If one of the developers described (building on consumer-owned undeveloped land) took the owner to court, or vice versa, what proof could he present that he actually owned the land in question? Perhaps if he was fond of taking pictures and videos there (“And here’s a video I took there of the lunar eclipse of 20XX…”), that might sway a judge and/or jury, but such a habit of concrete documentation doesn’t sound like a requirement of ownership in this paper. Without physical proof on the land, there’s a major risk of both false positives and false negatives, isn’t there?

How would one determine the boundaries of a property right acquired like this? Is it the area our naturalist regularly treads upon? Or everything he can see (and enjoy)? We read the example of the daily consumer of untouched nature; is daily enjoyment the requirement? Is weekly sufficient? Monthly? Yearly?

I have a feeling that these practical problems would lead the owners of this type (if there are really that many of them) to compromise their love of undeveloped land with some evidence- not too intrusive, but readily recognizable as the work of man.