Kewaneh & Shark

I've scaled coordinates from a topo map (using Topozone.com) to get coordinates for an approximate location to a Section Corner, particularly in remote areas, but once I'm in the general area, I rely on the Government Land Office (GLO) notes to find the corner. Section corners have never had a geodetic component associated with them, or goto description that can be located by looking at a road/topo map. As such, their locations as plotted on the USGS quad sheets can be sketchy.

- Kewaneh

It looks to me like FOUND is a NOT FOUND! - Kewaneh

I just spoke to my brother who said it's at a rest stop on west bound I-80, exit 299 or 300. That's only about 1400 feet east and across the highway of the rest stop Wister located. 41.5976°N, 90.4790°W according to Google Maps. There doesn't seem to be much in the way of loggable NGS marks in the area. MG0673 is the nearest being 1.8 miles NW of the rest stop. As mentioned by Callaway, there are most likely many USACE marks in the area near the River. (My brother also mentioned that the map that can be seen outside the breezeway in the 3rd pic was a map of the River basin.) This mark may be loggable on Waymarking if the category owners bend the rules a bit. - Kewaneh

The approximate positions for the control marks were dictated in our project contract prior to the commencement of the project. The final task of the project was to set the control after the completion of all earthmoving and grading. The "road" that you see the mark set in is not much more than a cow trail across the field. It was not a designed road, just a place where someone (mostly me) had driven a truck a few times, mostly to access the mark position. As far as the future of the mark: any mark set by a surveyor or engineer has the potential of being damaged or destroyed at any time. This particular mark, that looks like it was set in the middle of a road, is actually fairly well protected. The road itself would have easily disappeared by the first or second rain. (There are some well defined roads on the site; this was not one of them.) The mark also lies within 340 enclosed acres of an abandoned oil field waste site that is going through an "environmental reconditioning" to return it to a natural state. It is bounded on two sides by 4000+ acres of oil fields, and bounded on the other two sides by rugged lands used only for range cattle. The only people accessing the site for the next few decades would be the oil field foremen. The only reason for anyone to be in the area of the mark, would be to check on the mark itself. All the marks were identified with a Carsonite post so the mark could be located. I think the marks we set that day have a good chance of being around easily for a few decades. - Kewaneh

My brother is a longhaul truck driver. He occasionally sends me pictures of survey marks he stumbles onto in various parts of the country, usually with the question, "Guess where I am?". This is one he sent me. On a recent trip, he found this interesting mark inlaid on the floor of a reststop breezeway. He said it was 12-14 feet across - wall to wall in the room. When I asked where it was (expecting a lat/long or at least a town name), he replied, "Uh... Ohio?... I think." I thought some of you might like to see it. Or maybe one of know where it is, with a bit more precision than just "Ohio". (In the mean time, I'll try to get him to locate it a little better.) Link to BIG PIC Link to BIG PIC Link to BIG PIC - Kewaneh

Like Holtie, a lot of my work involves property boundaries, but I've also spent a good portion of my career working as the surveyor for the City Engineers for various communities in the area. Part of the Surveyor's responsibilities is the maintenence of the monuments and records for the local benchmark networks. Some of the smaller communities rely wholy on nearby Federal, State, and County benchmarks, while some of the communities have their own benchmark network. (These community networks are always referenced to another, larger benchmark network, such as the NGS, USGS, or a County network, which is ultimately derived from the NGS or USGS network anyway.) Part of the benchmark network maintenence also involves the physical benchmarks, including replacing damaged or destroyed monuments (if necessary), and installing new marks where development requires. The benchmark networks are routinely checked for variences every 3-10 years depending on the area. (Areas prone to subsidence due to groundwater fluctuations are sometimes checked bi-annually.) The marks I've set, and reset, have been everything from 1"-2" brasscaps set in concrete, brasscaps used as pipe caps, chiseled squares on concrete curbs, and even railroad spikes set in power poles. (It may be illegal, but it's a very common practice, around here anyway.) All these marks have been set in a manner similar to the marks we seek listed in the NGS database, although the physical mark may have a different look. In most cases, the class and order of the set marks are dependent on the class & order of the parent marks and/or networks, but I have set some where I went through the effort to meet the NGS requirements that the mark could have been bluebooked. In each of those cases, the client and/or project dictated otherwise. So, to answer the thread topic: Yes, I've set benchmarks, however none have been submitted to the NGS for inclusion in the database (which, I think, is the intent of the thread topic.) These are a few pics of some geodetic control I set for project early last year. (I'm not in the pics as I was taking them.) These were dual-purpose marks as they had both horizontal and vertical components associated with them. They were measured with a Trimble R8 system with a 4 hour (minimum) static occupation. The data was then run through the NGS's OPUS service. (The kicker, for me, was when the client flew "an expert" in from back east to check my work. He checked it with a Garmin ETrex!) Link to BIG PIC Link to BIG PIC Link to BIG PIC View the complete set of Final Control Pics HERE View the Project Pics HERE - Kewaneh

