holograph

You can also download current datasheet archives at the Benchmark statistics website, on the data download page. As a side effect of gathering the statistics, all the datasheets are gathered and kept up to date.

The simple rule is that a month's statistics includes all the datasheet updates that were published in that month, regardless of the date of the actual recovery. However, in the spirit of benchmark hunting, nothing is simple. The complicated reality follows: As others have said, when you submit a recovery report, the datasheet is not immediately updated and published, it is queued and eventually updated after being handled internally at the NGS. When the datasheet is updated, it is internally marked with the "load date" on which the modified datasheet was published (as opposed to the date of the recovery report). Usually I go to the NGS website and use the "find datasheets by load date" to pull all the datasheets that have been updated in the last calendar month, for instance December 1, 2008 to December 31, 2008. That's what I would call the "December statistics". For the past few months, it seemed like most of the recoveries for a month tended to be published about the first week of the following month, so frequently it's been necessary to do a second run to find them. This time around, I waited until January 8 to download not only December's updates, but also any updates for January 1 to January 8. Unfortunately, this time there weren't any GEOCAC recoveries in the January updates, so we're left with the few that were added in December. To complicate things further, on December 6th I had done one of those catchup runs to collect the thousand or so updates that had been backlogged and finally published in early December, so the "November statistics" actually included the first week of December as well as backlogged reports going back to late August. That meant that this month's "December statistics" only contained 159 new reports that were published since December 6. In fact, the latest recovery report in those statistics was for a December 18th recovery of KV0539. It is likely that next month, at the beginning of February, when I collect all the datasheets that were published in January, more recovery reports submitted in December will be included. Any reports for recoveries in 2008 will be added to the statistics page under the 2008 column, since the statistics page summarizes by the actual recovery date, not the NGS publication date.

An orthorectified aerial image has had several adjustments: 1) the image plane has been adjusted for tilt and camera characteristics, 2) the elevation of each pixel has been determined from a DEM or some other source of elevation data and projected to a level vertical datum, and 3) the adjusted pixels are then projected to a plane using some map projection. When you look at an aerial image such as Google Earth, Virtual Earth, or Terraserver, those have all been orthorectified. If you incautiously take some tall landmark such as a water tower, building dome, or radio antenna, you will find that the top of that landmark in the image is NOT georegistered correctly, since invariably the image was taken from a camera located somewhere to the side of the object, and while the various processing steps have resulted in correct georegistration of ground level objects, but objects that have significant height above ground are not correctly georegistered. A number of states (my own New Jersey, and neighboring New York, as examples) have provided excellent 1-foot resolution images in the local state plane coordinate system as downloadable files. Often those same images have been used for Google Earth or Microsoft Virtual Earth, who reprojected them to UTM or some other projection. Terraserver uses the images from the USGS. edit:typos

I've also found that USGS quads are often still in NAD27 datum, and even after correcting from the datum, the map can still be shifted by tens of feet. One way to check is to find some NGS horizontal control points (preferably ones that have GPS adjusted coordinates) and find the USGS quad that has the corresponding points marked on the map. Check the coordinates taken from your favorite map tool with the coordinates as published on the datasheet. Another way is to look at the map, find a recognizable landmark like the exact center of a road intersection, and compare the coordinates from the map with coordinates taken from one of the aerial image programs like Google Earth or Microsoft Virtual Earth. The "satellite images" (usually actually orthographic aerial photos) are usually pretty accurate. The USGS map is often quite a bit less accurate.

The December statistics are available on the statistics page. The maps have also been updated, as well as the county listing. Although only 159 new recoveries have been added, we need to remember that the previous statistics included the first week of December. So far, no new recoveries have been updated in January, so these numbers will stand until the statistics are run again at the beginning of February.

There are a LOT of marks that are in the wrong county. Some time ago, I created a list of all the marks whose coordinates place them outside their designated counties by a fair margin - 1 km, or more than could be explained by scaled coordinates. I believe Deb at the NGS will accept corrections if you explain how you know the county is wrong. See this ancient thread.

