andylphoto

Yes--that was one detail I inadvertently omitted. The disk was set in concrete on the surface. Thanks Mike!

This one is an interesting find, for a couple of reasons. I was picking out a couple of adjusted marks for "quick finds" along the way on a trip to Lower Michigan. I enjoy older marks, and there are quite a few older ones in this area set by the USLS. I had picked this one as a possibility, but then later crossed it off my list because of its setting--2 1/2 feet deep in a hole in limestone. I didn't want to be taking the time on this trip to dig through a pile of debris that was likely to have accumulated. Well, we ended up making a stop at the adjacent rest area. I found I had actually loaded the waypoint into the GPS, but had NOT printed the datasheet. Oh well...for a walk of a few hundred feet, I figured I'd see what I could find. What I found was quite interesting! I first recovered RM3, as described, well marked by a carsonite witness post. I didn't find RM2--I would suspect that it's there, but without the datasheet or a glaring witness post, it was a shot in the dark, and I didn't have much time to spend. I then began looking in the area indicated by the GPS for the station mark. There was also a carsonite witness post in this area. I found what is apparently the station mark, though it is NOT what is described in the data sheet. The station was apparently reset by an NGS party in 1985. I know from other discussions here and reports in datasheets that the NGS was in Upper Michigan in 1985, so this would fit with that. Aside from the fact that the reset did not make it into the datasheet, also interesting is the fact that they apparently ran out of triangulation station disks! The station mark is a standard bench mark disk, field stamped as a horizontal control disk. The stamping says it's a reset of the station, and is in the correct area as indicated by GPS, so I logged it as a find on GC. Without more information, or at least a check on distances from both RMs, I would not log it with the NGS in any form. I hope to be able to uncover some additional information on this station, as well as make another visit to find RM2 and search for the Azimuth mark on a later visit--maybe one WITH the datasheet. I would be very interested in any additional information on this station! QK0775 - Geocaching QK0775 Datasheet

Thanks again for your work, Holograph. It's nice seeing the updated statistics & maps. If things come together, I might have a recovery to log on the highest station in Michigan for next month. Stay tuned...we'll see if the trip works out.

I noticed this morning that some time during the past week, recent recovery reports have been added to the NGS database. I've got a 7/22 recovery report added. I don't think I've submitted anything since then, but geocaching is "unavailable" at the moment, so I can't check on that. Looking forward to the July statistics!

Thanks Mike. That gives me something to go on--I know right where you're talking about with this one. The one I found is the middle of the three, and the one just further into the woods from the original location. With this information, hopefully I'll be able to find all three. I'll be up in Keweenaw Co. for a couple days next week at Fort Wilkins. Have plans to get HH2 coordinates for a couple in Copper Harbor, then look for a bunch in Eagle Harbor, then the line set in 96 down the road to Delaware--most you found back in 03-04. Also have a few DNFs in the stack, just for fun. If you're down in Marquette County benchmarking some time, maybe we can do a joint venture. We now return this thread to its original discussion.

If I read things correctly, it sounds like you found both--the concrete post being PY0263. The description for this one should probably end midway through the paragraph after "THE TOP OF A CONCRETE POST PROJECTING 16 INCHES." The remainder of the 1964 description seems to be the description for PY0683, mistakenly merged with the PY0263 datasheet. Let's see...how far north of Duluth? If you're still in Duluth, be sure to check out the Lake Superior Railroad Museum and take one of their excursions--the one up the shoreline is the one I did--fun. Then traveling north, Split Rock Lighthouse, the ore docks in Two Harbors, and up toward Silver Bay, Tettegouche State Park, Gooseberry Falls, Palisade Head (a winding drive up to a prominent overlook) and Shovel Point. North of Silver Bay, I'm not so familiar with things. Check out http://www.northshorevisitor.com/ BTW...if you stop in at Tettegouche State Park and Connie is behind the desk, say hi from Andy. She's my cousin.

That's of course the project I'm talking about. RL1458 and RL1460 are now in rock piles somewhere. If RL0004 is still in place on the box culvert, it is directly underneath the westbound lane of the temporary highway reroute. The reset for G 328 (RL1460) is the one I found last fall, set a couple hundred yards away, along the railroad. Any chance you have any information, either in print or from memory about the locations of the resets between Michigamme & Three Lakes? I stumbled across one--F 328--the reset for RL1462. I was in the area looking for RL1462, assuming it had been destroyed, and saw a witness post lying on the ground in the woods. I figured it had been just tossed over the top of the hill and was going to reposition it in my garage. When I got there, I found myself staring at the reset mark in the top of a boulder, so I stood the post back up and tried to anchor it a bit better. I am guessing there are resets for RL1461 and RL1463 as well, but my brief searches have not come up with them, and none have made it into the database.

