Jump to content

Criteria For Steel Rod Benchmark Recoveries?


dfred

Recommended Posts

I'm preparing to submit recoveries for several steel rod benchmarks in my area. I read through the NGS FAQ topic and it seems the criteria for "Poor" mostly refer to things that could happen to disks rather than steel rod benchmarks. For all the submissions I'm preparing the rods themselves appear to be fine, but the access covers have experienced varying degrees of damage and in one case it is missing. Below are a few specific cases... Would any of these be grounds for submitting the recovery as poor?

 

1) Cover missing

2) Cover hinge completely broken and cover detached but still present. Retained only by gravity.

3) Cover hinge partially broken/bent. Cover still attached but refuses close fully even after cleaning.

Link to comment

dfred -

 

I don't know the answer to your question, but I wanted to mention that we discussed rod-type recovery photos and the optimum was 3 photos, the 'distant' photo with the rod-cover visible with background items, a closeup photo of the rod mark's designation on the rim of the hole, and a photo of the rod with the cover open.

 

My inclination on rod rating is to say the mark is in good condition no matter what the condition of the rim and cover. It could be that the NGS would like it reported POOR if the cover is completely gone, but the condition rating seems to be geared toward the station's usability, and the usability doesn't depend on the existence of the cover.

 

It is probably likely that rods are somewhat more safe from environmental damage than disks, but unfortunately it is more difficult to tell whether or not the rod's position has been compromised.

 

Someone found a rod actually canted over and that one probably should be reported as poor.

 

Hopefully someone from the NGS will weigh in on this excellent question. You could also email Deb with your question and share her answer here.

Edited by Black Dog Trackers
Link to comment
Someone found a rod actually canted over and that one probably should be reported as poor.

 

Some time back I found one of these stations where the rod was off-center, perhaps by as much as an inch. I don't recall when or where it was, so I can't cite the particular station. It was not obvious to me at the time whether the position of the rod had shifted or the position of the sleeve surrounding the station had shifted, or if the rod was never properly centered in the first place. I don't recall if I reported it to NGS, but if I did I think I reported it as being in good condition with a note explaining the off-center position. I'm not in a position to know the significance of the off-center rod, but I did want it on record.

 

-ArtMan-

Link to comment

The NGS report pertains only to the status of the mark itself.... not the covering. So long as the mark (in this case a rod) appears in good condition, it should be reported as in good condition. For extra credit, you can put a note in the text area of the recovery log that the cover is damaged.

 

-Casey-

Link to comment

Location, Location, Location. I interpret "condition" to mean is it stable and probably unmoved from the surveyed position?

 

Loss of cap is mostly cosmetic, but if the mark is tilted or crushed by heavy machinery or whacked by those evil lawnmowers, then it is possibly POOR. A judgement call.

 

And a civic note, if leaving these "mini manholes" uncovered or rods projecting could be dangerous (in a public park, horse trail, etc.) please consider notifying the landowner &/or making it safe. Noting that in a recovery is insufficient and sets U.S. up for a lawsuit.

Link to comment

Good question -- A judgement call.

We do NOT want the mark to accumulate water which can frost-jack, so definitely NO non-porous soil or clay. Dry sand would be a slight annoyance to the surveyor but not too problematic; balance that annoyance against whatever danger the "open manhole" presents.

 

You can also affect a makeshift cover with a conspicuous rock or handy piece of trash.

Link to comment

Good question -- A judgement call.

We do NOT want the mark to accumulate water which can frost-jack, so definitely NO non-porous soil or clay. Dry sand would be a slight annoyance to the surveyor but not too problematic; balance that annoyance against whatever danger the "open manhole" presents.

 

You can also affect a makeshift cover with a conspicuous rock or handy piece of trash.

 

Well I couldn't come up with anything that would really protedt JM0354 being as it is now in the middle of a parking area. I found an old rag to put over the rod and filled the hole with the asphault grindings the rest of the area is covered in. I also buried what is left of the witness post across the top of the marker.

Link to comment

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...
×
×
  • Create New...