If anyone is interested, here is a list of counties that are within reach of being completed, where "within reach" is defined as needing 20 or less reports: 0 of 10 marks reported in GA Clay 0 of 7 marks reported in GA Lanier 0 of 12 marks reported in GA Pulaski 0 of 10 marks reported in GA Quitman 0 of 8 marks reported in HI Kalawao 0 of 9 marks reported in IL Calhoun 0 of 19 marks reported in IL Hardin 9 of 20 marks reported in IL Putnam 0 of 15 marks reported in IL Schuyler 0 of 12 marks reported in IN Brown 13 of 33 marks reported in IN Monroe 1 of 17 marks reported in IN Ohio 12 of 31 marks reported in IA Cedar 0 of 16 marks reported in IA Van Buren 5 of 25 marks reported in IA Worth 11 of 27 marks reported in KS Doniphan 0 of 20 marks reported in KY Anderson 0 of 16 marks reported in KY Bracken 0 of 16 marks reported in KY Bullitt 0 of 19 marks reported in KY Garrard 0 of 15 marks reported in KY McLean 0 of 11 marks reported in KY Menifee 0 of 20 marks reported in KY Owen 0 of 3 marks reported in KY Robertson 0 of 17 marks reported in KY Spencer 14 of 25 marks reported in MO Caldwell 27 of 46 marks reported in MO Clinton 12 of 21 marks reported in MO DeKalb 1 of 21 marks reported in MO Lewis 2 of 21 marks reported in MO Lincoln 0 of 19 marks reported in MO Mercer 47 of 66 marks reported in MO Platte 0 of 10 marks reported in MO Putnam 3 of 16 marks reported in MO Worth 1 of 21 marks reported in NM Los Alamos 24 of 32 marks reported in OH Carroll 109 of 128 marks reported in OH Columbiana 9 of 29 marks reported in OH Jefferson 0 of 20 marks reported in OK Washington 0 of 19 marks reported in SD Douglas 0 of 20 marks reported in TN Cannon 0 of 11 marks reported in TN DeKalb 0 of 5 marks reported in TN Hancock 0 of 4 marks reported in TN Moore 0 of 12 marks reported in TN Sequatchie 0 of 14 marks reported in TN Van Buren 0 of 13 marks reported in TX Crane 0 of 16 marks reported in TX Delta 0 of 16 marks reported in TX Loving 0 of 11 marks reported in VA Floyd 8 of 20 marks reported in VA C of Bedford 0 of 3 marks reported in VA C of Bristol 0 of 4 marks reported in VA C of Buena Vista 6 of 18 marks reported in VA C of Charlottesville 0 of 7 marks reported in VA C of Clifton Forge 0 of 1 marks reported in VA C of Colonial Heights 0 of 6 marks reported in VA C of Covington 0 of 2 marks reported in VA C of Emporia 12 of 21 marks reported in VA C of Falls Church 0 of 1 marks reported in VA C of Franklin 9 of 15 marks reported in VA C of Fredericksburg 3 of 3 marks reported in VA C of Galax 10 of 15 marks reported in VA C of Harrisonburg 0 of 7 marks reported in VA C of Hopewell 0 of 2 marks reported in VA C of Lexington 3 of 10 marks reported in VA C of Manassas 1 of 1 marks reported in VA C of Manassas Park 0 of 4 marks reported in VA C of Martinsville 0 of 1 marks reported in VA C of Norton 0 of 5 marks reported in VA C of Petersburg 0 of 1 marks reported in VA C of Radford 0 of 16 marks reported in VA C of Roanoke 0 of 7 marks reported in VA C of Salem 1 of 15 marks reported in VA C of Staunton 1 of 8 marks reported in VA C of C of Waynesboro 0 of 7 marks reported in VA Williamsburg 2 of 9 marks reported in VA C of Winchester 7 of 26 marks reported in WV Gilmer 21 of 28 marks reported in WV Hancock 3 of 19 marks reported in WI Florence 4 of 4 marks reported in WI Menominee 0 of 19 marks reported in WI Pepin

My records show these as of Dec 6: (3 stations) City of Galax, Virginia (1 station) City of Manassas Park, Virginia (4 stations) Menominee county, Wisconsin It looks like there are 32 stations in Carroll County, and the following PIDs still remain to be logged under GEOCAC, or perhaps the logs just haven't shown up yet: DG7176 HZ2152 HZ2171 HZ2267 HZ2268 HZ2319 HZ2343 HZ2346

I pulled the December updates, and we now have 1,028 new recovery reports. I've updated the statistics page, the maps, and the county totals.

