Is This Benchmark Destroyed?

[Team Fawlty]

Hi. I logged my first bechmark today - an easy visual one. ME3156

I logged it as destoyed but was wondering if it truly is destroyed. They removed the tops from the towers a few months ago. The description mentions the top of the tower. I'll delete my log if I am in error.

 

Thanks,

Brendan

[+seventhings]

Team Fawlty / Brendan -

 

I agree with your characterization of the mark as DESTROYED. The points originally observed are no longer there.

 

Were I to report this recovery to the NGS, I would say NOT FOUND with the explanation that the observed tower remains, but the top half (or more) of the tower has been removed.

 

Good call.

 

Will

[mloser]

I might consider Found Poor, with the same notation, as long as I was certain it was the same tower. In theory it could still be used as an intersection station by finding the center of the tower supports.

 

Something to know is that intersections stations are rarely, if ever, used any more. I once asked Deb Brown why they even take reports on them and she responded "for old time's sake".

[Team Fawlty]

Thanks for the responses. Should I change the gc.com log to not found with an explanation? How do I go about logging with the NGS?

 

Thanks

[+woody_k]

Today I found one that is positively destroyed. Half of the cement where the BM was is missing. I took a pic but somehow I lost it in the transfer from camera to PC. So now I can't send in the info properly because they ask for a digital pic. Anyway I logged it destroyed on GC.com.

[mloser]

Woody,

If you can't find the disk, or enough of the disk to read the stamping, it can only be a Not Found with NGS. They insist on proof that the disk was the one on the datasheet.

[Papa-Bear-NYC]

Woody,

If you can't find the disk, or enough of the disk to read the stamping, it can only be a Not Found with NGS. They insist on proof that the disk was the one on the datasheet.

There is one case the NGS will accept a "Destroyed" without a disk in hand, and that is when the structure that the disk was mounted on (say the side of a brick building) is demolished. Doctor's Hospital (KU1423) at 88th & East End Ave in Manhattan comes to mind. The hospital was torn down. Harry Dolphin got the mark declared destroyed last year.

 

Pb

[+wildearth2001]

Woody,

If you can't find the disk, or enough of the disk to read the stamping, it can only be a Not Found with NGS. They insist on proof that the disk was the one on the datasheet.

There is one case the NGS will accept a "Destroyed" without a disk in hand, and that is when the structure that the disk was mounted on (say the side of a brick building) is demolished. Doctor's Hospital (KU1423) at 88th & East End Ave in Manhattan comes to mind. The hospital was torn down. Harry Dolphin got the mark declared destroyed last year.

 

Pb

Ok I was just gonna ask a simmilar question. A BM near my home is listed as being set in 1951 in the headwall of a road bridge over a river. About 10 years ago a larger bridge was build adjacent to the bridge which had existed in 1951 and the older bridge was torn down. Can this mark be submitted as destroyed, or a Not Found with explanation?

[+woody_k]

Woody,

If you can't find the disk, or enough of the disk to read the stamping, it can only be a Not Found with NGS. They insist on proof that the disk was the one on the datasheet.

 

That doesn't make any sense. Let's say I have the disk but it isn't where it is suppose to be it can be considered destroyed. But if the the wing wall of a flood control chanel is broken in half right where the disk is suppose to be and that you can see half of the drill hole and half and the painted circles the NGS says it is only a not found? How can I get proof if a disk is missing?

 

Government agnecies...what are they good for.

 

A not found doesn't mean the disk isn't there. It only means I couldn't find the disk. However someone more experienced, like you, could find it.

 

Oh well, I marked that disk as destroyed and if the NGS doesn't like it they can change it. LOL! If I can't find a disk I will "write note" even if I know the street was widened and the mark is gone. If I am at the place where the description say it should be and I am certian of that and I see where the mark should have been is destroyed then I will mark as destroyed.

 

I do this for other finders.

