The Contest is afoot

March 4, 2007

I have a question about whether I get points for this one.

I found that BM0871 (a church) had burned down. I have logged it with photos of the new church and the partially melted bell from the original. Is this what counts for a Destroyed BM? Or is it one that you find that had been marked Destroyed?

4.1k · March 4, 2007

I have a question about whether I get points for this one.

I found that BM0871 (a church) had burned down. I have logged it with photos of the new church and the partially melted bell from the original. Is this what counts for a Destroyed BM? Or is it one that you find that had been marked Destroyed?

This one is a found (in destroyed condition) worth 1 point.

What you need to find is one that has been logged as destroyed (but in reality wasn't) to get the 10 points.

John

4.1k · March 4, 2007

For those in the contest, & those who may not be familiar with PMs here is a picture showing where to look to see if you have a "PM". If you use a pop-up blocker, this will show you if you have any unread PMs.

This is a picture of the upper right corner of the forums. If there is a number other than Zero there, just click on it an it will take you to your PMs.

John

March 4, 2007

In line with the question about the destroyed BMs I have a related question. I found a concrete post which had a BM on it at one time but you could see where it had been broken off. Can I log this one for this contest as destroyed and receive the point even though there isn't a disk with the title on it? I'm assuming not but I took a pic of it just in case. Thanks again.

4.1k · March 4, 2007

In line with the question about the destroyed BMs I have a related question. I found a concrete post which had a BM on it at one time but you could see where it had been broken off. Can I log this one for this contest as destroyed and receive the point even though there isn't a disk with the title on it? I'm assuming not but I took a pic of it just in case. Thanks again.

For the contest we need to be able to see the disk for verification purposes, so it cannot be used for the contest. For GC.com if you are certain it is the correct position for that mark, then feel free to log it as destroyed.

John

4.1k · March 5, 2007

After a check of the Rules, I could not find any reference to needing a picture of the GPSr with the benchmark.

Monkeykat, you logged OF2392 as DNF in November of 2006, long before the contest rules were being discussed. According to the rules, the DNF had to have been posted before January 25, 2007. It was, therefore, it meets the requirements for the DNF points.

John

4.1k · March 6, 2007

Looking through some of the logs to date, I am looking for a clarification about "wrongly logged benchmarks."

Unless the last log includes a picture, I do not see how any of us can know if the last log is in error or not. IMHO, an email to the previous logger to see if they found the right mark is insufficient evidence.

Thoughts?

This is a judgement call on our part. If you read all the logs and look at the pictures that have been posted, with a bit of experience, you can get a pretty good feel for what has, or in the case, has not been recovered.

There appears to be 2 benchmarks in the area. One is set horizontal and damaged and the other is set vertical some distance away from the first. Knowing that cachers will claim a find for any benchmark that is close to the cache, regardless of which benchmark it really is, and having read all the logs and looked at all the pictures, I feel the previous finder found the damaged benchmark that is set horizontally and therefore the wrong benchmark.

The example I gave in the contest rules is a good example. There are no pictures for the last finder, but if you read the logs for that benchmark you will see that the people are logging the section marker and not the described benchmark.

I will continue to verify each and every benchmark logged and if there are any questions about a find, rest assured, the finder will get a PM and a chance to "convince" the judge he is correct.

Speaking of PMs - would those that receive a PM please read them from the PM folder and not just from the Pop-up window. We put a "Track this PM" on each one to keep track of the one that get read, so if you don't actually go to the PM folder they never show as being read. Thanks.

John

March 7, 2007

Thank you for the quick clarification. I'll go back and delete my post in the logging thread to keep that thread clean for logs.

March 7, 2007

The official rules (subject to clarification).

Special finds are...

Finding a wrongly logged benchmark = 15 points - any benchmark where the 'last' log is wrong (must be listed on GC.com).

Regarding HV1555, DNF,

I would subnit that this mark should be considered incorrectly logged by PBPP in 1937 and the NGS in 1946, both of which are agencies of the U.S. Government.

My recovery of this station exactly matches the monumentation report in 1931. From the photograph submitted, it is clearly set in a native stone, unlike the the terra cotta pipe decribing Mitchell 1, which appears to have been merged into this datasheet.

Above that, the amount of research and effort required to recover this mark would certainly justify additional points, since it has laid dormant for over 60 years and was unknown even to the county surveyor.

I implore the judges to take the above in consideration.

~ Mitch ~

4.1k · March 7, 2007

The official rules (subject to clarification).

Special finds are...

Finding a wrongly logged benchmark = 15 points - any benchmark where the 'last' log is wrong (must be listed on GC.com).

Regarding HV1555, DNF,

I would subnit that this mark should be considered incorrectly logged by PBPP in 1937 and the NGS in 1946, both of which are agencies of the U.S. Government.

