ltleelim

Uh, how much elevation difference is there between Tioga Road and the top of Mount Hoffman??? I hiked with Larry to the top of Mount Hoffmann... and I never hike high either!

I think you mean me, ltleelim. I noticed that you fixed HN0100, but then it was replaced with another mistake. Now NQ0787 is listed as the highest in the US, but again the elevation was wrong in the past and the datasheet was later corrected. I guess there were a lot of datasheets with wrong elevations. Hopefully, your webpages will be correct after you're done refreshing your datasheets.

Since you asked, I weighed our concrete post and bench mark. Ours weighs 72 pounds. I have carefully picked it up by myself a few times, but it's better to use two people. My wife and I took pictures and reported it destroyed to Deb. She confirmed the destruction and gave us permission to keep it, so we went back and retrieved it. I'm glad to see that you also asked before taking it. It's also a good idea to keep Deb's email just in case someone questions you later. We kept the whole thing! If the post is in good condition, it's impressive to look at. You could even dig a hole in your backyard for your own monument. If you are going to break up a post, a chisel isn't good enough. You'll need a sledgehammer. I know because I helped someone else break apart a concrete post (in poor condition) to extract the bench mark. (Yes, we had Deb's permission for that one too. We actually retrieved both at the same time.)

Yeah, the bearing seems to be inaccurate too in this case. When I was looking at it in Google Earth, it seemed to cut across the lower shoulders of both ridges. We haven't seen the bearing off by this much before.

I put that in my log to help other benchmark hunters who may follow in our footsteps. Meg and I discussed this afterwards. I think it's actually on another ridge, which is halfway between the summit and the above pictured ridge. While the bearings to azimuth markers are precise, the distances to them are more like guesses. We have seen some distances to azimuths that were wildly inaccurate. This is sort of related to the original subject of this thread... It is difficult for me to pick a find that I'm especially proud of. (The one where we had to hike through dense brush? One of the ones where we spent a long time probing and digging? The one that the NGS couldn't find?) However, I am always proud whenever we find a station, all the reference marks, and the azimuth mark. That is satisfaction! Larry, thanks again for letting us tag along for Mount Hoffmann. Larry is a great sport. We were impressed by how he kept going up Hoffmann and how he kept looking for markers with us, even when he himself probably would have given up long ago and moved on to the next marker.

Yeah, sorry we take so long. We try to make up for that by finding them faster. Back to the original subject of this thread, while pictures are optional, I strongly encourage them. If I see that a geocacher has logged a find without a picture, I usually ignore it. A picture of the marker tells other people that it's still there. Even better, another picture of the surrounding area gives other people an idea of where it is. For us benchmark hunting is just a fun hobby, but we have talked to several professional surveyors who said they look at the logs before going out on jobs.

I posted my log for HR2847, but I didn't really tell a story. Here are some pictures to give you a better idea of the situation. These are the eastern ridges of Mount Hoffmann. I was on top of the left ridge. In this picture, I am standing on top of the ridge and looking at the highest part of it. To get there, I would've had to cross some gaps you can't really see in the picture and climb over some boulders that didn't look that stable. I'm not a climber so that was as far as I was going to climb. I doubt that a CGS crew would climb up there just to place an azimuth mark. This is the view of May Lake from up there. Meg and I might try looking for the azimuth mark again in maybe 2015 or so. Lloyd

The other two members of the group have been making noises about maybe doing the Yosemite Valley Rim markers sometime. We'll urge them to put Cloud's Rest on their "must do" list! Klemmer and Wintertime are referring to me and my wife (mjleelim). We will get to Clouds Rest eventually and we try very hard not to make mistakes like that. We have a vague long-term goal of finding all the markers with PIDs in Yosemite National Park. We've currently found 96 PIDs. Only 222 PIDs to go! Actually, Clouds Rest and other wilderness markers are lower on our list right now. My wife and I just discussed this and the highways will probably be a priority for our next trip. Based on our experiences, the markers along active roads are more likely to go missing. The markers in the wilderness may have trees fall on them (which makes them really hard to find), but at least they are still there. Lloyd

Searching for a benchmark by PID is broken. This is a major bug for benchmarks hunters. It makes it difficult just to get to the page for a specific benchmark.

