I would like to get everyone's opinion on what can be labeled as a Plat (P) dimension on a survey.
In a subdivision that has many lots in a block, can the dimensions of the lots be added together and still be considered a Plat (P) dimension to show a relationship to the block corner? Or, would the exact dimension have to be clearly labeled on the plat, in order to call the dimension Plat(P) on the survey? Please see quick sketch I drew to describe what I mean.
> In a subdivision that has many lots in a block, can the dimensions of the lots be added together and still be considered a Plat (P) dimension to show a relationship to the block corner?
As long as your legend makes clear that (P) includes both survey data actually annotated on the plat and survey data merely calculated from the data actually annotated on the plat, I don't see any particular problem as long as the surveyor isn't doing anything crazy with the calculations from record data. Personally, I'd prefer a "Calc from Rec" designation just to be clear.
I agree with Kent. Except that I will use "Record" and "Measured" instead of plat or Calc from Record.
