Difficult Run

foxtrot_xray, My apologies. - It's difficult to see from the photo you posted, as the capstone appears to be a smooth and continuous slab. Looking forward to seeing the date on the bridge, as I always love to see these old structures still serving their intended purposes. ~ Mitch ~

To hell with the rain. Part the gosh dang waters and give us the distance from RM1 to RM2. That way we can argue over the exact distances and angles! ~ Mitch ~

I'm pretty sure that was the station, however there is something that troubles me about the description: The photo you submitted shows a concrete bridge, not stone.Is it possible that the bridge has been replaced since 1938 and a reset placed there? (Just playing the Devil's Advocate in light of NGS Surveyor's recent thread). ~ Mitch ~

I goofed when typing up my results. - My bad. The length of the sides should be: Side A = 121 feet, 2 inches Side B = 64 feet, 6 inches Side C = 115 feet 9 inches As PapaBear said, this all depends on the accuracy of measuring the angle of Philpot road using satellite imagery. ~ Mitch ~

Think I got it figured out... Since RM1 and RM2 are set 34 feet from the centerline of Philpot Road, I measured the angle of the road using the satellite image at MyTopo.com. With this, I got a value of 31.5 degrees. From the datasheet, we know the angle of "A" (viewed from the station) to each RM is 77.9 deg. Now we have two angles and one side. - Yippee! Then I cheated and used an online triangle solver. Here's the result: Angle A = 77.9, Angle B = 31.5, Angle C = 70.6 Side A = 121' 2", Side B = 65' 6", Side C = 121' 9" Check the distance from RM1 to RM2 first. If it agrees with my calculations, you're good to go! ~ Mitch ~ P.S. - Please note that the sketch is scaled, but not oriented perfectly north-south.

Just a few thoughts... Looking at the datasheet and seeing two angles with a distance (length) given, I thought to myself that it was possible for the triangle formed by the three marks to be solved using trig. However I got a headache trying to figure it out, as I was never really good at that in college. When I sketched it out, I realized that there is only one angle and one length given, so it's impossible to solve. If you go back and still can't find the station, try to take a measurement between RM1 and RM2. With one angle and two distances, I think it's possible to determine the distance from RM2 to the station. (Then ask Mrs. Johnson to solve the equations for you). Not sure what metal detector you're using, but I have used a White's CoinMaster II which outperformed my White's Spectrum when it came to copper and brass. A 3.5 inch disk presents a strong signal buried eighteen inches deep. See if your detector will read the reference mark from a similar distance using an air test. Wet ground will help the ground conduct the signal, so the three weeks of rain is to your advantage. (Back in my metal detecting days, I was able to retrieve an 1853 quarter at 9 inches on edge, but that's OT). A good probe is easy to make and quite inexpensive. I bought a 3 foot stainless steel rod from the hardware store for less than $5 and epoxied it into the end of an old broom handle. Just rough up the glued end, round off the tip with a metal file and cut the handle to a comfortable length. Mine does a nice job of probing and serves as a hiking staff when I'm out and about. I've used it to find a few stations where metal detectors aren't allowed. With the wet ground in your area and an absence of large stones that would be expected in a cultivated field, your chances of hitting the mark is pretty darn good. I checked the magnetic declination in your area and it's about 1.25 degrees. The best you can do with a decent compass is about two degrees or less, so a little practice with your compass will get you close enough to start probing or detecting. The azimuth mark appears to be about 1/2 mile northwest of the station where a north-south fenceline crosses the road. Let us know when you find it, ~ Mitch ~ Edited to add another random thought regarding magnetic declination and the azimuth mark.

Same here. I refer to it as the obligatory error. Actually, it's sort of a journalistic secret handshake. Reporters make mistakes to distinguish ourselves from everyone else. For example, in a story I recently did on Parkinson's Disease I mentioned Mohammed Ali's Nobel Prize in Boxing, an error that no one seemed to notice. (Of course, it was actually the Pritzker.) And I once was forced to buy a round of drinks at a popular press hangout in Belgrade when my colleagues discovered I had failed to make a single mistake in a story I filed. My bad. Imperfectly, -ArtMan- Where's your obligatory error? Misspelling of Muhammad Ali or that he won a Nobel Prize? ~ Mitch ~

Took me a moment to visualize that... and it's brilliantly simple!! ~ Mitch ~

You could borrow my transit, but you'll need a rodman... maybe a pack animal to transport it there. Who cares if it's 1950's technology? ~ Mitch ~

If we take John Race at his word, it would appear the monument was moved: Surveyor Larry Signani's account seems a little suspect, given that he never filed a report with the NGS and unless he had some very good equipment with him in 1988, I don't put much faith in what he said: "Maybe it was just laying up there in that strewn rock and eroded material for a long time," said Signani, who searched for the marker in 1988, armed with precise coordinates and a metal detector. (It wouldn't be the first time a surveyor made a mistake, eh?) That being said, I'm not going to make any speculations about global warming based on this poorly written article. ~ Mitch ~

Nicely done. - Loved all the photos! ~ Mitch ~

I'm so glad "Princess" doesn't write for the local paper.....

