Spoo

I think I already referenced this one: OC2669 I find it intriguing in that over its 147 year life, no one seems to agree with where it actually is. This spot or that....this peak or that.....for every letter of reference listed, there is one that contradicts it. I covered all the bases and photographed ALL the locations. Hopefully, my FOUND IT claim is valid.

evanfall: You bring up yet another good point. My reading (as written by Historians, NOT surveyors) shows that the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans stand at different heights. A quick review of my books lists the following differences: At the Panama Canal: 1 foot difference At the coasts of California and New York: 6 foot of difference At Tierra Del Fuego: 10 foot of difference Where and when IS Sea Lavel?

RK and holo: Thank you both. Yes, I now see the datum difference, and I myself had realized the elevation difference was small. 5.388 inches if my math is correct. I guess I was interested in why someone in a different time that had NOT visited the spot would list a different elevation then someone who had carefully measured it to 3 decimals places in their time. I assume that the different datums will therefore give that much difference? (LOL........datum = sea level at a certain time of day and temperature and pressure and location and .......???????)

This week, I recovered PF0290 . Monumented in 1933, It was stamped with an elevation of 1465.279 Feet. It WAS found in 1936. It was NOT FOUND in 1975 By the Maine Department of Transportation but I managed to located it. The current NGS data sheet shows that during NAVD 88, its elevation was listed at 1464.83 feet. How does this occur? It is my first finding of a data sheet being revised in terms of its position. Could NAVD 88 be more accurate than the original 1933 survey?

holograph: Thank you again for keeping this tracked and updated and for posting it for us.

First off......everybody here has a valid and absolutely correct point. I do not mean to offend anyone here that has given valid points and I thank you all for your input. Here are my points: 1) I live in the middle of no where. My finds are in the middle of no where. Those of us around these parts hiding cahces are trying to show everyone else areas and things they have never seen and would not see if they weren't caching. Read my Cache intros......you will see what I mean. Anyone out to grab 5 or 10 or 20 caches is NOT looking at the sites we are trying to offer......certainly not when it takes a half a day to hike in and find them! You are only looking for the 'numbers'. If that is so.....then ok....so be it. 2) My Caches are VERY well concieved waterproof containers. Again, look at my cache intros to see what I mean. 3) I have had two cache logs mention mugglers, so maybe that is a point........but two are clearly not on the beaten path. There is NO excuse for not re-sealing baggies and containers. 4) It is easy to read the logs. If someone is not signing them, then you are NOT following the rules of the game and do not deserve to be claiming finds. People that say things like "Traded some loot" are not being honest about what was taken and what was left. Do not tell me you can not remember your 20 trades today.....carry pencil and paper and write it down at the time. This game is for all. If you choose not to re-seal items, you only hurt the next cahcer that comes around.....and if THEY did not reseal properly, they are only hurting your game. At any rate, I hope to meet each and every one of you on the trail! Excelsior !

All of you responding above are correct. I am just mad. (upset...well, ok....maybe insane too) And I apologize to all that I have offended with my blanket statements. Although I again reiterate that probably anyone reading this is probably not the kind of culprit I am complaining about. I do, however, stand by my statement that you can narrow the cuplrit(s) down to one or two by looking at the logs.

This is not a new topic. It has been here before but I have to speak up again. I have four caches. All of a sudden, I start getting complaints.....and rightfully so. Two of the four are wet and two of the four have been moved. My containers are VERY weather tight and inside, everything is in zip-lock bags. I find the bags unzipped and the containers un-sealed. WHY can't people take the extra minute to reseal things properly. I have come across other owned caches with the same problem. SHAME on the folks that are out for the BIG count....5 or 10 or 20 caches in a day! Take two more minutes and reseal things. As for moving caches, I suspect people think their co-ordinates are more accurate, therefore the cache should go HERE. Those people that do that make it hard for owners to perform maintenance. And after all, it probably no longer fits the clue description. Now...guess what people? You can review the logs and SEE almost to the day who and when things went bad. WE owners know who you are ! OK....I'll get off my soap-box now. After all, people who are guilty of these offenses do not usually even read these forums.

