Jump to content

Re-visiting a mark to post an NGS recovery note.


AZcachemeister

Recommended Posts

I have a long-term (and probably unattainable) goal to visit every possible (airports, military installations, private property with gun-toting guards excepted!) benchmark in Arizona.

 

Naturally I would like to have a corresponding recovery note in the NGS database...my legacy, my claim-to-fame...whatever. In many cases, the 'one year limitation' has prevented me from posting an NGS recovery.

 

Has anyone else considered returning to re-verify a mark after the limitation date, so a recovery note could be posted?

Anyone ever done such?

Link to comment

Has anyone else considered returning to re-verify a mark after the limitation date, so a recovery note could be posted?

Anyone ever done such?

 

Excellent question. I've done it on occasion, but only because I was working a series of marks in a specific area, and a few of the stations had been visited 18 to 24 months earlier.

 

I always make an exception when a mark was reported not found last week or last month, and I was able to recover it. :laughing:

 

The objective, of course, is to make a meaningful contribution to the data base. Nevertheless, having a personal goal/agenda can be good. The entire state of Arizona would be quite a project! But I say, "Go for it!" On a smaller scale, I've attempted recovering a series of marks, such as PER1, PER2, PER3, etc in Person County. Another project was to recover as many marks as possible along particular stretch of highway, such as US-158 between Roxboro and Oxford--a distance of 25 miles.

 

I agree with the concept that significant new information is justification for shortening the limitation period. The more significant the info, the shorter the time.

 

-Paul-

 

P.S. The time limitation is becoming a non-issue in North Carolina because the US Power Squadron ceased reporting benchmark recoveries several months ago. Other than a few entries from N.C.G.S and NC DOT, plus an occasional LOCSUR or military training unit, GEOCAC is the State's only reporting agency at present. However, with the heat (105 today in Raleigh) and over 200 cases of tick-borne Rocky Mounty Spotted Fever this summer, we have not been setting any recovery records in the Tar Heel State. :laughing:

Link to comment

My goal is to update the NGS databse with useful information. If a station has been recovered recently (2-3 years) I generally don't update unless I can add more information about the station.

 

That being said, travel, illness and commuting 2 hrs/day for my dissertation has really knocked the fun out of weekend benchmarking. I've a few dream weeklong benchmarking vacations lined up for when I graduate, but I don't think it'll happen.

Link to comment

Re: revisiting

 

I have re-visited a few (not more than six) marks to justify reporting a recovery to NGS. In each case, they were marks that (1) I found before I started reporting recoveries to NGS, and (2) were very conveniently located on my way to or from doing something else. I have not made any substantive effort to revisit the (approx.) 300 marks I found before I started reporting to NGS.

 

Not that there's anything wrong with it.

 

Will

Link to comment
Has anyone else considered returning to re-verify a mark after the limitation date, so a recovery note could be posted?

Anyone ever done such?

 

Excellent question. I've done it on occasion, but only because I was working a series of marks in a specific area, and a few of the stations had been visited 18 to 24 months earlier.

 

I always make an exception when a mark was reported not found last week or last month, and I was able to recover it. :huh:

 

The objective, of course, is to make a meaningful contribution to the data base. Nevertheless, having a personal goal/agenda can be good. The entire state of Arizona would be quite a project! But I say, "Go for it!" On a smaller scale, I've attempted recovering a series of marks, such as PER1, PER2, PER3, etc in Person County. Another project was to recover as many marks as possible along particular stretch of highway, such as US-158 between Roxboro and Oxford--a distance of 25 miles.

 

I agree with the concept that significant new information is justification for shortening the limitation period. The more significant the info, the shorter the time.

 

-Paul-

 

P.S. The time limitation is becoming a non-issue in North Carolina because the US Power Squadron ceased reporting benchmark recoveries several months ago. Other than a few entries from N.C.G.S and NC DOT, plus an occasional LOCSUR or military training unit, GEOCAC is the State's only reporting agency at present. However, with the heat (105 today in Raleigh) and over 200 cases of tick-borne Rocky Mounty Spotted Fever this summer, we have not been setting any recovery records in the Tar Heel State. :D

 

 

 

The Power Squardron here in Wisconsin has ceased looking for/reporting benchmark recoveries as of early this year. It was funny, late last year, I was asked to join the local chapter to show them how to "find" benchmarks properly. I wonder why they quit? Is it because there are now dedicated benchmark hunters who really make the attempt to locate these things and report them, or if its because the PS doesn't have the time or resources to do it anymore.

Link to comment

I'm with PFF about adding significant information to the database. If everything is the same within 12 months, you will receive a prompt from the NGS site that the mark has been recently recovered. If many references have changed, or the condition of the mark has changed, I would report it within the 12-month period.

