Reporting Recoveries To Ngs?

[+wandererrob]

I've seen a couple of recent posts regarding finding BMs not found in the plast known report, and recently found one not recovered in the past 40 years and this got me wondering. I know you can report recoveries directly to NGS, but my question is this...

 

We are using their database for the info on BMs. Are they gathering the recovery info from GC.com? Or should any new recoveries be reported directly to them? And, do they care that a bunch of geocachers have found them?

[+Black Dog Trackers]

wandererrob -

 

Congratulations on your find of MY0664! It is fun to find the older ones for sure.

 

As to your questions:

Are they gathering the recovery info from GC.com?

The NGS itself is not. However, several surveyors have reported in this forum that they have started using the geocaching site to check up on benchmarks that they will be looking for.

Or should any new recoveries be reported directly to them?

If you're confident of your finds, it is good to report them to the NGS site.

And, do they care that a bunch of geocachers have found them?

Yes. The NGS started the website to allow recovery notes by the public at large. Apparently they have been generally pleased with the results. I imagine they particularly like the GEOCAC group. Searching for these marks takes a lot of gas and time, and people checking up on marks for free seems to be what the NGS finds acceptable.

[+woody_k]

I reported the one I found in another post here. Fairly simple process.

[Wintertime]

Congratulations on your find of MY0664! It is fun to find the older ones for sure.

Indeed! Congratulations!

 

I just want to emphasize this point that BDT made:

 

If you're confident of your finds, it is good to report them to the NGS site.

Please be *very* confident of your finds before you report them. There are other threads going on in this forum right now about a benchmark that was reported found two times in the past few years, when in fact it was a *clearly marked* reference mark that was found, not the station itself. Another thread is discussing the idea of a volunteer benchmark hunting corps and how we would need to keep up our standards for accuracy in order to maintain the respect of the NGS.

 

I personally know of two survey marks in a nearby city (Mountain View, Calif.) that have repeatedly been logged on Gc.com as found when in fact neither mark is no longer there. People are finding different benchmarks (sometimes even vastly different sizes and from different agencies) more or less nearby (a few dozen feet or so) and logging the original station as found. We don't want that kind of mistake relayed to a "GEOCAC" report filed with the NGS.

 

Sorry for getting on a soapbox, but sometimes I want to tear my hair out when I see those logs! Don't forget, the folks here on the Benchmark Hunting forum are happy to answer any questions you may have about a survey mark you've found, or about reporting it to the NGS.

 

I hope you enjoy your new addiction.

 

Patty

[68-eldo]

I just want to emphasize this point that BDT made:

 

If you're confident of your finds, it is good to report them to the NGS site.

Please be *very* confident of your finds before you report them. There are other threads going on in this forum right now about a benchmark that was reported found two times in the past few years, when in fact it was a *clearly marked* reference mark that was found, not the station itself. Another thread is discussing the idea of a volunteer benchmark hunting corps and how we would need to keep up our standards for accuracy in order to maintain the respect of the NGS.

 

I personally know of two survey marks in a nearby city (Mountain View, Calif.) that have repeatedly been logged on Gc.com as found when in fact neither mark is no longer there. People are finding different benchmarks (sometimes even vastly different sizes and from different agencies) more or less nearby (a few dozen feet or so) and logging the original station as found. We don't want that kind of mistake relayed to a "GEOCAC" report filed with the NGS.

 

Sorry for getting on a soapbox, but sometimes I want to tear my hair out when I see those logs! Don't forget, the folks here on the Benchmark Hunting forum are happy to answer any questions you may have about a survey mark you've found, or about reporting it to the NGS.

 

I hope you enjoy your new addiction.

 

Patty

 

Here are a couple of examples:

 

TU1336 and

 

TU1337.

 

TU1337 is Diamond Head 2 set in 1969. All the pictures of the mark are of Diamond Head 2 reset 2002. Many of the pictures are of RM 3 and claim to be the mark.

 

TU1336 was most likely destroyed but is not logged as such (NGS data base seems to be down at this moment so I can't check the latest logs).

 

TU1456 continues to be logged after CGS reported it destroyed in 1967. (This one looks cool in Google maps satellite photo). Many of these cachers are just playing a game and would not bother to report to NGS. But it only takes a few to give GEOCAC a bad reputation.

 

The devil is in the details.

[Wintertime]

Thanks for mentioning that, Eldo. I remembered the Diamond Head situation after I posted my note. It's a particularly egregious example of the not-paying-attention problem.

 

Anyway, Rob, we aren't trying to scare you off! Just trying to let you know about some of the potholes you want to avoid on the merry road of benchmark hunting. ;-)

 

Patty

[+wandererrob]

Thanks for the info guys. Very informative indeed.