 

Ken

[mloser]

I am sure others will answer this more eloquently, but what it boils down to is whether you have found remnants of the disk that is being described. Without the disk the NGS feels there is not enough evidence to be 100 percent certain the disk was the one in the datasheet. In certain cases such as the one Harry Dolphin reported, the location is gone, and is well described building, etc. Then you can get the disk destroyed.

 

If you think a bit about who reports to the NGS most often--the Power Squadron, you can probably see why this sort of documentation is necessary. I am sure it is possible to get marks on removed bridges, culverts, etc, declared destroyed, but more evidence than a disk impression and a stem would be necessary.

 

One thing I do in my Not Founds is try to describe the reason I couldn't find it. If I am sure the bridge was replaced and the mark on the wingwall is gone, I say so. That helps future hunters, surveyors especially in my thinking, figure out of they want to look for the mark or take my word. An "empty" Not Found with no other explanation is of little help in my book.

 

As for the missing disk you are discussing, you may be able to convince Deb Brown that it is gone if you document it well enough. Get pictures of the disk area, the wall, the location of the wall. If you can show her that the area is where the description says she may be willing to mark it destroyed. All you can do is try.

[+BuckBrooke]

Another comment about DESTROYED vs. NOT FOUND reporting to the NGS.

 

I view reporting to the NGS more conservatively now, having heard from others. I agree with the idea that if I log to the NGS (no pressure, anyone), NGS database integrity is more important than what I want a station log to be. DESTROYED to me means that it's clear that the exact, identifiable station is not useable at all, without replacing the whole monument/position, essentially creating a new station. NOT FOUND means I didn't find something I could absolutely identify as the station.

 

Barring pointing out some logs early on, where someone wrote they had destroyed a station, I've DESTROYED 6-8 disks, where I was absolutely certain that I had the exact location and the setting/monument had been destroyed. On only one of them was the disk missing; the rest had their monuments tumbled, tilted 90 degrees or destroyed, so I could absolutely identify it.

 

Otherwise, I log NOT FOUND. As someone else pointed out earlier, you can log NOT FOUND and let someone else (with more experience) come back later and DESTROY it if they want.

 

For Geocaching, logging DESTROYED for this case is typical.

 

Honestly, if half the drill hole remains for the disk there's an outside chance someone might be able to use it, so you might chat with Deb at the NGS about logging it as FOUND (POOR).

Edited April 16, 2006 by BuckBrooke

[CallawayMT]

I would like to make a large caution on this thread as a Surveyor. Please use discretion when assuming that these monuments are destroyed for all intents and purposes.

 

Some of these agencies have piggy-backed on top of other agencies monuments for horizontal or vertical control. You may definitely have a destroyed benchmark as far as NGS is concerned, BUT you may still have a viable boundary, stationing or R/W position.

 

A good example is a R/W stationing disk which has been leveled through and then used as a bench mark in the NGS database. If that concrete pedestal has been busted off, but is still hanging on by reinforcing rod, the station is lost as a benchmark. BUT it is still a R/W station and land boundary monument. You should not be finishing off the concrete so that somebody does not claim it as a find in the geocaching or NGS database. A surveyor is going to be looking for that position someday, and the remnants are enough for him or her to make a boundary, stationing or R/W determination.

 

I am sure there are some other examples that I could use to make my point, but I'm not coming up with any right now. My point is that you should be very careful about being judge, jury and executioner as far as the physical monument goes, but by all means please report them to Deb as a destroyed monument in her database. Also remember that this pertains to a very small portion of these NGS database, but Deb is not a Licensed Surveyor and cannot know the laws and uses for some of these NON-NGS, USGS, USC&GS, etc. monuments; and that being said even if she tells you that you can take it - I would be very careful about doing so.

 

Someday you may be paying for a survey that depends on one of these positions and you will find out how expensive it can get when we need to keep going out a little further for that next piece of evidence we need to accurately make your boundary determination.

 

Regards,

CallawayMT

[+woody_k]

mloser, I think you are right to try and contact Deb but I would need to go back and get another pic. As I said I somehow lost it in the transfer from camera to laptop.

