Chiseled Square NGS Submittal ?

[+Camper1]

I recently found QD0715 and posted to Groundspeak as others previously have. But this mark has not been submitted to NGS since 2002 at which time USPSQ claimed it "INSUFFICENT DESCRIPTION. IF SQUARE IS ON BRIDEGE DECK IT IS UNDER ASPHALT". Well that just NOT SO! Chiseled square is present on the NW curbing end of the bridge. It is however missing one of it's "legs". Should I submit to NGS as found in poor condition, or route a situational descriptive to Deb Brown and let her decide, or skip my posting to NGS ? Thanks for any reviews of the link and the posted photos. Forum comments/suggestions/advice appreciated.

[+m&h]

This strikes us as a pretty long shot. It is not always easy in digital photos to distinguish raised and depressed parts of a close-up object, but the three remaining sides of the square you found have a raised or molded look, rather different from the usual chiseled square, which is carved down into the surface, and is rougher around the edges. What you have here could conceivably be some molded portion of the concrete block. The description on the NGS data sheet is vague as to what part of the bridge the mark is on; “north end” narrows it down some, but there are still plenty of questions. Furthermore the coordinates are scaled. It is possible that you and your predecessor have made a nice find, but if the pictures are showing what’s there, we would probably not have reported this even to this site, let alone the NGS. We may be over-cautious sometimes.

[2oldfarts (the rockhounders)]

Nice find!

 

Judging from the description, it appears as though you found the mark in good condition, "but use with caution". I believe that surveyors use the center of the square as the point in reference, so this would be a "Use with caution", since it may be hard to determine the exact point to be used.

 

How often does the DALLES-CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY cross the CROOKED RIVER? If it is just once, then determining the north end of the correct bridge is rather easy.

 

Well done.

 

John

[+Sagefox]

This strikes us as a pretty long shot. It is not always easy in digital photos to distinguish raised and depressed parts of a close-up object, but the three remaining sides of the square you found have a raised or molded look, rather different from the usual chiseled square, which is carved down into the surface, and is rougher around the edges.

 

This could be an optical illusion for you because it looks recessed to me in every photo.

 

This benchmark is at one of the most scenic locations along Highway 97. This is one of our favorite places to stop for a rest on our usually 850 mile trip. The Crooked River Gorge is very deep. There is a fun photo panel in the visitor area that shows how the railroad bridge (BNSF) in the background was constructed. I believe I posted some of those photos on the web page of a nearby geocache.

 

I have been looking for a chizled square BM for a long time. All the ones around my home area have been destroyed. I've got to get back to this site!

[+t8r]

Looks like a chiseled square to me. Can't imagine anything else that would be carved into concrete or stone that would be anything but a benchmark.

[Bill93]

Looks like it to me, too. It appears there is enough of the square, including the center, to define an elevation. Thus it could even be called "Good", because what counts is whether the original elevation is preserved. But you could say "Poor" in order to flag that the condition is deteriorating.

 

I would report to NGS and mention that "edge of concrete is crumbling and the elevation point could become lost".

[AZcachemeister]

I would report it as 'good', and mention the damage to the concrete.

It appears the bridge has been painted, and that reduces the definition of the 'chiseled' effect.

I also suspect the concrete damage is more likely due to an impact (vehicular), rather than 'deterioration' from age.

[+Renegade Knight]

I've created a few chiseled squares when I was more activly surveying. It's fairly common practice if you need a benchmark. I'd approach all chiseled squares with extra caution.

[+Camper1]

It is not always easy in digital photos to distinguish raised and depressed parts of a close-up object, but the three remaining sides of the square you found have a raised or molded look, rather different from the usual chiseled square

Legs are indented as I've previously found on well established Chiseled Square BM's. This by the way was found without previous notice of volcanoguy's Groundspeak posting or his submitted photos. Seems like we both recognized it for what is was; a Chiseled Square missing one of it's legs. Due to it's condition I'm wondering if I should post to NGS (I like refuting USPSQ hap-hazard postings ) .

[+Black Dog Trackers]

Camper1 -

 

Excellent find !

 

I would definitely recommend reporting this to the NGS. Whether you report GOOD or POOR doesn't much matter in this case, I think. As has been pointed out, the mark is for elevation control, so a missing side and 2 corners doesn't matter much. The main point is that you (and Volcanoguy) did find the chiseled square!

[andylphoto]

Definitely looks like a chiseled square to me. However, here's my concern. It's monumentation is unknown, but it was described in 1934. It could be just me and I could be wrong, but to me that concrete railing doesn't look like it's been there since 1934. Has it been replaced at some point? It looks old in the close photos, but to me the style of the railing looks newer. Like I said, I could definitely be wrong on that. But that would be my only concern. That could be what they were building in the 30s in this area.