My recovery of this station exactly matches the monumentation report in 1931. From the photograph submitted, it is clearly set in a native stone, unlike the the terra cotta pipe decribing Mitchell 1, which appears to have been merged into this datasheet.

Above that, the amount of research and effort required to recover this mark would certainly justify additional points, since it has laid dormant for over 60 years and was unknown even to the county surveyor.

I implore the judges to take the above in consideration.

~ Mitch ~

After reading all the logs and looking at the pictures, we have determined that Difficult Run is correct.

Our logic is that the The last official log is for a benchmark stamped Mitchell 1 and not Mitchell 7 which was also in error. Since we benchmark hunters use the latest official log in our searches it is only reasonable to assume that those that had posted DNFs on GC.com were in error. They posted their DNFs for the wrong benchmark (Mitchell 7, Mitchell 1, or maybe it was Graveyard) and not "MITCHELL 2 PB AND PP 1931".

Scoreboard has now been adjusted to show the corrected category.

John

7.9k · March 8, 2007

Looking through some of the logs to date, I am looking for a clarification about "wrongly logged benchmarks."

Unless the last log includes a picture, I do not see how any of us can know if the last log is in error or not. IMHO, an email to the previous logger to see if they found the right mark is insufficient evidence.

Thoughts?

This is a judgement call on our part. If you read all the logs and look at the pictures that have been posted, with a bit of experience, you can get a pretty good feel for what has, or in the case, has not been recovered.

There appears to be 2 benchmarks in the area. One is set horizontal and damaged and the other is set vertical some distance away from the first. Knowing that cachers will claim a find for any benchmark that is close to the cache, regardless of which benchmark it really is, and having read all the logs and looked at all the pictures, I feel the previous finder found the damaged benchmark that is set horizontally and therefore the wrong benchmark.

The example I gave in the contest rules is a good example. There are no pictures for the last finder, but if you read the logs for that benchmark you will see that the people are logging the section marker and not the described benchmark.

I will continue to verify each and every benchmark logged and if there are any questions about a find, rest assured, the finder will get a PM and a chance to "convince" the judge he is correct.

Speaking of PMs - would those that receive a PM please read them from the PM folder and not just from the Pop-up window. We put a "Track this PM" on each one to keep track of the one that get read, so if you don't actually go to the PM folder they never show as being read. Thanks.

John

So, based on this judgment, am I correct in assuming I will receive the 'incorrect log' points for a mark which I was unable to recover, but for which a previous log has a photo of an obviously incorrect mark?

10.1k · March 8, 2007

I have a question about whether I get points for this one.

I found that BM0871 (a church) had burned down. I have logged it with photos of the new church and the partially melted bell from the original. Is this what counts for a Destroyed BM? Or is it one that you find that had been marked Destroyed?

This one is a found (in destroyed condition) worth 1 point.

What you need to find is one that has been logged as destroyed (but in reality wasn't) to get the 10 points.

We can get points for logging destroyed intersection stations????

Would KV3987 qualify?

4.1k · March 8, 2007

We can get points for logging destroyed intersection stations????

Would KV3987 qualify?

You get a smile :huh: for it. I looked and didn't see any destroyed logs for that benchmark that were in error.

To get the points you need to find a benchmark that someone logged as "Destroyed" or "Presumed Destroyed" when in actuality it was not destroyed, just not found.

John

4.1k · March 8, 2007

Looking through some of the logs to date, I am looking for a clarification about "wrongly logged benchmarks."

Unless the last log includes a picture, I do not see how any of us can know if the last log is in error or not. IMHO, an email to the previous logger to see if they found the right mark is insufficient evidence.

Thoughts?

This is a judgement call on our part. If you read all the logs and look at the pictures that have been posted, with a bit of experience, you can get a pretty good feel for what has, or in the case, has not been recovered.

There appears to be 2 benchmarks in the area. One is set horizontal and damaged and the other is set vertical some distance away from the first. Knowing that cachers will claim a find for any benchmark that is close to the cache, regardless of which benchmark it really is, and having read all the logs and looked at all the pictures, I feel the previous finder found the damaged benchmark that is set horizontally and therefore the wrong benchmark.

The example I gave in the contest rules is a good example. There are no pictures for the last finder, but if you read the logs for that benchmark you will see that the people are logging the section marker and not the described benchmark.

I will continue to verify each and every benchmark logged and if there are any questions about a find, rest assured, the finder will get a PM and a chance to "convince" the judge he is correct.

Speaking of PMs - would those that receive a PM please read them from the PM folder and not just from the Pop-up window. We put a "Track this PM" on each one to keep track of the one that get read, so if you don't actually go to the PM folder they never show as being read. Thanks.

John

So, based on this judgment, am I correct in assuming I will receive the 'incorrect log' points for a mark which I was unable to recover, but for which a previous log has a photo of an obviously incorrect mark?

