evenfall

Well most Stations which were monumented along Railroad right of ways were Bench Marks, not Tri Stations, so since this is vertical control, no Box Scores for us. Typically Most of us in the Survey field will mean that if something is located 11 feet from the centerline of a Railroad Track, We mean that you should measure from the place we describe at a right angle from the directions the rails lie. Typically we think of a Railroad crossing as a place where the road crosses the rails, not where the rails cross the road. We are referencing the road when we refer to a crossing and the right angle to the road is again implied. If enough of the original location is intact at all, and if you are not too persnickety about the compass headings, the narrative seems to imply that the station will lie in a northeast quadrant of this intersection. That said, it was monumented in 1934, last seen in 1942 (By NGS?!?!, Hmmm...) and on grade with the centerline of the tracks. Ok so centerline of track will get you to 11 feet. Keep in mind than on grade with track centerline at 11 feet really means only 7 feet from the edge of the Railroad ties, 0.4 feet is 2 hundredths of a foot less than 5 inches above the ground, and this combination is well within the reach of a Jordan Spreader... Buried or uprooted, you decide. Good Luck, Rob

jaymmzzs, Something you didn't tell most of the folks here is that you are talking Postal Code not Zip Code, and since Squamish is about 40 minutes North of Vancouver BC, and Richmond is a suburb of Vancouver also, then you are trying to ask us how to look for Canadian Survey Markers on the Geocaching site. I am sorry, but there are no Databases loaded for this game, other than the one which has been provided by the National Geodetic Survey, which is a US Government agency. The other posters to this thread are correct however, as long as you are hunting in the US. Best of luck, Rob

Ok, where was I? Anyways, This forums seems a better place to discuss, and maybe ask questions if you prefer holding yourself to NGS standards. It is just my observation that some people are uncomfortable with NGS and the rules that go along with their version of recovery. I just think we can perhaps avoid some animosity and confusion if we bring the technical and NGS here and keep the light hearted game over in the other forum. There does seem to be two main methods of pursuing the hobby. This is not to say we cannot be light hearted and fun, but the hope is we can avoid tensions and confusions... Perhaps? Rob

This is the episode where evenfall narrowly misses out on the swooping of down upon an unsuspecting Spoo... But Spoo closes his thread... http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Gallery/1961/ch_stup_89.html Drat and Double Drat! I now return you to the previously scheduled program. Rob

Bill, There is a chance that a monument resetting crew placed a monument. There is a chance that a leveling crew set out from one location and ran a level loop over this reset, which closed, and the results were put through the least squares process and it became a PID with datasheet. There is also a chance that a different leveling crew set out from a different location than the first and ran a level loop over this reset, which closed, and the results were put through the least squares process and it became a PID with datasheet. The left hand may not have known that the work had already been done by the right hand, but because all the post processing was not yet finished in house, they may not have known it was already in process. Further, the post processing may have been done by different people, and not remembered. It could have slipped through with no one knowing or realizing. So two PID's for the same station seems plausible. Leveling is path dependent, which means that if you and I live a mile apart, and there is a Bench Mark half way between our houses and there is also a Bench Mark at each of our houses, and we each level our way to the one in between, there is a good chance that our findings, when compared at the middle Bench Mark may not match. The least squares is what evens these anomalies out and helps everything fit together. In the case you mention, this is .04 Meters or .131233 ft, rounded to 13/100ths of a foot. One tenth 3 hundredths if you will. Call it a sliver less than 1-37/64th inches difference... it is conceivable that 13 hundredths difference could close in two large level loops... But it is a large difference. Until you lay eyes on the actual place, it is a lot of guessing. But there should only be one E 38 reset in the "38" level line. Good luck Bill! Rob

Patty, A Headwall and an Abutment can be construed as similar things, and a wingwall can be construed as part of an abutment, but is not the part that is under the bridge... The abutment is under the bridge and is sometimes called a headwall where the earth ends and the bridge begins. The slope of your wingwalls would not be a great place for a survey marker. But maybe toward the bottom of them where the concrete seems to form more of a channel lining... That sidewalk by any other name is still, a sidewalk. Want some terminology? http://pghbridges.com/termsBrg.htm Enjoy, Rob

