Topic: Working with old plats

[mjfarrell]

I would try a radius of 60' on the larger curve.  Actually would try offestting the 10' radius across the street first, and see how that worked.

I agree Bob, that follows the intent of the plat.

Fair certain those curves are NOT concentric. Or the lot dimension wouldn't be 80'

[Spike Wilbury]

from an outsider... my stab 

[mjfarrell]

from an outsider... my stab 

looks like you decided to hold the wrong line...

[pkohut]

from an outsider... my stab 

  

[mjfarrell]

it think it might be more or less like this from the information (NOT) given...

[Spike Wilbury]

it think it might be more or less like this from the information (NOT) given...

That's is not tangent to the right line and if it is break in two, it won't measure 68.25 + 15

AFIK

[Spike Wilbury]

it think it might be more or less like this from the information (NOT) given...

That's is not tangent to the right line and if it is break in two, it won't measure 68.25 + 15

AFIK

and unless here in the US and back then, they dimensioned both arcs as a single lot front... then maybe it is closed

[mjfarrell]

from what little information present one must work on a couple of premise;
that the distance shown is the total lot frontage,
or the distance show is just the large arc length,

and or pray that the surveyors actually unearth the lot corner where those two arcs meet....

and notice my disclaimer...More OR Less...

[Spike Wilbury]

from what little information present one must work on a couple of premise;
that the distance shown is the total lot frontage,
or the distance show is just the large arc length,

and or pray that the surveyors actually unearth the lot corner where those two arcs meet....

and notice my disclaimer...More OR Less...

I know Michael....

[mjfarrell]

It would be far easier to solve had they given us the two small arc lengths, as then there would only be one solution.

[Spike Wilbury]

It would be far easier to solve had they given us the two small arc lengths, as then there would only be one solution.

the calc's are no problem... in my case is that I'm neophyte about civil stuff here in the US.....

[mjfarrell]

trust me, the calc's are the problem....I have a version here that nets 76.16' across those lots...
however there are still far too many ass   umptions in there for my liking...

for the want of TWO chord angles....

[Dinosaur]

Here is my best solution . . . The numbers from the NE corner of the section seemed to indicate it was assumed 90 degrees with cardinal direction so I worked back from there and threw the wedge into the West line of the quarter/quarter and used the odd distances to set the bearing for the N/S roads.  The frontage of the lot doesn't quite fit but it looks like the intent was to have 35' radius reverse curves using this solution

[Spike Wilbury]

And my latest one...

[mjfarrell]

I hate to say it DinØ, I like something on the order of what LE has done as the relationship of the arcs, is nearer the original image, FWTW.