+DonKeyHoeTee Posted September 30, 2005 Share Posted September 30, 2005 (edited) Sorry for my errors in the initial forum posts.I freely admit most of this is a complete error on my part. However, the excellent responses I have received to my query regarding discrepancies in benchmark hunting has brought forth some very expert responses. It has been been a wonderful experience in learning benchmark geofinds. The original question posted appears below: I'd like to know who to contact when I find obvious benchmark database errors. For example, there is a benchmark, when accessed by the Muskellunge Lot D, etc (QM0472) in N WI description and coords , takes you to a whole bunch of GPS enthusiasts who figure that this is the Muskellunge Tower benchmark, which is well documented with coords and pictures. I can confirm that those coords , and is confirmed by multiple GPS'rs and a close proximity cache (GC2149) However, a search on the geocaching.com site for a PID with the same QM0472 becomes a Lot D benchmark in Oneida Cty, many miles away. The caching db is as good as those who provide the data. For those of us who occassionally like to 'do' benchmarks, errors like this should have an easier way of reporting. I'm not going to suggest that somebody who has a few decimal degrees of argumentation should modify these records. But a reporting form or authourity would be a wonderful addition. Benchmark information is a somewhat different animal than geocaching, but I believe we have a responsibility to provide the best information at our disposal. Responses are welcome Edited September 30, 2005 by DonKeyHoeTee Quote Link to comment
GH55 Posted September 30, 2005 Share Posted September 30, 2005 (edited) Deleted Edited September 30, 2005 by GH55 Quote Link to comment
evenfall Posted September 30, 2005 Share Posted September 30, 2005 Ok, I'll Bite... >I'd like to know who to contact when I find obvious benchmark database errors. At Geocaching? No One. However the correction you think you see needing made may not be an error. The finders, GPS'rs could be wrong. >For example, there is a benchmark, when accessed by the Muskellunge Lot D, etc (QM0472) in N WI description and coords , Accessed How? At geocaching? Can you provide a link? >takes you to a whole bunch of GPS enthusiasts who figure that this is the Muskellunge Tower benchmark, which is well documented with coords and pictures. They Figure It is? Figuring is not enough.Are you saying that you confirm they are correct or in error? I am unclear on this? >I can confirm that those coords , and is confirmed by multiple GPS'rs and a close proximity cache (GC2149) GPS'rs? Geocachers or Benchmark Hunters? Not to say that one is better than the other, but they do approach the work a bit differently. You can confirm the coords the hunters provided in DMM formatting, or, you can confirm that the coords match an NGS datasheet in D.M.S Formatting? The numbers are different and can mislead by a longer ways off than people think. >However, a search on the geocaching.com site for a PID with the same QM0472 becomes a Lot D benchmark in Oneida Cty, many miles away. Which is Likely the real Mc Coy, with a higher level of trustablity than what most Geocachers can approach. Sure there are Mistakes, and we find them, but, there is a method to proving this, and it is a pretty strenuous test most of us put this through. >The caching db is as good as those who provide the data. And there are errors, and often so. >For those of us who occassionally like to 'do' benchmarks, errors like this should have an easier way of reporting. Sure, but Geocaching does not make this data, nor do they correct it, they just provide it for gaming purposes and it is a 5 year old listing. The real one is corrected all the time. >I'm not going to suggest that somebody who has a few decimal degrees of argumentation should modify these records. But a reporting form or authourity would be a wonderful addition. There is an authority, and if you hang around here, read the three pinned topics on this forum and keep up with this forum, you will learn a lot. I'll not tell you just now, but I think if you hang here, you will figure it out on your own. >Benchmark information is a somewhat different animal than geocaching, VERY! >but I believe we have a responsibility to provide the best information at our disposal. YOU can be a part of making it better! :-) That is a great way to approach this. Feel free to read the old threads of this forum and ask more questions! >Responses are welcome Thank you. Rob Quote Link to comment
