I long ago informed a bovernment surveyor that he had monumented a found rebar that was actually a reference to the original stone section corner which had been scraped away by a grader. When I informed him I had coordinates on the correct position he quickly stated that coordinates were of the least weight. I rephrased it that with those coordinates I could provide him with at least 30 ties to property corners within 3 chains. He then understood that coordinates could be useful.
Had he used that coordinate to 'correct' those 30 monuments we all would have called for his skin. The value of evidence (as I'm certain you are aware) must be determined with the whole view in mind.
I hope it will get better, but from what I've seen it's not looking hopeful. I recently finished a large mapping project that will have at least a 50 year life span. It was done in connection with a smaller area mapped almost ten years ago, they wanted a seemed data stream. Tied to first order benches. Nad 83/93 passive network points. Never will this network match op with opus or cors. Good luck stopping the opus guys from throwing that stuff across the project.....which would be a diaster. The T value is one issue but the TV values is really messy. Imagine after the new adjustment and guys without instruments capable of surveying to existing control.....:-(
> 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.
...and there folks, lies (homonym not intended) the problem. I couldn't agree more.