Jump to content

Destroyed in good condition


68-eldo

Recommended Posts

I found the disk for TU0636 in apparently good condition except for one thing that might be easily overlooked. I was suspicious of this mark when I went to look for it because I know a little history of the area. There has been a major road realignment project done since 1969. The problem is to prove the mark was disturbed.

 

DESCRIBED BY COAST AND GEODETIC SURVEY 1969 1.65 MI NE FROM EWA. 0.8 MILE NORTHEAST ALONG RENTON ROAD FROM THE POST OFFICE AT EWA, THENCE 0.85 MILE NORTH ALONG FORT WEAVER ROAD, IN THE NORTH CORNER OF THE LOWER CONCRETE BASE FOR A LAVA ROCK MONUMENT WITH IRON PLAQUE COMMEMORATING SITE OF FIRST ARTESIAN WELL, 23.0 FEET NORTHEAST OF THE CENTER LINE OF THE ROAD, 3.9 FEET SOUTH OF THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF A 12-FOOT-LONG LAVA ROCK RETAINING WALL WHICH IS IN BACK OF THE MONUMENT, 4.5 FEET NORTHEAST OF THE SOUTHWEST EDGE OF THE BASE, 53.7 FEET NORTHWEST OF TELEPHONE POLE 140, AND ABOUT LEVEL WITH THE ROAD.

 

According to the description the disk was placed in the Northeast corner of the base of the historical marker. I found the mark in the southwest corner at hand held coordinates N 21° 21.614 W 158° 01.777. That is an error of 1194ft from the listed coordinates but that is scaled so the error there could have been caused when it was scaled off.

 

If you look at the TerraServer map and zoom in you will get the 1983 topo map. In that you can see that Fort Weaver Road is a two lane road that wanders through the town of Honouliuli on its way to Ewa Beach. TU0636 is marked as BM 25 on the map.

 

If you look at the same area on the Topozone map you get a newer version and you can see Fort Weaver Road is now an extension of Kunia Road and has become a 4 lane divided highway that makes a much straighter line to Ewa Beach and bypasses the town of Honouliuli. A portion of the original road is still in use and named Old Fort Weaver Road. The distances from the center lines of the roads are no longer valid. There is no lava rock retaining wall within 100 ft. of the monument. The only remaining thing to measure to is power pole 140. I found the power pole on an abandoned fragment of the original road. This area is very overgrown. Hand held coordinates for power pole 140 is N 21 21 30.8, W 158 01 49.50. According to GeoCalc that is 667.5 ft from the hand held coordinates of where I found the disk. That’s a big difference from the 53.7 feet as listed in the description.

 

What do you think? Is this one destroyed as far as a surveyor would be concerned? Is this sufficient proof the mark has been moved?

Link to comment

The other question to ask is what is the setting really supposed to be?

 

From the datasheet -- Designation: U 13

Marker Type: bench mark disk

Setting: in rock outcrop

 

Different than set in a monument.

 

John

 

I noticed that but considered it a moot point since I found the disk mounted as described in the text. Should I upload better pictures?

Link to comment

So you're saying that the historical monument and its concrete base have been moved? If that's the case, then the bench mark DATA as previously measured and processed is useless for surveying or geodetic purposes. (The mark itself, the disk, could be re-measured and its coordinates changed to reflect its new position, but I don't know that they do that, given the possibility for confusion.)

 

As far as logging is concerned, most geocachers would log this as a "found," since they did find the disk. Others might log this as "not found." Either way, a good description of what you found and your concerns is mandatory.

 

If you report to NGS, you could report it as "not found," since the disk is no longer at its original position. This is apparently what was done just a few months ago by Hawaii DOT in the latest NGS report on this PID. Or, possibly better, you could report is as "found in poor condition," with an explanation in the text of where you found it and why you think it is no longer suitable for survey or geodetic work. The phrase "use with caution," which Deb Brown suggested to me, seems appropriate in this case. In other words, you are telling the surveyor, this is what seems to me to be the case, but if you know better, go ahead and use this bench mark.

 

Good detective work!

 

-ArtMan-

Link to comment

68-Eldo,

 

The only real solution here would be to go find station "6 8" or "T 13" and run a closed level loop to "U 13". Everything is pure speculation that you have done to this point; the only conclusive evidence would be to verify the elevation.

 

This is what any surveyor would do who would need to use this point for vertical control. Another quick check for a surveyor would be to take a good GPS position on this point, one or two of the other local bench marks for verification.

 

You may be right on the money as far as your hypothesis about this mark, but the proof is in the verification.

 

CallawayMT

Link to comment

I have found one that was moved along with the historical monument, 2 times but is gone now. I am very familar with the AP so I know what has taken place in building construction over the years.

