Bill93

Ted, apologies for adding confusion earlier when I quoted the Carpenter notes about a road and railroad at his mile 161 and 162. I see now those are not near the location you were investigating. Carpenter was numbering W to E and Darling/Kidder from E to W so the numbers were close only by accident, and I hadn't properly digested the situation. Those locations are 5 miles or more to the west of supreme court 163+22, on the other side of Los Pinos.

It is very common to find benchmarks set by various agencies that are not in the NGS data base because they were not measured and calculated in a manner compatible with the geodetic model, even if they were useful for another purpose. See several other threads in the forum on this topic.

Ahhh, finally we get to see the authentic notes! Thank you. I'll still have to go back to the library some day and see why I couldn't find these pages. On page 62 it describes the Mile 163+22 ch marker that has 2 PIDs, GM0519 and GM0837. I still haven't figured out the 6 foot stone. On p. 61 it describes a sandstone monument as being the railroad's state line marker at 163 mi+20.35 ch. along the line (on the east side of the track) and 9 1/2 links north. So from the 163+22 mark that would put the sandstone 108.9 feet east and 6.27 feet north. The description for GM0519 puts the post 43.6 feet east (or maybe 43.15 ft east and 6.27 north, for 43.6 diagonal close enough to east?) or at 21.34 to 21.35 chains. Does this mean that there was a post on each side of the RR and Kidder described one of them but the other one survives? Or that the old one got removed and somebody put up one on the other side? How wide was the RR right of way? These two spots are almost exactly 1 chain apart, so 66 ft ROW would make sense here like a lot of roads (RR at 20.93 would then be 8 links or 5 ft west of middle) Or how else can someone explain the post? In case someone is having trouble backtracking this discussion and wants to see some beautiful pictures of the location and sandstone monument, go to Where the discussion started.

This doesn't have anything to do with benchmarks, but it does relate in a way to initial points. I was reading a book on survey drafting tonight and came across the wildest township I've ever seen. He doesn't say what state or meridian is in use, but most of his examples seem to be in California. Notice that it has section numbers going up to 46 in a strange order, but is missing sec 23 and barely has sec 14. I'd like to know what natural obstacles led to this disarray. I won't accuse the surveyors of being drunk unless it turns out to be reasonably level ground.

I figured that the old NGS style of starting from a road intersection or "from the post office in Anytown ..." was obsolete. With handheld GPS coordinates. you can get within sight of the position by any route that is convenient, and they do change highway numbers enough to be problematic. What is really important is good ties to get you from the nearby landmarks to within inches of the disk. Glad you mentioned height above or below the road or other feature. That can be really good info if landscaping or deposition hides the mark. If you use trees, give the diameter, both for identification and so someone later can adjust for the growth. Convention seems to specify from the middle of a road, railroad, or as here power line and from the near edge of a pole or tree. Some things aren't as obvious (where on a curb), so be very clear in the description. The general idea seems to be to measure somewhere you can put a tape measure (not the middle of the tree), but the most permanent accessable location about the object (roads more often are widened symmetrically). Which would you use, the edge or center of a sidewalk? Where on a fire hydrant? The edge of the concrete box at a storm drain, the edge of the manhole , or its center? What about a road that has an obvious joint in the concrete but that isn't the middle of the road?

Spoo, with an attitude like that you might even become an OLD wimp some day. Way to go. Like I've heard aviators (of whom I think you are one) say, there are bold pilots and old pilots but no old, bold pilots. The questions left in my mind are how somebody set and measured that mark in the first place, and why they didn't use the abutment instead of a piling. To make this relevant to the initial topic, did the description give you any clues about that?

Yes, anything that looks like surveying can really set people off. I had a rather tense moment trying to find a geocache before I got a GPS. The friend who introduced me to GC told me about the cache he had placed that needed a crossed lines solution . I thought it was neat challenge, so I got out my topo maps and worked the problem, and went out to the wooded park to see if I could find the spot. In the end I was on the wrong side of a brush pile didn't find it until much later. I was pacing distances from the park boundaries when a neighbor came out to see what was going on. He cornered me and got VERY tense when I tried to brush him off. He was afraid I was going to put a road through "his" park. I didn't have any equipment at all--just walking around. Heaven help me if I'd had orange stakes! I finally talked my way out of it.

I don't know about this organization, but most of the "pioneer village" places are put together by volunteers from all walks of life with no training in history or archeology. The idea of keeping a file of where stuff came from would astonish most of them. They are just happy if they know what the object is, or if there was an alleged link to a famous person.

Iowa has had bottle/can deposit for a long time and that probably has helped keep the number of cans in the ditches under control. I find it much more frustrating to encounter rusty steel cans because they generally won't come out intact and you don't know whether you still have pieces of can or something more interesting in the hole.

