What do we want in a Benchmark submission page?

[+BuckBrooke]

Greetings.

Dave Doyle (Grand Poobah), Steve Randall (Asst. Grand Poobah) and Casey Randall (Chief Cook and Bottle-Washer) have commented that our feedback is useful. For example, submitted hand held coordinates will be handled more systematically.

 

So, here's some feedback, that I hope other folks will chime in on.

 

There's more information that I can provide when I make a submission for a station than what I add right now. Other folks have brought up the fact that they'd like to submit the MARK_LOGO, STAMPING and other data categories to improve each station. I would like to see those as submission options.

 

MARK_LOGO could be a drop down menu of all of the agencies in the list, or maybe the top 20 in one drop-down menu with Other as an option. If you choose other you get another drop-down with the full list.

 

STAMPING could be a text entry box, with a few examples and a side link as a tutorial.

 

MARKER could be similar, as there's a number of stations that don't have a marker type listed.

 

SP_SET might also be useful, as would SETTING.

 

However the photos are done is cool.

 

What the NGS does with the information is up to them, but...

 

I would like a "Other comments" section, that would let you point out typos, duplicate reports or other errors in the current data sheet, etc.

[+Black Dog Trackers]

A few more thoughts...

 

Presumably handheld coordinates would be part of the form.

If so, there should be 2 boxes, one for N and one for W so that there would be less chance for error and the form could do some error checking. Also, the input format should be free-format so that DDD MM.MMM or DDD MM SS.S or DDD.DDDDD could be input and the form itself would do the conversion and reject the input immediately if the data was entered incomprehensibly or was more than X distance from the published coordinates. The form should do the format conversion, not the person doing the entry!!!!

 

From my reading of DaveD's recent post on HD_HELD1 and 2, there should be 2 checkboxes;

__ Augmented GPS (WAAS, NDGPS, or RTK)

__ Unaugmented GPS

 

The subject of the _SETTING, _SP_SET, _STAMPING, _MARK LOGO data items is complex.

There are 3 situations for each:

1. Currently, the PID entry does not have the item

2. Currently, the PID entry has the item wrong (perhaps it changed, or never was right)

3. Currently, the PID entry for the item is correct but the person doing the report thinks it is wrong

If the situation is #3, the entry might be contradicting what professional surveyors entered knowledgeably and accurately when submitting the information. An amateur's opinion of what to change might be a real problem. Situation #1, is not nearly so tricky. This stuff should be discussed on the NGS webpage on mark recovery.

 

It should be understood by the person entering the data that _SP_SET is usually not necessary, _STAMPING should not include 'mark logo' information, and other stuff. (I still find it shocking that the NGS doesn't have a whole lot more instruction on mark recovery on its webpages.)

 

I like the idea of dropdown menus, especially for the standard lists from the Hippopotamus file's Monumentation Code and Setting Code.

The _SP_SET is nonstandard by definition (some examples here) so a dropdown menu might not be useful.

The _MARK LOGO should be organized by National, then by State, since it is so long. Probably the (ST) part should be in front, not in back, of each entry.

[ArtMan]

Election day is just over a week from now, and many of us will be voting on so-called DRE, or computerized voting machines. Typically, at the end of the process there is a confirmation screen indicating how all your votes will be tallied, and giving you a chance to go back and change your vote if you erred.

 

(Of course, if you're voting on a Diebold machine, all bets are off! Just kidding, I hope.)

 

Anyway, I'd like to see something similar on the NGS reporting page. I say this as someone who tends to sit down and do a bunch of reports at one time, and sometimes after completing one report I have forgotten to change the radio button from "found" to "not found" or vice versa after I back up to the start page and submit a second.

 

A modest use of color and typographical enhancements would be appropriate, e.g.

You are reporting station STAUNTON (HV3497) as

found

in

good

condition.

You are reporting station STAUNTON (HV3497) as

not found

.

In fact, instead of using the browser's back button to return to a page where all the irrelevant old information must be deleted before adding new information — which in my experience is a procedure that is far from error-resistant — maybe a better approach would be to advance to a new data entry page where the personal data is pre-entered, but the mark-related data is blank.