holograph Posted September 30, 2005 Share Posted September 30, 2005 (edited) I'd like to know who to contact when I find obvious benchmark database errors. For example, there is a benchmark, when accessed by the Muskellunge Lot D, etc (QM0472) in N WI description and coords , takes you to a whole bunch of GPS enthusiasts who figure that this is the Muskellunge Tower benchmark, which is well documented with coords and pictures. I can confirm that those coords , and is confirmed by multiple GPS'rs and a close proximity cache (GC2149) However, a search on the geocaching.com site for a PID with the same QM0472 becomes a Lot D benchmark in Oneida Cty, many miles away. I think you may have mis-typed your query and retrieved QM0472 instead of QM0742. QM0741 is a triangulation station disk which is located about 46 feet away from the tower. It was surveyed to third order accuracy which means that the published location is much more accurate than anything you will be able to measure with your handheld GPS unit. QM0742 (Muskellunge Lot D USGS 1940) is a reference mark for QM0741. It was originally the finial on top of the lookout tower, and then reset to be a concrete post directly beneath it. It is a third order horizontal station, and it's published coordinates are also better than anyone's handheld GPS receiver. There are no errors in their published locations. A calculation based on their coordinates puts them about 46 feet apart, just as described in the datasheets' box score. QM0472 and QM0471 are metal rod benchmarks that are located about 12 miles away from the fire tower. edit: P.S. you may want to change your log entry for QM0742. Edited September 30, 2005 by holograph Quote Link to comment
ArtMan Posted September 30, 2005 Share Posted September 30, 2005 I don't understand the original question, which could use some editing for clarification. QM0472 is G 214 in both Geocaching.com and NGS databases. There are no logs for this mark in Geocaching. The most recent NGS datasheet has two recent recovery reports from U.S. Power Squadrons that don't appear on the Geocaching page. Perhaps DonKeyHoeTee is confused because the horizontal coordinates are scaled (e.g. approximated from a topo map). See "Why do the coordinates of some benchmarks seem to be way off?" on the main benchmark page. -ArtMan- Quote Link to comment
+Black Dog Trackers Posted September 30, 2005 Share Posted September 30, 2005 DonKeyHoeTee - Thanks to the excellent detective work by holograph, it does appear to me that you made a leetle transcription error there - it happens. As to the benchmark database on the Geocaching.com website, this database was taken verbatim from a NGS database CD around 2000 or 2001. (Note: the NGS doesn't make these CDs anymore.) There is no correcting the database on Geocaching.com - it will remain this same old copy for the forseeable future (for those of us who are not part of Groundspeak). Since the Geocaching copy is getting a bit on the old side, what most of us benchmark hunters do is rely on the NGS site quite a bit. Quote Link to comment
+Black Dog Trackers Posted September 30, 2005 Share Posted September 30, 2005 By the way, QM0742 is a rather strange case! As holograph points out, it was changed from a finial on top of the tower (an intersection station, it sounds like) to a disk type of marker directly under the tower. Usually when a mark is changed, its designation changes to add the word RESET and gets a new PID. I don't know why this RESET re-naming wasn't done in this case. Since QM0742 is a location-ADJUSTED mark, as it almost certainly was in its former life as a finial, it might've been considered OK to not call it a RESET as it was 'directly below' the finial, but I don't know the exact rules on that. Also, the neighboring mark, QM0741, also a location-ADJUSTED mark, was reset by plumbing over the underground mark, keeping the same PID. According to a commonly seen convention, the disk now has 2 dates on it; the original date and the resetting date. So, there's 2 disks to be found by the tower. When visiting such