foxtrot_xray

I'll admit - I do that. Even with some of the 'out of the way' ones. (Example - just this previous weekend I went up to Skyline Drive, and had to stop to find the one I had JUST found this past summer. Just to see how my memory was doing. Was able to find it without a datasheet.)

..Contact USGS?

I'll admit, I actually take it a step further - When I *know* it's been destroyed (like a bridge getting replaced, etc), I'll log a Not Found with my information in it (i.e. 'Bridge was replaced in 2009, old headwalls were torn down and rebuilt. Station destroyed.') and THEN send an email in to Deb to have it marked as destroyed. That way, when someone pulls up the datasheet, they'll see the 'Reported destroyed by Mike', and right above it will be my 'Not Found' recovery with the other needed info.

I have no doubt that a lot of professional surveyers find GEOCAC recoveries helpful. However, I think the thread is more based on the 'amateur' (non-professional surveyor) that are.. a little misguided, like this one: MB2848'HTTP*COLON*//WWW.GEOCACHING.COM/MARK/DETAILS.ASPX*QUESTION MB2848'MARK*PID=MB2848 I found this because some pattern of characters in their recovery caused NGSGPX to freak out and crash. Then we have this guy, there are MANY of these in there: AA3779'RECOVERY NOTE BY GEOCACHING 2010 (CT) AA3779'CAP IS MISSING. PICTURES OF THIS MARK ARE AVAILABLE AT THE GEOCACHING AA3779'WEBSITE (WWW.GEOCACHING.COM). SEARCH THE BENCHMARK SECTION USING THIS AA3779'MARK'S PID, AND VIEW LOG ENTRY BY 'COYOTE TRUST'. No offense if you're on this forum - or even if your not, but there's no need for the whole 'pictures' thing. Then we have people signing their reports, which isn't that bad, but unnecessary, IMHO: DN0055'RECOVERED IN GOOD CONDITION AS DESCRIBED IN THE 1959 CGS SURVEY. DN0055'DESCRIPTION IS ADEQUATE WITH CORRECTED COORDINATES OF (N 33 36.278 W DN0055'96 22.752) BY DAWGIES OF GEOCACHING.COM Then we have a nice guy offering his pictures to anyone who asks: EV1541'RECOVERY NOTE BY GEOCACHING 2006 (KW) EV1541'THIS BENCHMARK WAS FOUND IN POOR CONDITION. IT HAS BEEN STRUCK WITH A EV1541'HARD OBJECT AND HAS BEEN PRIED UP ON ONE EDGE. THE STAMPING IS ALL EV1541'BUT LEGIBLE. VERY FEW LETTERS CAN BE MADE OUT. ON THE GEOCACHING.COM EV1541'BENCHMARK PAGE I UPLOADED A PICTURE. I STILL HAVE IT ON MY COMPUTER EV1541'AND CAN SEND IT TO YOU IF NEEDED. EV1541' EV1541'<name whitheld> ..And I can't tell you how many times I see "Photo's". Argh.. EV3534'GOOD CONDITION AT 3025' BY GPS. PHOTO'S AT WWW.GEOCACHING.COM/MARK/ ..And I like these, personally. Always makes me smile.. FB2489'WWW.GEOCACHING.COM/MARK/DETAILS.ASPX(QUESTIONMARK)PID=FB2489(POUNDSIGN FB2489'1009 HV1916'THEM AT HTTP(COLON)//WWW.GEOCACHING.COM/MARK/DETAILS.ASP(QUESTION HV1916'MARK)PID=HV1916. MY PHOTOS OF THE MARK ARE AT THE SAME URL. MB2848'HTTP*COLON*//WWW.GEOCACHING.COM/MARK/DETAILS.ASPX*QUESTION MB2848'MARK*PID=MB2848 ..And I'm running out of comments, but: FW0142'NOT FOUND AT COORDINATES LISTED ON GEOCACHING.COM. DESCRIPTION DOES FW0142'NOT MATCH SURROUNDINGS. ..And this guy added his own recovery start line, which was considerate of him..: JZ3532'RECOVERY NOTE BY GEOCACHING 2004 JZ3532'RECOVERY NOTE BY WEB-LING OF GEOCACHING.COM 2004. ..And this guy's cut-and-paste apparently broke the submit form: KU1645'HIGH RESOLUTION PHOTOS REVEAL THE APPEARANCE OF SAW MARKS ON THE TOP KU1645'SURFACE OF THE BRASS. IT IS POSSIBLE THAT THIS IS THE STEM OF THE KU1645'ORIGINAL DISK WITH THE TOP SAWED OFF, AND NOT AN UNDOCUMENTED BRASS KU1645'PLUG REPLACEMENT. WHAT APPEARED TO BE A PUNCH HOLE ON THE TOP WAS KU1645'FOUND ON CLOSE INSPECTION TO BE A SMALL MASS OF BROKEN BRASS. KU1645' KU1645'THE CLOSE-UP PHOTO IS AVAILABLE ON THE WEB AT KU1645'IMG.GEOCACHING.COM/BENCHMARK/LG/F67527E4-07C8-4F31-8894-CEFA118193DC.J KU1645'EB AT KU1645'IMG.GEOCACHING.COM/BENCHMARK/LG/F67527E4-07C8-4F31-8894-CEFA118193DC.J KU1645'HE WEB AT KU1645'IMG.GEOCACHING.COM/BENCHMARK/LG/F67527E4-07C8-4F31-8894-CEFA118193DC.J KU1645'TO IS AVAILABLE ON THE WEB AT KU1645'IMG.GEOCACHING.COM/BENCHMARK/LG/F67527E4-07C8-4F31-8894-CEFA118193DC.J KU1645' PHOTO IS AVAILABLE ON THE WEB AT KU1645'IMG.GEOCACHING.COM/BENCHMARK/LG/F67527E4-07C8-4F31-8894-CEFA118193DC.J KU1645'20060930 KU1645' KU1645'WHETHER IT IS A PLUG THAT REPLACED THE DISK, OR THE STEM OF THE KU1645'ORIGINAL DISK, ITS USE AS A BENCHMARK IS NOW PROBLEMATIC AND SHOULD BE KU1645'USED WITH CAUTION. KU1645' KU1645'THE SCALED COORDINATES ARE WRONG AND WOULD PLACE THE STATION ON THE KU1645'NORTH SIDE OF THE GEORGE WASHINGTON BRIDGE. THE COORDINATES GIVEN ON KU1645'THE DATASHEET FOR KU3890 SHOULD BE USED INSTEAD. These types of reports (and these were just found searching all the datasheets for 'geocaching.com'.. who knows what else is out there..) is the main reason I'm hesitant on adding NGS submitting to my android app.

