68-eldo

I bought the 1100 unit a year or so ago. It seems to work OK but the depth is limited. Also the detector must be in motion to detect anything. That makes it a little difficult to determine exactly where the metal object is. I was having a hard time trying to find marks in tall grass because of the motion requirement. While watching a documentary on the removal of unexploded ordnance on Kahoolawe I saw them using their metal detector by swinging it vertically. Kind of like tamping down the grass. That works. Now with the 3300 that has the larger coil (works to a greater depth) on sale, I have to think about upgrading. I wonder if the shack is going to bring in a new line of detectors?

I dont remember seeing any place to enter the information and I just logged on my TB page I still don't see a release date or origin.TBZJGB When you go to the travel bug page try refreshing the page. Depending on your browser settings your browser may retrieve the page cached on your computer instead of the new page. I checked you bug’s page and there is a release date.

It would be interesting to see if GARNET USE 1940 has reference marks. While listed in the description it seems the one finder did not look for them. If there are no reference marks there then it would indicate the descriptions got mixed up.

I call that urban camouflage. The shipyard I was working at had just converted all their building plans to AutoCad and I was assigned to verify the plans with the actual building. This meant going into various office spaces. If I walked in with jeans and T shirt like was worn on the waterfront someone would always challenge me and keep a close eye on me as I went about my business. If I showed up in a polo shirt with a pocket and new jeans most of the time they hardly noticed me. When I came in with a good shirt and trousers carrying a clip board people would scurry back to their cubicles and look busy. One time they even let the popcorn in the microwave burn instead of claiming it. When on a Navy base looking for marks on the piers or streets drive a white pickup or van with a vise on the back bumper, wear a green tank suit with rubber boots. Yesterday I walked into a construction site wearing steel toed boots, orange vest and hard hat. But with the clipboard nobody would talk to me. They just referred me to the foreman. I ask the foreman if any of his work would disturb the two stations. He assured me they would be very careful of those marks. I proceeded to record the marks (nether one is in the NGS data base, darn it).

Is that still the procedure? I can't read a date, but typographically the documents you posted look decades old. -ArtMan- Looks like the form was created 6-82

Most likely it is a cached page on your computer. If you refresh the page it should get the new page.

I found that sometimes (at least in this area) the term is used without actual lights. This type of station is common here. In the 1969 recovery of Ewa Church Reset the term "height of the light above the station" is used. Maybe it's just a local thing. If the lights are temporary why would the height be listed in the data sheet? Wouldn't it depend on the preferences of the survey party and what they had available at the time?

Very nice replicas but not accurate. I got one for Longs Peak and one for Diamond Head. Here’s the pictures for the Diamond Head replica and the real thing. My wife asked me where I was going to put it. She wasn’t happy when I suggested the middle of the coffee table.

Kewaneh, Your posts are excellent, well thought out and helpful. The part about “Others may want to forget…” I missed that it was meant in jest and I apologize for that. I have fallen victim of that myself and find I need to use those blasted emoticons or smileys when I attempt humor. I did not think that you were brushing off the OP or disrespectful in any way. I understand the point that the NGS web site was written for professionals by professionals. But they did open it up to the general public to update the database and that’s where the trouble begins. I just retired after 38 years working with gun and missile fire control and weapons systems, search radar and electronic countermeasures aboard Navy ships and submarines. I tend to think of myself as above average technologically speaking. But I was wrong about the meaning of the question. I feel I was partly led astray by Google (and others) and their aerial photos they label as satellite. I know I looked at a couple of benchmarks in Google to see how well the area around the mark looked. My underlining concern here is the integrity of the NGS database. Now there are some stations out there that are labeled as suitable for satellite observation that may not really be suitable. Some professional may spend time and money to go out to the station only to find out the database is wrong. I think answering this question correctly is just as important as the destroyed/not destroyed question that is being debated in other threads. Thank you for using your years of experience and knowledge to help us newbies.

Agreed. If Kewaneh was frustrated by my post in that thread I apologize. I was also frustrated, not by Kewaneh.

The fact that this question keeps coming up on this form indicates that the NGS web pages needs a little clarification. Especially since they take input from the general public. When a newbie ask questions on a forum I have more knowledge about I answer with respect and in a manner that will help the poster learn. Not everybody does that here and it detracts from the quality of this forum. No one is knowledgeable about everything.

Suggestion: In the area photos label them as FROM the north or TO the north. Just "north view" could be confusing. Although once on site it would become clear.

I maybe wrong but I think the golf rangefinder uses the height of the pin (flag pole on the hole) to measure the distance. So unless you have a standard size pin I don't think it will work.

I've wondered about that. I don't know about other people but when I am on my way to or from an airport I don't have time to stop and look for a cache. Once checked in at my hotel then I can spend time hunting.

Yep, I agree it is a pretty flaky mark, but it was exactly where the description indicated and was stamped with the correct number. I am confident it is the mark. I would go back and get a better pencil rubbing but since I retired I don't have access any more. Pictures are not allowed if you don't have photographer's permit. If they find you have a camera phone they will take it to the forge shop and smash it with a trip hammer. That’s how serious they are.

On this station TU1431 the tablet is a square brass plate attached to a wooden frame with wood screws. Maybe some areas called the disk a "tablet" but for this one it is not a standard disk. When you get there just look for anything man made set in stone.

