woody_k

DX0872/1931/n/n

In the southwest USA we don't have Poison Ivy but we do have Poison Oak and I have a story about that. I was caching of course and the coords were pointing to the top of this huge boulder. So I realize I need to skirt it and move uphill to the top. It was in July and all around the boulder was freshly sprouted P.O. all about waist high. I thought I could just hug the boulder and not touch any of it. So I start out and I can't see the footing and end up falling and guess where!!!! I did find the cache and higtailed down to the creek and cleaned up a bit. Went home and showered and waited. Never did get a rash and later found out that usually on one's first contact with P.O. you won't get the rash. I am much, much more careful now.

EV0907/1956/n/n

I have that problem too. I was working on a route I am doing saturday and when I tried to check on gc.com/maps it wasn't showing any caches. It was working fine the day before that but yesterday when I tried to see the caches....nothing.

I had a good day today. Found all I looked for but 2. Here are the qualifying ones. EV0889/1956/Y/N EV1543/1959/Y/N EV0885/1958/Y/N EV1545/1959/Y/N Now this Bm has been damaged. The pic is a clear pic. The designation is C 523 Reset. The damage is such that not all the stamping is readable. In the pic you can see the "5 3", the "Re" and the "59". If the approver disallows this recovery...so be it. No worries. All I ask is that you take a good look at the pic and you will see that it is a good recovery...but you have the final say. EV1541/1959/Y/N

Thanks for the info. having one made with the info I want on it sounds about what I was thinking.

Who makes them? I assume the NGS outsources them. Secondly is it possible to buy an unmarked BM?

Took a few days off and been caching. Found this one while out caching. DX2564/1949/n/n

Today's find. EV1224/1956/no/no I am finding this way tougher than I thought. So Cal + construction=no disks.

Nope Klemmer. No work being done in that area. It is very close to a Farmer Bros burger joint. So come take a look and enjoy a good burger.

Is there a reason why a mark would not be surveyed? Or why one would be set and not surveyed?

Well I just decided to never again log a mark destroyed. I have this habit, some say it's a good one and some say it's a bad one, but I do tend to tick off people. It really is a gift. Anyway for ther sake of forum serenity I decided this.

Hi Lost02, I have submitted 3 total forms to Deb Brown. 1 over a year ago and the last 2 within the last few months. As of yet I haven't heard yea or nay from here. How long does it take to hear back from her...if at all?

EV1487/1939/n/n

Gentlemen, Take at look at this benchmark. EV9082. Look at all the pics including the one I took today. Is this not found or destroyed? To me it is clearly destroyed. The white lettering on the curb sort of indicates I was in the right area but the picture doesn't lie. Mloser, your bridge hypotheitical...I would not have marked that Bm as destroyed. Simply having a new bridge without any other evidence would not be good enough. Hypothetically the BM may still be there under the road. Or not at all. But you have no other evidence. Also take a look at this log on this bm I attempted today. EV9084 Looks very similiar to your bridge hypothetical. But I must re-state what I saw on saturday and please read it because nobody here has addressed the facts. The wing wall to a box culvert is where the BM was. There was lettering at this curb also and on the wing wall. It was the south wing wall exactly where the description says. The bright orange paint was on top of the wing wall and HALF of the hole for the BM as was HALF of the epoxy/cement/glue. The other HALF was broken away. I also said I lost the pic. What is the difference between these 2 DNF/Destroyed BM? In both cases the marker is seperated from it's foundation. Exactly as it says in the mark recovery form. Nowhere does it say you have to have the actual mark. I am sorry to have pissed you all off ( I didn't mean to) but I didn't get 20 years in law enforcement without understanding actual evidence and making informed descisions.

I found this unmarked BM today while looking for one that would be about 30 feet away per description. Since it isn't where the descrption says I cannot log it I was thinking it was intended to be a reset but was never actually enabled. Since the one I was looking for is definately gone due to all the newer construction since 1956. The one I was looking for is EV0948. Anybody else have an idea of why or what this maybe. The link

Not really sure how to take you post. Is this a tongue lashing, spanking or just info. In either case I am glad we live in a free country that will allow me to critize a governmental agency for what I think is an stupid policy...whether or not you think I do not understand it. Not found means this and only this....I didn't find it. It does not mean I would have found it had it not been destroyed. I just don't get it that if I have a dislodged disk in my hand then it's destroyed but not one where it can clearly be seen as destroyed....however the means it was destroyed. I.E. road widening. building torn down or an accident where a car destroys the BM site. I can't help think that if the courts used that same philosophy there would never be any convictions. They would be hopefully optomistic that this criminal would not do this again. I guess I live in a more black and white world than you or the NGS do.

mloser, I think you are right to try and contact Deb but I would need to go back and get another pic. As I said I somehow lost it in the transfer from camera to laptop. Public entities are a strange lot. I don't know what more proof NGS would need to show that a mark is destroyed, save one of their own has a peek at it. On the other side of the coin if I find a BM the NGS couldn't find in 1974, I did do this, then the mark according to NGS thinking should still be not found. I cannot accept their logic and thinking...it totally baffles me. They can accept that we found one but not if we find one destroyed. With that kind of thinking they deserve to be a governmental agency. LOL!

That doesn't make any sense. Let's say I have the disk but it isn't where it is suppose to be it can be considered destroyed. But if the the wing wall of a flood control chanel is broken in half right where the disk is suppose to be and that you can see half of the drill hole and half and the painted circles the NGS says it is only a not found? How can I get proof if a disk is missing? Government agnecies...what are they good for. A not found doesn't mean the disk isn't there. It only means I couldn't find the disk. However someone more experienced, like you, could find it. Oh well, I marked that disk as destroyed and if the NGS doesn't like it they can change it. LOL! If I can't find a disk I will "write note" even if I know the street was widened and the mark is gone. If I am at the place where the description say it should be and I am certian of that and I see where the mark should have been is destroyed then I will mark as destroyed. I do this for other finders. Ken

Today I found one that is positively destroyed. Half of the cement where the BM was is missing. I took a pic but somehow I lost it in the transfer from camera to PC. So now I can't send in the info properly because they ask for a digital pic. Anyway I logged it destroyed on GC.com.

Only one again today. EV0945/1956/n/n

Only one today. EV1212/1959/n/n

2 finds but only 1 qualifying find. The oic on this BM isn't all that good. It was under a car in an old used car lot. I was on my belly holding the camera with only 4 inches of clearance. The owner told me if I could come back at a different me he would move the car but if you can read the numbers in the pic let me know...otherwise I will need to get a better pic. EV0986/1928/n/n

Found 6 total but only 4 qualify EV1025/1950/n/n DX3477/1950/n/n DX2665/1949/n/n My find of the day. Monumented 1956. Found NGS 1961. Not Found 1978 by NGS. Found again in 1988 by NGS. Go figure. EV1016/1956/n/n

Found 6 but only 1 qualifies. EV1375/1956/yes/no