When those images popped up on my screen, I thought I fried my graphics card... - Kewaneh

As described by Renegade, chiseled squares are used by surveyors to quickly, and distinctly, identify a leveling point. They are generally about the size of the foot of a leveling rod; about 1.5"-2" square. They are most often found on the edge of a concrete setting, with the edge of the concrete being one of the sides of the square. Of the squares I've set, used, or otherwise found, only one, GU0640, was in the middle of the concrete. GU0640 Big Pic GU1061 Big Pic Chiseled square & cross on an irrigation well footing Big Pic - Kewaneh

The State Line marker you found is a cadastral mark. It is not a benchmark and will not show up in the GC.com benchmark list. Of the four carved sides, three of the marking are obvious. The '41NL' means '41 degrees North Latitude'. It was the line used to define the North line of Colorado. Many of the western States boundaries were defined by lines of latitude & longitude. - Kewaneh

Yes, it's a cadastral mark (it's labeled as such), particularly a PLSS section corner. In many cases PLSS section corners are also property corners (also labeled as such, 'prop cor' over the center markings). The markings of 25 over 36 in the center identify it as the South Quarter Corner of Section 25 and the North Quarter Corner of Section 36, however the township & range are not identified as required by the PLSS Manual of Instructions. I don't know what markings of '19' & '125-15' are. - Kewaneh

These marks are true benchmarks; they are not cadastral marks. The Bureau of Reclamation, which is part of the Department of the Interior, maintains many of the canals & aquaducts throughout the State of California (and other States) including the California Aquaduct. Many of the canal structures on B.O.R. projects have benchmarks on them. The structures, such as bridges, headwalls & gates, weirs, pumping stations and montoring stations, are continually monitored by the B.O.R. for subsidence and the effects of seismic activity. Of the stampings on the marks, most are self explanitory. The MP numbers are miles post numbers. The "R" means right side of the canal. There is usually another corresponding benchmark across the canal. Of the many benchmarks the B.O.R. has, some are in the NGS database, but not many. Here are some examples of some of the B.O.R. benchmarks I've found. (Most of these I've used as part of a survey project.) Marks on canal headwalls. GU0167, GU0168, & GU0169 Marks on headwalls & monitoring stations. GU1472, GU1474, GU1475, GU1476, GU1477 & GU1478 Marks on pumping stations. GU1615, GU1616 & GU1620 - Kewaneh

My daily ride is a 1993 BMW R100GS. I've found many benchmarks with it. Big Pic At GU3377 Big Pic At HR2902 Big Pic My other benchmark transportation is a loaded survey rig. (Not occupying a benchmark, but I tied in a few that day.) Big Pic - Kewaneh

I would also agree that a terrain rating system would/could be too subjective. A description of the terrain and traveled route would be more helpful to any future potential hunters. I've seen issues with the terrain rating system for caches where one cacher's terrain rating might be a '1', but others may find it a '3' or '4'. Some people are more or less apt to think about a long, uphill, over-the-river-&-thru-the-woods hike than others, and some people are just in better shape than others. A case in point is where a few years ago (when GC.com was relatively new and the rating system was in its infancy), a few caches were placed high in the Sierra Nevada mountains by a cacher who was an experienced hiker & packer. A three day, partially off-trail, hike near 10,000 feet elevation to find a cache with a terrain rating of '2.5'! For the cacher who placed it, the hide was a '2.5'. For most of the caching community at large, it was easily a '5' (and nearing a 6). Not to mention, for anyone in a wheelchair, a '2' rating can be the same as a '5'. Wheelchair accessability is the benchmark used for caches to get a terrain rating of '1'. If it's not accessable, it's not a '1'. Some of the benchmarks we consider 'park & grabs', and may consider to be a '1', are not necessarily handicap accessable. - Kewaneh

