Holtie22

When the mark was reset in the boulder, it projected just 4" out of the ground. No mention of the size of the boulder, but to me, the word means something larger than a rock that I can move by myself. Archimedes may have a different take on that, however... The last sighting of the disk, in 1964, confirms that the boulder projects just 4". So we're back to the original advice - if the RMs seem to be in their original locations, (see Gnikhog's post for a way to check on that), then it is a simple matter, using whatever measuring method you prefer, (we're not talking large distances, here!), to establish the location of the station with a reasonably high degree of confidence. Then... you dig. The subsurface mark was down 3 feet when initially placed. Is there a depression at the location indicated by measurements from the RMs that could account for both the missing boulder and the concrete block of unspecified size that contained the subsurface mark? If so, then maybe this one really is gone.

That's what I was wondering with my remark about looking under the boulder for the subsurface mark. Apparently, at some point the original disk went missing and was replaced by a copper washer. Subsequently, a measurement from the RMs revealed a discrepancy in the location of the washer, indicating that perhaps the boulder had moved? This was confirmed by "checking" the subsurface mark. Did they actually move the boulder - how else could they "check"? They then set a new disk coincident with the reference marks and subsurface mark in the boulder. That's a lot of boulder-moving!!! The position of the station has not changed, but the location of the boulder apparently has. Is the boulder gone completely?

Slippeddisk, Sounds like you are closing in on this one! As mloser says, the next step is to measure from the RMs. Those measurements can be found on the NGS datasheet: RM1 - 16.357 METERS, Az. 081 degrees 19 minutes; RM2 - 13.313 METERS, Az. 138 degrees 33 minutes. (Note: the direction from the RM to the station will be 180 degrees from those published) Any sign of the Azimuth Mark? This station includes a subsurface mark consisting of a bronze disk in a concrete block 3 feet below what used to be ground level. So even if the buried boulder is missing, (it was last seen in 1964), the subsurface mark may still be intact. Measure first, then dig! Apparently, in 1957, an NGS party determined that the surface mark did not coincide with the subsurface mark, (did they move the boulder to look under it??), and they reset the surface mark accordingly. With all this historical info to work from, I get the feeling that this mark can be found. Holtie22

So what I want to know is: Was the mark set in the bench in 1947 or in a rocky outcrop? Was it moved to the bench in 1962? I guess it really doesn't matter anymore! Holtie22

68-eldo You found the disk described by being willing to accept the fact that the original description may have contained errors. Good Job!! As ArtMan has pointed out, unless the monument and its base have been moved, (can you offer any conjecture on that possibility?), the elevation of the mark is probably good. That is the only piece of measurement information that a surveyor is going to rely on with regard to this marker. As CallawayMT proposed, a remeasurement of the elevation may be in order to verify its accuracy, and could be accomplished by the folks at Hawaii DOT, who I suspect would be happy to hear that you found the mark when they couldn't. Once it is determined whether the mark perpetuates an accurate elevation, (its sole purpose), appropriate action can be taken to either correct the original description, declare the mark destroyed, or establish a new record of the mark with its actual elevation. Holtie22

I've had my eye on this station for some time since getting into benchmark hunting. Punley Hill 1874 was part of an early triangulation network bringing Third Order horizontal geodetic control to West Lebanon, NH. It was searched for, but not found in 1956 at which time the change in the name of the hill from Punley to Crafts Hill was noted. It was once again not recovered in 1966, although for some reason the condition is listed as Good. I was somewhat skeptical about the chances of finding it, and indeed might not have proceeded to look, except that when I started driving to the site I realized that I could drive right to the top of the hill! The summit ridge, (oriented N-S), is now occupied by such an array of comunications towers with support buildings that at first glance I felt the station must have succumbed to a bulldozer. As I followed my GPS, however, I got more and more excited when it became apparent that the coordinates were leading me to a location that was in between tower sites, and relatively undisturbed. The access road passed within 18 feet of a rocky outcrop near ground zero. I got out the magnetic locator, (a Schonstedt I use for finding property corners and such), and found the bolt within seconds! The mark is a 3/4" rod protruding about 3" from the ledge, and very old. This station would have had a target installed on a tall post with a hole in the bottom end to receive the bolt, over which the target would be plumbed, all secured by guy wires. Only the bolt remains. GPS is certainly an amazing tool in the recovery of geodetic control stations, particularly those that have seen little use since being established. The alternative, measuring to the station by classical means, was impractical even in 1956, and remains so today, as sight lines have become overgrown and hilltops developed. Thanks for listening to my tale of discovery! You are probably the only group that can truly appreciate my excitement in making this recovery. I have posted some pictures on the geocaching site linked above, and have made a recovery report to NGS. I report as an individual surveyor rather than as a geocacher, but I am hoping that Holograph will include my stats in his monthly reports. I have sent him an email with that request.

