Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3
holograph

Where Are We?

Recommended Posts

My Questions.

 

1.If the station(s),mark(s) are over a year since their last report,should We update the marks?

 

2.How long should we at geocaching go between these recoveries?

 

I did not do much changing at the begining,I thought that if I could read the data sheet and find the mark(s)it was good.

But now that there are more of us doing this and I was a newby,then,........I was not as detailed.

 

Some of these have now been destroyed and I have tried to keep that up as well.

Some of the minor details could be changed.

I could add all the details like handheld coordinates......

 

But I like the idea that adding the details (to geocaching)that it has been logged to the NGS, saves time for those of us that do it.

I have just seen that being done in a county west of me.

Share this post


Link to post

Paul -

 

RE: Noting in the Geocaching log comments that a recovery report has been submitted to the NGS:

 

This is a good idea. I've been doing this for those stations that I report to DB as DESTROYED. After the NGS datasheet reflects the new status, I go back and add that fact to my Geocaching datasheet comments. But it would be little problem to disclose all the NGS recovery reports in the Geocaching datasheet. So, I think I'll start doing that.

 

Geo*Trailblazer1 -

 

Regarding your questions: I've noticed that NGS will not accept a recovery report if 1. it is within one year of the last report, AND, 2. there is no change in the station's status (i.e. it was "GOOD" and it's still "GOOD"). So, they will accept (and, I assume, welcome) a new recovery report either 1. as long as at least one year has elapsed, OR, 2. at any time IF the status/condition of the station has changed.

 

As far as my personal practice, I don't have any firm rule. Certainly, if I can add handheld coordinates or better descriptive/to-reach detail or the station's condition has changed, I'll submit a recovery report even if the last report was one year and one day earlier. Otherwise, it all depends: if, for example, the NGS or MDSHA updated the datsheet with good and complete info in 2003, I may not bother with a new recovery report.

 

Will

Share this post


Link to post

I am glad to actually "see" the work I do in Vermont for recoveries. I am even more impressed with the amount of finds by other benchmarkers in Vermont.

Share this post


Link to post

On the year cycle issue, the recent month update for New Mexico shows a USPSQD member who logged approximately 100 PIDs as found last year (no NOT FOUNDs), all on August 6th. The same person has come back and logged 60 of them this year on August 9th-10th. Here's one of them, that I sent an email to Cheryl to clean up their double August 6th 2004 log:

 

GL0619  HISTORY    - Date    Condition        Report By

GL0619  HISTORY    - 1955    MONUMENTED      CGS

GL0619  HISTORY    - 20040806 GOOD            USPSQD

GL0619  HISTORY    - 20040806 GOOD            USPSQD

GL0619  HISTORY    - 20050809 GOOD            USPSQD

GL0619

GL0619                          STATION DESCRIPTION

GL0619

GL0619'DESCRIBED BY COAST AND GEODETIC SURVEY 1955

GL0619'7.35 MI W FROM CLAYTON.

GL0619'7.35 MILES WEST ALONG THE COLORADO AND SOUTHERN RAILROAD FROM THE

GL0619'STATION AT CLAYTON, 0.25 MILE EAST OF MILEPOST 330, 64 FEET NORTH OF

GL0619'THE CENTER LINE OF U.S. HIGHWAYS 64 AND 87, 84 FEET SOUTH OF THE SOUTH

GL0619'RAIL OF THE MAIN TRACK, 12 FEET NORTHEAST OF A WITNESS POST, FLUSH

GL0619'WITH THE GROUND, SET IN THE TOP OF A LAVA ROCK OUTCROP.

GL0619

GL0619                          STATION RECOVERY (2004)

GL0619

GL0619'RECOVERY NOTE BY US POWER SQUADRON 2004 (GWS)

GL0619'J 54 PAINTED ON HIGHWAY. CIRCLE AROUND THE MARK.

GL0619

GL0619                          STATION RECOVERY (2004)

GL0619

GL0619'RECOVERY NOTE BY US POWER SQUADRON 2004 (GWS)

GL0619'X 293 PAINTED ON HIGHWAY. ORANGE CIRCLE AT THE MARK

GL0619

GL0619                          STATION RECOVERY (2005)

GL0619

GL0619'RECOVERY NOTE BY US POWER SQUADRON 2005 (GWS)

GL0619'FOUND AS DESCRIBED.

Edited by BuckBrooke

Share this post


Link to post

For your eyes only!

 

How to override the date limits if you have info the add....

 

If you do not enter descriptive text on your recovery report (NGS Site) and the year is not up, the program will not let you enter it. BUT if you enter some descriptive text, then that won't happen.

 

So if you want to add something to the recovery notes, enter something in the text box to override the date limits. Leave the box blank and the program defaults to using the date as the rule to accept or reject the recovery report. It assumes that no text means nothing has changed since last report. If that were not there, those USPSQD would be entering reports every month to earn brownie points.

 

I have one (USPSQD) in my area that goes back to the same marks every few years and some yearly but never finds them but sends in a report. Some he has not found 5 and more times in the last 10 yrs but that never stops him from sending in another report. I would say that 95% of the ones he has not found, I found with very little effort, some even have 30 yrs witness posts by them but he can't find them.

Edited by Z15

Share this post


Link to post

I have a number hungry Power Squader near me too. He isn't as aggressive as your pal but has put in reports just 2 or 3 years apart for a lot of marks. I took a certain pleasure last year in reporting a number of his marks before he could get back to reporting them a third time.

 

He is a decent hunter though--I have only found a couple of his not founds, so at least he is making a concerted effort to look. He also often reports details on not found marks, which is very helpful and at least shows they were looked for.

 

I find it very annoying when a person who originally didn't find a mark returns to the marks to re-not-find it. With no text to support the searches it is obvious that the person never bothered looking on the return trip(s) but just wanted to boost their numbers. If I get that pathetic shoot me.

Share this post


Link to post
On the year cycle issue, the recent month update for New Mexico shows a USPSQD member who logged approximately 100 PIDs as found last year (no NOT FOUNDs), all on August 6th.  The same person has come back and logged 60 of them this year on August 9th-10th.  Here's one of them, that I sent an email to Cheryl to clean up their double August 6th 2004 log:

Not much point in re-reporting a year later, but not much harm either. Assuming they represent actual, useful and reliable data.

 

Possibly the bulk reports on certain days is the result of using the date of the report, rather than the date of recovery?

 

-ArtMan-

Share this post


Link to post

I always put the date I recovered it on back logs,not the day it was submitted.

 

I did not report many to the NGS in the start.

 

But now have gone back and logged some of them.

It has been 3 years on some of the first reports.

I just do not want to cause anything by resubmitting them.

Most of these would be 2 years now.

 

And by the time I got through with them the 2 years would be up on the others.

 

I guess I should have asked would they like us to maintain what we have going already and look for new ones as well.

 

And I am way off the topic here in this thread for which I am sorry.

 

Should I open a thread to deal with this?

Edited by GEO*Trailblazer 1

Share this post


Link to post

At some point I went back and filed a whole bunch of belated reports with NGS.

 

As the recovery form clearly indicates, they want you to enter "The date of recovery," not the date you file the report.

 

I see no point in filing a belated 2002 report if someone else has filed one in 2004, but absent a newer recovery report, my understanding is that NGS welcomes and encourages you to report on your older recoveries, entering the date you found (or didn't find) the mark, not the date you fill in the form.

 

-ArtMan-

Share this post


Link to post

What are the guidelines for the different shades? I mean, I notice Chautauqua County, NY, is the darkest in its area by far. However, I've only turned up maybe 20 or so marks there. Would that be enough to create the color shift? If so, yay for me!

 

EDIT: Disregard this entire message. I guess I could have looked for the key on the map a little bit harder. It is my doing!

Edited by davee-n-cachincarrie

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 3

×
×
  • Create New...