Link to comment

It is also perfectly appropriate to file a (very) late report with NGS. If you recovered a mark in, say 2002, you can still file a report for that recovery. Note, however, that if there has been a recovery report filed to NGS since then, there's no point (and your report will likely be rejected). Also be sure to accurately date your report to the date of your visit to the mark, not the date you are filing the report. In my hypothetical example, you would list the "date of recovery" on the NGS form as the date of your visit in 2002, not the date you are actually filing your NGS report. If the last recovery of a mark was in 1947, for example, it will be very helpful to have that 2002 report.

 

-ArtMan-

Link to comment
The Power Squardron here in Wisconsin has ceased looking for/reporting benchmark recoveries as of early this year........I wonder why they quit?

 

It is summer, so they are out on the water, conducting boating classes and training, rather than spending time on land-oriented activities. In addition, I suspect they may be regrouping with the benchmark recovery teams. During 2006, significant errors were found in the reports from some of their members. If/when they come back to benchmarks, we hopefully will see a renewed dedication to accuracy, as well as to reporting quality.

 

-Paul-

Link to comment

Let me clarify:

I am talking about marks that were recovered less than a year before my visit, so an NGS recovery was not possible at that time, under the current system.

A recovery report by me would probably be little more than 'YEP! It's still here!'

As I am reading the replies, it appears that most of us would not see a problem with this, and at worst it would be considered a bit redundant to have another 'Recovered in good condition' report just a year after the last one.

 

Interesting to hear that the Power Squadron has been put off of recovering marks. Perhaps the recent mandate by their 'higher-ups' for quality recoveries has put them off recovering marks entirely, or perhaps they are merely temporarily confused as to what a 'good quality report' is. :D

 

P.S. I have NO INTENTION to return to the same mark year after year and report a recovery, as those other guys seem to do so often.

Link to comment
The Power Squardron here in Wisconsin has ceased looking for/reporting benchmark recoveries as of early this year........I wonder why they quit?

 

It is summer, so they are out on the water, conducting boating classes and training, rather than spending time on land-oriented activities. In addition, I suspect they may be regrouping with the benchmark recovery teams. During 2006, significant errors were found in the reports from some of their members. If/when they come back to benchmarks, we hopefully will see a renewed dedication to accuracy, as well as to reporting quality.

 

-Paul-

 

 

Interesting. I heard the reason the local chapter gave up as there just wasn't enough members interested in doing it anymore. And not to slam all of theose who were out looking, but it was known that for some, if wasn't right in their face, it was "not found" as they didn't want to take the time to find it nor get dirty doing so. Face it, they'd rather be busy with boating activities.

 

 

Staying more on topic, we have visited many marks that have been reported in the last year or two but we didn't do it to make an NGS recovery report. We did it because they were ones that we haven't searched for yet. Although I do admit, we have gone back to several benchmarks that we found previously because they are in danger of being destroyed. We just like to keep an eye on them and well, hopefully be able to fully document their destruction..

Link to comment

I have not, and probably would not, just for the sake of making a report. There are some around here that get all kinds of reports, either favorites of the USPSQD or just because they're very convenient and get frequent visits by surveyors.

 

Usually if it's been reported on in the last 2 years and there are no changes, I won't report. Three is marginal, and I'll submit a report if it's been four years. I figure there are enough other marks out there, some of which haven't been reported on since they were monumented, that I don't need to go chasing marks that were reported on last year, and seem to be favorites. If I notice that they go a couple years without a recovery, I might go check on it and submit a recovery, but I wouldn't go out 12 months later just so I could file a recovery.

 

That said, I have thought about it. I went after a tri station last year in the town I grew up in. I logged it on geocaching, but it bugged me that I couldn't file a recovery report. Monumented in 1955 and nothing...until September, 2005, a mere nine months before my visit. Grr. I also only had taken a partial NGS datasheet, so I only found one of the reference marks. I considered going back this year to locate the second reference mark and log a recovery, but I decided against it for the reasons stated above. Give it a few years, and I'll be back.

 

Also interesting to hear that the USPSQD isn't reporting in some areas now. I hadn't heard that before.

Link to comment

I started finding Benchmarks and making found logs on Geocaching.com long before I found out about making NGS reports. I have revisited a few of the locations for the specific purpose of making an accurate NGS report. I always post my second visit as a note but the only reason I was back in most cases was to verify that a report that I made would be accurate.

Link to comment

The dolphin admits that he is considering doing just such a thing. I would like to have my home county colored a darker color on holograph's maps. :anibad: I'm not convinced that there are 100 loggabale disks in my county, though. But, if I get close, I will do some revisiting! I wonder if the New York, Susquehanna and Western will give me a guided tour of their rail yard?

