Is this legible?

[Ian Wilson]

This Record of Survey was reviewed, printed on Mylar, I dated, signed and stamped the map, and sent to the Recorder.

The Recorder rejected it as illegible in places.

What do you think?

Keep in mind that the content of the map is not in question; only the legibility of the map is. Bruce is "old school" and still drafts by hand. He does a better job of it than I would. But, again, that's not the question.

Is this map legible?

I look forward to your opinions.

Thanks!

[LA Stevens]

I printed it out at 11 x 17 inches and I could not find anything that I could not read. As such, it is legible even at a reduced scale.

I have seen recorder's with lousy equipment or lack of care during the scanning process, that made maps difficult to read.

[Dave Lindell]

I can read everything on it at the reduced scale presented.
All good!

[Peter Ehlert]

Very clear on my cell phone, zoomed to about the size it would print on letter size paper, portrait.
I suppose the Recorder does not trust their equipment. Maybe that is warrented but I doubt it.
They should say exactly what part they think is fuzzy instead of making a general statement.

[hellsangle]

I can read every word . . .

Legible to me!

[bryanmundia]

Legible to me. Did they give you particular locations on the map that were illegible? I would set up a meeting for discussion to better understand the Recorder's concerns with the legibility of the map.

[CBarrett]

If I am to go strictly on legibility as I see it right now, I don't see anything that can not be read at the moment.

However - marginally in some areas. I can see how this is probably going to cause issues with many county recorders.
It leaves no room for error for the recorders office handling, reproduction and aging processes, which are often very imperfect as well.
Considering it is hand drafted, I would recommend it gets recorded, and maybe ask the surveyor for some sort of an improvement in the future...
Just like surveyors don't always produce perfectly drafted map, recorders office performance is often imperfect. When those two overlap with no safety margin, the public ends up with an illegible document. Our job is to minimize errors.

Usually when I check maps, I would have flagged the problem areas with "suggestion: this is not likely to reproduce well upon recording, and the recorder's office may reject it." and sometimes describe the problem if necessary. If the surveyor opposes it tends to go to the where they have the final word (often a rejection to record).

At least in the counties where I check, reviewing the map for recordability (graphical presentation clarity) is something that the recorder's office has tasked the county surveyors office with.

[Jim Frame]

It's worth noting that the Alameda County Recorder has a reputation as being difficult. I've heard tales of rejection based on millimeter-level deviations from 18x26 on the submitted mylar. I have no personal experience with that office, though, so it's all hearsay to me.

[BrianSpore]

Ian,
I do not see an issue with this map and I am looking at it on a 15" laptop without expanding from the post. We have recently had another one of Bruce's maps rejected by the Recorders Office, a Parcel Map, just recently. The Issue on the PM was the stamps, primarily Dan's stamp, that seemed to have an issue after it left our office. I would be one to say his hand drafting still brings in a better map than some CAD maps tht come in.

[proud]

I for one miss the hand drafted maps of yesteryear. Much more thought seemed to be used in the creation of hand drafted maps compared to the CAD drafted maps of today, although they don't scale as good :). My 2 cents, Jp

[Ian Wilson]

Thanks for all the comments.

This image is the same map as it was rejected pointing to all the flaws that make the map unrecordable due to illegibility.

[David Kendall]

Hopefully he can erase and redraw those portions to improve legibility. The map looks good to me but I concede most surveyors have developed above average skills in interpreting illegible text. I believe this is one of the aspects that will make it difficult to outsource or automate our skillset.

The county recorders seem to be acting like clerical clowns in some instances, too quick to reject our work and charge exorbitant fees. I suggest that CLSA support a CRAC liaison in order to advocate and explain our perspectives to them. I don't know if this is a practical endeavor but I believe it is worth a shot. We need to have a professional interface with them at group level in order to advocate on our behalf (and perhaps vice versa). I feel like surveyors are getting run over by the county recorders through recording fees, map and deed copy fees and rejected maps.

PS Ian I believe the corner note is incomplete on the angle point on West line of E St. It reads "5.68 PER P" which while legible does not make much sense to me. You might want to have him address this as well

[CBarrett]

Ok, the recorder is .... *insert unmentionable phrases* ..... in this case.

They need to record this map and create more up-front consistent guidelines.

Sure, the map could have been drafted better in order to keep away from the recorders issues, and the recorder needs to publish their standards.

Neither should be preventing this particular map from getting recorded.

[Scott]

AND meas.
Is that what the one furthest right says?

[MikeT]

Looks legible to me.