Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1
Spoo

Unfortunate Destruction

Recommended Posts

See my log and pix:

 

OC2705

 

It is unfortunate. This station only went in in 1976. Hikers, campers and ATVs are an obvious possibilty based on the evidence at the location.

Share this post


Link to post

You wrote in your log, "the disc has been snapped off from the stem which is still in the bedrock."

 

I thought that for NGS purposes, that was considered to be found in poor condition, since the location of the station can still be identified by the location of the stem.

 

I think the station may have to be downgraded from First Order, however, since the stem will obviously provide no more than centimeter-level precision, as opposed to the millimeter-level you can get from the punchhole in a disk.

 

Or am I way off on this?

 

-ArtMan-

Share this post


Link to post

ArtMan

 

I see your point. The Main Station stem was still in place as my log says. I also left the disk itself there and put the rock back on top. A surveyor in need of this position could probably decide it was the position he/she was looking for.

 

I might have been in error marking this station as destroyed. I guess I'll just have to see how NGS handles my report.

Share this post


Link to post

From a surveying standpoint (not nescessarily the NGS's), this would not be a destroyed mark as it can most likely still be used for its intended purpose as a triangulation station. There is little doubt that the mark is damaged, but if the stem is still in its proper position, a surveyor could still use it for horizontal location. The original datasheet shows that it had/has a horizontal position of the First Order. That type of accuracy may still be attained from the center of the stem (without a downgrade in Order). Since there is no published Vertical Order or Class, it can be assumed that this mark was not particularly intended to have an elevation assigned to it, at least it was not intended to be used for leveling purposes - this mark is for horizontal positioning only and the stem shows that position.

 

- Kewaneh

Share this post


Link to post

Spoo -

 

My two cents, the ArtMan is correct.

 

If, as you describe, the stem is there and in its original (adjusted coordinates) position, I would log this as FOUND IT with an explanation.

 

I think that this would also stand up as a "found in poor condition" recovery for NGS. I have found several such stations and I usually describe them in an e-mail to Deb before I do a recovery report. She has always advised me to submit them as "found in poor condition".

 

Will

Share this post


Link to post
DebBrown 

Posted: Apr 9 2004, 12:55 PM

 

Urban and Patty,....the Good vs. Poor condition codes can be somewhat of a dilemma because there's some judgement call involved with some of them. If you find a station that has NGS control on it and the condition seems to be questionable then send me a photo via email and we'll work together to determine it's code. I hope I haven't made this confusing. If a setting is stable and the stamping is good enough to identify the station by name but the disk face is marked up I'd call it GOOD. If a disk is still in it's setting but the setting removed it's destroyed. If a disk is gone but the shank remains it's technically destroyed BUT the position might still be usable. I'm sure some of those are listed as destroyed in the database and if you find any let me know because I'd like to change that code to POOR and add an explanation in the text.

I put in the bold formatting.

Share this post


Link to post

I understand and acknowledge what everyone above has said.

 

At this point in time, I have not filed an official report with NGS. I did however send an e-mail to Deb Brown with photos and explainations. I will wait to see what her repsonse is.

Share this post


Link to post

StripeMark:

 

Speaking only for myself.......My above stated disk that was snapped off from the stem, I left lying in place and put the rock back on top. I then reported 'the facts' and pix to Deb Brown to let her make the call. In this case, I was not interested in owning the disk.

 

In two case where disks rotted out or were pulled out and I did want them, I reported the facts and pix to Deb and then asked for the disks BEFORE taking them. In both case she told me to go ahead and take them.

 

Let's see what our peers have to say...........

Share this post


Link to post

I am of the opinion that we should hold our recovery reports on GC.com to the same standard as we would for an NGS report.

 

Examples:

HV1776

HV2825

HV1763

The first line of my recovery report (essentially) states:

 

"Found in poor condition. Disk has been removed, but according to NGS guidelines, the mark is still useable."

 

It might confuse a noobie at first, but seeing a real world example of "poor condition" vs. "destroyed" (such as a missing or replaced water tower) would show that benchmark hunters are trying to attain the same degree of professionalism.

 

I welcome the forum's comments on my view.

 

- Mitch -

Share this post


Link to post
I am of the opinion that we should hold our recovery reports on GC.com to the same standard as we would for an NGS report.