SG0012 STATION RECOVERY (1975)

SG0012

SG0012'RECOVERY NOTE BY NATIONAL GEODETIC SURVEY 1975

SG0012'A NEW AIRPORT TERMINAL BUILDING HAS BEEN CONSTRUCTED AND THE OLD

SG0012'TERMINAL BUILDING IS NOW OCCUPIED BY THE PECKHAM ENGINEERING CO.

SG0012

SG0012 STATION RECOVERY (1996)

SG0012

SG0012'RECOVERY NOTE BY MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 1996 (BRT)

SG0012'--CAUTION--CAUTION--CAUTION--CAUTION THE CONCRETE BASE AND THE

SG0012'MEMORIAL PLAQUE HAVE BEEN RELOCATED TO THE NEW AIRPORT TERMINAL

SG0012'BUILDING (DEDICATED IN 1970) . THE EXACT DATE THIS WAS DONE IS UNKNOWN

SG0012'BUT IN ALL PROBABILITY AFTER THE 1975 RECOVERY. THE DISK CANNOT BE

SG0012'REMOVED FROM THE PLAQUE BASE WITHOUT THE POSSIBILITY OF DOING

SG0012'EXTENSIVE DAMAGE TO THE MONUMENT. NOT SUITABLE FOR SATELITE

SG0012'OBSERVATIONS DUE TO THE NATURE OF THE SETTING.

SG0012

SG0012 STATION RECOVERY (2001)

SG0012

SG0012'RECOVERY NOTE BY MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 2001 (MPR)

SG0012'THE AIRPORT MEMORIAL PLAQUE HAS BEEN RELOCATED AGAIN, IN 2000. NEW

SG0012'BASE, NO SURVEY DISK. CONSIDER THIS MARK DESTROYED.

Edited by Z15
Link to comment

The benchmakrk on the bench

 

This is reminiscent of a tidal bench mark in Bar Harbor Maine. I was there last June but had no datasheets since this was not supposed to be a benchmarking trip. I had an hour or so free, and so I proweled around the docks looking for tidal marks and sure enough I found 4 or 5. When I got back I discovered one of them (PE0283) which was mounted on a park bench which had been removed during relandscaping of the area and then put back at a different spot. Luckily, Zhanna had visited the site the year before and at that point the park bench was missing, so she logged it as destroyed.

 

Naturally lots of folks "Found" it anyway, even though if you look through the logs you see 3 or 4 entries to the effect that this mark is destroyed.

 

Bottom line: sometimes during construction projects things get moved (like the historic plaque or the park bench) and I suspect that's what happened to 68-eldo's find. I suspect that when constrution crews discover these disks, they think they are doing someone a favor by preserving them and then putting them back, not realizing they may cause confusion or errors.

 

Just "to be sure" I made the following NGS log for this mark:

PE0283 STATION RECOVERY (2005)

PE0283

PE0283'RECOVERY NOTE BY NATIONAL GEODETIC SURVEY 2005 (DB)

PE0283'THIS REPORT WAS SUBMITTED BY ZHANNA.

PE0283

PE0283 STATION RECOVERY (2006)

PE0283

PE0283'RECOVERY NOTE BY GEOCACHING 2006 (RG)

PE0283'NOTE - AS PREVIOUSLY REPORTED TO THE NGS THIS MARK WAS DESTROYED WHEN

PE0283'THE GRANITE PARK BENCH ON WHICH THE DISK WAS MOUNTED WAS REMOVED

PE0283'DURING A RENOVATION OF THE PARK IN 2005. THE GRANITE PARK BENCH, WITH

PE0283'THE DISK STILL MOUNTED ON IT, HAS SINCE BE RESTORED TO THE PARK IN A

PE0283'DIFFERENT LOCATION AND AT A DIFFERENT ELEVATION. IN NO CASE SHOULD

PE0283'THIS MARK BE USED FOR ANY GEODETIC CONTROL PURPOSES.

Just makes our game more interesting ...

Edited by Papa-Bear-NYC
Link to comment

68-eldo

 

You found the disk described by being willing to accept the fact that the original description may have contained errors. Good Job!! As ArtMan has pointed out, unless the monument and its base have been moved, (can you offer any conjecture on that possibility?), the elevation of the mark is probably good. That is the only piece of measurement information that a surveyor is going to rely on with regard to this marker.

 

As CallawayMT proposed, a remeasurement of the elevation may be in order to verify its accuracy, and could be accomplished by the folks at Hawaii DOT, who I suspect would be happy to hear that you found the mark when they couldn't.

