Mistaken geocacher logs

[+Harry Dolphin]

AARGH!! I know it's been brought up before: People logging the wrong thing for a benchmark.

Today, we went looking for LY2092. A bench mark disk set upon a stainless steel rod w/o sleeve (10 ft.+), driven into refusal. The witness post is still there. The power pole has been replaced. The highway appears to have been raised. My guess is that the disk is probably about four inches under the grade. I'll return, someday, with a shovel. (Digging on NPS property???)

And, there's a very nice log for the guy wire anchor for the replaced power pole!!!!

AARGH!!

[AZcachemeister]

I feel your pain, brother!

Take comfort in the fact that these people will probably never find the NGS website and log recoveries there!

[kayakingphotos]

I feel your pain, brother!

Take comfort in the fact that these people will probably never find the NGS website and log recoveries there!

 

I question if the person who logged MZ1940 (Geocaching page / NGS page) understood what they were looking for. Part of their NGS recovery report says "DISK RECOVERED". The thing that they should have been looking for was the ENTIRE 306 foot tall monument! They also indicated it was "SUITABLE FOR SATELLITE OBSERVATIONS". I guess that you COULD set up your GPS unit on the top when you change the bulb in the red aviation light on the top of the monument......

 

Patrick

[AZcachemeister]

I feel your pain, brother!

Take comfort in the fact that these people will probably never find the NGS website and log recoveries there!

 

I question if the person who logged MZ1940 (Geocaching page / NGS page) understood what they were looking for. Part of their NGS recovery report says "DISK RECOVERED". The thing that they should have been looking for was the ENTIRE 306 foot tall monument! They also indicated it was "SUITABLE FOR SATELLITE OBSERVATIONS". I guess that you COULD set up your GPS unit on the top when you change the bulb in the red aviation light on the top of the monument......

 

Patrick

 

I have always reported similar objects as 'suitable for satellite observations'. They are, aren't they?

[+m&h]

When you're considering suitability for satellite observations, are you a careful interpreter of definitions, or someone with a Trimble unit in the truck, wondering why nobody said it was against the law to climb the whatever? See, for example, Haystack Rock, off Cannon Beach, OR (PID RD2082).

[mloser]

We ARE lucky that most casual benchmarkers are not interested in reporting to the NGS, but when it does happen it is frustrating. MZ1940 is a great example of that instance, but a rare one, or at least I hope it is. The type of log submitted for MZ1940 is one of the reasons people here suggest that new benchmarkers wait a bit before reporting to the NGS, read a number of NGS recoveries, and try to pattern their reports after them. Wordiness is expected and welcome at GC.com (Papa Bear's recent recovery stores are among the best examples if you want to take a look), but is definitely NOT something that should be seen in NGS recoveries. Those should contain only facts, and even then only facts that pertain directly to locating the mark on the datasheet.

 

I have never seen a list of what sort of stations should be reported as SUITABLE FOR SATELLITE OBSERVATIONS, but I feel that intersection stations are not part of the group. Intersection stations are used to turn angles and check calculations for horizontal stations and as such are not occupied (meaning that someone actually goes to the location--the top of an antenna, the point of a steeple, vent of a water tank, etc.), both because they are normally not "occupiable" and because there is no need to actually have a presence on the structure in order to use it (Before I get in trouble, I will say that there are probably intersection stations that HAVE been occupied, but in general they are not).

 

The practice, as I have come to understand it, is that the surveyor sets up over a horizontal station, e.g. BLUFF. The main goal is to measure the angles to other horizontal stations, perhaps ONION PEAK. While doing this they would also check the station against local intersection stations such as HAYSTACK ROCK, which is listed on the BLUFF datasheet as being at an angle of 353.40044 degrees. This measurement, as well as others to other intersection stations, help them determine that their equipment is in the correct place, that their calculations are correct, and even if there have been movements of the earth's surface.

 

The end result, to me at least, is that, by their nature, intersection stations are SUITABLE for satellite observations in that they are tall and normally above any obstructions. But, also by their nature, they are not USABLE for satellite observations, since they are often unoccupiable, and they aren't used for that sort of thing anyway. So I simply check "Don't know" and the NGS sheet ends up with no notation.

[+The Leprechauns]

It's nice to have a thread every once in awhile to remind me why I haven't ever logged a benchmark.

[+Black Dog Trackers]

The Leprechauns -

 

I don't know what the "why" is you're referring to.

[Papa-Bear-NYC]

...

Wordiness is expected and welcome at GC.com (Papa Bear's recent recovery stores are among the best examples if you want to take a look), but is definitely NOT something that should be seen in NGS recoveries. Those should contain only facts, and even then only facts that pertain directly to locating the mark on the datasheet.

...

It's true I like to wax eloquent on GC logs. I use them for my own record keeping and sometime (any day now ) I hope to link them to my web site.

 

As for NGS logs, although economy of language is in order, and careful phrasing to avoid ambiguity, sometimes I add "extra" information that most users will enjoy reading. An example might be a little history of the mark that I happened to be aware of, for example, see KU0979 or KU0976.

