patw

At the suggestion of one of the big boys, I went back today and took a photo of a ruler laid across the monument from edge to edge. I also took a shot of the gpsr showing the averaged coordinates of the monument to establish that we were, indeed, at the correct mark. (Recall that there was no other mark, found or not found, within 150 feet and RM3 was already accounted for.) See RD2624 for the photos. . . . patrick & shirley patrick & shirley

Very well. I defer to the judgment and experience of both embra and trackers. Embra's point that it looks like a broken off disk bears credence in that, indeed, there appears to be an actual outline of the original disc in the less weathered stone surrounding the 'bolt'. I did not pick up on that on site. No, there was no witness post. Fact is, I've found very few witness posts where they were supposed to be, especially the original ones from the NGS description. More often, there will be a new witness post set by local surveyors. Thanks, gang, for another insight in the subject! Curioser and curioser ....patrick patrick & shirley

RD2624 held a surprise for us. It is set with adjusted coordinates and our WAAS enabled took us right to the spot in an open park with 8 solid satellites. We averaged the coordinates for 15 minutes and got within the third decimal place of the minutes. No other bench marks were within 275 feet of the station. RM3 FULTON was recovered as a disk and which confirmed that were indeed, at the triangulation station RD2624. Howsomever . . . . the NGS 1970 station description says THE STATION MARK, STAMPED FULTON 2 1970, IS A STANDARD DISK SET IN A 10-INCH SQUARE CONCRETE MONUMENT THAT PROJECTS 3 INCHES. The 1994 USPSQD report merely says, recovered in good condition and does not mention the prescence of a bolt in lieu of the disc. What we found was a 10-inch monument with a BOLT (!) embedded in its center (see photo in station description). This mark is located in a beautifully developed waterfront park with deep, luscious sod. The nearby road referred to in the description is no longer there. Curious that the NGS data sheet does not reflect what would appear to be a major revision of the site. (?) . . . . patrick & shirley patrick & shirley

All of the magnets which I have found in underground bench marks have been of approximately 4x2x1 inches. They resemble those sold in packs of four in Radio Shack stores. They emit a much stronger field than a refrigerator magnet and would be more appropriate for your experiments. Good luck! . . . . patrick & shirley patrick & shirley

This topic really involves what attitude we are to take in bench mark hunting and reporting. Do we continue in a geocaching vein? That is, do we carefully avoid spoilers in our reports so the next seeker can have the same experience? Or do we attempt to assist others, particularly local surveyors, in making the find easier, say with an area photo with an arrow pointing to the bench mark? I would suggest that the least we should do is: a. Correct or refine the description, especially if it involves updating destroyed landmarks or a suspected destroyed bench mark which we only report as NOT FOUND. b. Refine the coordinates of scaled locations to move the hunt closer to a gps experience a la geocaching. This would be especially appropriate if our gps includes averaging, WAAS, and/or EPE reporting. A simple photo of the gps beside or on the bench mark would suffice. Surely we can improve on the plus or minus 600 foot accuracy of a scaled citation. The big boys properly suggest that following the description is almost always simpler than relying on our gps. But that only refers to scaled coordinates. For adjusted coordinates, I always give precedence to the gps hunt. c. Include some details of the personal experience of finding the bench mark. For most of my early finds, I simply followed the Power Squadron's form of "Recovered in good condition as described." But this now feels just a bit too officious for our geocaching community. I'm now favoring a geocaching type report in an attempt to share some of the experience with others in the community -- repeat -- the community. . . . . patrick & shirley patrick & shirley

I have found that bench marks around the Daytona Beach and Port St Lucie which are listed as being monumented at surface level are often as much as 4 to 6 inches below the surface after just a few years. Note the line below the lat/long data on Buxley's description page where you made your logged report. This information duplicates that from the NGS data sheet site. Note that the location data is SCALED. That means that the mark is sited with an accuracy of only six seconds. That's plus or minus 600 feet so you're faced with a 1200 foot diameter circle of confusion. The mark may be well below the current surface so I would guess you may need a metal detector to get this one. Good luck in this and all hour ventures.` patrick & shirley

