evenfall

I have been wondering... It is true in my thinking, Geocaching is not really very active with the benchmark hunting community. Hey, just my observations. Getting to the heart of this though is a dialog I would like to see. Here is what I think I know. Jeremy, the principal owner of Geocaching is a busy guy, and he has to limit himself to certain things so he can run the show. It is simply how he must balance tasks. I am sure he has a vision, but there always what must be done to keep things running and that eats into visionary time. When you have this sort of situation, the adage "squeeky wheels get greased" often rule the day. This I believe is some of what is behind the philosophy and operational culture here at Geocaching. Of course the weight of premium membership opinion will outweigh the holders of free memberships, but Jeremy is a listener. He has said here in this forum in the past that he has ideas and is open to hearing them. But there is a catch. he does not have the time to read this forum often. He is pretty thankful that it takes care of itself. This is not true of most Forums. He has also said to the benchmark hunting community that if you have something you want to tell me please use the website Forum which can be found here: http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showforum=8 He also has his email address to contact him directly with as well. As to the Pocket Query question and a few others, I would like to suggest an Idea. What if we were to try the squeeky wheel approach. What if someone who is a regular here in these forums were to start a thread in the website forum about the PQ for benchmarks as an Ice breaker. Then come back here and start a thread with a link to that thread. If enough of the people here really want this and petition Jeremy to open a dialog with us, Maybe we can invite him to come here to discuss some of our other concerns and desires as well. The key is to get the dialog open and getting Jeremy persuaded to stay in it with us for a bit. We may be able to express some ideas and allow him to think about them. We of course will need to be willing to accept the answers he gives us as well. He may tell us no on some things and why he does not want that. In any case, it would be a way that as a group, we would like some of his time, to address a few thoughts issues, concerns what have you. I have a sense as a Group working together we could get some answers. As individuals just talking amongst ourselves here, nothing much has come from it. It is also possible that people emailing Jeremy Directly may work as well, But what say you all? Do you think trying his main form, and starting with Pocket Queries is a good beginning in This? I think opening an active dialog would be a good Idea and we ned to invite him somehow. In the end, or in time if you will perhaps we can offer him some ideas which can promote Benchmark hunting, and possibly add value to his business with money making ideas, maybe tat can happen too. We have to start somewhere. Any thoughts? Rob

BDT, You Make a good point. Tact and diplomacy need to rule the day. Fortunately for the Caching side, the Cache owner can be the heavy and approve the find or NOT, Shame on them when they don't, but some people cannot handle the thought of confrontation, so they avoid this. Benchmark Hunting has an owner too, but they can't really play. So we photograph. Of course we also know who is for real or not by the way they treat the narrative part of the recovery. The hope is that the Hunter themselves will take ownership of the quality they put into the Find. Regardless of the notes, we as hunters who strive for accuracy write, as I said earlier, we can still be run over in the crosswalk by those who simply refuse to care or take things seriously, as evidenced by the Log for the Seattle Space Needle: http://www.geocaching.com/mark/details.aspx?PID=SY4314 Please note that some rather prolific Cachers do not care what the purists think. You will also note that some prolific Cachers who are not known to us as benchmark hunters did a great job. I can tell you that it would be a waste of your time to even try to persuade them otherwise. It is better to just let it be. Short of muttering or reciting the serenity prayer, some peoples attitudes towards playing according to Hoyle will never change. If you really want to play with full on technical accuracy, where it matters and make a difference, then, feel free. It is just as much a choice on your part to do so as is the choice some people make to simply not care. In the end, what will influence anyone to change their personal style is a good question. If you figure it out, your negotiating skills will be worth a lot of money to someone. Good Luck, Rob

