TeeGate

I have around 51 with many damaged or not found. Some that I want to find are in the woods and the ticks here have been terrible this year. I came home with so many ticks that I have to wait for fall. Guy

I can only surmise it was easier in remote locations to build the towers from wood and leave them there. If the area was not remote, a Bilby tower was used for triangulation stations. It was named after the designer, Jasper Bilby. They were a tower within of a tower, usually made of metal. When you see a PID that mentions for example, "A 100 foot tower will clear all obstacles", it is talking about a Bilby tower. Obstacles near the location, or the distance between towers, determined how high the tower had to be. The inner tower provided an undisturbed instrument platform, while the outer tower was what the men climbed. Usually a team of men would construct it, and wait for dark on a clear night. They would climb the tower and set a light at the peak, so that all towers in the area could see it. They would then perform whatever was needed to align their equipment for the monumenting of their triangulation station. These are the benchmarks with the triangle on them. They then would usually monument two reference stations at some distance away with arrows on them pointing toward the tips of the triangle on the station benchmark. I have found many that did not point at the tips of the triangle, so that is not always the case. They would sometimes monument an Azimuth mark, usually quite a distance from the station. I believe this mark was in alignment with the North Star. Many of the Azimuth marks are usually destroyed because they are so far from the relative safety of the immediate area around the stations. Also, some people who I have contacted who used a Bilby tower in the past, say that the station was monumented first, and the tower placed over it. So apparently that is up for discussion. Guy

Photo's sent to the NGS must be sent to Sharon Faber National Geodetic Survey 1315 East West Highway #8501 Silver Spring, MD 20910 You must put them on a CD or zip and don't expect them returned, so I would suggest a CD. Don't expect to have them posted anytime soon, because Sharon has informed me that in the summer she receives a large volume of photo's. I sent some to her in May and they still have not been posted. I also would suggest that you wait until you have more photo's of other benchmarks before you send them in. She apparently is overwhelmed with photo's in the summer and might not appreciate three pictures on every CD. If they are the only ones you are ever going to send, them by all means go ahead. Guy

Photo's sent to the NGS must be sent to Sharon Faber National Geodetic Survey 1315 East West Highway #8501 Silver Spring, MD 20910 You must put them on a CD or zip and don't expect them returned, so I would suggest a CD. Don't expect to have them posted anytime soon, because Sharon has informed me that in the summer she receives a large volume of photo's. I sent some to her in May and they still have not been posted. I also would suggest that you wait until you have more photo's of other benchmarks before you send them in. She apparently is overwhelmed with photo's in the summer and might not appreciate three pictures on every CD. If they are the only ones you are ever going to send, them by all means go ahead. Guy

It is apparent that snail mail was used for notification of changes to a station in the past. Here is one from my area that was moved in 1946 because of the erection of a steel tower. This tower is now owned by ATT, but apparently was originally owned by Western Union. JU3020 STATION RECOVERY (1946) JU3020 JU3020'RECOVERY NOTE BY LOCAL SURVEYOR (INDIVIDUAL OR FIRM) 1946 (HRF) JU3020'LETTER FROM MR. H.R. FRIZZELL, DIVISION PLANT SUPERINTENDENT, JU3020'WESTERN UNION TELEGRAPH COMPANY, NEW YORK, NEW YORK, DATED JU3020'MARCH 12, 1946-- JU3020' JU3020'STATION MARK WAS LOWERED 5.040 FEET IN ITS EXISTING LOCATION JU3020'DUE TO THE BUILDING OF A STEEL TOWER.

I receive an email each week from pHreAkY PhRiDay pHun LiNx, and this week they mention Geocaching.com. You can view the site at the link below. Scroll to the bottom of the page. http://www.grrl.com/phun/phunindex2002.html Here is what was mentioned. Geocaching http://www.geocaching.com/ Do you have a GPS device collecting dust in the garage? Or maybe you use your GPS to find restaurants and to prevent getting lost near stadiums. Well, now there's an even better reason to use a GPS device - for going on treasure hunts! Geocaching is a big hunt using set coordinates and some brainpower. If you're smart and fast enough to get to the hidden treasure first, you could end up with some cool gear. Just remember to leave something for the next person who shows up to the stash.

If someone is just posting to the Geocaching website, there is no question staying with the hdddºmm.mmm format is probably the correct way to go. But it is clear that many members are submitting their finds to the NGS which can cause a problem if they leave comments. Many times if I find a coordinate on a PID that appears to be inaccurate I leave the coordinates that I get from my GPS in the comment field. JU0601 STATION RECOVERY (2002) JU0601 JU0601'RECOVERY NOTE BY INDIVIDUAL CONTRIBUTORS 2002 (GJT) JU0601'PORTABLE GPS READING JU0601'N39.44.10.2 JU0601'W074.43.37.9 They seem to be quite accommodating and put whatever reading you give them in the comment section. So if someone who does not know about the format difference submits their readings, can you imagine the confusion that it "may" cause. Not counting the confusion by the NGS staff deciding if the coordinates submitted to them are accurate. The information submitted to the NGS needs to be as accurate as possible, so it just seems to me that it is in the best interest of the members of this site to understand the difference. Who knows...if they find the information they are getting is flawed, they may restrict access to this information in the future. BTW in previous posts I incorrectly mentioned USGS instead of NGS. We all make mistakes, some more important then others. Sorry for the error. Guy

