Jump to content

Found IT but didn't know it was a benchmark....


FourRiverRatz

Recommended Posts

Okay...I've always been a lighthouse nut, then got into geocaching, which works out nice, since there is always something close to the lighthouse, but now I am looking into benchmarks (man do I have alot to learn there!!) and realize that some of the lighthouse we have been at, some actually climbed, are benchmarks. Do I get to claim them even though when I climbed them I didn't know it was considered a benchmark? Do I have to climb way up there again? (hard to love lighthouses when you have an accute fear of heights..lol)

 

I've been reading alot of stuff here and at geocaching about benchmarks..and learned all kinds of big new words today....

Link to comment

The general response is that you can log a benchmark if you have been to it recently. "Retro-Logging" is a questionable practice--especially since the visit was not done for the purpose of logging. Specifically, you didn't take GPS readings or compare the "to reach" description against current conditions.

 

You should indicate the date of your visit. If you can't do this from the drop-down box, make a note in the text portion of the log that you are making the entry late, and tell when you were there.

 

Benchmark logs serve as a historical snapshop, and it is important to know when the observation was made. Lighthouses are fairly constant structures (with the exception of Hatteras, which was moved 1,500 feet--grin). But radio towers, fire towers, and water tanks are subject to change. You would not wish to imply in your log that the tank still is there, when it's not. (I've had the experience of having several water tanks and benchmark disks "disappear" within six months of my logging them.)

 

Don't fret about the past. You saw the lighthouse, and had an experience which you remember. Logging or not logging won't change that. The good news is that if you begin now, at the beginning of 2007, you will be pleasantly surprised how fast you accumulate a collection of visited benchmarks!

 

As someone once said, "The best time to plant a tree was 20 years ago. The second best time is today."

 

-Paul-

Link to comment

Lighthouses are fairly constant structures (with the exception of Hatteras, which was moved 1,500 feet--grin).

 

***********

 

Hatteras is one we climbed about ten weeks ago, the last day it was opened for the season (is that retro??) and we also climbed it about 13 years ago where it used to be (okay..that is retro)

 

and I can't post any pictures until I get a new computor...this one is dying, and I get timed out before my pictures get uploaded on the geocaching site. (also can only get dial-up where we live, so that doesn't help the uploading process either)

 

so what am I supposed to be measuring when I find these things??? the "too reach" something ?? Its not explained real well on the geocaching site..just to find them. and how do I know if I have the right one if there are a few in the area...will numbers match up? (I know one place I was at in RI there were multiple ones with a few feet of each other)

 

and if I find one that has cords that aren't accurate, should I post the cords that I took while there? or is that making it too easy/spoiling it for the next person

Edited by dsmyhubby
Link to comment

dsmyhubby -

 

I will try to answer your questions.

 

1. I think, for benchmark hunting, 'retrologging' is no problem, just so that you note the date in your log that you saw the item.

 

2. If a benchmark is moved out of its measured position, then it is effectively destroyed.

 

3. Pictures are not required for logging benchmarks. Pictures are generally thought of as a very good thing to have in a benchmark log, but are not officially required.

 

4. Benchmarks are either location-scaled or location-adjusted. The datasheet, just below the coordinates, will tell you which it is. If it is location-adjusted, like many disks and all lighthouses and all other tall structures that are the benchmark, their location is more accurate than a handheld GPS receiver can see. If the benchmark is location-scaled, then if you like, you can post the coordinates of it that you read from your GPS receiver when you find it. Don't do this for location-adjusted marks. For either location-scaled or location-adjusted benchmarks, if the to-reach description on the datasheet is out of date, then it is a good thing to note the appropriate corrections in your log, for instance if a street name mentioned in the to-reach description has changed.

 

5. The 'spoiler' concept does not apply to benchmark hunting. The easier your log makes it for the next person to find the benchmark, the better your log is considered to be. For instance, it is a good thing to post a picture of the benchmark from a few feet away to show how it is to walk up and see it. This is especially good if such a picture shows both the benchmark and one of the local landmarks mentioned in the to-reach description.

Link to comment

 

If the benchmark is location-scaled, then if you like, you can post the coordinates of it that you read from your GPS receiver when you find it. Don't do this for location-adjusted marks.

 

I'm curious as to why you say don’t do this for adjusted marks. I understand some people would consider it a waste of time because the hand held accuracy is lower than the accuracy of the posted coordinates. But I can’t see any harm and in a sense it checks the accuracy of your GPSr.

Link to comment

I agree that there is no significant harm and also definitely agree that it does give you some idea as to the accuracy of your own GPS receiver.

 

On the other hand, I think that such a reading is not useful log information, including it in a log would amount to pointless clutter, and most importantly, it would just be misinformation compared to the adjusted coordinates.

 

Handheld (GPSr) coordinates for a location-scaled mark are somewhat useful and the NGS has indicated (I forget where) that it is considering putting fields for that on its mark recovery form. I have no doubt that they would not allow/accept input of coordinates for location-adjusted marks if they did that.

Link to comment

Okay..I think I'm getting it..in fact I found two this morning...and I went for ones that no one found instead of going for the common ones around here that have alot of finds to them...so I am patting myself on the back a little.

 

BUT..the ones I found had "access covers" and I snuck them opened and there is a stick in an approx 3 foot hole, and its filled with water (both were the same type)..I am assuming the actual plate is down there...but this is still a "find" right?

 

and I can see where no gps cords are necessary for these one...they were right exactly where the written directions said they should be.

