Overlapping parcel polygons

Question

Hi everyone,

I created a property boundary map from tax parcels and am having trouble symbolizing the shared boundaries. For example, two polygons are next to each other and the shared boundary between them has 2 lines overlapping each other, which when I try to symbolize the layer it creates a messy boundary.

Is there a way to merge the shared boundaries between polygons? For example, for two polygons next to each other they would only have one line between them for the shared boundary.

Is this doesn't make sense, let me know and I'll try to explain better!

Thanks,

MehdiPira1 · Answer

@JMik ,

That's not possible as far as I know. Unless you convert the polygons into polylines which will allow you to remove any side(s) of the polyline.

JMik · Answer

@MehdiPira1

Again, sorry for the delay.

The solution actually wasn't quite what I was looking for.

So, my current problem is that I have dozens of parcels of varying rectangle sizes, and some of these are right next to one another and share boundaries. The boundaries are shared between many of them since they are property boundaries between land units. There isn't any actual silvers of empty space between any of the shared boundaries, but when I go to symbolize them...anywhere two share boundaries overlap, the line symbology is not nice looking...basically I'm getting a mixture of dashed lines that shouldn't be.

What I would like to do it somehow make the overlapping sections dissolve, so essentially for every two parcels with a shared border, there would only be one physical line drawn...thus resolving my cartographic symbolization problem I explained prior. Any ideas on how to do this, instead of redrawing all of the parcels again?

I attached a screen shot of my issue. In the middle, you can see how the two boundaries overlap and the line symbolization is not like the right side, where only one boundary is.

Screenshot 2021-09-03 081915.jpg

MehdiPira1 · Answer

@JMik ,

I was wondering if the solution I provided worked for you.

If yes, could you please accept it as solution?

Thanks.