I would say the item you found was not the reference mark. It appears to be made of zinc. Here's my logic: • Color and appearance is consistent with other zinc objects I've dug with my metal detector. (If you've dug a newer zinc penny or an old mason jar lid, you'll know what I mean). • There is a distinct seam running through the center of the 'disk', (looks like a piece of cast machinery). • There's a clear seam still present all the way around the rim, (yet no stamping or other cast lettering can be seen). • I see no evidence of concrete attached to this item. • Other aluminum disks I've found don't have this amount of corrosion. In all likelihood, the item is probably a piece of broken farm machinery. However I can understand your conclusion. Regarding the main station setting. The datasheet says it was set in the top of a 12 inch cylindrical monument. - Your photo shows it to be square. Let us know if you find out anything more about this mark. ~ Mitch ~

I wasn't posting a "nasty", just asking a question. Hope that's what forums are for, right? Never heard of, or used the acronym GLBT and had to google the term, just to see what y'all are talking about. For all I know, you could be talking about a Great Bacon, Lettuce and Tomato sandwich. Guess I learned something. Now I'm hungry for a BLT. ~ Mitch ~

Ok... Why use acronyms here? - Is there a reason to post in "code"? GLBT = Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgendered We have many cachers who proudly proclaim they are: ▪ Christian ▪ Agnostic ▪ Pro-Gun ▪ Anti-Gun ▪ Republican ▪ Democrat ▪ Veteran ▪ Married ▪ Single ▪ Masonic ▪ Etc Just be open as to who you are, but kindly refrain from imposing your ideology on me. Thanks! ~ Mitch ~ P.S. - If you're wondering... I'm not GLBT.

Welcome to the Forums GrufftyMilo! I'm not sure if your question was answered clearly, so I'll give it try. The NGS (National Geodetic Survey) maintains a database of high accuracy marks (elevations and horizontal points) in the United States and it's territories. So it's unlikely they would have any marks in your area. In fact, a majority of the benchmarks set in the U.S. don't meet NGS guidelines. Your best bet is to follow BDT's advice and log your finds on the Waymarking website. We'd be interested to see marks from across the pond. ~ Mitch ~

Wouldn't it be logical to assume that most cache maggots read the forums? I'm sure they're laughing at you...

Great story Bill, One of the best recoveries I've read in recent memory! ~ Mitch ~

You're forgiven. - Just don't let it happen again.

Just curious... Is there an Atheist or Agnostic Geocacher's group? The Satanic Geocaching Club I belong to is getting boring.

Thank You George, Please send my prize to Papa-Bear for his unselfish efforts in recovering those old and obscure EOA marks. He deserves some recognition. Regards, ~ Mitch ~

There is NO cache that will equal the satisfaction of finding a benchmark from the 1800's or the early 1900's that has not been recovered since the time it was monumented. Many of us on this board have achieved this, and will agree with me. These logs are invaluable to the surveying community at large. Can't say the same for the numerous smileys posted to a geocache webpage. .....at least from what I've seen. There IS a marked difference between a Geocacher and a Benchmark Hunter. Two entirely different mindsets and goals are involved: 1) Geocacher - "I found it", then signs a log possibly describing how much fun it was or what the weather was like, what you took, what you left, etc. 2) Benchmarker - "Recovered or Not Found", then takes the time to adequately describe his/her observations for posterity to aid other benchmarkers, surveyors and other interested parties in the future. Details would include the condition of the mark, distances from nearby references, changes in the topography since the last recovery, etc. Sometimes a mark can be considered "Destroyed", but only when the Benchmark Hunter can clearly document the basis for his/her findings, at which point it is then reviewed by surveying professionals at the NGS who make a final determination. Conclusion: Geocaching is just a GAME of finding tupperware in the woods. - Benchmarking is infinitely more involved. ~ Mitch ~ P.S. - It's considered bad form to use improper grammar and needless arrogant boasting.

Here's an unusual mark I found near the George Washington Memorial Parkway just outside of D.C. The National Park Service has been doing some invasive plant species removal for several years in the immediate area. In person, this one looks almost like a "toy benchmark", since it is 3 inches in diameter and made of aluminum.

I know for a fact that game consoles didn't always use lead free solder, even in places that are user accessible. In the summer of 1975 I worked at Atari soldering battery clips into their first edition of the home version Pong games. This is 2009, not 1975. - We now have a better understanding of the world today.

Nice recoveries there Bill. I guess the USGS was employing a cost-cutting measure by using rebar instead of traditional stations. I'm sure there's a real interesting story behind these marks. ~ Mitch ~