Jump to content

seventhings

+Premium Members
  • Posts

    559
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by seventhings

  1. I concur with Mitch. I would call it really, really POOR, but not quite DESTROYED. Will
  2. holograph - Great as always. Thanks. Will
  3. I concur with m&h in principle - a replaced tower can't be the original tower (and, thus, can't be the thing with the PID). I would probably log such a station as DESTROYED. I would log it as such not because I knew it was destroyed, but because I could never conclude, with an acceptable degree of reliability, that it wasn't destroyed. But, were I inclined to report the recovery to NGS, I might report that station as FOUND - POOR with the comment "THE TOWER WAS REPLACED IN 19XX, USE WITH CAUTION", etc. While I may be fairly certain that the existing tower is not the original, I don't know that the replacement station is, in the NGS' eyes, without usefulness in establishing geodetic control (much like the usefulness of a stem-only triangulation station). In earlier discussions, we've talked about how, in some cases, the Geocaching standards for FOUND and DESTROYED may be (in fact, are) more stringent than those of the NGS. This may be one of those cases. This is a good exampleof why intersection stations are so hard. BDT once observed that you have to be a historian to validly log an intersection station. This is true. And, with the inevitable deterioration that affects all structures over time, it may be that most intersection stations are no longer good for geodetic control. But, since (as I understand) intersection stations are seldom used for geodetic control, the real-world impact of being correct or incorrect is, well, near zero. If I determined that the tower was replaced, I would log the station as DESTROYED. Will
  4. m&h - very nice job. The erroneous "find" of an intersection station is the most common type of error in benchmark hunting. I have noted dozens and dozens of such errors. In some cases, the error is sort of understandable - a radio tower of some sort standing within a meter or two of the location of a radio mast first observed in the 1950's. But, in other cases, the error mystifies me - a "found" water tank in an empty field with the nearest tank more than 0.5 miles away, or a very modern watersphere standing where a four-legged water tank was first observed in the 1930's. I have, on several occasions in this forum, recommended that benchmark hunters use the GOTO function on their handhelds to verify an intersection station's location from several different directions (if there is any doubt about its validity). Even if you can't get up close and personal with the station, a couple of laps around the block will usually provide sufficient information either to confirm or cast serious doubt as to whether the thing you're looking at is the thing with the PID. Since all intersection stations have ADJUSTED coordinates, a handheld under a clear sky can provide conclusive information about 95 percent of the time. I have no problem administering the "wet blanket" treatment when I come across an erroneously "found" intersection station. I'll post as many reasons as are valid for why the "found" thing could not possibly be the described intersection station. I know, it's only a game; but we all have our own ways of having fun (however insufferably fussy some of those ways may be). Since we're all human (except, maybe, for Me & Bucky who, I suspect, is a 24/7 benchmark hunting machine) mistakes are inevitable. I have erred and I have no problem with getting an e-mail telling me so and why. The ArtMan and I have exchanged corrections (he checks the FCC database for radio towers!!) and we're still on good terms. Will
  5. woofiegrrl - The two intersection stations each have ADJUSTED (that is "precise") coordinates, and those coordinates indicate that HV3990 (the lightning rod) is 100 - 150 feet north-northeast of HV3961 (the lower spire). Here's how I would try to positively observe these two stations: I would load the coordinates into my handheld GPS. Then, I would use the GOTO function to positively identify the easier of the two stations (HV3961 - the lower spire), by ensuring that the thing I was looking at conformed to the written description, and that the handheld's GOTO pointed to that thing consitently from several different directions (the more different directions and the clearer the sky, the better). Once I was satisfied that I had positively identified HV3961, I would use the handheld's GOTO to look for the other station - HV3990 - 100 - 150 feet north-northeast of the first. Since HV3990 is a pretty old station and had CGS confused, I would not be too optimistic about being able to positively identify it. Good hunting, Will p.s. the NGS INVERSE program indicates that HV3990 is 149.98 feet north (009 degress) of HV3961.