You need to actually find the benchmark that someone incorrectly logged. If the previous person logged the benchmark and identified the wrong benchmark in their log and then you find the correct benchmark, you get the points for the "incorrect log". If you do not find the correct benchmark, then you will Not get the points. Just identifying the log that is in error doesn't score any points.

John

4.1k · March 10, 2007

It seems as though there is a misunderstanding of what it takes to log a benchmark that was logged in error.

First the benchmark needs to have the last log be in error. Then you need to find that benchmark to show that it is in error.

The following two pictures that show benchmarks that are considered "Destroyed". The first shows a benchmark that will qualify as a find (in destroyed condition). The second shows the remains of a benchmark that also would be considered 'Destroyed", but does NOT qualify as proof of a logging error, since there is no way to verify the remains.

GR0095

FS1083

From the rules

"Scoring = 1 point per verified regular benchmark find plus any special finds that qualifies."

The key word is "Find". You need to find the benchmarks that you wish to get the bonus points for.

Hope this clears up any confusion That may have occurred.

John

March 14, 2007

I have a question. I think I found LC0679 and the picture I have only says "Kerrick 1920". I can't find one that says only that. I also don't know how to insert a pix on here. should I just list it on the GC.com database and let you look at it?

March 14, 2007

Nevermind. duh. I found that "kerrick 1920" buried in the long description in the original datasheet. I'll just list and and see if 2oldfarts agree.

March 14, 2007

The following two pictures that show benchmarks that are considered "Destroyed". The first shows a benchmark that will qualify as a find (in destroyed condition). The second shows the remains of a benchmark that also would be considered 'Destroyed", but does NOT qualify as proof of a logging error, since there is no way to verify the remains.

The key word is "Find". You need to find the benchmarks that you wish to get the bonus points for.

I'm sorry, I'm just not experienced enough to know for sure when ever I come upon a new case. So in that first picture, the benchmark is considered destroyed even though it's "intact" and readable? It has to remain in the same position also?

That means my AX2822 benchmark was actually destroyed even though I found the entire column laying there and the disk was in very good condition?

I hate to be a pain... just want to understand....

4.1k · March 14, 2007

The following two pictures that show benchmarks that are considered "Destroyed". The first shows a benchmark that will qualify as a find (in destroyed condition). The second shows the remains of a benchmark that also would be considered 'Destroyed", but does NOT qualify as proof of a logging error, since there is no way to verify the remains.

The key word is "Find". You need to find the benchmarks that you wish to get the bonus points for.

I'm sorry, I'm just not experienced enough to know for sure when ever I come upon a new case. So in that first picture, the benchmark is considered destroyed even though it's "intact" and readable? It has to remain in the same position also?

That means my AX2822 benchmark was actually destroyed even though I found the entire column laying there and the disk was in very good condition?

I hate to be a pain... just want to understand....

I took a closer look at AX2822 and found out that you did not find AX2822. AX2822 is R 806 RESET that was monumented in 1982. It appears as though you found the original R 806 monumented in 1953, which by the way, is Not listed on the NGS site for active benchmarks.

The benchmark you found has been moved from its original position and can not be put back, so it is "Found in Destroyed Condition". If the disk is out of position (tilted) then the value of that benchmark will be in question and it should be logged accordingly, stating that it is possibly out of position and about how much it is out of position.

John

March 14, 2007

The following two pictures that show benchmarks that are considered "Destroyed". The first shows a benchmark that will qualify as a find (in destroyed condition). The second shows the remains of a benchmark that also would be considered 'Destroyed", but does NOT qualify as proof of a logging error, since there is no way to verify the remains.

The key word is "Find". You need to find the benchmarks that you wish to get the bonus points for.

I'm sorry, I'm just not experienced enough to know for sure when ever I come upon a new case. So in that first picture, the benchmark is considered destroyed even though it's "intact" and readable? It has to remain in the same position also?

That means my AX2822 benchmark was actually destroyed even though I found the entire column laying there and the disk was in very good condition?

I hate to be a pain... just want to understand....

I took a closer look at AX2822 and found out that you did not find AX2822. AX2822 is R 806 RESET that was monumented in 1982. It appears as though you found the original R 806 monumented in 1953, which by the way, is Not listed on the NGS site for active benchmarks.

The benchmark you found has been moved from its original position and can not be put back, so it is "Found in Destroyed Condition". If the disk is out of position (tilted) then the value of that benchmark will be in question and it should be logged accordingly, stating that it is possibly out of position and about how much it is out of position.

John

Ok, I understand better now... thanks... I also understand that I just lost myself a point for the sake of understanding... lol... DOH!!!

So... if it is "destroyed", what should be done with the disk? Can I keep it as a souvenier? Is there still a fine for defacing it?