In my opinion, we shouldn't be referencing geocaching.com in recovery reports. First, the recovery reports might be around a long time, longer than geocaching.com will be around, so the remark may not be useful for very long. Second, geocaching.com may not always be a free service, so it may not always be accessible to the public. Third, geocaching.com may not always have a benchmarking community -- they seem to only reluctantly support benchmarking now. Finally, the NGS already has a capability to store photos (even though it is inconsistent, only partly supported, and rather difficult to submit to). The internet is such a rapidly evolving place that I would hesitate to make references to it in any document that is expected to be useful for a significant length of time.

Done. TheBeanTeam now gets credit for all recoveries by initials AS for benchmarks in Lane county, Oregon. I now restrict one- and two-letter identities to counties, or sometimes states when it is clear that there is only one cacher submitting with those initials in that state.

There were no GEOCAC recovery reports added to NGS datasheets in November. The statistics page has been updated with the Geocaching.com statistics.

Often marks were set below plow depth when there was a risk of disturbance.

Possibly T.I.N.G. is Texas-Illinois Natural Gas Pipeline? The vertical white pipe in the background of the photo might indicate some kind of buried infrastructure between the road and the railroad. edit: I found a map of gas pipelines in Illinois, and plotted the location of the benchmark as the yellow dot.

The statistics page has been updated with the October reports. The county totals and the maps have also been updated. The most recent GEOCAC log report that was included in the updates was for Oct 15, so there is a small backlog at the moment, but it looks like the majority of the reports have cleared.