Here is a Gaging Station with pic that I recovered last year: PF0786

Good perserverence folks! I am glad it paid off for you.

Three more for you: OC1255 Maine Department of Transportation OC2809 New Hampshire Department of Transportation PF0222 Maine-New Hampshire Border Commission

On many of the mountain top locations around here, reference is often given to "a Triangle Blazed tree". I have never seen one and suspect that I would not. I assume that we are talking about an actually triangle mark hatcheted into the tree as opposed to spray paint. As such, I have to assume that after 30 years (or more) the hatcheted mark would now be overgrown with new bark. If it is paint, then it too will be long gone. Any insights for me?

"People willing to give up freedom for a little safety, deserve neither freedom nor safety." --Ben Franklin.

Good idea, TerraVador, I'll do that. And you are correct. Prior to my listing this under OC2669, there was the non-publishable statement that you have listed below. I believe it did list a 'D' as the reason why but I cannot be sure. Maybe it was an 'O' ?

evenfall: You know what? I give up. You are right. This is the "evenfall forum". You have chosen to decide that you are right and we are wrong and that is that. I agree. I bow down to you O Holy God. I am just sorry I have prepaid a two year subscription to this site.

I am going to irratate someone here no matter what I say. So be it, I'll just dive right in. I agree with you, John, that this forum is for us hobbiests.(Sp) When I have a question of depth, such as my question of 1st, 2nd and 3rd orders, I post them on the NGS forum. Here, I come to 'crow' and see what others have accomplished. When anyone out there finds an old mark, a mark not seen in many years or a strange mystery, it is a feather in our collective caps. I love reading about the exploits of everyone here. And I have had my turn at crowing. It is one of the reasons I come here. Who else but YOU folks would understand my elation at finding a chiseled mark from 1876 that has never been reported since that date and was even declared destroyed in 1934? Does anyone here actually think that when I recovered a Brass pin from 1853 on a mountain top that I sat and wondered if this was a Bench Mark or a Benchmark? OK, I am probably guilty of mutilating the correct survey language here, but if I wanted to be a real surveyor, I would go to school for it. If NGS does not like my reports, they do not have to use them. Does my usage of the word BENCHMARK vs Bench Mark detract from the fact that I found the dog-gone thing? Especially when it is RIGHT THERE and the USPSQD says it wasn't? I am having fun looking for MARKS. Not Benchmarks or Bench Marks or orders of marks. There are times when I throw out a question or 'crow'. I use this forum. When I have a question of serious magnitude or technical need, I use the NGS forum. According to evenfall, anyone here that is NOT a surveyor should not be answering any questions. I apologize to all I have given mis-information to in answering their questions. I suggest that anyone that thinks I am an idiot, should just not bother with reading my posts. EDITED for content and spelling.

I, for one, am not a surveyor. Nor will I ever be one. I did not realize that this forum was only for professional surveyors. I did not realize that I am expected to post on here ONLY in formal, correct terms. I truly thought this was a place to come and ask questions and have fun. I am an Electrical Engineer (Field Grade), for the last 30 years, and find that every day, in every way I can learn about my profession from someone else if I just listen. I find that it is no fun to be the "EXPERT". I prefer the 'learning curve'. If we are all expected to be experts on this site, then it is not the place for me. I thought we all had something to contribute. For me, this has been just a fun hobby. It has aspects of history, math, geology, geography and just plain getting out in the world. Being able to report to NGS has been a real bonus. I also thought that this forum was monitored by the powers behind GC.com......that we as individuals could 'weave' a thread but not dictate the forum. What say we all stand back and take a deep breath. (Kind of the way I do on a mountain hike). Maybe we'll all feel better in the morning. EDIT NOTE TO eswierk: I am sorry we muddied your simple question. We are not normally like this. Please do not run away in terror!

