Jump to content

TheBeanTeam

+Premium Members
  • Posts

    495
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by TheBeanTeam

  1. Well I am back with another one that I want to run my updated "to reach" description past other more experienced benchmarkers. I recovered one that I was sure was destroyed due to the massive changes in the area. A bridge was removed and a new one replaced it in 1991. Here is my log. When I first saw this BM I was certain it should be listed as destroyed. It seemed that the structures had likely been moved to create the overlook and monument. I don't think so after reviewing photos of the original structure before its removal at the Library of Congress and elsewhere. (visit link) The Library of Congress documentation confirms that the pylons on the north abutment were left in their original location. See paragraph 3 Alsea Bay Bridge Interpretative Center (visit link) Given this record I think the mark is in its original location on the north abutment. (visit link) Here is my proposed updated recovery report. THE ORIGINAL ALSEA BAY BRIDGE WAS REMOVED IN 1991. THE NORTH ABUTMENT WAS LEFT IN ITS ORIGINAL POSITION AND IS NOW PART OF THE ALSEA NORTH WAYSIDE. A NEW TO REACH FOLLOWS: 0.65 MI N FROM WALDPORT. ALONG U. S. HIGHWAY 101, APPROXIMATELY 1 MILE NORTH OF WALDPORT, LEFT AT INTERSECTION OF U.S. HIGHWAY 101 AND MINOR PARK ROAD. PROCEED SOUTH TO OVERLOOK AND PARKING. MARK IS SET IN THE BASE OF IN SOUTHEASTERN MOST PYLON IN THE OVERLOOK. Should I also add? WHILE THE POSITION IS REPORTED TO HAVE NOT BEEN DISTURBED SOME CARE MAY BE BE WARRANTED AS IT MAY HAVE BEEN DISTURBED DURING THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE NEW BRIDGE The reason I ask this last question is that the original to reach indicates that the mark is in the "IN THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF ALSEA BAY BRIDGE, IN A SMALL SHELF AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE EAST PYLON, 2.5 FEET ABOVE THE WALK." Today the mark is in a small shelf at the Northwest corner of the east pylon. Was the pylon moved after all? or was the original report incorrect. I found this little mystery while posting this forum request so will have to update my original GC log as well it appears. Thanks to all.
  2. Thanks, George That is a great paper with excellent information. I thought it was likely brass but was unsure they seemed darker almost black so were odd to me when I found them (I recovered more than just this example). On a separate note; I am pretty sure that for figure 42 the photos used are my photos but they are credited to someone else. I may be wrong but I don't think so.
  3. How do you tell if they are aluminum? Is this one from 1977? 943 1647 G TIDAL
  4. Ah, this explains my X marks the spot photo for AI2011 I wondered "Why?".
  5. Just adding another bit to the story of the Willamette Stone. I stumbled upon a book that contained articles written by Karl Klooster for This Week Magazine called Round the Roses; Portland Past Perspectives. A great read for a local history buff like me but when I ran into the Benchmark article I couldn't believe it. In a 1986 article he featured the Willamette stone. The article carried two photos of the stone that shows its state in 1986. http://lh3.ggpht.com/_LgWQDdMeFcw/TRO33kRp83I/AAAAAAAAC1A/MH1pyhBuP-M/Willmette%20Stoneb.jpg http://lh3.ggpht.com/_LgWQDdMeFcw/TRO36OHDmrI/AAAAAAAAC1E/8VlLf9nmqeo/Willmette%20Stone%20a.jpg I have a scanned copy of the article on Picasa. If you click the magnifying glass option it will bring it up larger and in my browser if I right click I have an option to "zoom in" that makes the article very readable. If for some reason you can't view it and would like a copy send me a note and I'll get it to you. I have it in PDF form as well. On another note in a separate thread jwahl provided some great history as well for this location that should be added to this discussion tread regarding the Willamette Stone.
  6. Thanks for the nod. These were sought out only because I was made aware of them by your site and efforts here. I will echo the others and say again how much your site and work is appreciated. I was a bit bummed that other marks which are a bit further west were off limits around Cape Blanco. I didn't give it much attention after reading the limitations so just enjoyed the sites and view instead of benchmarking (it was a 15th anniversary trip after all). There was a CORS Station that I found further west and the lighthouse is an Intersection Station but neither are really reportable. I thought the others were all beyond the perimeter of accessibility. I was wrong. A geocacher stumbled over one that is accessible and logged a geocaching find (with a photo) on one right at the edge of the no trespass area. I probably walked within a few feet of it. So its there for anyone who wants to locate and report to the NGS. The next Western Most Point ois available. After that there are a few others but you would have to trespass (not advisable) or obtain permission to locate and log them.
  7. Skip the Lily Pad? Skip the Ape Cache? I would recommend you Skip the Wedding.
  8. It is odd to find something like this unmarked. I found a perfect one on a bridge in Oregon. Mystery Marks. I waymarked mine.
  9. I remember that night. I had just gotten first to find on that cache and was reveling in my success. Sorry I missed you.
  10. Nope. It is in Idaho. Wallace to be exact. The Mayor said so. Someone else thinks Oklahoma but we all know that is just a weird story. @ the OP Good luck on your best cache site.
