Shorelander

This is a beautifully sourced bit of history, Papa-Bear-NYC. Absolutely wonderful. Now that I'm in RI I hope to do work like this with its borders, although from the extremely brief research I've done, it looks like there's already a bit of a todo with them.

Holy moley pgrig, I wish I was still in Boston so I could tag along with you on these!

My brother and one of his friends recently took a trip up to Baraboo, Wisconsin, to see a large sculpture park. One of the sculptures he found is called a Juicer Bug. He took photos of its eyes for me, because they're made of survey markers. I thought I'd share. They all look unstamped and unused - in fact, many seem to be improperly made, and I assume that the artist went to a survey marker manufacturer (perhaps Berntsen, as they are in Madison) and obtained their discards. Anyway, here are the photos! (Click any for a larger photo) The eyes are made of survey markers, although it's hard to see.

I was looking at the topos for this area and found that the large-scale series from 1970 showed something a little different for Fredonia: I think there's a chance dixiedawn was on the right track. It could have been that Rte 89 went east on Pratt, on an alignment that is pretty much gone now (although the former part of it may have been on the landfill road. You can see what might be the remains of the alignment on the aerial imagery. This doesn't contradict the K 52 log in my mind, either. The intersection of Rte 89 and the road to Pipe Spring is in the same location that it is today in this theory. It's just that Rte 89 went east from it, not south - and the description for K 52 doesn't indicate that Rte 89 went south from the intersection.

Not quite late 1960s, but here's a 1964 Tidal BM near my apartment: TU0291.

I think I know what happened to RM3 for DX3874 (LA SIERRA RESET)...

No, it's not mistyped coordinates. Take a look at the placements: Point A is the current location of the disk (on the NE side of the street); Point B is the listed coordinates (on the SW side of the street). A source I found indicates that the Home was between Fourth and Fifth Streets, as does the mark's description. The description also indicates that the mark is on the SW side of the street, agreeing with the coordinates. No, both the description and the coordinates put the mark at Point B, while the disk is currently at Point A. Plus, it would require typing both the N and W coords wrong, not just getting one digit messed up.

The disk is currently embedded in a concrete sidewalk. Photo here.

Hey. I was getting some bolts at a hardware store and stumbled upon this marker: I was intrigued because AFAIK all the main state survey marks from 1969 made it into the NGS database, yet this one didn't get into my GPSr for my walk to meet my fiancee. I get back home and today am uploading the pictures when I find out why: the mark is—or "is", rather—in the NGS database as TU0421. I say "is" because the present location of the disk (about N 21°17.317' W 157°48.620') is about a quarter mile from the listed coordinates and description. I'd been to the location indicated on the datasheet before, and came to the same conclusion as Etoa Nrish did in 2003—that the mark had probably been destroyed during construction. But what about the mark that I did find? This isn't a database mistake—the description and coordinates match fine. The disk and lettering of the stamping are appropriate to those from 1969, and the stamping is quite clear, with no RESET or second date on it. What do you think happened here? An intentional recycling of a disk? An overzealous contractor?

I was on vacation near Cancún and wandered up the coast to the 21st parallel. Came across the border of a marine preserve and this mark in the ground: Perhaps some of the words and phrases on the disk could be of use to someone Googling for information.

After a bit of a hiatus: BATH (TU0563) LUCK RM 1 (TU0560) Three views of 3 13 (TU0334)

I put it as a note on GC. Seems about right. Let people know that you can't just casually walk up to the mark or anything. I thought about mentioning to the curator to submit it to the NGS, but then I thought "what'd be the difference between her doing it and me doing it?" I don't want the +1 to my stats - that's not the incentive - I just thought I'd not bother her again.

II Most certainly you should at least make the effort! I showed up at the Federal Courthouse (!) here in Phoenix..unannounced...and was able to get an escort to the roof with minimal delay. Didn't find the mark (apparently covered by new roofing materials), but at least I got to look! I would keep it simple. If they need to know more, they will ask. There is an NGS benchmark reported to be on the roof. You are an amateur hobbyist, and you would like their indulgence in allowing you (with proper escort) to look for it. You know exactly where it is supposed to be, so the search should not take a long time, or multiple visits. You intend to report your findings to the NGS, which will help maintain the integrity of the national database of usable benchmarks. I made initial contact with the curator of the US Army Museum regarding another mark and mention this one to her. I had not heard from her in a while, so I forgot about it. But today I received an e-mail - she (or another member of the staff) had visited the mark! And took pictures! Very cool. As an aside, do you think I should report this to the NGS? Something like "Mark is on the property of the US Army Museum. Was visited by the curator of the museum and photographic evidence was provided."?

I originally read the description as "drove right INTO the mark". Oops!

US Military Reservation Boundary marker

No mods online AFAICT, but I wanted to report a few linkspam posts in the NGS section of the forum. dadgum spammers.

Lucky dog!

Wow, that is weird - I reported on a mark that was a "D", one which I found. (TU0986 (120 USGS) if you're interested.) Now it's a "Z"?

Oh man! Did you ask any of the construction people about it? Er, I guess there probably weren't any construction people there on a Sunday, I guess.

Us laypeople can't supply geodetic control. That involves surveyors and occupation of the station and whatnot. However, this is one of those annoying ones where if you go to the datasheet directly it gives you just a "D", but if you use the search by PID function you get additional "NN". I still am not sure what's up with that. Either the direct method fails to give you all the info or the search by PID method gives an erroneous NN. So what I'd do is go to the station and report your findings to the NGS as you would normally. If it comes back to life, then we know the NN is not to be trusted coming via "search by PID". If not, well, there's not much that can be practically done.

68-eldo: Wow! One of the rectangular US Engineers plates!! I'd read about them in the NGS Special Pubs and have wanted to go and see if any were left. I guess there's at least one! NGS Surveyor: Thanks for getting on the horn with your HI advisor. Let him know he's got a beautiful island with some great historical marks!

Actually, this is something that has been bugging me. So if you go directly to the datasheet for DV1864 (or TU0979 for that matter) you just get a D code. But if you go through the PID form you get both D and NN. Why is this? Which do we trust?

I have absolutely nothing to add - I just wanted to say that the wisdom and investigation brought to this (and other threads) is simply amazing. It makes for a killer read!

So the most I've seen surveyors with when I've run into them (never occupying a station I've been looking for, mind you; on construction sites or doing land surveying or whatnot) are tripods standing four or five feet. Well, recently I came across the most complete of the Hawaii Territorial stations that I've yet seen, KALAEPOHAKU RESET (TU1291). (This time I actually saw the disk under the iron pole!) So here's the issue: Could a surveyor actually use this station today? They'd have to remove the top part of the iron pipe in order to access the station disk from above - that little divot you see in the center goes down to the disk, but you can't position an instrument over it. Is it feasible to get an instrument over such a mark, centering it on the disk through the pole? Or would they just go for a different mark somewhere else? On the other hand, at least the mark is a bit more useful than WYLLIE 1927 (TU1263):

IMHO, I'd go out and find them first. The 'directions' you found on paper may need adjustments because of progress and time. No, I understand. Like I said, I plan to look for them. But let's say they're gone and thus not there for me to find. Should I report the description under a NOT FOUND (sourcing it to the publication)?