A Satisfying Find!

[+Holtie22]

I've had my eye on this station for some time since getting into benchmark hunting. Punley Hill 1874 was part of an early triangulation network bringing Third Order horizontal geodetic control to West Lebanon, NH. It was searched for, but not found in 1956 at which time the change in the name of the hill from Punley to Crafts Hill was noted. It was once again not recovered in 1966, although for some reason the condition is listed as Good.

 

I was somewhat skeptical about the chances of finding it, and indeed might not have proceeded to look, except that when I started driving to the site I realized that I could drive right to the top of the hill! The summit ridge, (oriented N-S), is now occupied by such an array of comunications towers with support buildings that at first glance I felt the station must have succumbed to a bulldozer.

 

As I followed my GPS, however, I got more and more excited when it became apparent that the coordinates were leading me to a location that was in between tower sites, and relatively undisturbed. The access road passed within 18 feet of a rocky outcrop near ground zero. I got out the magnetic locator, (a Schonstedt I use for finding property corners and such), and found the bolt within seconds!

 

The mark is a 3/4" rod protruding about 3" from the ledge, and very old. This station would have had a target installed on a tall post with a hole in the bottom end to receive the bolt, over which the target would be plumbed, all secured by guy wires. Only the bolt remains.

 

GPS is certainly an amazing tool in the recovery of geodetic control stations, particularly those that have seen little use since being established. The alternative, measuring to the station by classical means, was impractical even in 1956, and remains so today, as sight lines have become overgrown and hilltops developed.

 

Thanks for listening to my tale of discovery! You are probably the only group that can truly appreciate my excitement in making this recovery. I have posted some pictures on the geocaching site linked above, and have made a recovery report to NGS. I report as an individual surveyor rather than as a geocacher, but I am hoping that Holograph will include my stats in his monthly reports. I have sent him an email with that request.

[+NorthWes]

Congrats on the find - and thanks for giving us an example of why we should keep looking!

[Max Cacher]

very cool

 

Max

[2oldfarts (the rockhounders)]

Fantastic!

 

There's nothing more satisfying than finding the really old ones, except finding one that has been missing for so long!

 

John

[+Klemmer]

Nice going!

[holograph]

I report as an individual surveyor rather than as a geocacher, but I am hoping that Holograph will include my stats in his monthly reports. I have sent him an email with that request.

 

I haven't received that email, but I will be glad to add you to the list of individual surveyors. Try sending that email again. Or just let me know what initials you use.

[+slippeddisk]

A great tale of discovery! Thanks for sharing.

[AZcachemeister]

Good job!

Obsessio...er Persistence pays off!

[+GEO*Trailblazer 1]

That is the stories I like reading about.

 

Keep up the good work.

 

Yes it is amazing what you can do with a GPS and Computer.

I have found many azimuths and reference marks by plotting them out first with the NGS data sheet and GPSTrackmaker.

 

Make the points and go,not as much work in thinking that way.

[mloser]

To me these are some of the best marks to find--the ones that remain as they were when set. It almost lets you feel the history, and to imagine the crews setting and using them mark more than 100 years ago. My favorite was Barry 1885, which was not only untouched, but also unreported since it was monumented. I found it on a miserable rainy day after a pretty long search because every wet rock pretty much resembles every other wet rock, even square ones with chiseled letters. But find it I did, and I admit I actually made a sort of "ooh" noise out loud, despite being alone.

 

Finding previously unfound marks is also a great feeling. When the agency who didn't find it was the CGS or NGS we here all puff out our chests a bit and gloat even more. Sometimes I think we make a lot of a little in these instances--maybe the search parties were summer interns, new hires, or just lazy guys sent out on detestable missions. I try to relate it to some jobs that I have been assigned that I didn't put my best efforts into. Maybe they were having that sort of day. They were only human, after all. I spent about 2 hours looking for LIVERPOOL and its azimuth this weekend and felt great when I found all the marks. Granted, the previous not founds had been by the Power Squadron, and I suspect they were cursory searches, but I was really excited to find the azi, since none of the original references remained in their described form. It took a leap of faith to find that mark and I felt pretty darn good about it!

 

Yeah, I think obssession makes the difference! LOL

[Wintertime]

Congratulations on your find!

 

It was searched for, but not found in 1956 at which time the change in the name of the hill from Punley to Crafts Hill was noted. It was once again not recovered in 1966, although for some reason the condition is listed as Good.

I've seen that situation as well as the opposite: Condition listed as Not Found, but the description field gives to-reach instructions...

 

Patty

[mloser]

Patty,

I think those listings that say Not Found but give a description are ones that were entered that way into the computer system--probably the newer not found recovery was used to enter the data into the computer and that is why the description appears on that date and not on the monumented date. I have seen quite a few of those, both found and not found.

[+Harry Dolphin]

Finding previously unfound marks is also a great feeling. When the agency who didn't find it was the CGS or NGS we here all puff out our chests a bit and gloat even more. Sometimes I think we make a lot of a little in these instances--maybe the search parties were summer interns, new hires, or just lazy guys sent out on detestable missions. Yeah, I think obssession makes the difference! LOL

 

Old ones that have not been found are the most fun to find! Even if 1930 is not as old as 1874, and we don't hold much credence in NJGS logs for 1992. But KU3879 had not been found since 1930! We're going back with Papa-Bear-NYC soon, to look for the Reference Marks. Then, the three of us are going to spend the rest of the day trying to find KU4044! With obsession determination, we may actually find this one!!

[Wintertime]

Patty,

I think those listings that say Not Found but give a description are ones that were entered that way into the computer system--probably the newer not found recovery was used to enter the data into the computer and that is why the description appears on that date and not on the monumented date. I have seen quite a few of those, both found and not found.

So if I understand you correctly, are you saying that the to-reach description in, for example, the datasheet for HR0765 was probably actually written in 1935, even though the datasheet indicates that it's from 1958?

 

Patty

[mloser]

Patty,

 

That was always my impression, although sometimes there is additional text in the new description. I found one JV0109, that mentioned a bolt that was on a bridge, then went on to say there were no bridges at the specified location.

 

Unknown by PRR (MONUMENTED)

 

1/1/1955 by CGS (MARK NOT FOUND)

DESCRIBED BY COAST AND GEODETIC SURVEY 1955 0.3 MI S FROM WASHINGTON BORO. ABOUT 0.3 MILE SOUTH ALONG THE PENNSYLVANIA RAILROAD FROM THE STATION AT WASHINGTON BORO, LANCASTER COUNTY, AT A LARGE CULVERT UNDER THE WEST TRACK, AND IN THE NORTHEAST CORNER. NO CULVERT WAS FOUND SOUTH OF WASHINGTON BORO, HOWEVER A CULVERT WAS FOUND ABOUT 0.3 MILE NORTH OF TOWN. THE CULVERT HAS BEEN CAPPED WITH CONCRETE AND IF MARK WAS SET IN THIS CULVERT IT WOULD BE DESTROYED OR INACCESSABLE. IT APPEARS THAT THE MARK SHOULD BE NORTH OF TOWN AS IT FALLS BETWEEN MARKS WHICH ARE IN TOWN AND 0.9 MILE NORTHWEST

 

I think the bold is the original description, then the following part is from the 1955 attempted recovery.

 

DaveD... care to weigh in?