Coordinate Based Evidence

While this probably isn't exactly what you're looking for:
I was in court testifying in a boundary dispute case. The adjoiner had pulled up my wood stakes that I set marking the line. His attorney asked me, "Did you take pictures of the stakes?", I suppose to cast doubt as to where I had set them or not. I relpied, "No, but I stored state plane coordinates and elevations on them in my data collector." That line of questioning was dropped, his client lost, and had to pay me to re-set the stakes.

The morale of this story is, I ALWAYS store the pins and stakes that I set. One of my helpers told me that I was the first one he had worked for that stored the pins, stakes, etc, that I set. I told him that you never know when you might need the coordinates, maybe to localize to, or for a backsite, or for evidence in court.

By doing so you may have saved yourself both a lot of grief and a potential loss of money!

I'm relatively new to surveying, as this is my first year in university, but I find these topics very revitalizing for some reason.

I'm attempting to focus on the hierarchy of evidence and whether coordinates will eventually overtake natural monuments within the order.

And btw, I love this site!

Thanks

> By doing so you may have saved yourself both a lot of grief and a potential loss of money!
>
> I'm relatively new to surveying, as this is my first year in university, but I find these topics very revitalizing for some reason.
>
> I'm attempting to focus on the hierarchy of evidence and whether coordinates will eventually overtake natural monuments within the order.
>
> And btw, I love this site!
>
> Thanks

While Coordinates may, and probably will, gain strength as evidence, they will never overtake natural monuments in my opinion, but, that's my opinion.

The first part of answering that question requires you to think outside the box a bit.
'Coordinates' come in many flavors. Some are based on nearby monuments, others on networks of control that span continents. They can be defined as distances north and east of a given point, angles and distances relative to a line or latitudes and longitudes. Even our Public Land Survey System is a 'coordinate system' of sorts. In that sense they are already in the order of calls. The specific question of will they overtake monuments is another matter.
Any one who does not see the repeatability of coordinates improving (and hence the value) is living under a rock. At the same time we in the US have a few hundred years of title law to consider. The mechanism to elevate coordinates above the few hundred years of evidence accumulated during that time does not exist in our system of laws. Some States have already enacted Legislation which clearly establish coordinates as subordinate to all other forms of evidence. The process of elevation in the order will be incremental and almost imperceptibly slow. Either that or I'm dead wrong..
Good luck in your search, Tom

Are those coordinates right? Do you get the same answer from two networks? Passive control moves with the land and that can have an affect over time.

I worked under a PLS in RI who wanted to go back to transit and tape. Subdivisions in several towns required geodetic coordinates. He had us provide them to the nearest foot because he could not bring himself to trust the GPS. He had the valid fear that someone would hold that coordinate and not look for the monument.

In 1990 a firm set control points all over my town. They are relative within a couple tenths but off from NAD83(2011) by about a foot. We had several surveys based on those control points and now we have to verify and refix those.

I like technology and GPS and all that stuff, but I have learned that the monument is what matters.

> Any one who does not see the repeatability of coordinates improving (and hence the value) is living under a rock. At the same time we in the US have a few hundred years of title law to consider. The mechanism to elevate coordinates above the few hundred years of evidence accumulated during that time does not exist in our system of laws. Some States have already enacted Legislation which clearly establish coordinates as subordinate to all other forms of evidence.

The statues I've seen that enumerate a hierarchy of evidence pertain only when there's uncertainty as to the location of a boundary. If one has coordinates that are reliably and demonstrably certain as to boundary location, then inferior evidence nominally higher in a statutory recitation is properly subordinated.

It's pretty hard to defeat the "best available evidence of boundary location" mantra.

Some states specifically provide for coordinates to perpetuate and restore corners. and usually specify State Plane Coordinates.

That I presume is a code word for data derived from repeatable methods tied to NGS type control.

Anyway a coordinate is not gold nor crap and it depends on almost as much analysis as any other form of evidence to decide which it is.

- jlw

http://www.clackamas.us/surveyor/documents/coordinate_use_restoration_lost_obliterated_plc.pdf

There is a local surveyor here that did some work in Bahrain a few years back.

I believe they have a totally coordinated cadastre in which the coordinates are the only evidence needed.

The hierarchy is not a fixed statutory code that is always followed exactly. For instance sometimes Area is the most persuasive element in fixing a boundary when there is a discrepancy between the metes and the bounds.

If coordinates are used to describe a parcel that is conveyed, then they must be taken into consideration. As Jerry Wahl points out in his nice article, the coordinates should be considered as measurement evidence, rather than as any type of monument.

