Paul,
I am still not sure where you are confused. As for the section line. It cant bend after the date of the last official goverment survey, although we all know that property lines can bend. In the opening example it does not.
Sometimes we talk as if there can be changes to the section line, but really it's just a lazy way of talking about it, and that is fine in situations where no one else can be effected, but it can lead to misunderstandings by lay people and surveyors.?ÿ
?ÿ
I don't see any information in the O.P. that makes the Surveyor 1 fence corner a "property corner." Surveyor 1 had no authority to declare the 40 year old fence corner is the section corner. Surveyor 2 set the P.O.B. from something, if from the fence corner his action is without effect.
Surveyor 3 did it correctly and it is proper to investigate the true original location of the 2.5 acre boundaries (remnants of old fence) which may not necessarily be precisely located at the Deed distance from the Section corner. Also a legally straight line is not necessarily equivalent to a mathematically straight line because none of us are perfect no matter how hard we try.
A tie point on a section line can establish the line itself if accepted by the affected owners.
i have not personally found any evidence of a property corner entity in state law, normally they are talking about establishing the Deed corner or boundary itself regardless of inaccuracy. I haven't seen a case where a boundary was established at a different location from a section corner that can be proven by clear and convincing evidence but maybe there is one out there. The protracted boundaries are easier to fix by establishment because there was no monument set originally.
I don't see any information in the O.P. that makes the Surveyor 1 fence corner a "property corner." Surveyor 1 had no authority to declare the 40 year old fence corner is the section corner. Surveyor 2 set the P.O.B. from something, if from the fence corner his action is without effect.
You are correct. The surveyor has no authority to declare corners, but the surveyor does have a responsibility to recognize when the actions of land owners and previous surveyors have met the requirements for the law to "declare" a corner.
I haven't put to much thought into what I would do if I had to survey the parcel at the section corner. There is a fine line.?ÿ
As for a monumented corner versus a property corner, I'm not sure what you are getting at. I am sure you are trying to make a good point, but there are volumes of cases declaring them two separate points.?ÿ
Interesting theory but I haven't found that to be the case.?ÿ Same thing happens in NY.?ÿ Tie into something far removed such as a great lot corner mentioned in a deed.?ÿ Measure deed distance and set a staub.?ÿ
Problem is investigation takes time and hence money.?ÿ Folks think a survey is a commodity so search for lowest price.?ÿ Lowest price ends up doing most of the work in the area and that leads to corners cut and occasionally evidence missed.?ÿ Fortunately, most of the time it seems, things are cut and dried so no problem.
In the case at hand, deeds referring to the section corner are referring to the stone, unless there's evidence the deed was written after the erroneous corner record and evidence the conveyance was tied to the erroneous corner.?ÿ
Establishment isn't an issue because the erroneous surveyor 2 retracement opinion has only been in place a couple years.?ÿ It's not an original survey so no need to consider the above.
No liability for surveyor 1 and 2 because everyone's entitled to their expert opinion.?ÿ In NY that includes non-licensed techs who are able to testify as expert surveyors in court even without a license or a degree (presumably one would need to at least know how to set up a tripod and plot a deed, but not sure now with GPS and deed plot technology).?ÿ
Surveying is a strange occupation.
I agree with all of this except for the "no liability" paragraph.?ÿ Everybody is entitled to an opinion.?ÿ In general, a personal opinion has no expectation of correctness.?ÿ An expert opinion, however, does.
A professional is entitled to their expert opinion as long as it is not expressed negligently or fraudulently, and the conclusions it represents were not arrived at negligently, incompetently, or fraudulently.
California Courts have even bumped it up a little with this clarification:
"(8) Negligent misrepresentation is a separate and distinct tort, a species of the tort of deceit. "Where the defendant makes false statements, honestly believing that they are true, but without reasonable ground for such belief, he may be liable for negligent misrepresentation, a form of deceit." (5 Witkin, Summary of Cal. Law (9th ed. 1988) Torts, ?? 720 at p. 819; see also ?? 1572, subd. 2 ["[t]he positive assertion, in a manner not warranted by the information of the person making it, of that which is not true, though he believes it?ÿ408*408?ÿto be true"]; ?? 1710, subd. 2 ["[t]he assertion, as a fact, of that which is not true, by one who has no reasonable ground for believing it to be true"].)
