Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by StripeMark

  1. ...... but do those GLO's that are not GL1435 have PID's? ML


    They probably do, on some other database. They are just like 1000's of others out there that are not included in the NGS database. They only have meaning to the agency that placed them.

  2. Is it just me or does it bother you when you look at the logs of some of the benchmarks and see "found it" logs and then in their description people say things like, "didn't find the disk, but it should have been there," or "didn't find the tower but I was in the right location," or "found rm and know where the disk should be but didn't actually see it." Does this bother you or just me?


    I know it shouldn't ......... but still!


    Check out http://www.geocaching.com/mark/details.aspx?PID=GL1435


    No matter how many times it's stated that "this is not the benchmark", the next person logs it as a "Find".

  3. Where is TEXHOMEX in relation to the one PLSS corner that people keep finding?


    It's about 4 feet NNE of the PLSS monument. Of course, after I was 600 miles away did I think that I should have measured the distance from the TEXHOMEX marker to the PLSS marker.


    But the PLSS marker is a good 2 -3 feet above ground and the TEXHOMEX is 1.6 below ground.


    You can see the PLSS marker in this pic:


  4. In Folsom, NM, there is a foundation of a water tower that has a survey marker placed on the top of its SW concrete leg foundation. The water tower is gone, but the 4 concrete foundations remain.


    The survey marker is GL1152. The water tower was GL1521.


    now the strangeness.......


    The marker was placed in 1934. The 1934 description says that the marker is on the foundation of a large water tank (it sounds as though the tank still exists). But at the end of the 1934 description there is a note stating that the tank has been removed.


    When you look at the datasheet for GL1521, it shows that it was "first observed" in 1945 and then logged as in good condition in 1970.


    OK, what's happeing here?


    The way I would read it, according to the GL1152 datasheet, the tank was removed already in 1934. But then how could of it been observed 1945? And why would of GL1521 been logged as in good condition in 1970?


    If the tank was indeed standing until sometime after 1970, then where does the note in the 1934 entry in GL1152 come from? I assume that someone just contacted the NGS and they manually inserted it or something.


    It's no big deal...... I logged GL1152 with the NGS as good condition and I sent images off to Deb to destroy GL1521. Just thought it was kind of weird that it was attached to the 1934 entry.


    hmmmmm OK, now my brain hurts.


  5. No metal detector. The mark was "adjusted" and I knew that my GPS couldn't be off by 31 feet!


    I've run across so many gravel roads that have shifted over time and the fenceline seemed like my best bet to start with. I actually recovered RM 1 first and found the station mark from there. But even then, I didn't figure that it would be that deep.


    And according to the description, it sounds like this is the actual corner point.

  6. So what should my next step be? Should I make a phone call and request a few documents be sent my way for me to try? I wonder what these sheets will look like. Will they have "location Adjusted" etc do you think?

    Heh. :) If they're like the 1930s ones that Dale sent me for Yosemite a few years ago, they won't have any coordinates at all--just descriptions. But different areas may have different types of reports...




    The copies of the datasheets that I got from the MCMC (USGS office) in Rolla for the ones around Rolla two years ago had only TO-FIND descriptions and no coordinates also.



  7. The only thing I would add is that "lacomo" should add some area shots including the disc in the shot. Try shooting it from the north or south. Try to get a shot with both the station mark and reference mark included in the image. This would make it much easier to find for any future hunters or surveyors.


    my 2-cents

  8. I took a tour of the Rolla USGS office in the Fall of 2005. When I told them how I report recoveries to the NGS, they gave me a stack of photocopied USGS datasheets for markers in and around Rolla. When I asked how I should report the recoveries, they told me they didn't need them. So either they don't really want them, or the people I talked to had no idea how I could actually report the recoveries.


    It was an interesting tour though!

  9. BDT,


    I would say paper. It is big, it is readable, it is familiar. I have often let people read my datasheet when I hunt on their property. I wouldn't even try to do that with my Motorola Q. It is just too tiny to share easily.


    Continuing on that note, after hunting both ways I think that paper is the best way to hunt also. When I hunt electronically I do it one of two ways--directly accessing the NGS page through the web or with a huge file of all benchmarks in the county that I edit on my PDA. The direct access way is easy, but I can't take notes. The second way is cumbersome when I try to find a mark in the file, but I can add comments. Still, it isn't as easy to add new descriptive information on my tiny keyboard as it is to just write it on the datasheet, and then when I get home I have to find it (I still haven't standardized on a way to mark the benchmarks I have looked for in my editing) and then decipher my shorthand.


