The interesting question is whether that is inevitable, whether the errors corrupt the design dreadfully and totally or whether the errors are something we can live with reasonably comfortably. That things go awry need not prevent us from designing and being hopeful that designs can work, or so I have observed in history and current examples. The meaning of things is historically specific, and determined by details we might not have imagined were we ignorant of the history and contemporaneous accounts of designs. So Spiro Kostof argues pervasively in his The City Shaped. Generic accounts of designs in terms of design rules, or economic constraints, or religious beliefs, or . . .
Designs often come with pictures.
Some of the time they are renderings. Some of the time they are diagrams, at the level of the formal character of the design, at the level of the meanings involved, or at the level of the historical influences. Diagrams are rarely clear. They too demand a story and guidance if their meaning is to be found, or at least if the meaning found is the one intended. A plan of a place, whether it be perspectival or perhaps schematic and a plan view, does not tell us how to see order or the life in a place.