I would think it really depends on who is involved in the project. There was a run of four marks that were in jeopardy of being destroyed by a construction project a couple years ago. Resets were placed--I did a thread about them here, after spotting them. Only one of the marks was actually destroyed when the rock outcropping was blasted away. The remaining ones were spared as M-DOT placed guardrails rather than remove the outcroppings. I posted a NOT FOUND for the one that was destroyed. M-DOT followed up with a second NOT FOUND, confirming the information I submitted. They also referenced the nearby reset mark, but messed up the designation. hehe RK0458 There is a major construction project ongoing right now near where I grew up. Two marks have for sure been destroyed as the rock outcroppings along the highway where they were set have been blasted away for safety reasons. I know for sure they're gone--I'm familiar with the area, and have before & after pictures. Being disks, they won't get "official" destroyed status unless someone from M-DOT gives NGS the official "we destroyed this one" word. I have already posted destroyed logs on GC, and will be submitting NOT FOUND logs with the NGS on these two with a detailed explanation. One of them had a reset mark placed last fall--I spotted that one long before construction began. I would suspect the other one did as well, but can't say for sure.

Thanks Patty...I'll have to go back now and read up on BMGPX. I had ignored it since I couldn't use it. Andy

For me, an especially good day benchmarking is finding one that has been previously NOT FOUND, either by myself or another respected geocacher or government agency. I was looking for a good place to share my experience Friday, so thanks for starting this thread. I made an overnight trip, so did some benchmarking Friday evening and Saturday. Friday I was able to recover one that I had visited twice before. RL0789 had no successful recoveries since its 1948 monumentation, but DID have four not found logs dating back to 1988. My first visit was over a year ago, and just a drive-by to scout. As noted in one of the previous logs, there had been road construction. a quick view of the area indicated that if the mark was there, it was likely buried by fill. I logged the second visit, where I paced off the distances and got out the metal detector. I uncovered the witness post, bent over and buried, but still with its bottom end planted in the earth. However, the data sheet referenced only a wooden witness post, while the one I uncovered was a white metal sign with the post. There was no mention of this in the data sheet, so while I knew I was in the right area, I didn't know for sure where the mark would have been in relation to the post. I dug and probed a bit, but ran out of time. This one is about 2 hours from home, but would have to wait until another visit. I was finally able to get back to this one on Friday. I dug some more in the position indicated by the measurement from the center of the road and found nothing. This position was just *behind* the witness post. Knowing the position of the road may have changed over the years as work was done and it was resurfaced and/or widened, I dug now in the "logical" spot, which was right in *front* of the witness post, as viewed from the road. About 18 inches down, I found it! After smiles and congratulations, I took additional photographs, averaged a GPS reading, and took additional measurements to aid future recovery. In the photo, you can see what remains of the witness post--maybe about 18 inches above ground. When I found it, it had been pushed over and buried by fill dirt. The white sign had become detached due to rust. Geocache page: RL0789

Essentially, you're correct. Someone else can provide a more technical explanation, I'm sure, but it has to do with the format, or how they're packaged, basically. Garmin has a Map Convert program that will take PC maps and make them into a format usable in Mac. The Mac maps are all ready to be installed into Garmin's RoadTrip software.

Interesting. I don't have the Canada version, and GPS file depot points back to Ibycus.com. Any idea what happened to Ibycus.com? I'll have to go check and see if I saved a copy on my backup server of Ibycus USA Mac version.

Thanks again for your work, Holograph. It's nice to see the statistics & maps. For me, it's a bit of a "reward" for our efforts--seeing our recoveries noted like this. I was actually a bit surprised when viewing the maps this month. I'm one of the only active benchmark hunters in the area, and saw four counties colored with recent recoveries in Upper Michigan. I looked back through my logs and found that I indeed had submitted recoveries from four counties. I also enjoyed re-reading several of my logs--a couple of previously not found stations, one the first recovery on a station monumented ten years ago, one with significant description changes due to a highway realignment, and one I had briefly looked for on two prior occasions, finally found sans witness post under about a foot of dirt. Looking forward to more benchmarking!