 

I attempted that suggestion once Mitch, but I was overwhelmed by nay saying game players who feel it is just a game, and to whom score is everything.

 

There is a divide here of people who'd like better defined rules, and some who wish there were less.

 

Remember, Some people like less rules, as it allows for playing fast and loose. If you design it in such a way where cheating is hard an a find requires more integrity, look out. That is deeply protected hallowed ground for some here.

 

If you like NGS style play, I'd just report at NGS. That is what I do

 

Rob

Share this post


Link to post

On this one, I wrote a note in GEOCACHING, in case others want to stop by and pay their respects.

 

For NGS, I will be employing the seldom-used category of VERY, VERY, VERY POOR AND DON'T TRIP OVER IT WHILE YOU ARE WALKING AROUND. :D

 

-Paul-

 

9b135d61-6d65-4130-a29d-61dfb1699ed3.jpg

 

The remains of AB2988. In 2004, the City of Durham reported

this station to NGS as "not found"--probably because it was

half-buried in dirt and grass.

Share this post


Link to post

I agree with evenfall where I log in the GeoCaching site the same as I do to the NGS.

 

I'll be logging JD2051 probably as "Found in poor condition" to the NGS. I think I will e-mail Deb though just to see what her response is.

 

"but I was overwhelmed by nay saying game players who feel it is just a game, and to whom score is everything. (evenfall)" .... hmmm where have I heard this before?

 

I like the rules and, yes, would like to see better ones. For me, this just isn't another game.

 

(ducking and covering) -Scott

Edited by StripeMark

Share this post


Link to post

Standards: Geocaching vs. NGS. I agree, generally the same standards for reporting with two exceptions (one common, one rare):

 

1. Common exception: A razed water tank is DESTROYED for Geocaching, NOT FOUND for NGS (unless I go to the trouble of sending an e-mail with photos to Deb, which I used to do all the time but do less now.)

 

2. Rare exception: A disk mounted vertically in the wall of a large, brick municipal incinerator. The incinerator building has been razed and the location is now a paved parking lot. There is nothing that looks remotely like an incinerator or the remains of an incinerator for a great distance in all directions. This could be a NOTE (I couldn't even search for it) for Geocaching, and a NOT FOUND (the building is gone) for NGS. NGS doesn't have a NOTE, and I don't log a found or not found unless I get out of the truck and purposefully look for something.

 

Another observation: For situations where the disk has been removed but the stem remains solid in its setting, logging "FOUND" (in poor condition or found-destroyed) for Geocaching and "FOUND IN POOR CONDITION" for NGS applies only (in my considered opinion) if the location is described by ADJUSTED horizontal coordinates. If the location is SCALED, surviving stems are NOT FOUND. That's my opinion and practice. If a great number of other benchmark hunters disagree, I gladly will go back and change about 100 of my "NOT FOUNDs" to FOUND.

 

When a SCALED horizontal coordinate disk is removed, I think its vertical precision is degraded to the point that it is rendered unusable. Am I correct?

 

Will

Edited by seventhings

Share this post


Link to post
When a SCALED horizontal coordinate disk is removed, I think its vertical precision is degraded to the point that it is rendered unusable.  Am I correct?

I asked Deb about JW0193 and JW0197. Both are scaled horizontally, ie regular old benchmarks.

 

Deb said:

 

The best thing to do is list it POOR/DISTURBED since the station is

locate-able by position if the setting is intact AND stable.

 

So, I marked them as found on geocaching.com, and as found poor/disturbed with an explanation on my NGS recovery.

 

I see both sides. If you set a measuring device on it the height is "wrong", and it's surveyed in that direction, so it has less value. At the same time, the disks are standard, I'm sure someone knows how thick they are....so you could take a brand new one, grind the stem off, set it in the clear outline of where the disk used to be and then measure. As good, no. Useful in some cases? Probably.

Edited by bicknell

Share this post


Link to post

As I recall, one of the surveyors here (I forget which one now) said that for Stem-No-Disk cases, the PID is unusable if it is a vertically adjusted mark. However, judging from Deb's (NGS's) responses to people, she'd rather that all Stem-No-Disk cases be reported as Found-Poor.

 

Obviously, a surveyor, when seeing the mark, will judge whether the mark can be used depending on his requirements at the time.

Share this post


Link to post

As to the differences between reporting on Geocaching and NGS, I generally like the idea that the Geocaching report should reflect what the NGS final decision is.

