ABSTRACT
If you walk the footsteps of a stranger, you’ll learn things you never knew you never knew.
Pocahontas
Frequently, the retracement surveyor will find that there is more than one set of footsteps. Several scenarios may present themselves: one is original, one is original and perpetuated either in part or in total by previous retracement surveyors, one is new based on educated guesswork, or some theory frequently based on some pure mathematics either with or without an acceptable beginning point, and there are possibly others. When confronted with such a dilemma, it is the retracement surveyor’s “sole duty, function and power” as stated in the Rivers case, to retrace the footsteps and the line(s) of the original surveyor. Frequently what is found is that one or more retracement surveyor has followed the footsteps of not the original, but a later retracement surveyor, and has accepted the work of that surveyor or others. The temptation to accept that work on face value can be great, especially if the previous surveyor is known, or has a reputation for doing good work. Anyone can make a mistake, take shortcuts, or otherwise fall short of the duty to follow the original, and without a comparison of later work with the original, is to take a calculated risk. The Ivalis case following is an example of how a number of surveyors can reach the wrong conclusion.