Appointing anyone or group of people here into scrutinizers of benchmark logs is not a good way to win friends and influence people. It would go over like a lead balloon in a hail storm. I can hear them saying "who died and left you boss?" There are already a bunch of straight geocachers who feel the Benchmark hunters take themselves too seriously. I will grant you that doing it well is a bit serious, but a good many of those people appear to dislike following any rule that they cannot bend to favor themselves as they go. They simply do not care what the rules are and if you get in their way, they will simply run you over in the crosswalk. Does that make it a wash? Even if you could consider it a moderate Idea, which it isn't. It is still a bad deal. The Rockhounders are pretty moderate Hunters who just want to have fun. John is speaking up about this as he sees it as a threat to his fun, and I can't say I blame him. If this idea seems offensive to them, I would take note. I feel their way of looking at this really does represent the way a lot of casual players want to play. Their more casual approach to fun was one of the reasons I advocated the NGS forum. I feel the Rockhounders and people who enjoy just the game as they do, should be able to have their fun without pressure or extraneous rules put upon them as they enjoy their fun. If you want to be heavy into NGS recovery, that is great, but it is also a personal choice that not everyone shares. Please let the game player stay on the light side of things and play their game. The NGS Forum is nearby and the rules are more stringent for their style of recovery. That is the best place to to be serious about NGS recovery. Why? Because NGS is the rule maker there. Wanna Play? Take it or leave it. Rob

M&H Taylor, Here let me sort through this with you... I'll repost and answer as I sort through. > Our understanding is that if a set of horizontal coordinates is ADJUSTED, then pro gear can be set up on that point with accuracy to a couple of millimeters. For the most part, yes. Millimeters or Centimeters depending on the station's inherent accuracy. a Pro RTK GPS sitting over a Third Order Survey Mark is more accurately positioned than the station it is sitting over. > But what was the set of coordinates on which the adjustment was based? In the initial sense it is a here we are, so where are we sort of process. In the old days it was optical and today it is radio but it is basically a process of Triangulation. to known points are used to derive an unknown point. Like I said before Third Order wise, that was 4 separate sets of intersected surveys. Then a least squares Adjustment, (read Calculus) is performed to place the position amongst the surveys and then the position is run against the rest of the stations in the vicinity and this can be a number of different ways... The best explanation for the process can be found here: http://www.ngs.noaa.gov/PUBS_LIB/DataProcessing.html > For example. PID# LW4228, Hummock 1887, on the south shore of Nantucket Island, now has ADJUSTED coordinates, to wit: NAD 83(1996)- 41 15 10.59846(N) 070 09 59.43193(W). All High Accuracy Survey Data has been Least Squares Adjusted. The word Adjusted denotes the quality of the data you can expect for a given coordinate location. Posted and Scaled are other qualities as well. > What was the basis for this set of coordinates? There are four “Reference Objects” listed on the datasheet: LW 4211, LW 4224, LW 4220, and LW 4235. LW4224 and LW4235 now report as destroyed. LW4211 has not been seen since 1894. LW4220 (which incidentally is about 610 feet N7.4W of LW4204, which was recovered in 2003), was first observed in 1887, and not searched for in 1955, and that’s it. So any azimuth reading from LW4228 to any of those four points is going to be at least 111 years old? The referenced objects.... Those are from the part of the Datasheet called the "Box Score" It lists the bearing and distances to nearby horizontally positioned survey marks. The basis for them? Well they too have been surveyed in to what ever accuracy they have and the least squared has been performed on them too and so on. Unfortunately the stations that no longer work as active Data in the database are not pulled out of the Box Scores. The NGS Datasheet compiler does not have a subroutine to check if these stations listed in the Box Score are still active or not. As to the azimuth reading? Well Probably not. Surveyors do not file a report each time they use a station. so the likelihood of there not having been a Surveyor use it in 111 years is hard to say. To clarify Azimuth. Basically put, an optical survey instrument like today's total station or the older brother theodolite, does not know which direction it is facing when you first set it up. Performing a survey from the Instrument to a known position starts the process, then the instrument is turned to another known location. Learning the angle between the two known points allows the position of the instrument to be known. Then the instrument position and another known position can be used to learn the coordinates of an unknown position. Stations which have an "Azimuth Mark have a Station usually set to the South about a quarter mile away to aid in speeding the process and as a local ease of use way to calibrate when making a lot of survey observations from a position. Usually only First Order and some Second Order stations had them. > In this particular case, the ADJUSTED coordinates are for a point that beach erosion has placed some 500 feet offshore, so the chances of a successful recovery are quite literally dampened. But our question is still there: what was the likely basis upon which the NGS arrived at the ADJUSTED coordinates for this station? They surveyed there. Really! They turned angles on that point and maybe from that point. It was likely not as eroded then. Keep in mind a few historical points. 1887 was in the pre brass disc era. It was almost around the time Steel was a new invention. This was a drill hole in a granite boulder. Tools were not Motor powered or electric powered. this was done with a Rock Drill and a Hammer. In that day the NGS was known as the Coast Survey and they were likely working to survey the coastline as they found it in 1887... In 1955 they didn't find it as you know. Today, look at how far you say the coastline is from that position. Nothing's Forever. > Thanks again for your expertise and clarity. Anytime. Rob