 

This might involve changing your log in Geocaching after seeing what the NGS decided (if you report the PID to the NGS).

 

For example, you might report Destroyed on Geocaching and Not-Found with evidence of Destroyed to the NGS, but if the NGS decides that it is really Found-Poor or perhaps Not-Found, then change (delete, re-log) your Geocaching log to reflect that. This does involve a time delay to see what the NGS did, but it keeps the your entries into the Geocaching database congruent with those in the NGS database, and keeps you in line with NGS thinking.

Share this post


Link to post

With respect to the last two things Black Dog Trackers said, I agree (and I do, especially to edit the Geocaching log to reflect that NGS has reclassified a station as destroyed). It takes a little more tracking and record-keeping, but I think it is a good thing to do.

 

I also share BDT's non-specific memory about the usability of Scaled Stem-no-disk cases and, as I mentioned above, that's how I've logged a bunch of them (that is, as NOT FOUND).

 

Now, if I can get either BDT or ArtMan, plus CallawayMT and one other bona fide surveyor to agree to the efficacy of the bicknell/StripeMark rule as articulated, above, I may go back and pick up another several dozen "FOUND" marks. Cool.

 

Will

Share this post


Link to post

Oh, and another thing. If a station is defined by SCALED coordinates and you find a headwall with what appears to be a stem sticking out, absent a properly-stamped disk, to what degree can you be sure you found the station. In many (most) cases, not very sure.

 

I think this is the first time that we are discussing a standard that is greater than that used by NGS.

 

Will

Share this post


Link to post

Sorry to disappoint you folks, but I have no intention what-so-ever of reporting to the NGS and therefore find Their rules do not apply to MY enjoyment of this "hobby".

 

I don't see a need to post 5 or 6 pictures from every angle to prove I found the disk and make it easier for the next person. I do include fresh coordinates for scaled marks and maybe new directions if the old set is way off. If you wish to play by the NGS rules that is fine by me, just don't expect everyone else to be thrilled with that idea. When the NGS starts paying me to recover their marks then I will gladly use their rules, but I haven't seen that paycheck yet!

 

Our finds are just as valid as anyone else's who does report them to the NGS! Feel free to check all 500+ recoveries and report any of them you choose to the NGS under your name, if you so desire that the marks get reported to the NGS.

 

When we first started hunting benchmarks it was stressed that a picture of the benchmark WITH your GPSr was the preferred way of logging them on GC.com, my how things have changed.

 

It is ONLY a HOBBY.

 

 

As to the finding only the stem of a disk, the correct way to log it is a note/not found. If you can not read the disk, then there is always some doubt as to whether or not you found the correct one.

 

John

Share this post


Link to post

"As to the finding only the stem of a disk, the correct way to log it is a note/not found. If you can not read the disk, then there is always some doubt as to whether or not you found the correct one. "

 

.....Unless of course the disc is lying there beside it. ;)

 

But then look at http://www.geocaching.com/mark/details.aspx?PID=JE0229

 

If I would have found the disc attached to one of the "fill" pieces, would that be a "Found"? Probably,.....but in VERY POOR condition?

 

It would probably be one to e-mail Deb about.

Edited by StripeMark

Share this post


Link to post

I agree with 2oldfarts (the rockhounders) its only a hobby. I appreciate how some of you take it more seriously than others. And I belive the citys have probably destroyed more benchmarks with new roads and othe developments. So Have Fun and keep benchmark Hunting..... ;)

Share this post


Link to post

John (oldfarts) -

 

I will take the opportunity to speak for everybody who reports recoveries to the NGS or gives any weight whatsoever to the NGS' standards for recoveries when I say that we are not disappointed in the least that you choose to pursue this activity as a hobby without regard to the voluntary NGS connection. Your thoughts and practices on the matter are well known and I don't know of anybody that has any criticism of your approach. (Well, maybe I know of one or two people, but let's not start rattling cages here). I think the vast majority of benchmark hunters approach the activity the same way you (plural) do, and that's perfectly OK with me and everybody else.

 

Whenever I mention the NGS, I do not mean to imply that there is anything wrong with an NGS-free life, and such suggestion should not be inferred.

 

Will

Share this post


Link to post

StripeMark -

 

Re: JE0229

 

If you found the correct disk still attached to one of the pieces of the concrete rubble being used as fill, you would have one of the rarest of benchmark hunting opportunities: a confirmable destroyed station.