I've never used the archives because they're always out of date. I'm not sure what other people do, but when I need a whole county then I use the County retrieval method to retrieve the latest datasheets for the county. If you select too many stations, the request will take too long and timeout. You have to select subsets of the list and paste the results together afterwards. I prefer to sort the list by PID to make it easier to figure out where the next request should start. It's not too hard and the datasheets are always up to date. Lloyd

As I mentioned previously, the unit was displaying an EPE of +/- 16 feet when I saved the waypoint and started walking. Under these conditions, a goto distance error of 16 feet cannot be characterized as off by 50%. Although we could start talking about GPS error, EPE, RMS, and CEP, that would probably be futile.

I do know that Magellan units use an automatic averaging filter when you are stationary. This feature might help you when using this method. (The Magellan automatic averaging cannot be disabled. I always take averaged readings at survey markers and want manual control over averaging, so I bought a Garmin instead.) Have you ever tested your method in the field to see what your actual accuracy is? From your previous posts, you apparently use this method as a starting point for a visual search and that you also use a metal detector. Both uses would compensate for any error. I'm guessing that the actual measured error is greater than you might realize. As I mentioned, I tested this method to find a starting point for blind probing, which is a more demanding situation. I don't think any handheld unit is good enough for that.

This is a follow-up regarding the suggestion to use your GPS receiver to measure distances. My wife and I are not beginners. We fully understand the concept, but I was skeptical about the accuracy of this method. However, because of the potential weight savings, I tested this method with an open mind. Please keep in mind that when my wife and I need to measure, it's usually because we really need to measure. We really need to measure when (1) the marker appears to be buried and we need to probe and dig or (2) the marker appears to be missing and we're looking for a drill hole. My test case was in Yosemite National Park. The marker is described as 35 feet off the centerline of an old road. There are no other references to use, so we were faced with searching a hundred foot long section. There is moderate forest cover. The immediate search area is flat, but the surrounding terrain is hilly. We have a Garmin 60CS, if that makes any difference. At the first test point, I saved a waypoint (EPE was +/- 16 feet), did a goto to the waypoint, and walked away from the centerline until the distance read 35 feet. Then my wife and I measured the actual distance with a tape measure. The actual distance was 19 feet, an error of 16 feet. When I walked back to the waypoint and stood there, it said I was 33 feet away from the waypoint. Utterly useless. At the second test point, I averaged a waypoint for 60 seconds to try to get better accuracy. I had locks on 10 satellites and was receiving WAAS corrections for all of them. The averaged EPE was +/- 6.6 feet. Again, I walked away until the goto said I was 35 feet away. The actual distance was 40 feet away, an error of 5 feet. Much better. Personally, this method is unacceptable for our purposes. To probe a 100' line for a 6" x 6" concrete post, we are faced with sticking a probe in the ground about 200 times. If we also probe 6" on both sides of the line to compensate for possible sloppiness in our use of the measuring tape, we're faced with probing 600 times. If we used the goto method and had to compensate for errors of up to +/- 5 feet, then we'd have to probe about 4200 times. We'd rather carry a tape. In fact, I'd have better accuracy by pacing. Nevertheless, this method might be ok for some people. If you're using it just as a rough guideline for a visual search, that'd be fine. If you don't have trees or terrain interfering with your reception, you might have better results.

This is a follow-up regarding the various gear suggestions. Thanks for the suggestions! I like searching online for information, but I also like looking at things in person because things aren't always the same in real life. Several of the suggested items were a bit different than we expected. I previously mentioned that the Lufkin 3/8" x 50' Hi-Viz Universal Lightweight Long Steel Tape is too big at 7" x 5". It turns out that those are the dimensions of the packaging. The Lufkin tape is really 3.75" x 3.25", which is nice and compact. However, it turns out there is something lighter. It looks like they don't make the Stanley 34-383 or Stanley 34-450 anymore. We ended up choosing the Stanley 34-103 50' x 3/8" Long Tape Rule, which weighs 7.0 oz. It is the same size as the Lufkin tape, but it is lighter and it has a slightly thinner profile. Masonry string was a great idea, but it was too bulky in real life. For an ultralight solution, I would recommend tying knots in fishing line and taping on numbers every five feet. 100' of fishing line on a small spool probably would weigh only a couple ounces. If we were going on a long backpacking trip, I might do this. Regarding tile probes, the smallest one I've seen is 3 feet long. This is absolutely out of the question for hiking or backpacking use. My wife and I recently hiked to Bald Mountain in Yosemite to recover a marker on the summit. A tile probe would have snagged every other step in the dense brush. I am not exaggerating. We are currently using a Craftsman 1/4" x 12" Slotted Screwdriver for probing, which weighs 5.8 oz. It works great in forest floor. We haven't tried it in hard packed ground yet. I like how we could also use it to lift up monument covers and how it has a lifetime warranty in case we accidentally bend it.