In an eariler thread of recent date, I noted that I would go look for OC2669. I did. At that time, a minor USGS disk is noted as OC2686. It was listed as not being on either the NGS or GC lists but was simply listed as part of the total equation. As of my mentioning it on OC2669 (complete with pic) and posting that designation with NGS, it is suddenly listed on the NGS site. Has anyone else found this type of situation? Did I find an old PID that can now be found?

ALRIGHT! Success! Besides 'finding' (lol) OC2687, I climbed the hill and recovered some of the marks mentioned in the description for OC2669 Read the text and see the pix. BDT: I also made some good progress on OC2681 Hopefully others will look for this quickly. As my report states, it is soon to be destroyed.

I thought some of you might like to check out this PID description: OC2669 It started out as a bolt in 1858. In 1933 it was reported that the rock here had been broken and the bolt gone. In 1935, it is thought that a hole now discovered was the original bolt location. In 1948, a series of carved marks and drilled holes are discovered. The hole found in 1935 now contains a USGS disk stamped 1940. In 1952, these carvings and holes are explored and more holes found, all are in relation to local PIDs that can be seen from their vantage point. In 1976, A Tri-station of three disks are installed, stamped 1851-1975 ??????? Throughout all of the descriptions are letters and eye witness reports about which of the three peaks one should even be looking at for the bolt. I have GOT to get up there. Edit note: fixed link

A few weeks ago, one of you here on these forums, (I'm Sorry! I can't remember who!!), (make sure whoever you are that you jump in here and take the credit due to you), led me to this site where you could get your own disk and mount it yourself: Mount your own disk I contacted them. They had made a limited run of 50 and were out. They told me if there was enough interest they would make another run and let me know. Check around on this site a bit....it includes mounting instructions. So come on everybody ! Contact them. Let them know we are interested ! Let's get another run manufactured.

BDT: The info you gave is insufficeient to obtain the arrow and place it. First off, clicking the A does not provide Font. When I did get to the font (and I am damned if I know how) it does not work as you outlined. The arrow is so dog-gone tiny, I might as well not bother with it. What am I doing wrong?

2oldfarts (the rockhounders), John: I just tried that and it works. Thank you. Now lets see if I can remember that ! If so, maybe I can help towards BDT's point. Exselsior! Onward and upward.

Bill93: Believe it or not there is NO WAY a tape could have been run through this forest. As I say, I was easily closer with my GPS'r even under the tree cover. Sometimes in these woods, I can't even get an adequite pace count. The leaves and other debris often bury this stuff 2-3 inches or more. A metal detector would be nice. I am often faced with hikes of 2-3 miles and 1000 feet or more in elevation climb (not this case here at PF1161) so is no way I am gonna carry one. As for pic resolution, you are correct. I am usually trying to download a 0.4 to 0.6 Meg resolution. I just cannot figure out how to reduce the resolution and still supply a good looking pic. My dial up speed is showing 24 Kb....but then reduces to 2-3 Kb on a good day during the download. Hey !I live in the sticks ! I am still using my computer in evenings by candle light.

BDT: You are not incorrect. I try to include some photo that shows something abut the site but do not always succeed. Some of us (like me), only have dial-up service. Every photo takes a minimum of 3.5 minutes to download IF I do not get kicked off. That means a simple Tri-station, with text, is 15 minutes of on-line time if everything goes well. Quite often, my download time is 6 mins per photo. Also, unless the co-ordinates are drastically off, I figure: "If I could find it, anyone can." If the co-ordinates are off, I publish this fact. Then there is this: today, with the land owners help and permission, I tracked down PF1161. This tri-station was on the top of a hill covered in boulders and trees. There is NO-WAY I could ever have taken enough pix to show you where it was. Even though the co-ordinates were within 5 feet of the monument, we simply could not find the thing in all the undercover. When we did find it, I could not believe it was there. I must have crawled over that position 2 or 3 times. Edit note: I forgot to say.....there are also us idiots that DO NOT know how to add an arrow to our photos ! lol