a place, it's a good idea to click on "Nearest Benchmarks" to see what else can be found. But wait, there's more! If you click on "view original datasheet" on the page for QM0741 (or by going to the NGS site I referenced in the previous post and reading the current QM0741 datasheet) you will find what's called the 'box score', an ASCII box that is sometimes included in a datasheet. In the box score, MUSKY RM 1 is listed as being 13.803 METERS and 312 degrees, 15 minutes from station MUSKY. What we generally try to do is search for all the related marks and take pictures of them. So there's 3 disks to search for by the tower. But wait, there's more! If you dare to try, there's also MUSKY's azimuth mark (another disk) down by Crystal Lake. It would be great if you could find and photograph all 4 disks. Quote Link to comment
+DonKeyHoeTee Posted September 30, 2005 Author Share Posted September 30, 2005 (edited) Thanks to all posts. With chagrin I admit I did transpose numbers with an Onieda county benchmark QM0472 (thanks to GH55 for the message). But the mystery of the "LOT D" reference when the marker clearly indicates "Muskellunge Tower" as well as the service date stamped does not appear to be 1940. The posts add clarity and mystery to this spot I apologize for my errors in this forum post and it has been suggested that I delete it. However, the responses have been a wonderful source of information for all of us who not only enjoy benchmark-hunting, but are interested in this particular area. Thanks again to all who responded. If you think I should delete it, please let me know. Edited September 30, 2005 by DonKeyHoeTee Quote Link to comment
2oldfarts (the rockhounders) Posted September 30, 2005 Share Posted September 30, 2005 (edited) DonKeyHoeTee, Please do not delete your post nor lock this thread...I do not know who PM'd or E-Mailed you to ask such a thing. If it was anyone other than Max Cacher (our forum Mod), then they do not have any athority to ask you such a thing! They also do not realize how important a thread like this one is, for the many people at varied stages of benchmark hunting. I just wish one of us had enough money to buy plane tickets for all that wanted to inspect this one. It sounds rather intriguing. I do believe that Holograph & Black Dog Trackers has it nailed. We would be very interested in seeing pictures of all of the marks mentioned, if you or anyone else is up for the hunt, (WI is just a wee bit farther than what we are used to driving for a benchmark hunt ). Thank you for bringing this thought provoking set of marks to the forums for us to peruse and ponder and give you our best judgments and opinions. If anyone else has any marks that they would like the regular posters of this forum to look at and give their honest and best judgments or opinions....please do so.... Do not be shy about being new to benchmarking or just a casual finder. We do our best to answer any question and the people here have answered many of my silly or serious questions. Shirley~ Again...DonKeyHoeTee - Thank you for posting! I hope to see you posting in the forums again! Edited September 30, 2005 by 2oldfarts (the rockhounders) Quote Link to comment
+Black Dog Trackers Posted September 30, 2005 Share Posted September 30, 2005 DonKeyHoeTee - The dates 1934 versus 1940 is indeed another mystery you found that I had not noticed, and I do believe that you DID find a type of database error after all! The Designation of the mark is MUSKELLUNGE LOT D USGS 1940 but the written description says "STAMPED MUSKELLUNGE TOWER D 1934". The Designation is supposed to match (or at least be a correct subset of) what is stamped on the disk. Curiously, the Monumentation Date is 1940 but the disk is stamped 1934. Apparently in 1952 it was decided to change the location to the 1934 disk. Weird. Another odd situation in the NGS database on this mark is the 2002 recovery by the Power Squadron that seems like DRB thought the mark was still the finial atop the tower instead of the disk that is actually the mark since 1952. Quote Link to comment