 

______

 

On another topic, I have found a significant number of marks to be placed in the wrong jurisdiction. Sometimes these are random, when a mark is labeled as being in county X when it is actually across the line in county Y. Sometimes they are historic, as when the city of Richmond, Virginia, annexed part of neighboring Chesterfield County. (In Virginia, there are about 40 independent cities, which are jurisdictionally separate from and are equivalent to a county. Therefore, these marks should be changed from VA/CHESTERFIELD to VA/C OF RICHMOND.)

 

Sometimes I have identified these on a site visit; other times I've plotted marks on a topo map (thanks to Doug Cox's excellent USAPhotoMaps). The current procedure is to email this info to Cheryl Malone, and for bulk submissions maybe that's still the best way, but it seems that when submitting a recovery report there ought to be a way to submit corrected county data at the same time.

______

 

I would like to see a larger box for entry of the narrative text.

______

 

I may have more later.

 

-ArtMan-

[+PFF]

ArtMan wrote:

 

Instead of using the browser's back button to return to a page where all the irrelevant old information must be deleted before adding new information — which in my experience is a procedure that is far from error-resistant — maybe a better approach would be to advance to a new data entry page where the personal data is pre-entered, but the mark-related data is blank.

 

This suggestion has merit. The number of pages to "backspace" varies from two to three (based upon the not found or found selection). I group all the "not found" benchmarks together when doing submissions. That way, I can get into a pattern of going back two or going back three.

 

Other than the "autofill" recommendation above, I don't see any need to add fields for stamping, monumenting agency, etc. The data sheet is a historical record of the station. My vote would be to let the original information remain, unmodified. Your description can include HH2 coordinates, and/or notes about the stamping and setting.

 

To me, it is the same principle as adding revised "to reach" information. If a later submission contains an error, it is in the descriptions, and not in the heading. By following the historical account, users can "work around" an error. This would be very difficult if the headers were changed--erasing previous info.

 

Everyone using the NGS database knows to read from bottom to top. I will be entering the following for FY1860:

"DELETE REFERENCE TO HOUSE, WHICH HAS BEEN REMOVED. THE SIDEWALK AND TREE REFERENCES REMAIN VALID. MARK IS RECESSED 2 CM. SATELLITE OBSERVATIONS MAY BE POOR DUE TO CANOPY."

 

Once this is published, I doubt that anyone will show up at the site, looking for a house. But they will know that the sidewalk is there.

 

-Paul-

[+Black Dog Trackers]

In these forums there have been discussions of some instances in which the headers have been incorrect. What happens is that the header still has the monumentation type of the original mark but the original mark has been changed from some non-disk to a disk, as per the description by a survey party. In these instances I see no reason why the _MARKER TYPE should not be changed to the current type of marker at that PID.

 

Althought I've seen better examples, one that I found is this station which has a marker type of Drill Hole (code H), but a bolt was put in, so it should've been changed to Bolt (code B ).

 

A more interesting case is this marker that has some problems. I chose to look for this mark, hoping to find a new type of disk, since the History has a MONUMENTATION by WVHD. The _STAMPING says "1051 W VA" but, for clarity, it should say "1051WVA RESET 1957". Also there's no _MARK LOGO, but it might be helpful to have one that says "USGS" since it is a USGS disk, not a WVHD disk.

 

Another case is GP0514 BISSEL, a miserable situation discussed here. Spoiler: at the end of the story, the disk is confirmed to have the wrong designation stamped on it. Probably the designation should not be changed at this point, but a _STAMPING item certainly would help a lot!

 

Of course it is true that this is tricky stuff! There is a chance that what I found for 1051 WVA is not the proper disk, but I think the probability of that is very low.

 

I believe that, just because there might be some new dropdown boxes or text entry boxes on an NGS mark recovery form, this does not mean that the submissions will go in without review. I assume that they are reviewed now, and will be reviewed then as well. A fancier form would just give more opportuntity to communicate a report. I think the communication would not absolutely mean that the current header fields would be changed as the result of a report saying they should be changed. This all depends on what the NGS policy would be on such entries.

