Reportable to the NGS?

[+rogbarn]

It's been a while, so bear with me. I recently found several marks but made only a superficial, if any, search for the reference markers without success. I will be logging them on GC of course, but are they loggable to the NGS? Should I just allow the standard "Recovered as described" or should I put in something that indicates my search or lack thereof for the reference markers?

[Papa-Bear-NYC]

It's been a while, so bear with me. I recently found several marks but made only a superficial, if any, search for the reference markers without success. I will be logging them on GC of course, but are they loggable to the NGS? Should I just allow the standard "Recovered as described" or should I put in something that indicates my search or lack thereof for the reference markers?

Yes you should log it, especially if it has not been logged in some time. I would say "The reference marks were not searched for". You will see that in the logs regularly. After all, the reference marks are there to help find the station mark, so you got the most important thing.

 

OTOH, if the station mark appears disturbed, careful measurements from the RMs could establish that the station was/was not moved. I will assume that was not an issue in your case.

[+shorbird]

I agree with Papa Bear. You will often see references to the RMs and the azimuth in NGS logs. You can mention whether or not you searched for them and whether or not they were found. BTW, I notice that on Waymarking.com there is a place to log azimuth disks which do not have their own PID. They want a picture of the disk and the history from the geocaching.com PID for the station.

Edited January 19, 2007 by shorbird

[+shorbird]

I agree with Papa Bear. You will often see references to the RMs and the azimuth in NGS logs. You can mention whether or not you searched for them and whether or not they were found. BTW, I notice that on Waymarking.com there is a place to log azimuth disks which do not have their own PID. They want a picture of the disk and the history from the geocaching.com PID for the station.

[mloser]

I won't report until I have searched for all related marks. I have held off reporting some stations for a long time until I could get back to look for a missing RM or Azi. I guess that is the OCD in me, but I will even hunt for reference marks or azimuth marks declared not found or destroyed, just to see if I can find them. On a recent hunt I looked for an azimuth mark that was replaced by a new one due to obstruction, just to see if I could find it (it was still there, and the garage that obstructed it remained too--see KW3063. It took me over a year to get all the marks for this station, as I never could get the proper permission. Once I asked at the Lebanon City office I was told to go ahead (as in "why did you bother asking, of course you can look", but it is a pretty friendly area). The city engineer was also interested in the NGS site and the GC.com site, especially after I told him the mark I was looking for was one of 5 I had yet to search for in that county. Since the water company uses bench marks quite a bit he took down the NGS website address (how could he NOT have known about it?) and the GC.com address.

 

In my NGS log I always put some reference to having searched for all the marks, even if there are no changes to report, e.g. THE STATION REFERENCE MARKS AND AZIMUTH MARK WERE RECOVERED AND FOUND IN GOOD CONDITION AS PREVIOUSLY DESCRIBED. To me that is the only way a future recoverer will know what has been located.

[+PFF]

Does anybody know why reference marks with PID's are dropped from the data base? I frequently encounter "No Mark At This Location". Yet, when I follow the box score (distance and bearing), the reference mark is there--exactly as described.

 

Example:

Ref Mark 1 for EZ1426. I calculated the coordinates using NGS FORWARD, and walked to the spot, using my GPS display. Found it immediately with the metal detector--flush with ground but covered by leaves.

 

-Paul-

[Papa-Bear-NYC]

Does anybody know why reference marks with PID's are dropped from the data base? I frequently encounter "No Mark At This Location". Yet, when I follow the box score (distance and bearing), the reference mark is there--exactly as described.

 

Example:

Ref Mark 1 for EZ1426. I calculated the coordinates using NGS FORWARD, and walked to the spot, using my GPS display. Found it immediately with the metal detector--flush with ground but covered by leaves.

 

-Paul-

Reference marks with PIDs are almost always bench marks (vertical control stations). Typically a tri-station and several reference marks are set (say in 1930) and then later (say 1956) the CGS will run a level line through the area and use the reference marks (and sometimes the tri-station itself) as bench marks (vertical control stations). Having a nice solid disk at a convenient location saves them time and money with their leveling.

 

Examples are the two RMs for station PALISADES (KU3890) which have separate PIDs: KU1644 and KU1645. Look at the dates and you will see the leveling was done in 1956, quite a while after reference marks were set (1930). You will also note the the coordinates of the RMs on the sheet are scaled (and in this case very far off - you wonder why they just didn't use the coordinates of the nearby tri-station). I have never seen an RM with a PID with adjusted coordinates.

 

So it's quite possible the RM's PID was dropped due to loss of control or other problems with the vertical control. The "net" they belong to is independent of their role as reference marks.

