Jump to content

What did I find?


StripeMark
Followers 0

Recommended Posts

Check the 1970 description of FARLIN at: http://www.ngs.noaa.gov/cgi-bin/ds_mark.prl?PidBox=JE1928

 

A couple years ago, highway 7 was torn up and re-leveled. Along the linefence about 50 feet west of the centerline of the highway I found a mass of concrete roughly circular shaped about 3 feet in diameter and about 14 inches thick. This was not a pre-cast mass. The edges were jagged and rough like it was the plug in a hole. It is very heavy, but I was able to tip it up to check its thickness. It had about a 3 inch impression in the ground and was lying at about a 30 degree angle.

 

I assumed what I had found was the underground marker that had been pulled up during highway construction. But the survey marker is stamped FARLIN 1948 1970. According to the description, this would be the "ROUND CONCRETE POST WHICH IS 14 INCHES BELOW THE SURFACE OF THE GROUND". Or is it? This isn't a concrete post. And there is no mention of the underground marker having 1970 stamped on it.

 

Also notice that in the first paragragh it says "A NEW SURFACE STATION MARK WAS SET VERTICALLY OVER THE UNDERGROUND MARK." and then on the station mark description it says "SET IN THE TOP OF A ROUND CONCRETE POST". Does that just mean it was set directly VERTICALLY over it? Weird wording?

 

Any ideas? Did I find the surface marker (which should be buried 14 inches) or the underground marker????

 

I added a pic of the "mass" at http://www.geocaching.com/mark/details.aspx?PID=JE1928

 

Thanks!

Edited by StripeMark
Link to comment

I wish you had included a closeup picture of the disk. Did the disk you found say "reference mark" on it around the edge, or did it say "triangulation station" instead? I assume "trianulation station", but there's no closeup picture.

 

I think that when they say "concrete post", the post could be wider than it is tall and still be called a "post". In that case, the post, being 14 inches below ground, would wholly be over the top of the "underground" mark (both are underground). With a 'post' several inches think and 14 inches underground, there wouldn't be a whole lot of dirt between the top of the 'underground' mark and the bottom of the station mark's 'post', but there would be some.

Edited by Black Dog Trackers
Link to comment

Black Dog, it is the Triangulation disk. Sorry I didn't mention that. Reference Marks 3 and 4 were recovered. And yes, the distance to each reference mark matched what was listed in the box score.

 

Do you think that a "post" could be wider than tall???? maybe

 

By the shape of it though, I'd consider this to be the irregular mass of concrete.

 

IF this IS the "overhead" station marker, and the underground marker (the "real" one) is still located correctly then this would be Found in Poor condition, right? But that then would involve me going back out and trying to dig down 3 feet to verify it :o

 

hmmmmmm anyone got a backhoe?

Link to comment

According to what is stamped on the disk, you have found FARLIN RESET.

 

The term "vertical" could be used to mean above as opposed to horizontally from the underground mark.

 

It is also a good bet that the datasheet should have said 14 inches above ground, instead of 14 inches underground. Of course it is possible that wind erosion has removed all the material around the disk causing it to appear to have been set above ground.

 

I would log it "Found" with a note that it is not as solid as it should be.

 

John

Link to comment

StripeMark -

 

Well, you've got a gray area item there; I would say somewhere between POOR and DESTROYED. I think the NGS stance is that if the monumentation (the cement in this case) is fully out of the ground, then it is destroyed. (Of course as you know, only the NGS itself can actually log a mark as destroyed in their database.)

 

If I were at the site, and if the cement is out of the ground, merely sitting in a depression as you say, then I would attempt to take a picture that showed as well as I could that the cement was fully out of the ground and send the picture to the NGS with a description of the recent history of the leveling of the area, etc. I would log either Found-POOR or DESTROYED on the Geocaching site and change to DESTROYED if the NGS logged it that way. With it just sitting there, when it is supposed to be 14 inches underground, the liklihood of it being in the right spot after construction/leveling is essentially zero.