Not me.. I don't consider myself an amateur recover-er. I'm quite professional about it now.

Heh! It's okay. Yeah, the new version will be an update for everybody, to take advantage of new features (new map display, configurable marker colors, etc). The 'pay' features will be an "In App Billing" - you won't have access to them until you pay the price (which at the moment is undecided) - no ads, no advertising, no google analytics. If you select something that's a premium feature, you'll be notified it's a paid feature, and ask if you want to continue. If you DO continue, it'll be the standard Play Store checkout. If you don't want to continue, you'll return to the app, setting or option unchanged. Future paid features, I'm also undecided on. Likely, they will automatically be included if you've purchased. I'm thinking of some features may be an additional purchase (like logging a recovery to NGS directly..) but that's a long ways off right now.

You, uh, can't. Not yet. That's a feature added to the v2 beta, which he's testing at the moment. The new version is planned to offer a couple paid features (basic usage of the app, like v1, is free). The paid features will be the USGS Map Overlay (net connection required), and offline files (for viewing sheets/maps without a network connection). v2 development is on a temporary hold at the moment, as I need to add some web services to my website to handle the purchase information. I'm aiming for a release in January.

What Enmark said. Scaled stations can have coordinates that are off from the actual mark location, depending on how accurate and precise the scaling was done. The app only uses coordinates from NGS, so if they're location is off by 100 feet, so will the mark on the map be off. This is where reading the datasheet and description help.

Question for you history buffs.. While driving across the Midwest, at one point I noticed a handful of stations off the main highway. Examples - NO0098 and NO0104 They connect a line (mainly) between a point SW of Valentine, NE and Thedford, NE (through an old place (old town that really isn't anymore) called Brownlee, NE). This 'road' no longer exists - in fact, in most of the area, you can't even see the old roadbed - the main route now is US83, to the east of about 2 miles or more. What's interesting (to me, anyways), is the lack of any visible evidence of a road. However, the descriptions clearly name a road: NO0106'ABOUT 3.9 MILES NORTH ALONG THE SIMEON ROAD FROM THE COUNTY NO0106'COURTHOUSE AT THEDFORD, THOMAS COUNTY, AT THE NORTH SLOPE OF A for one near Thedford, NE, and NO0099'ABOUT 4.8 MILES SOUTH ALONG THE THEDFORD ROAD FROM THE POST OFFICE NO0099'AT BROWNLEE, 15 FEET WEST OF THE CENTER OF AN AUTOMOBILE GATE, Interestingly, I can't find any other reference to this road. Searching for 'Simeon Road' produces hits from GC here, but that's about it. Simeon, NE produces a location, probably an old town as well, north of Brownlee, where a couple traverse lines meet. Anyone have any resources to look up this old road? --Me.

Yeah, DaveD used to do this (still does? Not sure?) - go through recovery logs on GC and update locations on the datasheets. (Same with photographs..)

All, DO5552 may have been monumented in 1991, but I don't think that MNDOT submitted it to NGS until their 2012 recovery. The GSAK file that I built for Minnesota in I think the spring of 2011 does not have any DOXXXX PID's. kayakbird KB hit it on the head. It was in the database, but marked as non-publishable, because of the reason "No description available" on the mark. Once the MNDOT submitted their recovery, the station got updated and became publishable.