Edited March 14, 2007 by Doc Geo

4.1k · March 14, 2007

Ok, I understand better now... thanks... I also understand that I just lost myself a point for the sake of understanding... lol... DOH!!!

So... if it is "destroyed", what should be done with the disk? Can I keep it as a souvenier? Is there still a fine for defacing it?

Did a check and it is officially declared destroyed. I guess it is up to the individual as to how much work getting the disk is worth! Hope you have a BIG sledgehammer.

Here's the datasheet.

The NGS Data Sheet

See file dsdata.txt for more information about the datasheet.

DATABASE = Sybase ,PROGRAM = datasheet, VERSION = 7.42

*** NOTE - This dataset contains Destroyed Marks Only.

1 National Geodetic Survey, Retrieval Date = MARCH 14, 2007

AX1477 ***********************************************************************

AX1477 DESIGNATION - R 806

AX1477 PID - AX1477

AX1477 STATE/COUNTY- TX/BASTROP

AX1477 USGS QUAD - WEST POINT (1981)

AX1477

AX1477 *CURRENT SURVEY CONTROL

AX1477 ___________________________________________________________________

AX1477* NAD 83(1986)- 29 59 05. (N) 097 07 04. (W) SCALED

AX1477* NAVD 88 - 95.043 (meters) 311.82 (feet) ADJUSTED

AX1477 ___________________________________________________________________

AX1477 GEOID HEIGHT- -26.41 (meters) GEOID03

AX1477 DYNAMIC HT - 94.915 (meters) 311.40 (feet) COMP

AX1477 MODELED GRAV- 979,293.0 (mgal) NAVD 88

AX1477

AX1477 VERT ORDER - FIRST CLASS I

AX1477

AX1477.The horizontal coordinates were scaled from a topographic map and have

AX1477.an estimated accuracy of +/- 6 seconds.

AX1477

AX1477.The orthometric height was determined by differential leveling

AX1477.and adjusted by the National Geodetic Survey in June 1991..

AX1477

AX1477.The geoid height was determined by GEOID03.

AX1477

AX1477.The dynamic height is computed by dividing the NAVD 88

AX1477.geopotential number by the normal gravity value computed on the

AX1477.Geodetic Reference System of 1980 (GRS 80) ellipsoid at 45

AX1477.degrees latitude (g = 980.6199 gals.).

AX1477

AX1477.The modeled gravity was interpolated from observed gravity values.

AX1477

AX1477; North East Units Estimated Accuracy

AX1477;SPC TX C - 3,039,740. 1,010,270. MT (+/- 180 meters Scaled)

AX1477

AX1477 SUPERSEDED SURVEY CONTROL

AX1477

AX1477 NGVD 29 (??/??/92) 94.994 (m) 311.66 (f) ADJ UNCH 1 1

AX1477

AX1477.Superseded values are not recommended for survey control.

AX1477.NGS no longer adjusts projects to the NAD 27 or NGVD 29 datums.

AX1477.See file dsdata.txt to determine how the superseded data were derived.

AX1477

AX1477_U.S. NATIONAL GRID SPATIAL ADDRESS: 14RPU815185(NAD 83)

AX1477_MARKER: DB = BENCH MARK DISK

AX1477_SETTING: 7 = SET IN TOP OF CONCRETE MONUMENT

AX1477_SP_SET: SET IN TOP OF CONCRETE MONUMENT

AX1477_STAMPING: R 806

AX1477_STABILITY: C = MAY HOLD, BUT OF TYPE COMMONLY SUBJECT TO

AX1477+STABILITY: SURFACE MOTION

AX1477

AX1477 HISTORY - Date Condition Report By

AX1477 HISTORY - UNK MONUMENTED CGS

AX1477 HISTORY - 1973 GOOD NGS

AX1477 HISTORY - 1978 MARK NOT FOUND NGS

AX1477 HISTORY - 19820203 DESTROYED NGS

AX1477

AX1477 STATION DESCRIPTION

AX1477

AX1477'DESCRIBED BY NATIONAL GEODETIC SURVEY 1973

AX1477'3.3 MI SE FROM SMITHVILLE.

AX1477'0.25 MILE SOUTH ALONG MAIN STREET FROM THE POST OFFICE AT SMITHVILLE,

AX1477'THENCE 3.05 MILE SOUTHEAST ALONG THE MISSOURI-KANSAS-TEXAS RAILROAD,

AX1477'AT THE ABANDON SMITHVILLE AIRPORT, 0.25 MILE SOUTHEAST OF THE CROSSING

AX1477'OF AN ASPHALT ROAD AND BENCH MARK B 1224, 220 FEET SOUTHWEST AND

AX1477'ACROSS STATE HIGHWAY 71 FROM THE SOUTHWEST RAIL, 73 FEET SOUTHWEST OF

AX1477'THE CENTER LINE OF THE HIGHWAY, 38 FEET SOUTHEAST OF THE CENTER LINE

AX1477'OF A FIELD ENTRANCE ROAD, 30 1/2 FEET SOUTHEAST OF THE SOUTHEAST END

AX1477'OF A GATE, 449.5 FEET SOUTHEAST OF BENCH MARK T 806, 3.4 FEET

AX1477'NORTHEAST OF A FENCE LINE, 1.3 FEET NORTHWEST OF A WITNESS POST, ABOUT

AX1477'1 1/2 FEET HIGHER THAN THE HIGHWAY, SET IN THE TOP OF A CONCRETE POST

AX1477'PROJECTING 0.1 FOOT ABOVE THE GROUND.

