FV1653 Missing Superstructure

[+bvrballs]

In recovering FV1653, I have run into a question. The mark is a 4 foot high, 7 foot diameter, wood hexagonal superstructure on top of a water tank. The water tank is there. The wood superstructure is not. Based on my past experience with NGS (Deb Brown suggested reporting EW2395 as recovered in poor condition because all that was there was the mounting stem and half a circle of epoxy), I am inclined to report the recovery as poor for the same reason. The mounting location is still there, the tank, but the mark is gone, the superstructure. Suggestions?

 

Scott

[+m&h]

Good eye. First thing to do is to be certain that the present tank is the one described in 1952. We've sometimes had to make phone calls to water companies to get such information.

 

If it's the same tank, its top center remains very close to the point intersected. (Note the slight tentativeness in the description about whether the superstructure was what was sighted on). In this case we'd probably report the station as found but poor.

 

Something to consider is that this is an intersection station of a sort that is rarely used by professionals any more, especially when the mark is of third-order accuracy. We sometimes knock ourselves out being sure about these, but we do it for the pleasure of the chase, suspecting that the pros are mostly not very interested.

[+bvrballs]

A call to the CA Parks Dept. (several actually, but finally got to the right person) shows that this is indeed the tank. They remember an entrance to the tank (this was probably the "superstructure"), but that was removed when the roof to the tank was replaced in 84 or 85. I agree with your statement that we do it for ourselves more than the pros. If the NGS really didn't care at all, I suppose they would remove the intersection marks from the database, so there is at least SOME interest on their end as well.

 

Scott

 

Good eye. First thing to do is to be certain that the present tank is the one described in 1952. We've sometimes had to make phone calls to water companies to get such information.

 

If it's the same tank, its top center remains very close to the point intersected. (Note the slight tentativeness in the description about whether the superstructure was what was sighted on). In this case we'd probably report the station as found but poor.

 

Something to consider is that this is an intersection station of a sort that is rarely used by professionals any more, especially when the mark is of third-order accuracy. We sometimes knock ourselves out being sure about these, but we do it for the pleasure of the chase, suspecting that the pros are mostly not very interested.

Edited December 17, 2006 by bvrballs

[+m&h]

Very good and careful work. We absolutely agree that there is some interest at NGS in these third-order intersection stations, and when we have definite information about them we report it, if enough time has elapsed since the last report.

 

It happens that we are able to watch from our house as the destruction of SY2898, SY2899, and SY2912 (two power line towers and a light on top of one of them) moves toward its conclusion. We're assembling the report as useful photos can be taken.