Older Benchmark not in database.

[atari52oo]

I've read the FAQ about why newer NGS benchmarks are not in the database, but I'm trying to figoure out why a benchmark set in 1961 wouldn't be? My example is RD2932, it was set in 1961.

[DaveD]

RD2932 doesn't sound like a typical NGS/C&GS station designation. Where is this mark?

[atari52oo]

Most benchmarks in my area (Portland, OR) have RDxxxx ID's

 

Here is a link to the NGS datasheet

http://www.ngs.noaa.gov/cgi-bin/ds_mark.prl?PidBox=RD2932

[DaveD]

RD2932 is the database permanent identifier, not the designation which is CROSS. I'm not sure what you mean by it not being in the DB since you easily accessed the datasheet.

[+frex3wv]

off topic - but... Dave D - did you get the email I sent you the other day through here - please let me know.

[atari52oo]

I'm sorry, I wasn't clear on the question.

 

Although this station (PID: RD2932) exists in the NGS database, it does not exist in the geocaching.com database. If my memory serves me correctly GC's FAQ says they did an import of the NGS database around the year 2000, and marks that have been set since then in most cases will not be in the GC database.

 

I was simply curious why this mark was not in GC's database since it was set almost 40 years before the import.

[+Ernmark]

I'm sorry, I wasn't clear on the question.

 

Although this station (PID: RD2932) exists in the NGS database, it does not exist in the geocaching.com database. If my memory serves me correctly GC's FAQ says they did an import of the NGS database around the year 2000, and marks that have been set since then in most cases will not be in the GC database.

 

I was simply curious why this mark was not in GC's database since it was set almost 40 years before the import.

 

I've run into this in a few dozen cases - most recently KV2740 & about 3 or 4 more w/in about 10 miles - it's a Geocaching thing & not an NGS thing - when GC imported NGS info, anything that went awry was probably kicked out & never became part of the database.

[atari52oo]

I figured that was probably going to be the answer. Oh well I guess..

 

I would guess at some point in time they (GC) would want to "refresh" their database with updated info from the NGS database..

[+BuckBrooke]

atari52oo, the quick answer is that Geocaching would have to go through a lot of work to update their version of the NGS database. The Geocaching version was uploaded from CDs from the last time (2001) that the NGS offered its database for purchase on CDs.

 

The NGS no longer offers their database in CDs, and I would imagine it's not useful for the NGS to go through the effort to make a new CD version (everyone has internet access and can get to the source directly). Geocaching has pretty much said it's not interested in going through the hassle of interfacing to the NGS website for a small community of its users.

 

In reality, for many stations the Geocaching site is more up to date, in terms of active logs. Whether they're accurate or not, that's another story.

 

Reasons why an update from the NGS database would be a lot of trouble for not much benefit, in order of size/significance:

 

1) As GEOCAC is the largest group responsible for logs in the last year or two on the NGS' database, the updated log changes wouldn't be that different. According to the stats that holograph keeps, GEOCAC has had 25,500 logs on the NGS database since the community formed on Geocaching when the geocaching.com/mark went live in 2001. I'd imagine that there are that many or less logs from other agencies in the same time period, or less (this has been discussed somewhere). As geocaching.com/mark shows 90,000 stations logged, I'd bet a fair number of the 65,000 remaining updates on Geocaching overlap with the ones updated on the NGS database, so the gap is probably much smaller than 25,000 stations (3.5% of the database).

 

2) There aren't a zillion disks that have been added to the NGS database since 2001, probably < 10,000, and concentrated in relatively few areas/projects, so there wouldn't be that many new disks for that many folks.

 

3) As for the handfuls (< a couple hundred?) of odd/quirky stations that fell through the cracks the first time, Geocaching doesn't have time to hand edit those back in.

 

The Geocaching.com/mark version of the database seriously dumbs down the information for the community, and so it serves a different purpose for us. A subset of our community wants to go through the extra steps and rigor to work with/log on the NGS database; I think most Geocachers, and a good chunk of benchmarkers, are willing to live with some of the quirks of the Geocaching version.

 

We probably should put some version of this discussion in the FAQ if it's not there already.

Edited August 16, 2007 by BuckBrooke