  6. holograph - Great work, as always. The maps are getting better and better. Will
  7. I agree with the datasheet clerical error theory. While I have seen one original station survive its reset (and I've heard of two or three others), I have encountered several (more than a dozen) stupifying datasheet errors. Will
  8. With respect to FTFs, it's called diminishing marginal returns: more time, gas and effort for fewer and fewer finds. I agree with BuckBrooke: my sense is that the slope of the line that describes FTFs is flattening out, and will continue to do so. There will always be FTFs, but just not so many. I started out in the DC area a few months after Black Dog Trackers and ArtMan, so I've always had to hit the road to get FTFs. Now, even that is getting costly - it's one thing to drive several hours to hunt marks, it's another thing to drive so far that you've got to figure in a motel room and a few more meals. Like the Photobuff, I do most of my hunting while enroute from here to somewhere else. In another thread, I mentioned that I was about to embark on a 6,000 + mile trip out west. The primary purpose of the trip is not benchmark hunting, but I do plan to hunt along the way and I have about 150 datasheets with me. Well, yesterday I began reviewing those stations and what do you know: Me & Bucky has been out and about and several dozen of my planned FTFs will now be follow-on recoveries (plus, a team of Geocachers "spoiled" another half dozen or so in another area). In the April Statistics thread, I said that I intended to attempt a benchmark hunting feat about which I would brag shamlessly upon my return. That feat is no longer very attractive so I probably won't attempt it: I hereby withdraw my notice to brag shamlessly about anything in the near future. Will
  9. Thanks, all, for the congrats, and thanks ++ to holograph for continuing service above and beyond. Like most of you (I suspect), I seem to be working harder and harder and driving farther and farther to find marks in any appreciable concentration. That's the bad news; the good news is this: Next week I leave for a 6,000 + mile trip out west. It's primarily an Indian rock art trip, but I'll be carrying a bunch of datasheets. I have one very special day planned about which I will brag shamelessly upon my return (if I pull it off). Regards all, Will
  10. ArtMan, et. al. - I've noticed a similar phenomenon in Cape May, Atlantic and Ocean counties in NJ. There are dozens of "in NGS, not in Geocaching" disks, with concentrations in Ocean City and on the northern half of Long Beach Island. In those areas, the PID prefix is JU, with a smattering of AH's and AI's. All the recent additions to the NGS database are AM's, however. The new AM's are mostly tidal station disks and gaging stations. About half (of the 50 or so) were monumented in 2000-2001 by the New Jersey Geodetic Survey (NJGS). The other half are National Ocean Survey disks that were monumented in 1977 by Norman Porter Associates (presumably under contract to the NOS), and documented for inclusion in the NGS database by the NJGS in 2000. I suspect that the "Norman Porter" of Norman Porter Associates is the same Norman Porter who, as a US Marine Corps Lieutenant (called to military service from the Coast and Geodetic Survey), was awared the Bronze Star (with a V for valor) for his service as a cartographer in support of amphibious operations in the Pacific Theater during WW2. Will
  11. Also, if you submit photos to the NGS (as .jpg attachements to an e-mail), use the following convention for naming the file: PID_YYYYMMDD_C (for "closeup"?) or PID_YYYYMMDD_A (for "area") such as HV1234_20060413_A If you are reporting destroyed intersection stations, use the _A suffix. Will
  12. andylphoto - Photobuff, mloser and ArtMan have laid out the process and parameters for getting the NGS to reclassify a station as DESTROYED. I can add four things to the discussion. 1. If you don't have the time (or don't want to take the time) to take several photos of the empty space where an intersection once stood, you may submit a recovery report to the NGS stating that the station was NOT FOUND and you can add an explanation such as: THERE IS NO WATER TANK AT OR NEAR THE LOCATION OF THE PUBLISHED COORDINATES. This is not as good as getting the station reclassified as DESTROYED (and, thus, cleaning up the database a bit more thoroughly), but it is an acceptable alternative. 2. When I send an e-mail to Deb, I usually follow the following format: HV1234, BITSKOVILLE WATER TANK, DESTROYED Deb - I recommend that you reclassify HV1234, BITSKOVILLE WATER TANK as DESTROYED. BACKGROUND: The BITSKOVILLE WATER TANK was first observed in 1952 and described as having six legs, standing 125 feet tall, and located in the northwest angle of the intersection of Bitskoville Blvd and Main Street in Bitskoville, PA. Published coordinates are N40-30-30.12345 W075-30-30.98765. The tank was last observed by the NGS in 1981. OBSERVATION: There is no tank standing in the northwest angle of the described intersection, and no tank standing in the vicinity of the location of the published coordinates. There is a capped pipe projecting about 24 inches at or very near the location of the published coordinates. The attached photo is looking northwest from the southeast angle of the intersection toward the northwest angle of the intersection, as described. My handheld's GOTO is pointing toward the published coordinates and reads 121.5 feet. Note the absence of a water tank in the northwest angle of the intersection. Regards 3. I have requested (several times) that Deb attribute my report to GEOCAC (WD) to no avail. As ArtMan noted, above, the reporter's full name always appears as the source of the report. 4. After I see that the NGS has reclassified the station as DESTROYED, I go back to the Geocaching datasheet and edit my post, something like "Added 04/12/06 - the NGS has reclassified this station as DESTROYED". I get a perverse pleasure from doing this when other benchmark hunters have "found" the station in question. I especially like to do this when the other "finds" are reallly of the (no-PID) 1983 watersphere that replaced the old 1952 tank. Will