[+Black Dog Trackers]

This bridge site says the old bridge was made in 1926.

 

andylphoto does bring up a good point about non-disk bridge benchmarks - generally a bridge has a date on it and that date must be on or before the monumentation date of the benchmark.

[+Sagefox]

Definitely looks like a chiseled square to me. However, here's my concern. It's monumentation is unknown, but it was described in 1934. It could be just me and I could be wrong, but to me that concrete railing doesn't look like it's been there since 1934. Has it been replaced at some point? It looks old in the close photos, but to me the style of the railing looks newer. Like I said, I could definitely be wrong on that. But that would be my only concern. That could be what they were building in the 30s in this area.

 

That is definitely the original railing. This bridge is now a bike/walking pathway and the steel posts and cable were added after the new bridge was opened.

Edited June 24, 2007 by Team Sagefox

[+TheBeanTeam]

This bridge site says the old bridge was made in 1926.

 

andylphoto does bring up a good point about non-disk bridge benchmarks - generally a bridge has a date on it and that date must be on or before the monumentation date of the benchmark.

 

I am Oregon born and can concur this is the original railing. Nice find. I need to visit again now as well.

 

The Library of congress has an excellent record of this bridge in their HABS survey section. The data pages are very detailed and informative as to the bridges history.

 

edit to add link.

Edited June 25, 2007 by TheBeanTeam

[+Kewaneh & Shark]

...I believe that surveyors use the center of the square as the point in reference, so this would be a "Use with caution", since it may be hard to determine the exact point to be used...

 

John

 

Surveyors do use the center of the square as the reference point. Chiseled squares are usually smaller than 2"x2" and the peremeter carved into a relatively level surface, resulting in a theoretically level square. There is no particular 'point of origin' within the square as all of the interior should maintain the same elevation.

 

Level runs were/are commonly performed using Linker rods or Philly rods (among other things) which did not have a pointed tip, but a flat base about 1"x1.5". The newer digital levels have bigger bases about 1"x2.5". Although, the middle of the square is usually where the rod is set, rods designed specifically for leveling purposes usually completely cover any chiseled square that is tied to. When using a rod with a pointed tip, such as those designed for use with a theodolite, total station, or GPS, the center of the square is usually where the rod is set.

 

Chiseled squares are commonly cut into curbs, sidewalks, bridge abutments, and other relatively level and stable objects. Some areas, for example Fresno, California, have extensive benchmark systems, comprised of a large number of chiseled squares.

 

As far as the square found by the OP, a broken or damaged side would generally not detract from the usability of the square for surveying purposes, as the mark is the interior square, and not the carved peremeter.

 

- Kewaneh

Edited June 25, 2007 by Kewaneh & Shark

[+Harry Dolphin]

I recently found QD0715 and posted to Groundspeak as others previously have. But this mark has not been submitted to NGS since 2002 at which time USPSQ claimed it "INSUFFICENT DESCRIPTION. IF SQUARE IS ON BRIDEGE DECK IT IS UNDER ASPHALT". Well that just NOT SO! Chiseled square is present on the NW curbing end of the bridge. It is however missing one of it's "legs". Should I submit to NGS as found in poor condition, or route a situational descriptive to Deb Brown and let her decide, or skip my posting to NGS ? Thanks for any reviews of the link and the posted photos. Forum comments/suggestions/advice appreciated.

 

I always defer to Deb! The USPSQ log is not one that I would have submitted. But, one has to take most DNF logs with a grain of salt. For this one, it does not sound as if he searched too strenuously. I would like to see DNFs explain the reasoning. "New bridge here", or 'Sidewalk rebuilt' would make a big difference on my searches. Heck, I have a few easy finds on NJGS DNFs. And a recent find on an DNF by a local surveyor.

KV3430'RECOVERY NOTE BY KS ENGINEERS PC 2006

KV3430'MARK NOT FOUND.

No explanation for the DNF. I measured the distance from the flagpole, and probed with my pen knife. It wasn't that hard to find.

Looks to me like you found the station in question. Per opinions here, it is in 'good' condition, with the note that part of the square missing. Not sure of how much use chiseled squares are these days, bt that does not distract from the geocaching/benchmarking mania of finding them all!

[+m&h]

The persuasive group above includes some people whose expertise we’ve respected and benefited from since we joined the forum. The legs of the square are obviously indented, no matter how the photos look to us, and that’s the salient point. Our caution, which may sometimes have kept us from reporting good finds, does want to remind us that the data sheet is unusually reticent: it’s easy to locate the correct bridge, and its north end, but it would have been nice to have a little more: East rail? West rail? Measurements from the roadway center line and one or two durable points along the railing would be good to have in the recovery report.