It looks as if the US Supreme Court just simplified the heck out of surveying in California, or at least in locating the State's seaward boundary.
http://www.theverge.com/tldr/2014/12/15/7397085/supreme-court-california-boundaries-map
Note that the court's decision runs to more than 100 pages of boundary description by coordinates. Evidently, there was some fear that might be too simple, so the court added this clause to put those fears to rest:
>Plane coordinates refer to the Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM). All coordinates are referenced to the North American Datum 1983 (NAD 83), which is equivalent to the World Geodetic System 1984 (WGS 84).
I'm thinking that the US Power Squadron will be all over this one.
> It looks as if the US Supreme Court just simplified the heck out of surveying in California, or at least in locating the State's seaward boundary.
>
Which most of us, of course, never actually deal with.
Carry on,
Don
> I'm thinking that the US Power Squadron will be all over this one.
They will, but their report will consist of a single sentence: "Boundary not found."
> > It looks as if the US Supreme Court just simplified the heck out of surveying in California, or at least in locating the State's seaward boundary.
> >
> Which most of us, of course, never actually deal with.
Didn't you say that you're retired, Don? Of course there'd be no need for you to be involved in offshore positioning - or onshore, for that matter. :>
I sort of enjoyed seeing the UTM coordinates of the boundary expressed to the thousandth of a foot while then specifying that the datum to which they refer is
> the North American Datum 1983 (NAD 83), which is equivalent to the World Geodetic System 1984 (WGS 84).
Remember the old RPLScom days when MR. G. Would espouse coordinates for boundaries and the throw downs that would occur with the those that eschewed the thought,
The times are a'changin. 😉
News flash for Kent
> I sort of enjoyed seeing the UTM coordinates of the boundary expressed to the thousandth of a foot while then specifying that the datum to which they refer is
UTM Coordinates (including the ones listed by the Supreme Court), are expressed in METERS...NOT feet!
And you are right, WGS84 has NOT been coincident with NAD83 for 3 DECADES.
o.O
News flash for Kent
> UTM Coordinates (including the ones listed by the Supreme Court), are expressed in METERS...NOT feet!
That's still just as funny, though, to express a boundary position to the millimeter, but to an essentially mythical datum.
Yes...
GIS run amok!
Edit:
It could be worse, they COULD have used NAD27...
Didn't you say that you're retired, Don? Of course there'd be no need for you to be involved in offshore positioning - or onshore, for that matter.
Sadly, no, my Texish friend, I'm not retired , and still involved in all manner of positioning. Both on and off the job.
Don
> Sadly, no, my Texish friend, I'm not retired , and still involved in all manner of positioning. Both on and off the job.
Oh, but surely you'd know better than to tackle any positioning job you couldn't drag a 200 ft. tape around, right? Those offshore platforms are almost entirely steel, you know, and the compass on your transit would really be hard to correct.
[sarcasm]I'm not going to feel bad about referencing to north as based upon WGS84 ever again[/sarcasm]
😉
I quit, you win, you are welcome to whatever the prize may be.
Actually, I'm reneging on that until I find out what the prize really is.
You may have your comeuppance yet, you fiendish bastard!
Don
> I quit, you win, you are welcome to whatever the prize may be.
Well, first prize is one page of mark recovery notes from the US Power Squadron. Second place gets you TEN pages of them.
🙂
And so to bed.
I know it's early, but I'm old and "to bed" even at my age, is not always "to sleep."
Sweet dreams,
Don
HEY HEY HEY!!!
The SCOTUS says they are coincident, so they are by Judicial fiat.
HEY HEY HEY!!!
> The SCOTUS says they are coincident, so they are by Judicial fiat.
Exactly! Highly amusing.
Reported earlier on here
Several days ago, in fact. Something like this:
California has a new boundary (Land Surveying)
by A Harris @, NE Texas, Tuesday, December 16, 2014, 07:53 (5 days ago)
United States vs The State of California
Interesting boundary description
You'll have a lot of fun with this. We got us a boundary like that in state statutes along the edge of the big saltwater stock-pond twixt us and Asia:
State laws -
http://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/390.770
(actually, the web page above apparently hit the max character allowance and truncates the section - the entire text is here about halfway down the page: https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/bills_laws/lawsstatutes/2013ors390.html)
Wouldn't it be the NGS's responsibility to inform the SCOTUS that they have have made fools of themselves?
If they choose NAD83 with some realization and epoch, then at least the boundary won't change with plate motion.
However, if they choose WGS84 current epoch, then the boundary will dynamically move with respect to the plate and coastline. Some of the velocities there are relatively high too.
If anything, they have complicated the boundary determination and made it worse than whatever it might have been before.
Of course, it sure will make my life easier knowing that NAD83 and WGS84 are equivalent. I used to spend a lot of time worrying about what I perceived to be the difference.
Problem solved.
M