AX1477

AX1477 STATION RECOVERY (1978)

AX1477

AX1477'RECOVERY NOTE BY NATIONAL GEODETIC SURVEY 1978

AX1477'NOT RECOVERED. BENCH MARK NOT SEARCHED FOR.

AX1477

AX1477 STATION RECOVERY (1982)

AX1477

AX1477'RECOVERY NOTE BY NATIONAL GEODETIC SURVEY 1982

AX1477'RECOVERY REPORT GENERATED BY RESET DATA

John

10.1k · March 15, 2007

Hmm... Dolphin is falling badly behind. Into what mischief can he get to get closer to the middle of the pack? Stay tuned for Episode 5: Dolphin and Bear about a foot above sea level, lost in the swamps.

But, Harry, they all start with '8'. Shouldn't we be looking fo a '2'?

March 15, 2007

HV3761 - Possible DNF?

Would you consider this a "find" on gc.com?

Note the previous 4 recoveries (below) were found in a similar manner.

March 15, 2007

HV3761 - Possible DNF?

Would you consider this a "find" on gc.com?

Note the previous 4 recoveries (below) were found in a similar manner.

HV3077, REG

HV3559, REG

HV0694, REG

HV3066, REG

I would want more evidence before relying on this as the station mark. Did any of the other shafts protrude like this one? It seems unusual for the shaft of a disk that was set flush in the rock to stick up this much (more like an iron bolt). The question can be answered by measuring from station SAND or by finding the reference trees (the nails would be engulfed deep within). Any large cottonwoods or sycamores nearby? Or the remains of such?

4.1k · March 15, 2007

HV3761 - Possible DNF?

Would you consider this a "find" on gc.com?

Note the previous 4 recoveries (below) were found in a similar manner.

HV3077, REG

HV3559, REG

HV0694, REG

HV3066, REG

For me personally to call HV3761 a find, I would need to measure the boulder to see if it is approximately 12" across and 3' deep. I would also post a picture of the "stem" with the GPSr showing the coordinates and the amount of error in the signal (EPE for Magellan).

Also note as Holtie suggests, if there are any trees nearby that may have the nails in them. A metal detector may pick them up to help verify that the right tree was found.

John

Did you mean "Would this be a find for the contest"?

HV3077 & HV3559 both qualify as finds for the contest since the official descriptions state that the stem has been mark. As such we can see that the stem was actually located and the station found as described.

Neither HV0694 nor HV0366 have anything in their descriptions to identify the remains of the disks and without the disk the find can not be verified.

Edited to add qualifications for contest find.

John

Edited March 15, 2007 by 2oldfarts (the rockhounders)

March 15, 2007

What I should have said was the previous 4 recoveries were found in a similar condition.

All 4 of those recoveries were submitted to the NGS by BDT and accepted as found.

The station mark (or shank) is on property owned by the National Park Service, so the use of a metal detector is prohibited.

HV3077/Sand is about .3 of a mile away, over very rough terrain, so measuring from that distance is beyond my capabilities to do so accurately.

I did not observe any sycamore or cottonwood trees in the immediate area.

Even if they survived, those trees would be over 70 years old.

HV2830/QUAR 1913 and HV3756/Tree are very close by, but there is no evidence of either station.

A metal detector (prohibited) would be needed to find these two marks also.

I have four closeup photos of the shank, with the GPSR showing position and EPE.

N38' 54' 58.1' W077' 06' 15.1' - EPE = 18 feet.

N38' 54' 58.1' W077' 06' 15.2' - EPE = 18 feet.

N38' 54' 58.1' W077' 06' 15.2' - EPE = 19 feet.

N38' 54' 58.1' W077' 06' 15.3' - EPE = 18 feet.

The southwest view is obscured by cliffs about 150 feet in height, so even a survey grade GPS might have trouble getting a good lock on the satelites. Looks like the only way to establish this mark would be going "old school" with a theodolite and turning angles to known points north of the river.

I'm fairly certain that this is the remains of a benchmark, but I cannot ascertain which one it is or who it was set by. If you look at the recovery reports of the monuments along the Potomac River, most of the disks are missing, leaving only the shanks or stems intact.

