Jump to content

Bill93

Members
  • Posts

    1586
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Bill93

  1. If you go to N42 13 39.8 W091 47 06.4, image date 9/28/2017 you will see the culvert replacement underway where https://www.geocaching.com/mark/details.aspx?PID=NJ0569 had been previously found. Have you seen other examples of this?
  2. I think triangulation measurements were mostly done on clear nights, sighting to lights on the other towers. The atmosphere would be fairly uniform then. You may be right that working when a front was moving in could introduce significant errors for that kind of work. Locally, we're about 40 miles from any point that was used to constrain the the horizontal network adjustment to GPS data. Using my antique professional GPS, I find most of a foot difference on local horizontal stations between NAD83(HARN) from the data sheet versus NAD83(2011) OPUS reports from my measurements. That's an angular difference in the network of about one arc second. Under stable conditions and ordinary temperatures, the effect of vertical refraction in feet is 0.003 (D/1000)^2 or in feet and miles, 0.09 D^2. Earth's curvature is larger and is offset a bit by refraction, for a combined correction in feet of 0.021(D/1000)^2 or feet and miles 0.57 D^2. This is large enough that leveling operations are usually limited to sights of 100 yards or meters and sight lengths are balanced for careful work.
  3. NGS computerized their data in the 1960's, I think. The data base here is a snapshot of NGS taken when this site started and won't be updated. USGS hasn't digitized their datat and never will.
  4. I figure the same person will review it whether I use the web form or DSWORLD. But DSWORLD lets me see the automated part of the changes before I submit by hitting the FORMAT button. DSWORLD also keeps a log file on my computer so I can later see exactly what I did submit.
  5. I thought of that, and maybe that could have been a license number at the time it was set, but now they are much longer. I tried the Michigan lookup and got no match. And the concrete looks old and weathered enough for 1937.
  6. It looks like a property corner or elevation study reference point. I read that as year 1937. It was either set by surveyor or engineer Scott Turner or was set on land then owned by Turner. As a privately set mark, it is less to be in any geodetic data base, and I don't find it in the NGS list.
  7. What are the right coordinates for SQ0270? There is always deb.brown@noaa.gov but since this affects the GPSonBM program you could also try ngs.gpsonbm@noaa.gov
  8. This one was last reported as NF in 1981. https://www.geocaching.com/mark/details.aspx?PID=MH0075 It says reported by NGS, but I wonder if that's how the Power Squadron reports showed up at that time. There are a lot of NF's on this level line on a former railroad that is just barely traceable now. I wonder how many others are really there. I'm glad I did this one in May and not August. The undergrowth was passable, no mosquitos or chiggers, and I only saw one tick.
  9. I see that DSWORLD does some conversions and slight format changes (US-metric, SW becomes SOUTHWEST, etc). But I'm seeing other edits to my reports, apparently by someone who doesn't understand or like the old terse reporting style, to "improve" the sentences. Some of the edits aren't completely benign. A DSWORLD log on my computer shows I posted the following: RR BED IS NOW A DRIVEWAY AT ADDRESS 2835. POST IS QUITE VISIBLE FROM ROAD, 1 FOOT SOUTH OF AN ORANGE POST, AND PROJECTS 8 INCHES. This came out as: NK0091'THE RAILROAD BED IS NOW A DRIVEWAY AT ADDRESS 2835. THE POST IS NK0091'VISIBLE FROM THE ROAD AND THE MARK IS 1 FT (0.3 M) SOUTH OF THE POST. Now I'll admit there is a bit of ambiguity because I should have said "concrete post is visible", but the prior entry ends by saying the disk is in a concrete post and I would think most who are familiar with these reports would realize I was talking about a (concrete) post south of an orange post. ------------ On another one I reported that local residents remembered a building that "burned decades ago" That one came out "BURNED DECADES ABOVE THE GROUND" Say what? ------------ This is the old game of "telephone" where paraphrasing risks significant changes the meaning. I've seen several other edits lately. I'm afraid one of them is going to make a report flat out wrong. Have others seen this sort of thing?
  10. Since it is a cadastral monument (i.e., marking a land corner) it is unlikely it will ever be measured for lat/lon and/or elevation and put in a geodetic data base. It happens sometimes but not often.
  11. In the US, the postal codes are called Zip codes (for Zone Improvement Plan) and may be easily found by google search for the name of the city and the keyword zip. On the benchmark page https://www.geocaching.com/mark/ you can also pick Advanced Search and search by other means such as latitude and longitude. Once you have brought up a page for either a bench mark or a geocache, there is a link that will list nearby caches or marks. I don't use .loc files, so can't help there.
  12. This week's update shows quite a bit of progress in my state. There is still one that can't be used (vertically mounted disk) in their priority list, though.
  13. NGS is updating the priority list weekly, although I haven't noticed much change in my area.
  14. I noticed just now that NGS has changed the radial search to give you the option of including or excluding destroyed marks. This is quite helpful if you are researching the history of an area, as the destroyed mark data sheet sometimes gives you clues to what else went on in the area. It used to be that you had to know the PID to pull up the destroyed data sheet.
  15. Bill93