AZcachemeister. What's up with CZ2300? The Geocaching page indicates you recovered it in good condition, and you were credited with the recovery report in July, but if you look at the current datasheet, your report is not there and the mark is destroyed. Huh? July was the month that the NGS had some database problems, and it was the month that I couldn't download. The NGS webmaster did the extract for me and sent me a file of updates. It looks like at least one of the July datasheets got lost in the shuffle. Perhaps that may also explain some of the other losses. In July of this year, here is what the datasheet looked like: CZ2300 *********************************************************************** CZ2300 DESIGNATION - AD 47 CZ2300 PID - CZ2300 CZ2300 STATE/COUNTY- AZ/PINAL CZ2300 USGS QUAD - CHUICHU (1992) CZ2300 CZ2300 *CURRENT SURVEY CONTROL CZ2300 ___________________________________________________________________ CZ2300* NAD 83(1992)- 32 50 06.24886(N) 111 45 27.74947(W) ADJUSTED CZ2300* NAVD 88 - 432.14 (+/-2cm) 1417.8 (feet) VERTCON CZ2300 ___________________________________________________________________ CZ2300 LAPLACE CORR- 2.30 (seconds) DEFLEC99 CZ2300 GEOID HEIGHT- -30.18 (meters) GEOID03 CZ2300 HORZ ORDER - FIRST CZ2300 VERT ORDER - THIRD ? (See Below) CZ2300 CZ2300.The horizontal coordinates were established by classical geodetic methods CZ2300.and adjusted by the National Geodetic Survey in August 1993. CZ2300 CZ2300.The NAVD 88 height was computed by applying the VERTCON shift value to CZ2300.the NGVD 29 height (displayed under SUPERSEDED SURVEY CONTROL.) CZ2300.The vertical order pertains to the NGVD 29 superseded value. CZ2300 CZ2300.The Laplace correction was computed from DEFLEC99 derived deflections. CZ2300 CZ2300.The geoid height was determined by GEOID03. CZ2300 CZ2300; North East Units Scale Factor Converg. CZ2300;SPC AZ C - 203,473.237 228,241.278 MT 0.99990273 +0 05 10.3 CZ2300;SPC AZ C - 667,563.11 748,823.09 iFT 0.99990273 +0 05 10.3 CZ2300;UTM 12 - 3,633,257.192 429,085.800 MT 0.99966201 -0 24 39.1 CZ2300 CZ2300! - Elev Factor x Scale Factor = Combined Factor CZ2300!SPC AZ C - 0.99993689 x 0.99990273 = 0.99983963 CZ2300!UTM 12 - 0.99993689 x 0.99966201 = 0.99959893 CZ2300 CZ2300: Primary Azimuth Mark Grid Az CZ2300:SPC AZ C - AC 47 273 15 08.4 CZ2300:UTM 12 - AC 47 273 44 57.8 CZ2300 CZ2300|---------------------------------------------------------------------| CZ2300| PID Reference Object Distance Geod. Az | CZ2300| dddmmss.s | CZ2300| CZ2304 AC 47 APPROX. 1.5 KM 2732018.7 | CZ2300|---------------------------------------------------------------------| CZ2300 CZ2300 SUPERSEDED SURVEY CONTROL CZ2300 CZ2300 NAD 83(1986)- 32 50 06.24292(N) 111 45 27.75035(W) AD( ) 1 CZ2300 NAD 27 - 32 50 06.04116(N) 111 45 25.28498(W) AD( ) 1 CZ2300 NGVD 29 (07/19/86) 431.54 (m) 1415.8 (f) LEVELING 3 CZ2300 CZ2300.Superseded values are not recommended for survey control. CZ2300.NGS no longer adjusts projects to the NAD 27 or NGVD 29 datums. CZ2300.<a href="http://www.ngs.noaa.gov/cgi-bin/ds_lookup.prl?Item=HOW_SUP_DET">See file dsdata.txt </a>to determine how the superseded data were derived. CZ2300 CZ2300_U.S. NATIONAL GRID SPATIAL ADDRESS: 12SVB2908633257(NAD 83) CZ2300_MARKER: DD = SURVEY DISK CZ2300_SETTING: 7 = SET IN TOP OF CONCRETE MONUMENT CZ2300_SP_SET: SET IN TOP OF CONCRETE MONUMENT CZ2300_STAMPING: AD 47 1968 ARMY MAP SERVICE CZ2300_MARK LOGO: USACE CZ2300_PROJECTION: PROJECTING 8 CENTIMETERS CZ2300_MAGNETIC: N = NO MAGNETIC MATERIAL CZ2300_STABILITY: C = MAY HOLD, BUT OF TYPE COMMONLY SUBJECT TO CZ2300+STABILITY: SURFACE MOTION CZ2300_SATELLITE: THE SITE LOCATION WAS REPORTED AS SUITABLE FOR CZ2300+SATELLITE: SATELLITE OBSERVATIONS - April 07, 2007 CZ2300 CZ2300 HISTORY - Date Condition Report By CZ2300 HISTORY - 1967 MONUMENTED DMA CZ2300 HISTORY - 19980314 MARK NOT FOUND USPSQD CZ2300 HISTORY - 20060831 GOOD MHD CZ2300 HISTORY - 20070407 GOOD GEOCAC CZ2300 CZ2300 STATION DESCRIPTION CZ2300 CZ2300'DESCRIBED BY DEFENSE MAP AGENCY 1967 CZ2300'MONUMENT WASHED OUT BY FLOOD LATE 1967. TO BE RESET, 1968 CZ2300'AT--210 FT S. FROM SECTION CORNER AND 125 FT. W. FROM SECTION CZ2300'LINE. CZ2300' CZ2300'T-7-S. R-6-E. IN SECTION 7 NEAR THE NORTHEAST CORNER. CZ2300' CZ2300'THE STATION MARK IS A CORPS OF ENGINEERS, U.S. ARMY DISK CZ2300'CENTERED IN THE TOP OF A ROUND CONCRETE POST 8 INCHES IN DIAMETER CZ2300'PROJECTING 0.2 FOOT ABOVE THE SURFACE OF THE GROUND. THE MARK CZ2300'IS STAMPED--AD 47 1967 ARMY MAP SERVICE. CZ2300' CZ2300'THE STATION MARK IS LOCATED 211 FEET SOUTH OF THE CENTERLINE CZ2300'OF EAST-WEST CANAL DITCH. 158 FEET SOUTH OF THE CENTERLINE CZ2300'OF EAST-WEST CANAL ROAD. 100 FEET WEST OF THE CENTERLINE OF CZ2300'NORTH-SOUTH ROAD. 210 FEET SOUTH AND 125 FEET WEST FROM THE CZ2300'SECTION CORNER. CZ2300' CZ2300'TO REACH FROM THE JUNCTION OF STATE ROUTES 84 AND 93 IN CASA CZ2300'GRANDE, ARIZONA GO SOUTHEAST ON 84 AND 93 FOR 0.25 MILE TO CZ2300'A CROSSROAD (FLORENCE ST.). TURN RIGHT AND GO SOUTHWEST ON CZ2300'FLORENCE ST. FOR 0.4 MILE TO A CROSSROAD (CHUICHU ROAD). TURN CZ2300'LEFT AND GO SOUTH ON CHUICHU ROAD FOR 2.5 MILES TO THE CASA GRANDE CZ2300'CANAL AND THE STATION SITE. CZ2300 CZ2300 STATION RECOVERY (1998) CZ2300 CZ2300'RECOVERY NOTE BY US POWER SQUADRON 1998 CZ2300'MARK NOT FOUND. CZ2300 CZ2300 STATION RECOVERY (2006) CZ2300 CZ2300'RECOVERY NOTE BY MHD AND ASSOCIATES 2006 (MHD) CZ2300'RECOVERED IN GOOD CONDITION. A NEW DESCRIPTION FOLLOWS. CZ2300' CZ2300'THE MARK IS LOCATED ABOUT 12.3 MI (19.8 KM) EAST-SOUTHEAST OF CZ2300'STANFIELD, 5.9 MI (9.5 KM) NORTH-NORTHEAST OF CHUICHU AND 3.1 MI (4.9 CZ2300'KM) SOUTH OF CASA GRANDE ON PROPERTY OWNED BY THE CITY OF CASA GRANDE CZ2300'AT THE CASA GRANDE LANDFILL. CZ2300' CZ2300'TO REACH THE STATION FROM THE INTERSECTION OF STATE HIGHWAY 287 CZ2300'(FLORENCE BOULEVARD) AND HIGHWAY 387 (PINAL AVENUE), GO SOUTHEAST CZ2300'ALONG SECOND STREET 0.3 MI (0.5 KM) TO FLORENCE STREET, TURN RIGHT AND CZ2300'GO SOUTH ALONG FLORENCE STREET (CHUICHU HIGHWAY) 2.9 MI (4.7 KM) TO CZ2300'CANAL CROSSING AND NORTHEAST CORNER OF CITY LANDFILL PROPERTY. CZ2300'STATION IS LOCATED INSIDE LANDFILL PROPERTY, 160 FT (50 M) SOUTH OF CZ2300'CANAL, 125 FT (38 M) WEST OF THE CENTERLINE OF CHUICHU HIGHWAY. CZ2300'STATION IS A U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS ARMY MAP SERVICE BRASS DISK CZ2300'IN CONCRETE POST AND AERIAL TARGET. CZ2300 CZ2300 STATION RECOVERY (2007) CZ2300 CZ2300'RECOVERY NOTE BY GEOCACHING 2007 (ACM) CZ2300'RECOVERED IN GOOD CONDITION. Here is what the datasheet looks like today: DATABASE = ,PROGRAM = datasheet, VERSION = 7.61 *** NOTE - The station below is destroyed. 