 

As far as the 'underground' mark is concerned, I believe that any report of the condition of a mark is supposed to be for the 'surface' mark only, never the underground mark (unless you're a professional). Also, digging for an Underground Mark is completely beyond our scope as amateur benchmark hunters. (I'm referring here to the official Underground Mark, not a Surface Mark that might be under a bit of ground. :o )

Edited by Black Dog Trackers
Link to comment

I am only a benchmark hunter, and not a professional. I have certainly found many benchmarks where the descriptions are wrong. A rod labelled as a disk. A rivet listed as a pipe cap. &c. So we have to take some of the descriptions with a grain of salt, or two. English is not a precise language, and semantics will vary.

I've found a few disks listed as being set 'in a round concrete post' but none of the posts looked anythingl ike that one!

I would go with: "THE STATION SURFACE MARK, REFERENCE MARK NO. 1, AND REFERENCE MARK NO. 2 WERE DESTROYED BY GRADING OPERATIONS. THE UNDERGROUND STATION MARK AND THE AZIMUTH MARK WERE RECOVERED AND FOUND IN GOOD CONDITION. A NEW SURFACE STATION MARK WAS SET VERTICALLY OVER THE UNDERGROUND MARK,"

The underground station mark was found in good condition. It is marked Farlin 1948. It is not listed as being restamped "1948 1970". Though my experience is limited, I have never heard of an underground station being restamped. " STATION SURFACE MARK, A STANDARD DISK STAMPED FARLIN 1948 1970". And the 1948 1970 stamping is offset. Of course, that might have happened, but usually the date is under the name, not offset.

My amateur opinion is that you have found the reset "STAMPED FARLIN 1948 1970", and in destroyed condition (though for NGS purposed, that is left up to Deb Brown to decide).

Link to comment

..another non-professional opinion here - but my hunch is that it is (was) a surface mark set 'on the fly' for the following reasons:

 

- from the pic, the monument looks like it was originally poured above a shallow hole w/ some of the concrete spreading over the ground surface

 

- from what I've seen, most brass/bronze disks that spend a fair amount of time covered by ground tend to get a reddish 'rusty' color from the ground rather than green from exposure to rain/air. (ex - KW2132 - disk)

 

(once NGS marks that disk destroyed, that mass would make a great patio table!)

Edited by Ernmark
Link to comment

stripemark,

I'll have to go with "found station in poor/destroyed condition. I'm new to benchmarking but have read a lot of descriptions in the last couple months and i am obsessive about finding all possible parts of a triangulation station. It is possible that this description got distorted a little in transcription in an office or the surveyor waited a time to do his logging and it was not clear in his mind after doing a bunch of resets with all the work involved.

also look here: http://www.ngs.noaa.gov/FORMS_PROCESSING-c...y_entry_www.prl

Link to comment

Please remember that the sole function of a triangulation station is to monument a horizontal position. If the underground mark still exists, undisturbed, then the station is NOT destroyed, but can still be used. When the NGS classifies a station as destroyed it is removed from the database. This would not be the desired action if the station is still usable. I would simply log what you found, without trying to classify it (at least for NGS purposes). Given the shallow depth of the concrete mass and the history of regrading in the vicinity, it would be my guess that the underground mark would not be very far below what you found, as BDT pointed out. Since you were able to tip it up I don't see any reason why you couldn't dig a little deeper for the underground mark. Curiously though, there is no mention of an underground mark in the 1948 description! Let us know if you find it.

Link to comment

Holtie, that is exactly what I was trying to get at. It's the underground marker that is the important one and not the one on the surface. But by the looks of the concrete mass, I was thinking that this was the underground mass brought up to the surface. But then again, I also have never heard of a re-stamping of the underground marker when the surface one is re-set. Just kind of wish that the 1970 crew wouldn't have called this a "concrete post" when they set it (if this is the surface marker).

 

It would be terrible to have the NGS classify this as DESTROYED when the underground marker might still be sitting there. I will be heading back out there and doing some probing to see if I can find the underground marker. If I find nothing, I'll turn it over to Deb with all the facts and pics to see what she thinks and go by her decision.

 

Thanks all for the input!

Link to comment

Can you measure carefully from the objects in the description, and more importantly from the reference marks to see if the position looks right? The position indicated by the measurements tells you where to dig to find the underground mark, if it still exists.

 

See the box score for the distances in meters from the RM's, and convert to feet if that is the tape you have.

 

The reason we amateurs usually should not try to find an "underground" mark is that we would normally be disturbing the "surface mark" over it.

