StripeMark
-
Posts
160 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by StripeMark
-
-
Hey CacheSleuth, could you post a couple area shots showing the mounting location on the benchmark logging page? Thanks!
-
Holtie, that is exactly what I was trying to get at. It's the underground marker that is the important one and not the one on the surface. But by the looks of the concrete mass, I was thinking that this was the underground mass brought up to the surface. But then again, I also have never heard of a re-stamping of the underground marker when the surface one is re-set. Just kind of wish that the 1970 crew wouldn't have called this a "concrete post" when they set it (if this is the surface marker).
It would be terrible to have the NGS classify this as DESTROYED when the underground marker might still be sitting there. I will be heading back out there and doing some probing to see if I can find the underground marker. If I find nothing, I'll turn it over to Deb with all the facts and pics to see what she thinks and go by her decision.
Thanks all for the input!
-
Black Dog, it is the Triangulation disk. Sorry I didn't mention that. Reference Marks 3 and 4 were recovered. And yes, the distance to each reference mark matched what was listed in the box score.
Do you think that a "post" could be wider than tall???? maybe
By the shape of it though, I'd consider this to be the irregular mass of concrete.
IF this IS the "overhead" station marker, and the underground marker (the "real" one) is still located correctly then this would be Found in Poor condition, right? But that then would involve me going back out and trying to dig down 3 feet to verify it
hmmmmmm anyone got a backhoe?
-
Check the 1970 description of FARLIN at: http://www.ngs.noaa.gov/cgi-bin/ds_mark.prl?PidBox=JE1928
A couple years ago, highway 7 was torn up and re-leveled. Along the linefence about 50 feet west of the centerline of the highway I found a mass of concrete roughly circular shaped about 3 feet in diameter and about 14 inches thick. This was not a pre-cast mass. The edges were jagged and rough like it was the plug in a hole. It is very heavy, but I was able to tip it up to check its thickness. It had about a 3 inch impression in the ground and was lying at about a 30 degree angle.
I assumed what I had found was the underground marker that had been pulled up during highway construction. But the survey marker is stamped FARLIN 1948 1970. According to the description, this would be the "ROUND CONCRETE POST WHICH IS 14 INCHES BELOW THE SURFACE OF THE GROUND". Or is it? This isn't a concrete post. And there is no mention of the underground marker having 1970 stamped on it.
Also notice that in the first paragragh it says "A NEW SURFACE STATION MARK WAS SET VERTICALLY OVER THE UNDERGROUND MARK." and then on the station mark description it says "SET IN THE TOP OF A ROUND CONCRETE POST". Does that just mean it was set directly VERTICALLY over it? Weird wording?
Any ideas? Did I find the surface marker (which should be buried 14 inches) or the underground marker????
I added a pic of the "mass" at http://www.geocaching.com/mark/details.aspx?PID=JE1928
Thanks!
-
No problem. Thanks!
-
Thanks for the info holograph!
OK, let me ask you this - Is there a way to get a lisitng of all the marks that I've submitted to the NGS?
Thanks again for all the hard work you do for this! I love the new zoom mapping!
-StripeMark
-
holograph -
Great work as always! But I did have a couple questions......
I finally sat down over the weekend and made a database up of all my reports to the NGS and guess what - our numbers are close, but don't match.
How are you searching the data? By initials only? Do you include the "did not find" reports? Do you include DESTROYED reports?
I'm assuming you only count the "Found" reports. I've checked all the datasheets of the markers that I've found in the last 2 months, and they have all been updated to what they should be. I'd really hate to have to go through all of them
Your count is 591 and I came up with 593 (I told you they were close!)
I'm only referring to the NGS count. Don't really care about the GeoCache count.
Thanks again for the work!!!
-
Early May is good for me.
-
Good answer, "mloser"!
I like the idea that what I am doing has real useful benefits to some professional surveyor. For me, the geocaching site is a good place to keep my logs organized, and as a place to keep a copy of my photos until the day the NGS starts accepting them.
I do it for the enjoyment of going out and seeing the countryside, learning all kinds of history, and meeting some very interesting people. And I don't need any contest (sorry "2oldfarts") or number ranking system to keep me going out and hunting. I'm not in it for the numbers.
-
Keep us (me!) informed about a trip to Meade's Ranch. I'd defintely want to go along to see that spot!
