Should I Report Disk As Destroyed?

[+RazorbackFan]

I started benchmark hunting in my area last summer. I have learned quite a bit from reading the postings in this forum. During my journey today, I ran across a disk that I am fairly certain has been destroyed (NA1886). I found what I believe must have been the drill hole for the disk. Please check out my log and let me know if you agree. How should I proceed with my report to the NGS? Should I report it as not found, found in poor condition, or destroyed? Thanks in advance for you time and help!

 

RazorbackFan

[+Black Dog Trackers]

I think the best report for this would be Found in Poor condition with disk and stem missing. It isn't 100% destroyed, assuming the hole is the correct one. There is also the possibility that the hole is not the correct one and that the mark is existing under a layer of cement or something, so there is no actual proof of its destruction.

Edited January 25, 2007 by Black Dog Trackers

[fivethings]

I would log this as "DIDN'T FIND IT". Had the station's position been defined by adjusted horizontal coordinates, I probably would log it as "FOUND (really really) POOR".

 

Were I to report the recovery to NGS, I would call it "NOT FOUND", but I would describe what I saw in the comments.

[+Harry Dolphin]

I've been waiting for a response from Deb on this question. I guess my question got lost in the e-mail. I'll have to ask again. LY0230

[mloser]

We have asked these questions of the NGS before and been told that they should be logged Found, Poor. The reason given is that the location may be usable depending on the particular survey being conducted. Make sure you mention that the disk is missing.

 

Harry, I think yours falls into the same category--you seem to have enough information to prove to yourself that the location is the one described on the datasheet.

 

By the way, Deb was off for quite a bit during December, taking vacation she had accumulated. She is back now and working on getting caught up.

[68-eldo]

The last sentence in the description for NA1886 says the mark is above the level of the highway. It’s hard to tell from the overall view if the hole in question is above or not, but normally that part of the bridge is not. If it is lower than the highway then it might be a good idea to make another search for the mark.

[Bill93]

>THE MARK IS ABOVE LEVEL WITH HIGHWAY

 

Since no height difference is givenI would read that as likely to be a bad transcription of "mark is about level with highway" .

[mloser]

I completely agree with Bill93--I have no idea how it came about but the term "ABOVE LEVEL WITH..." always seems to mean "ABOUT LEVEL WITH...". This most likely happened when the records were converted to digital format but why?

 

BTW--I have seen this on datasheets hundreds of times.

Edited January 26, 2007 by mloser

[+Sagefox]

From RBF's photo the abutment could be above highway level if the railing is on a high curb rather than flush with the highway.

 

One thing to think about is whether the bridge has been replaced since the marker was placed. This happens a lot. I would expect to see remnants of glue around the hole with an impression of the disk but maybe there are other installation methods. I can't think of any other reason for the drill hole in that photo though, unless the bridge is new and they drilled the hole but never installed a replacement disk.

 

If the bridge looks old enough for the original marker and if the drill hole is above highway level then I agree that Found - Poor Condition is the way to log it.

 

Great mystery though. This kind of investigation adds to the fun of this game.

[+RazorbackFan]

Thanks to everyone that has responded to my question! I did notice the comment in the description about the mark being above the highway. However, I didn't read this until afterwards. I can't recall for sure if it was below the road or not. I plan to revisit the site to verify this. I will also attempt to make a measurment from the road to see if it is 16 feet from the centerline of the road. As for the age of the bridge I would not be surprised if it were in existence in 1968.

 

I am fairly certain that this is the correct location as there are no other bridges on this stretch of roadway for some distance. The Binghamton East quadrangle also places the mark at this same location. One thing that I am a little confused about is the numbering of the disk. 2 CRH USGS is located to the South of this location. I have found several other disks around here in the CRH chain and they seem to be numbered in an ascending manner from South to North.

 

In summary, I plan to revisit this site to make measurements and make another search of the area. Then I will make my final determination as to if and how I'll submit a report to the NGS.

 

Thanks again for the guidance!

 

RazorbackFan

[+Harry Dolphin]

We have asked these questions of the NGS before and been told that they should be logged Found, Poor. The reason given is that the location may be usable depending on the particular survey being conducted. Make sure you mention that the disk is missing.

 

Harry, I think yours falls into the same category--you seem to have enough information to prove to yourself that the location is the one described on the datasheet.

 

By the way, Deb was off for quite a bit during December, taking vacation she had accumulated. She is back now and working on getting caught up.

 

Found Poor was Deb's recommendation. So, it is logged as such.