Edited January 20, 2007 by Papa-Bear-NYC

[68-eldo]

Does anybody know why reference marks with PID's are dropped from the data base? I frequently encounter "No Mark At This Location". Yet, when I follow the box score (distance and bearing), the reference mark is there--exactly as described.

 

Example:

Ref Mark 1 for EZ1426. I calculated the coordinates using NGS FORWARD, and walked to the spot, using my GPS display. Found it immediately with the metal detector--flush with ground but covered by leaves.

 

-Paul-

Reference marks with PIDs are almost always bench marks (vertical control stations). Typically a tri-station and several reference marks are set (say in 1930) and then later (say 1956) the CGS will run a level line through the area and use the reference marks (and sometimes the tri-station itself) as bench marks (vertical control stations). Having a nice solid disk at a convenient location saves them time and money with their leveling.

 

Examples are the two RMs for station PALISADES (KU3890) which have separate PIDs: KU1644 and KU1645. Look at the dates and you will see the leveling was done in 1956, quite a while after reference marks were set (1930). You will also note the the coordinates of the RMs on the sheet are scaled (and in this case very far off - you wonder why they just didn't use the coordinates of the nearby tri-station). I have never seen an RM with a PID with adjusted coordinates.

 

So it's quite possible the RM's PID was dropped due to loss of control or other problems with the vertical control. The "net" they belong to is independent of their role as reference marks.

 

AH HA! That explains it. I was wondering why some RMs have their own PID. Thanks for enlightening me.

[+Ernmark]

Papa-Bear -

 

I do remember one PID RM I've run across that is adjusted - on the 'far' end of NJ of all places: HU1295 - CAPE MAY RM 1 ..with good reason - the main station (or underground portion of it anyway) seems to be under asphalt...so it seems RM 1 may have been "promoted" to make it more usable..

 

I notice that everybody still finds the main station..I've been back twice since my log (& after obtaining more experience) & I still haven't ..which reminds me - I have to dig out my pics w/ yellow boxes..

[Papa-Bear-NYC]

Papa-Bear -

 

I do remember one PID RM I've run across that is adjusted - on the 'far' end of NJ of all places: HU1295 - CAPE MAY RM 1 ..with good reason - the main station (or underground portion of it anyway) seems to be under asphalt...so it seems RM 1 may have been "promoted" to make it more usable..

 

I notice that everybody still finds the main station..I've been back twice since my log (& after obtaining more experience) & I still haven't ..which reminds me - I have to dig out my pics w/ yellow boxes..

Interesting Case. Here's a quote from the main station's datasheet (HU1294) for 1957 and 1962:

 

HU1294 STATION RECOVERY (1957)

HU1294

HU1294''RECOVERY NOTE BY COAST AND GEODETIC SURVEY 1957 (VES)

HU1294''REFERENCE MARKS 1 AND 3 WERE RECOVERED IN GOOD CONDITION. NO

HU1294''SEARCH WAS MADE FOR REFERENCE MARK 2. THE AREA IN THE VICINITY

HU1294''OF THE STATION WAS RECENTLY GRADED. NO TRACE WAS FOUND OF THE

HU1294''SURFACE STATION MARK, NO SEARCH WAS MADE FOR THE UNDERGROUND MARK.

HU1294

HU1294 STATION RECOVERY (1962)

HU1294

HU1294''RECOVERY NOTE BY COAST AND GEODETIC SURVEY 1962 (VBM)

HU1294''NO MEASUREMENT BETWEEN RMS FENCE ON LINE

HU1294

''HU1294''THE UNDERGROUND STATION MARK, REFERENCE MARKS 1 AND 3 WERE

HU1294''RECOVERED. THE SURFACE STATION MARK HAS BEEN KNOCKED OUT AND A

HU1294''PAVED STREET BUILT OVER THE UNDERGROUND MARK. A TOWER HAD TO BE

HU1294''BUILT OVER REFERENCE MARK 1. A TRAVERSE CONNECTION WAS MADE FROM

HU1294''THE STATION TO REFERENCE MARK 1. AN AZIMUTH MARK WAS ESTABLISHED

HU1294''AT THIS TIME. THE DIRECTION BETWEEN REFERENCE MARKS 1 AND 3

HU1294''WAS FOUND TO BE 18 MINUTES AND 46 SECONDS SMALLER THAN THE

HU1294''PREVIOUS DIRECTION. THE DISTANCE TO REFERENCE MARK 1 WAS

HU1294''FOUND TO BE 0.65 OF A FOOT LONGER THAN THE PREVIOUS

HU1294''MEASUREMENT. THE DISTANCE TO REFERENCE MARK 3 WAS FOUND TO BE

HU1294''0.07 OF A FOOT LONGER THAN THE PREVIOUS MEASUREMENT.