 

I've noticed a few other regular loggers do the same. In particular one SSZ of the Port Authority of NY & NJ. Here's a couple of his: KU1786 and KU3532. I'm not sure it's part of his job or not, but he seems to go after all the historic or unusual marks in the NY area that also interest me. I'd like to meet him some day.

 

For a great example of interesting history, look at the 1954 log entry for that same station (KU3532).

Edited December 18, 2006 by Papa-Bear-NYC

[kayakingphotos]

I feel your pain, brother!

Take comfort in the fact that these people will probably never find the NGS website and log recoveries there!

 

I question if the person who logged MZ1940 (Geocaching page / NGS page) understood what they were looking for. Part of their NGS recovery report says "DISK RECOVERED". The thing that they should have been looking for was the ENTIRE 306 foot tall monument! They also indicated it was "SUITABLE FOR SATELLITE OBSERVATIONS". I guess that you COULD set up your GPS unit on the top when you change the bulb in the red aviation light on the top of the monument......

 

Patrick

 

I have always reported similar objects as 'suitable for satellite observations'. They are, aren't they?

 

This topic has been talked about before. There are two "options" for what the question is asking. 1 - Can you take a picture of the object from a satellite and 2 - Can you set up a high accuracy GPS unit and see the satellites that it needs to get a good position.

 

From the Professional surveyors on Geocaching and Deb Brown from the NGS, the answer is #2. Here is what the NGS page says: "Generally, a station is suitable for satellite observations if there is a clear and unobstructed view of the sky from approximately 15 degrees above the horizon at the location of the station. Small objects such as a light pole or small tree are excepted."

 

The threads that talk about this are Suitable For Satellite Observation? and Satellite Usage, What qualifies?

 

Patrick

 

p.s. - mloser, according to Z15 the Washington Monument was occupied

[AZcachemeister]

As I see it, the question is: 'IF my GPSr were at the described location, WOULD it have an unobstructed view of the sky, 15º above the horizon.'

 

NOT: 'Should I climb to the top and attempt to get a satellite lock?'

 

Common sense is not so common.

[mloser]

Also, take a look at Satellite Suitability For Masts, Spires, Etc.

[+Team Jac'd]

Also, take a look at Satellite Suitability For Masts, Spires, Etc.

 

This is a good thread. For someone like me, who was recently introduced to BMing by our local Moun10bike, benchmarks for me add a good way to get the walking in during lunch time that my doctor ordered for my sprained ankle... not as nice as having a young nice looking female help my with physio excercises, but a lot more interesting and acceptable to Mama Cita. ;-)

 

Some questions that I have after this thread, to date are:

 

1) Based on the question of whether or not its the pole or the base of the pole post, at one point I logged a DNF on Jr Pt Lookout while on a geotrip with some friends at the WSGA campout. The fire observation post itself is gone, but the stone used for the base is still there, and visible from a long distance away. Should I change this to a recover?

 

2) When I found SY5785, its pretty obvious that the mark it is resetting is gone, both from logic and observation. Should I report this?

 

3) If I do end up finding something that is gone or destroyed, what is due dilligence before thinking it is destroyed? A good example is in downtown Seattle (near where I work) where there are a number of benchmarks that are flagpoles, and the flagpoles are not always there.

 

4) I guess this may be a bit basic, but what is needed to 100% verify a recovery? Most of my benchmark finds have been in areas where it is the only possible solution, and the NGS data describes the benchmark clearly. However, there is a benchmark (or a series of them) about 0.5 mi away from work along a walkway to the ferry. There are 4 possible benchmarks within 200 ft of each other, and one of them seems to have been sanded down to a bare brass disk. The others are decent, but hard to read. What should I do to try and verify that any of the disks could possibly be the benchmark as listed?

 

thanks for any help,

Poppa J

[+Black Dog Trackers]

Hi Team Jac'd and welcome to Benchmark hunting!

 

I will try to answer.

 

1. I can't find "Jr Pt Lookout".

 

2. My advice is to not bother reporting that one to the NGS. On the Geocaching site, it is perfectly acceptable to log it as not found with a picture. On the Geocaching site, it is even somewhat acceptable to log it as destroyed if you have really good evidence that it is destroyed, since it appears that the NGS note was saying that they had officially been informed that the mark would be destroyed by the project. I find it very odd however that the 1989 note for SY5785 says the original monument was cut off, but the last note for SY0328 is from 3 years later. I recommend logging Didn't Find It on the Geocaching site with a picture and describe the situation in your log, perhaps solving this mystery.

 

3. Generally with intersection stations (a station which is the top of a flagpole is an intersection station), logging Destroyed is acceptable in both the Geocaching site and the NGS site. The difference is that actually no one but the NGS can 'log' a PID as destroyed on their site; they require a picture and an email instead. All intersection stations are adjusted so your GPS receiver should lead you to within 15 feet or so of the station. It will be quite apparent whether it is destroyed (gone) or not.

