What Paper Size Would You Prefer for Records of Suvey?

[L9100]

After posing the question: Why do we still use 18x26 paper size for Records of Survey? (find it here: http://clsaforum.californiasurveyors.or ... f=6&t=6810) I thought it prudent to put a poll out to the forum to see where everyone stands on the issue.

Remember that the 1" margin would still be in effect.

Please vote!

[Jim Frame]

18"x26" is my preference. Why isn't that a choice in the poll?

[L9100]

Hey Jim,

My view is that since 18"x26" is not a standard paper size it should be abandoned. I have edited the poll to include it as an option, however. This did erase the previous 6 votes in the poll, so please vote again.

edit: spelling

[Jim Frame]

I voted for 18"x26" simply because I don't feel that changing the existing requirement is worth the effort. For me personally, unless it gets changed to 24"x36" I'm going to have to cut down a sheet anyway, and 18"x26" is as good as any other.

Some of my clients have gone to 22"x34". When I was still delivering paper prints, I'd just plot to a 24"x36" sheet, which got folded anyway -- it was just a file copy, the DWG being the real deliverable. Nowadays I mostly provide DWG and signed PDF, no paper.

About the only large-format printing I do now is for check prints and mylars for public filing. If the public agency standard gets changed I'll roll with it, but adjusting the legislation hardly seems worth the trouble.

[L9100]

I think that most of us submit digitally. All the more reason to stop meddling with custom potter settings and paper sizes. PDF natively supports all national and international paper sizes. We need to make this easier on ourselves and our clients.

[LA Stevens]

Some counties charge per sheet for checking. As such, I voted for 24 x 36.

[Warren Smith]

Arizona provides for 24" x 36" sheet size for both records of survey and for subdivision maps.

It would be important to get buy in from the County Recorder's Association.

[Ian Wilson]

Warren...

And the County Engineers & Surveyors Association...

How about the Sierra Club.

[Warren Smith]

Ian,

All the above and any other potential pushback organizations. The Recorders' offices are the ones who will be archiving these originals. They fought to eliminate 8 1/2 x 14 legal size documents some years ago in deference to standardization. Our survey maps are the few bulk items they have to deal with. Heaven help us if they have to purchase a larger scanner and bigger flat file cabinets ...

[L9100]

Ian,

All the above and any other potential pushback organizations. The Recorders' offices are the ones who will be archiving these originals. They fought to eliminate 8 1/2 x 14 legal size documents some years ago in deference to standardization. Our survey maps are the few bulk items they have to deal with. Heaven help us if they have to purchase a larger scanner and bigger flat file cabinets ...

Buy in from the County Records' Offices is essential. I would hope with the implementation of digital record keeping we could get more on board with change like this. Out of curiosity, what size of flat file cabinets does the Clerk Recorder of Stanislaus County have Warren?

[Warren Smith]

I'm not sure about Stan County, but SJ County has standard cabinets for (ya gotta luv this) 18" x 24"). They fit - barely.

Then again, they could always roll them up and store them that way. It's rare that the originals are ever looked at, but current statutes provide for that eventuality.

[Civil Engineer]

...PDF natively supports all national and international paper sizes. We need to make this easier on ourselves and our clients.

11x17 is the largest standard size used by standard copy machines and scanners. Anything else is "special". I could be mistaken, but aren't most AP maps now 11x17. Switching to 11x17 is long overdue.

PDF is the standard. The switch to electronic documents has taken hold, most everything I use and keep is electronic, my office is devoid of hardcopies and full-sized plans/plats. Most transmittals are emailed now. 11x17 will make it easy on everyone (clients, the public, and surveyors) to download and print.

[Warren Smith]

As source documents, subdivision maps and records of survey are essential to have original signatures and certificates in place on archival quality media.

That is why maps are filed for record - and the originals kept - rather than recorded as are other documents - and the originals returned.

That is the current statutory scheme. Not only would revisions to the Government Code and the Business & Professions Code be required, but also revisions to applicable Civil Code sections for evidentiary purposes.

[L9100]

I'm not sure about Stan County, but SJ County has standard cabinets for (ya gotta luv this) 18" x 24"). They fit - barely.

Then again, they could always roll them up and store them that way. It's rare that the originals are ever looked at, but current statutes provide for that eventuality.

Meant SJ County, apologies. I kind of figured that they do not make 18"x26" file cabinets, good to have it confirmed.

