Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by GH55

  1. Thanks for the reply. This got me to thinking some more about the possible tie in to the WIDT settings in 1992. DF9437 is set as both a vertical and a horizontal control station. After studying its datasheet more closely, this struck me: "---NOTE---THE STATION IS NORTH, SOUTH, AND WEST OF DF9437'THREE ORANGE 4X4 PLASTIC WITNESS POSTS." I found the disc in question here with three orange witness posts set around it. Investigation of nearby horizontal control points set by the WI DT indicate that setting three orange plastic witness posts is a common practice, and may even be a standard. For instance, see ADAMS E GPS , DECATUR GPS and MOUNT PLEASANT W GPS chosen at random from the horizontal control points in Green County, WI. See also the horizontal control monumented by WIDT in Rock County, Wi. So, although at first I did not think of linking WIDT to this station, now it seems reasonable to infer that WIDT at least visited the station in 1992 and placed the orange witness posts. It would also be a reasonable conjecture to say that perhaps the WIDT crew repaired the station and stamped the 1992 stamp at that time, but that such activity did not make it into the data sheet for whatever reason, such as simply not reporting a recovery. I think I am going to ask the Illinois and Wisconsin state advisors about this.
  2. Searching for NH1526 the directions and description from the current datasheet were adequate. There are three orange witness osts surrounding the surface monument. There are two troubling things about this staion: First, the disc is set in a concrete post that surrounded by a piece of black plastic field tile that may have been used to form it, though there could be a possibility that the palsitc could have been added later as some sort of protection. Second, according to my notes, the disc is stamped "VOGHT 1935 1992". Nothing on the datasheet would explain the "1992" in the stamping, such as a recovery or a reset. From the previous, I would guess that the surface mark was reset or repaired in 1992 but was not logged at that time. However, the only activity I find in Stephenson County on any NGS datasheets is a recovery of a chiseled cross and setting of a disc in Winslow, Illinois, which is only a few miles away. There is no activity on any datasheet in surrounding counties in Illinois:Jo Daviess, Whiteside, Ogle and Winnebago and Lafayette County, Wisconsin. In adjoining Green County Wisconsin, there were two stations monumented in 1992: DF9436 and DF9437. It is a mystery to me. I am thinking this over awhile before submitting recovery. Thanks for any help. Added: NH1527 (VOGHT 1935 RM 2) was searched for and not found.
  3. Back again after a couple of years off, with 2 NGS recoveries. (another one destroyed, but that hasn't been submitted, yet). Thanks for keeping this updated.
  4. Thanks for the updates! I always look forward to them.
  5. First: It appears well documented in the datasheet for FQ0713 that the lookout tower that was present when it was monumented is now gone. It also appears that the change in location for the tower is documented within that datasheet to an extent that it is as certain as possible without visiting the site that the tower that was observed in 1934 is no longer in existence. At the site, a good test to corroborate what seems obvious from the two datasheets would be to take handheld GPSr readings at the site of the Grandview disk and see how well they agree with the published coordinates. Then take a reading at the tower. I would bet that the readings are spot on, within the level of accuracy of the unit, at Grandview. My guess is that the geocacher who reported the tower as found in 2005 did not do that test and reported finding FQ0712 in error. It is my understanding that ADJUSTED figures on the datasheet are as good as surveyed points can be, whether horizontal or vertical. The coordinates were surveyed as well as they could be and the adjustment is to make refinements from later observations and to adjust from the older datum to the current datum. As such, the published coordinates for a location adjusted horizontal control point should be much more accurate than the expected error of any consumer grade GPS receiver. And that is the basis of the final corroborative test proposed above in case anyone had any doubt as to the accuracy of the datasheet. If the tower does not match the adjusted coordinates, then the most current recovery report for FQ0712 cannot be helpful and could cause a problem should anyone decide to use it's position for survey work. It would seem to me, in that case, that a NOT FOUND report, with an explanation of what was found, would be in order. It would take quite a bit of extra documentation in order to have it classified as destroyed, whether that is worth your while is up to you. I did that with a church spire (MG0680) that was being reported as found even though the church had burned in 1941. Here is a link to that PID on Geocaching. SECOND: As for GP0514: "BISSEL" I would second the statement that it would be highly unlikely that a station designated "BISSEL" would be stamped "CANYON." In the Geocaching Log for that station, the geocacher supplied photographs which clearly show the disk and the area a few feet around it. Not having been there, I cannot be certain, but it appears to me in his area photograph there is a piece of the rock in the foreground that may have been chiseled out. Does it appear that way in person? That could have been the location of "BISSEL" and the USGS could have removed it when the other disk was set. This is only a guess and it would require research with USGS to confirm or deny. Since it is a USGS survey point, they would not necessarily have reported to NGS if such work was done. With the observations you have, I would also report BISSEL as "NOT FOUND" I hope this helps.
