Red_Cedars

I recently searched and found a station mark and two of its reference marks. All three disks have their own PIDs in the database (I love finding this type). Problem is, one of the RMs is well out of place. The monument is still in the poured concrete base material, but this station is in the corner of a farmer's field and this disk looks to have been broken off and replaced badly. The concrete base is broken off about a foot deep and is placed back in the hole, but is severly tilted and the arrow on the mark is pointing the wrong direction. So, just how "poor" does a mark have to be in order to be considered "destroyed"? Thoughts? R_C

What I mean is this: The NGS recovery submit form has only 3 choices: [*]Good [*]Not recovered, not found [*]Poor, disturbed, mutilated, requires maintenance The point being that we, as submitters can't log "Mark destroyed" on the NGS submit form because there is no such choice on the form. Instead, we can give the NGS reasons why they should log the mark as destoryed (since we can't directly log a mark as destroyed). The NGS submit form has 2 versions of how to tell the NGS that you think the mark is destroyed, depending on what you found. Ah. Good point. I suppose that I should have remembered that you yourself have probably submitted a destroyed mark or two. Funny thing, though. I've taken my wife on a grand total of one benchmark hunting trip. During that trip we found three marks, DNF'd another, found one empty monument casing (which NGS said to log as "poor", despite my best guess of "not found") and one destroyed. Now my wife doesn't think that finding a destroyed mark is anything special, because she's found one on her first trip. R_C

Sorry, double post. Got an error message on the first attempt and sent it again. R_C

Please see my entry for SD0855 at both Geocaching.com and in the NGS database. It is destroyed. It is possible. I have done so. I have the mark sitting in my garden and is a personal treasure. The photos at GC tell a good bit of the story. R_C

Yep, had a ball hunting benchmarks! A very productive afternoon with several "Finds" and a couple of good "DNFs" as well, but these two were the most fun BECAUSE of the mix-up. And actually, L323 is not inside a secure area. It's on the side of a public building. M323, however, IS inside a locked fence, but since I had made contact with the occupants of the building for "uncovering" L323, the guy was really excited to show me M323 as well. And yes, for the record, the two marks are within about 50 feet of eachother. Thanks for the input. I'll be making my official report to the NGS folks soon. R_C

Got sent to Helena, MT for work and had an afternoon off for some hunting. Came accross RW0260 and RW0261. Now the curious part: Their descriptions, including how to find and stampings have been switched in the database. Too much detail to post here, but I'd love to get other's opinions on what I documented at Geocaching.com for these two stations. I'd like to get input from others before making the official report at the NGS site. Further, I'm wondering if I could get some input as to the condition of L323, currently documented as RW0261. A new sidewalk has been poured around the mark, making it all but inaccessable. You can easily see the mark is there, but I'm wondering if it could actually be used. Thanks, Red Cedars

Hey, glad to help! But I'll admit my motives are mostly selfish! R_C

Hi Holograph, I really appreciate your compiling these stats every month. I enjoy seeing my efforts logged! Quick question, though. I regularly use your "PID retrieval form" in my hunting and it seems to be missing and has been for about a week. Is it something on your end or on the NGS site? Thanks again, R_C

On a recent business trip through The Dalles, Oregon, I had the opportunity to hunt a couple of interesting benchmarks. The first was RC1896 (http://www.geocaching.com/mark/details.aspx?PID=RC1896) which commemorates a flood of the Columbia river in 1894. It is mounted vertically on the wall of the old courthouse. I could not find a date for the courthouse. The other is for RC0860 (http://www.geocaching.com/mark/details.aspx?PID=RC0860) which commemorates the same flood event. But the curious thing is that RC0860 is mounted vertically on the Post Office which wasn't built until 1915, yet the original data sheet says it was monumented in 1894. How is this possible? The mark on the court house, RC1896 does not have any organization markings, just text and a horizontal line. The mark on the post office is a C&GS disk. Could the C&GS folks been worried about the survival of RC0860 and placed a new mark, RC0860, with the old date? Curious, R_C

I'd be interested in a coin, but would prefer a pin (maybe both?). Please keep me informed as to the progress of this project. Steve

I've run across a few survey markers recently that are mounted vertically, usually in a buildign foundation or some such. I know in the past, our professional friends here have mentioned that they need to place a level on a disk to use it. So, how are these vertically mounted disks used? R_C

Getting back to the original post, I've had sufficient ill luck with RR benchmarks to turn me off of them. Unless they're immediately accessable from public lands, I won't bother. I refuse to cross fences, walk along active track, or dig in ballast. A) It amounts to trespassing, and it's not fun. So, if I determine that there's a RR benchmark in the signal base where the tracks cross Main Street, that's cool. But if I have to scramble down a gulley, climb a fence, walk half a mile along the tracks to a bridge headwall across the river and dig through 3 feet of ballast, I'll pass, thanks. R_C