[Wintertime]

I believe that, just because there might be some new dropdown boxes or text entry boxes on an NGS mark recovery form, this does not mean that the submissions will go in without review. I assume that they are reviewed now, and will be reviewed then as well. A fancier form would just give more opportuntity to communicate a report. I think the communication would not absolutely mean that the current header fields would be changed as the result of a report saying they should be changed. This all depends on what the NGS policy would be on such entries.

 

Two questions:

 

1. Are all recovery reports currently reviewed? I thought they were, but a friend recently said that datasheets were being updated quickly while Deb was out on leave, so he figures that the reports are processed automatically.

 

2. Even if they are reviewed, unless we include photos (and maybe these other changes wouldn't take place until that capability is added), how would the reviewers know whether our changes to stamping information and such are accurate? Yes, I know that on some level, they just have to trust us. But it seems to me we're asking for a higher level of trust when we say, "Yes, the station is still there, but the third digit is a 3, not a 5," than when we simply say "Yes, the station is still there." Makes me a little nervous. Of course, I realize that I wouldn't have to put any comments in that field I weren't sure there was an error in the existing datasheet.

 

Patty

[+Black Dog Trackers]

I assume that while Deb was out on leave, other people at NGS were filling in and perhaps she was working from home as well, I don't know.

 

In any case, all this is up to the NGS, certainly not us. They will make the determination of how to handle these ideas. I figure we're just talking about the ideas and they will pick and choose from them or reject them all as per their interests. Apparently at this point, they're not dismissing them immediately.

[+Harry Dolphin]

In fact, instead of using the browser's back button to return to a page where all the irrelevant old information must be deleted before adding new information — which in my experience is a procedure that is far from error-resistant — maybe a better approach would be to advance to a new data entry page where the personal data is pre-entered, but the mark-related data is blank.

 

Here, here! I hate it when I page back, and have to re-enter all the personal data!

 

______

 

On another topic, I have found a significant number of marks to be placed in the wrong jurisdiction. Sometimes these are random, when a mark is labeled as being in county X when it is actually across the line in county Y. Sometimes they are historic, as when the city of Richmond, Virginia, annexed part of neighboring Chesterfield County. (In Virginia, there are about 40 independent cities, which are jurisdictionally separate from and are equivalent to a county. Therefore, these marks should be changed from VA/CHESTERFIELD to VA/C OF RICHMOND.)

 

I've only run across one in the wrong jurisdiction. I noted it in my report to Deb, but it's sitll in the wrong county. Should I report this to Cheryl instead?

[ArtMan]

My back button retains all the information filled in, both personal and mark-specific. I'm using Firefox. What are you using?

 

Cheryl Malone gets the wrong-county reports.

 

-ArtMan-

[+Harry Dolphin]

I use MSIE6. After three or four reports, all the info disappears when I page back, and I have to e-enter. I figured there was a time-out problem.

[lost02]

We have IE 6 too. A month or so ago we had the same problem (losing the info), but the last submissions we did (40+) all worked OK with the back arrow.

[+Ernmark]

I'm not sure if this is definitely the culprit, but I seem to notice the "disappearing info" problem when I have another (IE6) window open to the datasheet page & am doing PID searches at the same time I have the submit recovery page open....lately I enter all the PIDS in the datasheet retrieval page at the same time & "let them sit" & I don't seem to have the recovery info in the other window disappear...

[+BuckBrooke]

Deb has been handling the entries from home. She goes through all of them.

 

I second the notion of getting the new recovery entry sheet when you're done with the last one, instead of paging back.

 

The color coding of information on the confirmation page is a good idea. I would like to have the confirmation page be uniform for whatever status you enter on the mark, FOUND, NOT FOUND, POOR, etc.

 

An option for the STAMPING, MARK_LOGO (and others?) is that those fields are greyed out until you load a photo. Then, you get to enter them. On the other hand, I do think they should be easily entered if there's no value in the datasheet currently.

Edited October 30, 2006 by BuckBrooke

[+PFF]

It's interesting to read about the "disappearing" info. I have not experienced this--even when entering twenty or more recovery reports in one session.

 

The only windows open are: IE, on the NGS site, and WORD, where I copy the text to paste in the description box. I toggle back and forth. My data always remains when I page back.