  6. Look again at the NGS Datasheet: KX2093 In the "box score" (right above "Superseded Survey Control")you will find the distance and direction to each of the RM's from the station. Direction only to the AZ mark. If you start from the RM's and measure the given distances in the reciprocal directions, you should get close to the station mark. The one point in approximately the correct direction where the two measurements meet should be the location of the station. As for the AZ mark, you may just have to guess where the guard rail should have been, and rely on the given azimuth from the station. I think.
  7. On the NGS Forum FAQ's, there is a summary of NGS guidelines to describe the condition of a mark. I think your photos support reporting "Recovered in Poor Condition." Here is what NGS says about "Poor":
  8. Your log is for the staion "JONES" yet that is not the disk you have pictured. I would suggest you take a look at the "Me First" FAQ's at the top of this forum and about ADJUSTED coordinates. Those coordinates are more accurate than the resolution of your handheld GPS receiver. From previous geocacher logs of this disk, we see that the station JL0850 "Jones" is 0.455 minutes west of this disk and 1.305 minutes north. and at about 500 feet higher elevation. That is about 1.5 miles away. The real disk should say "JONES" and it should be set in a boulder. It is hard to tell from the picture, but it looks like the one you and others found at the overlook is set in concrete. Is that right? It appears that this is a popular mistake for geocachers to make. If you want to log it correctly, you may want to try the Waymarking Page and be the first to log your find correctly!
  9. The way that I know to report have the correct information in the datasheet is when you are satisfied that you have everything in order and either find the mark, the disk in a boulder pile, (or, perhaps, the disk in its correct location), make a recovery report to NGS with your observations. Of course I have not been there to see the lay of the land first hand, but I might still hold out some hope of finding it still in place. From the photo you posted, it looks like you can project the intersection of the n-s crossroad fairly accurately. Then you have a reference to find the 49 feet SW of the crossroads to start searching for the boulder. Because the disk is described as "STANDARD USGS TABLET STAMPED ---CORNER, 1957 VABM 2790--- CEMENTED IN BURIED BOULDER FLUSH WITH THE GROUND." I would not completely give up on the mark without some probing to see if there is a boulder there, only covered when the crossroad was taken out. For information on making recovery reports, see the pinned topic "NGS Forum FAQ."
  10. As others have pointed out, we have many resources at our disposal that the folks did not have in the 1950's Chief among them for hunting marks with Adjusted coordinates is the GPS receiver. In the box score of the NGS Datasheet for TK096, it shows a reference object "TK0495 SQUARE BUTTE APPROX.17.6 KM 1620251.8" You might either find TK0495 and get a reading, or trust the Adjusted coordinates for Square Butte as printed. Either way, if you get those coordinates into your GPSr and use the "Go To' or similar function, it should tell you if you are the correct distance and direction from TK0495 when you are at the described location or at the adjusted coordinates for CORNER. The azimuth appears to be the more reliable of the two, since the distance is given as "APPROX." It seems unlikely that the adjusted coordinates will be wrong, but that is a way to check.