 

A third one was, I think, under a new sidewalk. There was a suspicious plastic "vent" in the sidewalk that I bet it got put under...and since it was in the middle of town, in the bank yard, on their personnel sidewalk, and 3 feet from the building, I didn't think I should try to pry that up and see what was under it...lol

Edited by dsmyhubby
Link to comment

Good posts BDT.

 

In my opinion noting that a location-adjusted mark is "found within the handheld accuracy of stated coordinates" is useful log information to indicate you found the right thing and it hasn't been moved. Stating your coordinates which may be a few feet different is useless clutter.

 

There are instances where the lighthouse was moved (rare!), a new tower was built nearby, or even an error in entering the official data. (I found a "location-adjusted" mark by description that had the coordinates of one about 0.6 mile away. See GC log for MH0702.) If you find a location-adjusted mark does NOT fall within reasonable tolerance of your handheld, then that means further investigation is needed.

 

On every location-scaled mark reporting your coordinates, if they are carefully taken (average a waypoint for a while) is useful log information for the next guy because you never know how far off the nominal coordinates of those may be.

Link to comment

dsmyhubby -

 

There are two basic situations with benchmarks under access covers:

1: There is a disk at the bottom of the hole.

2: There is a metal rod that is the actual mark.

The second one is the more common and is usually called a rod marker.

 

The photography ideals are different for these and are, respectively:

1. Clean off the disk if you can and take a picture with flash.

2. Clean off the outer rim and take a closeup picture of it because that is where the Designation will be stamped. Also take a picture of the rod itself.

With both types, a picture from standing height with the access cover closed is also a good thing to include.

Link to comment

I agree that there is no significant harm and also definitely agree that it does give you some idea as to the accuracy of your own GPS receiver.

 

On the other hand, I think that such a reading is not useful log information, including it in a log would amount to pointless clutter, and most importantly, it would just be misinformation compared to the adjusted coordinates.

 

Handheld (GPSr) coordinates for a location-scaled mark are somewhat useful and the NGS has indicated (I forget where) that it is considering putting fields for that on its mark recovery form. I have no doubt that they would not allow/accept input of coordinates for location-adjusted marks if they did that.

 

OK, I’ll go along with that. I agree logging the GPSr coordinates of a location adjusted mark in the NGS database is needless clutter. GC.COM is another story.

Link to comment

thanks for the info and help everyone.

 

I did figure out after reading more today that it is the rod that is the marker in the ones I found...so I logged them as finds. I did take pics of the covers, but they wouldn't upload due to slow computor and even slower dial-up (can't get anything else here atm) I get "timed out" waiting, so I give up trying anymore. If I would find any incredibly differant or something I felt I really really should or want to post, I can e-mail it out to my brother and give him my password and he can slap a pic in for me.

 

As for now I am just happy to be back on the track with my gps..I found all the caches in this area, and then some, and was having a hard time getting a cache fix with daylight ending so early...so this will give the ole soccer mom something to do until we are on the move this spring and summer.

Link to comment

dsmyhubby -

About camera resolution: I typically take the pics at my cameras highest resolution, then crop them to get rid of excess stuff, and then reduce the resolution down to about 640 X 480, and then increase the compression slightly to get the file size down below 150KB or so. If you try to uplink a large file size to GC.com,. it takes forever (on dial-up), and they reduce it down to about the above anyway. There are lots of picture editing programs around that can do the work for you, includng a very basic one that probably came with your digital camera. I use ThumbsPlus and love it.

Link to comment

I usually take all my pictures at high resolution, since I have a big enough memory in it. Then I use a photo editing program (there are many available) to crop, adjust the brightness and contrast, etc, and put identifying text on the picture.

 

Then I save it as 640 pixels wide, and enough jpg compression to get under 125Kbytes. I think that is what the web site says is the maximum it will take without resizing. At that size, my dial-up works ok and takes well under a minute per picture.

Link to comment

Ah, there are advantages to living in suburban New Jersey. Venison is trying to sell me on FIOS, but I don't see the reason to spend that much more. I use the best resolution that I can, and crop to show only the basics, then shrink the photo. Obviously, I don't shrink it enough, since GC shrinks it further. But, in most cases, the photos are coming out clearly.

Link to comment

I do the same as the last few posters except I like big pictures. So my scenary pictures are resized to 960 pixels wide and my disk closeups are cropped to show just the disk and then resized to 600 pixels. And I always rotate the disk before cropping so the top is on the top. I hate it when youn have to turn your head to read the stamping.

 

The 600 pix will go in as is, the 960 has to be reduced to 150K. In spite of what they say, 150k is the limit.

 

Thus, a scene (960 x 760 pixels, just under 150K):

 

02d1a175-2b86-4941-bf0e-366d7a7d1b01.jpg

 

A disk (600 x 600 pixels):

 

58eb92a2-82cb-4feb-9bd7-db68c284ea44.jpg

 

<rant on>Oh and I detest pictures with GPSrs in them!<rant off>

Edited by Papa-Bear-NYC
Link to comment

thanks for the suggestions..I'll look though them, but I really think its a computor problem.

 

I used to be able to post them, no problem, in fact was a big e-bay seller, BUT my computor is 8 years old, and dying fast (it will literally shut off when I am using it.) ad in the dial-up and its a dead horse here...lol.

 

I also had to buy a new camera, because a monster wave chased me down and threw me up on the beach on vacation in october, with my digital camera in hand...and the new camera I got (same brand just updated) has never worked right on this computor...the most/newest I can run atm is windows 98..so what's that tell ya?? lol I think if I even download anything new its going to blow up...

 

Income tax time is coming, and with it a new computor...and THEN I am sure I will be able to post pictures!

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...