 

In over 2,000 logs, I have exactly one. I would love to find a disk mounted in rubble: I would call it a Geocaching DESTROYED, I'm sure I could get an NGS DESTROYED, and I would walk away with a round, bronze trophy.

 

Will

Share this post


Link to post

seventhings:

 

You mean like this?

 

H 33

 

EDIT NOTE: With permission of Deb Brown, this is now worn as a belt buckle!

Edited by Spoo

Share this post


Link to post

Spoo -

Yep!

 

John -

Uniquely destroyed. Undamaged but destroyed. Mounumented securely in the wrong place. Perfectly usable in an alternative universe. The baseline station for a previously unknown perpendicular datum plane. I would call it destroyed, but I have no gripe with the specifics with your log.

 

Will

Edited by seventhings

Share this post


Link to post
Is it destroyed?

Who cares? It's only a hobby. ;-)

 

For Geocaching, call it a find. That's what I did in NORMAL RM 1 RESET 1937 (KW2250). That mark was set in a curb along a drive. The rest of the curb was obliterated (along with the drive) in a landscaping project, but a small segment was retained, apparently near its original location for decorative/historic reasons.

 

At Deb Brown's suggestion, I reported this to the NGS as found but with a full explanation in the text and the warning "use with caution."

 

-ArtMan- (whose golf score, if he played the game, would be vastly improved if he didn't need to adhere to the rules because, after all, it's only a hobby.)

Share this post


Link to post

seventhings, in response to your efforts,

I don't know if it's a New Mexico thing, but in the 600 stations I've gone after (250 found) I've found 4 that were in their monuments, but uprooted and lying on the ground. All along I-25, between Santa Fe and Socorro. All called DESTROYED by the NGS. I've gone mainly after road discs, and few mountain PIDs, so...that might up the destruction level.

 

For stations where I find the stem but not the disk, I've always played it safe by logging as FOUND-POOR and letting someone else decide whether it's destroyed. PFF, I know you're gritting your teeth, but...it's all a learning curve.

Share this post


Link to post

BuckeBrook,

Back East, I've found a dozen or so empty holes. I guess monuments get uprooted all over but in NJ, VA, MD and DE, they always seem to get carried off.

 

For stem-no-disk stations with adjusted horizonatal coordinates, I log 'em as found-poor (8 - 10 so far). For those with scaled horizontal coordinates, not found (lots - at least several dozen).

 

W

Share this post


Link to post

The stem-no-disk cases are tough to call, but consider your certainty in identifying them as compared to your certainty in identifying a rivet, bolt, chiseled cross, etc. that has no stamping to help.

 

I see no reason that a stem can't be considered as reliable a mark as those other things. In each case it dependends on how well you can connect them to unique tie points and distances in the description. Thus a stem found in the center of a headwall that looks the right age and is at the right milepost would be fairly certain, whereas one found "in a rock outcrop near the peak of Mt Whatsit" might easily be from a different disk.

Share this post


Link to post
Sorry to disappoint you folks, but I have no intention what-so-ever of reporting to the NGS and therefore find Their rules do not apply to MY enjoyment of this "hobby".

 

I don't see a need to post 5 or 6 pictures from every angle to prove I found the disk and make it easier for the next person. I do include fresh coordinates for scaled marks and maybe new directions if the old set is way off. If you wish to play by the NGS rules that is fine by me, just don't expect everyone else to be thrilled with that idea. When the NGS starts paying me to recover their marks then I will gladly use their rules, but I haven't seen that paycheck yet!

 

Our finds are just as valid as anyone else's who does report them to the NGS! Feel free to check all 500+ recoveries and report any of them you choose to the NGS under your name, if you so desire that the marks get reported to the NGS.

 

When we first started hunting benchmarks it was stressed that a picture of the benchmark WITH your GPSr was the preferred way of logging them on GC.com, my how things have changed.

 

It is ONLY a HOBBY.

 

 

As to the finding only the stem of a disk, the correct way to log it is a note/not found. If you can not read the disk, then there is always some doubt as to whether or not you found the correct one.

 

John

John,

 

Go ahead and do it your way, but stop with the haggling and it's only a hobby thing. The bold print is nothing more than you overstating an opinion. The people talking here are the major players in this forum and they are talking about change. It is a proactive thing. They are becoming less than thrilled with the way things are, and the way it could be better, or improved is a solution they are thinking out loud about.