What you may be asking therefore, is what type of procedure/policy/law would be needed in order to elevate coordinates from a measurement to a monument level of certainty? One thing to look at in that regard are the systems being developed in newly democraticish societies, such as southeast Asia. I believe there are some good articles on Vietnam, and other countries in that region. Without a history of private land ownership, starting from scratch, I believe these countries are setting up coordinate based systems that do not rely on monuments for retracement.

In the U.S., the answer to your question is likely to be found in court cases where metes have been held controlling over bounds. These cases would give you a good idea of what it takes for a measurement to control over a monument. Of course ideally you would want a case that specifically addresses coordinates, but it may be tough to find one.

What do the facts indicate where the intentions of the parties at the time of the conveyance, and under the circumstances at that time?

Most universities carry a subscription to either lexis or westlaw that you can use to search legal cases and scholarly articles (about land information systems) online through the library. You can also try google scholar, but that is more limited in what you can find. In addition, individual States have varying degrees of access to their court cases online.

a bit tangential, but here's something that's led to more local headaches than you can count:
capitol view corridor

This historical source, along with the current sources others have posted, may give you a sense of the pace of adoption of coordinates as evidence in the US.

http://docs.lib.noaa.gov/rescue/journals/geodetic_letter/QB275G431935Jan-Dec.pdf

Note that the publication is from 1937. Pay particular attention to Oscar Adams 1935 paper on page 10 and compare his propositions to the current state of state plane coordinate usage.

> Any one who does not see the repeatability of coordinates improving (and hence the value) is living under a rock.

Yes I find coordinate have improved in putting me closer to the original property monuments that show the intent of the original deed. Lord help us if we ever are required to use the coordinate value and not the undisturbed monument location.

"A coordinate is not gold or crap..."
Bingo. Given proper Metadata coordinates are valuable. We use them for recovery all the time. Seeing them overtake monuments is another question entirely. I find it interesting the replies seem to indicate my post being read both as an advocate and a detractor...
Idaho allows coordinates in land descriptions as supplemental information. We are prohibited from writing descriptions by coordinates. The practical effect is relegation to the bottom of the order of calls. Note I said bottom of the list, not off of it.
The thought of someone overturning an undisturbed original monument of record with coordinate based information Is abhorrent to me. At the same time I'll be amazed if they don't become more accepted over time.

Our Statute Section is a restatement of common law.

Coordinates can't exist without monuments. The geodesists call it the realization of the datum.

Sorry, wrong link. Here's the correct one:

http://docs.lib.noaa.gov/rescue/journals/geodetic_letter/QB275G431937Jan.pdf

Jon-

I may be able to assist you via e-mail with a few 'hints'.

Are you at York U ?

Cheers,

Derek

derek@grahamsurveys.on.ca

Dave, I think coordinates can be monuments. Consider that wealth is accumulating in a very few individuals and corporations. They buy and sell property for investment rather than occupation. Under this scenario I think coordinates will become monuments. They will be the consummation of the bargain like a view of the actual premises (physical markers) used to be. This will become more and more common. But it is evidence specific. What was the intention of the parties?

Good luck tracking a coordinate's t value. You can hand surveyors a coordinate system, metadata, epoch values, and still they will be unable to utilize the coordinates correctly, even when it's so simple.

Chaos will ensue. And we aren't even getting to the z value issue:-(

It was clear years ago the t values were going to be unmanageable for most surveyors and nothing has changed since. It's only gotten worse.

Yep, still looking for the magic formula, hierarchy, or whatever "solution" that will make our job easier. Go figure...........

Well, what has worked in the past, still works today, and it is what will work in the future. The "magic formula" was formulated thousands of years ago, and no matter how hard we try to change it to math, better measurements, or precise geodetic 3D or even 4D coordinates, the harder we will fail and the faster we will become increasingly irrelevant. T

The most important part of the "formula" - no matter how hard we try to ignore it - will remain the same. It will still be controlling in the vast majority of the courtrooms we may happen to stumble into. What is it? Well it is the actions and intentions of the LANDOWNERS!!!!

Where can those controlling factors be found? Where it has always been found (if we would only take the time to look)!!!! In the relevant and pertinent EVIDENCE of where the lines/corners have been run and marked on the ground and ACCEPTED by the LANDOWNERS.

As soon as our profession realizes that most important factor locating boundaries on the ground, isn't our role in taking measurements, or even setting "monuments, but lies in the role of the most important people in the equation - the LANDOWNERS - the better served our profession, and most importantly the public will be served.

Bottom line: yes, measurements, coordinates, etc, CAN be important, but they will never be the "be-all", "end-all" of boundary surveying.