> I can’t tell whether you are serious on this one or not Kent, are you saying that because it says -+ the intent is to say that the last measurement is measured to a less tolerance, and fact that it has more significant figures means nothing?
That would be what I'd ordinarily conclude. I still think that the most important element of interpreting the plat is whether the records from the US GLO surveys were used in calculating it.
> Would that mean that when you see a ± it is measured more precise and significant figures have no meaning?
The ordinary meaning of +/- in a contest like this is "be it more or less". In subdivision platting practice, the reason for a "+/-" or, as in this case a "-/+" (be it LESS or more) is that there was some uncertainty in the subdivision layout. That would be mostly consistent with the subdivision having been platted from some other survey than one made by the surveyor responsible for the plat. It wasn't an uncommon practice in the early 20th century to subdivide land on paper using a boundary that had been taken or compiled from other surveyors's work or even just about anything that would allow the tract boundary to be plotted for the purposes of platting.
So, the intention expressed by the plat is to lay out regular lots with a "-/+" lot that is a remainder lot.