 

This is a great use of the forum.

 

Play it your way and let others play it theirs. You come out against this every time. Does it threaten you somehow? Why all the fear and resistance? I remember it when you do this well because it is usually been me leading this charge, and you directing your displeasure towards me. This time it is not me John... I am pretty absent from the thoughts here. But I am keep track.

 

The picture has never been a rule, just a suggestion made by players to prove something really was seen. It stands in lieu of a cache owner and a log.

 

You know what? There are a lot of people who are fine with how you play. So be fine with the way they play. It is their hobby, their game too. If they would like to have things make better sense, it is well worth discussing.

 

Oh and Volunteers are generally unpaid for their public service. It is not all about them.

 

Rob

Share this post


Link to post

John wrote:

When we first started hunting benchmarks it was stressed that a picture of the benchmark WITH your GPSr was the preferred way of logging them on GC.com, my how things have changed.

 

I enjoy looking at the area pictures that you and Shirley include with your finds. It's excellent photography--almost like having a free subscription to Arizona Highways Magazine! Keep up the good work.

 

-Paul-

Share this post


Link to post

Things change as we learn techniques. One thing we've learned early on (after the benchmark site was originally set up) was that it's more important to have a well focused and lighted picture of the disk than of someone's GPS receiver.

Share this post


Link to post
The stem-no-disk cases are tough to call, but consider your certainty in identifying them as compared to your certainty in identifying a rivet, bolt, chiseled cross, etc. that has no stamping to help.

 

I see no reason that a stem can't be considered as reliable a mark as those other things. In each case it dependends on how well you can connect them to unique tie points and distances in the description. Thus a stem found in the center of a headwall that looks the right age and is at the right milepost would be fairly certain, whereas one found "in a rock outcrop near the peak of Mt Whatsit" might easily be from a different disk.

 

Excellent point(s)! But the nature (lack of unique and definitive identification) of rivets, chiseled crosses and the like is an externally and independently imposed condition of the activity. They don't have IDs stamped on them because they don't have IDs stamped on them. The lower degree of certainty associated with finding them is just how it is.

 

But disks are different. Most contributors to this forum have been adamant about finding a disk: you gotta see it and see it well enough to confirm that the stamping on the disk is the same as that provided in the datasheet.

 

We've made an exception for the stems of disks with position defined by adjusted coordinates for two reasons. Such "stations" are generaly still usable and, second, the handheld GPS provides an increased degree of assurance that this stem once supported the sought disk.

 

Now, we're talking about "finding" the stems of disks with horizontal positions established with +/- 660 feet of accuracy (or, as we all know, more like 150 feet of accuracy). I guess my concern is the standard "Where will it stop?" Will we eventually say "I didn't see the disk or the stem but I saw a headwall in the vicinity and I pretty sure it's the right headwall, therefore, I'll log a find."?

 

We seem to be discussing a change in the definition of a "find". A "find" used to be confirming the existence and condition of a station. Now, it seems that a find is becoming simply a matter of providing some relevant information about the station.

 

Bill93's points about rivets are well taken. But should we extend a limitation that applies to one class of stations to a different class? Or, is benchmark hunting becoming too easy?

 

Will

Share this post


Link to post

Will,

I don't think the trend in this forum is to lighten the definition of "Finding" a station. My take on the general consensus, not including some shades of subtlety, is that a Find is absolutely identifying the disk/rivet/marker/tower in good condition where it's supposed to be. Then, we have discussion on Found-Poors (covering a few other things not recently mentioned, such as leaning monuments), which have been outlined above. These are logged as Found (with description) or Not-Found on Geocaching (depending upon the person) because Geocaching doesn't have Found-Poor. Not-Found is everything else, except for when you can positively show that it was Destroyed.

 

I think the saving grace lies in the quality of the log, and also in the photos on Geocaching. One can always err on the side of caution, usually with a Not-Found or rarely with a Found-Poor, and then explain in the log.

 

As a note, all of the Found-Poor stem-no disk stations I've run across (half a dozen or so) have been in conspicuous places, regardless of Adjusted vs. Scaled. It's fairly straightforward to tell it's the right station. Again, mountaintop vs. street stations.

