OK to omit repeating bearing on parallel lot lines?

[dedkad]

You know how on those old maps where the lots and streets were laid out in grids and the lines were parallel and they would call off the bearing on a line at one end of the row and the bearing on a line at the other end of the row and since those bearings were the same you assumed that all the intervening lot lines had the same bearing even though the bearing wasn't stated on each line? Is that still considered acceptable practice in today's world? I can understand back in the day where you had to handwrite in every single bearing, but nowadays it's a simple copy and paste and seems like it would just be nice to avoid any confusion.

[pls5528]

My comment is this. If the lines are parallel, tied on both ends, with a dimension showing the separation (e.g. 10' or 20'), the only thing I would add, is a distance on the parallel line. That is, and has been drafting standard for years. I would only caveat that in saying, that whoever the checking team is, they may differ in that view. I, personally would like to see "drafting" a part of the survey curriculum again. These are the type of things taught in those programs, and I see a real problem nowadays with the CAD-taught generation, which, for the most part, were never taught "drafting basics".

[E_Page]

I would view that much like pls5528. If the distances are complete and consistent at both ends of the lots, then the sidelines are obviously parallel. At times, adding those dimensions unnecessarily clutters up the map because they have to crowd them in or create tables.

If crowding isn't an issue, then labeling is often even easier than copy & paste as most mapping programs have labeling routines that can automatically place the proper labels where they need to be and/or create label tags & tables.

A good workable compromise, IMO is a notation somewhere in the vicinity of the block that all sidelines from Lot AA to Lot ZZ are parallel.