My apologies for such a long winded narrative. Thanks to John and Holtie for your thoughts on this.

~ Mitch ~

4.1k · March 16, 2007

Folks,

Please note for the contest special scores you need to Find the correct benchmark to get the points.

If someone logs a benchmark as DNF you need to FIND that benchmark.

If someone logs a benchmark as DES destroyed, then you need to FIND that benchmark.

If someone logs the wrong benchmark (ERR) for a given PID# then you must FIND the correct benchmark described.

Finding only the stem of the benchmark does NOT count, since we have no way to verify what you found.

All points are awarded for Finding the benchmark.

John

4.1k · March 16, 2007

Folks,

Please note for the contest special scores you need to Find the correct benchmark to get the points.

If someone logs a benchmark as DNF you need to FIND that benchmark.

If someone logs a benchmark as DES destroyed, then you need to FIND that benchmark.

If someone logs the wrong benchmark (ERR) for a given PID# then you must FIND the correct benchmark described.

Finding only the stem of the benchmark does NOT count, since we have no way to verify what you found.

All points are awarded for Finding the benchmark.

John

I forgot to add that if it is a benchmark disk, you need to find the disk for verification purposes. We can't tell what disk was found by looking at the stem.

John

March 19, 2007

Does anyone know what "height of light" means in some benchmark descriptions?

4.1k · March 19, 2007

Does anyone know what "height of light" means in some benchmark descriptions?

Yes!

John

4.1k · March 19, 2007

Try This Link.

John

10.1k · March 20, 2007

Clarification... (Since I bragged that spelling 2oldfarts would be easy...)

The rules state that I can reuse a previously found benchmark, if I logged it more than a year ago. I assume that that is the time from the previous log, and not from the start of the contest? The one in question, I logged in April of 2006. If I refind it in May of 2007 (and log as a note, of course), I assume that that would count? (One of the characters seems to be very rare in this neighborhood. There might be a very nice one several hours from here, but that seems a long trip if the one I am thinking of would suffice.)

4.1k · March 20, 2007

Clarification... (Since I bragged that spelling 2oldfarts would be easy...)

The rules state that I can reuse a previously found benchmark, if I logged it more than a year ago. I assume that that is the time from the previous log, and not from the start of the contest? The one in question, I logged in April of 2006. If I refind it in May of 2007 (and log as a note, of course), I assume that that would count? (One of the characters seems to be very rare in this neighborhood. There might be a very nice one several hours from here, but that seems a long trip if the one I am thinking of would suffice.)

You are correct, Harry. As long as it has been over a year since it was last logged by the person who wishes to use it for the bonus, it is fair game.

John

4.4k · March 26, 2007

Clarification... (Since I bragged that spelling 2oldfarts would be easy...)

The rules state that I can reuse a previously found benchmark, if I logged it more than a year ago. I assume that that is the time from the previous log, and not from the start of the contest? The one in question, I logged in April of 2006. If I refind it in May of 2007 (and log as a note, of course), I assume that that would count? (One of the characters seems to be very rare in this neighborhood. There might be a very nice one several hours from here, but that seems a long trip if the one I am thinking of would suffice.)

You are correct, Harry. As long as it has been over a year since it was last logged by the person who wishes to use it for the bonus, it is fair game.

John

What about a Waymark?

I mean if the NGS Station is gone and you Waymark the one remaining reference mark does it count?

If it was a year I hurried for a good reason last night to beat the dark on Buffalo.

edit: darn not a year yet.

Now I just need a 2.

And still an F.

Edited March 26, 2007 by GEO*Trailblazer 1

4.1k · March 26, 2007

Clarification... (Since I bragged that spelling 2oldfarts would be easy...)

The rules state that I can reuse a previously found benchmark, if I logged it more than a year ago. I assume that that is the time from the previous log, and not from the start of the contest? The one in question, I logged in April of 2006. If I refind it in May of 2007 (and log as a note, of course), I assume that that would count? (One of the characters seems to be very rare in this neighborhood. There might be a very nice one several hours from here, but that seems a long trip if the one I am thinking of would suffice.)

You are correct, Harry. As long as it has been over a year since it was last logged by the person who wishes to use it for the bonus, it is fair game.

John

What about a Waymark?

I mean if the NGS Station is gone and you Waymark the one remaining reference mark does it count?

If it was a year I hurried for a good reason last night to beat the dark on Buffalo.

Now I just need a 2.

Geo,

Sorry, but the rules say it has to be in the GC database and it has to be the benchmark described on the datasheet.

Besides there are NO "B"s in "2OLDFARTS"? Do we smell Buffalo chips?? :laughing:

Shirley~

4.4k · March 26, 2007

It tis in the Geocaching data base.

In other words though it has to have it's own PID.

Correct?

4.1k · March 27, 2007

It tis in the Geocaching data base.

