Thank you, Pierre!
I got a private response that suggested A3 paper with a scale of 1:1000.
This is new territory for our county. There's not a lot of technical
depth in the cadre of people working on the problem. I found may scales
state "backwards" -- e.g., run over rise but with "no more than" as if
it were rise over run. It's almost as if they were saying "steeper is
better" for erosion control. Obviously, that was not the intent.
I'll do what I can to help out, if they are willing to accept my
suggestions. But these folks are more used to Rand-McNally maps that say
"One inch equals ..." than USGS maps giving "1:...." scales.
From working to teach people how to use nautical charts, I know that
most folks get "small scale" and "large scale" mixed up. A small scale
chart (or map) shows a large area and vice versa.
Jim
Pierre Abbat wrote:
On Thursday 31 July 2008 12:06:51 James Frysinger wrote:
I could use the advice here of someone conversant in drawing survey
plats in metric units. I am reviewing a proposed set of Subdivision
Regulations for my county and they fail to include metric equivalents,
which I will push for.
The proposed regulations call for plats to be drawn on 18 in by 24 in or
24 in by 36 in paper. What paper sizes are normally used in the metric
world that are roughly equivalent to that? I'm guessing at A2 and A1,
respectively. Are those commonly used in drafting of survey plats?
Here in North Carolina the law requires that plats be one of those two sizes
or 21×30 (762×533.4). ISO sizes are not allowed. I haven't gotten around to
asking the NCBELS to change that. Not having seen plats on ISO paper, I say
go with A2 and A1, with B2 if you need one between.
I suggest adding a clause specifying a year after which inch sized paper shall
no longer be allowed. My original idea was that if 10% of plats are on ISO
paper in some year, all plats shall be on ISO paper ten years later.
The statement on scales is that no less than 1 in = 50 ft [which would
be 1:600] be used with 1 in = 100 ft [which would be 1:1200] being the
absolute minimum. What typical metric scales should I suggest that are
roughly equivalent and do not exceed these stated values? I'm guessing
at 1 mm = 0.5 m [1:500] and 1 mm = 1 m [1:1000], respectively.
The absolute minimum scale should be independent of the measuring unit used,
so set it to 1:1200. If you set it to 1:1000, then it will be illegal to draw
at 1 in = 100 ft. The recommended minimum may be different for foot drawings
than for meter drawings. Both 1:500 and 1:1000 are typical, as is 1:200. I
drew my map of the Facilities Center at 1:500.
My scale (which is at the office) has 1:500, 1:1000, 1:1250, 1:1500, 1:2000,
and 1:3000. This is lopsided; there's probably another one that has 1:600,
1:400, 1:750, and 1:800, or something like that.
The scale should be specified as a ratio. If someone who draws in feet wants
to say how many feet are drawn as an inch, let him figure it out.
Pierre
--
James R. Frysinger
632 Stony Point Mountain Road
Doyle, TN 38559-3030
(H) 931.657.3107
(C) 931.212.0267