I'll second what Patty said. I have found several (4 or 5) reset disks that have been placed since 2006 and have not yet made it into the database. Some may never be, since they were reset in anticipation of the destruction of existing stations during highway construction, but the existing stations survived. I also read about one, I think in a post from Mike, Z15, where the contractor on a project set an NGS disk, but the procedure he used to level it didn't meet NGS standards, so the reset was not entered into the database.

Sign me up. If the snow is gone before the contest ends, I'll participate.

Thanks, Paul for the explanation--that was what I had thought was the case. I thought you were urging people not to submit reports on destroyed stations. Papa Bear, submitting a "not found" prior to a destroyed report is an excellent idea, and one I think I will start implementing in many of my destroyed reports. I assume that Deb keeps the supporting documentation on file, but it would be nice in many cases to see the evidence that was used to declare a station destroyed. Excellent example, again. I have not come across a destroyed report (yet) that I believe to be in error, but do have a station near me in a very similar situation. Though in this case, it's several feet of fill and a paved parking lot. This one would be looking for a needle in a haystack, but it probably actually *is* still there. I've put a note on the GC page, but there are already two "not found" reports on the NGS data sheet. RK0417

I'll field that question. Because our job is not to "clean up the database". Well-meaning folks from GEOCACHING.COM have done harm by engaging in this activity. Many times, the only reference to a station (historic or otherwise) is in the datasheet for another station which no longer exists. When this datasheet becomes unavailable, valuable reference data is lost. Cross-references have been instrumental in many of my finds of granite state-line and magnetic stations from the 1800s. Ditto for many USE disks. And recently I was searching for a 1960's mark with SCALED coordinates when I realized there was a cross reference to a radio tower. The tower is long gone, but the data sheet is still available. And aerial intersection points have adjusted coordinates! Problem solved. So, please! No crusades. Log what you find. Log what you witnessed regarding a water tank or tower. But be cautious about requesting that a station be classified as "destroyed". -Paul- Paul, Please elaborate. It was my understanding that Deb wanted reports of destroyed intersection stations. Even when a station is reported destroyed, the data sheet remains available, so the information is not lost. For example...RK0571, which is the first station I ever reported to Deb as destroyed. Andy

I'll probably be in for the contest, though as with previous contests I don't expect I'll have the time to be a serious contender. Personally, I'd like a later start date, due to the snow cover, which should be mostly gone by the end of April. Like I said though, I don't expect to be a serious contender, so if others want to keep it as is, that's fine here too.

It would depend on whether there is evidence to suggest that the underground mark is intact or otherwise. I actually just got an email back from Deb on a very similar situation: RK0528. I haven't posted a destroyed report from my last visit yet--I need to correct that oversight. It'll be marked as destroyed on GC, but a poor/disturbed report is warranted for the NGS. In this case, the surface mark was yanked and the area graded for a parking area, but there is nothing to suggest that the underground mark is disturbed. She suggested a "poor" report with details on what has happened at the location. I can't tell from the one "before" picture of the area where this one would have been. If it seems the underground mark is destroyed as well, then yes, it would warrant a destroyed report with photos. If it seems likely the underground mark is intact, a found poor with lots of details about the current state, and a note that the surface mark has been destroyed.

Excellent answers above. And in regards specifically to Z15's reference to the U.P. of Michigan, I've also found quite a few that were "not found" by the party in 1985. While some may be legitimate, for many I can only conclude that "not found" really meant "not looked for." A number of these were along an abandoned rail line and required at least a significant drive along a highway abandoned 50 years ago (now a two-rut road) if not a good walk through the woods or along the old grade. I was also helped in my search on a number of these by adjusting coordinates based on topo map info and using the GPS. Most or all references on some of these were to the rail line, and basically useless. Some examples: RK0299 RK0230 RK0231 RL0005 RL0035 RL0010 RL0011 RL0013 RL0014 RL0015 RL0016 There may be a couple more, but those are the ones I can think of. There are also several that I have not located yet--some I haven't searched for, and some that will require a second trip with more time. Some may be there hiding, but others are likely destroyed.