Searching out and finding benchmarks takes quite a bit of time, so you will not get any sleep if you are as busy as you say. But if you find time you must visit them and check on their condition. If you want to photograph them and submit the photo's, you need to read the requirements on submitting photo's. Here is the pdf direct download. http://www.ngs.noaa.gov:80/PROJECTS/INSTRUCTIONS/Digital_Photo_Requirements.pdf Here is one that I photographed and submitted if you want an idea of what you must do. http://www.ngs.noaa.gov/cgi-bin/get_image.prl?PROCESSING=list&PID=JU2991 Then you can submit a PID to the NGS. http://www.ngs.noaa.gov/FORMS_PROCESSING-cgi-bin/recvy_entry_www.prl Remember that if you submit a GPS coordinate in the PID, you must convert your readings to the format that the NGS uses. So if you have 074.25.435 you must divide .435 by 1.666 and you will get 074.25.26.1 Guy

There are two ways to find out if a station has already had pictures posted. 1 When you view the datasheet of a station, if there are photo's submitted there will be a link on the page saying "Photograph's are available for this station". If you do not see the link, submit your photograph's. Here is an example . Notice where is says Photograph's are available for this station: AB8761 DESIGNATION - BC 04 AB8761 PID - AB8761 AB8761 STATE/COUNTY- NJ/BURLINGTON AB8761 USGS QUAD - CHATSWORTH (1957) AB8761 AB8761 *CURRENT SURVEY CONTROL AB8761 ___________________________________________________________________ AB8761* NAD 83(1996)- 39 45 02.57361(N) 074 35 06.43222(W) ADJUSTED AB8761* NAVD 88 - 17.8 (meters) 58. (feet) GPS OBS AB8761 ___________________________________________________________________ AB8761 X - 1,305,227.134 (meters) COMP AB8761 Y - -4,733,794.997 (meters) COMP AB8761 Z - 4,056,734.088 (meters) COMP AB8761 LAPLACE CORR- 0.27 (seconds) DEFLEC99 AB8761 ELLIP HEIGHT- -15.24 (meters) GPS OBS AB8761 GEOID HEIGHT- -33.03 (meters) GEOID99 AB8761 AB8761 HORZ ORDER - FIRST AB8761 ELLP ORDER - FOURTH CLASS I AB8761 AB8761.The horizontal coordinates were established by GPS observations AB8761.and adjusted by the National Geodetic Survey in May 1999. AB8761 AB8761.The orthometric height was determined by GPS observations and a AB8761.high-resolution geoid model. AB8761 AB8761.Photographs are available for this station. AB8761 AB8761.The X, Y, and Z were computed from the position and the ellipsoidal ht. 2. The second way is an easy way to check without having to access a PID. Go to this link where I have submitted the photograph's for this particular station. http://www.ngs.noaa.gov/cgi-bin/get_image.prl?PROCESSING=list&PID=AB8761 Then change the PID number in the URL (Address at the top of the page) to the one you are interested in. So you would delete the AB8761 and put in your PID number. Then hit enter and if there are photographs you will see them, if not you won't. Guy

You can get the digital requirements to send photo's to the USGS by downloading the PDF file. http://www.ngs.noaa.gov:80/PROJECTS/INSTRUCTIONS/Digital_Photo_Requirements.pdf Guy TeeGate@comcast.net

Jeremy, I am not discussing the accuracy of geocaching.com at all. It is accurate and a great site. I just am wondering why this site uses the hddd mm.mmm format for Benchmark searching, when the USGS uses hddd mm ss.s. The reason why I ask that is because from reading on the web and a few instances on your site, many users of GPS units do not understand why when they compare their readings to the PID they do not match at all. I am convinced that many users think that if the PID says for example 00.00.50 they should go to 00.00.500, and that would not be correct. They should be going to 00.00.833. Most people think that by adding a 0 on the end does not change the number, but with the two formats it does. Hopefully my post did not make it look like I was criticizing this site. I enjoy reading and viewing the posts, and plan on posting in the future. Guy

Since I have been photographing and reporting Benchmarks I decided to check out your site, and I noticed that I have not been able to find anyone who uses the hddd.mm.ss.s format. The USGS uses that format, and that is the reason many of the searchers on this site have problems getting the reading on the PID to match with their GPS unit. Or are you converting them over by using 1.666, or does this site do that for you? It seems to me that if the original datasheet coordinates have been GPS observed, you would be more incline to accurately locate your benchmark using the hddd.mm.ss.sxxxx format. Using the format that I see on this site has always kept me from accurately finding a benchmark. Guy