 

Public entities are a strange lot. I don't know what more proof NGS would need to show that a mark is destroyed, save one of their own has a peek at it. On the other side of the coin if I find a BM the NGS couldn't find in 1974, I did do this, then the mark according to NGS thinking should still be not found.

 

I cannot accept their logic and thinking...it totally baffles me. They can accept that we found one but not if we find one destroyed. With that kind of thinking they deserve to be a governmental agency. LOL!

[holograph]

The NGS has done a lot to assist us in various ways, and it is not fair to criticize them simply because you don't understand their policy. I wish all government agencies were as cooperative and friendly toward laypersons.

 

There are a lot of datasheets that contain "NOT FOUND" reports, where the report description makes it clear that the station will never be recovered, for instance if the bridge is gone or the site has been developed into condominiums. Even the pros make that kind of report and live with the NGS rules. A while back one of the NGS staffers explained that the NGS takes an attitude of eternal optimism when it comes to destroying disks. Unless the disk is in hand, they always hold out hope, even if it is the thinnest thread.

 

In NGS-speak, "NOT FOUND" does not mean "it's there but it's going to take a better person than me to find it", it means exactly what it says: that the station was not found, which might be because it is concealed, or because the description is no longer adequate, but might also be because it is no longer there.

[+woody_k]

The NGS has done a lot to assist us in various ways, and it is not fair to criticize them simply because you don't understand their policy. I wish all government agencies were as cooperative and friendly toward laypersons.

 

There are a lot of datasheets that contain "NOT FOUND" reports, where the report description makes it clear that the station will never be recovered, for instance if the bridge is gone or the site has been developed into condominiums. Even the pros make that kind of report and live with the NGS rules. A while back one of the NGS staffers explained that the NGS takes an attitude of eternal optimism when it comes to destroying disks. Unless the disk is in hand, they always hold out hope, even if it is the thinnest thread.

 

In NGS-speak, "NOT FOUND" does not mean "it's there but it's going to take a better person than me to find it", it means exactly what it says: that the station was not found, which might be because it is concealed, or because the description is no longer adequate, but might also be because it is no longer there.

 

Not really sure how to take you post. Is this a tongue lashing, spanking or just info.

 

In either case I am glad we live in a free country that will allow me to critize a governmental agency for what I think is an stupid policy...whether or not you think I do not understand it.

 

Not found means this and only this....I didn't find it. It does not mean I would have found it had it not been destroyed. I just don't get it that if I have a dislodged disk in my hand then it's destroyed but not one where it can clearly be seen as destroyed....however the means it was destroyed. I.E. road widening. building torn down or an accident where a car destroys the BM site.

 

I can't help think that if the courts used that same philosophy there would never be any convictions. They would be hopefully optomistic that this criminal would not do this again.

 

I guess I live in a more black and white world than you or the NGS do.

[mloser]

Woody,

 

I wouldn't take what Holograph said personally at all. He is just trying to describe the NGS's policy towards destroyed marks. One important thing he mentions is the NGS's attitude toward layperson recoveries. Since they embrace recoveries by amatuers and individuals they have no way of knowing how much effort a single recoverer has put into locating a benchmark before choosing to report it. In a perfect world everyone would be smart, dedicated, and maybe a bit lucky, but those of us who have hunted benchmarks for a while know that all of those things don't always happen at once.

 

Think of this specific instance. A mark, KW1108 for instance, is described as being monumented in 1942 on a bridge. Ignoring the 1956 not found, let's suppose I drive to that bridge, which I did, and that I see the new disk and the fact that the bridge is new (in this case newer than 1956 for sure). I asked a person down the road earlier whether the road had been redone at some point, because a lot of the marks on bridges were gone, and he said "Yeah, over 30 years ago". Well that answers all my questions. New bridge means mark destroyed! Submit that, have the NGS accept it, and all is well. Except the old bridge is still there, lurking 50 feet away in the trees! In this particular instance I was not successful in finding the mark on the old bridge, but at least I thought of looking.