BDT, You may also want to collate data for the LOCSUR and LOCENG reporting designations. That is the designation many of us in the field use where no other Agency Code applies. Rob

Patty, I spent a couple hours pouring over what I could find and what I found was the creation of the Sierra Club... It was an interesting read and a humongous public works project for its time... It looks like the whole area is looking at renovation soon and perhaps removal of the original reservoir, but one wonders if it will al really work out in the end. One of those issues where there are two sides to it and always will be. Hetch Hetchy is quite a story. If we may venture further guesses without regard to education, Imagine this. Say you wanted to monitor the stability of a dam. You know, with a monitoring observation monument. Who knows what the MOM means really but if you were going to keep watch on the dam, you would want your instrument set up at the same place every time and you would want to look at specific places to see if you can measure a change. So it isn't that far fetched. In construction staking, I place line only markers all the time. This helps the constructor get both line and grade from the survey marker, this way they can position the work to the correct position and elevation the design calls for. With two stations so close on that wing wall, it seems feasible they could set an instrument up and have it be positioned so it could look at something specific... Who knows. Maybe not... Dam Stability is a good thing to keep track of. At best, an inquiry to the SFPUC about the survey data at the Dam site may leave you with more clues. Hope that helps.

BDT, Nice addition, but please allow me retouch just a tad: From: "In conclusion, I'd suggest sticking with: SCALED - always report your GPS coordinates ADJUSTED - never report your GPS coordinates (unless you happen to find a 1 in 10,000 PID-switch situation) " To: In conclusion, I'd suggest sticking with: Horizontally SCALED - always report your GPS coordinates Horizontally ADJUSTED - never report your GPS coordinates (unless you happen to find a 1 in 10,000 PID-switch situation) Vertical positioning is not something we can effectively determine as Mark hunters so thought it is good to understand, No worries there. I just want to clarify this vague reference for those who may wonder or may have never encountered this prior to now. We know what we mean but it is important for those wondering, as I have a sense that some have not always had their mind around this.