Link to comment

Ok, I see a lof talk about time periods from 1 year to 10 years. My question, would you wait different time periods for different types of benchmarks? For example water towers like DN1163 that are obviously still there and have long histories on GC.com, but the last time it was recorded with NGS was 1994, 13 years ago. Since GC.com is not "official," should something like this be reported on regular, maybe 10 year, basis?

Link to comment

Nakedbamboo -

 

Here's my thinking about whether and when to report a recovery to NGS:

 

1. Regarding intersection stations (water towers, church steeples, stacks, etc etc etc) - Several months ago, Deb brown at NGS stated that she preferred that we not submit recoveries on these. I ceased reporting such recoveries on or about 01/01/2007, and, I think, most other NGS-centric benchmark hunters have ceased as well.

 

2. If a station's condition has changed from either (1) GOOD on the most recent recovery to POOR based on my observation (because, for example, it looks like it was recently hit by a road grader) or (2) from NOT FOUND on the most recent recovery to FOUND based on my observation, then I will submit a recovery report regardless of how little time has passed.

 

3. If I can add information of substance to the datasheet (like, for example, handheld GPS coordinates for stations with SCALED horizontal coordinates, or the confirmation of heretofore un-updated reference marks, or the actual name of a previously-described but unnamed "paved road"), I will submit a recovery one year and one day after the last recovery. This also holds true if there is something exceptional about the station - like it is located near road construction, etc. - where its status may be a day-to-day thing.

 

Furthermore, I have encountered stations that have regular annual recovery reports from local agencies and engineering firms. I think this happens when certain stations are used on a very frequent basis. I will report after one year and one day on these as well.

 

4. If none of the above criteria apply, I will generally report recoveries only if the last recovery was dated the year before the year before this year (that is, last recoveries in 2005 for stations I find in 2007, etc.)

 

5. Regarding reporting NOT FOUND to the NGS - I try to be exceptionally careful about these. I would hate to report a NOT FOUND on a station that may be perfectly findable by a professional with better equipment, more time and more experience than I have. My erroneous NOT FOUND report may have the effect of disuading a professional from using a perfectly good station (that I just happened not to find).

 

That's how I approach reporting recoveries to the NGS. Hope this helps.

 

Will

Edited by seventhings
Link to comment

This thread has strayed a bit from the original question:

Would you go back to a mark that you already recovered but were not able to file an NGS recovery report because a similar report was filed less than a year ago?

 

 

Here's my thinking about whether and when to report a recovery to NGS:

 

1. Regarding intersection stations (water towers, church steeples, stacks, etc etc etc) - Several months ago, Deb brown at NGS stated that she preferred that we not submit recoveries on these. I ceased reporting such recoveries on or about 01/01/2007, and, I think, most other NGS-centric benchmark hunters have ceased as well.

 

CHECK! Intersection station reports are out on NGS, the GC.com reports can continue!

 

2. If a station's condition has changed from either (1) GOOD on the most recent recovery to POOR based on my observation (because, for example, it looks like it was recently hit by a road grader) or (2) from NOT FOUND on the most recent recovery to FOUND based on my observation, then I will submit a recovery report regardless of how little time has passed.

 

CHECK! If the mark has been damaged, a report should be filed.

 

3. If I can add information of substance to the datasheet (like, for example, handheld GPS coordinates for stations with SCALED horizontal coordinates, or the confirmation of heretofore un-updated reference marks, or the actual name of a previously-described but unnamed "paved road"), I will submit a recovery one year and one day after the last recovery. This also holds true if there is something exceptional about the station - like it is located near road construction, etc. - where its status may be a day-to-day thing.

 

Furthermore, I have encountered stations that have regular annual recovery reports from local agencies and engineering firms. I think this happens when certain stations are used on a very frequent basis. I will report after one year and one day on these as well.

 

4. If none of the above criteria apply, I will generally report recoveries only if the last recovery was dated the year before the year before this year (that is, last recoveries in 2005 for stations I find in 2007, etc.)

 

5. Regarding reporting NOT FOUND to the NGS - I try to be exceptionally careful about these. I would hate to report a NOT FOUND on a station that may be perfectly findable by a professional with better equipment, more time and more experience than I have. My erroneous NOT FOUND report may have the effect of disuading a professional from using a perfectly good station (that I just happened not to find).

 

I am not afraid to post the results of my searches...if I didn't find it, I say so. At the very least it will give the professionals a warning that the mark may not be so easy to locate, and extra time may be needed to find it if they really want to use it. I almost always state WHY I didn't find it, i.e. 'mark described to be in a culvert, but no culvert found at described location', or 'mark described to be 23 feet south of centerline of road, but pavement now extends 45 feet south of centerline'

 

That's how I approach reporting recoveries to the NGS. Hope this helps.

 

Will

Edited by AZcachemeister
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...