 

I know a lot of destroyed marks are much more obvious than this. The bridge is new, there is obviously no old bridge there, etc. But how can NGS police the submissions they get without knowing the people who are submitting them? The answer is that they can't. As long as they choose to take recoveries from anyone who can find the survey mark submission website, they have to set standards that allow the least damage in case of incorrect reporting. You don't bury someone until you are sure they are dead. So just because you didn't see it, it isn't necessarily gone. Again, I think there are cases where you can convice them that the mark is destroyed without pictures of the mark itself--missing buildings, etc. KW0633, which I found yesterday, is one that I am willing to bet I could convince Deb is lost forever. For one thing, I have a history of reporting and hope that my reputation is a good one. For another, that block of concrete is pretty convincing. But I don't plan on submitting that one to be destroyed. Even after looking for over 1,100 survey marks, or perhaps because of that, I am not completely confident that what I found is exactly what I was looking for. I didn't see a chiseled square and there just wasn't enough evidence for me to feel good about submitting a destroyed report. So I have submitted a Not Found, explaining what I saw at the location. It takes up some database space, and when a surveyor prints out datasheets for marks in that area he will get KW0633, but hopefully he will read my recovery and make an informed decision from it--does he believe me or will he make his own search? That is up to him. If I had gotten that mark destroyed he wouldn't even have had the chance.

[Bill93]

I totally agree with what holograph, mloser, and some of the others are saying.

 

My learning experience with "obviously destroyed" disks was NJ0584. I had found several disks, and felt like I was starting to get a decent feel for the situations you encounter. This culvert is obviously in the right place because the road and stream hadn't been moved, is obviously not the bridge described on the data sheet, and it has no concrete guard rail to hold a disk. So I logged it on GC (only) as destroyed. Later I started wondering what if ... and stopped to look a little closer. I dug some dirt off of the headwall of the culvert, and presto, there's the disk. They had raised the road several feet and almost buried the old bridge. So after that I got a lot more cautious about destroyed reports.

[+Harry Dolphin]

I guess the theory is that you play by the rules of the game, whether you like them or not.

NGS is very conservative, and for good reasons. As Bill93 has noted.

Doctor's Hospital (as cited by Papa-Bear-NYC) was a special circumstance. I found it. Next time I went by, it was definitely gone. I also managed to get Ruppert Brewery marked as destroyed, with documentation that the building had been destroyed. KU1430.

On the other hand, I searched for this one Sunday KV0290. It's definitely gone. I suggested to Deb that it is gone, and logged it as destroyed on geocaching. But I don't have the proof or documentation. So, it's a DNF. (And I will not go into the hundred or more 'set in concrete in a clay tile pipe' on the river banks in the swamps that were set out in 1913, and never seen since. )

[Team Fawlty]

One important thing he mentions is the NGS's attitude toward layperson recoveries. Since they embrace recoveries by amatuers and individuals they have no way of knowing how much effort a single recoverer has put into locating a benchmark before choosing to report it. In a perfect world everyone would be smart, dedicated, and maybe a bit lucky, but those of us who have hunted benchmarks for a while know that all of those things don't always happen at once.

 

It's similar to computer tech support - assume the end user is an idiot and verify that the computer is actually plugged in, turned on, etc.

[+woody_k]

Gentlemen,

 

Take at look at this benchmark. EV9082. Look at all the pics including the one I took today.

 

Is this not found or destroyed? To me it is clearly destroyed. The white lettering on the curb sort of indicates I was in the right area but the picture doesn't lie.

 

Mloser, your bridge hypotheitical...I would not have marked that Bm as destroyed. Simply having a new bridge without any other evidence would not be good enough. Hypothetically the BM may still be there under the road. Or not at all. But you have no other evidence. Also take a look at this log on this bm I attempted today. EV9084 Looks very similiar to your bridge hypothetical.

 

But I must re-state what I saw on saturday and please read it because nobody here has addressed the facts.

