Surveyors who retrace old subdivisions should study this closely. Streets get their full platted width...unless they don't. I wonder what they would do with this in Singapore?
Yup. Sometimes yes and sometimes no. Try not to assume one answer is always the correct answer.
As they say in surveying.................It depends.................
BK9196, post: 400150, member: 12217 wrote: As they say in surveying.................It depends.................
Maybe.
Andy
I have not been a proponent of allotting dedicated streets their record widths since I became aware of the fact that a Subdivision Plat creates ALL parcels therein simultaneously. Treating streets in a different manner than lots and tracts runs counter to that principle.
Jim in AZ, post: 400207, member: 249 wrote: I have not been a proponent of allotting dedicated streets their record widths since I became aware of the fact that a Subdivision Plat creates ALL parcels therein simultaneously. Treating streets in a different manner than lots and tracts runs counter to that principle.
And when the centerline monuments aren't set (like in some old subdivisions), but all the lot corners are, and they do not match the platted street width you have to decide to either 1. hold the monuments that make the street the non-platted width, or 2. decide which side of the street is monument-ed correct and throw the other side of the street out, which are original monuments as well, or 3. use a "best" fit which does not hold any of the original monuments....
That is why I say: platted streets do NOT ALWAYS get their width.
The question should be, 'What did the law say at the time of platting?'