Under certain circumstances, expressions of professional opinion are treated as representations of fact. When a statement, although in the form of an opinion, is "not a casual expression of belief" but "a deliberate affirmation of the matters stated," it may be regarded as a positive assertion of fact.?ÿ Moreover, when a party possesses or holds itself out as possessing superior knowledge or special information or expertise regarding the subject matter and a plaintiff is so situated that it may reasonably rely on such supposed knowledge, information, or expertise, the defendant's representation may be treated as one of material fact."
Bily v Arthur Young, 3 Cal. 4th 370, 11 Cal Rptr. 2d 51, 934 P. 2d 745 (1992)
?ÿ
Everyone is entitled to their opinions.?ÿ
Not everyone is entitled to an expert opinion.
No one is entitled to a negligent expert opinion.
?ÿ
In the circumstances of Aliquot's OP, the original corner was existent and was recoverable by a competent surveyor making a diligent effort.?ÿ Under those circumstances, Surveyors 1 & 2 of the OP would have a difficult time making the argument that they were not negligent.?ÿ Certainly, Surveyor 1 did not have any reasonable grounds for accepting the fence corner as the section corner.?ÿ Surveyor 2 has a thin excuse of accepting Surveyor !'s record, but given that Surveyor 3 viewed both records as lacking and went ahead and found the undisturbed original section corner monument, Surveyor 2 still has an uphill battle.?ÿ Unless they are protected by a statute of limitations, I believe they carry both civil and licensing liability (licensing Board action) on the surveys behind their respective corner records.
A little more to add. Surveyor 2 agreed with Surveyor 3 and moved his monuments, and recorded a new survey. Surveyor 1 is hiding behind the minimum standards and refuses to admit he made a mistake, because "no one expects surveyors do dig holes in fields to find 100 year old stones.", and the fence has been there long enough to meet the statute of limitations.
Looking at the situation again to remind myself, I realize that the parcels bound by the section corner in two of the four sections have a federal interest, so the stone is the corner regardless of state law, meaning Surveyor 1's position is completely untenable.
?ÿ
Monument vs. Corner
A corner, or property corner if you prefer, is a location.?ÿ A monument ostensibly set to mark the corner may or may not be at the corner location.
If the monument is the original, on the ground establishment of a corner, if left undisturbed, in the vast majority of instances, is conclusive evidence of the corner location.?ÿ A monument set to mark the location of a previously established on the ground corner, may be the best evidence of that corner location, but should be accompanied by a record documenting sufficient evidence to support a presumption that it properly perpetuates the corner location.?ÿ After a good deal of time has elapsed, that may be sufficient if no superior evidence exists that the corner location lies elsewhere.
When, as in the OP, the original corner monument is found under circumstances that suggest that previous surveyors, had they been reasonably diligent, were not otherwise prevented from finding it, then the fence corner erroneously accepted as the section corner, and any other monuments set to mark corners described relative to the section corner are, as original corners of the described parcels go, meaningless.
They may have ripened into being "property corners" by prescription, but they are not corners under any establishment doctrines.?ÿ The totality of present and past circumstances of use of the parcels would need to be looked at to determine whether the erroneous monuments may now be "property corners."?ÿ The monuments are not at the corners of the parcels previously described relative to the section corner.
?ÿ
Immovable PLSS lines, or is it immovable PLSS corners?
Federal law states that once a PLSS corner has been established, it is immovable.?ÿ As Dave pointed out, a mathematical straight line is the shortest distance between two points.?ÿ That's how we learned to calculate these things out and it makes perfect logical sense.?ÿ It's a very short step of logic to apply that mathematical truth to the law we were once taught and say that once PLSS lines are established, they are unmovable.
Well, gee.?ÿ Establishment is more than an exercise in math and worded description.?ÿ It requires placing upon the ground (BLM Manual ??3-137). If you're in a wooded area that still has some evidence of the original GLO cut lines, those things are anywhere from a foot to several feet wide.?ÿ ?ÿ Also, what about the E-W lines that were typically run East, the difference from true noted as the distance (N & E) from the corner they were attempting to close on, and the true line "run" back West.?ÿ Most of the time, no "true line" was ever run back.?ÿ If the crew was of average or better diligence, they reproduced half of the misclosure at the temp 1/4 along the "random line" to place the record 1/4 where it theoretically should be.
The lines weren't really established, but were created as a means of arriving at the next corner location to establish by placing an original monument.?ÿ It is those established corners that are immovable.