Edited by BuckBrooke

Share this post


Link to post

The most common type of false-finds is claiming a find on a disk that is quite readable yet does not have the correct stamping. Finding a stem-no-disk is a dubious find, we all agree, but the instance of finding such a thing, whether or not correct, is 100 times rarer here than claiming a find on simply the wrong disk. I would hazard a guess that the large majority of stem-no-disk finds is in fact the correct find, duboius as it is. Realizing that the thing could be the remains of a non-NGSed reset or of some local disk set by a county that regretted the original disk being gone, it still might be a useful find for those with more equipment to verify it.

 

We're trying to follow the lead of the NGS (whether or not we log with them!) and they seem to be on the side of documenting a stem-no-disk whether it's a horizontal or vertical control. As even we non-surveyors can see, the lack of a disk for a vertical control (unless it's mounted vertically) has a more significant problem of usability than a horizontal control stem-no-disk mark. However, for its own reasons, the NGS is interested in documentation on both.

 

Old vertical control marks are harder to locate than horizontal control marks. If we find a stem-no-disk of a vertical control mark (possibly buried) and document it, it at least gives a surveyor an easy beginning point for a search. :laughing:

 

I think this paragraph from the benchmark FAQ is still a good general rule:

If the marker is a survey disk, you must read the disk. The designation (its name) stamped on it must match the Designation in the description. Reading the disk is necessary because another disk could have been set within a few feet of the one you're looking for. If the station has reference marker disks, they don't count as the find; you must find the station disk itself.

The rule is intended for cases of readable and present disks, where the major problem of mis-identification lies. It is not intended for the items that Bill93 mentioned, and unfortunately cannot be applied to stem-no-disks, which are fortunately somewhat rare.

 

seventhings - I definitely agree with the tone of your post - we should not get too liberal with finds! Certainly I would advise newcomers to benchmark finding to not be too quick to claim a find on a stem-no-disk. It takes a lot of experience to significantly raise the probability that you're claiming a find on the correct remains!

Share this post


Link to post

Hmm... Curious turn of events. Are we back to complaining about geocachers who look, on very rare occasion, for a benchmark, and log the RM instead?!?

LY2606?

Ignore them. Take them with a grain of salt. Nothing anyone can do about them. They don't log recoveries on NGS anyway.

Or, perhaps, my analysis of RM3 for LY2620? Given the area, and what I found, I'm quite sure I found the remains of RM3. (That one will stick in my memory for quite a while. I contracted Lyme disease there. Oh, well.)

Since the consensus is that I should report stems as "Found/terrible condition" on geocaching.com, I shall do that in the future.

Share this post


Link to post

Harry -

No, I don't think we're back to that discussion. I agree with you - people who regularly find RMs and log them as found stations (as opposed to experienced benchmark hunters who occasionally make a mistake) are a hopeless cause.

 

What we're really talking about here is the abandonment of a standard that most of us have lived by for the past three years. That standard is (was!): finding the stem of a missing disk with a location defined by scaled horizontal coordinates does not constitute sufficient reliable evidence to justify logging the station as "FOUND". Now, however, it appears that we're going to start "finding" such stations.

 

When I encountered such cases in the past, I generally logged them as "not found" in both Geocaching and NGS with a comment like "what appears to be the stem of the disk remains visible in the headwall at the described location".

 

While I think that benchmark hunting effort is more important than benchmark hunting "success" (as defined by finding a mark), when someone said they found a benchmark, that word "found" meant something specific. Now, it seems like it's going to mean something different and less specific.

 

It's like posting a note with a comment like "looked all over but I could not find the mark", or hunting for six marks and logging three "found" but not logging anything for the others. There's nothing wrong with it; but what inferences can you draw about the efforts of people who do it?

 

It may be only a hobby, but why go to so much effort to do it so poorly?

 

W

Share this post


Link to post

seventhings -

 

I don't recall the specific standard discrimintating between horizontal and vertical control in cases of stem-no-disk that you refer to. I do recall quite a bit of discussion on stem-no-disks a couple years ago, but with no particular conclusion other than stem-no-disks should not be counted as finds. I recall no distinction during those discussions discriminating vertical control from horizontal control. My memory isn't always particularly accurate, so it certainly isn't conclusive. Do you have a quote or something on that standard?

 

In any case, Deb at the NGS has given us some recent statements (I quoted one in this thread) indicating that all stem-no-disks, that we think are the correct mark, could be logged as poor condition. This has been in just the last year that this happened.

