I said two points were minimal. Not superior. This will be my last response to you. You are already restating my positions incorrectly.
> I said two points were minimal. Not superior.
Two points aren't even adequate since they generate a pretty much unverified and therefore unreliable answer. The main point of this thread was how to use coordinates professionally. Sorry if you don't like my remarks, but they are obviously correct, nonetheless. There is a reason why I'm such a strong advocate for the use of standard projections in land surveying and this situation is a very good example of why they are superior.
What I dislike is how you restate poster's statements incorrectly. I believe that you do this intentionally and maliciously. Case in point: I said minimal, not adequate. It changes the meaning of what I have said.
As a result, any discussion with you quickly devolves into me trying to keep you from distorting my position. I enjoy good debate that fosters thought. Your sort of discussion does not rise to that standard. You advocate for professional use of coordinates. Great. The profession desperately needs that. Don't use dishonesty in that pursuit. Your ideas and my ideas will stand or fall because they are good or bad and because they are well communicated not because we misrepresented contrary perspectives.
What you actually posted above was:
> Not really. Scale and orientation can be determined from a minimum of two monuments.
Minimal does not imply adequacy in professional practice. For example, you could run a 100-sided traverse and omit a closing leg and closing angle and still have a set of measurements that would be minimally necessary to compute the coordinates of all points if you weren't concerned about the adequacy of the method to meet professional standards. Sorry, but that isn't a misstatement of what you posted to criticize it on the basis of adequacy since the topic under discussion was how coordinates would be used.
Well the evidence says that it was either mistakenly set in the wrong position, disturbed and reset in the wrong location, or intentionally moved.
What was the theory on the ROS for holding it? I might hold it but it would need some explanation. Substantial improvements relying on the monument are certainly important, but I would want to know everything possible about them; age, who made them, etc..
I'm not sure consideration of coordinates would change the reasoning, unless of course the coordinates reported turn out to agree with the one pipe and indicate all the others are off by 1.5'. Then you have a real head scratcher.
People being what we are, there is always going to be uncertainty due to actions people take (and don't take) over the years.
I think Shawn is feeling restrained by the current order of importance put forth by TX courts or statute. In most states these rules are flexible and only guides to accomplish the over-riding goal of determining the intention of the parties. Senior rights shouldn't be in there at all, because those only determine what a party was legally able to convey, not what they intended to convey.
My own opinion is that a law elevating the importance of coordinates is likely to cause less attention to the whole body of evidence that might lead to the true location of the boundary. On the other hand, I've watched as an old surveyor transit and taped 900' through rough country and set a new monument within 2 feet of an existing ancient one, based purely on the coordinate generated in the office from other far removed evidence. It's just easier and quicker to erroneously stake coordinate positions with GPS, and that's been going on since GPS has been used, plenty of examples.
I always know when I'm looking at GPS work because it's usually off by 2,5,10 feet between some pair of monuments at the site with no rhyme or reason. I'm sure things being done today are much better than what I've encountered from the early adoption of GPS, but I would hate to be told I have to use coordinates generated 10 years ago over physical evidence found in the field, I want the freedom to consider all.
Coordinates are gaining strength and there is a headwind pushing towards a national cadastre where the only thing that will matter is the coordinate. We are still a long ways off but the death bells are ringing for traditional surveying.