Paul, Let me clear a few things up here for those who may not be following what we are discussing. It seems at this point a good time for me to get the right semantics out in the open and have all of us understand this as universally as possible. It has been some time since we addressed this. You said, "Sometimes the scaled location is exactly on. And occasionally the Adjusted location is off--which I attribute to a typo when entering the original data into the system." The scaled location is exactly on, means they got lucky. No Biggie. And occasionally the Adjusted location is off--which I attribute to a typo when entering the original data into the system. I would have heavy reservations to call a location a typo. With GPSr as benchmark hunters, we have no instrument accurate enough to make a real determination here. In fact there are many things that would cause me to way sooner question the accuracy of a GPSr than a datasheet. Here is why I feel this. First, read this link as a refresher for what accuracy means to these Stations: http://www.ngs.noaa.gov/cgi-bin/ds_lookup....em=HORZ%20ORDER Now keep this in Mind; For the establishment of the level of accuracy a station may possess, Lets look at what it took. Third Order Accuracy is a minimum of 4 optical surveys of the position for positioning and a Least Squares Adjustment. Second Order Accuracy is a Minimum of 8 Optical observations of the position and a Least Squares Adjustment. First Order Accuracy was a minimum of 12 and usually 16 optical observations of the position and a least Squares Adjustment. A and B Orders of Accuracy are GPS or VLBI Derived. Now If I was looking at the position, while staring at the station, and I was set to NAD83, D.M.S Mode on my GPSr and it was radically different than the latest version of the NGS datasheet, I would re observe this location again on another day. Maybe it is an anomaly we will see in our gear or the with the satellites. If after a few hard looks I would write NGS and ask if there is something I am doing wrong. Then they will look at their Data and see if in the records they created a typo. A typo would indeed make them wrong of course but to be sure, their adjusted positions are a country mile more accurate than a GPSr can discern. For Leveling, which is vertical control and in a pure sense of reference called a Bench Mark you have more than one observation creating the Data and the more observations per location the higher the accuracy after the least squared is taken. Here is a good link to what "Adjusted" means as far as the NGS is concerned: http://www.ngs.noaa.gov/cgi-bin/ds_lookup.prl?Item=ADJUSTED Here is a good link to what "Scaled means as far as the NGS is concerned. http://www.ngs.noaa.gov/cgi-bin/ds_lookup....em=SCALED%20%20 I would like to make this as clear as I can. Horizontal positions When it says adjusted are heavily Surveyed positions. You can trust this is as good as it is needed to be and there really is nothing we as Benchmark hunters can do to improve this position. Here is where we come in. Older Bench Marks, or Vertical control is often not horizontally positioned at all. Leveling is about elevation, not location. We should look at the Fresh NGS Datasheet and look at this section of it: SY0301 *CURRENT SURVEY CONTROL SY0301 ___________________________________________________________________ SY0301* NAD 83(1986)- 47 38 53. (N) 122 22 52. (W) SCALED SY0301* NAVD 88 - 8.690 (meters) 28.51 (feet) ADJUSTED SY0301 ___________________________________________________________________ SY0301 GEOID HEIGHT- -23.68 (meters) GEOID03 SY0301 DYNAMIC HT - 8.691 (meters) 28.51 (feet) COMP SY0301 MODELED GRAV- 980,725.5 (mgal) NAVD 88 SY0301 SY0301 VERT ORDER - FIRST CLASS I SY0301 SY0301.The horizontal coordinates were scaled from a topographic map and have SY0301.an estimated accuracy of +/- 6 seconds. When we see that the NAD83 position has been Scaled, there is a chance we can help it become more accurate by reporting the GPSr position we get when we find it to the NGS. If instead we see this in the datasheet: SY4786 *CURRENT SURVEY CONTROL SY4786 ___________________________________________________________________ SY4786* NAD 83(1991)- 47 40 39.13954(N) 122 23 47.77352(W) ADJUSTED SY4786* NAVD 88 - 59. (meters) 194. (feet) SCALED SY4786 ___________________________________________________________________ SY4786 LAPLACE CORR- -2.98 (seconds) DEFLEC99 SY4786 GEOID HEIGHT- -23.64 (meters) GEOID03 SY4786 SY4786 HORZ ORDER - SECOND SY4786 SY4786.The horizontal coordinates were established by classical geodetic methods SY4786.and adjusted by the National Geodetic Survey in December 1991. SY4786 SY4786.The orthometric height was scaled from a topographic map. We can see that The NAD83 Position is heavily Surveyed. In fact, at second order we can know at least 8 times. Then it was Adjusted by Least Squares Adjustment. This is a station we cannot do anything with to improve with a GPSr. This Adjusted does not mean from NAD27 to NAD83. That was mathematically done but it was not an adjustment, it was a conversion, or sometimes referred to as a transformation. One line on the datasheet I like to look for at a glance is this one: SY4786 HORZ ORDER - SECOND SY0301 VERT ORDER - FIRST CLASS I I can see immediately whether I am working Horizontal control or Vertical control, or a Station which has both, and I can also tell immediately how good the control is: AF9780 HORZ ORDER - B AF9780 VERT ORDER - FIRST CLASS II AF9780 ELLP ORDER - THIRD CLASS II Here on AF9780, I can see it has both types of control, It also has Ellipsoidal accuracy as well and It would not have if it were not a GPS Derived location. Hopefully we can look at this as something different than Scaled or adjusted. I hope I have shown that each plane, both the Horizontal and Vertical can be referred to as either Adjusted or scaled and that we can be more concise by referring to it first as Horizontal or vertical control first, then as Scaled or Adjusted afterwards. We first need to refer to it as what it is. If there is vertical data We will see it as VERT ORDER right away and if there is no HORZ ORDER then we can know that the Horizontal location is likely Scaled and we may be able to help improve that. Hope that helps, Rob

