Jump to content

Reset(s)


greg1701

Recommended Posts

Greetings all.

 

Got a question... I searched (in vain) for KK1347 yesterday, but found a nearby newer metal rod that had been driven in.. I then noticed that the one I found was a Reset of KK1347...

 

So I guess I'm asking.. do they put in another marker if the other one is missing, or if it's incorrect or what...

 

What is a "Reset"...

 

Thanks

Greg

www.denvertvguy.com

Link to comment

In simple terms, its a replacement for the original. The original may have been in the way of construction or some other event that would likely have brought its demise, so the RESET was moved in location to another site nearby. BUT, not always is the original lost, sometimes events take a change and the mark never gets lost so you end up with the original and the reset, seen it on a number of occasions. Note-The reset is always set before the original is lost or there is not way to reset it because the data needed to do it is gone with the mark.

 

Often times you won't find any information on the Resets for various reasons of which the prime one is someone forgets to send in the data or its misplaced. Also, sometimes NGS won't accept it due to the methods employed to reset it or the lack of documentation pertaining to the work done. e.g. No confidence in the work.

 

Note - Only the actual mark is reset, not the elevations, that will always be different.

 

BMreset2.jpg

Edited by Z15
Link to comment

Typically, a "reset" is monumented when the original mark is (scheduled to be or actually) destroyed or buried by construction or road improvements, etc., but an interested benchmark-setting agency determines that a geodetic control point is needed in the vicinity.

 

In my experience, when you see both a mark and its reset in the database, 98 percent of the time the original is unfindable (although there are cases where the original survives, and there is at least one case where the original mark out-lived the reset version).

 

Many times, a mark gets replaced by a reset, but the reset version does not make it into the (static) Geocaching database.

 

Will

Link to comment

AZcachemeister -

 

"I swear I have found several marks designated as RESET, and the descriptions clearly state that the original was not found so a reset was done.

Apparently they did it wrong, or perhaps there can be exceptions?"

 

I don't understand your observation. If an agency cannot find a mark and elect to replace it with a RESET, that's how it's supposed to work.

 

W

Link to comment

Sometimes resets have been placed based on reference marks. See for example the 1929 note for PE2242.

 

Also the 1933 note for GW2383: "THE STATION AND REFERENCE MARKS HAD BEEN DESTROYED AND THE STATION WAS RECOVERED FROM THE OLD N, E, AND W REFERENCE MARKS AND RE-MARKED WITH AN UNDERGROUND MARK, A STANDARD BRONZE DISK SET IN CONCRETE."

Link to comment

AZ -

 

OK, now your observation makes sense to me, and I think I have observed the same thing (maybe not, though - I'll have to check back through my stuff).

 

Maybe Z15 was describing the ideal situation - establish the RESET before the original mark is destroyed, but maybe occasionally, a RESET is monumented after the original station is destroyed (as described by holograph, below). I seem to recall seeing a RESET ot two on bridge abutments where it would have been impossible to monument the RESET before the original was destoryed (as, for example, when the old bridge is destroyed and replaced).

 

I have seen RESET marks where it appears that the original disk was re-stamped and used, and other cases where the RESET appears to be a new disk. And I think we have all seen examples of stations that are re-dated, whether or not they are designated as RESETs.

 

Here's a T-station where the disk has bee re-stamped with a new date but not with the word "RESET", but the designation is RUARK RESET, HU2472.

 

http://www.geocaching.com/mark/details.aspx?PID=HU2472

Edited by seventhings
Link to comment

You are only supposed to use the term RESET for a Bench Mark (Elevation). Tri stations, you use the original date and the date it was reset but do not use the term Reset.

 

Sure there are examples that contradict this but the field crew did it wrong.

 

If you read the instruction guide it explains what to do if the mark will be destroyed before a new one can be set. Set 2 temp markers such as a nail in a tree root or a spike in a utility pole or some other semi-permanent point that will likely stay.