  11. Sorry to take so long to reply, but my computer was down for a few days waiting on a new mother board. If you look (again) at the NGS Datasheet, you will find a box that looks something like this that lists reference objects for this mark: PR0977|---------------------------------------------------------------------| PR0977| PID Reference Object Distance Geod. Az | dddmmss.s | PR0977| PR0969 BROOKINGS SD ST COLL CAMPANILE APPROX.21.3 KM 1410704.3 | PR0977| PR0973 BROOKINGS MUNICIPAL TANK APPROX.22.0 KM 1420213.6 | PR0977| CO7834 BILL RM 2 18437 | PR0977| CO9331 OAKWOOD LAKE RM 3 27.274 METERS 19414 | PR0977| CO9329 OAKWOOD LAKE AZ MK 2 2230331.6 | PR0977| PR0861 ARLINGTON MUNICIPAL TANK APPROX.18.2 KM 2313054.4 | PR0977| CO9330 OAKWOOD LAKE RM 23521 | PR0977| PR0978 BILL 2.656 METERS 30250 | PR0977| CO7833 BILL RM 1 32451 | PR0977|---------------------------------------------------------------------| Notice that there are some reference objects listed with similar PID's, such as PR0861 ARLINGTON MUNICIPAL TANK that have their own PID and datasheet. Those are also reportable at Geocaching if they were in the database that was loaded there. A search for nearby marks should turn them up. Other reference objects that are not surveyed and worked up to a degree that they are included in the NGS database, but are nonetheless used as reference objects from the station are given an identifier that looks something like a PID in that it has two letters followed by 4 digits. This is not a PID, but just something to identify the object in the records. The Azimuth mark is one of those objects, as are the reference marks. There is no provision for reporting these other reference objects except to note the results of the search for them in the notes to the report of the main station. I hope this helps. One of the great things about this pursuit is that there is so much to learn! GH
  12. Finding a previously "Not Found" is what I like best about benchmark hunting. I look for all of them if I have access. It appears to me that the Power Squadron folks in my area must have done several "drive by's" as well, because some have been quite obvious if when the directions are followed. I also tend to be a completist, trying to seach for every mark in an area before moving on. Carrying the most current NGS Data Sheet is helpful when searching for marks that have not been found for many years.
  13. The evidence seems overwhelmingly to indicate that it is not. Just which signs would lead you to believe it is the right marker?
  14. OK, what I meant to say earlier: There are several reasons to believe that station PR0977 "OAKWOOD LAKE RESET" was not found: (1) The station was recovered (found) by the NGS in 1974 at the correct coordinates and rechecked at that time. (2) the station mark was set in a square concrete monument - the disk that was found is set in a round monument. (3) the station mark was set 16 inches below the ground surface - the disk that was found was flush with the ground. (4) the station is described as being 0.35 miles south of an east-west graded road on a ridge in a cultivated field - the photos show the disk you found near a road and not on a ridge. (5) the station "Oakwood Lake Reset" is described (in the box score for PR0978 "BILL") as being 2.656 meters (8 ft 9 in) at 122 deg 50 min from PR0978 "BILL". That distance was checked by the NGS in 1974. The coordinates for the two stations indicate they are only a few feet apart. PR0978 BILL NAD 83(1996)- 44 27 53.86665(N) 096 57 19.96752(W) ADJUSTED PR0977 OAKWOOD LAKE RESET NAD 83(1996)- 44 27 53.82001(N) 096 57 19.86656(W) ADJUSTED It is extremely unlikely that NGS would get the coordinates wrong on two marks on several separate occasions. (6) The datasheet indicates that a reset was made in 1971 and at that time, a standard disk was used - the disk that was found is an Azimuth Mark disk. (7) the station was described in 1971 and in 1974 as being 3/4 mile north-northeast of the north end of Oakwood Lake. A check on Topozone shows the published coordinates as being on a ridge, at an elevation between 1750 and 1760 feet, about 3/4 mile northeast of Lake Oakwood, about 0.35 miles south of an east-west road. The east west road has a curve, and a westward continuation just as in the "go-to" description for the AZ mark. Therefore, the published coordinates and the published description of the location for the station match closely. There are several reasons to believe that you found CO9329 OAKWOOD LAKE AZ MK 2: (1) the disk you found is in a round concrete monument, the AZ Mark is described as being set in a round concrete monument. (2) the disk you found is flush with the ground - the AZ Mark is described as being set flush with the ground. (3) from the photos it appears to be the correct distances from the road for the AZ Mark - 98 feet southwest of the center of a road intersection, 75 feet west of the center of the east-west road, and 14 feet northwest of the northwest end of a stone structure supporting the sign "Oakwood Lakes State Park." (4) You describe the disk you found as being "almost a mile off from the coords." - The "go to" description for the AZ mark describes it as being, from the field entrance of the road that is 0.35 miles north of the station mark, west about 0.65 miles and south about 1.0 miles. From plane geometry, that would put the AZ mark roughly 0.80 to 0.85 mile SW of the station mark coordinates. (5) the disk you found is an Azimuth Mark disk stamped OAKWOOD LAKES 1903 1971 - the datasheet indicates an azimuth mark was set in 1971 at a location consistent with the description of where the disk was found. (Did I miss anything?) Based on that evidence, it is as certain as one can be that the azimuth mark "OAKWOOD LAKE AZ MK 2" was found and PR0977 "OAKWOOD LAKE RESET" was not found.