 

The wing wall to a box culvert is where the BM was. There was lettering at this curb also and on the wing wall. It was the south wing wall exactly where the description says. The bright orange paint was on top of the wing wall and HALF of the hole for the BM as was HALF of the epoxy/cement/glue. The other HALF was broken away. I also said I lost the pic.

 

What is the difference between these 2 DNF/Destroyed BM? In both cases the marker is seperated from it's foundation. Exactly as it says in the mark recovery form. Nowhere does it say you have to have the actual mark.

 

I am sorry to have pissed you all off ( I didn't mean to) but I didn't get 20 years in law enforcement without understanding actual evidence and making informed descisions.

Edited April 18, 2006 by woody_k

[lost02]

Woody – Hi, we haven’t been recovering benchmarks nearly as long, or done as many as others here, but we have submitted a few “destroyed” marks. Sometimes we have asked for advice here (don’t want to make a big mistake), and have learned that Deb is very friendly when you submit a report. Your mark looks very similar to one we submitted (actually your pictures may be even better because you can submit “before” and “after” pictures). If you could get a picture that has the same angle as the other two pictures that shows the 7-11 in the background, and get that close-up that you lost that would help a lot (Deb appreciates area shots along with the “close up” picture of where the mark should be located). Deb will keep your evidence - your email and pictures on record if/when she marks it as destroyed. If you think that you have the evidence the mark is destroyed you can submit it to Deb – the final arbiter - and see what she thinks. Don’t forget to submit the details: pictures, PID, Designation, date, who you are, description of what you found/didn’t find.

[+woody_k]

Hi Lost02,

 

I have submitted 3 total forms to Deb Brown. 1 over a year ago and the last 2 within the last few months. As of yet I haven't heard yea or nay from here.

 

How long does it take to hear back from her...if at all?

[mloser]

Woody,

 

I want to make sure you didn't think I was saying you would not have looked for an older bridge, but the illustration was to show why the NGS is pretty particular about the recoveries they get. Someone less interested (obsessed?) with this hobby might not take the time to even look around. They might just submit a destroyed report from a drive by.

 

As for your half mark half hole, I am still thinking that if you can tell where the mark WAS then it might be usable. A long time ago we went through a fairly long discussion on this topic and the official word from the NGS to someone in the forum was that if you can see the stem or where the stem was, then it is a Found Poor. I am not a surveyor but I imagine there are times when a survey does not require millemeter accuracy and the surveyor can estimate the height of the missing disk and use the spot for his/her work. That said, I am surprised that Lost02 got their mark declared destroyed as the location of the disk is still evident.

 

Your EV9082 is indeed destroyed and you probably have enough evidence from your pic and the pics already posted on GC to get it marked destroyed. Just submit them to Deb with an explanation of what is happening at that area (by the way, can you find the construction crew and see if they have the mark?). A more distant shot would be beneficial too.

 

The difference between the two marks is that in one case you have evidence of a disk, and even possibly enough evidence to USE the mark for a survey, and in the second case you have no evidence. If you had been the first person to EV9082 there is little chance you could get it marked as destroyed since you would not have had proof that it was ever there. The BM on the road could have referred to a county, USGS, or any other kind of survey mark. I could be wrong however. I am not sure what mental process Deb uses to "destroy" benchmarks. She is working part time from home right now or I would invite her to participate in this discussion.

[lost02]

Woody – sometimes it has been only a few days, though usually a number of weeks. It all depends on her schedule. You can always look up the PID in the database and see if it has been marked as destroyed.

 

mloser – yeah, when I send in a potential mark to be destroyed I typically ask Deb if she wants me to enter it in the database as poor/not found or if she wants to mark it as destroyed. I can not always judge for myself what is considered to be destroyed (sometimes it’s obvious, other times not), so I just leave it up to her.

[+woody_k]

Well I just decided to never again log a mark destroyed.

 

I have this habit, some say it's a good one and some say it's a bad one, but I do tend to tick off people. It really is a gift.

 

Anyway for ther sake of forum serenity I decided this.