happycycler

GREAT!!

FINALLY!! Now I can say it is no big deal, since I finally have 100 GeoCaches to go with 200 + benchmarks. (Of course my wife is also an important part of my caching team -- she is less interested in benchmarks.) -- flame away!! --

Thanx Alan2 for the stats from your study! I appreciate them.

Thank you Warm Fuzzies - Fuzzy, I just ordered one of those metal detectors. (Delivery in 7 - 10 days.) I will try to post any results I have to this forum.

That is an interesting one. Could *Camera Point* be anything like *Picture Point*? I have seen Picture Point mentioned in a description and thought it might refer to the location of a target for aerial photography.

Amen! Black Dog Trackers!

I think that you found that mark -- but I am no surveyer (don't even play one on TV. The location is ADJUSTED and your GPS agrees with the location. The datasheet is not real consistant it says quote: Designation: ET 197 BRP 1964 but then down in the description it says the stamping is quote: ---197 BRP 1964 1740 ET--- Does the rest of the description fit? -- other than the missing sign? Did you get a photo? The NGS site has a more recent find by an INDIV with more description details. Do these other details fit? From the NGS web site quote:MA2358 MA2358 HISTORY - Date Condition Report By MA2358 HISTORY - 1964 MONUMENTED USGS MA2358 HISTORY - 20010706 GOOD INDIV MA2358 MA2358 STATION DESCRIPTION MA2358 MA2358'DESCRIBED BY US GEOLOGICAL SURVEY 1964 MA2358'SACKETT, 2.2 MI S. OF, ALONG SACKETT-OWLS NEST ROAD, 2.2 MI N. OF MA2358'OWLS NEST, 52 FT S. AND 22 FT E. OF, AND 1.3 FT LOWER THAN FOREST MA2358'SERVICE ROAD NE., 3 FT S. OF FOREST SERVICE SIGN, IN CONCRETE POST, MA2358'STANDARD DISK STAMPED---197 BRP 1964 1740 ET---. MA2358 MA2358 STATION RECOVERY (2001) MA2358 MA2358'RECOVERY NOTE BY INDIVIDUAL CONTRIBUTORS 2001 (MJT) MA2358'184' SOUTH OF ATV TRAIL CROSSING, 136.9' NORTH OF WEST PENN SYSTEM MA2358'POLE NO.231394, 79.5' NORTH OF YELLOW ATV CROSSING SIGN, 23.4' EAST OF MA2358'CENTERLINE OF DIRT ROAD.

Dustyjacket has gathered a nice selection of benchmark and witness post photos on his Benchmark Photo Web Page

Welcome to the sometimes challenging sport of benchmark hunting! Glad that you are aboard. I have often been unable to find benchmarks that do exist -- sometimes another trip is needed. So just hang in there and keep on searching!

Time to bump this one up again. I recently found a couple of River Survey Pipe Caps: PID JD2637 & PID JC0574.

I reported a partial disc to NGS as *POOR*. (Then I noticed that a pro had also reported it POOR but he did so earlier. I will be more careful about checking the NGS data sheet on the NGS site in the future! However I was relieved that my log did mostly agree with his.)

So what about that happycycler guy? He admits that his wife finds most of the caches that he logs and he has some benchmark logs from states other than Missouri. Of course he does not have a lot of finds -- but maybe that is part of his strategy? Low profile do you think? Is he bogus? Or does he just travel some with his wife when she wants to hit the road for a spell?

I went with number 2 since I sometimes do report to NGS. I try for very high accuracy in my few NGS postings. For the most part I get my kicks from the search and sometimes learn a bit of history in the process, plus it is another reason to get this old fat man out on a bicycle.

Thanks rogbarn! I hoped that you would respond to this question. (And you might add what you told me one time: as far as the St. Louis area goes -- MO & IL -- 1871 seems to be the earliest survey marks, mostly triangulation. I am sure that they are less than 1% though, but 1871 would represent an early burst of surveying activity.)

I have noticed reference to *Picture Points* in a couple of BM datasheets -- identifying the point where the target was placed, I think. (I believe that they gave the distance and direction from the picture point to the main mark.)

GOOD JOB!! Thank you for letting us in on your successful search.

Thank you folks for your insights. I sure do appreciate this forum! I did look at the NGS data sheet on their site, but was still not convinced. I like elcamino's point -- why couldn't it be a later subsitute for a missing disc? I sure can't argue against that idea! There are some missing discs in that general area and that was my first thought. However I did not think it looked quite right. I logged one missing disc (PID 9279) and rogbarn found one also (PID JC0580) in the area. I should probably change to a note -- which is what I do when not certain. Of course I often initially log them as found only to return to change my log to a note after some reflection. Thanks again!

