Jump to content

WingArcher

Members
  • Posts

    20
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by WingArcher

  1. Cracker7- I looked at the project number you referenced in an earlier reply- it appears we've got a ways to go!! I've done a bunch from the Avon zipcode 14414 and most of the mt morris ones you found. The list from the NGS just goes on and on and on!! Nat
  2. I'm curious (and I hope a few others are too...) do you go find these things for fun like the rest of us or is it too much like work?
  3. I'm curious (and I hope a few others are too...) do you go find these things for fun like the rest of us or is it too much like work?
  4. I found this in my travels: http://www.landnetusa.com/free_map/introduction.asp?PortalID=201&FreeMapType=US It's a nice java applet. Different types of maps, the ability to draw on them, even a distance measuring capability. I'm not convinced of their precision (the lat/long coords carry a lot of decimal places) but it's cool anyway.
  5. I found this in my travels: http://www.landnetusa.com/free_map/introduction.asp?PortalID=201&FreeMapType=US It's a nice java applet. Different types of maps, the ability to draw on them, even a distance measuring capability. I'm not convinced of their precision (the lat/long coords carry a lot of decimal places) but it's cool anyway.
  6. My take (heh) on the picture thing... I photograph the monument up close, and nothing else. For the most part, the things I find tend to be along old railroads, and the 'view' is just a tunnel in the trees. Other stuff around here is out along roads, and again, you just get the big flat nothing shot. My photograph of the disk or whatever is just evidence to support my claim of finding it.
  7. I got one of those folding army shovels (an entrenching tool I believe) for my birthday. Yeah, weird family I have. Anyway, it's totally perfect for finding things. A lot of BMs around here are on culvert walls, and have silted over. Careful use of the shovel will remove the dirt in a hurry and not wreck the disk/bolt/whatever. It'll also dig up other things.... My only issue was at the following triangulation station (didn't find the disk... dug a huge hole... I think it's missing, but don't know for sure...) check it out, and think about me, with my shovel... http://www.geocaching.com/mark/details.asp?PID=NB1989
  8. I'm wondering what the specifics in the survey world are for "finding", or "not finding" a monument. This afternoon during my "adventure" (see other post from today) I positively found a chiseled square, and positively found a copper bolt to be destroyed (the end of the culvert it was described to be in was in a pile at the bottom of the creek!). Other monuments have been less cut & dry. If I find it, and take its picture, and the stamping matches the description, and the location matches the description (closely enough) I found it, no argument there! However, if I don't find it... we can only say that I didn't find it! We can't necessarily say that it can't be found. However, in some cases, we can be certain of a marks destruction, and say that it has been destroyed, thus it can't be found. What I'm getting at is this: What is the professional take on the "Well, we couldn't find it" situation? Some marks just aren't willing to be found, but neither is there concrete evidence of destruction! I'd like to see the "couldn't find" log option replaced with "destroyed/not findable". I've been using the note option to denote this situation, and not logging marks that I just couldn't find that day. What is your thought process when faced with these situations?
  9. That little "must read" notice is quite accurate, and you really should read it! I was looking for a chiseled square and a copper bolt today along an abandoned railroad (now the Genesee Valley Greenway) this afternoon. They were described to be on a stone culvert under the tracks, etc. etc. Turns out that part of the culvert had washed out (eliminating the bolt, but not the square..) a while ago. The wash out created a really big sink hole that was *right* beside the path, and completely obscured by grass. I stepped off the path, took one step, and fell right in. I caught myself on the way down with my arms (dumb luck) and got out the easy way. I measured afterwards and the hole was over 8 feet deep! I'm fine, just got rather dirty. But, really, be careful. The controls that seem like they're "right there" just like the others I've found aren't always "right there"!!
  10. I wasn't so much interested in getting help in finding them, as I was to see how people like to go about it. I have read elsewhere that some of the hard-core geocache sorts (I'm not really) are totally into the GPS method. Note the threads on why the coordinates from 1930s marks are off, wrong datum, etc. I like the directions, especially when they reference old road names, or none at all. It adds to the excitement. After all, these things were put there to be found! The 'hard' ones around here require a 2 mile hike, followed by an easy find, or an obvious "it ain't here".
  11. I wasn't so much interested in getting help in finding them, as I was to see how people like to go about it. I have read elsewhere that some of the hard-core geocache sorts (I'm not really) are totally into the GPS method. Note the threads on why the coordinates from 1930s marks are off, wrong datum, etc. I like the directions, especially when they reference old road names, or none at all. It adds to the excitement. After all, these things were put there to be found! The 'hard' ones around here require a 2 mile hike, followed by an easy find, or an obvious "it ain't here".
  12. Around these parts I've found 20 or so markers of various types using the text directions off the information sheet. My GPS hasn't even gotten out of the car yet because the directions are really good. I wonder what sort of success/failures you've had in other areas of the country (I'm in NY (Rochester area)). Are the text directions usually good enough? Are the scaled coordinates good enough to find them w/o looking at text info? Both? Neither?!
  13. Around these parts I've found 20 or so markers of various types using the text directions off the information sheet. My GPS hasn't even gotten out of the car yet because the directions are really good. I wonder what sort of success/failures you've had in other areas of the country (I'm in NY (Rochester area)). Are the text directions usually good enough? Are the scaled coordinates good enough to find them w/o looking at text info? Both? Neither?!
  14. Hey Survey Tech, you out there? I just saw a survey crew with a tripod over a benchmark in my town, and I wonder... I know that the UGS datasheets are fairly particular about where benchmarks are located, some more so than others. My question is how they are most often used now. My guess is that property lines and such are defined more in relation to local landmarks and other properties than defined as a set of coordinate points (pick your system!) in a global grid. So do benchmarks get used as a convienent point of reference (so many feet from such and such) in local surveys? Is the altitude information from the datasheet used as well to determine slopes and so forth? Both? It appears too that a lot of benchmarks are used for neither anymore. TIA for any info you may have.
  15. Howdy On Friday the 5th, I found 10, mostly benchmarks but a couple of survey disks and a Azimuth mark. It could have been 12, but it appears that road "improvements" have eliminated a couple. I doubt there will be many days like that one again.... I seem to be finding all the easy ones first!
  16. Howdy On Friday the 5th, I found 10, mostly benchmarks but a couple of survey disks and a Azimuth mark. It could have been 12, but it appears that road "improvements" have eliminated a couple. I doubt there will be many days like that one again.... I seem to be finding all the easy ones first!
  17. I guess I didn't put the right words down to explain what I meant. My suggestion for including a "last found" field in the search results really meant: Can the big 10 mile list of markers have a field that lists a date or some such if a Geocacher (or someone who logs into the site with pictures and such) has found the marker. If nobody has found it, then the field would be blank. This is just like a geocache search with its "last found" date.
  18. I guess I didn't put the right words down to explain what I meant. My suggestion for including a "last found" field in the search results really meant: Can the big 10 mile list of markers have a field that lists a date or some such if a Geocacher (or someone who logs into the site with pictures and such) has found the marker. If nobody has found it, then the field would be blank. This is just like a geocache search with its "last found" date.
  19. Is it possible to add a field "Last visited" to the nearest BM search result? This would make it easier for someone new to the game to search for a mark that was recently found... increasing their odds of success. Personally... I'm not afraid to go goose chasing.
  20. Is it possible to add a field "Last visited" to the nearest BM search result? This would make it easier for someone new to the game to search for a mark that was recently found... increasing their odds of success. Personally... I'm not afraid to go goose chasing.
×
×
  • Create New...