Read my post. It has nothing - jack squat - to do with aerial photos.
This is important so take heed: if you own real property and someone is squatting on it, have them expelled IMMEDIATELY! Fence your land, post signs, but make it apparent that your land is not for anyone else’s use but your own.
Don’t let what happened in Colorado happen to you.
Apologies. I thought you were commenting on the case at hand, rather than just blathering (albeit mostly correctly) in general. :-)
In the Colorado case, there's ample evidence--including aerial photos--that this was an improper ruling. And this thread is about how there isn't going to be oversight of the judicial ruler who made a decision in favor of an ex-judge despite evidence against his case. Sounds fishy.
But if you weren't commenting on this case, then I don't understand why you were claiming I didn't know about real estate law... ...especially since I confirmed on the referenced original thread that this doctrine applies in New York State last I knew.
IOW, probably best if you lightened up a bit, FRiend... I do know the case, and even know that you can find some of the records of this land online. Dig a bit in those Boulder County records and there are other questions that appear. :-)
Any well developed or well-used path will show up as well, and this is the basis for the adverse posession claim.
In short, evidence, pro or con.
It has one hell of a lot more than 'jack squat' to do with it if the claimed 18 years of use don't show up until a year or so ago, it means the litigants trying to claim adverse posession are lying.
That is not "adverse posession", it is theft.
Of course, with the condition of the courts today, I can see why pertinent, even crucial evidence might not have "Jack squat" to do with the decision handed down.
YMMV.