Leon,
In practical terms we aren't that far apart. In our neck of the woods, most work gets done on some known or repeatable datum. My issue is with statements such as, 'Once we have a good coordinate our job is done'.
Repeating the theoretical location of where a pin once was in relation to distant control is not boundary surveying. The farther in time and distance you get from the derivation of any reference, the lower the value gets. Putting the monument back where it was is best accomplished using local control.
We have anomolies where the validated velocity of small areas is about 0.3' per year in the opposite direction of our plate. Even without these anomolies we should be gathering evidence of the actions of owners over time. I'm sure you know this, but it bears repeating...
?ÿMy issue is with statements such as, 'Once we have a good coordinate our job is done'.
?ÿ
That is probably a poor statement if taken literally.
BUT this much I believe.?ÿ In the eyes of the public our job was done when the in complete coordinate wise GIS "parcel maps" became available.?ÿ They use and abuse them and they are essentially free (very little cost).?ÿ Once the coordinates are "precise" as far as the public and probably most legislators are concerned surveyors will be done.?ÿ It will go from the current "little respect" to we don't need these dinosaurs any more.?ÿ Our paradigm needs to change.
?ÿ
Right on Leon!?ÿ Jp
I'm finding surveys being recorded where it is stated on the plat that none of the controlling monuments were revisited on this survey. ?ÿQuite clearly they are running with coordinates from prior surveys nearby that used the monuments that should control the latest project.
I would contend you are seeing maps like that, not necessarily surveys...