In other words though it has to have it's own PID.

Correct?

That is correct.

Happy hunting.

Shirley~

10.1k · April 2, 2007

It should be point out that some of the participants in this contest are having far too much fun! Just read Doc Geo's and Klemmer & TeddyBearMama's latest entries. Unfair! LaBrea Tar Pits?!?

(Anone wanna trade an 'O' for a couple of '2's? The 2oldfarts will never notice. :laughing: )

April 11, 2007

While out benchmarking today, I found a BM that has two different PID's. It is the same exact benchmark. While I don't have a problem with logging both PID's in gc.com, with a note on each PID referencing one to the other, it does kind of feel "wrong" to claim both PID's as founds for the purposes of this contest.

What say ye, do I claim a 1-point contest Found for each PID, or just pick one and claim it?

They are NE0647 and NE0853.

4.1k · April 11, 2007

From the judges point of view, it is best to only log the one that you found! :anitongue:

If you compare the 2 datasheets, one (NE0647) is 3 1/2 feet above the ground. Read that as 42 inches above ground. The other (NE0853) is 1.18 meters above ground. Read that as 46 inches above ground.

So which did you find? :laughing:

Hmmmm,

John

4.1k · April 11, 2007

Or .......

Edited April 11, 2007 by 2oldfarts (the rockhounders)

April 11, 2007

Take a look at BM1033. The 1935 entry says the station is the center of the tower. The 1943 entry says the station is the flag pole. I found this location, took a picture, but as previous visitors found, there is still no flag pole. So have I found this benchmark or not?

4.1k · April 11, 2007

Take a look at BM1033. The 1935 entry says the station is the center of the tower. The 1943 entry says the station is the flag pole. I found this location, took a picture, but as previous visitors found, there is still no flag pole. So have I found this benchmark or not?

From the datasheet.....

"DESCRIBED BY COAST AND GEODETIC SURVEY 1935 (CAS) THIS STATION IS THE CENTER OF THE CLOCK TOWER OF THE LEE COUNTY COURTHOUSE."

If the center of the clock tower is still there, then it is a find.

John

April 11, 2007

From the judges point of view, it is best to only log the one that you found!

If you compare the 2 datasheets, one (NE0647) is 3 1/2 feet above the ground. Read that as 42 inches above ground. The other (NE0853) is 1.18 meters above ground. Read that as 46 inches above ground.

So which did you find?

Hmmmm,

John

Measuring from an easily changeable surface such as the ground is prone to error over time (landscaping, water and wind errosion, etc), and it was 10 years between the two datasheet descriptions. The 2.2 feet from the building corner is constant, and there was no evidence of another station being 4 inches lower or higher and that would be easily determined in this situation. One thing is for sure, I found only one even if it had two PID's and that's all I feel comfortable logging for this contest. I'll log just the latest PID. Thanks for pointing out the height discrepancy, I didn't do the actual math on that part of the description. :unsure:

4.1k · April 11, 2007

From the judges point of view, it is best to only log the one that you found!

If you compare the 2 datasheets, one (NE0647) is 3 1/2 feet above the ground. Read that as 42 inches above ground. The other (NE0853) is 1.18 meters above ground. Read that as 46 inches above ground.

So which did you find?

Hmmmm,

John

Measuring from an easily changeable surface such as the ground is prone to error over time (landscaping, water and wind errosion, etc), and it was 10 years between the two datasheet descriptions. The 2.2 feet from the building corner is constant, and there was no evidence of another station being 4 inches lower or higher and that would be easily determined in this situation. One thing is for sure, I found only one even if it had two PID's and that's all I feel comfortable logging for this contest. I'll log just the latest PID. Thanks for pointing out the height discrepancy, I didn't do the actual math on that part of the description.

You know...we think that if a mark has a PID# with the NGS, It is fair game for the contest. The basic premise of the contest is to recover benchmarks, so that the page on GC.com at least gets updated for any surveyor who happens to check the pages before using.

No other contestant should complain and we see no reason not to log all PID#s in the GC database. Do we rule out any building that has 2 spires that each has its own PID#, or 2 radio towers close enough together to get them both in one picture. What about the Triangulation station where each disk (the station disk and each RM) has its own PID#?

John & Shirley

April 11, 2007

You know...we think that if a mark has a PID# with the NGS, It is fair game for the contest..........

No other contestant should complain and we see no reason not to log all PID#s in the GC database. Do we rule out any building that has 2 spires that each has its own PID#, or 2 radio towers close enough together to get them both in one picture. What about the Triangulation station where each disk (the station disk and each RM) has its own PID#?

John & Shirley

I am glad this has come up. It is similar to my question. I have a unique (I think) situation where an intersection station has two separate PIDs for the same statue. QE1874 and QE1939. What is your ruling on this find, or is that finds? <_<

4.1k · April 11, 2007

You know...we think that if a mark has a PID# with the NGS, It is fair game for the contest..........

