Sorry, but no. I wasn't being deceptive. I didn't dwell on this problem too much because after giving it some consideration, it wasn't important to me. I was looking at the overall image which still fitted quite well despite this discrepancy. Knowing that we are dealing with huge distances here, and the projection of a large image onto the map, accuracy wasn't really that much of a priority. I wanted to get to the conclusion of what I had found quickly without boring the reader with one or two discrepancies.
I tried to get into the minds of the people who planned this and encoded this information, and in this one has to make allowances.
After all, with the arrangement of these avenues and landmarks we are dealing here with something that is both practical and symbolic - and the symbology is something that becomes secondary to the task in hand when practical problems - perhaps with the terrain - present themselves. In any case this suits those who are encoding this information, because it is something that should remain inconspicuous to all but those who have the eyes to see it, and so any discrepancy in the design would confuse and hide it further - and we see this kind of thing many times in this map.
My conclusion is, that the remainder of this avenue to the CB was once intended to be 23.5 degrees like the other avenues, but that perhaps the architects and planners were compelled to alter the direction of this avenue and the location of the CB slightly due to some problem.
I noted that you too make the same kind of allowances in your own theories.
Again, why is it that this avenue deviates from this angle, while the others do not? Do you know of, or have an answer for this?