-
I usually don't include my handheld coordinates on my NGS log entry. But when I do, I make it in DD MM SS.S format. I figure that if I can get within 20 feet or better with 15 to 20 minutes of averaging, it's better than the "Scaled" +/- 6 seconds.
And I do the same as Bill93, I change my format over to DD.DDDDD on my GPS and let that average out. I than convert that over to DD MM SS.S manually.
-
The updates I put in on December 28th is on the database. Maybe time to run the report again.
The ones that I sent to Deb to mark as destroyed have NOT been updated though yet.
-
Use-or-Lose - my office is still pretty empty. This week ends pay period 26. We had a lot of people who were gone for most of December. And then we had an extra "holiday" thrown in as well for the day off for the Day of Mourning for President Ford.
-
Holtie22, I figured that was the case. I suppose that most of the time, both occur in the same year.
Thanks!
-
Just one of those things that make you go hmmmmm.....
Check out: http://www.ngs.noaa.gov/cgi-bin/ds_mark.prl?PidBox=DI0825
The STAMPING states that the disk is stamped with 2006 (upon recovering this one, it is indeed stamped 2006), but yet the MONUMENTED date on the datasheet says 2005.
Why?
The datasheet also says: "The horizontal coordinates were established by GPS observations and adjusted by the MN DEPT OF TRANSP in July 2006"
So was the monument actually placed in 2005 without a date stamp, and then when the MN DEPT of TRANSportation came around in July 2006, they did the date stamping?
....just curious.
StripeMark
-
I think something is wrong with the database again......
When doing a radial search, it comes back with SORRY - NO STATIONS FOUND.
-
Don't know how common this is, but I found HC0422 and HC0470 and they were just under 6 feet apart. Yup, pretty weird.
-
Got mine today...... looks like many hours of good reading!
-
Lasting Impressions will be in on Wednesday and start shipping on Friday after Thanksgiving.
-
I've never had text removed from my logs. Don't know what happened with your second one with just the blank lines. This would indicate that you had carriage returns in the text box.
And no, you don't need put "Found in Good Condition" because above the text description, the history shows it was found in condition = good.
-
Here is a message from Deb that I got a while back on a couple that I had questioned:
>>>
Regarding condition codes,...here's the criteria so you can make your
own determinations:
- If the setting and marker is stable and legible then it's GOOD.
- If the mark cannot be found and no remnants are available to
photograph, use NOT FOUND.
- The station is disturbed or poor if it's marked up to the point where
the lettering is illegible or the marker has been hit or is tilting.
- The station is destroyed if the setting as well as the marker itself
are uprooted or otherwise unstable.
- If the station is destroyed and remnants are available to photograph,
send me the photos along with the PID and Designation and I'll flag it
destroyed.
<<<
-
I pretty much follow the same as BuckBrooke. If nothing is changed in the to-reach information, and the descriptive text remains accurate. I'll just put "Found in good condition as described."
I very seldom post handheld cordinates because the GPS is mounted in the truck with a mounted antenna.
I always take pictures if I can. I've even taken pics from inside the vehicle when unfriendly dogs are on the loose.
I take 1 close-up of the disc - close enough to fill the field of view, another of the immediate area around the disc, and at least 1 directional view showing surroundings (with the disc in marked in the photo!) as they would look as you come up on the mark. If possible, I usually take 2 directional pics from opposing directions.
....and yes, I think many are in it for the numbers.
-
I'd mark it as DESTROYED.
Since the coordinates on the datasheet are ADJUSTED, you sould be able to walk right up to it with your handheld GPS.
There is no text description, so that isn't going to help either.
Most likely the golf course wasn't there in 1933.
-
I've even found a few of the newer ones in Minnesota, where the rod has a greased sleeve around it and then is encased in a PVC pipe with a cover. In this case, the ground, PVC pipe, and sleeve can rise and drop with the freezing and flawing ground, and the rod stays in place.
Destroyed Marks
in Benchmarking
Posted
Deb actually told you to hold on to it for later recovery?
I've got a couple of them and she has always just told me to keep them.
I have seen a few people try to sell markers on eBay, but eBay usually cancels the bidding before the deadline because of their policy of selling government property or something.
They do however have unused/unstamped marks from time to time for sale.