 

Once it is determined whether the mark perpetuates an accurate elevation, (its sole purpose), appropriate action can be taken to either correct the original description, declare the mark destroyed, or establish a new record of the mark with its actual elevation.

 

Holtie22

Link to comment

68-eldo

 

You found the disk described by being willing to accept the fact that the original description may have contained errors. Good Job!! As ArtMan has pointed out, unless the monument and its base have been moved, (can you offer any conjecture on that possibility?), the elevation of the mark is probably good.

 

Holtie22

 

After rereading my original post I see I never actually said I believe the historical monument was moved. But that is in fact what I believe. The monument was originally on the northeast side of the now abandoned fragment of Fort Weaver Road located 53 feet from power pole 140 and faced the road (southwest). The monument is now located on the southwest side of the new road and faces northeast and is more that 600 feet from the power pole. So yes I believe the monument was moved to be close to and visible from the new road.

 

I believe this mark is dangerous because it can be found by just using a part of the to reach information. I found it and another geocacher came close to finding it all because we knew about the historical marker. A surveyor could do the same thing and not realize the elevation data is no longer valid.

 

I did notice that State DOT did not find the mark. But then they did not find TU0631 after I posted new information that helped a couple of Geocachers find it.

I would like to find who maintains the data base for the State Survey markers. I would like to report my finds to them and maybe look for marks not on the NGS database. I have found at least two SS markers not on the NGS data base.

 

Thanks for all the comments. Right now I am inclined to report this as found poor with my reasons for thinking it has been moved. All these comments will help me refine my report. Thanks.

Link to comment

 

After rereading my original post I see I never actually said I believe the historical monument was moved. But that is in fact what I believe. The monument was originally on the northeast side of the now abandoned fragment of Fort Weaver Road located 53 feet from power pole 140 and faced the road (southwest). The monument is now located on the southwest side of the new road and faces northeast and is more that 600 feet from the power pole. So yes I believe the monument was moved to be close to and visible from the new road.

 

...

 

Thanks for all the comments. Right now I am inclined to report this as found poor with my reasons for thinking it has been moved. All these comments will help me refine my report. Thanks.

There is one thing you could do which might clinch it. Write to the highway department and/or to the local surveyors professional association and ask if there are any records available for when the highwqay was widened. You would be surprised. I recall in discussion of the "Willamette Stone" (see This thread) one of the posters (CallawayMT) had actually corresponded with the surveyor who installed the disk which replaced the stone and in another case an acquaintance of mine corresponded with the IBC surveyor who uncovered and reburied the "Crown Monument" (see QH0502). These folks are out there and you just might be able to find them.

Edited by Papa-Bear-NYC
Link to comment
I suspect that when constrution crews discover these disks, they think they are doing someone a favor by preserving them and then putting them back, not realizing they may cause confusion or errors.

 

We encountered this on several occasions over the years. Once I discovered a recently disturbed mark out of the ground (broken offer 12in dia post) on my way home one weekend. Came back the next week to get the disk and the concrete was back in the ground. The underground cable contractor saw me looking at it and must have done it. Wrapped a chain around the post to the back of the suburban and pulled it out of the ground per instructions from NGS.

Edited by Z15
Link to comment

There is one thing you could do which might clinch it. Write to the highway department and/or to the local surveyors professional association and ask if there are any records available for when the highwqay was widened. You would be surprised. I recall in discussion of the "Willamette Stone" (see This thread) one of the posters (CallawayMT) had actually corresponded with the surveyor who installed the disk which replaced the stone and in another case an acquaintance of mine corresponded with the IBC surveyor who uncovered and reburied the "Crown Monument" (see QH0502). These folks are out there and you just might be able to find them.

 

I have thought of that. As I mentioned above I would like to find the keeper of the State data base so I can look at the data sheets for these marks.

 

I was looking at the bridges along the new section of Fort Weaver Road to see if any had dates on them. I think they were all obliterated by the installation of metal guard rails attached to them.

 

I don’t think the local surveyors use the NGS data base but use the State data sheets instead. It probably meets their needs better as it may show more local marks and may have more up to date information. I know I’ve seen evidence of use on marks that are not in the NGS database. But thats only my impression.

 

I found there is a survey’s supply store near my house. I went up there and talked to the guy in back that was working on the instruments for over an hour about Geocaching and benchmark hunting, the Iraq war, Gun Fire control for Navy ships, local Coast Artillery forts and more. End result he did not know that much about benchmarks or how to get information about them. Maybe I need to snag customers coming in the door.

 

I have not had a lot of time for benchmark hunting but I just declared Friday as benchmark day (we’ll see how long that last). So maybe I can make some progress in these things we’re talking about here.

 

Thanks for all the feedback.

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.

Guest
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.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...