HU1294''

 

So it seems a traverse was done to RM1 and then a tower built on it. So perhaps they then did the triangulations from that new tower as if the RM were an eccentric.

 

It's also interesting that they said on one hand that the underground mark was recovered, but on the other hand that it was covered by "a paved street". They also found the reference marks were out of kilter.

 

Did they dig a hole in the street to recover the underground mark? And then repave the street? Interesting.

 

Edit: I checked the datasheet further and it seems they found the surface mark after all in 1973 and 1975, 18 and 20 inches below the surface respectively. Can someone explain to mew how they could find the underground mark (in 1962) but not find the surface mark?

Edited January 21, 2007 by Papa-Bear-NYC

[+PFF]

I checked the datasheet further and it seems they found the surface mark after all in 1973 and 1975, 18 and 20 inches below the surface respectively. Can someone explain to mew how they could find the underground mark (in 1962) but not find the surface mark?

 

I have a theory, and I hope the professionals will weigh in with opinions.

 

After encountering numerous stations where the disk is recessed 20 to 40 inches, I've come to the conclusion that what I'm finding are the underground marks--with the surface mark having been removed.

 

It is my understanding that the underground mark is identical in stamping to the surface mark, so how would one know which disk he was looking at?

 

And how would you examine the underground mark without disturbing the surface mark and its monument?

 

Whew! Since disk-setting has evolved over nearly a century, it's difficult for newbie's to catch up. I've just recently figured out "height of light above station". Now, you want me to go underground!

 

-Paul-

[+Ernmark]

..I'd imagine the only way to tell would be the concrete - an "irregular mass" (concrete poured in a dug hole?) vs. a "nice smooth" square/round monument... I haven't seen any underground marks yet myself. (I might get a chance depending on what happens w/ a local law school campus set about 50' away from a station [actually station #2 - there may be 2 masses] - I'll have the camera ready)

[+BuckBrooke]

I would guess in some cases that if it's a pavement/road issue that the disk you've found recessed is the main surface disk. If the roads are built up enough, it might have buried the station 6 inches (or more?).

[mloser]

I checked the datasheet further and it seems they found the surface mark after all in 1973 and 1975, 18 and 20 inches below the surface respectively. Can someone explain to me how they could find the underground mark (in 1962) but not find the surface mark?

 

I would imagine that the surface mark WAS destroyed by grading, then the underground mark was found and mis-identified as the surface mark. Like Ernmark mentioned the only way to tell would probably be to examine the edges of the concrete.

 

Then there is always simple human error!

[Z15]

I have had the occasion to dig for an underground mark 3 times since 1975. All of them were just a small block of concrete no bigger than a 1 gallon size. No way one could mistake it for the sufface mark. At the bottom of the hole they would remove a shovel full of dirt, fill the hole with conrete and set a mark in center. NOTE-2 found were bronze discs while one was a brass bolt, even though the description said it was a disk.

 

btw-Only triangulation stations have underground marks.

 

NOS US Lake Survey ran levels here back in 1975 and they set a lot of the marks 1 ft below ground level, as normal practice. Some are very hard to find today as all the surface references are long gone (poles mostly).

Edited January 25, 2007 by Z15

[andylphoto]

Papa-Bear -

 

I do remember one PID RM I've run across that is adjusted - on the 'far' end of NJ of all places: HU1295 - CAPE MAY RM 1 ..with good reason - the main station (or underground portion of it anyway) seems to be under asphalt...so it seems RM 1 may have been "promoted" to make it more usable..

 

I notice that everybody still finds the main station..I've been back twice since my log (& after obtaining more experience) & I still haven't ..which reminds me - I have to dig out my pics w/ yellow boxes..

 

I've also recovered a number of Tri stations where one of the RMs has its own PID with adjusted coordinates. SAGOLA is an example, with it's RM2, RL1554. Another is SKANDIA which actually has two out of three RMs with their own PID and adjusted coordinates: RM 2 and RM 3.

 

There are a few in my area similar to this, where a Triangulation station has been set in the location of a former lookout tower, and RM 2 was set in the center of the base of the tower. Some of these have adjusted coordinates, some don't. I've also reported on several triangulation stations where a nearby USGS benchmark with adjusted coordinates was used as a reference mark. Not exactly the same situation though.

Edited January 31, 2007 by andylphoto

[+GEO*Trailblazer 1]

I will have to find them but I have found Azimuth marks as well as reference marks with their own PID's.