quote:It shows that it is 351 Kb, 1024 x 813 pixels
Lyman, what I was referring to was the comment you made, quoted above. If the image was scanned at 300 dpi, but the image size is 1024 x 813 pixels, it must be enlarged to meet the 3300 x 2550 pixel dimension. When that is done, the image's dots increase in size more than three-fold, which yields a dpi of about 95. (The dimensions don't enlarge evenly to 3300 x 2550.) Thus, the image no longer meets the standard of 300 dpi, even if the image is 8½ x 11 (2550 x 3300 pixels).
Whether the specs are arbitrary, or not, is not relevant at this time. The specs are what they are. They can be met, if done properly. When not done properly, the specs are not met. Until there is a compelling reason to dispense with the specs (which I understand you are trying to argue in favor of), we need to meet the specs.
You say we could flex the specs for a "simple 5k". In whose opinion is it "simple"? And, if a 5k, why not a 10k? Not much more info and image, right? So, if a 10k, why not a Half? It is subjective. Shall we leave it up to each certifier to decide if a map that does not meet the specs is acceptable? That gives the measurer a moving target. We need consistency, so everyone knows what the specs are. Someone may send me a map that I say is fine, but they send one to a different certifier (when measuring in another state), and that certifier rejects the same thing I accepted. That wouldn't fly in your book, would it, if you were that measurer? That's why we need consistent specs.