I just found This Auction on eBay. If you hurry, you can still get it cheap. I don't think I've seen anything quite like it elsewhere. R_C

Yeah, I thought of that after I had already posted it here, but I'm not yet accustomed to thinking in terms of the two forums (fora? fori? Why doesn't that ever look right?). I hope to do better sorting in the future. And as I said above, I agree that it better fits "Not Found" than "Poor/Disturbed", but it HAS been fun discussing it! R_C

The pipe diameter is one measurement I didn't take. But if I had to guess, I'd say it's about 8 inches diameter. Given a "standard disk" (say 4 inches for the big ones from Berntsen) as mentioned in the description, that would leave 2 inches around the disk if centered in the pipe. That seems like it'd be enough to chisel. But yeah. It'd be a lot of work. Also, keep in mind that this mark was first placed in 1927. The casing over it wasn't placed until a few decades later when the city of Ocean Shores was platted and the street put in. So the concrete was probably NOT stuck or fused to the pipe casing at all. Jeeze, the trivial history you pick up in this hobby . . . R_C

Just for the record, I "score" all reports the same. "Found", "Did not find", and "Destroyed" are all the same to me. In fact, I get more satisfaction from well reported DNF than an easy find. I'm just going with what I was told by Deb, whom I consider to be the final authority (even if I agree with you ). I DO try to make the report as reasonable as possible. And I HAVE already submitted my recovery report. In the written portion (rather extensive) I included the fact that the disk was not found. Personally, I was surprised by Deb's response but went with it. As long as the problems are thoroughly described in the write up, I see no problem with her decission. FWIW, the text of my written report follows: But just out of curiosity, under what circumstances would a mark be considered "Poor/Disturbed"? Wouldn't you have to "guess" with any such mark? If so, why do they even have that description? (ebited for speeling)

Okay we're all wrong. I just got a reply from Deb. So I'm off to log it. R_C

You've obviously never been to Ocean Shores. I don't think they've put down new roads since they were new in the 60s. Although you do raise a good point. They're actually starting to build new homes in the area, including adjacent to this mark. It may be that the mark was removed in anticipation of resurfacing the road. Time will tell, I suppose. It may be worthwhile to revisit this station in a year or so. R_C

Good point. I should clarify. I removed all the sand in the casing to a depth of 1.5 feet. At that point, the bottom of the hole was tapering severly towards the center. The last .5 feet, while it did remain burried, was not sufficiently wide to be hiding a standard disk as described. It MAY have been hiding a stem, but even that is doubtful. I didn't have sufficient tools to remove what little sand remained in the casing, so probed the remainder. I suspect the depth to which I probed was the original mounting hole for the monument, but again, I can't be certain. I hit obstruction at about 2 feet in an area about one inch diameter. The more we discuss this here, the more I'm inclined to go with my original thoughts of "not found" with a good description. But, I'll wait and see what Deb says when she comes back, even though we all suspect the same answer: "Not Found". R_C Oh, and the casing I found was not the shut off for the hydrant. I found that as well. It's casing is marked "water".

Yeah, I thought of that. Distance to RM4 checks out, as do the approximate distances from the nearby cross streets. The casing cover is not stamped, but "survey" can be made out in the casting. I've e-mailed Deb with the particulars and supporting photos and will let her make the final decision when she returns. Personally, I'm all for "not found". To my way of thinking, that's just as good, if properly described. Besides, I went looking for SD0855 right after not finding this one and SD0855 IS destroyed, without any doubt. I've posted photos and supporting documentation to Deb. R_C

I'd like to get everyone's (okay, not EVERYONE, but you get the idea) opinion on this one. Here's a LINK to the GC listing for SD0457, but basically, the situation is this. I found the monument case as described, but there's no monument in it. My gut is to say "not found", but this MAY qualify as destroyed as the evidence is so strong. Opinions? Thanks, R_C

I think that this is probably the coolest software I've ever seen for Palm OS. Thanks for sharing the link. R_C

I guess I'm lucky. For me, the question is seldom vague. It is almost universally "no". If it's not buildings, it's trees or mountains. I'd be hard pressed to find a 360 degree view anywhere near me. So, on the very rare occasion that I do, I log a "Don't Know". Mountain summits are about the only exception. Those often are good. But I don't get to many mountain summits. R_C

This image is from "Google Earth". Here you can see the outline of the cross markers. The cursor position is not changed from what I typed in, but for some reason is not right over the mark. I don't know what is "off" here, but suspect it's Google as the coordinates are supposed to be "adjusted". R_C

Me too. But not so much caches any more. I used to hunt benchmarks if they were close to caches. Now I look for benchmarks. If I happen to remember to look for caches in the area, that's bonus. I'd rather print out six datasheets for benchmarks and spend the afternoon looking for them and get two finds and 4 DNFs (like many here, I consider a good DNF a "win" in the game) than take the extra time to look for tupperware with a notebook in it to sign. Partly because if I don't find it, there's no "win". R_C