  11. If you could find a creative commons or public domain photos that match the requirements, yeah, you could cheat. But that's easily fixed by putting in the category's requirements that the photo must be taken by poster. There were cheaters with virtuals and locationless caches too. Anybody remember Mr. Gibabyte? Then of course there is Germany. Besides it would probably take longer to find a public domain photo of many objects than it would to actually visit the site and take your own. If someone is cheating they don't bother with public domain. They simply steal the photo from wherever they can find it. The majority of waymarkers are above board with submissions. If a location is submitted and it seems suspect I will do a google image search on the item and browse through the images online to see if it was taken from the net. I often Google anyway to see if the user plagiarized the content but that is a different issue. Anyhow, it is rare, but I have had to deny waymarks because the photos where taken from another site. Even then I am careful with how I approach it. One waymark I was concerned about was for the stained glass window category. The photos were from the church web site. I was ready to deny the listing but asked about it in an email and found that the web site was created for the church by the waymarker. All of the photos where taken by that waymarker for the site and she used them again in the waymark listing. I even got a thank you for being diligent about the photos. Other instances have not been so pleasant. I know of two who once waymarked but no longer do because I caught them using stolen photos and pointed out politely and privately to them explaining that it wasn't a proper use. Just because the photo is on another site doesn't mean it was stolen and just because there is a GPS in ones hand in a photo it doesn't mean the poster actually visited the virtual or locationless. Here is a fun thread that has a tongue in cheek generator for the fake placement of a GPS in a photo to log locationless caches Mr Gigabyte style. This thread has a few good photos of a photo-shopped GPS for the locationless caches too. The argument that a GPS in photos is needed to stop cheaters doesn't really hold up. It hasn't stopped cheaters in the past. The infamous Mr. Gigabyte tread. Just like here at GC.com virtual loggers are frowned upon at Waymarking. It's really not that hard to pick up on weather the poster was "there or not" even without the GPS in photo requirement. If you are cheating you will eventually be found out.
  12. Heceta Lighthouse near a DNF that is now archived GCX2MA While hunting for GCWKH9
  13. What changed? I'm honestly curious. If the WM forums are to be believed, waymarkers don't want them to be like LCs. They don't want to be required to actually show that they have visited the locations, for one thing. Interesting, That is not the feeling I get. In every category I assist with or created there is a strong locationless aspect. This is the object. Go find it, share with the community where you found it and offer a description of it and photos. This is exactly the way locationless worked for the most part. The difference is that with locationless caches once a spot was found it was out of play. In Waymarking the spot is visitable. Especially for the posting of waymarks I think there is an expectation that the waymarker visit the location and most of the categories clearly stipulate that you personally obtain coordinates at the spot with your GPS at the location waymarked. Armchair logging of waymarks is generally frowned on as well and forum thread pop up discussing armchair logging whenever someone appears to be logging visits without actually visiting. In one case I know of a user had logged visits on several hundred waymarks. When it came to light his numbers dropped rapidly one by one as the different category officers and waymark owners started deleting his finds.
  14. You wouldn't have to do it isn such a manner as to get yourself shot and may even get some good laughs from both you and the finder. While not the cache owner another cacher scared me on my second FTF in 2004. From my log This type of scare hurt no one and left no one in danger so with the right kind of finesse the idea is workable. The key is the finesse.
  15. Tried it again just now and a different page came up this time without the sign up etc type things. ODD. wants to add something an application called. xvid codec
  16. Hmmm. All I get is ads and sign up pages. It tried to download an application too.
  17. Yes, I am also sorry to see it go and appreciate your efforts in the past.
  18. Very interesting and good to know. Thanks for the info.
  19. Active cachers from the area where this cacher is located hang out in this forum (oregongeocaching.org forums) and may be of assistance.
  20. This is what I thought as well. Just wondering what others thought. Good point about reporting if there was something threatening the station integrity. This one seems in fine shape and is likely vertical but if it is the wall on the nearby structure is out of plumb. The station itself seems unlikely to move. The pipe is in a drilled 12 meter deep hole. and braced on 4 sides. "Monument is a "drilled braced monument" constructed by EarthSafe. A vertical 5 cm galvanized schedule 80 pipe is set into a 12 meter-deep drilled hole. Four additional galvanized pipes are set into holes drilled 30 degrees from vertical. The four angled pipes meet, and are welded to, the central pipe approximately 2 meters above the ground surface."
  21. It sounds as if Waymarking is sort of geared toward virtual logging then? I did not realize this. I thought waymarks were meant to be visited in person. Virtual logging is generally frowned upon but not to the extent it is here. Waymarks are meant to be visited personally for a log but most are designed for a larger audience to enjoy or learn about the particular item/location on the web. The category managers set up visit requirements for the category. The waymark creator then is the one who determines if the visit met the requirement. Many waymarkers will let a visit stand even if it doesn't meet all of the category requirements but when it becomes obvious that virtual logging is taking place the same thing that happens here happens there. A forum thread is started, torches are lighted, pitchforks retrieved from the barn and then mass log deletions follow.
  22. Found Cape Blanco CORS ARP. Since this is an active monitoring station is seems like they probably do not want recovery reports.....am I right?
×
×
  • Create New...