1 National Geodetic Survey, Retrieval Date = OCTOBER 3, 2008 CZ2300 *********************************************************************** CZ2300 DESIGNATION - AD 47 CZ2300 PID - CZ2300 CZ2300 STATE/COUNTY- AZ/PINAL CZ2300 USGS QUAD - CHUICHU (1992) CZ2300 CZ2300 *CURRENT SURVEY CONTROL CZ2300 ___________________________________________________________________ CZ2300* NAD 83(1992)- 32 50 06.24886(N) 111 45 27.74947(W) ADJUSTED CZ2300* NAVD 88 - 432.14 (+/-2cm) 1417.8 (feet) VERTCON CZ2300 ___________________________________________________________________ CZ2300 LAPLACE CORR- 2.30 (seconds) DEFLEC99 CZ2300 GEOID HEIGHT- -30.18 (meters) GEOID03 CZ2300 HORZ ORDER - FIRST CZ2300 VERT ORDER - THIRD ? (See Below) CZ2300 CZ2300.The horizontal coordinates were established by classical geodetic methods CZ2300.and adjusted by the National Geodetic Survey in August 1993. CZ2300 CZ2300.The NAVD 88 height was computed by applying the VERTCON shift value to CZ2300.the NGVD 29 height (displayed under SUPERSEDED SURVEY CONTROL.) CZ2300.The vertical order pertains to the NGVD 29 superseded value. CZ2300 CZ2300.The Laplace correction was computed from DEFLEC99 derived deflections. CZ2300 CZ2300.The geoid height was determined by GEOID03. CZ2300 CZ2300; North East Units Scale Factor Converg. CZ2300;SPC AZ C - 203,473.237 228,241.278 MT 0.99990273 +0 05 10.3 CZ2300;SPC AZ C - 667,563.11 748,823.09 iFT 0.99990273 +0 05 10.3 CZ2300;UTM 12 - 3,633,257.192 429,085.800 MT 0.99966201 -0 24 39.1 CZ2300 CZ2300! - Elev Factor x Scale Factor = Combined Factor CZ2300!SPC AZ C - 0.99993689 x 0.99990273 = 0.99983963 CZ2300!UTM 12 - 0.99993689 x 0.99966201 = 0.99959893 CZ2300 CZ2300: Primary Azimuth Mark Grid Az CZ2300:SPC AZ C - AC 47 273 15 08.4 CZ2300:UTM 12 - AC 47 273 44 57.8 CZ2300 CZ2300|---------------------------------------------------------------------| CZ2300| PID Reference Object Distance Geod. Az | CZ2300| dddmmss.s | CZ2300| CZ2304 AC 47 APPROX. 1.5 KM 2732018.7 | CZ2300|---------------------------------------------------------------------| CZ2300 CZ2300 SUPERSEDED SURVEY CONTROL CZ2300 CZ2300 NAD 83(1986)- 32 50 06.24292(N) 111 45 27.75035(W) AD( ) 1 CZ2300 NAD 27 - 32 50 06.04116(N) 111 45 25.28498(W) AD( ) 1 CZ2300 NGVD 29 (07/19/86) 431.54 (m) 1415.8 (f) LEVELING 3 CZ2300 CZ2300.Superseded values are not recommended for survey control. CZ2300.NGS no longer adjusts projects to the NAD 27 or NGVD 29 datums. CZ2300.See file dsdata.txt to determine how the superseded data were derived. CZ2300 CZ2300_U.S. NATIONAL GRID SPATIAL ADDRESS: 12SVB2908633257(NAD 83) CZ2300_MARKER: DD = SURVEY DISK CZ2300_SETTING: 7 = SET IN TOP OF CONCRETE MONUMENT CZ2300_SP_SET: SET IN TOP OF CONCRETE MONUMENT CZ2300_STAMPING: AD 47 1968 ARMY MAP SERVICE CZ2300_MARK LOGO: USACE CZ2300_PROJECTION: PROJECTING 8 CENTIMETERS CZ2300_MAGNETIC: N = NO MAGNETIC MATERIAL CZ2300_STABILITY: C = MAY HOLD, BUT OF TYPE COMMONLY SUBJECT TO CZ2300+STABILITY: SURFACE MOTION CZ2300 CZ2300 HISTORY - Date Condition Report By CZ2300 HISTORY - 1967 MONUMENTED DMA CZ2300 HISTORY - 1968 DESTROYED DMA CZ2300 CZ2300 STATION DESCRIPTION CZ2300 CZ2300'DESCRIBED BY DEFENSE MAP AGENCY 1967 CZ2300'MONUMENT WASHED OUT BY FLOOD LATE 1967. TO BE RESET, 1968 CZ2300'AT--210 FT S. FROM SECTION CORNER AND 125 FT. W. FROM SECTION CZ2300'LINE. T-7-S. R-6-E. IN SECTION 7 NEAR THE NORTHEAST CZ2300'CORNER. CZ2300 CZ2300 STATION RECOVERY (1968) CZ2300 CZ2300'RECOVERY NOTE BY DEFENSE MAP AGENCY 1968 CZ2300'SURFACE MARK REPORTED DESTROYED. *** retrieval complete. Elapsed Time = 00:00:00 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- - This listing contains control for which complete digital - - data sheets where not provided. The complete data sheets were - - not provided for the reason listed below. The reason below is - - associated with a horizontal control Nonpub code shown under - - the heading 'H' and/or a vertical control Nonpub code shown under - - the heading 'v' - - - - The format of the records are as follows: - - Pid = Station Permanent Identifier) - - Name = Station Designation - - Lat = Approx. Latitude (Degrees, Minutes, truncated Seconds) - - Lon = Approx. Longitude (Degrees, Minutes, truncated Seconds) - - O = Horizontal Order - - o = Vertical Order - - H = Horizontal Nonpub Code - - v = Vertical Nonpub Code - - - - H Nonpub HORIZONTAL CONTROL NONPUB REASON - - -------- -------------------------------- - - X Surface Mark Reported Destroyed - - Y Surface and underground mark reported destroyed - - A A-Order Horizontal mark not tied to an adjusted HARN - - C C-Nonoperational CORS Station - - W Weakly determined position. - - P Purpose of position is not for network control - - D No Descriptive Text available - - R Restricted position - - O Outside NGS Publication Area - - N No geodetic control at this mark - - - - v Nonpub VERTICAL CONTROL NONPUB REASON - - -------- ------------------------------ - - X Surface Mark Reported Destroyed - - Y Surface and underground mark reported destroyed - - F Bench Mark not yet adjusted. - - D No Descriptive Text available - - Z Presumed destroyed - - R Restricted elevation - - O Outside NGS Publication Area - - N No geodetic control at this mark - - S Mark is in a subsidence area - - - - - - NOTE - Stations found in this listing may still have a valid - - datasheet produced by use of other publishable values. - - For example, an ADJUSTED height may be non-publishable - - but a good GPS height might be found on the datasheet. - - This listing does not imply that values found on the datasheet - - are restricted. If it's on the datasheet, use it. - - - ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Pid Name Lat Lon Elev O o Hv ------ ------------------------------ ---------- ----------- -------- - - -- >CZ2300 AD 47 32 50 06.2/111 45 27.7 431.54 1 3 XX