I don't have a theory, but I have a few facts. I investigated where the dates come from a while ago. The geocaching.com software gets the date from the Exif tags embedded in the photos you upload. Your digital camera automatically creates the Exif tags when you take a picture. This is completely unrelated to the date/time on your computer or the date/time when you upload a picture. If the date shown in the gallery is not what you expect, the first thing you should check is the date and time on your digital camera. Exif tags are usually preserved when you edit pictures in programs like Photoshop. However, there are ways to edit the Exif data, if you really need to. See the Wikipedia article for more info. (I don't know what the geocaching.com software uses if there aren't any Exif tags in your pictures. I didn't test that case.)

That depends on the error. If GPS error is systematic. The 5' error won't matter one whit since you will have already accounted for it when you stood on the spot you needed to mark your waypoint. If it's random...that's another thing. I'm not 100% sure which GPS is, or if it's a mix of both error types. GPS has both kinds of errors, but we often see fluctuating reception with Yosemite's terrain and trees. We wouldn't be able to measure like that when the reading is constantly changing. I always take readings at markers, but I often have to wait 5 minutes or so for a good lock. Once in a while, we have to come back to try again with a different constellation. Reception is wonderful when we're above the treeline. But then the markers are on bare granite, so we never need to measure to find them. Lloyd

Thanks, that's a great idea. I did think about tying knots in fishing line, but counting the knots would probably drive my wife crazy. The simple idea of taping on numbers makes it much more usable. I never heard of masonry string before, but I see that it's a durable nylon, a nice bright pink (easier to see than fishing line), and it comes on handy reels (which we might even use if they aren't too big or heavy). We could easily carry 100' of that. Thanks! Lloyd

First, I think if I was going to do that, then I would project a waypoint instead of turning around and pointing at where I used to be. It's not a bad idea, but we only resort to measuring when we can't easily find the marker. So we're measuring stuff like 35 feet from the centerline of an old road. Inches don't matter, but 5 feet of error would make a big difference. We can't get that accurate with a handheld GPS in rough terrain and under tree cover. Thanks for the suggestion though, Lloyd

My wife and I are adding a few more pieces of benchmark hunting gear. We've recently encountered situations where we needed to probe and dig. It wasn't that hard to find suitable items for probing (12" screwdriver) and digging (plastic trowel). However, we could also use a decent 50' measuring tape, but I'm having a hard time finding anything suitable for us. We often hike or backpack to survey markers so we need something lightweight and compact. The lightest 50' tape I've found is the Lufkin 3/8" x 50' Hi-Viz Universal Lightweight Long Steel Tape. It only weighs 0.5 lbs (comparable to a typical household tape measure), but it is 7" x 5" which is too big for us to carry on hikes. The CST/berger MeasureMark 50' Depth Gauge Tape looked promising, until they told me it weighs 1 lb. It shouldn't be that hard. I figure that a 50' length of truly lightweight tape, made out of something like Tyvek, should fit on a small plastic spool and weigh only a few ounces. You could probably even make a 100' tape like this weighing well under a half pound. Does anyone make something like this? Lloyd

I wanted to share an impressive recovery effort that I discovered in Yosemite. I was on a backpacking trip down the Old Tioga Road and Aspen Valley Road with my wife (mjleelim) and our friend Wintertime in August. Here is a picture of HR0846: As you can see, a tree fell on top of the marker a long time ago, but it just missed the witness post. Someone else came along and chopped out a big chunk of the log to find the marker! It's hard to tell from the picture, but that log is about 3 feet in diameter. A bunch of debris had collected in that hollow over the years and it took me 15 minutes just to clear the debris to find the marker. I cannot imagine how long it took to chop through the log! I think LML of the U.S. Power Squadrons chopped through in 1986 to recover it. (See the datasheet.) Any real surveying crew probably would have come back with a chainsaw and probably would have filed a recovery. LML, whoever you are, that was a very impressive effort just to recover a survey marker! This section of the Old Tioga Road hasn't been used as a road for many years. It was Wintertime's idea to hike down it and recover all the old survey markers along the way. There are 14 markers along this stretch of the Old Tioga Road and we found all 14. No, we were not carrying an ax with us and we do not plan to add an ax to our benchmark hunting gear in the future. Lloyd (ltleelim)