The evidence available to me says this is the mark you refer to. Note that someone submitted a FOUND to NGS in 2003 after the GC data base was captured from NGS. The mark was set by the agency (USGS) listed on the data sheet. The pictured disk was not stamped with an identifier and the data sheet does not mention stamping so there is no conflict there. Several people have reported that the coordinates are "dead on" or within handheld accuracy, which they should be for a mark like this one with ADJUSTED position. That much change in the ground level seems reasonable to me, who has not been there to see for himself. There is no mention of reference marks in the description. The pile of rocks could have been moved by anyone in the last 100 years. The pile of shale in the picture is not the pyramidal shape I'd expect to be used around a mark and is too big.

I don't think this one will make it to such an age. How did this get into the data base? Wooden Stake

I don't care how safe a toy they are, anything that can be called a "gun" does not belong in a cache because of the TERRIBLE public/gov't relations problem that a poorly reported news story could create. As if we didn't already have enough trouble (see bomb squad threads).

Here's a destroyed water tower and the photo I sent to the NGS, MH0454 including the benchmark disk in one of the footings.

mloser I don't understand your disk at KW0786. I read the description to say the disk was in a concrete post nearly flush with the ground and the standpipe 64 feet away was just used as a tie to help find it. If that interpretation is right, the disk could still be sitting just underground waiting for you to find it.

If you can prove the structure that was an intersection station, or had a disk on it, is gone, to the satisfaction of the NGS (probably not Deb now) then they will classify it as destroyed. But you better be SURE. I narrowly avoided making the mistake of submitting NJ0584 to NGS as destroyed because the bridge couldn't possibly be there. Then I double-checked and found the disk--the old bridge was what I had mistaken for a newer culvert about 5 or 6 feet lower than the modern road surface. A similar one that was an easy find so that I had no chance to err was LE0221. Maybe that experience was part of why I double checked NJ0584. Another kind of mistake is to misinterpret a vague description or one where most of the old ties are gone and end up where a structure but not the right one has indeed been removed. The possibility of these and other mistakes are why the standards for proving destruction are pretty high. I'd recommend that nobody submit a destroyed report to NGS until they have found a couple dozen marks to get a better feel for what you typically encounter.

The benchmark list and land surveys share very few points in common. Land survey monument (pin) recovery is fun too and I help my friends look on their lots, but you can't charge for your services, set pins, or even decide what you found is the official corner unless you are a licensed land surveyor.

Here's my guess on the chicken and egg. While it is possible to place a disk at a previously determined position, it is a lot easier to put one in the general vicinity of where you want it and then do the precise measurements later. Particularly when they set a concete post in a dug hole it is good to allow some time for the dirt to resettle before relying on the position to be stable. The 1930's disks were probably set by a crew traveling in advance of the party that measured the elevation or did the triangulations.

I see that there are several marks in the NGS list with similar designations, so I'd refer to the one you hunted down as ET 5 WAC to distinguish it from ET 5, ET 5 DCB USGS 1962, ET 5 BRP 1966, and ET 5 PHT all in PA. BH

The coordinates for MY2648 are "Adjusted" and thus should be more accurate than the handheld GPS. The disagreement at the unmarked disk is over 100 ft so this isn't it. From what the data sheet says, it seems unlikely anybody is going to find MY2648, but it would be neat if you did. The picture shows a Geological Survey disk in cooperation with the state. There are thousands, maybe zillions, of these that aren't in the NGS data base, although a small number of them are. They usually have some designation stamped. I have seen 7 disks in my area, without particularly trying, that aren't listed. For these somebody like USGS set them and probably used them for some purpose like mapping, but the data was not taken to an accuracy or worked up in the manner needed for use in the NGS data base. BH

QUOTE I knew what it was, I knew it was supposed to be there and yet I was still apprehensive about picking it up and opening it. Same here. I had been thinking things like that the day I opened one out in the quiet woods and it triggered a music device that sounded like had been removed from a fancy greeting card. When your adrenalin level comes back down, you are more paranoid than before.

Rob just posted an explanation under the thread on "More Recently Set Marks".

Carpenter's miles 1902 vs Kidder's miles 1925. I think that was typical of the accumulated discrepancy in taping. That's why I was so disappointed that I couldn't find that mile in Kidder/Thoma's notes. I ran out of time before I got a sense I fully understood what was in those pages. There was some chart comparing a few of their measurements, but I didn't copy it hoping to find the descriptions for particular mile points. Maybe I'll be back to the library again some month.

I wouldn't say that is particularly bad. It would have been better to indicate horizontal distance and height relative to something. But it sounds like it must be in the roof or othewise on the structure that the dome is on. How much area is there to search? Notice that the location is ADJUSTED, so you should be able to get within a few feet using your GPS. I'm betting that, if the building is still there, you will find a newer roof at those coordinates hiding the spot where the tack might or might not still be resting.