 

btw-I did this for 30 yrs so I have some experience in setting them. Probably set close to 100 in that time, set a lot in bridges. Had the inspector set many with the pour and I also spent hours chiseling a hole to set one.

 

NOAA-2.gif

Edited by Z15
Link to comment

Perhaps the policy has evolved over the years? Maybe there wasn't a firm policy for terminology in the 1930's when a number of restored horizontal control marks were RESETs.

 

I have seen a number of XXXX horizontal stations that are called XXXX 1867 1932 or similar, and I have seen an equal number called XXXX RESET. I have also seen a number of XXXX 2, even XXXX 3 and more when horizontal control stations were placed nearby but not directly over some original mark.

 

There are also many horizontal control stations called XXXX RESET where the original underground mark was found and a new surface disk was placed above it.

Link to comment

Mike, what would the typical error be in transferring to temporary marks and back to the reset disk? Would you expect hold 0.001 ft (I would be surprised) or 0.01 ft (easy?) or what (and do you express this number at 1 std deviation, 95% confidence etc)?

Link to comment

 

Sure there are examples that contradict this but the field crew did it wrong.

 

btw-I did this for 30 yrs so I have some experience in setting them. Probably set close to 100 in that time, set a lot in bridges. Had the inspector set many with the pour and I also spent hours chiseling a hole to set one.

 

That is what I was getting at.

Just reporting on what I have seen.

I have the utmost respect for Z15's experience, and familiarity with the regulations of his era.

 

Perhaps the policy has evolved over the years? Maybe there wasn't a firm policy for terminology in the 1930's when a number of restored horizontal control marks were RESETs.

 

I have seen a number of XXXX horizontal stations that are called XXXX 1867 1932 or similar, and I have seen an equal number called XXXX RESET. I have also seen a number of XXXX 2, even XXXX 3 and more when horizontal control stations were placed nearby but not directly over some original mark.

 

There are also many horizontal control stations called XXXX RESET where the original underground mark was found and a new surface disk was placed above it.

 

Perhaps the policies did change, but just the same, there really isn't a need to describe just HOW the RESET was done, just that it was.

It appears that the information is probably there in the original paperwork, but didn't get transferred to the online versions?

OTOH, the stamping issue does seem to indicate that there may have been a less stringent policy about RESETs in the earlier days.

 

I can't help but ask if Z15 has posted a GEOCAC recovery for a mark he set himself? How strange would that feel? Like meeting an old friend, or reliving a bad nightmare?

Link to comment

 

I can't help but ask if Z15 has posted a GEOCAC recovery for a mark he set himself? How strange would that feel? Like meeting an old friend, or reliving a bad nightmare?

 

Most likely the answer is yes, but he'll have to chime in with specifics. Z15 did post a note on AE9966 and noted some conditions of this particular reset, which he was involved in. I guess this is relevant both to AZcachemeister's question, and the original topic.

 

Question for Z15...in reference to AE9966, it seems to me that the described work in this area was done some time in the mid '80s. Was the disk actually set in the '80s and the stamping done when the notes were recovered in 1998? The datasheet shows its monumentation as 1998, and the stamping is also 1998. That's an interesting situation.

Link to comment

I can't help but ask if Z15 has posted a GEOCAC recovery for a mark he set himself? How strange would that feel? Like meeting an old friend, or reliving a bad nightmare?

Here is one I reset...but never seen since. Looking for one that I been to since..

 

AE9966_MARKER: DV = VERTICAL CONTROL DISK

AE9966_SETTING: 66 = SET IN ROCK OUTCROP

AE9966_STAMPING: E 329 RESET 1998

AE9966_MARK LOGO: NGS

AE9966_MAGNETIC: N = NO MAGNETIC MATERIAL

AE9966_STABILITY: A = MOST RELIABLE AND EXPECTED TO HOLD

AE9966+STABILITY: POSITION/ELEVATION WELL

AE9966

AE9966 HISTORY - Date Condition Report By

AE9966 HISTORY - 1998 MONUMENTED MIDT

AE9966 HISTORY - 20011011 GOOD USPSQD

AE9966 HISTORY - 20041009 GOOD USPSQD

AE9966 HISTORY - 20060718 GOOD USPSQD

AE9966

AE9966 STATION DESCRIPTION

AE9966

AE9966'DESCRIBED BY MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 1998 (SHN)