Could you elaborate some more? The map that you have -- is it a USGS quad of Ft. Knox? What map do you have with the correct UTM grid? Are the benchmarks off? If so are they vertical / elevation benchmarks with SCALED location? The SCALED locations of the vertical benchmarks can often be off -- plus or minus 600 feet or occasionally more. Please give us some more info., then some here will probably be able to answer your questions.

An old question in this forum but for a new mark. I recently searched for a disk (KC0115. After brushing off a bit of dirt I located this metal object protruding from the rock outcrop. My first reaction was that I had found the remains of a disk. However the missing disks that I have so far found did not have the stem protruding to this extent. Also the designation of 2 sounds as though it could be for a bolt. But does DOD put those short designations on disks or just on bolts? Could be an error in the datasheet? The NGS datasheet did not offer any more enlightenment. I claim a find of a bolt. Any suggestions or comments from the community?

We can log Corps of Engineers benchmarks IF they appear in the GeoCaching database. Most of them here around St. Louis do not appear in the NGS or GeoCaching database. But sometimes one gets lucky and finds one listed: exampleJC1222

Welcome Agent Okie to benchmarking! Have fun!!

Thank you TEAM 360 for your reply. I looked in the NGS database for the cap associated with PID KC0118 and found a PID KC0544 listed with the same description and SCALED location. [quote - ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- - This listing contains control for which complete digital - - data sheets where not provided. The complete data sheets were - - not provided for the reason listed below. The reason below is - - associated with a horizontal control Nonpub code shown under - - the heading 'H' and/or a vertical control Nonpub code shown under - - the heading 'v' - - - - The format of the records are as follows: - - Pid = Station Permanent Identifier) - - Name = Station Designation - - Lat = Approx. Latitude (Degrees, Minutes, truncated Seconds) - - Lon = Approx. Longitude (Degrees, Minutes, truncated Seconds) - - O = Horizontal Order - - o = Vertical Order - - H = Horizontal Nonpub Code - - v = Vertical Nonpub Code - - - - H Nonpub HORIZONTAL CONTROL NONPUB REASON - - -------- -------------------------------- - - X Surface Mark Reported Destroyed - - Y Surface and underground mark reported destroyed - - A A-Order Horizontal mark not tied to an adjusted HARN - - C C-Nonoperational CORS Station - - W Weakly determined position. - - P Purpose of position is not for network control - - D No Descriptive Text available - - R Restricted position - - - - v Nonpub VERTICAL CONTROL NONPUB REASON - - -------- ------------------------------ - - X Surface Mark Reported Destroyed - - Y Surface and underground mark reported destroyed - - F Bench Mark not yet adjusted. - - D No Descriptive Text available - - Z Presumed destroyed - - R Restricted elevation - - - - - - NOTE - Stations found in this listing may still have a valid - - datasheet produced by use of other publishable values. - - For example, an ADJUSTED height may be non-publishable - - but a good GPS height might be found on the datasheet. - - This listing does not imply that values found on the datasheet - - are restricted. If it's on the datasheet, use it. - - - ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Pid Name Lat Lon Elev O o Hv ------ ------------------------------ ---------- ----------- -------- - - -- >KC0554 3 CAP 39 02 47. /090 33 31. D Which explains why it is not showing up in the GeoCaching database.

Thank you elcamino. I am reassured that there is not an easy way to open the cap and access the assosiated bolt. Sorry that my post is not as clear as it should be. Here in the St. Louis, MO area I see several pairs of benchmarks that consist of a pipe cap and a bolt that is underground and accessed thru the pipe cap. An example would be: JC0574 CAP & JC0577 BOLT I recently also found a cap at the:KC0118 BOLT location. quote:... A COPPER BOLT LEADED IN THE TOP OF A LIMESTONE SLAB 4 FEET UNDERGROUND ACCESS TO WHICH IS HAD THROUGH AN IRON PIPE BEARING AN ILLINOIS RIVER SURVEY CAP STAMPED AS STATED ABOVE. .... However our Geocaching database does not list a cap for this KC0118 BOLT. So I claimed a find for KC0118 even though I did not open the cap and view the bolt there either. There is obviously much that I should yet learn. I am thankful for these forums -- much very good information from you helpful folks. Thanks to all who offer help thru this media!

How does one open a Standard (IL or MO) River Survey Cap to look for the associated bolt. Yesterday I found JC0574. The cap appeared tight and I do not know how they are closed. Standard threads requiring a large pipe wrench? I don't feel like risking damage to the cap which is also a benchmark. Plus I did not even have a huge wrench with me. I also found the cap for bolt PID = KC0118. This cap is not in the GeoCaching database which is unusual -- they generally come as a pair.

Interesting find rogbarn! Your photos do a good job of showing me where it is. (I have bicycled thru that area in the past.) I know how well you do following those descriptions so I would call it a find. I wonder if the disk got taken in the past 2 weeks? Not sure what previous finders did find? Maybe a note to NGS on this one?