Bill, It isn't a Secret. CORS, HARN, HGPN, FBN, and all considered High priority NGS Survey. The Highest priority is to work with the Highest accuracy possible, and that is as simple as following the 80/20 rule. As of this writing, NGS is ramping up on a new adjustment of the NSRS and hope to have it finished within the next 2.5 years or less. The Criteria was to observe only submissions made by GPS observations. No optical values were to be allowed in this readjustment and by so doing the the Higher accuracy that GPS is capable will keep the averages high in the final outcome. This Person we are referring to is not being disparaging towards the lower order survey markers, it is just that there are varying levels of accuracy quality in NGS control and his Intra-agency rule is to stick to the higher quality stuff. Bottom line? NAD83 is a datum that has a number of sub adjustments that depending on the coding belong to specific areas. To add, it is a keeper of data for survey markers of which have only been worked to a certain level of quality. For the best understanding of how it all fits together conceptually, Do some reading at the NGS website and try to become familiar with what the CORS, HARN, FBN, CBN, and NSRS are and how the interrelate. Also, look into the various levels of accuracy are, for both horizontal and vertical control. Once you begin to understand how some of the special projects overlap, you will begin to understand why many of the old third order surveys are not as important to some agencies as they look to the future rather than the past. Like I said. The Old optical survey is not dead, but there is limited money laying around so the mission is emphasizing the spending on plans to create sub networks of higher accuracy and from those observations, everything gets lifted up. And if the old third order mark is ok to use and it is handy, Many surveyors will still use them. It just depends on the engineering requirements of any given project. Finally, let's look again at what the Guy at the NM State level said. he said: "We no longer consider control as a permanent feature given the relatively easy task of establishing quality control on our roadways. We basically bring in new control for any new project in a matter of days unlike previous decades where terrestrial control could take over a month of control surveying. Our control is now evolving in the direction of an almost disposable quality due to the high cost of maintaining current control networks." His "agency eye" is on the future, not the past. He is clearly a fan of GPS Derived Survey control. He feels it is more accurate than NAD83 Adjusted and transposed NAD 27 and NGVD 29 control. But more that looking down on the Datum, he is looking down on the orders of accuracy. He simply intermixed the concepts and hey, that is easy to do. If I can tie to my CORS, HARN or FBN, as networks of high accuracy, then by simply walking out and setting up the GPS for developing Horizontal Vertical and Elliptical Control, sequence of Survey Marks as an on location master station, complete with all the subsequent survey needed therein, then you see how some things can seem disposable. Much of what a surveyor does, especially from a construction point of view is a disposable form of stationing. All this guy is saying is that we are now entering an era where we can rapidly develop High order accuracy networks for projects on a local level, without having to worry about the cost of having to maintain it. We can position that good with GPS Now so why not do it? This is just beginning to come over the horizon now, especially for Vertical control. Does that make better sense? Rob

Bill, NGS Data is as accurate as it gets. They are the reference standard. If NM is using a Datum, And they are, they are only as accurate as the keeper of that datum. The difficult thing is that NM does not use the internet for it's survey markers and not being a really populous state, city wise, there are not a lot of other opportunities for other control networks. Wanna see where NM bases it's Survey Data accuracy on? Here: http://www.ngs.noaa.gov/INFO/OnePagers/NSRS.html And Here: http://www.ngs.noaa.gov/CORS/Southwest.html Oh And: http://www.ngs.noaa.gov/PROJECTS/FBN/ What the Guy from NM is likely saying is that there are varying levels of control and they are thinking of keeping pace with the new modalities. This means using GPS as much as is possible and keeping standards high which mean that for his organization, Tie ins to the old third order quality stations are not going to cut it. They want A or B order Value as based on CORS, HARN and HGPN Networks, and as such, so they can get the highest accuracy they can get. And in their case this is likely either NAD83 (1992) or NAD83 realtime CORS tie ins. It is all good really, they are just coming from a level in the State Agency where they do not consider the lower order control important to them. Regardless to their position on this, other agencies within the state will find third order Triangulation useful for some of their projects and they will use it. Another way of looking at it is like a little girl who likes to eat skittles but she does not like the pink ones. She would not share a green one or a yellow one with anyone, but you can have all the pink ones you want. Well NM likes the yellow and green ones a lot, and though they don't care if you like them too, they want nothing to do with the pink ones. Just a choice. You never knew Survey Markers and Skittles could be used in an analogy did you? :-) Rob