If you read a few posts back, you'll see an explanation of how at least one overseas mint traces the art by hand onto the mold. I'm guessing that your typical sign making process is more advanced than this. These are good points. (And I was aware of them. My design didn't have these issues. I was originally looking into having a prototype made by CNC machining.) But the above two issues are really only problems if you're using computer controlled equipment to cut your dies. This is far beyond the current capabilities of all the geocoin companies and their associated mints. As far as I know, they all cut the dies by hand. If you are just tracing a projected image, it doesn't matter if objects overlap or if strokes have thicknesses. Heck, they could even trace bitmaps if they wanted to. Anyway, while I think some cutting and pasting would save them some time and reduce errors, they have bigger problems to deal with. The original poster and others have mentioned cases where the shape was wrong, the color was wrong, or the finish was wrong. Those are much bigger blunders. Lloyd

I agree. You should be as specific as possible, if possible. But as I pointed out in my examples, currently there will always be some discrepancies no matter how specific you are. This is because of the way they work. I hope this improves in the future. That is to be expected. Bitmap art is inherently jagged. Vector art is almost always preferred. When I said that an overseas mint will redraw your digital art, this happens even when you submit digital vector art, in my experience. To repeat my question for those of you experienced with making geocoins: Are there any geocoin companies and associated mints that will use the digital vector art you submit without redrawing it? (You would only know if you submitted digital vector art and you looked closely at the die art sent back for your approval.) They would save themselves a lot of time if they learned how to cut and paste. It would also dramatically reduce the number of mistakes. Lloyd

My wife and I are making a geocoin. The process has been interesting. Several rounds of the design phase were spent fixing spelling mistakes. (The mint is in China.) The front was supposed to be polished, but the actual coins were sandblasted. The design had a particular 3D shape (and I also submitted several cross sections and 3D renderings), but the actual coins weren't quite the same shape. The geocoin company was fine. It was the mint that had all the problems. If you were to look closely at the details, I would bet that there are many more errors than you would think just from reading this forum. If you draw your art by hand or don't even submit any art, there's a lot more leeway because the initial concept is vague to begin with. If you start with fewer specifics, there are fewer details that can get screwed up. On the other hand, if you submit precise digital art (or even worse, a precise 3D shape), things will probably get lost in translation. When you realize how much work is done by hand at the mint, you'll probably accept some of the mistakes as a fact of life. An example: You submit digital art. The overseas mint draws its own digital art for approval. You would think they would just copy and paste your original art and add the labels and notations they need. Nope. They eyeball your art and redraw it from scratch on their computer for who knows what reason. No matter how many corrections you make, the inevitable result is a design that is similar but not quite the same as the original design. For those of you that have submitted digital vector art (Illustrator, DXF, etc.) and pay attention to the details, have you dealt with a mint that uses it directly instead of redrawing it? If so, then I'd like to know which geocoin companies and mint partners are capable of this. (If you know what I'm talking about, then you know. If you're not sure, then don't worry about it.) Another example: As far as I know, all 3D dies are cut by hand. I'm not aware of any geocoin company that will accept and use a 3D model for die making. This means that if you have a precise 3D design, it's impossible to get an exact match. (However, there are ways to work around it, if you have the time and the money. That's advanced geocoin making... ) Lloyd

I would like to trade pins. I hope it's ok to post here. I have a DNF pin that I would like to trade for a DNF Glow pin. Lloyd

Yesterday! My wife and I went out last night specifically to get a German geocoin. I've been watching some German geocoins for months and hoping to finally find one. We will treasure it for a little while and then move it along for others to treasure. It still is hard, when you hunt for them in the wild. We may never find a Moun10Bike geocoin in the wild. We are planning a trip up to Washington, but we don't really expect to see a Moun10Bike. We still are trying to find them all, in the wild. We're not doing too bad, but the list of trackables is growing awfully fast. Lloyd