 

4. Unfortunately you can't really do that. The only way to 100% verify a find is to be able to read that disk. This is not to say that there are many finds logged for 'diskless stems' that people here generally accept because of circumstantial evidence, but they are not 100% verified. If a mark is hard to read and you have some chances to go back, try some tricks. One trick is to use some white powder such as flour or baby powder, sprinkle it on the disk and gently blow it off, attempting to leave some in the lettering depressions. Another trick is to use a mirror to cast a critical side light on the disk to attempt to improve contrast. Another trick is to do the same sort of thing at night with a flashlight to the side. If one of these tricks works, then you get to try to take a picture of it that way.

It is also acceptable to 'cheat'! The cheat method involves being watchful for months until you spot a surveyor using the mark or see new surveyor paint demarcating the mark with is designation or even PID.

[mloser]

Hey Team Jac'd,

We have a benchmark in common! I found SY5785 a couple of years ago while on a business trip to Seattle! But let me answer your questions in the order asked (I can add my own opinion to what BDT has said in a few cases).

 

1) I am guessing you mean SX1117 JUNIOR POINT LOOKOUT HOUSE. If that is the case the datasheet clearly states:

THE STATION IS A STANDARD, 14-FOOT SQUARE LOOKOUT HOUSE WHICH IS PAINTED WHITE. THE PEAK OF THE ROOF IS THE POINT OF INTERSECTION.

. Not all of them are this obvious, but they usually say what portion of the structure to sight on. I think the confusion may come from the use of flagpoles as intersection stations, where the datasheet simply states that the flagpole is the station. In that case the assumption is that the bottom is the point of measurement. In the case of SX1117 the station can be considered destroyed.

 

An interesting side note is that the azimuth mark for SX1118 is on the steps of the destroyed tower, and could well be used as an(other) example of the topic of this thread--it was incorrectly logged AS SX1118 by at least one cacher in 2005, and possibly by the two logs since then. Like reference marks found by mistake, this disk is just a piece of SX1118, and not the most important piece by a long shot.

 

2) I didn't look for SY0328 the original of SY5785, when I was in Seattle (I had company for one thing, and was sort of "winging it" from the datasheet point of view, as I had no decent place to print them while I was there, so I was simply writing down key elements of the information before heading off to find disks. However, if you take the datasheet for SY0328 and search for it as if it was there, you certainly could log it both on GC.com and with the NGS as a not found. Bear in mind that BDT's philosophy is that he does not submit not founds to the NGS, as he does not feel confident enough that his search was complete enough in every case to do so. I can see his point, but it is not the way I hunt--if I feel I hunted as hard as a survey crew, or the NGS or CGS would have, I submit my find or not find based on that. It is simply different strokes for different folks.

 

3) Your due diligence for THINKING it destroyed is different from PROVING it is destroyed. The NGS requires positive proof of a destroyed mark. This means that, in the case of a disk, the actual disk, with verified markings, must be found out of place, and in the case of an intersection station, a picture showing the location of the station (tower, pole, etc) must be taken. Historically, a picture, or series of pictures, showing your GPSr in GOTO mode, with the arrow pointing to the non-existent station, is sufficient. I tend to take these pictures from whatever location I feel will prove my point the best, often taking a shot from 100 or so feet away so that enough of the area is seen to show the lack of a station. I may also take shots without the GPSr in the image in order to clarify my case. My most recent example is KW3032 LANCASTER MUNICIPAL STANDPIPE. I took three shots, one showing the GPSr and two showing the area my GPSr pointed to, with nothing resembling a standpipe.

 

4) To 100% verify the recovery, the disk must have the stamping as specified in the datasheet, including the date, as well as being where described, at least as much as you can prove to yourself that it hasn't been shifted or deliberately reset without being redescribed. For instance, it is possible that a well-meaning construction crew removed a disk from a location, for instance a bridge, then put it back in the new structure when they were done. Usually, if something seems wrong about a recovery there is a good reason! That said, you can do the things BDT has recommended. If the disk is not totally worn down there may be enough markings to confirm that it is the one you want. Also, measure as carefully as possible based on the datasheet. Even with changes in the area you should be able to make a determination as to which of the 4 marks is the one you are looking for, and if it IS one of the marks. Also, get the stamping off all the marks, and you can at least eliminate other ones as being NOT your mark. I am guessing you are looking in the area of SY0287 and also that there has been extensive construction in that area that may have destroyed some of the marks there. Since tidal marks are very important to coastal cities many of them may have been replaced by government agencies, but never submitted to the NGS. Note that SY0287 appears to have been lost to progress and replaced by a newer mark that is not in the NGS database. I did a quick search and turned up this list of NOAA Tidal Bench Marks for Seattle. It includes both NGS marks as well as those set and used by NOAA and other agencies.

 

By the way, I have NEVER been able to use BDT's "cheat method". In my searches for over 1,500 benchmarks I have never seen a survey crew using a mark. Bad luck I guess.

[+Black Dog Trackers]

Heh, that cheat method only happened once with me. This mark was buried in a sort of island. We couldn't find it, but one day I was driving by and saw lots of spray paint around. I stopped and investigated and saw the mark where a surveyor had marked the curb with paint and dug a crater where I could see the mark. It was sort of a landscaped area, so I had not wanted to dig there.