Paul Yes, Depending on the Type of Survey marker, there is added value in submitting this information. If you Find Vertical Control, and it is a Scaled Location then by all means, Please feel free to submit your GPSr derived location for this station if you find it as it will almost surely improve it. The type of markers that will usually be improved with this sort of information, are Bench Marks. Please refer to the NGS Datasheet to confirm what is needed. On any type of horizontal positioning that is not scaled positioning, you are not going to be able to improve the position with GPSr. There would be little if any value in reporting the GPSr position for these. Good Luck, Rob

I think there are other ways I'd look at the big picture, Buck. Here are the easy reasons. For the most part it is important to note that all politics are local. This happens to be New Mexico's official take on it. The Truth is you cannot do everything with GPS. The Truth is that NGS Control is the grandfather control. The Truth is that many agencies and municipalities have created their own control as well but it is based upon and accurized by NGS control. The Truth is that though there are national, state, county and city networks, most all of it ties back to National. Further, a State employee may have rules that force them to use only State or Federal based control where a private surveyor can often choose to use any of it depending on what they are working on. The Truth is that not all Geodetic Control stations are as valuable as the next. The Ones that comprise the NSRS are currently considered the most valuable. CORS, HARN, HGPN, Airport control, and other highest accuracy control are going to take precedence over lower quality third order control. GPS Derived positioning is generally accepted as having higher accuracy than that of optical work. That does not mean I would not use a Optically leveled Bench or an Optically Triangulated location for positioning. I can, I have and I will again. If a developer is developing a plat for new homes in a small rural town and all the control there is old control, guess what you are going to use for control? The Truth is that these stations are *NOT for boundary work. But they can be included as a part of boundary work. What I mean to point out is that you have been told how the State of NM is looking at things, but it is not an all inclusive opinion. Nor is it the way all states do look at their networks. Remember there are 50 states and a lot going on in all of them. It seems reasonable to say that while your contact at State is aware of his State's agenda, he may not be as aware of what else is happening in the industry, or even how others in his state will want to use survey data for control. Just because someone working at the State level does not see a portion of older NGS control as important to their work, it does not make the control bad or dated or inaccurate, or as having no future. They are just calling it as they see it based on the methodologies they follow. As a closing thought and for example, the Rockhounders have been out to some of the most remote locations I can think of and have recovered monuments there. They have asked off handedly in the past that it seemed odd that survey markers were there. They felt they likely had little importance, as it would seem there was no reason for a survey marker to be out in the middle of no where. Further they asked why recover them? No one has since they were put there. They made an excellent case! But the monuments were put there, because as geodesy grew up, those locations played a part in figuring things out, and they are still there. Before they were surveyed in, we knew nothing about those areas. That is how we learned what we know. Will they ever be needed again? Well Mathematically they do get used in house for big equations here and there, they were also used in least squares adjustments as well. Will a housing plat or a new freeway use some of those old remote markers? Probably not but we never know. On the other hand we often hear from our friends who work the area near Washington D.C. area that a good bit of the control has been wiped out due to Urban Sprawl. It is conceivable that some of the control they cannot now find was used to help develop local control networks before it was lost. Some of those old stations were once seen as being remote, but are now displaced by a strip mall. So we can see, all this stuff can be important in ways we might not realize, and when we consider the new and very young computer age, the possibilities that have become reality today were not even a twinkle in the eyes of people who were a part of all the survey work done in the 1930's. My take on it is that we are doing a good service here. it is not up to us to second guess the future. We are being helpful in our recovery efforts, it is best left to each state or locality to determine what is isn't ore will be useful to them. Thanks to us, at least in some cases, they will know what they have. Rob

Hi Patty, The Hetch Hetchy sure is a Controversial Water system. Hooo Boy! There is very little specifically about the Moccasin Reservoir online to research. Hard data? Zero. My Best educated guess from looking at stations in the area is that it may be a Line Only Station meant for helping an instrument look in a specific direction and see a specific thing. What "MOM" means is anyones guess. Did you catch HS0944 on the other side of the Dam? Good Luck, Rob