It is the Hierarchy of the survey type involved, Bill. First order stations were surveyed from the longest lines of sight possible. this is why there were so many of them done from towers. First order stations were usually on the highest ground, and chosen to be in locations that would help complete a line of triangulation of adequate lengths. z15 has some maps scanned in that show these triangulated lines. They were trying to form triangles here. the longer the line of sight the higher the accuracy. Then the standards which were set were such that first order accuracy was derived from no less than 12 and usually more than 16 separate survey observations , all performed on other 1st order stations to create a new first order station. All these triangulated observations had to close tight. Second order stations required no less than 8 separate observations and Thirds had to have a minimum of four. These all had to be turned angles based on other survey markers of higher order, not RM's. Reference markers are not set to geodetic quality as a rule. They are for a "to find" to the actual survey marker. It is good surveying practice for me to set up my backsight at least equal to, if not slightly further away than the distances I intend to survey as a form of foresight. This will insure a higher accuracy. If I do not observe this practice and start going long on my foresight, in reference to my backsight shot, I am asking to compound my margin for error. Control is only as good as the practices you use to maintain it. I could plop in a new marker, sure, but it would have to be resurveyed to find out what the accuracy is, and it will most likely not be in the very same place, not exactly. Then the least squares adjustment has to be re-performed. Remember these particular survey markers were for measuring the shape and size of the earth and this particular marker is vintage NAD 27 so it was part of the equations that used the Clarke Ellipsoid of 1866 and the Meades Ranch reset Marker which was the main geodetic starting point for the country until superseded by NAD83 in 1986. What I am trying to remind us all is that this is not just important as a single point. It has to relate to it's other local points. These were what measured the shape of the earth in the US. Perhaps DaveD can chime in on how the first second and third order stations were derived and interrelated back in the day. Today it would be reset via GPS most likely, as it is much cheaper to do. In the mean time, here is a rather lengthy article, which will serve as a nice primer that describes all the things a Surveyor has to keep in mind while we are surveying from these survey markers. It sort of lays out the standards I need to work to meet, all the time. enjoy! http://www.state.nj.us/transportation/eng/...ey/Chapter3.htm Rob

As Mike said about the shifting. In some municipalities they pave over the monument covers and then come back later, Jackhammer the new Pavement, raise the Monument cover to the level of the new surface and patch around it. This way things stay centered. In other municipalities the leave the cover standing above the surface and try to get over it with the paving machine. Often the screed on the paver hits the cover anyway and moves it in the direction they paved the road, thus causing the surface shift Mike described. Mike and I concur that if you cannot center an instrument over it, exactly, it is of little use. and sometimes you can't. We can debate this point of course, but it isn't going to keep most Surveyors from moving on to a better one. This one just won't meet the standards we have to keep. As to Trusting Deb's judgment, well, we can go with it, but to reset this using RM's is not doable. The Backsight has to be a lot further away than an RM to even say we are accurate here while we are here. You have to go long before you can go short, or you have no accuracy. In order to reset to Geodetic Quality, a monument would need to be re set and then 4 surveys must be closed on this location, minimum, and a least squares adjustment done just to get back to third order quality. NGS is really only accepting A or B order quality for new stations these days, so this would need to be re measured with an RTK GPS setup to get there form here if the site is suitable for GPS at the Geodetic quality level. It would be poor if you can find the stem hole and I have not read where eyes were actually laid on a stem hole. It would be pretty poor... at the bottom of a dark monument casing. Try looking though an optical plummet at the bottom of a monument casing full of wet Muddy dirt sometime! :-) Rob

After reading your report and re-reviewing your photos and the recovery notes I'm thinking that you have found the station and because I think you did a fair job of assessing the measurements to the street and witness post references. You didn't mention that you found concrete in the hole but the tapered hole down to 1" diameter sure sounds like it could be damaged concrete to me. Staining from the sand makes it look like you were digging in harder soil but, again, your description makes it appear to be concrete. Your description could be consistent with someone taking a heavy prybar and hand jackhammering out the concrete around the disk until the disk popped free. Lot of work and a strange sort of vandalism but it sure reads like it to me. Hard to tell the diameter of the pipe from the photos but if it left 1" or more of concrete exposed around the disk this might be a possibility. Fun puzzle! Thanks. Again, I just want to point out that this is a Third order station with a Brass disc, inside a monument case. If you find the Case but there is no disc inside, guess what? it is not a find. It is a "you found where the disc used to be..." For gc.com you must be able to read the disc. For NGS the disc would make life a lot easier since the station is in a monument cover and buried in a lot of dirt. It really decreases the accuracy, even at third order to try turning angles with this station... Just my.02 Rob