Thanks for a GREAT link! Do note, however, that this ordinance failed to become enacted. As the book points out, Thomas Jefferson's campaign to adopt the decimal system failed. The Western Territories were surveyed on six-by-six mile blocks (townships). The book develops the theme of four-vs-ten in a delightful manner throughout. This book is MUST reading for anyone testing the waters of bench marks and surveys. . . . patrick patrick & shirley

quote:Originally posted by Shane and 4 girls:Just wondering if there is a way to add a "printer friendly page" generator to the benchmarks as is done with the geocaches? Thanks! http://home.attbi.com/~mycales/avatar2a.jpg ...not my buttons, __not my gumdrop buttons!!!!__ For both Buxley's data sheets and the NGS data sheets, I always save the displayed data in a .TXT file, then load that file into my word processor for editing. This eliminates all the html formating codes and permits easy editing. Because I do a lot of home preparation before venturing out on either a cache or bench mark hunt, I have created a couple of general purpose macros to further facilitate the process. This also permits me to add my own comments to the tail of the printout. This works best with the NGS search as I can download a host of data sheets as a single file and massagae the entire batch with a single pass of the macro. Good luck! . . . . patrick patrick & shirley

Yes, I figured it was to facilitate a latter search. Would a metal detector respond to a magnet better than to a comparably sized piece of metal? I thought the more common rod used for bench marks was of iron(?) Why do we not see these magnets more commonly? I have recovered rod bench marks in pvc sleeves in Florida, New York, Kentucky and New Jersey but found these magnets only in Florence, Oregon (?) BTW, I read every one of your posts as well as those of survey tech, whether the topic itself is of immediate interest or not. Usually, it is of interest once I've read your inputs. Thanks for your contributions to the community! . . . . patrick patrick & shirley

While logging some bench marks in Florence, OR, I found several iron rod marks in pvc sleeves with a small magnet beside the rod. These were small, rectangular magnets, about two inches in length, like you would find at Radio Shack. What is the purpose of these magnets? Would a compass respond to them if they are some eight inches below the surface? Is someone using a metal detector to find the BMs and, if so, do the magnets help? Curiouser and curiouser . . . . patrick patrick & shirley

Just what I was looking for! Ordered three copies, one for our local town historian who has helped us so much in the history of some local bench marks. Thanks for the heads-up! . . . . patrick & shirley patrick & shirley

In 1664 a patent was issued to NJ which described the northern boundary of their deed to extend from the nothernmost branch of the Delaware River (also described as the intersection of N41 41 with the Delaware) to N41 degrees on the Hudson River. Problem was, there is no river branch at N41 41 so for some 220 years NY and NJ engaged in a boundary war. In 1774 a royal commission conducted a physical survey of the line and placed 48 4x4 foot stone markers every mile from Port Jervis, NY to Tappan, NY. (Lots of history here.) In 1887 the line was resurveyed and new markers were placed beside any original markers which were still discovered. In 1950 a couple of amateurs recovered and photographed 20 of the remaining markers that they could find. They had to restrict publication of their findings, however, as one monument was stolen immediately following a local newspaper article. Anyway, yes, there are original markers still extent beside reset markers. patrick & shirley

Shirley and I are idling at 328 caches and 72 bench marks. We'll probably hit the 100 mark by Christmas. I'm beginning to favor bench marks, especially those of some special interest, such as our local tri-state marker or the Portland, OR Willamette Stone. Our next target is a 1774 NY-NJ royal patent survey mark in the local area. I'm contemplating trying to find more of the original state line boundary markers as they have a fascinating history. The 1887 commission report on the NY-NJ state line dispute is fascinating stuff, indeed! In fact, there are books on the NY-NJ Boundary War (though noone was killed in the dispute, just roughed up a bit). The 1887 survey tried to reestablish the line of 48 original markers but many of them had already disappeared. Aslo, the line was discovered to be so skewed that both states agreed to abandon the original patent discription and to simply use it as originally surveyed in 1687 (?). (Turned out there was a tremendous local deposit of magnatite which threw off their compass without their knowing. As late as 1857 there was only one meridian point in the entire state of NY so surveys were by latitude and compass, with marker points being defined by the local geographic features.) Could prove interesting. patrick & shirley

The primary advantage of consulting the NGS data sheets is that many of their bench marks are sited to plus or minus six seconds, and are merely interpolated off an map. These measurements are referred to as "scaled." Their import to us is that they resolve to a measurement with something like a 1200 foot diameter circle of confusion. Bundy's description invariably lists these to three decimal places of minutes, implying a resolution of six feet. If you're searching for a bench mark under a 60-year deposit of forest humus, you're in for a long day without a tape measure and compass. The indicator we are interested in on the NGS data sheet is the horizontal coordinate. If that line ends with 'scaled', we are looking at a very rough indicator. If the mark's horizontal measurement is 'adjusted' it is a much more precise location and it will be sited and cited to five something lilke decimals of seconds -- a wonderful calibration point for playing with our gpsr. good luck! . . . . patrick patrick & shirley