A nail used as a benchmark is intended to be a temporary mark, as a nail in asphalt would be anything but temporary. Benchmarks are often some distance away from a jobsite where an elevation is needed. A surveyor would 'carry' an elevation from the benchmark to the jobsite and establish a temporary benchmark(s) near the jobsite. For temporary marks, surveyors can use concrete nails, PK nails, MAG Nails, cotton spindles, railroad spikes, chiseled squares on concrete, or a multitude of other things. These temporary marks are usually only intended to be used through the life of the project at the jobsite. - Kewaneh

I can't speak for the NGS, but from a surveying standpoint, that mark looks stable and usable. I'd consider it in 'good' condition. - Kewaneh

Here are a few of the painted marks I've found. Most are on the headwall structures of irrigation canals which are commonly painted white. The painters don't really care what's in the way. Some of the pics I've included show the paint peeling off of the marks. GT1485 Link to Big Pic GT1534 Link to Big Pic GT1535 Link to Big Pic GU0999 Link to Big Pic GU1021 Link to Big Pic GU1152 Link to Big Pic GU1210 Link to Big Pic GU1665 Link to Big Pic HS1074 Link to Big Pic ...but I think concrete is worse than paint. GU1077 Link to Big Pic - Kewaneh

While this question may seem simple on the surface, there is a lot involved with whether or not a found stone is in fact the true corner. Some (not all) of the questions that came to my mind as I read the post are: 1) Did the Surveyor know of the stone monument? 2) How was the property originally described? (Metes & Bounds, Fractional, etc.) 3) Are there qualifications in the property description defining a stone as monumenting the corner in question? 4) How was the corner in question originally monumented? 5) Is there heredity to the corner, or stone? (ie.: is it described somewhere else other than the original deed or plat?) 6) What is the property's relation to the adjoining properties? (Senior vs. Junior rights attributed to the properties and their common lines.) 7) Is there evidence of occupation verifiying the position of the corner? (Stone or set surveyor's pipe?) 8) The 30 feet difference is relative to what? (30' off on a 100' line, or on a 1000' line?) 9) Was the surveyor working for the landowner or a neighbor? 10) And, (this question offends many land owners) is the position of the stone monument marking where the land owner 1) believes the true position to be, or 2) only wants the true position to be? (They can be substantially different.) The pure math of surveying is the same everywhere, but the State and local laws associated to surveying can be different. In order to correctly retrace a survey - any survey - a surveyor must combine his current findings in the field, the applicable laws and surveying methods used when the survey was originally created, together with the intent of the original survey and current laws and applications. Current laws may be applicable to whether or not monuments have more relavance or not over linear descriptions. In California (as in most States) an original monument holds over a line call. As far as the 'new' license: two years of licensure does not mean that the surveyor does not know how to survey, or that his survey techniques and results are any less qualified or correct than someone licensed for 20+ years. Most States require a minimum of eight years of surveying experience prior to sitting for the licensing exams; some States require more than ten years experience. State Licensure means that the applicant has met the minimum State requirements to perform survey work in said State. Many surveyors work for more than the minimum number of years before sitting for the exams. (I had about 15 years before I sat for the exams.) With that, some of the best surveyors I know are unlicensed (but working for, or under, licensed individuals), and there are some license holders whose work I'm cautious of. Simply put, there's not a simple answer to the question of which is the right/correct/true/originally intended position of the corner without a lot of research. If the landowner has doubts, he can ask the surveyor to how he arrived at the position of the set corner and/or why the stone wasn't accepted. The land owner can also get a second opinion by having another surveyor look at it. The landowner may also have to be ready to accept the fact that the stone may not be in the correct position at all. - Kewaneh

