@ BStrand
No no, non-tangent as in not tangent to the lines in and out of the curve. Different thing than the tangents to the PI.
Looking at GaryG's drawing, I'm a correct in saying that the tangent bearing of N 40°59'06" E is for the piece of 18.7' arc of lot 224?
Correct, they give that bearing to set up the overall curve for the plat boundary.
I do see I have a fat finger bust in defining the radius of the next lot north. The intersection is correct, just messed up the radius when I built the figure.
NOTE: Replaced plat with corrected radius.
Looking at GaryG’s drawing, I’m a correct in saying that the tangent
bearing of N 40°59’06” E is for the piece of 18.7′ arc of lot 224?
Yeah, and every other lot until the pin around the middle of lot 232.
@ BStrand
I've never seen anything like that before. Is there something special about the curve that dictates that?
I’ve never seen anything like that before. Is there something special about the curve that dictates that?
The 679.25 radius and 485.88 length dimension by lot 227. Though when I add up the lot lengths between the pins I get a number that's about 5 feet different, so maybe I'm misreading a number somewhere.
That's typical, my guess since it's along the property boundary is that it ties into a monumented line that didn't quite match up with the math. So to "fit" found evidence the curve was adjusted to match monuments or an established line. That's my speculation. The plat is giving a tangent slightly off the lot line to facilitate the location of the curve.
So, not to let a sleeping dog lie I computed the rest of that block. The radius points for curve E and F are within 0.03' of each other so they check. I comped curve F along the road and tied in at the 79.12' line and came up with 79.14', the front lot arcs are off by 0.16' not big deal. It looked like the interior lines were radial so I computed all the front lot corners and let the 0.16' fall in the last lot. I then computed from those corners radially to the radius for curve E and intersected that curved line.
The arc on lot 226 computes as 63.83' i thinks thats the 5' bust . And the side line bearing on the plat is N61-29-04W and I computed it as N61-29-20W so not bad.
I guess you could distribute the 0.16' in the 7 lots and recompute rear lot corner intersections for any field comps you make to compare to whats on the actual ground. This would distribute any plat errors and make comparisons relative to each other.
FUN TIMES ! ! !
That plat is awesome, I wish 1960 plats I've worked with were half as good as that one.