Hats off to you and your grandmother. Ever active, ever alive! Truly an inspiration! I can't resist the occasion to boast about my wife, Shirley, who, at age 77, has accompanied me on all but three of our 320 cache finds and every one of our 50 bench mark finds. All of these in less than a year's activity. . . .patrick & shirley patrick & shirley

quote:Originally posted by rdw: There is a difference, but it is negligible. More often, benchmarks are off because the coordinates are interpolated from a map with an accuracy of +/- 6 seconds. I have personally seen markers off by more than 100ft. Use the coords to get you close, but use the description to actually find it. rdw Most vertical bench marks are set only to +/- six degrees. That yields a circle of confusion with a 1200 foot diameter! The NGS data sheet will state just under the coordinates listing if the resolution is limited to +/- six degrees. I always go to the NGS data sheets themselves before setting out on a search. One hint: read them from the bottom up. Oftentimes the last entry is 'not found' or 'not recovered' so you save a lot of reading in the winnowing process. You also see the most recent description so you do not have to plow previous ones. good luck! . . . . patrick patrick & shirley

quote:Originally posted by Web-ling: quote:Originally posted by Couch_Potato: I've noticed that the geocaching benchmark search automatically rejects some bm's from being dispayed as search results. I think it's only ones that have a 'not found' entry listed. So at least you won't go searching for one that is known to have not been found. The only problem with this is that I've found numerous examples of marks that were not found, but then WERE found later. If there are ANY "NOT FOUND" logs, they don't show up in the search. http://img.Groundspeak.com/user/25021_1200.gif Only bench marks verified as destroyed (by construction, for example) should be excluded from the listing. I failed to find about three this weekend but I'm sure they are still there under a heavy layer of sod on a college campus. If the description lists a not-found, the reader can decide whether to persist in searching for it. . . . patrick patrick & shirley

quote:Originally posted by Web-ling: quote:Originally posted by Couch_Potato: I've noticed that the geocaching benchmark search automatically rejects some bm's from being dispayed as search results. I think it's only ones that have a 'not found' entry listed. So at least you won't go searching for one that is known to have not been found. The only problem with this is that I've found numerous examples of marks that were not found, but then WERE found later. If there are ANY "NOT FOUND" logs, they don't show up in the search. http://img.Groundspeak.com/user/25021_1200.gif Only bench marks verified as destroyed (by construction, for example) should be excluded from the listing. I failed to find about three this weekend but I'm sure they are still there under a heavy layer of sod on a college campus. If the description lists a not-found, the reader can decide whether to persist in searching for it. . . . patrick patrick & shirley

quote:Originally posted by birdwatcher: I say count the benchmarks. Some of them are harder to find than most caches. NO! Not so long as we allow buildings and large structures to count as a find. There is NO find in photographing such landmarks. The essence of geocaching is to FIND a small object using the gps receiver as prime instrument, not a city street map looking for a cathedral. A test of a FIND should be, "Could it have been found in a deliberate search without the gpsr?" If we restrict a find to disc markers, stakes, or other small items that actually involve a search, then go ahead and count the find, but in a separate category. I love the search for disc markers but I'm not impressed with someone's acumen when they can spot a cathedral dome upon entering the city limits. ....patrick & shirley patrick & shirley

quote:Originally posted by birdwatcher: I say count the benchmarks. Some of them are harder to find than most caches. NO! Not so long as we allow buildings and large structures to count as a find. There is NO find in photographing such landmarks. The essence of geocaching is to FIND a small object using the gps receiver as prime instrument, not a city street map looking for a cathedral. A test of a FIND should be, "Could it have been found in a deliberate search without the gpsr?" If we restrict a find to disc markers, stakes, or other small items that actually involve a search, then go ahead and count the find, but in a separate category. I love the search for disc markers but I'm not impressed with someone's acumen when they can spot a cathedral dome upon entering the city limits. ....patrick & shirley patrick & shirley

Many bench marks are not simply covered with trash but are seriously corroded (oxidized?). I carry a stiff brush and a can of kitchen cleanser with a jug of water to clean them off before taking the picture but the corrosion is impervious to the cleanser. Two questions: 1. Does the NGS object to our efforts to clean a bench mark? 2. Does anyone know of a preferred method to remove the corrosion? Hint: The picture will generally be improved if you wet the bench mark first. . . . . patrick

quote:Originally posted by georgeandmary: http://www.geocaching.com/mark/details.asp?PID=HS2356 This one says 'recoverd' in 1965.. does this mean they removed it and it's no longer there... I went looking for it and couldn't find it. george And how about 'reset'? Remember: Half the people you meet are below average.

The principle bench mark (the station) will have a triangle etched in the disk. The reference marks (RMx) will have an arrow pointing to the station.