Jump to content

mloser

Members
  • Posts

    1267
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by mloser

  1. mloser

    10 And 100

    And I spent 6 hours looking for 12 marks, with the end result of 2 finds and 10 DNFs. My WORST yet! And one DNF was from 1993. See my post on that topic if you are interested.
  2. I spent about 6 hours hunting today and ended up with 2 finds out of 12, my worst yet. What prompted this post however was the horrid description of AB6517, which was set in 1993. Not ONE of the poles had the number as described! NOT ONE! Most were close, but of course that doesn't quite count, does it? In the end, I think the mark was under new macadam, but this sparked a memory of another frustrating hunt, for AB6475, where none of the measurements tied at all. I spent an hour poking in a soccer field (one I had visited for my daughter's soccer many times--I was hoping I would find that mark!), but despite repeated measurements I struck out. I remembered both marks being set in 1993 so I looked at the descriptions. Sure enough, both are the same agency, ADR Geodetic Services, and both were described by "AK". I see a pattern here. Both seem to have been set in locations destined to be disturbed too. What a shame that I can usually find the older marks in my area but these new ones, which would seem to be easy home runs, are dismal, frustrating failures!
  3. One more thing--benchmarks are typically set in posts that are about 3 feet in length. To dig one out would require more than just disturbing the surface, which is what appears happened in your pic. The perp would have had to dig 2 to 3 feet down to get the entire monument out of the ground, unless the top of the concrete monument was knocked off. Is there evidence of the monument in the hole at all? Also, is the hole the correct distance from the old witness post, as described ? In the more distant pic it looks like the ground has been disturbed for quite an area around the marker, so it is possible someone took the time and effort to actually remove the entire monument. All I am asking is if you are sure that the disk is totally gone. Matt
  4. I know this came up before, but my cool names are OYES and ONO. ONO is at a small town of the same name, and OYES is a few miles down the road and may be based on the name of a restaurant in Ono named the O' Yes Hotel. I also found Pepsi 2 but have no idea why it is named that. I don't think there is a Pepsi bottling plant nearby and the mark was at a motel.
  5. I guess you gotta go with the first observed date.
  6. DID IT! I just got back from a day of benchmarking and helped reach the number, posting 14 finds.
  7. I would love to know more about the Carlisle one! I searched Zhanna's site and looked for all my local ones in USAPhotoMaps, but didn't see any real evidence that any remained. I would love to see one in person! Matt
  8. I am thinking DC1190 might be gone. From looking at a Topozone map and reading the description, I think it would be located somewhere in the area of the Interstate 5 overpass or ramps. The road described is the one that goes under I-5 and has been shifted to the northeast to accomodate the overpass so it would be impossible to use it to measure. I suspect the only valid measurements would be from the railroad tracks--258 1/2 feet southwest of the tracks and 326 1/2 feet southwest of a pole across the tracks (don't get run over!). Is there a fence or house in the area? I suspect they were removed when I-5 was built. This would be a pretty cool find. Even though it was first described in 1955, the fact that it is a granite post with carved letters hints that it is much older, maybe even turn of the century. Artman is right about the culvert. It might be somewhat covered by ballast. You should find tiny stream or dry runoff bed under the tracks. Since the top of the culvert is 4 feet below track level the roadbed should slope pretty sharply down at this point. The culvert is numbered (A251) as are all railroad bridges and tunnels, but the number may be hard to see. It is often painted on the structure and has weathered away. Another clue is that the culvert is 3 1/2 poles southeast of milepost 251 (the culvert number IS related to the mile marker, by the way). If you can find the milepost, which means the railroad hasn't changed their measurement criteria, you can walk 3 1/2 telegraph/telephone poles down the track and the culvert should be near. The numbers 251 should be marked very obviously trackside in reflective letters set on a post. Has Caltrans done a lot of work on these tracks to make them ready for commuter service, especially adding tracks? If so, this culvert may be gone. Artman is also correct about DC1193. From looking at the map I think the bridge is not large and is across a feeder for a stream that is north of the tracks. I am a bit confused about the description because it says it is on the headwall but is 27 feet lower than the track. If the elevation is correct you would be way below track level. The description says the distance from the south rail is 58.3 feet "sloping measurement" which means the measurement was taken down the slope from the rail and is not a true horizontal measurement. This corroborates the "27 feet lower" part of the description, so I would start looking there. Take the descriptions with you--they are the key to locating the marks, as well as a 100' tape, a compass, a shovel, and something to push aside brush and weeds. Never rely only on your GPSr if the measurements are scaled, and research first if you can. Links from the pages here will show you various maps that might provide visual clues to the marks. Also, try USAPhotoMaps (USAPhotoMaps) to help your research. And watch for Caltrans police! Railroad police are often very aggressive in picking up trespassers, and they have FULL rights to arrest and fine. They are NOT security forces but actual recognized police departments. Good Luck! Matt