  15. The stamping at the bottom appears to be "LS 126." Most likely the LS stands for "Land Survey," or "Land Surveyor." It is most likely a land survey marker and not a benchmark.
  16. The following links are for the current NGS Data Sheet for each mark. In general, to find the current Data Sheet, go to this link for NGS PIDS Form and enter the PID's for the stations you are looking for. I find that having the most current NGS Data Sheet is helpful in finding the marks. OF0815 was found by the Power Squadron on May, 6, 2006 At the location of OF0816, the report from that date is that evidence was found of a destroyed headwall. Since there was no evidence of the disk, it is officially "Not Found." OF0817 was also found on the same date. Those that were found in May should be easy enough to find if you use your GPS receiver to get to the vicinity and use the description to find the disk. Good Luck!
  17. CO9329 OAKWOOD LAKE AZ MK 2 "PR0977'THE AZIMUTH MARK IS A STANDARD DISK STAMPED OAKWOOD LAKE 1903 1971, PR0977'SET IN THE TOP OF A ROUND CONCRETE MONUMENT FLUSH WITH THE PR0977'GROUND. IT IS 98 FEET SOUTHWEST OF THE ROAD INTERSECTION, 75 FEET PR0977'WEST OF THE CENTER OF THE ROAD LEADING SOUTH TO THE LAKE, 53 FEET PR0977'SOUTH OF THE CENTER OF THE EAST-WEST ROAD, AND 14 FEET NORTHWEST PR0977'OF THE NORTHWEST END OF A STONE STRUCTURE SUPPORTING THE SIGN, PR0977'OAKWOOD LAKES STATE PARK." That is what was found. Check it out at the NGS Datasheet for PR0977 The descriptions for the Azimuth Mark in both 1971 and 1974 match the photos and description in SoDak Searchers3 log. It certainly is not the station mark, which, when reset, was not an azimuth disk but, instead, a standard disk. And the disk he found is in a round concrete post flush with the ground, matching the 1971 and 1974 Azimuth Mark descriptions as well. The photos make it appear to be the correct distances from the road.
  18. Have you had success getting the county listing changed? I reported two county errors, for MG0347 and MG0357, with complete descriptions and recoveries last summer. I got a nice email back from Cheryl Malone thanking me, but the datasheets still show the wrong counties for them. And using the County Search feature at the NGS Website still brings them up in the wrong county. I did put the correct counties in the recovery notes. GH
  19. You may want to bookmark this web page: NGS Datasheet PIDS Form Once at that web page, you can find the most current datasheet for the marks in which you are interested by simply entering the PID("s). (The PID found is found at the top of the Geocaching page for the mark following "Details for Benchmark:" It is 2 letters followed by 4 digits.) Also, it is recommended to read the Me First! topic in this forum for answers to frequently asked questions and for some other tips. Happy hunting!
  20. I have seen similar reports, but I do not recall seeing another agency credited with the first Station Description while NGS is credited with the recovery report. In fact, I don't believe I have seen a description with the same date as a "Mark Not Found" report. That is why it looks suspiciously like a transcription error to me. One of many plausible explanations would be that the "Mark Not Found" is an erroneous entry. That would still only be a clue.
  21. JX0218" "DESCRIBED BY NATIONAL GEODETIC SURVEY 1957 How was it that NGS both wrote the description and did not find the mark in 1957? It seems to me that either the description was written in 1933, or NGS actually found the mark in 1957. Maybe there is a clue to be found, or an approach, based on that apparent error.
  22. Recommendations: The "Me First" thread pinned at the top of the page. That has answers to many questions that come up repeatedly. And if they are not in that thread, there is a link within it to the FAQ page where many more answers await. Happy Hunting!
  23. It would be helpful if we knew just what it was that caused the warning in the first place. After all, if we don't know, how can we learn what is acceptable? I have asked Max Cacher privately for an explanation and have gotten no reply. Max, or Keystone, please explain. GH
  24. Not being a geodecist or surveyor, I am having trouble getting my mind around the part about the errors introduced by the lack of uniform gravitation not averaging out when running a level line in each direction. What I am reading, then, is that if I survey a level line in one direction, the errors are not the same as if I surveyed it from the other direction? Similarly, around a closed loop in one direction, the errors are not the same as if I go around in the opposite direction? Is that true even using the same stations in both directions? This seems counterintuitive. It will take some time to sink in.
  25. Well, I only reported two in October, and they are updated as of today. GH
  • Create New...