 

From the location of the mass relative to the witness post, I'd say you won't be digging under the mass. It looks to have been moved there from a few feet away, and the photo seems to hint that 8 ft west of the post is in the bottom of the roadside ditch. Of course 3 ft is a long way to dig, but I think the road construction dug most of that out for you.

 

My guess is that if extensive grading was done, they plowed out both the surface and underground marks and this looks more like the underground one. The ONLY thing that I see arguing against that is they probably would not have restamped the UG mark.

Link to comment
When the NGS classifies a station as destroyed it is removed from the database.

 

No, the marks still remain in the database but won't come up in a regular search. You can get ds's for destroyed marks if you know the PID. Check the box on the PID search page and it will display the datasheet.

 

While that mark looks odd, it appears to me to be the surface station mark set in 1970. Because of the 1970 stamped onto the disk. They would have not disturbed the underground mark. Is this mass about 14-in thick? Maybe thats what they meant to say, not that the top was 14-in below the surface. Thats my SWAG anyway.

Edited by Z15
Link to comment

I imagine that the witness post is no longer where it was in 1970. The field entrance, powerline pole, and the center of the state highway are all possibly unusable landmarks at this point. Only the 2 remaining reference marks are useful for finding the underground mark.

 

The 1970 report says the underground disk is marked FARLIN 1948 and it says that the surface disk is marked FARLIN 1948 1970. Therefore, what you found is the surface disk, not the underground disk. A further clue was pointed out by Harry Dolphin - the 3-way symmetry of the stampings: FARLIN, 1948, and 1970. That would not be the geometry of a re-stamping of a FARLIN 1948 marking.

 

Perhaps it is only very seldom useful, but it probably would've been good to have disks with a special rim marking for use as 'underground' disks; e.g. UNDERGROUND STATION instead of TRIANGULATION STATION or maybe just a standard stamping practice like FARLIN UG for the underground disk.

 

The surface marker is obviously in destroyed condition. Hopefully the underground marker is not.

 

If you don't find the underground disk, it will be interesting to see how Deb at the NGS classifies this interesting find.

Link to comment

I dont' know if you have to deal with frost in the ground in PA but I have seen where frost would push something like this, out of the ground over time.

 

Back when I was working I found this;

 

QL0116 HISTORY - Date Condition Report By

QL0116 HISTORY - 1972 MONUMENTED NGS

QL0116 HISTORY - 20020311 POOR MIDT

QL0116

QL0116 STATION DESCRIPTION

QL0116

QL0116'DESCRIBED BY NATIONAL GEODETIC SURVEY 1972

QL0116'4.6 MI E FROM RAPID RIVER.

QL0116'ABOUT 4.55 MILES EAST ALONG U.S. HIGHWAY 2 FROM THE INTERSECTION

QL0116'OF MAIN STREET AT RAPID RIVER, 85 FEET NORTH OF THE CENTER

QL0116'LINE OF THE HIGHWAY, 28 FEET EAST OF THE CENTER LINE OF A

QL0116'PRIVATE DRIVEWAY, 10 1/2 FEET EAST OF A POWER LINE POLE BRACED

QL0116'BY A GUY WIRE, 0.8 FOOT SOUTH OF A WOVEN WIRE FENCE, 1 FOOT

QL0116'NORTHWEST OF A METAL WITNESS POST, AND IS A DISK ON THE TOP OF A

QL0116'COPPER COATED STEEL ROD THAT IS FLUSH WITH THE LEVEL OF THE

QL0116'GROUND AND ENCASED IN A 6 INCH METAL PIPE THAT PROJECTS 5 INCHES

QL0116'ABOVE THE LEVEL OF THE GROUND. THE ROD WAS DRIVEN TO A DEPTH

QL0116'OF 5 1/2 FEET TO REFUSAL. SECTION 35, T 41 N, R 21 W.

QL0116

QL0116 STATION RECOVERY (2002)

QL0116

QL0116'RECOVERY NOTE BY MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 2002 (MPR)

QL0116'NOTE--THE DISK IS PROJECTING ABOUT 5-INCHES ABOVE THE TOP OF THE PIPE

QL0116'AND ABOUT 1 FT ABOVE GROUND. MARK OF QUESTIONABLE STABILITY, USE WITH

QL0116'CAUTION.

Edited by Z15
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...
Followers 0
×
×
  • Create New...