This One Takes The Cake!

[+Spoo]

I know, I know.....we take alot of pokes at the USPSQD....but really!

 

I went off in search of OC0600 and OC0601 today. Both had been reported as being recovered in GOOD condition by the USPSQD in 1990....hmmmm.....OC0600 had been replaced by OC0601 in 1966!

 

In all fairness, maybe they had mistakenly logged the RESET mark......but NO! They logged it on the same date also. Interesting since the road here had been ripped up and moved in 1988.

 

On this same date, I went looking for OC0595 that the USPSQD also found in GOOD condition in 1990. I dunno......I have never seen such a disc in all my life. It was pitted and worn to the point where NO surface identification could be made out at all. Since this is a dead end road since 1988 and next to an old church, I doubt that the damage was done in the last 15 years.

 

Do these people get PAID to log marks as "recovered in GOOD condition"?

[+Harry Dolphin]

I've encountered equally as illegible disks. I believe that the condition is considered 'fair'. The station is still in position, and usable. Heck, when the hole in the bedrock, where the disk used to be, is still visible, the condition is 'fair'.

Here's one that got run over by a lawnmower, more than a few times! KV0518. KV0518

[Bill93]

The existence of a RESET like NJ0485 does not prove that the original NJ0484 iis destroyed. More often than not, but that's a counterexample.

[Bill93]

Is that your paint on OC0595 or did someone mark it because they found its position useful and were convinced it was the right disk despite being unreadable?

 

"Fair" is not in the list for NGS submissions. "POOR" is an option. I would also consider "GOOD" if the identity/position was unquestionable, with a note that the stamping was unreadable.

[+Spoo]

"FAIR" ????? "GOOD" when the identity cannot be verified or the center of the disc defined ????

 

I don't know what rule book you guys use.

 

As for the paint.....this area is under heavy re-construction. I have not recovered a disc within 5 miles of here that did not have paint on it. Evidently, the construction surveyors are locating these.

Edited June 24, 2005 by Spoo

[Bill93]

It's not about the cosmetic condition of the disk. Condition refers to how well the surveyed position is marked. There is a bit of an identification problem if the stamping is not readable, but if the description makes it unambiguous which disk is there, then the battered disk can still mark the position very well.

 

The center is of little consequence on an elevation mark, except that it was the high point that defined the elevation.

 

From the picture I would think the elevation could be identified within a millimeter or so, which may be reason to downgrade the order of the station but doesn't render it useless. Since the disk in question marks a first order location, this may be an argument for "POOR", but it would be less so for a lower order station.

[+Spoo]

Bill93

 

I have copied this verbatum from the pinned NGS notes as explained by Deb Brown:

 

6) A station whose setting is stable and the marker undisturbed or unmarred is considered to be in "GOOD" condition.

 

7) A station whose setting is unstable but intact or the marker broken or marred or stamping unreadable should be listed as "POOR/DISTURBED". In the text portion of the form explain the condition in detail.

 

This is the guideline that I use.

[+bicknell]

I agree, for NGS purposes, if the stamping is not readable on the disk it is at best poor/disturbed. While there is no hard and fast rule, it must match 3+ criteria for me to log it as found. If there is less than that and you can't read the stamping it's a not found.

 

Fortunately, I've seen few disks marred that bad.

[Wintertime]

It's not about the cosmetic condition of the disk.  Condition refers to how well the surveyed position is marked.  There is a bit of an identification problem if the stamping is not readable, but if the description makes it unambiguous which disk is there, then the battered disk can still mark the position very well. 

I thought the only way one could know unambiguously that it was the right disk was if you could still read the stamping. Sure, if it's in the right place according to the description, 99.99% of the time it's going to be the disk you think it is. But what if the original disk was replaced by a reset and the reset was never assigned an NGS PID? In that case, you'd be looking at the reset and thinking you'd found the original just because it was in the right location, and without legible stamping, you'd never know your mistake.

 

Patty

[Bill93]

OK, Patty's argument is pretty convincing. I still don't think Deb's number (7) makes sense, unless you delete "marred" and just go with "unreadable".

