while fitting the maps, it was discovered that the survey from carlisle was close to 100 perches (1 perch=16.5 ft.) too short along one of the survey legs. this may explain why there is another survey map dated november 25. while a more accurate survey map, the date is difficult to decipher; thus, complicating our understanding of the timeline of events surrounding the surveys and court documents. using distinct features as control points we attempted to match the survey maps to the modern aerial image. we then re-surveyed the three-mile-long tract using the survey notes to reveal that the boundaries match up best nearest along aughwick creek, while distortion and inaccuracy occurs along owing's hill and fort run. from the gis, we know that the symbol used to represent the fort measures 600 by 400 feet, which is much too large to have been drawn to scale. additionally, the overlay places the fort on the steep hill and in the middle of route 522, so we know that the placement of both the fort and fort run are skewed. the gis is flexible in the different view options as shown in this figure; with the redrawn parcel boundary over the areal on the left, and the parcel boundary over a hill-shade surface on the right.