edby stated Google Earth has NZ precisely where Cook stated it was in 1770.
Well sort of. edby said "... 172.7E, which agrees perfectly with Google". Now if that had been stated as 172.70000E, then I'd argue you might have a case, because over 200 years that should now be more like 172.70008E.
I think any reasonable person might say this shift is so insignificant that it can be ignored, especially as the original figure was quoted to one decimal place and we're quibbling about a discrepancy in the 5th decimal place here.
It's a bit like saying I weighed myself yesterday and I claim I'm the same weight I was 30 years ago (I wish) and you take issue with me because it turns out I've put on 0.5 grams.
NZ would not be precisely where Cook stated it was in 1770.
Agreed, strictly speaking, it isn't.
Furthermore, no noted changes in reporting (according to the thief of Sherwood) for over 20 years. despite all this high-tech?
I assume you mean that according to the article I posted, the position of Australia was adjusted in 1994 and then not again until 2017?
Well I guess it's similar in a way to leap seconds, we allow a discrepancy between UTC and mean solar time to build up until it gets a bit awkward and then we choose a moment to apply a leap second to bring them back in step. It would be very annoying to be constantly adding leap milliseconds every day or so.
Similarly, we could reprint and reissue maps every week, but since things are only shifting by a meter or so every decade, it makes sense to me to periodically adjust.
"the thief of sherwood" - I should change my username, much more enigmatic!