I understand the surveyor's needs but I don't think we are bound by this interpretation for logging gc.com benchmarks. I have considered, for example, a concrete post (used for mounting a benchmark) as the station. If the disk is missing and the impression of the disk or some other conclusive evidence is available then the station could be considered as Found but is in Poor or Disturbed condition. I think this is what Deb's response was suggesting. Hence, a Found log would be appropriate, at least for gc.com. For my concrete post example I don't think a recovery report to USGS would be misleading to future surveyors if it stated Poor or Disturbed condition. I suspect that would actually be more helpful than Not Found. But... for the OP example, the mystery is still too great for me to consider it as having found the station. It is not possible to get concrete out of a pipe without damaging the pipe. It would make no sense that the monument would be removed but the pipe or a new pipe be placed back in the street, all without having to repair the asphalt. Three previous finders reported 9 to 12" depth. The measurements and elevations would have to be spot-on to consider this the actual monument station. If that were the case I would hope to be able to dig deeper. I work in the Survey field and use these monuments for a living, But I digress. Perhaps your right. If it is not found, Perhaps it is really Poor or disturbed. If a Geocacher writes an email to someone who is an NGS employee for their opinion, in hopes of making the best recovery they can to the NGS so that the recovery which will remain on the datasheet forever will be as best it could be, then how is this tremain to the purposes of playing games at geocaching? R_C was dealing with an NGS question not a Game Question. R_C, It may be easier to ask NGS type questions over in the NGS Forum in the future. There is a lower likelyhood that others will misinterpret our intentions there. In any case, If one is talking to Deb Brown at the NGS, I feel it is safe to assume you are talking about trying to make an NGS recovery, Not simply a GC.com Game recovery. Digging nearly 2 feet deep in a monument casing when the Datasheet claims it should be nearer the surface is pretty telling... Digging in a monument casing is rarely fun anyway. R_C claims the pavement looks to be pretty vintage, and so I doubt any overlays would make it deeper. He should have found it as described, yet he didn't. Like I said, It can always be amended back to a found good or poor if someone finds it, but I feel R_C tried pretty diligently and did not find it... Again as I said, If I cannot find a disc, I cannot survey from it. It is not Poor, It is not there and that = not found. Just my take. But what do I know. I 'm just a guy who wastes time for poor Stations that aren't really there! As always, Rob

So I'm off to log it. R_C R_C, Before you take Deb's thinking on this as law, please consider my surveyors point of view. This station you are discussing is a third order triangulation station. What this means to me as a Surveyor is that I have to set up a total station, an Optical Theodolite which has built in Computer and EDM, over this station and center the instrument with the optical plummet over the little dot inside the triangle... But there is no dot, no triangle, you cannot find a brass disc even. Uh, I hate to be a killjoy, but I cannot accurately survey from this location if I cannot center my instrument exactly over this. Guessing would not give me the accuracy I need and throw all the measurements to other Tie in's off, so how can I use this station? How is it poor if there is no disk that you can find? I would say nothing is forever. I mean, you did not find the disc. The disc itself is what I need in order to survey from this point. Ok, then why not report it as not found? If you return and find it later, you can file a found. These status changes can and do happen. People find markers that were not found all the time. Something that is poor must be examinable to determine a condition called poor, wouldn't ya think? That means to me that I would have to find it, see it and examine it in order to determine the markers condition is poor. I honestly cannot conduct a survey from a monument I cannot find. I am not trying to hurt your score, but just get to the purest recovery you can make. If you have to read a disc to claim a find and you found no disc, then what else could it really be? If I don't find one, I don't find it. It isn't a crime. Just some food for thought. I am not meaning to be overly critical either. I hope it helps you see it as a Surveyor would. If we are asking Deb, that end user would be a Surveyor, not a game player trying to win a find, and they would find no disk to use. Yes? Rob