  9. Hey, you missed me! Guess my comments were pretty innocuous! LOL Matt
  10. And a lot of the fun too! It is so great to find something that was put in place so long ago. It felt so good finding the 1885 mark I located near me, and the joy was even better because it was unlogged since it was set! Matt
  11. Spoo, That is what makes looking for "original" 1800s era markers difficult. From other posts on this forum I get the impression that actual marker disks date only from approximately 1900, with a few earlier ones in the west. Prior to that it was stone markers, chiseled squares, rivets, bolts, etc. Many of these original markers were replaced in the first half of this century with disks, which I am guessing are easier to find and confirm as the appropriate mark. Your find is even stranger than most because something original or near original still remains--the copper bolt. The description doesn't read very clearly however, so I am unsure if that bolt is from 1853 or was set at a later date. There is mention of a "loose" bolt also, which was supposedly left in place, as the description talks about both of them as if they existed simulaneously, not like the loose one was replaced with a better fitting one. I don't think there is enough information to locate the loose bolt though, but it would probably be near the station. Matt
  12. Spoo, I hate to be the bearer of bad news but RM1 isn't an 1853 disk... the 1958 recovery states "REFERENCE MARK NO. 1, REFERENCE MARK NO. 2 AND AN AZIMUTH MARK WERE ESTABLISHED." That disk was set in 1958. Matt
  13. I just posted a big rambling reply and accidentally deleted it. Let me give my QUICK 2 centavos though. YES, there are standards here. They are self-imposed by a core group that posts regularly and is very very serious about what we do. Some are retired surveyors and engineers, some are just hobbyists. Are we right all the time? Nope! We are all human, and we all learn as we go along. Reading this thread made me think back to my recovery of KW3128 and my claim of "found", which I have just changed to "not found", because it is NOT the tower originally described. If you bother to go to the post you will find that I KNEW it wasn't the original tower, but didn't know enough to say it was destroyed or not found at the time. Will I be more careful from now on? YES! I am not sure I will climb every mountain to recover towers but I will think about the possibilities of it being a new tower before I log. Can we prevent bad posts? I doubt it. There are no tests to post here--just pay your $30 and off you go. Do we, on the whole, do better than the US Power Squadron? A "Not Found" post by USPSQD (on the NGS recovery, no less) is an invitation to go find the mark, usually with little effort. See KW1319 for a quick example. So FtMgAl, you brought out all the regular posters here, but let's just try to get along. You are preaching to the converted--everyone who read your post is among the most dedicated benchmarkers in the country. Those who, to put it bluntly, suck at this, are over in the geocaching side of this site and will never read your post. We take offense (could you tell? ), but in my case I understand your concern and your points are well taken. Thank goodness it really isn't as bad as your post indicates. Oh yeah, we DO police our own ranks, as much as we can. Generally, when we find an error, we correct it on the site with our own description, and often notify the poster. There is one long thread here about that if you want to search for it. The consensus, if I recall correctly, is that we won't bother correcting a casual benchmarker, but will just post our own recovery (they probably won't care anyway), but a serious benchmarker will get a polite email describing why we thought their post was in error). Matt
  14. Leps, Don't be afraid. The vast majority of your benchmarks will be posted as either found or not found, with very few in question (in your mind at least). Posting pictures, even of the not found ones (I admit I don't do this often) helps others who are looking at your log determine if they want to go looking or not. I personally look for every mark I am near, whether it was not found by a Geocache member or not. The consensus of opinion here is that if we spot an error we either just post our own opinion in our log, or contact the poster we feel is in error, nicely, and tell them why we think we think. Bear in mind that posting on this site means NOTHING to the people who actually USE benchmarks--surveyors do NOT look here, just at the NGS site for their information (although Evenfall might be a current exception). I urge you to consider posting at the NGS site also, because your posts might be helpful to a surveyor (see Evenfall's great post about how benchmarks are used). But posting a recovery on the NGS site should not be done lightly--your recovery will help someone decide whether the benchmark is worth looking for and/or using. Matt