Please be *very* confident of your finds before you report them. There are other threads going on in this forum right now about a benchmark that was reported found two times in the past few years, when in fact it was a *clearly marked* reference mark that was found, not the station itself. Another thread is discussing the idea of a volunteer benchmark hunting corps and how we would need to keep up our standards for accuracy in order to maintain the respect of the NGS. I personally know of two survey marks in a nearby city (Mountain View, Calif.) that have repeatedly been logged on Gc.com as found when in fact neither mark is no longer there. People are finding different benchmarks (sometimes even vastly different sizes and from different agencies) more or less nearby (a few dozen feet or so) and logging the original station as found. We don't want that kind of mistake relayed to a "GEOCAC" report filed with the NGS. Sorry for getting on a soapbox, but sometimes I want to tear my hair out when I see those logs! Don't forget, the folks here on the Benchmark Hunting forum are happy to answer any questions you may have about a survey mark you've found, or about reporting it to the NGS. I hope you enjoy your new addiction. Patty Here are a couple of examples: TU1336 and TU1337. TU1337 is Diamond Head 2 set in 1969. All the pictures of the mark are of Diamond Head 2 reset 2002. Many of the pictures are of RM 3 and claim to be the mark. TU1336 was most likely destroyed but is not logged as such (NGS data base seems to be down at this moment so I can't check the latest logs). TU1456 continues to be logged after CGS reported it destroyed in 1967. (This one looks cool in Google maps satellite photo). Many of these cachers are just playing a game and would not bother to report to NGS. But it only takes a few to give GEOCAC a bad reputation. The devil is in the details.

Benchmark hunting and reporting to NGS using GEOCAC is open to everyone. What I am concerned about is that a significant percentage of the reports to NGS using GEOCAC will be of little value to them or the professionals that use the benchmarks. They will look at the GEOCAC name and see Power Squadron. My own experience with the reports from Power Squadron has been poor, and I see from the post in this forum I am not the only one that feels that way. If we go to a lot of effort to bring this group up to a higher level, then I think we should have a different name to log our reports with NGS. Something that the professionals will look at and think “There’s a report we can rely on”. Just my 2 cents. I am certainty interested is learning how to do a better job of finding and reporting benchmarks.

What is the thinking behind giving an RM its own PID? Is this only because of the way it was moumented or is there another purpose? For example TU0629 has two RM within 100 feet and they both have their own PIDs TU0628 and TU0630

OK, here is Deb Browns answer and my email to her: Hi Glen,... Good question. The satellite question refers to the signal ability not photographs. deb Glen Houlton wrote: > Mrs. Brown, > > My apologies if you have received this message a second time. I > received a bounce message the first time I sent this, so I am trying > again from a different email address. If you have already responded > please disregard this message. > > As a geocher looking for and reporting benchmarks I find this entry on > the reporting form. > > *Satellite Usage* > > Generally, a station is suitable for satellite observations if there > is a clear and unobstructed view of the sky from approximately 15 > degrees above the horizon at the location of the station. Small > objects such as a light pole or small tree are excepted. > > Is this station suitable for satellite observations? > > _ Yes _ No _ Don't know > > My assumption was that it referred to the ability of a satellite to > photograph the benchmark (with appropriate markings to help locate the > mark). However there is a discussion in the benchmark hunting forum > about this. There they are talking about the quality of the GPS signal > at the station’s location. > > So my question is: is this entry on the form in reference to visual > observation by satellite or GPS reception from satellites? If it > refers to visual I can look up and see if there are any obstructions, > if it is signal quality I will need to mark them all as “I don’t know”. > > I want to make sure my reports are as accurate as possible. > > Thanks for your help. > > Glen Houlton > Thank you to PFF for at least seeing my point of view. While driving I noticed a large X in the road and waypointed the spot with my GPSer. This X is obviously used for identifying a location in aerial photos. Unfortunately the Google maps satellite photo quality is not good enough to see that one. But if you go to this photo you can clearly see the lines in the parking lot. These lines are not any larger than the ones on the X I waypointed. So logically I would assume that if you painted lines like this to mark the location of a benchmark you could see it in a satellite photo. Oh, wait, TV is not real so I guess this is impossible. Google must have Photo shopped this in. Or Google has access to better satellite photos that NGS.

So, I take it that your opinion is that unless we are a professional surveyor like yourself, we should always answer the NGS satellite suitability question (that appears at the last phase of logging at the NGS website) with I don't know. I still think the question refers to the ability of a satellite to photograph the station (with appropriate marks to aid in identifying the station). When I suggested that earlier I was put in my place like I was butting in. I sent the question to Deb Brown. The first message bounced so I just sent another. When I hear back from her I will post her reply here.

This could be the guy n4vdj. It has an email address.

I thought I understood this until I read this thread. I thought the question was: could a satellite take a photograph of this station? >Generally, a station is suitable for satellite observations >if there is a clear and unobstructed view of the sky from >approximately 15 degrees above the horizon at the location >of the station. Small objects such as a light pole or >small tree are excepted. > >Is this station suitable for satellite observations? The term "clear and unobstructed view of the sky" implies visual observation. Am I off base here?

Along the same lineTU1419is one of several in the area I recovered. Now that I am retired I no longer have access. This area is not open to the public.

Have you tried contacting Gray Squirrel or Loch Cache? It looks like the Boston Globe cache was muggled after Gray Squirrel counted coup on your travel bug. In that case it's most likely gone.