Jump to content

Resets Entering The Database


Recommended Posts

In the last week I have searched for two different marks, neither of which I found:


KU1010 "L 340"

KU1124 "B 341"


In both case I found instead a RESET with the appropriate stamping that would indicate it was a replacement for the missing mark. A picture is worth a few dozen words:


L 340 RESET 1998


(click for full size image)


B 341 RESET 1984


(click for full size image)


Neither of these RESETs are in the NGS database. So here's the questions:


1) Are RESETs like these generally put into the database? Or to ask it another way, are they generally set to the complete and correct surveying standards (including paperwork)? These were set, I believe, by a reputable agency :).


Assuming YES to the above, then


2) What is the typical time lag for inclusion of this type of mark from survey in the field to being publically available in the database?


3) And lastly, is there any way someone can say these are or are not in the pipeline?


Inquisitive minds like to know.



Link to comment

Papa-Bear-NYC -


Here is another example, also an NGS disk. I exchanged emails a couple times with Deb at NGS a couple times on this disk. She confirmed that it is not in the NGS database. She didn't say why that was, as I recall, and I certainly don't know, but wanted to add the example to your question.

Thanks. I bet there are a number of such cases.


One thing I wanted to emphasize is that both of these RESETs were some distance (vertically or horizontally) from the original, so they should not be confused with a new disk in an old drill hole. Not that that is pertinent to the question.


A more curious case is on the granite wall next to the steps on the main U.S. Post Office in Manhattan: KU1445 "M 339"


There the original is in good condition and "M 339 RESET 2000" is mounted about a foot away. That's strange. Mabey there was a plan to do something to the old mark, so the reset disk was put in, then they changed their minds.


It's not surprising that a 2000 monumentation might not be in the database yet, but a 1984?

Link to comment

Today (as well as in the past) NGS relies on other local agencies and private sector surveyors to reset marks that are in peril. All to often they reset them and never forward the data on to NGS.


There are likely many reasons why this happends but often this reset only involves maybe 0.01 % of thier work load and time slips by and its forgotten about.

Edited by Z15
Link to comment

Here is an example of the paperwork that has to be completed for NGS to process the RESET data.

You can see that certain procedures must be followed and my guess is many who take on the task of RESETing a mark, don't follow this.



Edited by Z15
Link to comment

We were using this form up until I left in 2002. Weather the form changed or not, the procedures are still applicable.


I would say that a lot of RESET marks don't make publication because of failure to follow estabished guidelines in the leveling work. I know we had problems with some our own staff and consultants who were not up to the task of performing the leveling correctly and thus the mark was deemed unreliable. For instance we had one consultant whom we allowed to reset a BM in a new reaplacement bridge they were working on for us. The field surveyor was LS qualified yet he established the new BM using a construction grade laser level and shoddy field notes. Just the new elevation written on a set of plans with no other field records. When my boss questioned his methods, he became defensive and would not provide us any more info. Claimed it was correct and was insulted that he was asked about it. Since there was no other BM within miles to run a check, this mark was not accepted in this form (nor should it been) by my boss or the state advisor.

Edited by Z15
Link to comment
Here is an example of the paperwork that has to be completed for NGS to process the RESET data.
Is that still the procedure? I can't read a date, but typographically the documents you posted look decades old. -ArtMan-


Looks like the form was created 6-82

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.

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.

  • Create New...