NGS site - since GC's database is over ten years old now, I didn't see a need to tie into it. (You can be taken TO the GC page when viewing a marker, though..) No estimated release at the moment, though if I were to guess, I'd say sometime this winter. (I know, bad timing, but..)

It's very close to the $GPRMC format, which is simply DDMM.MMM - Decimal minutes, with two (or three for lon) decimal digits posted to the front. Not sure why one would need three digits for the minutes, though..?

Hey - Yup, in the new version (currently in beta), it'll show the 'last known status' of the station on the maps. (Specified by color of the marker..)

Oh yeah, sometimes those are the best. I once found a station outside of an army base that the army itself couldn't find.

Isn't this the wrong forum??

Try my NGS-GPX. Has more features (and it is slightly outdated), but mainly, it will copy the datasheet into the long_description and the recoveries into the short_description fields of the GPX, so as long as your GPSr will read those fields, you're set - http://ngs.tsqmadness.com/help/index.html --Me.

It's a new product by Goodyear, I just bought 7! Hah! It's called 'bad typing'.

Wow. Another one. If it IS actually the 'crest', I guess it could only be used from lower elevation stations then, for lining up..

I think I found a new favorite for the 'most helpful datasheet'.. RD2143 DESIGNATION - MULTNOMAH FALLS CREST RD2143 PID - RD2143 [...] RD2143_U.S. NATIONAL GRID SPATIAL ADDRESS: 10TER6903747307(NAD 83) RD2143 RD2143 RD2143 HISTORY - Date Condition Report By RD2143 HISTORY - 1938 MONUMENTED CGS RD2143 HISTORY - 1946 GOOD CGS RD2143 HISTORY - 19940221 GOOD USPSQD RD2143 RD2143 STATION DESCRIPTION RD2143 RD2143'DESCRIBED BY COAST AND GEODETIC SURVEY 1946 (EHB) RD2143'A NATURAL OBJECT. RD2143 RD2143 STATION RECOVERY (1994) RD2143 RD2143'RECOVERY NOTE BY US POWER SQUADRON 1994 RD2143'RECOVERED IN GOOD CONDITION. ..Yup. Helpful.

... Except Intersection stations! Don't submit anything for an intersection station. (Unless it's destroyed? Was that still a caveat?)

To clarify - The USPSQD is still an individual. That's like our repors - an individual submits it to NGS under the 'Geocaching' group name. There may be more than one person that recovered it (same with Geocaching reports), but only one person makes the report. There's no difference between the Power Squadron and us.. ('cept we usually have better and more accurate reports..)

I'm sure others here know better than I, as I've never really gotten into these. But from what I remember, that came from Township 12 (T12), Range 21 (R21), and was on the line between sections 29 and 30. I'm NOT sure what the 1/4 is, though.. But you already knew this, since you found it on a map. I don't think you'll get much more of abetter location than that..

An odd question, but something I've noticed in the datasheets recently. Take for example this sheet (trimmed): JV7206 DESIGNATION - DAVIS JV7206 PID - JV7206 JV7206 STATE/COUNTY- MD/WASHINGTON JV7206 COUNTRY - US JV7206 USGS QUAD - HARPERS FERRY (1988) JV7206 JV7206 *CURRENT SURVEY CONTROL JV7206 ______________________________________________________________________ JV7206* NAD 83(2011) POSITION- 39 22 03.40338(N) 077 40 15.60611(W) ADJUSTED JV7206* NAD 83(2011) ELLIP HT- 136.923 (meters) (06/27/12) ADJUSTED JV7206* NAD 83(2011) EPOCH - 2010.00 JV7206* NAVD 88 ORTHO HEIGHT - 170.3 (meters) 559. (feet) GPS OBS JV7206 ______________________________________________________________________ JV7206 NAVD 88 orthometric height was determined with geoid model GEOID93 JV7206 GEOID HEIGHT - -33.65 (meters) GEOID93 JV7206 GEOID HEIGHT - -33.32 (meters) GEOID12A JV7206 NAD 83(2011) X - 1,054,310.552 (meters) COMP JV7206 NAD 83(2011) Y - -4,823,773.992 (meters) COMP JV7206 NAD 83(2011) Z - 4,024,038.078 (meters) COMP JV7206 LAPLACE CORR - 7.17 (seconds) DEFLEC12A JV7206 JV7206 FGDC Geospatial Positioning Accuracy Standards (95% confidence, cm) JV7206 Type Horiz Ellip Dist(km) JV7206 ------------------------------------------------------------------- JV7206 NETWORK 1.48 1.84 JV7206 ------------------------------------------------------------------- JV7206 MEDIAN LOCAL ACCURACY AND DIST (006 points) 1.48 1.69 6.83 JV7206 ------------------------------------------------------------------- Note that under the Current Survey Control area, there's no mention of a Horizontal Order or a Vertical Order. Does this mean that this station has no order for both those? Seems a little strange considering there's a Network Accuracy section. Could someone tell me if my assumption's correct, or am I missing something? Cheers - Me.

You wouldn't be able to anyways. It's all digital now, and that TV's too old to decode a signal.