rogbarn

Realistically speaking now, I expect that we can keep on going past 15%. We're right at 3 years now since benchmark hunting has been a part of GC so it will be close to 3 1/2 years when we hit 10%. It certainly will take more than that to get the next 10% but there's lots of urban and suburban areas that have not been covered much if at all. Plus, with the dedicated hunters here, some of us will go far and wide to add to the totals. So, my guess is that we'll get past 20% pretty easily, it just might take 4 or 5 years of slow but steady finds.

That still leaves 97% down here that can be found!

10% of the total marks is a magic value even if the total number of marks in the NGS database fluctuates. According to my estimate, we will reach 73,643 benchmarks found in early December.

This will be a simple reply. I'm sure others will be able to give more detail. CORS is a Continuously Operating Reference Station (link is to NGS page on CORS). They are new devices (compared to 1943). They are often (usually?) three PIDs, someone else will have to explain why they separate them. Don't disturb them. I've seen pictures, but I forget where. As for the PID prefix, the general answer is that it doesn't mean a thing. The longer answer is that I often see newer PIDs with a DE prefix. I'm guessing that the area ran out of PID numbers for the assigned PID prefix and whoever assigns PIDs gave them a range in the DE prefix. I have also seen AA thru AF (or further perhaps) used for newer PIDs. Therefore, the longer answer shows that it is a newer PID. try looking at these: >JD2470 BLOOMFIELD 38 43 57.8/092 04 05.0 2 mo027.dat >AI3678 BLOOMFIELD CORS ARP 36 52 47.1/089 58 21.0 A mo207.dat >AI6543 BLOOMFIELD CORS L1 PHASE CENTE 36 52 47.1/089 58 21.0 A mo207.dat In reviewing this group, I think your third entry is not part of the CORS, just a disk perhaps placed at the same time. The disk that I listed is some distance from the CORS station. Anyway, that's a start, I'm sure some others will chime in. EDIT: Actually not usually three PIDs but usually two PIDs as both Gonzo-YT and my examples show.

The NGS set a couple of new special markers over the holiday. See the article in the NOAA news. The first one was set at Forest Service headquarters in Washington, DC. It appears to be the first in a series that will be set at Forest Service headquarters around the country. The second was set at Calais, Maine to honor the Calais Observatory. "On December 16, 1866, before the use of Global Positioning Systems (GPS), the Calais Observatory marked the final piece of the first successful transatlantic telegraphic longitude determination." This is also apparently the first in a series of Heritage Trail markers. Preatty neat looking markers.

I was driving down the road over the weekend and giving my brakes a good workout when I realized what the perfect benchmark hunter's bumper sticker is: I BRAKE FOR WITNESS POSTS

I have an example where the azimuth is described as some distance south of a fire hydrant, in fact it is north. There were other factual problems (although not as important) with the description of that PID and I've always meant to go back and write my own description. I just figured it was carelessness on the part of the writer and/or typist.

I couldn't figure out how to get the graph to post on the net. I just using Excel, if there are any easy hints, I'll give it another try. Meanwhile, I posted the raw data at My benchmark count webpage.

Hey, this is way cool. The marker documentation on the web site is excellent. I'm quitting my job and coming up to join you!! (just kidding).

A chance, yes, but not right now. My ISP has my web area messed up, first no one could even display it, now that's fixed but I can't get to it via FTP. Plus, I'm taking a long walk this weekend (see my letter about my MS Challenge Walk for more information) and won't be back until Tuesday at the earliest to try it again.

I'll handle this one. I've kept track of the number of benchmarks found since 6/24/2002, almost since GC put them on their site. I take the count from "Overall, 63651 benchmarks" on the GC benchmarking front page. While I look it up almost every day; to be fair to the numbers, I track it on a rolling 7-day average (that is, the average for the past 7 days). Even this 7-day average jumps around quite a bit but here is a general sense for how the finds have been going: high point around a daily average of 100 in Aug and again in Sept 2002. steady decline to a low daily average of 35 to 40 in Dec. 2002. gradual climb to a high daily average of 160 in July 2003. At this point, there was a slow but steady decline all the way thru 2004. For some reason (unknown to me), the summer of 2004 did not show an obvious rebound in benchmark finds. The decline bottomed out in Jan. 2005 in the high 20s to low 30s. Since then, it has climbed back into the 60s where it is now.

The most important and easiest update to make is to get updated copies of the current NGS datasheets available on GC. The data on GC is now 5 years out of date. A lot of new stations have been added to the NGS database that benchmarkers would like to log on GC. A lot of stations have been marked destroyed and really don't need to be kept on GC although if there are GC logs, it would nice to keep them. We went thru one semi-major software update that left a few odd bugs that took repeated requests to get noticed and corrected. In fact some may still be lurking about like a thorn in our side. But nothing then about updating the datasheets and still nothing now despite repeated requests of the problem. The are a lot of helpful people in the benchmarking forum that will be quite happy to help TPTB get the database updated. Please help us Luke. This is our darkest hour.

Sorry, I missed this question the first time I read this thread. I talked with Dave Doyle when he was at the dedication of the Lewis & Clark marker dedication at St. Charles, MO. He explained that when they created the NAD83 datum, they took the survey information for all triangulation stations that they had at the time and loaded it into a computer and did a least-squares adjustment on them to update them to NAD83. It was not a simple conversion from NAD27, the stations were actually readjusted. It was a considerable undertaking for a computer. The bottom line is that all stations in the NGS database are in NAD83.

