.

There is talk that the 18" x 26" will be getting reduced to 18" x 24" in the near future already. That already reduces the mapping space by 2 ", and some say they want all available space to show information.

Where do you plan to put the various statements on a map sheet that is only 8 1/2" x 11"?

You say "8. Eliminate many of those terrible, unreadable map reductions."
If a reduced map is not readable, then the original map had too small of lettering, as required by Section 8763 PLS Act "The record of survey shall be a map, legibly drawn, printed, or reproduced . . . ", and other local ordinances.

There is no minimum requirements on lettering size, but it shall be reproducable. The simple test is take an original map and reduce it to 8 1/2" x 11", and if the lettering is still readable, it is ok by me.

That's my 0.02

"So you would like to see two different sizes of record of surveys?"

Yes. I tried to make that obvious.

"Where do you plan to put the various statements on a map sheet that is only 8 1/2" x 11"?"

Huh? I never said that. I'm only referring to ledger-size, i.e., 11" x 17".

As for lettering size and map reductions, isn't it annoying when a title company sends you reduced size copies of an 18" x 26" map? Sure, all previously recorded maps will still have to be reduced, but if we were allowed to record some maps, at our discretion, at ledger size, then they could be copied and emailed without reduction, thus keeping the original lettering size in tack. That's all I meant.

And that is why we have a reduced sized map called a corner record. I do not beleive 6" of map space will make or break you.

But again, this is only my opinion, so take it for what it is worth (not much, lol).

(Edited) My map size does not equate, due to my brain being reduced, lol. (Me bad)
Now back to the regualarly scheduled program.

Last time I checked, ledger size was double the size of a CR (8.5" x 11").

I like the idea, Lee.

11 x 17 would be a handy size for many projects. But the recorders won't like it. How would they index it? They wouldn't want to put it in the same books as the 18x26 maps; that would be messy. So if thy create a separate set of books, they won't want to call them the same thing, because they want to keep the records chronological. Would they call it a Minor Record of Survey?

I'm not opposed to the idea, but I think that the change would require a significant advocacy effort by the CLSA, and would have a low likelihood of success. We have bigger fish to fry, like the fees charged by some counties to review an RS (a problem that would likely carry over to this new 1x17 document).

Edit: Since your list partially addresses what I wrote above, I'll go through your list items

1. Agree
2. True
3. I can do that now by sending PDFs in any size I choose to make them. The limiting factor is the ability to make legible hardcopies at the receiving end
4. Most likely
5. Requires a new category of document by Recorders, which they will be resistant to do. Putting them in CS's CR binders is problematic in that you need to fold them, which greatly diminishes the life of a map. Not good for an archived refernce.
6. Possible in an ink jet type printer. Mylar would melt in a laser printer.
7. I can already make 11x17 maps for most non-recordable maps if I wish. If local planning and bldg depts don't allow it, that's another issue entirely
8. For this size map only, true
9. How will map size affect whether RSs can be submitted via email? Our CS emails scanned copies of 18x26 back to me after review. Map size is no issue for email.
10. True, but requires a new category of document by Recorders, which they will be resistant to do.
11. If they already need the larger scanner for the larger maps, this is not true. Might be easier with a large flatbed, but that rquires the purchase and maintenance of that additional piece of equipment.
12. Hold on! I thought we were talking about a ledger sized RS. Now it's a ledger sized CR? Whatever you call it, the counties will argue that it is essentially an RS and should be subject to the same level of scrutiny, and therefore the same fees as an RS. Those counties already charging high fees for an RS will do so for this 11x17 RS/CR. You won't avoid that fight by creating a new category of document.


I find occasionally that 18x26 is too small, requiring me to show a portion of the property on one page, and a portion on another. Should we also push for a 24x36 Jumbo RS?

In terms of polling, I am in the "meh" camp.

I always like to draft the ROS maps on as large a format as possible to fit everything on - that way Keith has to facepalm himself to death when he gets the mail with my name on it.

btaylor wrote: . . . that way Keith has to facepalm himself to death when he gets the mail with my name on it.

"facepalm" Thanks Bryan!!!

The act of dropping one's face / forehead into one's hand. Usually accompanied by a "thunk" or a cry of "[D'oh]!"

facepalm.org

Yes that is how I picture you when I send some of mine in.

I would like to see the 18x26 replaced by the more standard sheet size of 18x24. I had never heard of an 18x26 sheet before coming to California. I am also a proponent of allowing 24x36 sheets. I know it might cause a little consternation for the recorders, but multiple sizes are filed in other states, so it's possible.

As for the 11x17, I don't particularly have a problem with that, but I've never felt a need for it. I have often wished for a larger sheet though.

Sorry but stick to 18x26, 11x17 would be way too cluttered. 18x24 would be nice so we would not have to special order paper. Yes we use a roll but not everyone does. It grips me that 18x26 is a special order with a extra processing fee. Using 18x26 we already have maps that are 3 to 5 sheets or more. But then we did not try to cover the entire sheet with ink either.

I use a sheet-fed plotter (HP 450C) and plot Records of Survey on 24"x36", then cut them down. For the number of maps I put out in a year (generally 6 or fewer) it's not a big deal.

11"x17" strikes me as a solution in search of a problem.

.

I agree with Jim on the 11x17 format.

However, Jim, we go through a roll of paper a week here. And when we print final plans/maps, we can go through a couple of rolls of mylar with no trouble.

The waste and expense is not insignificant across the state, even if its not that high in your office.

.

I appreciate the statewide cost of having to cut down standard paper to meet the unusual size of CA record maps, but is the cost of buying custom-size sheets or rolls in perpetuity more or less than the cost of shifting every county's workflow and storage systems to accept 18"x24" map sheets? It seems to me that if the demand for 18" or 26" wide paper/mylar rolls were high enough, the cost over other sizes wouldn't be an issue.

I'm not even sure my plotter can print a margin as small as 1", so it's probably moot in my case anyway.

.

Laser printers bake the toner in place. I'm surprised that worked for you. Newer printer? I've heard of expensive damage being done to laser printers where mylar, plastic, or other non-laser type paper had been used because the heat applied turns the media or coating to a goo that then gums up the printer.

Thanks for letting us know that mylar will work in most printers. That bolsters the case for ledger-size RofS maps. There has been more naysaying than I expected, but if nothing else the idea is out there and maybe now more of us will pause and think about the opportunities for, and advantages of, the size. It's such a commonly used size that it would be nice to take better advantage of it.

After placing all the require statements, title block, legend, references, Company Info, 2 stamps, north arrow and scale, will there still be room for a legible map? I would have to see an example. Many of our maps on 18x26 are 2 or 3 sheets as it is. If it works, ok, but I would still like the option of a larger page.

Sorry if I gave the impression that I was recommending that ALL RofS maps should be ledger-size. No, of course not. I just meant that it would be nice if it was an option, that's all. I would guess that maybe 1/4 to 1/3 of the ones that I've produced over the years could have been prepared on 11 x 17.

It would just become another tool in the mapping repertoire. In addition to letter-size (Exhibit Drawings for easements, Takes, and TCEs; LLAs; Corner Records) and regular, full-size (18 x 26), we would have a third choice (with a very popular, useful size) that would give us more flexibility in our mapping products.