 

-Paul-

[mloser]

I haven't checked in on this discussion because I don't really have a strong opinion. To me, the information they ask for should be what they need and that is all.

 

For instance, if they want us to officially enter hand held info it would be great to have a spot for it. If they feel that would invite poor entries then it is probably left to be entered in the description.

 

I agree it would be nice if you didn't have to page back to reenter a new recovery, but at the same time I don't want to lose the entered information, as I often enter in a batch mode, where I keep some of the information the same (RAILROAD IS ABANDONED AND TRACKS REMOVED is a common thread). It would be nice if the status defaulted to a blank so that my most common mistake--to page back and enter the next mark along a line, but without changing the status, would result in an error message and not an email to Deb to change the status.

 

I have also never experienced a loss of data when I paged back. I am a devoted IE hater and Firefox user, but I don't recall it happening on either browser.

[+Klemmer]

All sound like good ideas - the NGS folks can pick and choose what works for them.

 

Long time Firefox user (and Netscape before that), IE "strong disliker". No data loss on paging backing. We have TABBED browsing - I normally have a Tab open for the NGS recovery page, another tab open for the NGS Datasheet, and a third tab open to the GC.com BM page. Works great, just jump back & forth with tabs. I can't believe IE 6.x doesn't have tabs. Maybe IE 7.0 will......

[ArtMan]

I can't believe IE 6.x doesn't have tabs. Maybe IE 7.0 will......

No maybe about it. I'm also a Firefox guy, but I will update my IE since some sites — financial ones, improbably, seem to be the biggest group that insist on insecurity-ridden IE — require it. Much of the press about IE 7.0 has focused on how they are finally catching up and introducing tabbed browsing.

 

–ArtMan–

[mloser]

IE 7 is finally available and has tabbed browsing. I used a beta of it for a while but eventually gravitated back to Firefox.

[caseyb]

Greetings.

Dave Doyle (Grand Poobah), Steve Randall (Asst. Grand Poobah) and Casey Randall (Chief Cook and Bottle-Washer) have commented that our feedback is useful. For example, submitted hand held coordinates will be handled more systematically.

 

 

First of all, its Casey Brennan, not Randall! There is no family relation between me and him (thank god!).

 

As for Chief cook and Bottle-Washer......

 

NGS is in the process of re-doing our website. I am going to pass these threads along to our new Webmaster and let him know of your suggestions.

 

-Casey-

[+BuckBrooke]

Casey,

Sorry about the typo. I didn't read carefully enough. Having two Randalls, or two Brennans, on the NGS team would be scary.

 

As GEOCAC has now become the largest agency submitting recovery reports (thanks for the statistic, holograph), I'm glad ya'll are listening to our feedback.

 

I'm not sure if it was mentioned it before, but I REALLY would like to have the confirmation page show all of the info I've inputted.

 

Also, the GPS visibility should be a choice between 3 radial buttons on the submission page, instead of an additional page to click through. This would let me set it to "I don't know", which I always do, and leave that alone through the recoveries. It would also allow easy changes for people who give more specific information (YES/NO) for each station.

[ArtMan]

I just stumbled on a perfect example of why the current system needs fixing.

 

Take a look at the NGS datasheets for GV2493 and GV2536. Note the 2006 recovery reports entered by U.S. Power Squadrons member EEC. They are both identical.

 

I visited both these stations yesterday. The reference to route 663 refers to GV2493. There is no route 663 near the other station.

 

One has to conclude that EEC first entered the information for GV2493, then after finishing that process he backed up to the main recovery page and changed the PID to GV2536 but failed to clear the text he had entered for his previous report.

 

I'll send an email to Deb to alert her to this, but I think it does illustrate the importance of idiot-proofing the process. (And I've been that idiot, so I know!)

 

-ArtMan-

[+GEO*Trailblazer 1]

Maybe I am Old fashioned but I like the current NGS data recovery form.

Now yoa know we been a doin it that way fur years.

 

It would be nice to add a button for images and hand held coordinates.

 

If we get too many things to change it may lead to even more errors.

 

All new info can be added to what is already there in the note section.

To further it's Historical value.

 

Just simple thing are better someties.