R_C, More often than not, NGS will not destroy a Survey Marker which was monumented as a disc, unless the destroyed disc is empirically shown as not just missing but actually in possession and separated from it's mounting or original location. In other words, you could dig to the bottom of any hole a Survey marker was supposed to have been in and not find it, and NGS would only allow a not found for this, but if along the same hole was a concrete setting with a disc mounted in it, and the photos showed the disc and what was stamped on it, you could ask Deb if she felt that was enough supporting evidence to show it was destroyed, and if her eyes concur that all is matching and shown to be altered from it's original location, she can choose to call it destroyed. Some markers, in fact the majority of those which are most likely destroyed will be forever not founds for lack of supporting evidence that shows them in destroyed condition. Hope that helps R_C, and remember, Strange things happen. Your narrative on this station does leave some interesting clues. Perhaps you can revisit this on the next trip to Ocean Shores. Good Luck, Rob

Mitch, Studying the descriptions written in other datasheets is a great guideline when writing a description. As a Rule, bigger more succinct words were used in lieu of many. I tend to avoid lesser landmarks and business names, because they are less permanent than a street name or a cross street. Lengths as in miles and tenths of miles or Yards and feet are helpful. A building is better described by it's type of construction and street address rather than it's color. Paul made some great points too, so if a Wal-Mart has arisen in that said place, you could say that a large retail chain store building has been constructed at a said address, and is currently doing business as a Wal-Mart. Why say it like this? Well, Wal-Mart may in four years decide to build a Super Wal-Mart a quarter mile away and abandon that building. The Building would then be leased or sold and modified to the new customers specifications. but you in your description will have left a building and a street address as a clue... This really is a treasure hunt you know... We always find the changes and if we think it is important and helpful, we note the changes. If instead the Monumenting Surveyor who placed a station on a bridge pier in 1953 said the station was located on the Westernmost Pier of Bridge 12A of the SP&S Railroad Crossing irrigation Canal 36 near Hanford Washington, I bet that for the most part things are still the same, only the Railroad is now known as BNSF. If that line is still in use or maybe even not the westernmost pier is the westernmost pier and the canal is still... And so the Local Surveyors may not bother with the update because the name of the railroad is not all that significant to the finding of this, but the empirical things which signify the location are. Base your descriptions on things you feel will last the longest. Concrete, steel, the centerline of a road. We have learned that if something is 39 rails from a mile marker, or a Semaphore, we can become discouraged if the Rails are now welded and the line is CTC Controlled. Likewise if it is now abandoned and a Bicycle trail. We have learned there are a lot of Stations in Airports, but since 911 there is little chance of most people ever getting close. Bridges we have learned are not forever, and I know of one I found in a concrete foundation for wooden pier supports, which were no longer used but still in place when a road and a bridge over a railroad cut was realigned long ago. It took a local old timer to tell me where the road used to be in order to make sense of the description. Another I wanted to find, set vertical in the wall of a railroads brick round house but the roundhouse was re sided with steel siding. I bet it is there, and in great condition, but hidden until whenever. I could not obtain permission from the railroad to see, but I know the building was re sided to within 4 inches of ground level. on the public access side. Can I submit a report as based on my suspicions? No. I Wouldn't. I can't stand behind the integrity in that, and in my circles, people are old and new in the field and even an old timer long since gone on is remembered by their work, and trusted as being good at what he did, or not, even today, as we revisit his stuff. At the end of the day, we are trying to leave clues that by the time someone else may seek, be nothing more than a myth of fingerprints. I like to do that as well as I can. In 125 years hence, someone may need all the help they could get. If there is a specific description giving you a struggle, bring it to the table here and let us all have a go at it... We'll come up with something. Rob

Fortunately, we have had the pleasure of direct contact with the NGS here in this forum to help define the blurry rules and procedures. They have been quite helpful in clarifying this for us as we find them. Again, they do this as a disinterested third party, and not interested in anyones game. Perhaps Casey can weigh in with the possibility of them adding a link to their comprehensive website concerning how individual citizens can best serve the needs of the NGS and their Mark recovery Program and web page. How about a rules and procedures page, Casey, Any thoughts? Rob