    Fooled me

    I went out to set my GPS on this one (on the priority list- see discussion) on a nice morning, and couldn't find it. A 1998 recovery said at ground level, and there was a 2013 OPUS share solution on it, so I figured I didn't need to drag the metal detector along. Oops. I found the grass torn up 90 degrees out from the post (west) right where you'd expect the disk to be, and figured somebody must have found it last year just under a little dirt but not logged it. But in the shadows there was still icy mud, and I couldn't get a screwdriver down through it easily enough to tell if the disk was there. So I gave up that day. I went back after a couple days of sun, and took the metal detectors this time. Found the disk just under some grass, no digging required, NNW of the post, instead of west, and logged it to GC. So I guess whoever dug out the grass didn't find it. Lesson: make the effort to take all the equipment even when you don't expect to need it. I'll be back on a nice day soon to do the GPS 4+ hour session. If I match the 2013 session well enough, NGS will use our data in the upcoming geoid model. This disk is interesting in that it was reset twice, stamped RESET 1973 RESET 1974. Don't often see that. My guess is that when they planned the road widening it was reset, and then they decided it wasn't far enough from the construction and did it again. And despite this, it is a 2nd order mark. Reset automatically downgrades to 3rd order. It appears NGS did 2nd order leveling to it again sometime before 2002.
  16. Sounds good until you see the quality of some of the GC logs. Too many mistake some other object for the one they are logging and dont check the stamping. I wouldn't try to pass on any reports without more confidence. Even a few survey crews have turned in to NGS reports that on the face have to be wrong. I found one last fall that had been reported Good by an employee of a big firm but site investigation showed that it appeared to be gone and they were reporting a nearby Reset that wasn't in the data base.
  17. I probably should have rewritten that to emphasize the need for ordinary recovery reports on many of those marks. It's a whole lot better if the guy with the gear knows which ones are still out there for him to occupy.
  18. The National Geodetic Survey recently published a list of those bench marks they most want professional GPS submissions (OPUS Share) on. That data will be used to help check or fit the 2018 geoid model and 2022 datum. Many were selected based on their location in areas needing more coverage, and without much emphasis on whether they had been recovered recently. Those marks having no recent recoveries would make excellent targets for everyone to hunt and submit. Anyone capable of OPUS Share GPS observations may want to use this list to select their targets. I have submitted sessions for 6 of the ones on that list, which I suppose raised their priority for a 2nd checking session. I chose those to be in areas with poor coverage in Geoid12b so they might have made the list anyway. General info: https://www.ngs.noaa.gov/GPSonBM/ https://www.ngs.noaa.gov/GPSonBM/OnePagerGPSonBenchMarks2018.pdf The latest priority list: https://www.ngs.noaa.gov/GPSonBM/prioritize.shtml Surveyors forum post: https://rplstoday.com/community/gnss-geodesy/surveyors-week-march-18-24-2018-gps-on-bm/#post-463616
  19. I use BenchMap on an Android, but don't know if it is available on Apple.
  20. What was the source of the information that a monument exists there? Any clues in that? Does the USGS topo map show an elevation number there other than just the contour lunes? Re: buried. An elevation mark may get slightly buried over the years but was visible when set. A triangulation station (for lat lon) was often intentionally buried for protection but would have reference disks set nearby intended to remain visible. If you do find a disk check what it says.
  21. In the transfers I've seen, the transfer tax isn't large but is paid on the actual amount regardless of the number in the deed. Likewise the actual is the seller's gross number and buyer's cost basis for capital gains tax. I don't know about the transfer tac in other jurisdictions.
  22. NY was not part of the PLSS and as far as I know has only metes and bounds descriptions. People have bought and sold land there in any size and shape they chose, and too often without long-lasting monumentation (trees don't last forever) and imprecise distances. You were lucky if you reached an acceptable and peaceful resolution.
  23. Okay, he sent me the description. It was a list of 5 pieces each 1/4 of 1/4 section (nominally 40 acres each) and abutting each other. The parsing of such descriptions can be daunting, but he had it figured out to be the same as I did. I'm sure the price included a lot of dollars in addition to the $10 listed. It works nicely in the earthpoint link above to plot the estimated section lines on Google Earth. This data may or may not show measured positions versus a theoretical calculation from a few reference points. Sometimes the calculations don't match actual, due to the difficulties the original surveyor dealt with, especially in mountainous and thickly forested areas. Also, even if measured, we're not sure to what accuracy. In most cases the monument on the ground rules over math. In one area I'm familiar with the plot shows 40-60 ft mismatches with the roads that are accepted as being on the section lines. In this case, it shows the sections somewhat distorted from the nominal square shape due to those measurement difficulties. Some of the lines track pretty close to the edge of forested areas, showing that they do reflect recognized boundaries to some level of accuracy. I should probably clarify that I'm not a surveyor, and haven't yet been asked to play one on TV, but I've been reading the PLSS section descriptions since I was in Jr. High because our local newspaper published the real estate transactions and Dad always wanted to figure out who was selling what farm to who.
  24. Are you sure it was just $10? It is very common for deeds to avoid stating the actual price. They just list $1 or $10 and "other valuable considerations" (ovc) in order to have something to make it a legal contract. I'm on my phone so don't want to dig in to the msg stuff here, but if you send me a msg I think I can help with the description. edit: For anyone interested, the Wikipedia article is a good start. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_Land_Survey_System Here's an excellent tutorial on the Public Land Survey System. This example is in Wisconsin, but the ideas apply to most of the states west of the Ohio River and a few in the South, except Texas and certain areas that had private land grants before the US took possession. https://dnr.wi.gov/topic/forestmanagement/documents/plsstutorial.pdf This link may be useful for locating a particular description http://www.earthpoint.us/TownshipsSearchByDescription.aspx
  25. Benchmark hunting never was or will be as popular (sell as much) as caching. As long as they don't cut back on its support I don't care much. If caching is declining (I hadn't paid attention), I'd guess 1) most people who might be interested have tried it so entry is now mostly as kids get to an age to do it. 2) it isn't new so it isn't as cool (whatever the fashionable term is now) a thing to do as it was. Pokemon took a lot of people when it was new and hot, for instance. 3) many who tried it for a while have tired of it. 4) there isn't as much challenge and therefore feeling of accomplishment when there is a cache every 0.1 mile in all directions.
×
×
  • Create New...