 

This leaves the question of how a rivet or some other non-disk marks could ever be trusted.

Edited June 25, 2005 by Bill93

[evenfall]

Bill,

 

You said: "This leaves the question of how a rivet or some other non-disk marks could ever be trusted. "

 

Bill, Use the description. It is a case by case kind of thing. Trust comes from following the directions and experience, This is not a plastic bubble. You are actually allowed to use judgment and experience.

 

I find it very interesting that you would see it this way, after all, by now you might have realized that very little in the world is cut and dried, sterile or tidy.

 

Interesting...

 

Rob

[2oldfarts (the rockhounders)]

OK, Patty's argument is pretty convincing.  I still don't think Deb's number (7) makes sense, unless you delete "marred" and just go with "unreadable".

 

This leaves the question of how a rivet or some other non-disk marks could ever be trusted.

Curious, does this mean all those drill holes we have found are now questionable. Of course not, since the description describes the drill hole (it's size) and it's placement. As for the bolt or rivet, if it is the correct type of rivet (as in Monel) or bolt (described as 3/4" and all the other nearby bolts are 1'') call it found.

 

Let the pros worry about the small stuff, just enjoy finding the correct spot and hopefully the correct disk. It does help to use "common sense" in this hobby.

 

John

 

Just think, if it wasn't for the Power Squadron we wouldn't have near as much fun!

[+Black Dog Trackers]

Drill holes are more questionable than disks; no way around that. You can't read a drill hole. Does that mean you can't log drill holes, rivets, nails, cairns, as finds, if you use all possible benchmark hunting evidence, knowledge, experience, and common sense? No.

 

Try hunting PIDs along the Potomac River near Washington DC. There's hundreds of holes drilled into the solid rock, made by people who put docks, etc. along there over the years. All such structures are gone now, but not the holes and metal rods in holes in solid rock remain, some 2 inches thick. Some of these have been since used as NGS PIDs, reference marks, and witness marks, but most have not, of course. You have to use as much measuring, experience, knowledge, and common sense as you can, and still have to give up on some as inconclusive.

 

The issue with pried off disks is similar as Wintertime and bicknell point out - they are much more questionable than a readable disk. Does that mean you can't log pried off disks as finds, if you use all possible benchmark hunting evidence, knowledge, experience, and common sense? No. But, it will remain as a less-than-rock-solid find! Plus, you could get caught with your GPS down if someone does manage to find the PID for real nearby or can demonstrate that the hole you found cannot be the PID.

[GH55]

Rob, 2Oldfarts and BDT, I think you are missing the point of the previous discussion.

 

Not to take a position, but the question of rivets and other non-disk markers was rhetorical, raised in response to the exchange about not being able to read a disk, and the condition report based on that.

 

It was specifically about not being able to read the disk that Spoo found and believes to be OC0595 but doubts that it was in good condition in 1990 when the Power Squadron volunteer recovered it.

[+Black Dog Trackers]

GH55 -

 

Yes, the topic wandered a bit from the original concept of how to grade a disk whose designation has been rendered unreadable by wear or something, to the confidence one has in identifying unlabeled marks. I was commenting on the later stage of the thread.

 

Back to the original topic, here is a discussion about the meaning of "POOR".

 

It seems to me that the primary definition of POOR is that the disk appears to have moved or is loose, and the secondary definition of POOR is that the stamped designation on the disk has been eroded away, making it no longer positively identifiable.

 

The topics are related.

[2oldfarts (the rockhounders)]

Rob, 2Oldfarts and BDT, I think you are missing the point of the previous discussion.

 

Not to take a position, but the question of rivets and other non-disk markers was rhetorical, raised in response to the exchange about not being able to read a disk, and the condition report based on that.

 

It was specifically about not being able to read the disk that Spoo found and believes to be OC0595 but doubts that it was in good condition in 1990 when the Power Squadron volunteer recovered it.