I use MacGPS Pro, and have USGS topos that I can access within the program. I've had very good accuracy with coordinates I've "adjusted" from the USGS maps in the past. In fact, I've been quite amazed at the accuracy the USGS incorporated into these maps, many quads still dating from the 50s, and how their placement of these benchmarks is so spot on. I walked in along an abaondoned rail line in October with my dad--we had both taken coordinates for RL0015 from different topo programs, and both zeroed out within about 20 feet of the actual mark, which is about 1.8 miles along the track from the nearest accessible road. Coordinates I had in the GPS for this one (RL0161) were 46 34 19.0 N 88 21 02.3 W Time to show up with a GPS, a good tape, a metal detector and a compass for another looky see on this one. :-)

Thanks everyone for the advice. I had forgotten that this one appears on the topo map. I had actually adjusted the coordinates I used, which probably put me in the right area. After not finding it on the first time out, I went back home and re-read the data sheet, figuring on the next round, I'd do some more accurate measuring, and then found the data sheet conundrum. This will be a good one for spring when there are no leaves and little underbrush. If I can track it down, I'll try to find this thread and give an update. I'm also going to try a spring search (for the same reasons for the one just south of this one, RL0012. These are two of the holdouts in my run on 1985 NGS "not founds" in this area. The second one may have been destroyed by a widening of the road or logging activity, or it may be just off the road in the underbrush. With the roads being gravel, measuring from the where the center of the road was 50 years ago is a bit of a trick. So was running a tape 99 feet through a forest with dense undergrowth.

I just caught a data sheet error resulting from a destroyed report that I had submitted last summer--quite by accident, actually. I had recovered the station, and found the monument struck by heavy equipment, leaning badly, and the top completely sheared off, and had submitted an email with photos to Deb. I had been checking the data sheet, waiting for it to be marked destroyed, and was actually about to send the email again. In searching for the original email, it did not turn up in my sent items with a PID search, which was odd, because I always include the PID in the subject line. When I couldn't find it, I searched for Deb in the "To" field and it was then that I discovered the error. I had accurately composed the email, including photos and all the correct information--PID, Designation, description... But when I put in the subject line, I typed the PID incorrectly. My primary search area is mostly "RK" PID marks, but this station is to the west, and was an "RL" mark. I had included the correct information in the body of the mail, but mistyped it in the subject line as RK rather than RL. Apparently, after checking the accuracy of the information, when it was declared destroyed, Deb glanced at the subject line to make the database entry. I have emailed her about my error, but thought that I'd pass this along as another reminder that no matter how much you check for accuracy, it never hurts to check it again!

I have looked briefly for RL0161 without success. I did only a brief search while in the area searching for other stations. I wasn't expecting success with the time I had. I did not have my metal detector, and the area had been logged within the past few years, leaving many brush piles. I also realized later that I actually misread the description on my first search attempt. Now, however, I'm not entirely sure where to measure from. AT THE OUTSIDE OF A LONG CURVE WITH TANGENTS SOUTH AND NORTHWEST, ABOUT 125 YARDS NORTHWEST OF THE SOUTHEAST END OF THE NORTHWEST TANGENT OF CURVE So my question is about where the SE end of the NW tangent would be, exactly. I've got two ideas that both seem plausible to me, and I wanted to get a consensus before I try another search in the spring. Would the SE end of the NW tangent be... 1. The point at which the straight-line portion of the road (NW/SE) begins its curve to the south, or 2. The point of intersection of the extended center lines of the NW and South tangents of the road described. The first would be (geometrically speaking) the point of intersection of the line representing the NW tangent and the circle, a portion of which makes up the curve in the roadway. The second would be the point of intersection of both tangents, and would mark a point off the roadway, near the center of the curve. The first would seem to me to make more sense, but then the placement of the station would then be well into the straight portion of the roadway, and would seem to be better described as "NW OF A LONG CURVE..." rather than "AT THE OUTSIDE OF A LONG CURVE..." When I read the latter, it seems to place the station at some point between the ends of the curve. I would guess that the boulder described later in the data sheet is probably still present, but getting started searching in the right area is always a good thing. I found a boulder during my search in the wrong area that seemed to match the description too. Thanks for any input!

I will send a single email with multiple attachments, basically all that I've done during a period of benchmarking (a day/week/month) or a reasonable (5MB?) attachment limit per email. I had questioned her about submitting a significant backlog of recoveries, and she suggested "send me an email with a hundred attachments." I took that to indicate she was fine with multiple recovery photos in a single email. My guess is that for the time being they get put into a folder, and as time permits, they'll be added and linked to datasheets.