  13. Papa-Bear-NYC cc: mloser, BDT I commend you for you excellent find, and even more for your low-tech/high cerebral cortex methods. But, this is a case that cries out for an additional and technological layer of evidence. Like you, I seldom use the GPS to find marks (I use it to tell me when to start looking for a place to park, and I use it to give me better data for marks with scaled coordinates). The instant case requires a GPS reading to evaluate the likelihood that what you found is what you think you found. On those infrequent occasions that I use the GPS to find a mark, I use mloser's TBWA method. Were I you, I would spend 15-20 minutes at/near the concrete thing and square hole to see if the handeld consistently gave me readings that were close to the published coordinates. Assuming you could get a good view of four or more satellites, your handheld should agree with the published to within .002 in both axes. By the way (and not necessarily apropos of this case), I find that my handheld will hold a connection to a satellite much better that it will establish a connection. When I am in an area of poor reception, I move to an area of good reception, capture the satellites and move steadily back to where I want to get a reading. I watch to ensure that the coordinates "behave" as predicted as I walk back to the area of bad sky, and usually can get a better fix (confirmed with three of four replications) that if I sit under the tree and wait for the handheld to give me a consistent reading. It's not as good as being on a mountain top, but it suits when the trees are all leafed-out. Will
  14. Regarding everything that Papa-Bear-NYC said, above: AMEN! Will
  15. Mango - Welcome to benchmark hunting. Yes, more than one person can find and log a benchmark. Many benchmarks, by their specific nature, lend themselves to being found and logged by many hunters. See Washington Monument, for example. In the past, many experienced benchmark hunters have recommended that new hunters start their hunting with a few marks that others have already found and described. This practice provides reliable feedback about the (sometimes deficient) nature of datasheet descriptions, and the difference between SCALED horizontal coordinates and ADJUSTED horizontal coordinates. Many active benchmark hunters will pass on marks that have been found by other hunters, prefering to concentrate their efforts on FTFs ("first-time-finds"). But subsequent finds can be valuable as well: follow-on hunters may log valuable information about their observations, especially when the logs of earlier finds don't add much to a skimpy description or to-reach. Good hunting, Will
  16. holograph - Thanks for the excellent stats work and updated map. mloser and PFF - Having trouble finding the time to venture forth and find marks? Problem: work. Solution: retire. (Imagine absurd and excessive end-zone dance here). Will
  17. critterkeeper - Welcome to benchmark hunting. See the FAQ at Find a Benchmark/FAQ for your suggested topic 0).
  18. cethomas - Welcome to the benchmark hunting world. Read the FAQ at FAQ and the "Read me first" thread pinned at the top of this forum. They should answer many/most/all of your questions. Will
  19. Like I said in another thread, I like those small towns and the rural areas surrounding them. I've had great luck in: Preston, ID Bastrop, LA Yazoo City, MS Salisbury, MD Sea Isle City, NJ McLean, TX, and, Tucumcari, NM. Been to DC many times (I live about 11 miles SW). It is a great place for benchmark hunting (although there are no FTFs left - ArtMan got 'em all). A well-prepared benchmark hunter could get 20+ marks in a day on and near The Mall, and get some pretty good standard sightseeing in at the same time. Unfortunately, although there are dozens and dozens of marks at the White House, there's little likelihood that a hobbyist could gain access. W
  20. Cities and fast-growing suburbs are often terrible places to hunt marks - developers bulldoze marks without hesitation. Like Klemmer, I much prefer to hunt in rural areas or, even better, very small "farm" towns where time seems to be frozen in the mid-1950's. I've also noticed that some places seem to care for their marks better than other places. Maryland is a great place to hunt marks; I get the impression that the MD State Highway Authority actually makes some effort to protect and preserve the marks under their control. Same is true for marks owned or regularly used by the NJ Geodetic Survey - mostly "down the shore" in Cape May and Ocean counties. Will
  21. Team Fawlty / Brendan - I agree with your characterization of the mark as DESTROYED. The points originally observed are no longer there. Were I to report this recovery to the NGS, I would say NOT FOUND with the explanation that the observed tower remains, but the top half (or more) of the tower has been removed. Good call. Will
  22. mloser - I understand, and I'll see your "bit further" and raise you another bit. Like you, I am NGS-centric, but I also enjoy Waymarking; almost prefer it to standard benchmark hunting. And, for me, Waymarking and NGS reporting are highly complimentary: I've waymarked 34 stations that are in NGS but not in Geocaching. Waymarking has caused me to focus more on the NGS database and less on the Geocaching database. Will
  23. Even more fundamental than the Waymarking definition of a benchmark (is a survey disk, looks like a survey disk, permanently affixed, etc) is the notion that a benchmark (or benchmark-like disk thing) marks a specific spot that is/was determined by some sort of surveying method. That "spot" can be the intersection of lines of latitude and longitude, elevation above the standard datum plane, a section line, boundary line or right-of-way line. Another very fundamental assumption about benchmarks (and that characteristic that distinguishes them so clearly from caches) is that their location was determined by and their physical setting was accomplished by someone who is not a hobbyist. That is, they were created for some other purpose than to satisfy the need of benchmark hunters to find them. I guess the guy that wrote the definition for the Recovered US Benchmark site assumed that everyone else would, in turn, assume that a "benchmark" would be, among other things, set by a professional at a spot determined by a professional and for a purpose other than to be found by a hobbyist. There are members of the benchmark hunting community who disagree with the two assumed components of the definition that I've stated, above (for both Waymarking and non-Waymarking purposes). But, I suspect that majority of "purposeful" benchmark hunters (benchmark hunters who hunt benchmarks purposefully as opposed to Geo-cachers who log the odd benchmarks that they come across when Geo-caching), would agree with the assumptions. Not all, but most. I would certainly like to see a simple "yea" or "nay" from the regulars to see if I am correct about the above. Will
×
×
  • Create New...