AE9966'STATION IS LOCATED AT NEGAUNEE, ALONG US HIGHWAY 41 AND STATE HIGHWAY

AE9966'M-28, IN THE SOUTHWEST SIDE OF A LARGE PROMINENT ROCK OUTCROP

AE9966'SOUTHEAST OF THE HIGHWAY. IT IS ABOUT 0.17 KM (0.10 MI) SOUTHWEST OF

AE9966'THE JUNCTION WITH COUNTY ROAD 492 (MAAS ST) AND A TRAFFIC SIGNAL, 16.3

AE9966'M (53.5 FT) NORTHEAST OF THE CENTERLINE OF THE NORTHEAST DRIVE

AE9966'ENTRANCE TO THE FERRELL GAS OFFICE/STORE AND BULK PLANT, 10.6 M (34.8

AE9966'FT) SOUTHEAST OF THE BACK OF CURB, 5.2 M (17.1 FT) NORTH OF A POWER

AE9966'POLE, 1.4 M (4.6 FT) SOUTHEAST OF A CALCITE VEIN AT THE NORTHWEST

AE9966'CORNER OF THE ROCK OUTCROP, 0.55 M (1.80 FT) NORTHEAST OF A CARSONITE

AE9966'WITNESS POST, AND 0.3 M (1.0 FT) EAST OF THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE

AE9966'LOWEST LEDGE ON THE SOUTHWEST SIDE. A STANDARD VERTICAL CONTROL DISK

AE9966'SET IN A DRILL HOLE ABOUT 1.1 M (3.6 FT) ABOVE LEVEL WITH THE HIGHWAY.

AE9966'DESCRIBED BY MIKE RAFFAELLI, SURVEY TECH - MIDT.

Edited by Z15
Link to comment

On the topic of resets, I posted last year after I found a newly monumented (2006) reset mark. M-DOT has been doing some blasting and cutting rock outcroppings back from the highway recently when road work is done. I found resets placed for four marks along a section of road scheduled for resurfacing last summer. Interestingly, only one of the four marks was actually destroyed by blasting. In the other three cases, they placed guardrails rather than blasting the rock. In some areas, there were actually holes drilled for blasting, but the blasting wasn't done for some reason. For details on the four marks and photos of locations of the originals and resets, see my logs for:

 

RK0457

RK0458 (destroyed)

RK0460 (Still intact, but could use an updated photo with locations for both marks. This was the first mark I found as the witness post and hot pink spray paint were quite visible from the highway.)

RK0464

Link to comment

Mike, what would the typical error be in transferring to temporary marks and back to the reset disk? Would you expect hold 0.001 ft (I would be surprised) or 0.01 ft (easy?) or what (and do you express this number at 1 std deviation, 95% confidence etc)?

 

0.01 ft would be acceptable but we worked in meters so 0.003 m was what we had as a standard and would keep redoing it till we met this. It was often no problem. I had both a digital (Topcon) and 3-wire conventional (Ziess) levels that were adjusted before any work of this type. We would do redundant observations to get as a precise as possible.

 

2002 was the last year I set any.

 

PS-My supervisor was extremely picky of this work and would demand high accuracy before he would approve any work.

Edited by Z15
Link to comment

Well (on the off-chance I should get to visit the U.P.) you can bet I'll be on the lookout for hyper-accurate marks described by MIKE RAFFAELLI!

 

...THE NOTES WERE MISPLACED TILL 1998. THE(y) HAD BEEN MISTAKENLY FILED WITH ANOTHER JOB AND INADVERTEN(t)LY DISCOVERED IN 1998.

 

Just goes to show that no matter how good you are, there is always the chance that someone else will screw up and make you look bad.

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...
×
×
  • Create New...