On Sat, 14 Oct 2006 15:43:43 +0100, Dave Fawthrop
wrote:

On Sat, 14 Oct 2006 14:44:27 +0100, Roger
wrote:

|The message
|from Dave Fawthrop contains these words:
|
| I looked at the plans and they are not accurate enough to be useful.
|
|I can almost hear the lawyers rubbing they hands togther with glee.
|Boundary disputes can be a big money winner for them not least because
|there are not sufficently accurate measurements to be had and once the
|original boundary markers go not a hope in hell of fixing boundaries to
|the nearest inch, or even in most cases the nearest foot.
|
|Leaving aside the inherent lack of precision in subdividing a field into
|building plots it is impossible to scale off even as large a scale as
|1:1250 to the required accuracy when the thickness of a line may amount
|to a couple of feet.

Agreed which is why I intend to replace the markers when I can say "you can
remember what they were like.

I am still no wiser as to how the boundaries are noted "legally" .Chisel marks
in concrete doesn't sound very legal to me ..lol


Stuart