JB Andersen, A little about this station from the datasheet, it is a rather fun case study. About GS0908 DAYTON HARRIS GRAVE MON: Text from GS0206 THE DAYTON-HARRIS GRAVE MONUMENT IS A RECTANGULAR CAIRN WITH A 5X6 FOOT BASE. IT IS ABOUT 6 FEET HIGH. ON THE WEST SIDE OF THE CAIRN THERE IS A BRONZE PLAQUE DEDICATED TO THE TWO PIONEERS BURIED AT ITS BASE. THE POINT INTERSECTED ON THE CAIRN WAS THE CENTER OF A 1X4 THAT IS APPARENTLY THE TOP AND CENTER OF THE CAIRN. Was this Cairn still extant? It has a recoverable PID... THE AZIMUTH MARK IS LOCATED ON THE TOP OF A SMALL RISE OF GROUND WHICH IS ABOUT 5 FEET HIGHER THAN THE SURROUNDING COUNTRY. THE MARK IS 31 PACES WEST OF THE CENTER OF A GRADED ROAD AND 6 FEET SOUTHEAST OF A WHITE WITNESS POST. IT PROJECTS 3 INCHES AND IS STAMPED DAYTON HARRIS 1950. GS0206'TO REACH THE AZIMUTH MARK FROM THE STATION, GO SOUTH ON THE GS0206'GRADED ROAD FOR 0.25 MILES TO THE AZIMUTH ON THE RIGHT (WEST) GS0206'AS DESCRIBED ABOVE. GS0206|---------------------------------------------------------------------| GS0206| PID Reference Object Distance Geod. Az | GS0206| dddmmss.s | GS0206| CC4623 DAYTON HARRIS GRAVITY STA AZ MK 1943937.6 | GS0206| GS0908 DAYTON HARRIS GRAVE MON 75.415 METERS 32936 | GS0206|---------------------------------------------------------------------| Any Luck on the AZ Mark? It appears to be on a bearing of 194 degrees SSW of the Gravity Station, and on higher ground. GS0206* NAD 83(1992)- 36 12 24.77324(N) 116 52 11.76893(W) ADJUSTED GS0206* NAVD 88 - -77.527 (meters) -254.35 (feet) ADJUSTED GS0206 ___________________________________________________________________ GS0206 HORZ ORDER - SECOND GS0206 VERT ORDER - FIRST CLASS II Not recovered since 1969, It would appear this station was both triangulated and leveled, and was used for Gravity Observations with Gravimeter. There are no GPS Observations so far. It would appear the original monumentation was 1939 and the AZ MK 1950, but the Narrative does not show the 39 monumentation and is out of usual order as well. GS0206'THERE WERE NO REFERENCE MARKS ESTABLISHED AT THIS STATION. But it has an AZ Mark... Second Order Tri stations will almost always have RM's but it is rarer for them to have and AZ Mark... But look at this one... Interesting. There has been a lot of talk here lately to have changed made to Geocaching's Data mining procedure. But the NGS Datasheet really has it all, and laid out so simple. Can I convince anyone to learn to read them? You own mind can screen it for so much info, and there is so much more I didn't address, Like a 2 some odd foot Datum Shift the 29 and 88 Vertical Datum and ho good of a Job JB's GPS Pressure aneroid did in being approximately 8 feet off the observation. Not bad. Oh and hey, I think I found where the Cairn with the lowest extreme elevation in the country is located, and it has no recoveries: GS0908 GS0908 HISTORY - Date Condition Report By GS0908 HISTORY - 1950 MONUMENTED CGS GS0908 GS0908 STATION DESCRIPTION GS0908 GS0908'DESCRIBED BY COAST AND GEODETIC SURVEY 1950 GS0908'SEE STATION DAYTON HARRIS GRAVITY STATION TEXT So who wants a FTF on the lowest Cairn in the country? It appears to be just sitting there for the taking. Probably qualifies for one of Holographs Extreme benchmarks too! Thanks for sharing this one JB, It was very nice. Rob

Hi John, No Worries, The NGS FAQ Pinned topic will remain a pinned topic. This particular topic we are posting it has outlived it's original need to be. It helped define FAQ 1.0.. It is getting too long and the topics is wandering. It really is long in the tooth and it time to be closed. As you what you may read first. Well, the topic is vast. I'd recommend going back through the many things we have covered in the past. Feel free to start a topic if you have a question at anytime. Rob