Please forgive me for taking creative license with my editing. My intent is to neutrally say that there is more than one perspective. But I think both camps in the debate over "gets it" are seeing this from a different perspective. Each ultimately "Get's it", in their own perspective way, but those are very different perspectives. What is alright for one is not so good for the other and so on when the roles are reversed via perception. It is perhaps a Ford vs Chevy or a Liberal vs Conservative thing, and always will be. I think the one who gets it best, is the one who gravitates to the way they want to play the best, and surrounds themselves with other players of their kind. This may mean that since there are two forums, perhaps the ones who take the game as more serious should spend more time playing their way in a forum for more serious players, and the people who like the game to be less serious and more open to various rules or less rules should let the game take whatever shape that is in this forum. It seems more people would be better served, and people could then play the way they feel is a best fit for them with less disagreement over what that should be. I mean maybe we are seeing that this is not just one game anymore, Perhaps it is really two. In the interest of everyone playing the way they like best, Rob

Paul, I can appreciate your observations, and I see these all the time. It is just my observation that some people have been weighing in over in the other forum about the geocaching rules and how much latitude can be taken with them. For some it would seem that things are a little too anything goes, and for others, it is not anything goes enough. If the answer is that it is just a game, and that there will be little official anything to help shed light in the grey areas, then ok, I'll bite. This alternative can be just as fun for those who are so inclined. Here, there are rules too, but they were made by NGS, who has no vested interest in Geocaching, or a game. All they are after is as pure a recovery as they can get, and hope people who submit reports will try their best. These Rules are quite a bit more stringent, and definitely more defined, but only for the purpose of trying to keep the database in the best, most accurate state they can. If one wants to use those rules as a guide with which they approach this hobby, I see it as no different than those who want to be more creative with game rules. My thought though is that there are 3 kinds of people those who see it one way, or the other, and those who can mingle with both. This method brings a different kind of challenge, and perhaps more of one too, that some people really like sinking their teeth into. Different strokes for different folks. Tough challenges are appealing to some people. Like you have found, you can still log your finds at Geocaching, as there is no rule that says you can't, but you can adopt a method of recovering them that does require that more be done, and an attempt at writing a technical description of the station you found be made. More and more, some people seem to becoming involved with this style of the game and are enjoying it. Rather than stir the debate, it could be easier to to use this forum if the way you like to play is the NGS recovery style game. This way, the people who just want to play by the easy rules do not feel threatened by those who want rules that could disqualify some finds that were found with geocaching methods. They are also not confused or otherwise exposed to a more technical dialog unless they come to this forum to read it, and in this forum, that is the order of the day. This way people can choose their style of fun without all the endless debate. (yes the debate is endless, just look back over the last year.) The easiest way is to decide the way you like to Benchmark Hunt, and remember which forum the discussion will be more appropriate to. Food for thought anyway... I certainly see the many cases where we have all sat around dissecting descriptions and methods of hunting as constructive, and this forum seems to lend itself to that sort of discussion than the other one. So if you like NGS recovery better, or enjoy the technical side of things when that need arises, this may be where you will want to come to ask or chat, even offer your thoughts. Sometimes it is interesting to discuss the reasons how a station goes from flush to recessed 2 inches... Best Regards, Rob