Here are the details of the changes: +9 AZcachemeister +AI1922 CZ2071 DU1416 DU1417 DU1419 DU1433 DU1434 DU1435 DU1446 DU2187 (-CZ2300) +7 pgrig +MY0297 MY0298 MY0301 MY0334 MY2806 MY5873 MY5877 +4 unidentified GAH +DC1220 DC1220 DC1440 DC1512 +2 Papa-Bear-NYC +MY3801 MZ1809 +2 seventhings +DH4418 DH8305 +2 shorbird +JW1749 MC1243 +1 BantamC +ET0134 +1 Ernmark +HV5647 +1 JIJeffreys +FA2842 +1 KCStarSplitter +ET0134 +1 Milo Jacks +NH0399 +1 wister6813 +KD0506 +1 wuja (-1) andylphoto (-RK0311) (-1) lost02 (-DU0968 ) (-1) PFF (-EZ2348) (-2) YeOleImposter (-DE5560 TV0699) (-1) missing initials (-TV0513) edit: fixups It looks like most of the additional reports were due to my more aggressive download process that captured some reports that were on destroyed sheets, which had been absent from previous counts. The negative numbers look like they are corrections of erroneous counts, or in the case of YeOldImposter, the new numbers didn't include Puerto Rico. I may be able to fix that for the next round of statistics.

