I'm sorry to hear that you don't like the maps we've provided. May I ask what it is specifically that you would like to see changed?
Excuse me a moment, I'm not entirely sure I understand. Are you are suggesting we put a symbol representing each feature on top of the actual feature?
Why, that's just poor cartography.
Because that would make them easier to see in the field?
I'm afraid I have to disagree... I think -
Okay, I'll curtsy while I think, but I can't see how it will save any time. So as I was saying, we have high quality orthoimagery presented at 1:10,000 scale, and the features are denoted directly above the alignment, so it's just a matter of drawing a straight line down from the note...
But putting a symbol on top of the imagery at the location will obscure the feature...
It is the visual cue. It's the only visual cue. It allows the person in the field to compare what is on their map against what they're seeing on the ground. That's why we use imagery in the first place.
Okay, let's try a little thought experiment: you are standing in the field. You look at your map and you see a big purple triangle that is labeled 'wetland.' Now you look at the ground. Do you see a purple triangle or a wetland?
Right. And did the the purple triangle help you see the wetland, or would a picture of the wetland have helped you more?
No, and there's no use trying. One can't believe impossible things.
Well, it's after breakfast now so let's try to be sensible for a while, shall we?
Well, I'm not sure what good it would do you to chop off my head at this point. You'd just have to have this same conversation with someone else tomorrow.
Yes, yes, you're the client, all ways are your ways, I get it, but...
Oh, of course: yes, Your Majesty!