  15. Here is the website of a company that sells BFO kits. They also have a wand style detector for $100. XTronics I am tempted to buy one of the smallers kits just to see what they are like. Note that I found these same kits cheaper on another website that I didn't bother to save, so if you are interested you might want to look around a bit. Also available are numerous plans for detectors. Personally, I think I am going to get a middle of the road one in the next few days. I am looking at the White Prizm models. Matt
  16. I have seen a couple of BFO (an older type of detector, now nearly extinct) on the web as kits. There are also build-yourself instructions for BFO detectors so you can control the size. Another option would be a security wand. I tested a Garrett Super Scanner with a benchmark and it detected it from approximately 6 inches, although that was with no obstruction. Most metal detector companies offere a security wand style scanner, although you will feel like airport security walking around with one. Garrett's is at http://www.garrett.com/security/sec-pro-han.asp I will post a couple more links to BFO style dectectors, including one I found for $19.95, later. Matt
  17. Artman, Odd that you should mention Rt 15, because I looked for a mark in the Harrisburg area along a realigned Rt 15 (and failed to find it). There had not been a recovery since the realignment however so I was the first to "not find" the mark--by my calculations it would (and could still be) on the shoulder of the NEW Rt 15. Matt P.S. county and state roads in PA are sometimes marked with their number on mile-marker style signs along the side of the road, so it isn't impossible to find the road, just sometimes a bit harder than I think it should be.
  18. Evenfall, I second what Colorado Papa said--thanks for the insight into how benchmarks are used and what information if of value. I always wondered why some of the older descriptions don't mention addresses, or even road names--I know road names change sometimes but it happens so rarely that the name would certainly be more helpful than "County Rd 41003", which from my standpoint has never appeared on a sign of any sort. I have submitted addresses when they exist, as well as road names, and have also submitted descriptions of why a mark is not found. This gives anyone following me more information about why I couldn't find it and lets them decide if they want to pursue the mark. What I need to start doing is getting the coords and adding them to the submission. I only recently got a GPSr so I can do that now. Matt
  19. Heck, for 50 bucks I will get you the actual disk! Just kidding! And don't anyone actually even THINK of doing that!
  20. My favorite is OYES, a mark near the Pennsylvania town of Ono, and possibly named after the now defunct O Yes hotel and restaurant, or perhaps predating it and an attempt at humor by the crew. There is (actually, was--I am almost sure it is destroyed) an ONO station already established, oddly enough, very close to the location of the O' Yes Restaurant. I wonder if the crew ate there when setting the line of marks that extend along this highway in 1942 and used it as the name for the next station along the line, having a good laugh, or how they came to name it that. Codorus was named after a nearby, but not REAL nearby creek, Lincoln most likely after nearby US Route 30, which was the Lincoln Highway, and Box after the York Corrugated Box factory where it was located. Matt
  21. BilboB, Try looking for the two reference marks too. Looking at those two stations I see a disparity of opinion about whether the reference mark is there or not (and to be honest, it drives me nuts that people find a triangulation disk and not the reference marks! ) There are two reference marks there, RM3 and what is called RM4 but is actually an USGS disk that is aluminum. Your best way to find them would be to measure the distance and direction indication on the sheet for the main triangulation station. Then you can be sure if they are there or not. Matt
  22. Did you by any chance look for the boundary stone 6 feet away? I wonder what that looked like?
  23. The one CORS station i found looked like an antenna--about 1 inch around, 2 feet tall and white.
  24. Mattina Family, It may NOT be a coincidence that the disk and your name are the same. Do you have a family history in the area the disk may well be named after your family or had been set on their property. I have recovered Bower on the Bower property and at least three others like that. So it is quite possible the mark is somehow "yours". Matt
  25. John, How did you EVER find that one? Amazing skills in searching! Also, I looked at JeremyA's find and thought it was a reset mark, so I emailed him and he finally saw my point--the mark is described as being in concrete but is in a stone wall. I suspect it may have been reset but not redescribed. He will be submitting to Deb to see if she agrees that it is destroyed. So this thread has been valuable and not just pretty! Matt
×
×
  • Create New...