The September statistics are available at the statistics page. The maps and county counts have also been updated. The 27 reports may not be for new recovery reports. In September, I downloaded all datasheets to obtain a fresh, complete, archive. I noticed that the new complete archive included many sheets that had not previously been captured by the monthly update process. The 27 reports may have been for datasheets that simply had never been counted before, however most of the new datasheets were for marks that had been set since 2006 when the last NGS archive was available. Apparently the NGS "retrieve datasheets by load date" did not return the datasheets that were new, and so my process never captured them. Here are the changes: +9 AZcachemeister +7 pgrig +4 (unidentified) GAH +2 Papa-Bear-NYC +2 seventhings +2 shorbird +1 BantamC +1 Ernmark +1 JIJeffreys +1 KCStarSplitter +1 Milo Jacks +1 wister6813 +1 wuja (-1) andylphoto (-1) lost02 (-1) PFF (-2) YeOleImposter (-1) unknown The reductions seen for the last 4 are likely due to destroyed sheets being removed from the archive, or perhaps the differences are simply a correction of accumulated errors since 2006.

There seems to be an epidemic of misstated elevations. Itleelim just noted that the national highest station isn't in Utah, either (HN0100 used to be listed as the highest in the US, based on the archived datasheets). The HY1192 datasheet's elevation was originally stated as 704 meters rather than 704 feet. The online datasheet has been corrected, but the archive from 2006 contained 704.6 meters, so the Ohio Extreme Benchmarks page still shows it as 704 meters. I've been spending the last few weeks downloading a complete new set of datasheets (all 760,000 of them), and that is now almost complete. When I finish that, a lot of the problems with out-of-date datasheets should be resolved.

For those of us who may not have access to professional grade (and priced) software, has anyone used free/open source/inexpensive programs that might be capable of this sort of thing? I use Manifold (price about $250 US) for most of the maps and georeferenced images I use or create. That's about the upper limit I'm willing to pay for "hobby" software, but Manifold is a really top-notch product, IMHO. It is actually professional grade itself. For the occasional CAD drawing, I've used TurboCAD Deluxe ($130 US). Unfortunately, it doesn't really integrate with Manifold, and the version I have doesn't work with georeferenced data. There are definitely open source versions of GIS out there, and there are probably open source CAD, too. The problem with open source programs is that they tend to be quirky, and generally do a couple of things really well, and most other things poorly or not at all. You have to hunt for one that does exactly what you need to do, and hope that there is documentation somewhere.