The BLM, in most parts of the country used to subscribe to the need for mathematical perfection according to their own imperfect measurements when it came to accepting or rejecting local corners.?ÿ To my knowledge, BLM surveyors in most parts of the country now exercise a better level of sense toward these questions.?ÿ If it appears that a local monument was set utilizing the appropriate controlling corners and by some method having some semblance of reasonableness, it's accepted as marking the corner it purports to mark.?ÿ There are many examples in BLM dependent resurveys over the past 30 years or so where they accept local monuments and report minor changes in direction along section lines which did not exist according to the original GLO township surveys.
This is what Dave meant by a legally straight line being different from a mathematically straight line.?ÿ The mathematical line is also theoretical.?ÿ It is impossible for a surveyor to set points on line between section corners which are perfectly on that mathematical line and exactly at the distances along the line where corners theoretically exist.?ÿ A shift in logic needs to be applied to rectify the mathematical with the physically established lines and corner.
The law will look to what a reasonably diligent effort could have produced at the time any particular point was monumented.?ÿ If an intermediate 1/16 corner was set using a 1' transit and it happens to be 0.5' off the recently as-measured mathematical straight line between section corner and 1/4, it's legally on line and the line simply has a mathematical kink in it according to the most recent measurement.?ÿ Likewise, if the 1/16 had been set using a staff compass and was found to be 5' off the mathematical line, it would likely be seen as being on the legally straight section line.
There are probably good examples in other states and in federal case law, but a good recent decision in California case law is?ÿBloxham v Saldinger, 278 Cal App 4th 729 (2014)?ÿ In that opinion, they explain assessing the reasonable capabilities of surveyors during different eras of the past when determining whether the points set during those surveys should be accepted as being along the senior line they purport to be on.?ÿ This case doesn't really provide anything new or precedential, but the opinion does a great job of citing to previous opinions and bringing boundary retracement principles together in a single case.
?ÿ
A little more to add. Surveyor 2 agreed with Surveyor 3 and moved his monuments, and recorded a new survey. Surveyor 1 is hiding behind the minimum standards and refuses to admit he made a mistake, because "no one expects surveyors do dig holes in fields to find 100 year old stones.", and the fence has been there long enough to meet the statute of limitations.
Looking at the situation again to remind myself, I realize that the parcels bound by the section corner in two of the four sections have a federal interest, so the stone is the corner regardless of state law, meaning Surveyor 1's position is completely untenable.
?ÿ
Seems like Surveyor 2 may have evaded some real problems by doing the right thing, provided he did it before anyone substantially relied on his results.
Also seems like Surveyor 1 could be (should be) headed toward having his license revoked with that attitude.
Monument vs. Corner
A corner, or property corner if you prefer, is a location.?ÿ A monument ostensibly set to mark the corner may or may not be at the corner location.
If the monument is the original, on the ground establishment of a corner, if left undisturbed, in the vast majority of instances, is conclusive evidence of the corner location.?ÿ A monument set to mark the location of a previously established on the ground corner, may be the best evidence of that corner location, but should be accompanied by a record documenting sufficient evidence to support a presumption that it properly perpetuates the corner location.?ÿ After a good deal of time has elapsed, that may be sufficient if no superior evidence exists that the corner location lies elsewhere.
When, as in the OP, the original corner monument is found under circumstances that suggest that previous surveyors, had they been reasonably diligent, were not otherwise prevented from finding it, then the fence corner erroneously accepted as the section corner, and any other monuments set to mark corners described relative to the section corner are, as original corners of the described parcels go, meaningless.
They may have ripened into being "property corners" by prescription, but they are not corners under any establishment doctrines.?ÿ The totality of present and past circumstances of use of the parcels would need to be looked at to determine whether the erroneous monuments may now be "property corners."?ÿ The monuments are not at the corners of the parcels previously described relative to the section corner.
?ÿ
Immovable PLSS lines, or is it immovable PLSS corners?
Federal law states that once a PLSS corner has been established, it is immovable.?ÿ As Dave pointed out, a mathematical straight line is the shortest distance between two points.?ÿ That's how we learned to calculate these things out and it makes perfect logical sense.?ÿ It's a very short step of logic to apply that mathematical truth to the law we were once taught and say that once PLSS lines are established, they are unmovable.
Well, gee.?ÿ Establishment is more than an exercise in math and worded description.?ÿ It requires placing upon the ground (BLM Manual ??3-137). If you're in a wooded area that still has some evidence of the original GLO cut lines, those things are anywhere from a foot to several feet wide.?ÿ ?ÿ Also, what about the E-W lines that were typically run East, the difference from true noted as the distance (N & E) from the corner they were attempting to close on, and the true line "run" back West.?ÿ Most of the time, no "true line" was ever run back.?ÿ If the crew was of average or better diligence, they reproduced half of the misclosure at the temp 1/4 along the "random line" to place the record 1/4 where it theoretically should be.