 

Standards can change over periods of time. We are now, as a group, much closer in communication with the NGS than we were 2 years ago. It seems to me that, whether an individual logs on the NGS website or not, what the NGS standards are should have some weight on what benchmark hunters consider in making their logs. Perhaps even the NGS changes its standards on this from time to time.

 

To me, it doesn't seem like a really big deal to include vertical control marks with stem-no-disk in the same logging category as horizontal control marks with stem-no-disk. Both involve finding the same physical thing - a broken-off stem. I entirely disagree that such a change means "doing it so poorly" now.

 

I can agree that finding a stem-no-disk when looking for a vertical control mark is of rather less certainty than when looking for a vertical control mark. However, you must agree that, with our GPS receivers, we could be just as easily fooled by the broken stem of a non-NGSed reset mark that is 12 inches (in the case of a horizontal control disk) or 600 feet (in the case of a vertical control disk) from the real mark's position.

 

I would in no way log a find on a thing that I wasn't completely sure was the remains of a survey disk's mounting.

Edited by Black Dog Trackers

Share this post


Link to post

Will,

 

A couple things. 1) This one has your name on it, you just have to come pick it up and give me a little warning before you show up this time.

Destroyed with Will's name on it.

 

2) I believe there are some instances, even with scaled coords for a vertical mark where you can find the stem and know without any of hesitation that it was the mark in question. Marks with specific measurments on a wall that match perfectly, or even headwalls and a few other un-mistakable positions. So there are always exceptions to most rules. BUT for the most part, you are correct that there would be too much guess work involved in reporting them found.

 

3) 98% of the time I would not use a vertical mark, unless it is intact(cap in place). If I am looking for an elevation to the nearest foot, I might consider it; but generally not anymore. I would use an OPUS generated solution, if I need an elevation within a foot. I use OPUS and CORS weekly and will set a base on a found bench mark to use on a given project. Most checks that I do, will give me an elevation within a couple tenths of the published elevation on that bench mark.

 

CallawayMT

Share this post


Link to post

I got to thinking about a bench mark that I had found, or had I, a few months back. Here is one for you guys to ponder.

Destroyed or is it?

 

This one was just down from the ridge.

Destroyed or not found?

 

When you think you know the answer, go look for them on the NGS site. You will learn that there are no hard and fast rules. Even NGS will take things on a case by case basis.

 

CallawayMT

Share this post


Link to post

BDT -

 

I don't recall the exact discussion, but I did add an observation that Deb preferred Found-Poor for adjusted stem-no-disks (after an exchange of e-mails with her on the subject), and that we should use the same standard for Geocacing logs. But whatever I thought the standard was has been rendered moot by [see all the above].

 

CallawayMT - thanks for the input. The professional perspective is helpful and instructive. I expect to roll through your area next September (while enroute from Lemhi Pass to Fort Clatsop). I'll try to have a better grip on my itinerary this time.

 

Will

 

p.s. the "do it so poorly" crack was not specific to the scaled stem-no-disks thing, but aimed generally at the entire repertoire of cheesy practices that I've noted.

Share this post


Link to post

CallawayMT -

 

Weird.

 

I found a stem-no-disk in 2002. It is one of only two such that I have ever found. I emailed Deb with pictures around that time to ask about it and she logged it as destroyed on the NGS database. Recently I wrote her again, quoting the statement (seen in this topic from August 21). The result was she changed the NGS log from destroyed to poor.

Edited by Black Dog Trackers

Share this post


Link to post

BDT,

 

She possibly puts more weight toward recoveries, reported by professionals, as she should(I believe that the core group in this forum does exceptional work for the NGS, but I also believe that there are some well intentioned individuals who do not have enough experience to be reporting to NGS).

I simply sent her the photos that you have seen and told her that I was doing a control survey in the area, had recovered enough benches in the immediate area to be confident that the concrete cylinder was the reported station. And explained to her that it was useles for control survey purposes.

 

CallawayMT

Edited by CallawayMT

Share this post


Link to post

CallawayMT -

 

I just thought it was strange that, for the same mark and the same find, and the same person (me) emailing, the status changed from destroyed to poor. It makes me wonder if the standards at the NGS have changed slightly during that time.

Share this post


Link to post

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1

×
×
  • Create New...