be ascertained from the creating instrument, the permissible uses of an easement acquired by prescription are necessarily defined by the use of the servient land during the prescriptive period.”). In French, plaintiffs acquired a prescriptive right of user over a roadway for certain discrete purposes based on their past use of the property. We concluded that plaintiffs were not entitled to make a different use of the roadway because it would increase the burden on the servient estate and it would extend the right acquired by plaintiffs’ prior use of the property. French, 135 Vt. at 80, 369 A.2d at 1388. Thus, French does not support plaintiffs’ assertion that the reasonable use of the right>of-way at issue here depends on its historical use. Cf. Nelson, 113 Vt. at 172, 32 A.2d at 146 (<HOLDING>). Moreover, as previously discussed, we agree
recognizing that an easement may entitle the easement owner to do acts which were not for the easement would constitute a nuisance holding that one who possesses deeded easement need not use the easement to maintain his title and easement cannot be extinguished from nonuser alone recognizing that where a grantee has an easement which he shares with others his duty to repair and maintain it must be apportioned with all other easement holders based upon the extent of the individuals use of the easement holding that an easement agreement and an unrecorded easement plan created an easement recognizing that one cannot have an easement in his own land