The lines weren't really established, but were created as a means of arriving at the next corner location to establish by placing an original monument.?ÿ It is those established corners that are immovable.
The BLM, in most parts of the country used to subscribe to the need for mathematical perfection according to their own imperfect measurements when it came to accepting or rejecting local corners.?ÿ To my knowledge, BLM surveyors in most parts of the country now exercise a better level of sense toward these questions.?ÿ If it appears that a local monument was set utilizing the appropriate controlling corners and by some method having some semblance of reasonableness, it's accepted as marking the corner it purports to mark.?ÿ There are many examples in BLM dependent resurveys over the past 30 years or so where they accept local monuments and report minor changes in direction along section lines which did not exist according to the original GLO township surveys.
This is what Dave meant by a legally straight line being different from a mathematically straight line.?ÿ The mathematical line is also theoretical.?ÿ It is impossible for a surveyor to set points on line between section corners which are perfectly on that mathematical line and exactly at the distances along the line where corners theoretically exist.?ÿ A shift in logic needs to be applied to rectify the mathematical with the physically established lines and corner.
The law will look to what a reasonably diligent effort could have produced at the time any particular point was monumented.?ÿ If an intermediate 1/16 corner was set using a 1' transit and it happens to be 0.5' off the recently as-measured mathematical straight line between section corner and 1/4, it's legally on line and the line simply has a mathematical kink in it according to the most recent measurement.?ÿ Likewise, if the 1/16 had been set using a staff compass and was found to be 5' off the mathematical line, it would likely be seen as being on the legally straight section line.
There are probably good examples in other states and in federal case law, but a good recent decision in California case law is?ÿBloxham v Saldinger, 278 Cal App 4th 729 (2014)?ÿ In that opinion, they explain assessing the reasonable capabilities of surveyors during different eras of the past when determining whether the points set during those surveys should be accepted as being along the senior line they purport to be on.?ÿ This case doesn't really provide anything new or precedential, but the opinion does a great job of citing to previous opinions and bringing boundary retracement principles together in a single case.
?ÿ
I have no arguments with any of this. I think we have different theoretical understandings of the law, but it gets us to the same practical answers.
?ÿ
Interesting theory but I haven't found that to be the case.?ÿ Same thing happens in NY.?ÿ Tie into something far removed such as a great lot corner mentioned in a deed.?ÿ Measure deed distance and set a staub.?ÿ
Problem is investigation takes time and hence money.?ÿ Folks think a survey is a commodity so search for lowest price.?ÿ Lowest price ends up doing most of the work in the area and that leads to corners cut and occasionally evidence missed.?ÿ Fortunately, most of the time it seems, things are cut and dried so no problem.
In the case at hand, deeds referring to the section corner are referring to the stone, unless there's evidence the deed was written after the erroneous corner record and evidence the conveyance was tied to the erroneous corner.?ÿ
Establishment isn't an issue because the erroneous surveyor 2 retracement opinion has only been in place a couple years.?ÿ It's not an original survey so no need to consider the above.
No liability for surveyor 1 and 2 because everyone's entitled to their expert opinion.?ÿ In NY that includes non-licensed techs who are able to testify as expert surveyors in court even without a license or a degree (presumably one would need to at least know how to set up a tripod and plot a deed, but not sure now with GPS and deed plot technology).?ÿ
Surveying is a strange occupation.
I agree with all of this except for the "no liability" paragraph.?ÿ Everybody is entitled to an opinion.?ÿ In general, a personal opinion has no expectation of correctness.?ÿ An expert opinion, however, does.
A professional is entitled to their expert opinion as long as it is not expressed negligently or fraudulently, and the conclusions it represents were not arrived at negligently, incompetently, or fraudulently.
California Courts have even bumped it up a little with this clarification:
"(8) Negligent misrepresentation is a separate and distinct tort, a species of the tort of deceit. "Where the defendant makes false statements, honestly believing that they are true, but without reasonable ground for such belief, he may be liable for negligent misrepresentation, a form of deceit." (5 Witkin, Summary of Cal. Law (9th ed. 1988) Torts, ?? 720 at p. 819; see also ?? 1572, subd. 2 ["[t]he positive assertion, in a manner not warranted by the information of the person making it, of that which is not true, though he believes it?ÿ408*408?ÿto be true"]; ?? 1710, subd. 2 ["[t]he assertion, as a fact, of that which is not true, by one who has no reasonable ground for believing it to be true"].)