Hey Everyone, I just thought I would take the time to remind us all that there is more than one set of rules to hunt Survey Markers with. Because this is the case, there is more than one forum, meant to support the players in the way that best matches the style of hunting you most prefer to enjoy. The NGS Forum Is a great place for those who enjoy technical discussions, sometimes highly technical discussions, and more stringent, high integrity recovery rules that the NGS style recovery affords. In other words, If you like to recover Survey Markers to NGS standards, using strong rules which are held to very high standards by a disinterested, non competitive third party, whether you report them to NGS or are not ready to yet, this is a great place to chat about these things. Sure there is the Geocaching Benchmark Hunting Game Forum, and if you prefer "just a game", and no tough standards, with loosely defined rules which are open to interpretation and creative license, and just to play the hobby that way, feel free to post there. But there are options: If you are looking for a more challenging way to play, with higher standards of accuracy, NGS rules which are controlled by non Geocachers, with emphasis on making as accurate, and detailed survey marker recovery as you can, This is your discussion forum. You don't have to report your finds to the NGS to use this version of the game. Some people just prefer clear succinct rules, and receive help in clarifying these rules from the NGS rule makers. If you like looking for esoteric errors and incongruencies in the NGS Database, and want to discuss the confusing details which are often found, This is your discussion Forum. Do you have technical questions for geodesists from NGS and visiting Surveyors? This is your discussion forum. If you have been playing the game but are stuck finding a tough station and want to talk about the technicalities of your tough find, this is a great place to do that. Are you thinking of Volunteering, by contributing some of your time to Public Service for the NGS in helping recover Survey markers to their database, and would like some tutoring to help you do this the best you can? This is a great place to learn how, as there are many who do, and will love to help. There is no pressure to compete, but you can amongst your friends if they agree. Mostly this is about topping your own personal bests. The biggest contest is between you and the survey marker. There has been some recent concern over the integrity of the rules the game is played. This is not unusual, but there is a work around. You have a choice and alternatives, even if you don't want to do official recoveries to NGS, you can still follow their rules of marker recovery (hunting) and we have members who will help keep track of your find statistics at NGS if you want to let them know who you are. Play the way you like, but remember, this alternative is here. Know that some here will take this game very seriously and some will want to perform a public service. It is going on at the same time this way of the game is being played. Know that there are players who will openly advocate in favor of reporting Survey marker finds to the NGS. Please do not be offended if this is discussed. Play either way you like, or both ways. Chime in any time, and feel free to use this forum too. There is just as much fun to be had here. Rob

Renegade, In some States, there is a provision under the Law that can be carried by a bonafied employee of a Licensed Survey company and or engineering form which can be helpful in granting access, but, it is not iron clad. They can still be denied access. In some States, There is no such provision under law, and the Surveyor must take their chances. In any case, even where provided by law, it is not a free pass. There are plenty of things which can go poorly for the Surveyor. Here is a webpage with some helpful info regarding this matter. http://www.rispls.org/Articles/Surveyor%20...0of%20Entry.htm Even with the Law on your side, If a big man with a rifle and a ornery disposition visits you with his big dog of similar disposition, and says he don't whant chew on his poperty. You best git! Permission, up front, is always best to have in any instance. Good luck, Rob

Sorry OMT, I intended as the author of this thread, for it to be a note for information. An answer for those who find survey markers which are not listed, and to direct those who are wondering, how to get more information. Not a discussion thread. If you have specific questions, Please feel free to post a question in the forum. I am re-closing this thread so as to keep it from becoming a menagerie of disconnected thoughts, as well as a clearing house for unanswerable questions. Thanks, and see you in the forums, Rob

I wonder why TPTB set up the NGS forum? John Sorry John, Not taking the Bait. But I hope the forum moderator does. This matter has their attention and I hope they can help resolve it. Best Regards, Rob

