Thanks so much, but it was a rhetorical question.
Good thread. There is much food for thought above.
Monuments move - true. A river as a monument is a perfect example of that. The question about a monument in the ground is whether it moved suddenly, or imperceptibly over time.
I know that generally measurements are downplayed, but a measurement between points is evidence. I think a review of "all" the evidence is always in order. But I am with Dave in that I would be hard-pressed to disagree with a 1/16th corner because my measurements alone imply that the monument is not where it once was; coupled with the fact that even if the movement has moved, it may have been slow and imperceptible over time as well.
I tend to argue with with the side (was it Leon?) that minimizes the County surveyor's or some other plat checker's micromanaging boundary decisions. I don't mind discussing theories and practices with other surveyors, but telling me I am wrong and must change my plat before they will file it, is another story. I would tend to argue that someone saddled with the task, is primarily tasked to make sure the plats meet certain standards that are within their purview. That might be that the plat is within the range of sizes that are acceptable by county rules and/or state laws. Possibly that it meets some statute requirements that it has a north arrow, a basis-of-bearing statement, or whatever your state statutes tend to require. Possibly even font size if the font is illegible to the average eye.
Another checker might be tasked as the contract administrator (the client's surveyor) with the responsibility of making sure the plat meets the clients minimum standards. You might have to meet certain drafting requirements, or size requirements, or precisions etc. per your contract.
I have certainly heard it argued that all those property pins along a section line, which were set by proper procedures and meet minimum accuracy standards are, indeed, "on the line". Should the surveyor that is surveying the perimeter of a whole section be required to find all of the secondary or tertiary corners along the line? Could you argue that you located the primary aliquot corners, and are not responsible to reconstruct every monument in between? If you have to show every monument, what if you missed one? Or a couple of the property corners are "pin-cushioned"? Is it your repsonsibility to resolve property issues that are between two different lot corners? I would tend to argue that I can draw a straight line between section and sixteenth corners, and show my measured bearings between them. If someone comes along and says "look there is a property corner on that line wher you didn't show a bearing change" I would tend to argue that if it was set correctly, the change in bearing is minor and does not change my section-line survey. (I don't know.)