Under certain circumstances, expressions of professional opinion are treated as representations of fact. When a statement, although in the form of an opinion, is "not a casual expression of belief" but "a deliberate affirmation of the matters stated," it may be regarded as a positive assertion of fact.?ÿ Moreover, when a party possesses or holds itself out as possessing superior knowledge or special information or expertise regarding the subject matter and a plaintiff is so situated that it may reasonably rely on such supposed knowledge, information, or expertise, the defendant's representation may be treated as one of material fact."
Bily v Arthur Young, 3 Cal. 4th 370, 11 Cal Rptr. 2d 51, 934 P. 2d 745 (1992)
?ÿ
Everyone is entitled to their opinions.?ÿ
Not everyone is entitled to an expert opinion.
No one is entitled to a negligent expert opinion.
?ÿ
In the circumstances of Aliquot's OP, the original corner was existent and was recoverable by a competent surveyor making a diligent effort.?ÿ Under those circumstances, Surveyors 1 & 2 of the OP would have a difficult time making the argument that they were not negligent.?ÿ Certainly, Surveyor 1 did not have any reasonable grounds for accepting the fence corner as the section corner.?ÿ Surveyor 2 has a thin excuse of accepting Surveyor !'s record, but given that Surveyor 3 viewed both records as lacking and went ahead and found the undisturbed original section corner monument, Surveyor 2 still has an uphill battle.?ÿ Unless they are protected by a statute of limitations, I believe they carry both civil and licensing liability (licensing Board action) on the surveys behind their respective corner records.
On the contrary, expert opinions are expected to differ.?ÿ And yes, I've seen the worst opinions stated as fact right in the court room proceeding.?ÿ Never seen any liability attached.?ÿ It's a surveyors opinion.?ÿ If it was an engineer, doctor, etc. then things are different.?ÿ That's the strange thing about it.?ÿ Probably part of the difference, as stated in your case quote, is surveyors tend to be arrogant and declare how it is.?ÿ Most other experts would frame it as a probability based on the evidence (not state anything as a material fact).
I agree with Dave Karoly.?ÿ
Murphy the principles for the PLSS and the Metes and Bounds States are the same.?ÿ When doing an original survey, once the surveyor sets the corner the corner holds (forever).?ÿ In the example that started this thread the 1901 stone is the corner.?ÿ When another surveyor surveys the land he is to follow in the footsteps of the original surveyor, he is to find where the corner is not where it should be.?ÿ This concept is universal regardless of which State you are in.
?ÿ
"Murphy the principles for the PLSS and the Metes and Bounds States are the same."
Please understand that I am not saying that Metes and Bounds is better or that PLSS is bad or that some states have better surveyors than others.?ÿ In Principle M&B and PLSS surveyors have the same task when retracing.?ÿ Any argument I have concerning differences between the two systems comes from practical M&B experience in ME, NH, and NC, and hearsay about the PLSS.?ÿ You should take what I say with a grain of salt.
My observation is basically this:?ÿ Bad surveyors can hide behind measurements and simply stake the deed.?ÿ This can happen in any state.?ÿ In the PLSS a bad surveyor has the ability to not only cloud the subject title by failure to find the corners of the tract he is surveying, he can also fail to find section corners and is then required to "reset" them which results in increased harm to land owners who honor his erroneous section breakdown.?ÿ How is this a net benefit??ÿ Why not let the chips fall and remove the temptation of proportion?
?ÿ
?ÿ
"Murphy the principles for the PLSS and the Metes and Bounds States are the same."
Please understand that I am not saying that Metes and Bounds is better or that PLSS is bad or that some states have better surveyors than others.?ÿ In Principle M&B and PLSS surveyors have the same task when retracing.?ÿ Any argument I have concerning differences between the two systems comes from practical M&B experience in ME, NH, and NC, and hearsay about the PLSS.?ÿ You should take what I say with a grain of salt.
My observation is basically this:?ÿ Bad surveyors can hide behind measurements and simply stake the deed.?ÿ This can happen in any state.?ÿ In the PLSS a bad surveyor has the ability to not only cloud the subject title by failure to find the corners of the tract he is surveying, he can also fail to find section corners and is then required to "reset" them which results in increased harm to land owners who honor his erroneous section breakdown.?ÿ How is this a net benefit??ÿ Why not let the chips fall and remove the temptation of proportion?
?ÿ
?ÿ
But how is that different than metes and bounds? All metes and bounds parcels are created out of larger parcels, and metes and bounds lines are dependent on eachother, parcels dont exist in isolation.
?ÿ
I think "PLSS" is a mis-nomer.?ÿ It is really a title disposal system.?ÿ It should be called the PLTS - Public Land Title System.?ÿ It was conceived as a quick, simple way to describe land for disposal and the land is generally locatable geographically.?ÿ It has a minimal surveying component, most of the patent corners were not originally set.
It is helpful to read boundary cases before about 1850 to get an idea of the legal landscape the original PLSS creators were operating in.?ÿ The Courts generally looked to what the original parties did and adhered to over time vs. just rigidly measuring out corners once again.
I don't think the originators of the system thought we would still be adjusting patent boundaries to a more precise location 150 years later; that's not how boundaries worked in their world.?ÿ The system was simple, just go to the nearest government corner and run out the squares onto the ground.?ÿ Once the patent boundaries are established the dependency upon remote corners should become less over time just as a practical matter.
Current PLSS thinking has been that is a static system.?ÿ Once the framework was laid down and the imaginary protracted lines dependent thereon it would all be frozen never to yield to the imperfect reality.?ÿ It is really a dynamic system set in motion the day the Plat was signed.?ÿ The eight original corners are fixed and immovable unless they become lost but then they aren't moved, just restored.?ÿ Over time patent boundaries were physically established as needed but this introduces some errors into the system.?ÿ Original corners that become lost must get restored somehow and there is going to be some movement there even though legally there is no movement.
The PLSS was always intended to be static from the federal perspective. See the act of 1805, which is still the law.?ÿ The designers of the system were not concerned with what happened after both sides of the line were patented. That was the concern of the individual land owners and under state jurisdiction.
We would be wise to adopt a system like Singapore that relies on coordinates, but the work to get to that point would be astounding. That would solve Murphy's concerns and the even greater difficulties encountered with metes and bounds descriptions.?ÿ
There is no system so wonderfully conceived in perfection that it can't be bungled up by humans.
The fact that there is such a debate about what system to use when in the future it will probably and has often been translated and tweeked to assign new and more improved locations and coordinates to each and every point gathered is why using coordinates is the least desired method.
Also why I collect everything in basic WGS84 as I belive all collectors do and of which is translated into whatever other system is desired.
When put to a vote, I don't see a majority of any GPS system ever being chosen except by some executive order beyond our, the surveyors, power.
0.02
And your WGS84 coordinates will need to be "translated and tweeked" when you go back in 5 or 10 years and find that the continent has moved.?ÿ Just as NAD83(86) needs to be tweaked to NAD83(2011) but for a bit different reason.?ÿ NAD83 changes are made to make measurements in the US more consistent with each other, and those changes are typically much less than the drift of WGS84 over years.
Coordinates can be valuable evidence, if there is enough metadata to explain how they were arrived at.?ÿ If you just say there's the lat-lon or SPC without the rest of the data, then you are just adding to the confusion.
It's pretty easy to transform coordinates and provide the required metadata. Sure there will still be measurement errors, but we would then be arguing about 0.1' instead of 200'. This system would make good use of the workforce of measurment experts that the colleges and universities seem intent on creating.?ÿ
The PLSS is a coordinate system, but that's another thread.
There is no model specific enough to account for velocities on a parcel level. We are still examining why parts of Idaho are moving opposite the plate at 3 times the plate velocity. Keep your coordinates thank you.
Local control for local boundaries.
Thanks for the responses to my hijack.?ÿ ?ÿAlso, thanks for not calling me out on an appalling spelling error in my earlier posts.?ÿ?ÿ
I am fortunate to work in NC where the current members of the North Carolina Geodetic Survey are experts at error propagation and also grounded in the truisms espoused by Justice Cooley.?ÿ We boast the best flood mapping in country, the conception of the state plane the coordinate system, a robust CORS system, and an amazing amount of physical benchmarks of high order.?ÿ Coming from Maine, I was initially skeptical about NC's requirement to Grid Tie all surveys (regardless of recordation), but this forum was a great aid in improving myself and bringing the company I work for into the age of GNSS and Star*Net.?ÿ That said, I still do not understand why the PLSS exists.?ÿ Why codify double protraction??ÿ The boundary is where it is.