I can't speak for the NGS (that would be Dave or Deb) but from my viewpoint, as a professional who uses the NGS site, the data for the mark is the priority, the photos are an accessory. While photos would be nice to have for every recent recovery, I don't particularly need them to find a mark I need to use. The info on the datasheet will get me there (most times). I think this is how the NGS prioritizes the data vs. the photos. There are only a handful of people who are charged with the task of maintaining the NGS benchmark database. Adding another component to the data, which may or may not be able to be automated, could only add to an already herculean task. That's not to say that this is impossible. It IS possible, or the NGS wouldn't already be accepting photos. I just see it that the photos are not as important as the data, and the continuing maintenence of the database. While there are many surveyors who know of this website, and its usefulness, most know it only as part of some game, and others don't know about it at all. There are many serious benchmarkers who have contributed to the NGS database and there are surveyors (and agencies such as the NGS) who DO appreciate their efforts, whether or not they know what the GEOCAC submission tag means. I would, however hesitate to say that this website is superior to the NGS site as they are completely different in purpose - apples & oranges. It goes without saying that the GC.com site is more user friendly, but it is, by design, a recreational site for recreational users. The NGS site simply a database of the NGS data, professional in purpose, with benchmark data being a part of it. Without that data, a benchmark is just a lump of brass stuck on a rock, no matter how many pictures a geocacher takes of it. Don't get me wrong: the pictures are helpful and I would encourage those who submit recoveries to the NGS to send the pictures if they've got them. I'm sure the NGS will what they can with them, when they can. - Kewaneh

When stacks, steeples, radio towers, or other vertical objects used as triangulation stations, the centerline of the object was sighted (except on rare occasions). That vertical centerline - in a virtual sense - could effectively be much longer or shorter than the object itself. It is a horizontal position with no vertical position. A shortened stack with the same, unchanged horizontal position, would still have the same centerline. The 'top' has changed posotion, but the 'center' has not. It would still be useful as an intersection station, only limited by the height, that may not allow the stack to be seen from some of the more distant intersection stations being occupied. - Kewaneh

For the DOT, it may be a right-of-way marker, or other type of cadastral (horizontal) mark. As BDT pointed out, the cross is a good indicator of that. Do you have any other pictures of the setting and/or surrounding area? It would help determine what it is. - Kewaneh

Here's some additional trivia... Link to Big Pic - Kewaneh

My Kids know that they were important before they were presidents, and why they were important. (Their Dad continually reminds them.) They can also tell you that all three of them learned the trade from their fathers. It should also be said here that the 'Other Guy' knew the value of a good survey & surveyor too. Panama never would have happened without one. - Kewaneh

Most of the benchmarks shown on a USGS quad map are USGS benchmarks. Marks from other local, State, & federal agencies are sometimes shown on the Quads if their locations were known to the cartographers. Presently, USGS benchmark data is only available in paper form; it is not posted online. You can obtain USGS benchmark data through the USGS office for your State.

1) Was it worth ALL that time and effort? Yes. When you consider the survey work that developed from the benchmarks that were set, the infrastructure and development that was dependent on them, the ongoing progression of that infrastructure and development, together with all that come from that development, that marks become invaluable. 2) Were all these marks really used - especially the very rural ones? Yes. They were set in areas where they were needed. Some get used more often than others, but they've all been used, and most (if not all) were intended to be used again. 3) How long were they used and would they really be used now with all the technology we have? In theory, they could be used forever. Technology cannot replace what the marks and the associated data represent. In fact, in some cases, the old marks & data help to define that new technology. Technology can give us newer ways to access and/or relatively compare the data, using computers, new surveying instruments, and GPS. 4) How accurate did they really end up being (computer ajdustments notwithstanding)? In most cases, the older marks were accurate and still are every bit as accurate, but it should be said: 'Accuracy' is a relative term, and there are varying degrees of measurable accuracy. Newer technology does not change the accuracy of a mark, nor does the accuracy 'end up' really being something else due to technology's advancement. Technology will continue to advance (so there really can't be an 'end', in that sense), but a benchmark's position and accuracy will always remain constant. That's what makes them benchmarks. - Kewaneh