Here are some interesting items I noticed while going through all that stuff. The 1902 survey party led by Carpenter had 22 other members. They included 1 Assistant Astronomer, 1 Transitman, 4 Chainmen, 3 Moundmen, 2 Axemen, 1 Rodman, 2 Flagmen, Master of Transportation, Photographer, Teamster, 2 Packers, 2 Cooks. The 1903 crew had 19 in similar roles. The transit was made by Young & Sons, Philadelphia, and had horizontal graduations to 30' with vernier to 1 minute. This doesn't sound like anything special for 1902 from my vague knowledge of surveying history. 1868 Darling's notes 161 miles + 39.40 chains Road from Conejos Colo to Santa Fe north and south. Set volcanic stone 18x12x4 marked -C- -NM -1868- with pits and mound. 1868 Darling typical mile point: stone 8x6x4 marked 162M 3 1/2 feet in earth. Built conical mound of stone over it. Set volcanic stone 20x12x8 projecting 6 in above mound marked -C -NM-1868-162M. No natural objects near. 1902 Carpenter notes at 161 mi + 57.60 ch Wagon rd Antonito to Big Horn station NE and SW. 1902 Carpenter 162 miles + 57.90 chains center of D&R GRR tracks. It seems to say the line intersects the RR near the south end of a nearly NE-SW quarter mile stretch and it straightens out N-S beyond that. Carpenter notes when he found Darling's monuments, and that he destroyed each one. I'm not sure, but it seems that he counts Darling's mileposts differently than Darling's notes. One I noted was 32.90 chains (0.41 mile) south of Carpenter's line. The 1925-1950 survey gives a summary of how many of Darling's monuments they found, in some sections most of them and in others perhaps 20%. Both Carpenter and Darling make note of the corrections they make each mile to stay on a parallel of latitude instead of projecting a straight (tangent) line. Kidder died June 1958 and on Jyly 2, 1958 the court appointed Thoma. Field work had been interrupted (when?) and resumed in 1947. Work was completed Sept 11, 1950. So I made progress today, but need to keep reading to see how much I can piece together and see if Kidder's 1925 (+) mile 163 can be found in the notes.

I made it back to the law library today and looked up 364 US 296. The bound volumes don't have any more than the on-line stuff. This library, however, is an official repository and therefore has microfiche of the complete case files from the Supreme Court. The file on this one has all the stuff left over from 1925 in it, which is why I couldn't find anything before using the older case numbers. The file is 19 cards of microfiche, which works out to something over 1700 pages of typeset documentation. Unfortunately a significant part of that seems to be a repeat of the 1868 and 1902 survey notes. There is material gathered by Thoma to wrap up the report in 1960, supposedly in 3 parts that should be a full set of the 1925 and later retracement notes. However the part with mile 163 seemed to not have all been microfilmed. Sigh. It is worth another scan through the cards to verify that before giving up. Here are some notes about what is on the cards, in case any of you can get to a repository library to read it. Card 1 Bill of Complaint filed Oct 29, 1919 Dept. of Interiour General Land Office, Special Instructions for Resurvey of S. Bdy. of Colorado, 1903. Letter instructing resurvey of Carpenter's astronomical monument #6, July 7, 1902 Report of 1902-1903 survey, notes to 79th mile. Card 2 1902 resurvey to 169th mile. Card 3 1902 resurvey to 267th mile Card 4 1902 resurvey to end. ANSWER to complaint Colorado cross bill, filed Mar 1, 1920 Veto by Theodore Roosevelt 1908 bill from Congress 1868 Field notes by Darling, to his 34th mile Card 5 1868 notes to 215th mile Card 6 1868 Darling field notes to end MOTION DEFENDENT'S BRIEF Card 7 REPLY BRIEF MOTION ANSWER 1874 Notes of John Major retracement near Macomb's monument 1900 Notes of Preston, Macomb's Monument and Cimaron Meridian BRIEF DEFENDANT'S BRIEF Card 8 conclusion of brief PETITIONER'S BRIEF DEFENDANT'S BRIEF Stipulation for appointment of Commission (Kidder) 1924/1925 Card 9 SUPPLEMENTAL 1960 Report by Thoma. Report of Boundary Commission Part 1 of 3 NE Corner NM to crest of Sangre De Cristo Range. Retracement through Darling's 121st mile Part 2 of 3 Retracement Darling's 120th to 203rd miles Part 3 of 3 Retracement Darling's 204th to end These parts have table of contents that indicates more pages than I found. Card 10 TRANSCRIPT OF RECORD This is a lot of question and answer. 1902 Filed notes to 93rd mile Card 11 1902 field notes to 193rd mile Card 12 1902 field notes to 320th mile Card 13 1902 field notes to end, certifications 1904. Darling's notes to 148th mile Card 14 Darling's notes 149th mile to end. ORDERS Miscellaneous Card 15 TRANSCRIPT RECORD Includes a sketch map of Carpenter's line Card 16 TRANSCRIPT OF RECORD Field notes, examination of 184th through 199th mile 1901 Card 17 Field notes, examination 212th-214th, 242nd-231st, 1905 on Carpenter's line. Mentions Darling's corners. 1917 General Land Office restoration, with illustration of brass caps on pipe. Card 18 1917 retracement concluded OPINION Card 19 last 3 pages of opinion.