No other contestant should complain and we see no reason not to log all PID#s in the GC database. Do we rule out any building that has 2 spires that each has its own PID#, or 2 radio towers close enough together to get them both in one picture. What about the Triangulation station where each disk (the station disk and each RM) has its own PID#?

John & Shirley

I am glad this has come up. It is similar to my question. I have a unique (I think) situation where an intersection station has two separate PIDs for the same statue. QE1874 and QE1939. What is your ruling on this find, or is that finds?

After checking the datsheets (GC.com benchmark pages, that is) we see both have adjusted coordinates.

The coordinates put the intersected points about 6 feet apart, therefore it must be to different intersection stations.

Just make sure you get a picture of the right spot for each... <_< :unsure:

2 different adjusted coordinates, 2 diffferent PID#s, sounds like 2 different benchmarks.

John

4.1k · April 12, 2007

We have asked that you only post pictures that are readable.

Starting tomorrow 4/12/07 any log where we can NOT read the designation / stamping on the disk will NOT be allowed!

Sorry to have to do this, but we just don't have the time to run all the non-readable disks through the photo-enhancing programs.

John

7.9k · April 12, 2007

We have asked that you only post pictures that are readable.

Starting tomorrow 4/12/07 any log where we can NOT read the designation / stamping on the disk will NOT be allowed!

Sorry to have to do this, but we just don't have the time to run all the non-readable disks through the photo-enhancing programs.

John

OK, I understand we can expect to get put on notice if any are too battered, or if the photography is too poor.

Suppose a station mark is too battered to read the stamping (but is clearly a station mark), would a photo of the still-readable reference mark serve as proof of what station mark it is? For adjusted marks, wouldn't the co-ordinates on the GPSr in the photo (that match the listing) help serve as verification?

Then there are the marks which have no stamping, and are so described...what then?

I'm sure I can speak for all the contestants when I thank you both for all the time you are spending looking at our logs. I wouldn't expect you to spend more than about 30 seconds looking at any of my photos before hitting the REJECT button and moving on to the next one. I am not keeping track of my score separately (so I wouldn't know if you rejected one or more anyway! :unsure: ), and I trust your judgment in this implicitly.

4.1k · April 12, 2007

We have asked that you only post pictures that are readable.

Starting tomorrow 4/12/07 any log where we can NOT read the designation / stamping on the disk will NOT be allowed!

Sorry to have to do this, but we just don't have the time to run all the non-readable disks through the photo-enhancing programs.

John

OK, I understand we can expect to get put on notice if any are too battered, or if the photography is too poor.

Suppose a station mark is too battered to read the stamping (but is clearly a station mark), would a photo of the still-readable reference mark serve as proof of what station mark it is? For adjusted marks, wouldn't the co-ordinates on the GPSr in the photo (that match the listing) help serve as verification?

Then there are the marks which have no stamping, and are so described...what then?

I'm sure I can speak for all the contestants when I thank you both for all the time you are spending looking at our logs. I wouldn't expect you to spend more than about 30 seconds looking at any of my photos before hitting the REJECT button and moving on to the next one. I am not keeping track of my score separately (so I wouldn't know if you rejected one or more anyway! ), and I trust your judgment in this implicitly.

When taking pictures of benchmark disks there are 2 things to help improve the quality of the shot.

Use a powder like corn starch to bring out the details. Sprinkle it on, rub it in, and wipe off the excess. The corn starch will remain in all the depressions. For those benchmarks with shallow stampings, this will make it a whole lot easier to read the disk. Besides, corn starch is biodegradable.

Also, take the picture at a slight angle, instead of straight on. With our GPSr laying next to the disk we can see our reflection in the GPSr screen if we are taking the picture too straight on. Changing the angle just a little and we can then read the display on the GPSr. Get closer to the disk, so it fills the view finder. It is mostly learning to see what is in the view-finder of the camera. If we can't read the disk in the view finder, odds are we won't be able to read the disk in the picture. With digital cameras you can preview the picture to make sure it is readable before you leave the area.

Concerning battered disks, use the corn starch and get the clearest picture possible. We understand that there are disks out there that are nearly impossible to read, but the corn starch will help bring out the stampings that are left.

What we are mainly refering to are pictures where the stampings are there, but the picture doesn't allow us to read what is supposed to be stamped on the disk. The disks are not damaged, but we can't read what is stamped there without using a photo enhancing program.

If the disk is not stamped and the datasheet says so, then the picture should show a clear shot of the unstamped disk, so that the edge of the disk can still be read. The edge will often contain information that will verify if it is the correct disk or not.

We understand that there are circumstances that will prevent optimum pictures from being taken, but we are talking the common everyday benchmark picture, here.

The Contest is afoot

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment