Spoiling The Fun

[Papa-Bear-NYC]

A few days ago I found a mark which took a bit of thinking and searching for me to find. (KU1425). Now I suspect a good number of folks on this site might have found is quicker (and maybe with less thinking ) but I had a thought afterwards that maybe I put in too much information in my log and "spoiled the fun" so-to-speak for future searchers.

 

On the geocaching side of this site, the idea of a "spoiler" (which is any information that makes it "too easy" to find the cache) is pretty well recognized. There are warnings about "Spoilers" in logs and folks sometimes encrypt directions so others won't inadvertently read these clues.

 

What do benchmarkers look for? Is it the satisfaction of finding it by one's self without help from others? Do some of you appreciate (or even depend on) the logs that are here? What about the photos with the arrows and labels which are often posted?

 

For myself, I try to find the mark just from the directions published by NGS. I look at the logs mostly to see if a bunch of others couldn't find a mark. And I especially like to see when no one at all has ever logged it. I also don't bother with a GPS (at least in the urban environment where I live). In fact I'm amused to occasionally read so-and-so couldn't find XYZ because his/her GPS was not working well, when the directions to the thing were pretty easy to follow.

 

What do folks think about "spoilers" in the logs or photos?

[+Renegade Knight]

Isn't the entire point of Benchmarking to make these things easier to find for others down the road? Ok maybe not the entire point but a big part of it.

[mloser]

First, congrats on finding that one! It was a great leap of intuition and thought to determine where it was. I went right to your log and read it, figuring my chances of looking for that mark are approimately zero.

 

I used to avoid marks that had been found unless they were on my way to other marks but as I have gotten a fair number in my area I no longer have that luxury--I just hunt. I try not to read the recoveries though as I KNOW they may include spoilers. In fact, I generally hunt from the NGS sheets that I have downloaded by county for my area.

 

So my thinking is--ALL recoveries are spoilers. For surveyors, that is good. For a person out looking for a challenging recovery, they can be bad. But one of the aspects of this hobby is the pride of finding a mark that was hard to find, so if I want the challenge myself I just don't read the recovery on this site.

 

Matt

[+Airmapper]

I don't put a lot of detail in my logs. I just put found as described, mention anything unique, and leave it at that. I don't measure anything, so Found as described isn't 100% accurate, but if I found it, hey, anyone can.

 

I use my GPS to get close, it also gives me a way to see them on the topo map. Once I find the general area, I use the descriptions. So far I've had good luck finding them. I'll trust the GPS to take me pretty close, but no cigar.

 

I don't think I'll have any problems with spoilers, I'm the first and only log for most BM's I find. But to answer the question I don't think I'd mind the info too much, the whole point is to record finding them.

[+BuckBrooke]

There's 720,000 PIDs, and my area still has a number left, within a half hour drive. My goal is more logs for the NGS (which is not the same goal as more NGS GEOCACHING (BMC) marks, which is not my goal). Thus, I view someone else having Geocaching found a mark as a bonus for me; that gives me a list of known marks to draw from. A better to-reach is a bonus.

 

As a note, I drove up to Taos, New Mexico, Sunday to accompany my wife to the annual Taos Wool and Fiber Festival. We passed on the order of a dozen benchmark witness posts on the side of the road, one of which I could see the concrete monument from the car and a second where I could see the disk (circled by paint) on a culvert as I drove by. No time to stop and look on any of them...very, very frustrating. I only had time to look for the water tank (Found) and standpipe (NF) in Taos.

Edited October 3, 2005 by BuckBrooke

[+seventhings]

Same as mloser, pretty much. I (generally - there are exceptions) don't hunt for previously-found marks unless they're close and convenient to unfound (GC.com) marks on my list. When I do hunt for previously-found marks, I (generally) do not use (or take with me to the field) the info provided by the earlier finders.

 

When I find a mark, part of the objective (as I see it) is to render the mark absolutely findable by logging my handheld coordinates, new descriptive info, new to-reach, etc. When I started out hunting marks, I didn't take such care. Now, I always do.

 

I have run across a few marks that previous benchmark hunters have logged as "found" and where they explicitly avoided "spoiling" with new or updated info. They stated that they did not want to spoil the "surprise" or "challenge". In two out of the three such cases, I determined that the "finds" were obviously erroneous. So, in my experience, hunters who decline to include "spoilers" do so because they really don't have accurate info.

 

Will

[holograph]

I agree, but I'm not a cacher, so I don't have the caching mindset. I figure develpment and mother nature do a pretty good job hiding benchmarks, and they don't need my help to keep them hidden. It's true that it's more fun looking for marks that no one else has found, because you don't know what to expect.

 

When I'm planning trips I often check to see if marks have been found, but I don't read the logs or look at the pictures. There has only been one time when I returned home ready to log a "not found," only to discover that someone else had found it -- in an overgrown area of poison ivy that I had decided I wasn't going to dig into. Knowing that they found it wouldn't have made me dive into the ivy to find it, too, and their details at least reassured me that I hadn't foolishly overlooked it. KV1202

 

When a log doesn't have photos or details, it makes me wonder if someone really found it. There have been a couple marks that haven't been accessible to me, but could have been recovered by someone more sure-footed or athletic. However, their logs didn't have photos or details, so they leave me wondering. KV1217, LY0542

[+Black Dog Trackers]

As a general rule I don't look for marks that have been logged on the geocaching site. So, about 95% of my logs are on FTL (first to look) PIDs.

 

The only logged ones I look for are ones that are special somehow. For instance, I looked for one very old (1908) disk that had been found but no picture taken. A couple times, I traveled to an area for some other reason and wanted to do a bit of benchmarking with limited time or scope, so I might look for something already logged.

 

I really can't relate to the idea of averting my eyes from a previous log in these situations. If I find myself consigned to be looking for a non-FTL PID, then I will examine all of my colleagues' descriptions and pictures to help me find it. Of course, I do hope for extreme errors in these, such as realizing that the person really logged the reference mark instead of the true PID. Other things I can hope for are: an insufficent picture (i.e. here is how it looks FROM the mark), or zero picture, or no uploaded coordinates in the case of a location-Scaled mark, or some critical to-reach update that was missed.

 

During the first 2 weeks or less of finding benchmarks, I was concerned about spoilers and was purposefully cagey about logging, but after discussing that concept in the forums, abandoned such stuff in favor of behaving more like a professional in my log format, giving all the finding details.

 

Of course the whole thrill of being a geocaching FTL at a PID involves imagining that a PID with no log on the NGS in the 54 years between the monumentation date and the present, hasn't been visited every 14 months by some surveyor or other.

[+Harry Dolphin]

As opposed to geocaching, the objective of benchmarking is to find the benchmarks, and to help others to find them. Especially as regards to reporting to NGS.

I will also agree, that I generally don't hunt for benchmarks that have been found recently. I will make an exception in this case, since the dimwitted dolphin searched for this one three or four times, and was unable to find it. (I still think it's under the soda machines!!) Maybe, when I go back to look for Doctor's Hospital...

Other than that, you are doing an excellent, systematic job finding the benchmarks on Manhattan! Keep up the good work. I've only bencharked there sporadically, when time is available.

It's far more important to help NGS update their lists, and help others to find them.

Paul

[Bill93]

I think all reports, even on GC, should give any descriptive information that will be helpful. As others have pointed out it is entirely possible to go look for them yourself without using others' logs if that is more fun.

 

When anyone is interested in reporting to NGS, the whole point is to add as much new and useful information as possible in your report. I get some satisfaction from finding any benchmark, but a lot more if I can contribute good information. So I agree that finding one that hasn't been logged recently is better. My proudest recoveries are those where I found serious errors in the NGS data sheet--I contributed more important information there.

[+Spoo]

I must admit that my reports do not always show the desired "here it is" photos. I have always figured if, I as a nobody amateur can find the mark, anyone should be able to. When I find the marks difficult or the terrain of value, I certainly do include such photos.

[+cjf]

My big thrill in hunting benchmarks is actually finding the silly things. I'll look for unfound, previously found, poorly documented, or well documented benchmark finds with spoiler photos......I don't care. If there's a benchmark to be found I'll use whatever resources at my disposal to find it. And when I do find it, I take the obligatory close up photo and then the location photo and post both photos with my log on Geocaching .com.

 

There's nothing quite like finding a benchmark. (Sad, isn't it? Perhaps I need a life....)

[+PFF]

I have to admit, I had not given any thought to whether photos and updated descriptions could be spoiling someone's fun. It's a good question!

 

I am going to poll the six GEOCACHERS in my state who occasionally report benchmarks, to see what they think--especially since I drift into their counties on occasion.

 

By the way, these folks have impressive FOUND totals for caches--in the hundreds. When you turn them loose searching for a benchmark, they are awesome--they don't give up till they find it!

 

-Paul-

[foxtrot_xray]

For the record, myself, I think it'd be something helpful. I mean, if you're going to find it, use their notes. However, if you don't want to look at their logs, maybe ust scroll all the way to the bottom to get the official description?

 

I actually use the NGS site for getting the benchmarks I want to find, then afterwards go to the Geocaching site to log them, so usually when I see them, it's too late. (Or, if for some reason I didn't find it, there'd be more info there.)

 

Me.

[ArtMan]

I doubt our logs are used much by professionals, but since I view part of this hobby as public service (which is why I report to NGS), I like to add helpful information as appropriate. That would include correcting or clarifying descriptions and 'to reach' directions, updating landmarks, and of course adding photos.

 

For benchmarkers who come after me, you are welcome to note my comments, or ignore them. Your choice.

 

For those who posted before me, I always check out your post. If I'm persuaded that the mark is gone, I'll cross it off my list. If the previous logs contain useful hints, I may or may not jot them down, depending on how the spirit moves me. In the field, however, I work only with a recent NGS datasheet and usually a topo map printout.

 

Since benchmarks are designed to be found (c.f. caches, which are designed to be hard to find), I think it is wrong to describe informational logs as "spoilers." Nothing wrong with "found on a sunny afternoon" logs, but if you've observed that the Trade factory mentioned in the 1958 description has been replaced by the Mark condominiums, I would think that certainly should be included in your writeup.

 

-ArtMan-

 

PS - Extra points if you recognize something odd in that last sentence.

[+Harry Dolphin]

I remember them from the smth Brothers Cough Drops!

[ArtMan]

I remember them from the Smith Brothers Cough Drops!

 

That is correct, Bunky!

 

Read about William "Trade" Smith and Andrew "Mark" Smith in this article.

[+NorStar]

I've always had a mixed bag, both not found and found before. As far as the descriptions, I try not to read the descriptions or look at the pictures, at first. If I don't succeed the first time, I'll look. The trouble with the posted pictures is that most of them are the benchmark itself, with no clues on the area. There have been times when I wanted that picture to determine where I went wrong or whether something drastically changed (such as the removal of a rock or replacement of a bridge). I tend to have at least two in my logs, and added comments that might make the official descriptions clearer. If this is 'too much' information I can stop the practice, but it might be helpful in the future especially in urban areas where the landscape changes often.

[Papa-Bear-NYC]

Since I started this thread, I thought I give a few more thoughts on the subject.

 

To summarize most of the replies, I would say everyone should probably do what they are doing. If you are new (and I am new) just look at many of the logs here and zero in on what fits your style.

 

I had always found and photographed benchmarks on mountains I've climbed (and that is my major post-retirement hobby) and I thought to get into this hobby, I wqould log every mark I could find in Manhattan - my home.

 

So I have a few FTFs, a few FTLs many and "already founds". I have noticed a number of "already founds" which are (IMHO) in error. Like the reports on a chimney on an old power plant on the west side that had (IMHO) obviously been replaced since the original 1932 report KU3949, or the building on the upper east side that was demolished (KU1423 - the earlier "found" report was not in error when it was made - the building just came down), or the chimneys on an east side power plant, where originally there were 2 stacks and now there are 4 (KU3556). One log stated "there are still northerly and southerly stacks at the location" so he/she logged it. The trouble is the present northerly stack is not the stack that was most northerly when the mark was first recorded (IMHO). I try to figure out in such cases what the original descriptions means and how to relate that to what's there. The point is ther's plenty of interest goung out and looking - whether it's logged as "found" or "not found'. You may be surprised.

 

I have put lots of "IMHO"s in this message. One thing that makes this game interesting is that we will often see the same evidence with different eyes and come to different conclusions. Clearly when I post something that dissagrees with what an earlier post wrote, no offence is meant. Afterall, discussion and disagreement is how we make progress.

 

When I log something on the NGS, I leave out the touchy-feely stuff, but I don't contemplate that much of what I put there is of interest to the professional surveyor community.

 

Thanks for the replies.

Regards

Pb

Edited October 6, 2005 by Papa-Bear-NYC

[+Black Dog Trackers]

Papa-Bear-NYC -

 

I looked at a few of your latest logs (since you are new ) and have one suggestion - add an arrow to your 'setting' pictures of disk and bolt marks. I looked, and either had a very difficult time, or could not find where the marks were in the pictures.

 

In my opinion, the most important type of log picture is the 'setting' picture. The to-reach descriptions are generally good enough, but sometimes can be difficult when things have changed a lot and some of the landmarks mentioned no longer exist. A picture is worth a thousand words they say, and with benchmark locating, it is often quite true. However, a picture with no arrow is sometimes just as useless as being there and still not seeing the mark.

[+GEO*Trailblazer 1]

Well I look at it like this.

If I ain't found it I look for it.

Sometimes too many times to come to the conclusion that it is just not there.

[+BilboB]

I am just getting back into finding benchmarks again and I realized how much I enjoy doing it. The few people that find them around me (including myself) do not leave detailed descriptions that would be considered spoilers. If we see a great discrepancy (northsside of street instead of south side, near pole 17 instead of 18, 6" from witness, not 6 feet), then they are listed in the log.

 

I dont care if someone has found the mark. I get the pleasure of finding it myself. There are a few marks that have given me trouble even after someone has found it (and included photos), so I treat prior finds more as an FYI than anything else.

[+jackratt]

Interesting; I've never thought about leaving too much info to be a spoiler. I guess I don't think of hunting BMs in the same mode as caches. When I chase BMs I generally go for those that have not been found yet. When I find them I try to make a point to get a photo of the disk with my GPSr in view as proof (no log to sign, you know) and then an area view with some type of circle or arrow to show the disk location. I guess for me it's a "first to find" thing.

 

So far my experience has been that most BMs are missing. The challenge is finding those that are in out-of-the-way places or near something scenic.

[+Black Dog Trackers]

jackratt -

 

You are correct - the 'spoiler' concept does not apply to benchmark hunting here.

[+mogle1]

Sorry to drag up an old thread but I did a search for this very topic wanted to add my 2 cents worth.

 

If I need to find a BM in a certain area for a flood cert or whatever, I come here first to see if a BM has been found in that area. If it has a good description and pictures it makes it that much easier to find it. If I have to spend a lot of time searching it cost the client more money. So I would definately appreciate a good vicinity picture and extra description. A GPS reading would be a nice addition also.

 

@ Artman....If more professionals knew about this site they would use it.