>>2944517
>Why tf would that thing be 4' in the ground?
Probably because you weren't supposed to remove it...

>>2944521
Perhaps, perhaps

But I'm also not supposed to drink/sleep on the job either...

>>2944517
18 U.S.C. § 1858
Survey marks destroyed or removed

Whoever willfully destroys, defaces, changes, or removes to another place any section corner, quarter-section corner, or meander post, on any Government line of survey, or willfully cuts down any witness tree or any tree blazed to mark the line of a Government survey, or willfully defaces, changes, or removes any monument or bench mark of any Government survey, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than six months, or both.

>>2944581
Weak D:

>>2944517
your an asshole, you accepted it being their when you purchased the property bozo.

>>2944517
>Why tf would that thing be 4' in the ground?
To minimize shifting in its location caused by frost heaving. Don't know why you were concerned about a marker when there looks like there's barely anything to mow there in the first place.

>>2944749
That's not where it was

>>2944517
>Why tf would that thing be 4' in the ground?
because it's supposed to be a solid anchored reference point
but slas, nothing would sustain a moron with a digger

>>2944517
I hope the other landowner has cause to start a dispute. You just handed them the golden ticket to railroad your ass into the ground, maybe even steal some of your land if they're clever about it.

>>2945133
I own it all

>>2945133
It’s not 1750 anymore, we have aerial mapping, laser triangulation and gps now, nobody is going to care a lot and if they do they can place it back on the inch

>>2945368
depends on when it was surveyed, surveyed and the jurisdiction. lots of database coords are only estimates, or were made long before precise measurements were even possible. steel tapes and theodolites. landmarks are installed because they are supposed to be a lasting and superlative source of truth. hence the penalties for fucking with them.