+seventhings Posted September 30, 2005 Share Posted September 30, 2005 DonKHT - I concur with the 2OFs - don't delete your post. Every benchmark hunter either has erred or will err (and/or encountered datasheet errors and inconsistencies) in the manner you describe, and this thread is both an excellent tutorial for newbies and an interesting exercise for the more seasoned hunters. As suggested above, please follow up and show us photos. Good hunting. Will Quote Link to comment
2oldfarts (the rockhounders) Posted September 30, 2005 Share Posted September 30, 2005 (edited) DonKeyHoeTee - The dates 1934 versus 1940 is indeed another mystery you found that I had not noticed, and I do believe that you DID find a type of database error after all! The Designation of the mark is MUSKELLUNGE LOT D USGS 1940 but the written description says "STAMPED MUSKELLUNGE TOWER D 1934". The Designation is supposed to match (or at least be a correct subset of) what is stamped on the disk. Curiously, the Monumentation Date is 1940 but the disk is stamped 1934. Apparently in 1952 it was decided to change the location to the 1934 disk. Weird. Another odd situation in the NGS database on this mark is the 2002 recovery by the Power Squadron that seems like DRB thought the mark was still the finial atop the tower instead of the disk that is actually the mark since 1952. BDT, The disk in question is an elevation mark. The 1934 "stamping" is the elevation for the mark (I believe, anyways) and the 1940 is the monumenting date. Looking at the photos on the GC benchmark page it appears that the "finial" is still there. Did they add the disk setting directly under the finial and then just add the description for the disk to the original documentation? Or perhaps the disk had been set at the time the tower was built (common pratice here at the North Rim of the Grand Canyon.) and later added to the NGS database, like many of the 'GLO' markers? Interesting mark & situation. John edited to add link to GQ0248 another Lookout tower disk. Edited September 30, 2005 by 2oldfarts (the rockhounders) Quote Link to comment
Papa-Bear-NYC Posted September 30, 2005 Share Posted September 30, 2005 The disk in question is an elevation mark. The 1934 "stamping" is the elevation for the mark (I believe, anyways) and the 1940 is the monumenting date. Huh? QM0742 DESIGNATION - MUSKELLUNGE LOT D USGS 1940QM0742 PID - QM0742 QM0742 STATE/COUNTY- WI/VILAS QM0742 USGS QUAD - SAYNER (1982) QM0742 QM0742 *CURRENT SURVEY CONTROL QM0742 ___________________________________________________________________ QM0742* NAD 83(1991)- 45 59 28.10302(N) 089 35 57.92192(W) ADJUSTED QM0742* NAVD 88 - 555. (meters) 1821. (feet) SCALED QM0742 ___________________________________________________________________ QM0742 LAPLACE CORR- -3.99 (seconds) DEFLEC99 QM0742 GEOID HEIGHT- -31.29 (meters) GEOID99 QM0742 QM0742 HORZ ORDER - THIRD QM0742 QM0742 QM0742.The horizontal coordinates were established by classical geodetic methods QM0742.and adjusted by the National Geodetic Survey in November 1991. QM0742 QM0742.The orthometric height was scaled from a topographic map. QM0742 ... QM0742''A U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY BENCH MARK WHICH IS STAMPED MUSKELLUNGE QM0742''TOWER D 1934, Looks like a horizontal control station to me. Quote Link to comment
+Black Dog Trackers Posted September 30, 2005 Share Posted September 30, 2005 (edited) Heh, 2 posts on the 1821 thing at the same time. Edited September 30, 2005 by Black Dog Trackers Quote Link to comment
2oldfarts (the rockhounders) Posted September 30, 2005 Share Posted September 30, 2005 Then it is probably like GQ0248 (set in 1936 & monumented in 1956) and was monument in 1934 and adopted in 1940? Quote Link to comment
holograph Posted September 30, 2005 Share Posted September 30, 2005 You gotta love the simple questions! This one is certainly more complex than meets the eye. Maybe QM0742's disk was set beneath the finial in 1934, but it was the finial itself was observed in 1940 and booked? There is that mysterious statement "THE STATION WAS NOT VISITED", which would be consistent with the finial being observed as an intersection station. The 1952 recovery by CGS is interesting. They noted "A TRAVERSE CONNECTION WAS MADE [to the 1934 disk] FROM TRIANGULATION STATION MUSKY AND THE DISTANCE IS 45.88 FEET (13.985 METERS)" which is when the disk was recorded as a reference mark to QM0741, which was monumented in 1952. Technically, the finial might still be considered the observed station for QM0742, and the disk beneath it might be considered the reference mark for QM0741. QM0742 may a rare case of a surface and above-surface pair, instead of a surface and underground pair. Quote Link to comment