It seems to me that much of the confusion as to whether this is the correct disk or not is centered around the description of it having been set "vertically". For me, the term, "set vertically" is meaningless without further clarification. For instance, does it mean that it was set in a vertical surface? Or does it mean that the stem of the disk is vertical? Having drilled quite a few holes for setting disks into, I have to say that the direction that I was drilling might control how I described the setting. I would be drilling horizontally in order to set a mark in a vertical surface. Conversely, on a horizontal surface such as your balustrade, I would be drilling vertically. The upshot is, that unless you have some other evidence that would contra-indicate the acceptance of this mark, I believe you have found CB0132. I suspect that no surveyor is going to rely too heavily on this disk for vertical control, anyways, given the warning on the NGS datasheet: WARNING-Repeat measurements at this control monument indicate possible vertical movement.

A sneak preview of the book with a few short excerpts was featured in the most recent issue of Professional Surveyor. Professional Surveyor Magazine Online

According to the datasheet, the keel mark was on the concrete base of the concrete post. How much did the base extend beyond the post? Is the base itself deteriorating, or just the post? Is the base level? Is one side more accessible than another? These are all factors that might influence where the original surveyor put the keel mark. It was most likely on one of the corners and should have been converted into a chiseled square. The keel that we used to use was actually yellow lumber crayon, and was only temporary. It is surprising that such a mark was included in the database, (it wouldn't be today), but it was probably part of a line of marks that NGS still has the original observations for, so they can readjust it when new data becomes available.

Kent Try some of these links: Land Surveying Links

Buckbrooke I just looked at your master list, and was impressed to see that you already had a disk that I logged on 9/18/06. (AE6516) Although it is a cadastral disk, marking a corner of the Appalachian National Scenic Trail Exterior Corridor Boundary, it was subsequently used by the VT Agency of Transportation for control on a bridge project just down the road. That's how it got into the NSRS (National Spatial Reference System). There are literally thousands of these disks along the 2100+ mile length of the AT. I am personally responsible for the placing of several hundred of them here in Vermont. I would be interested to know if any others have found their way into the NSRS. For further database info, the government agency that contracted these surveys is the US Department of the Interior, National Park Service.

Here's a good source of info on this subject: Magnetic North

It's the exact same issue as up here, only upside down! A magnetic device will point to magnetic south, but the declination to true south can be applied. Once again, if you're simply following your GPS to a set of coordinates, it doesn't matter.

Here's the Taftsville, VT covered bridge on a rainy day. The mark (AA8826) is a blank disk!

51 with a brand new aortic valve - hope it keeps ticking for many more!

When you post a log for a cache, you have the option to upload photos. These photos are also stored in your gallery which can be accessed through your profile.

. I looked closer at at the Map Viewer available on LSIS and really could not find any further information than I already knew: it is next to Fairmount Cemetery and possibly part of Spears Woods, although the marker did not seem to be in this area as indicated on the maps I've viewed. Unfortunately I "marked" the site about 15 paces away from the marker ~~ it was pouring rain and we just kept going. This "mark" will allow me to go back to the site and find the marker again and officially mark it with GPS and record it on Waymarking.com. ~~ thanks for that bit of information. I was surprised to know that the "B" is actually the numbers 1 & 3 and wonder why they would make these last 2 numbers appear as a letter? I also found a picture of the type of 'boundary markers" referred to by another 'cacher' - the stand-up type:. I wonder if the type of Boundary Marker I found is of the type used before or after the one in the image?? I could not find any info on this. You might be able to get a copy of the survey associated with this monument at the appropriate registry of deeds. Look on the survey for corner # 122B (the surveyors who set the corner probably didn't have an alpa-numeric stamp set and had to improvise) For a look at one of the premier manufacturers of surveying monuments, go to www.berntsen.com

I don't know how to do forums. My options seem to be limited to