-
Simplifying the Graphically Busy Plat
To continue the discussion of graphical conventions used in the drafting of boundary survey maps, here’s an example of a map I produced earlier this year in connection with yet another lawsuit. What was at issue in the lawsuit was the proper location of the roughly 125 feet of boundary between two lots in a subdivision platted in the 1950’s on a variable-level lake. Naturally, the record subdivisions plat was not any marvel of clarity and the quality of surveying that produced it was sub-marvellous as well. For the purposes of arbitration, I generated a two-part map accompanied by a report.
One part of the map was this sheet:
The detail of the map in the vicinity of the line in dispute was this:
The second part consisted of the monument descriptions and the line and curve annotations, together with all of the record calls for those lines and curves appearing in prior conveyances.
Even in the absence of the table of monument descriptions, note how the double-circled symbol for a controlling monument readily shows the logic of the construction of the various lines and explains why the construction was not forced to use other monuments of later origin inconsistent with the original surveys that marked the various boundaries.
Log in to reply.