A very interesting page, thanks for the work. I notice that in the list of Missouri's newest stations is DG7734. At one time, the NGS listed this in Cole Co but they have corrected that to C of St Louis. But your list still lists it as MO/COLE. Are these lists being updated automatically based on your updates?

Most likely it is NOT the coordinates of the benchmark are off it is you do not understand the differant types of datum used. A lot of benchmarks use NAD27 on the cocordiantes and if you GPSr is set to WSG84 then your be off from a few meters to 60 or more in the U.S. So check the datum the benchmark uses and then make sure your GPSr is set for the same. Also may benchmarks are old so they maybe buried etc... so it is harder to find them. In fact, all of the benchmarks listed in the NGS database (from which geocaching gets it's database) are NAD83. The ones that were surveyed prior to NAD83 were recalculated into NAD83 at the time NAD83 was established. If the coordinates are off it is because the coordinates are SCALED which means it was estimated from a map and could be off by as much as 6 seconds (660 feet). That is why it is usually suggested that once you are in the general vicinity of a SCALED benchmark you should read the description to find its exact location. If a benchmark has ADJUSTED coordinates, they are more accurate than your GPSr and you can depend on your GPSr to lead you directly to the location. You can see if a benchmark has SCALED or ADJUSTED coordinates on the benchmark page where it states "location is xxxx" underneath the coordinates and altitude. There is an admittedly different feel about hunting benchmarks vs. caches. There are certainly different things you need to know about benchmarks that don't occur with caches that make it fun and interesting in it's own right.

CallawayMT, thanks for the additional info. seventhings wrote: Is the Locust Grove marker the same one that seventhings mentioned on page 1 on this thread (and quoted above)? The coords, especially longitude, are off a bit but it sounds like it might be the same.

Re: LF1499 This shows why it is necessary to research problems rather than just assuming the county is wrong and sending off a change request. When I work thru a state, I first find a group of stations in which the coordinates do not match the county. I then attempt to map the to reach to make sure it comes close to the coordinates. If the to reach does come at least somewhat close to the coordinates, I assume it is just the county that is incorrect. There are always a few where the to reach doesn't match the coordinates. For those, I do further research that might include radial searches around both my estimated to reach position and the listed coordinates and also searches for similar station names. Sometimes I can find a reason for the problem and can give some background to Cheryl when I send in my email. In this particular case, I see that F 267 and F 267 RESET (LF0637 and LF1500) are mentioned in the description and they are both located at scaled coordinates 40 03 07N 095 31 12W. This maps to a spot that matches the description for D 8 pretty well. The other interesting thing to note is that the north coordinate for LF1499 matches the north coordinate for LF0637 and LF1500. The only reason I can guess at for the incorrect west coordinate (095 09 55) is that it got mis-typed when entered into the system and the degrees got typed twice, once as degrees, once as the minutes and seconds. Therefore, I would send an email to Cheryl asking that the scaled coordinates for LF1499 by updated to match the scaled coordinates for LF1500. This is a lloonngg way of saying that I agree with BDT who said "sounds like a map scaler's typo. in the coords." I will also mention that I have noticed that these types of corrections take longer than the relatively straight forward county corrections. I think they have to be reviewed/researched by someone else.

BuckBrooke, that is awesome work. I think my spreadsheet will break if I try to load 22,000 benchmarks corrected by geocachers. By the way, the census bureau has boundary information if you can decipher it. I'm using it to determine the minimum and maximum lat & long by county. It's a fair amount of work but the results will be helpful to me.

Thanks. I just figured it out. I thought he was just going in and getting the benchmark find count from the stats page. Instead, he's going thru all benchmark logs. It makes a big difference. But then, that's the point, isn't it? I wonder if WaldenRun is around. He has the highest finds that I know of that isn't on the list. As much as I love the numbers, I also totally agree with GH55 concerning the effect that this has on possible careless reporting to the NGS. Nice comment.

Try this topic: New Disney Benchmarks Page, Let me know about others! or go directly to the page at Patty Winter's Disney Benchmarks Page I didn't take the time to see if the one you found is listed. edit: removed picture from quoted material

I think the GC count is of finds only, not a count of all logs. Also, my stats page shows 163 NGS Benchmark finds. But your page shows me with 240. Uh?

I've had good luck getting county corrections made even when the station is scaled. On rare occasion, they will claim it is too close to change or the description is ambigous but 99% of them are obvious and the change has been made. Send an email to Cheryl Malone and she will take care of it. I'll add the group to my list of geocacher corrections.

I got notification from Deb Brown that a bunch of changes had been made, so I checked out the situation. She made over 250 corrections based on geocaching benchmark hunter input! A couple of quesions did come up in my research: For BuckBrooke: You listed: > Listed as Cibola county, might be Cibola county due to SCALED > ER0116 All the New Mexico stations were corrected except ER0116. Did you get a email about this one? For 5Wishes: You listed: > Franklin County > FG0944 Crawford County I think you meant FH0944. Can you confirm this?

Actually, Cheryl didn't mention anything about requiring the designation or the state when I submitted these. Interesting. I've always been told to include both the PID and the designation. But I guess if she'll take them that way, it must be OK.

Wow. I just got done adding it to my list of pending geocaching corrections and now I have to go back and mark it corrected! If only we could get DaveD's attention 100% of the time!!