Anomalies

[+Spoo]

This weekend, while in the Lewiston-Auburn, Maine area, I came across some strange marks. I filed reports with the NGS but do not think they read such items so I am not sure that anything will happen about them.

 

1) First, two of my finds were RESETs dating back to the 1980's. The old marks were not indicated as destroyed or RESET although the new RESET marks clearly are moved. No big deal, I guess, we all see this all the time. Reference here is made to PF0101 and PF0098.

 

2) I am absolutely convinced that the listed co-ordinates for PF0101 and PF0099 are reversed. I have looked at these numbers three ways to Tuesday and am convinced the error is not with me. The error appears to be made by the same NGS surveyor in 1966. No name or initials were listed at the time the descriptions were made. It is probably a moot point since PF0099 appears to be destroyed....it should be located where the Auburn water district now stands.....and PF0101 is a RESET mark clearly not monumented as the description indicates. These two marks are about 1,000 feet apart and my guess is the scaling done back at the office got the PID's reversed.

 

3) PF1070, a Triangulation Station, is clearly about to be destroyed due to a construction project. This is the second such incident that I have reported. Will proper channels to NGS be made by the contractors? Will my alert be of interest to NGS?

 

4) PF0103, no longer exists. The bridge and retaining walls it was on were replaced in 1994. No RESET mark exists either.

 

5) PF0100 was set vertically in the side of a building. The building clearly no longer exists.

 

In short....this whole area is undergoing change and there appears to be no records with NGS about it. I cannot claim any of the above marks as destroyed because I cannot offer 'hard proof' even though it is difficult to lose an entire bridge or municipal building. These above anomalies will remain on the active records (with my filed reports saying something is wrong) forever since the NGS does not seem to follow up on logged problems.

 

6) PF1077 is a Tri-station set on the highest point in Auburn. The main station is intact but will soon be buried in nature. It's one RM, (listed as #16) is destroyed. It's 2nd RM (listed as #18) was not found. It is presumed to be already buried by nature. When I say buried by nature, I am talking immense patches of Juniper. If you ever tried to dig through this stuff you know what I mean when I say the marks may be lost forever. Why are RM's listed as 16 and 18 as opposed to 1 and 2? Does the NGS care about this site knowing it may also soon be lost?

 

7) PF1064 is very interesting. All three marks are still intact. The main station is a cross cut shank. It has two RM's listed as #3 and #4. (was there ever a #1 and #2?) #4 is clearly pointing about 100 degrees from the main station and was reported as such by NGS in 1977. I am very curious why there would be RM's #3 and 4 but no 1 and 2......and that 4 points in the wrong direction. I do not think the setting is a surveyor error. I think there is more to the story.

 

If anyone has any insights or answers, it would be great to see them here.

Edited May 30, 2006 by Spoo

[Bill93]

Long time no word from you. Welcome back from wherever you've been.

 

Some thoughts:

1. Many RESET marks have been done without the data being supplied to NGS, or else carefully enough done for NGS purposes, and this data is sometimes not submitted/processed for years after the resetting. If you can't find the original mark, submit a NF report mentioning that there is a reset nearby so that future users are alerted to be sure which disk they have found and don't get erroneous results.

 

2. You are probably right, but since both of these were SCALED sets of coordinates, it isn't a big deal. Submitting handheld coordinates with any FOUND report where the original was SCALED is the best remedy.

 

3. My guess is that the contractors will ignore the destruction of the tri station, and that NGS does not have the resources to do anything about it even if notified. I'd log a found, take pictures of the location, and then when it gets destroyed submit a destroyed report. It appears that tri stations, while sometimes useful, are less important in the days of GPS than elevation benchmarks. I think when they do differential measurements the distance between stations can be larger for horizontal work than for vertical.

 

4. NF report, stating the evidence you observed.

 

5. Deb may take this as a Destroyed when an identifiable building with disk is torn down. Worth a try. If not, then it is NF with explanation and "Presumed Destroyed".

 

6. Difficulty of access is not "Destroyed". Someone could decide it was worth the effort at some time in the future and recover this station. The description seems to indicate that there were only 2 reference marks, but they numbered them 16 and 18 as part of a series of stations somebody measured and wanted the number to match the field book entries.

 

7. The NGS data sheet indicates RM1 and RM2 were originally set, but one was destroyed so they set a new disk, and the other was a mark in rock that was replaced with a disk. Any time they set new RMs they increment the number. Check the 'box score' on the data sheet to see if their azimuths to the RMs make sense.

Edited May 31, 2006 by Bill93

[+Spoo]

Hi Bill

 

In my reports, I have done all the things you listed in 1-5. Photos and comments are available on GC.com and it appears that NGS has already posted my findings!

 

I hear what you are saying about RESET marks not always being in the database due to lost or incorrect paperwork, meaning they may no longer meet NGS criteria for accuracy. But this goes back further to NOT removing the original data if a RESET, no matter how ill concieved, was submitted.

 

I guess I have no comment to #6. I just had never seen RM's listed at such high numbers. And Junipers are a terrible detriment to locating marks. More often they have beaten me rather than Vice versa.

 

As for #7.......The history is vague at best. No data from the original 1934 monumenting......then the vague description from 1977 saying RM 1 and 2 were not found and they were replaced with 3 and 4.......but no reason given as to why #4 points somewhere else.

 

I think my real question here is whether or not NGS cares about these marks being lost and incorrectly carried in the database. Hopefully my updates will help any future surveyor looking for these items.

[+m&h]

Spoo--

 

In reference to point 2 in your first message, we also have found two datasheets whose coordinates appear to have been swapped, and they're adjusted coordinates. A couple of broadcasting masts. We haven't reported to NGS on these yet, because ownership of the masts has changed since the latest recovery reports, and we want to get to the courthouse to make sure we're talking about the right properties. We're pretty busy with other things right now, so it could be a while. But we wanted you to know that we don't think you're crazy.

 

One of us used to live in Brunswick, and enjoys hearing your reports from those parts.

 

Cheers,