NorStar, Perhaps this link will shed some light. http://surveymarks.planetzhanna.com/graphi...refixMapL48.jpg PID are all about Database indexing... Rob

kc2ixe, Go see if you can find it, If you can and you submit a description to Deb, deb.brown@noaa.gov then perhaps your descriptive text will put it back in action. This may be a circumstance where you could resurrect this one from the nonpub file. Good Luck, Rob

Casey, Now that you have the NGS FAQ as a pinned and locked Topic, this thread has pretty much done it's work. I would see no harm if you wanted to close the topic. You could always start a new thread if you want to revisit it. And we can always cross link back here if need be. It will always be in the archives... You started the topic so it is your call. Just a thought. Rob

Ok Casey, Thanks for your input. It appears doable with a FAQ that must be passed through to get to the link. That certainly seems appropriate. Any Thoughts? Rob

Casey, Is Director Challstrom retiring? Looks like the hope is to fill the position by summer end. Rob

Patty, We could dream as big as we like. If we could be more helpful and inclusive towards NGS recovery, and we could build it any way we liked, How would we build it? You want a FAQ you have to pass through in order to submit a recovery to NGS? Done! Sky is the limit. Design it the way it would really work and work well, or... Or leave it as it is... If were were creative and we could place the safeguards people feel are needed, what would then be the harm? What would it take to make it really work? Rob

Platypus, I think your best chance of finding help would be in the FAQ: http://www.geocaching.com/mark/ Good luck! Rob

Paul, Common Practices are such anymore that driving nails in a tree, or placing permanent marks on trees, even government owned trees will inspire a wrath like we don't want to see. It is now an abandoned practice. In fact it is a "you don't want to go there practice" in the industry. Trees are our friends. None of us want handed a bill for what we did to a tree. There are both Arborists and Attorneys on retainer. You can wallpaper a light pole but driving nails in trees is plain bad Ju Ju. Rob

cjf, What you have likely found is PID TU1337 is no longer in place, for reasons unknown. A reset marker to take it's place has been set, but the Survey data to it has not yet been accepted for inclusion in the database. This happens. I did am NGS Radial search at 1.5 miles around the former location and found no sign of the reset. History on this location shows there was a Diamond Head 1872/1927 which was last recovered in 1963 and replaced by the station you were seeking in 1969. It likely went missing again and has the new station mark you found placed but not yet completely recorded. It info could however be in the pipe. You can file a not found on PID TU1337 if you like. On the station you found, it is not possible to make a filing on at the present time. You aren't missing something, It is just that you noticed before the process has been made complete. You may also emil NGS and inquire about the mark you did find if you like. They may have information that has not been made public yet that may be of interest to you. I would direct the question to cheryl.malone@noaa.gov. Good Luck and nice call on this! Rob

You make some great points Paul. It is easy for a person to justify their actions a number of different ways. They don't have to be right or correct, just filled with a selfish self interest. If none of their family's deceased are in this particular cemetery, it makes it ok. Well, ok, in their minds but Not really so in the minds of those who would see it as a trespass, but that is the trespassers common line of thinking. Sure the Cemetery is a public place, but it is also a private place that comes with a unique sort of unwritten code... A cemetery may not be hallowed ground to all but it is going to be to many. It is revered as a place of respect. Many people will take a dim view of activities which as not appropriate to remembering the deceased in there. It is appropriate to be mindful while we pass through those areas. If a survey marker is found to be located within the boundaries of a cemetery, and there are some that will, We have to remember that a Cemetery is a place where thousands of people own property, and there are sensitivities we should keep in mind. If we have a survey marker in there we should like to recover, take the datasheet into the Cemetery director and ask permission to locate it, and then do them the favor of doing a real NGS recovery on it. Cemeteries were used for survey markers because they usually occupy high ground. The were important places on Maps too. This is why the markers were placed there, but they are truly sensitive areas and it is best to be mindful of the feelings of people who may feel more strongly than others will. We can protect our good reputation by being respectful towards all the property owners out there whose permission is only for the asking, if we only would. If S.C. does come down on this in a way that is not Geocaching friendly, I hope that people catch a clue. While the story has two sides, no one arbitrates in favor of the opposite side, so the future already holds Geocachers feet to the fire for becoming better stewards. Word will travel. It has already gotten this far on a 5 year old Game. Like you said Paul, It takes only a few. Rob