Newspaper gives advice that is questionable

Certainly not sure about Washington, but that would not be correct here in NH. The only time abutting land owners can fix their boundary lines by an agreement as described in the article is if the original line cannot be determined by a licensed surveyor.

I like this:
> ....If you do not want to pay a land surveyor, you and your neighbor can also come to an agreement about the boundary lines.

followed by:
> If you do decide to agree on a boundary, ... It is a good idea to have an attorney draft the deed and record it with your county recorder of deeds.

Yeah, okay, pay an attorney so you don't have to pay a land surveyor. And how well is your new "legal description" going to describe the agreed-to line?

"Newspaper gives advice that is questionable."

NO!! Surely you jest! [sarcasm]Poor advice n a newspaper - shocking!![/sarcasm]

I think a lot of this mischief can be traced back to one book,"Neighbor Law" by California attorney Cora Jordan and published by Nolo. It's a nearly verbatim version of what is in the book.

California has long allowed subjective uncertainty but the recent published case of Martin v. Van Bergen seems to have specified an objective standard, at least in the Central California Counties which are covered by the Appellate Court which published the opinion. Maybe some day the Supremes will jump in and either overrule Martin or adopt it's reasoning for all of California.

Subjective uncertainty is in the mind of both parties therefore if two property owners want to agree to a location for the boundary then they shouldn't get a survey which would eliminate their ability to make an agreement in a case where the boundary is objectively certain. Even if they do agree and the agreement is enforced by a superior court the danger is on appeal the appellate court will adopt Martin.