[Warren Smith]

There has been a push in the past to have the County Surveyor store the original maps - as ex officio County Recorder. We would be able to accommodate that - after all, we have bound hardcopies in books; and they are scanned anyway for retrieval through our GIS. We file Corner Records, and house the original County Surveys of Swamp & Overflow lands, as well as all the alignment and topo surveys for County Roads.

It does help to have a walk in vault ...

[Mr. Smith]

I see Arc D is ahead, damn horse blanket. since CLSA is leaning toward "old way is bad way" I guess 18" X 26" is doomed,

I guess 11 X 17 works for me

B

[L9100]

I see Arc D is ahead, damn horse blanket. since CLSA is leaning toward "old way is bad way" I guess 18" X 26" is doomed.

I have to admit, it's not my favorite size out of the options, but it is extremely common. I'm more inclined towards 22x34 (scales down perfectly to 11x17) or 18x24 to make it more palatable for County Recorders, but that's me.

Thanks for voting.

[Berk Blake, PLS CA]

I see no purpose in upsetting what is statewide at present. 18"x26" isn't any different than 18"x24" as far as a person who is plotting on a "D" size plotter, they both need to be trimmed. The Recorder's books are set for 18"x26". A switch to 11" x 17" would just require more sheets than the current size. I don't believe that I have ever order Mylar 11"x17" sheets. I voted to stay with what has worked for longer than I have been around.

[pls7809]

I voted above for ANSI D 34x22, but I really see no need to change at all. Eventually the map originals will be PDF and it won't matter. I can see it going that way within 20 years. I believe Utah or parts of it are doing electronic recording of maps now.

[L9100]

18"x26" isn't any different than 18"x24" as far as a person who is plotting on a "D" size plotter, they both need to be trimmed. The Recorder's books are set for 18"x26". A switch to 11" x 17" would just require more sheets than the current size.

* Most plotters support multiple sizes. D size (I am assuming you mean ARCH D, as it is so common) plotters should support smaller sizes, as they are standard.
* 18" and 24" rolls can be bought just as easily as ARCH D. No need to trim at all if you have the right sized roll!
* If more Counties are like San Joaquin then 18" x 26" are not bound at all, but stored in flat file containers. Those extra two inches are more tradition than necessity.
* 11"x17" is indeed quite tiny, I would hope that something larger would prevail. How many 2 sheet RoS could be reduced to 1!

Eventually the map originals will be PDF and it won't matter. I can see it going that way within 20 years. I believe Utah or parts of it are doing electronic recording of maps now.

* PDF submittals are already a norm for initial review at most counties that I interact with, all the more reason to adopt a standard map size.
* I don't think that hardcopy signed mylars are going to go away for quite some time. The cloud and the internet will need to be more accessible and infrastructure more robust to fully abandon physical maps.

[Peter Ehlert]

I have not "voted" yet... can we select more than one of the sizes on your list?

[L9100]

Unfortunately, no Peter. Only one vote per user. I would say vote for one and post your thoughts in a comment. :D

[Peter Ehlert]

Unfortunately, no Peter. Only one vote per user. I would say vote for one and post your thoughts in a comment. :D

OK, done.
First, nothing is broken. 18x26 is a Standard.
If for some reason it is necessary to change I would opt for larger sheets.
24x36 is a Common size, the other bigger ones are not.

PS: now I see the option "Other" and was able to change my choice

[L9100]

First, nothing is broken. 18x26 is a Standard.
If for some reason it is necessary to change I would opt for larger sheets.
24x36 is a Common size, the other bigger ones are not.

* No one said anything was broken. I am simply gauging the interest of the forum.
* I'm afraid you are mistaken on what is standard and what is not. Standard paper sizes from around the world can be found here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paper_size

The closest to 18x26 you will find is ISO C2, which is mainly used for envelopes in Europe. I urge you to read the discussion from 2005 on the same topic: http://clsaforum.californiasurveyors.or ... ize#p27184

If you do an internet search of '18"x26" Sheet' you will only see baking sheets, as in something you would bake chicken on, as a result. If you search for '18"x26" paper' you will only get results for ARCH C paper, which is 18"x24". It seems that the current requirements are more tradition than standard.

* Necessity should not be the only impetus for change. The only thing constant is change.
* 24x36 is a Standard ARCH D paper size, the other formats are ANSI formats, rolls for all of these sizes can be bought from any paper seller. That is the benefit of using a standard size. I didn't bother to put any ISO standard sizes as they're based in metric and I know would be immediately rejected.

Respectfully,

[Civil Engineer]

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.

11x17 is the only standard.