+DonKeyHoeTee Posted September 30, 2005 Author Share Posted September 30, 2005 I'm soo VERY impressed with the responses. I know I erred on the original post, but I've learned more by the responses than I could've ever expected!. Deserves another visit to the site and maybe a visit to my old friend who's a local surveyor. Quote Link to comment
+Black Dog Trackers Posted September 30, 2005 Share Posted September 30, 2005 holograph - Aha, a timeline! 1934: The MUSKELLUNGE TOWER D 1934 disk is monumented by the USGS 1940: The tower's finial is 'monumented' by the CGS 1952: The nearby MUSKY station is set by the CGS (predecessor of the NGS) and they make use of the 1934 disk as one of their reference marks and change their database to have the 1934 disk replace the finial as the MUSKELLUNGE TOWER D 1940 mark. Quote Link to comment
+DonKeyHoeTee Posted September 30, 2005 Author Share Posted September 30, 2005 Wow, what excellent research! The question remains, how do the dead-center-below-the-tower benchmark finders log their finds? I've searched as much as I can and haven't found a separate listing for MUSKELLUUNGE TOWER. This was a GREAT job! What's the next step? Quote Link to comment
2oldfarts (the rockhounders) Posted September 30, 2005 Share Posted September 30, 2005 Don KHT, I would suggest going by the benchmark page - Designation: MUSKELLUNGE LOT D USGS 1940 Marker Type: survey disk Setting: set into the top of a round concrete monument - And use the disk as the point to log. If you clean up the disk you will see it is stamped "MUSKELLUNGE LOT D USGS 1934" with the "D" above the 1934 date. John Quote Link to comment
+DonKeyHoeTee Posted September 30, 2005 Author Share Posted September 30, 2005 Thanks John (2oldfarts) for the response. However, the survey disk (with a witness post) is clearly marked as "Muskellunge Tower". with a 1934 stamp. This is the kind of info that makes us compare historical info. Pictures by tolleybrew Muskellunge Tower, Vilas Co, WI) confirm this location. Thanks for the input, DKHT Quote Link to comment
2oldfarts (the rockhounders) Posted September 30, 2005 Share Posted September 30, 2005 Don Here is the picture showing the date 1934 with a faint "D" above that date at the top of the disk. The "MUSKELLUNGE TOWER" is partially hidden by dirt & dings at the bottom of the disk. The log for this picture says it is directly under the tower. This would be the disk to log the "found" on. Quote Link to comment
Z15 Posted September 30, 2005 Share Posted September 30, 2005 (edited) In case this has not been mentioned... LOT stands for LOOK OUT TOWER very common C&GS accronym in station naming and descriptions, shown as LOT or L.O.T.. Never seen LOT on a survey disk thought, but have seen TOWER. Edited September 30, 2005 by Z15 Quote Link to comment
+DonKeyHoeTee Posted September 30, 2005 Author Share Posted September 30, 2005 I thought I knew most surveying and associated stuff. Thanks Z15 for adding this info! Quote Link to comment
Z15 Posted September 30, 2005 Share Posted September 30, 2005 (edited) And in case someone has not seen a LOT, here is an image of one still standing near Felch (Flech Mtn) in the U P of Michigan. They were used for Fire spotting. Edited September 30, 2005 by Z15 Quote Link to comment
+seventhings Posted September 30, 2005 Share Posted September 30, 2005 And here's another - it's FQ0712 just south of the Grand Canyon. Quote Link to comment
+Spoo Posted October 1, 2005 Share Posted October 1, 2005 (edited) Here is another one: GREEN MOUNTAIN LOT, OC1324, in NH. This is close to Mount Washington, where the highest recorded wind speed was taken. NOTE the heavy quantity of guy wires securing the Tower. Complete with a Warden! Meet Fire Warden Harry Libby! Edited October 1, 2005 by Spoo Quote Link to comment
+GEO*Trailblazer 1 Posted October 1, 2005 Share Posted October 1, 2005 spoo thats great!!!! I see you been out. Quote Link to comment
Z15 Posted October 1, 2005 Share Posted October 1, 2005 What does that yellow sign say, Watch the first step? Quote Link to comment
Recommended Posts
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.