I don't have a dog in this fight but I have an observation. There are 2 ways to recover these survey markers. One, is the Geocaching.com game of benchmark hunting. The games rules are loosely defined enough so as to leave many people boggled as to what the rules could and do mean, and many decide to interpret them very widely as they see fit, both conservatively and liberally enough so as to cause disagreements as to what's what in regards to the rules. They are also confusing to some who need to learn why there are 2 different sets of rules that hunters follow depending on the way they choose to play. Unfortunately, as the sanctioning body of the game and it's rules, GC.com has decided not to further define the rules as the game has evolved to help mitigate the confusion and animosity these loosely defined rules cause. This causes a lot of discord and heartburn within this community of game players. I know, I have received a lot of the discourteousness and meanness full on from more than a few players here. Others in this thread are getting a taste of how this goes right now. It is not fun, but until GC.com comes down as the TPTB and tightens up the looseness in the definitions which define the rules, this will continue to drive a wedge between us. Two, is the Rules that the National Geodetic Survey, a US Government agency and Controller of the survey markers and survey data. The Geocaching Benchmark game is loosely based on these markers and their data, but with different rules. The NGS is a disinterested third party as far as the Game of hunting is concerned, and their rules are based on the premise of insuring a pure recovery that allows for reporting the latest news about a survey marker without allowing too much hard to correct, vandalism to the data to occur. The nice thing about NGS rule, (in my opinion) are that they belong to a disinterested third party, and are immutable. While not totally clear at first, they are a lot more succinct than those used at GC.com and can make sense once someone understands the NGS reasoning for why they follow the methodology they do. Those who like them simply have to play by a clearly defined set of rules and the grey ares to this are happily defined by the NGS employees, who are disinterested in GC.com game play. In other words, these are the rules and they are not open to interpretation by anyone other than the NGS itself. We simply have to follow them. This does bring clarity and fairness to the NGS recovery method if taken as a game. Until GC.com comes forward and works with us collectively over which rules are too loosely defined and are taken too much interpretive license with, these spats will likely continue. Those who like to say this is just a game while capitalizing the word game do seem, in my observation, quite happy with the loose definitions and will likely be the most upset if the rules are more clearly officially defined. Those who wish the rules were more clear and have been advocating for this for a long time will have to continue to watch the loose definers have their fun until such a time comes to pass, if it ever does. The only real solution would be for GC.com to step up and help us define these rules a bit better than they are. Some will welcome this and some will flatly hate it, but it is the only real solution. Monopoly is a game, just a game, but it has rules., a more clearly defined set than benchmark hunting does to be sure. Chess would be another fine example. Try loosening the rules at a chess match and watch the fur fly! Again, This is not a flame nor a complaint, just my observations. It is not necessary for anyone to like or dislike, agree or disagree. More importantly, I do not wish to be flamed by those who disagree. If you have your own opinions please feel free to post them and own them as yours without referencing mine. I am hoping to avoid further flame spankings today. Thank you, Rob

Airmapper, My Apologies, If needed. I was responding to what I feel is ongoing angst, not hoping to create more. Perhaps we all can have a look at what caused this, and make the appropriate corrections for the future. Regards, Rob

John, I didn't forget. I was more concerned about your unrelated opinions. For the record. I am A Survey Tech and Grade Man. My involvement is more with Heavy and Highway Civil Engineering Projects, Construction Staking and Earth moving, more than property line work. I build to elevations based on NGS or other high quality Bench Marks, (Never USGS unless accepted by NGS) and use State Plane Coordinates as based on NGS guidelines for horizontal control, and rarely get involved with Cadastral Survey markers. I am never involved with Legal Property Survey issues. As a side note, and a good time to share this... State Plane Coordinates were developed by USCGS, in the Pre NGS days to take a smaller area of the world, pretend it is flat, and contained within a limited and defined area, then give it a grid so it can be treated as a simple cartesian coordinate system. It works well in small areas and eliminated the need to use circular equations which involve the curve of the earth. Most things we use it for are smaller than the state plane coordinates themselves, and often some engineers use their own coordinates in a similar scale as the SPC so as to just envelop their particular project. Most all Public works surveys use SPC. It is of geodetic quality and all the survey markers we hunt still fit over local measurements. I use GPS by Trimble and Topcon, sometimes Leica in my work, occasionally Total Stations, which are basically a computerized Theodolite with EDM, and even Hand Levels with tape measures. We typically grade to 2/100ths of a foot optically. 5/100ths of a foot with GPS, in motion on machines. I use these survey markers as a part of my employment. I have recovered some here to GC.com to show the various types of recoveries there are, how one could approach photographing and writing descriptions for them. I stopped recovering them to GC.com when I felt I had enough examples of types of mark, founds and not founds, potential destroyed, and how to approach documenting each type. When I recover to NGS, I do so under LOCSUR. I have also recovered under the Agency Codes for companies I have worked for. In addition, I have also submitted many hundreds of stations for status change in the database, and continue to on an ongoing basis. I don't generally hunt these full time as I use them at work, but I have on occasion. I have never done a Geocache. I have no interest. I have other hobbies I often pursue. One hobby I have come to enjoy, is being an active advisor to people on this forum, by helping others find, understand, and interpret their survey markers, as well as help them understand some of the in's and outs of surveying and geodesy in general. Rob

John, With respect to forum guidelines, I respectfully disagree with what I feel are inflammatory statements you are making. I am sorry you feel this way. I wish that you would refrain from making statements like that and just make on topic comments about what you enjoy doing. Thank you. Rob

Gotta Love a job description that is much longer than the tolerated length of a typical resume! Whew!