GH55,

 

I do believe that you are wrong, it was not us that started that little side issue. If you read through all of the logs again, you will see we were just responding to Bill93 -- whom you did not even mention. Is that not what happens all the time in this forum, answering to posts that others have made? Also, just re-read John's post or better yet - just read *the quoted statment " " - in my answer to Spoo that is following.....

 

Spoo,

 

You are 100% correct about deciding to use the 'poor' designation. And yes, the Power Squadron is known for their 'drive-by' attitude. I guess if NGS does not mind having their "reports" that are known to be questionable in their data base...we can just keep having fun proving them wrong! Not to mention, the huge enjoyment we have when we can prove 'other' more well known & accurate agencies wrong. (Notice: I did not name any agency by name to appease some posters that post in these forums).

 

*As John stated in his post...

Just think, if it wasn't for the Power Squadron we wouldn't have near as much fun! laughing.gif laughing.gif

 

Patty,

 

You go girl! That answer was right on the mark!

 

The next is to no one in particular...but, if the shoe fits....

**The following is my (Shirley's) opinion only -- so do not blame John -

Some of us *benchies* need to get out there & have fun finding marks, caches or whatever floats your boat. If you do not have fun doing any of this...why bother? If you want to come on the forums & not be helpful or join in the ongoing descussion with some useful input, then - "Lighten up Francis!" Go find an interesting benchmark!**

 

I am going to work now...but we did go find an awsome AZ/UTAH boundary mark today with the year 1938. It was not as old as those that we found by Laughlin...but, closer to home.

 

Shirley~

[+bicknell]

I give you this mark, with no other comments.

 

JW0289

[mloser]

Not good enough Bicknell...

 

I see your "culvert" and raise you "orange paint and witness post". And note who the agency was, which will be an even bigger surprise!

 

KW0837

 

Matt

[+bicknell]

I see your "culvert" and raise you "orange paint and witness post". And note who the agency was, which will be an even bigger surprise!

Well, I'm going to give them the benifit of the doubt that the painting and witness post were installed after they looked for it.

 

That said, my parents lived in PA for three, thankfully short years. PADOT does not rank high on the respect list of anyone who has lived there. Hello. Concrete does not work in a northern climate, stop repaving with conrete every 5 years, and then take 3 years construction time to do it.

[mloser]

It is possible it was painted after, but that would have ruined my posting!

At any rate, the witness post was there and the monument sticks 2 feet out of the ground. The telephone poles are cut off but the stubs remain. There was no reason not to find this mark unless you weren't really looking. I was all prepared for a big hunt on this one, parked across a street, got out all my stuff, walked across the street, and saw the witness post and orange monument.

 

I recovered another not found by the same PADT person about a mile away. It was harder than this one (primarily because it required a 100 foot trespass on the railroad, in a cut, so I had to be careful when I did it so I didn't get trapped), but still was visible when I walked up on it as it was getting dark.

 

Yes, PA has some of the worst roads and worst construction in the country. By the way, they are redoing I-81 north of the I-78 split 20 miles east of Harrisburg. In concrete. The job has taken over a year so far. I have no idea when they will be done. My best estimate is... "not soon".

 

Matt

[holograph]

Yes, PA has some of the worst roads and worst construction in the country. By the way, they are redoing I-81 north of the I-78 split 20 miles east of Harrisburg. In concrete. The job has taken over a year so far. I have no idea when they will be done. My best estimate is... "not soon".

It's supposed to be done Fall 2005. PennDOT does a pretty good job with outreach via the web. The major projects all have web pages with their plan and progress reports. See the project page.

 

(I've travelled I-78 fairly regularly in the past year, and agree that the construction at that junction has been a headache.)

[mloser]

I have done a lot of benchmark hunting in that area and have seen all angles of the construction. The hassle is mostly if you want to go up I-81. There have been only minor delays on I-78.

 

On a benchmarking note, both I-81 and I-78 are lined with benchmarks, to the north and east of their junction at least. I have made a good effort at locating the ones from the junction about 40 miles east, but only a feeble attempt to go north on I-81 yet.