The maps have been updated now, as well as the county counts.

Here are your 24 new recoveries that made it into the August statistics: ES0338 20080725 GEOCACHING JM GOOD ES0339 20080725 GEOCACHING JM GOOD ES0340 20080725 GEOCACHING JM MARK NOT FOUND ES0341 20080725 GEOCACHING JM GOOD ES0342 20080725 GEOCACHING JM GOOD ES0343 20080725 GEOCACHING JM GOOD ES0345 20080725 GEOCACHING JM GOOD ES0346 20080725 GEOCACHING JM GOOD ES0347 20080725 GEOCACHING JM GOOD ES0348 20080725 GEOCACHING JM MARK NOT FOUND ES0349 20080725 GEOCACHING JM GOOD ES0350 20080725 GEOCACHING JM GOOD ES0691 20080725 GEOCACHING JM GOOD ES0692 20080725 GEOCACHING JM GOOD ES0693 20080725 GEOCACHING JM MARK NOT FOUND ES0694 20080725 GEOCACHING JM GOOD ES0695 20080725 GEOCACHING JM GOOD ES0696 20080725 GEOCACHING JM GOOD ES0697 20080725 GEOCACHING JM GOOD ES0698 20080725 GEOCACHING JM GOOD ES0699 20080725 GEOCACHING JM GOOD ES0700 20080725 GEOCACHING JM GOOD ES0701 20080725 GEOCACHING JM GOOD ES1176 20080725 GEOCACHING JM POOR

Paul, Here is the list of your 25 reports that were added in August. Your most recent recovery was July 27. In the July statistics, your most recent recovery was June 14. For the August statistics, the most recent of anyone's GEOCAC recovery was August 5. FY2142 20080708 GEOCACHING PFF GOOD EZ2804 20080708 GEOCACHING PFF MARK NOT FOUND EZ2806 20080708 GEOCACHING PFF MARK NOT FOUND EZ2803 20080708 GEOCACHING PFF MARK NOT FOUND EZ2815 20080708 GEOCACHING PFF GOOD EZ2798 20080708 GEOCACHING PFF MARK NOT FOUND EZ2805 20080708 GEOCACHING PFF GOOD EZ2800 20080708 GEOCACHING PFF MARK NOT FOUND EZ2818 20080708 GEOCACHING PFF GOOD FY2137 20080708 GEOCACHING PFF GOOD DH5728 20080715 GEOCACHING PFF GOOD FY2143 20080715 GEOCACHING PFF GOOD DH5727 20080715 GEOCACHING PFF GOOD DH5721 20080727 GEOCACHING PFF GOOD EZ0595 20080727 GEOCACHING PFF MARK NOT FOUND AH5027 20080727 GEOCACHING PFF GOOD FY2144 20080727 GEOCACHING PFF MARK NOT FOUND DH5722 20080727 GEOCACHING PFF GOOD FY2145 20080727 GEOCACHING PFF MARK NOT FOUND AJ6903 20080727 GEOCACHING PFF GOOD AH4805 20080727 GEOCACHING PFF GOOD AH5021 20080727 GEOCACHING PFF MARK NOT FOUND AH4799 20080727 GEOCACHING PFF GOOD FY0957 20080727 GEOCACHING PFF GOOD AJ6908 20080727 GEOCACHING PFF GOOD

I've posted the August statistics on the statistics page. There were 438 new NGS recovery reports added. Unfortunately, time doesn't allow me to update the maps just yet. I just moved into a new PC and haven't yet installed the software that I use to update the maps. I intend to do that in the next several days and will keep you posted.

Without plotting, it would be hard to see and I haven't plotted it. But basically, Watatick 1833 was moved about 1.5 meters further than Watatick 2 Reset, even if they both moved in approximately the same direction (a little south of east). That was enough to place Watatick 1833 (according to the final NAD83 published coordinates) about 3 feet northeast of Watatick 2 Reset instead of the 7 feet northwest according to the SP 76 coordinates and the note. What I found confusing in SP 76 was the statement on page 12: "It should be noted that the positions contained in these tables are based upon the original adjustment of the primary triangulation made in 1866 and not upon that adjustment contained in Special Publication No. 7".