    Being "paperfull" (Papermore? What IS that the opposite of paperless?) means I have a car full of paper though--7 full counties in my area totaling about 1,500 sheets I would think.


    There have been a couple times that I've given the owner of the property my copy of the datasheet. They seem happy to get some kind of documentation of "that thing over there in the lawn".

  10. Personally, I like my PDA! It does a great job and has never failed me yet! It's about 9 inches by 13 inches in size and made of wood composite with a metal clamp on the top. The stylus has this carbon graphite in the middle that leaves marks on the datasheets when I press the 2 together!!!!! :)


    Sorry, just had to do it............... don't kill me!


    I was just reading the story about how the Americans and Russians both solved the problem of a writing instrument that would work in zero gravity. Don't know how much truth is behind it, but it makes for a great story, especially since I work for the US gov't!



  11. I'd also say no.


    If you, yourself, go back out and check on it personally, then yes, you can log it with the NGS.


    I had one benchmark declared destroyed 2 months after a "good" report was logged with the NGS. Along a railroad, workers pulled a concrete post up while laying fiber optic cable.


    Yes, I know you could log with the NGS using that old date, but I still think it would be a bad idea.


    Actually, I think this topic was brought up not too long ago.



  12. OK, I give........ how do we find out about Geocaching Event GC14DP9? I know nothing about the geocaching side of all this.




    >nevermind, stumbled my way around the site to find it ....

  13. Eichelbergers Inc is a water treatment quality company of some sort I found doing a google search.


    Their home page: http://www.eichelbergers.com/Index.asp


    It might be a water testing station.


    From their website:


    Vision Statement


    "Our vision....... is to develop and protect the earth’s water supply."


    Mission Statement


    "Our mission is to provide trusted professionals to deliver quality services and products to our customers by combining expertise and technology in the ground water industry in an environmentally safe and economical fashion, while adding long term value to our clients and our Company".




    is to become the most productive and efficient water and service oriented Company in the water and environmental well drilling, remediation, treatment, and pump installation business.


  14. For example, here is one that I documented fairly well I thought....... JD1440


    The disk type, the date, and the stamping are all wrong. And the location is off by about 26 feet.


    See: http://www.geocaching.com/mark/details.aspx?PID=jd1440


    I suppose that it is possible that by the mid-1970's, these were already destroyed somehow and the Corps just placed their own markers where they knew NGS markers were at one time......... don't know.

  15. The NGS database does not show them as destroyed. It just seems that the USCE pulled out the NGS markers and placed their own.


    Just thought it was weird and wondered if anyone else has seen something like this around other reservoirs built by the Corp? Reservoirs is all we have in Missouri....I don't think there are any actual natural lakes like my home state of Minnesota.

  16. This last weekend I was hunting for survey markers around a huge wildlife refuge and reservoir area developed by the US Corp of Engineers in the 1970's. At nine of the NGS survey markers locations, the NGS marker was not found. But the funny thing is that at almost the exact same measured locations were USCE markers. And at all the locations, it doesn't look as though the area or landscape has been disturbed (but then I suppose it has been 30+ years and vegitation grows back fairly fast).


    I'm wondering what you think....... In developing the area, the USCE must have destroyed the NGS markers and then placed their own at the same locations? And if so, they didn't bother to notify the NGS that their markers were destroyed?


    ....just thought it was kind of wierd!

  17. mloser, yes, sorry I should have made that more clear. Yes, intersection stations are only reported when they are destroyed and you want Deb to mark them as such (since we cannot do that ourselves). I haven't logged an intersection station with the NGS for a few months.

  18. The most common thing you'd e-mail Deb about would be if a benchmark is destroyed.. things like the water tank being torn down, or a steeple being replaced making the station destroyed, antennas being taken down or lengthened, etc. She can then log these marks as destroyed on the NGS database. Be sure to sent her digital pictures of the destroyed mark with plenty of descriptions.


    Other things that she is looking for is errors on the NGS datasheets..... things like the wrong county name, or the wrong type of marker. Big blaring errors that stick out like a sore thumb.


    The submittal page is at: http://www.ngs.noaa.gov/FORMS_PROCESSING-c...y_entry_www.prl


    Be sure to read lots of other geocachers reports on actual datasheets first to get a feeling of how these are written. And please remember that this is the FORMAL database that the world of professional surveyors use...........don't embarrass us :)

  19. I recovered a mark a few weeks ago that was buried 14 inches below the level of the ground. And it was still at 14 inches. 14 inches doesn't seem like much ...... until you start digging by hand!!!!


    And then I've recovered ones that have stated to be 12 inches below ground and found them at ground level because the surrounding area had been re-landscaped.

  • Create New...