Two report questions

[+Shorelander]

I tend to only report my finds - I'm usually not nearly thorough enough to claim a "NOT FOUND" is truly that. But on a trip from Boston to Chicago, my dad and I stopped off north of Toledo in an attempt to finish the cross-country coloring.

 

First question. MC1715 (GC, NGS). The several-foot tall marker there was not when we got there, but there was one at ground level. I would have thought "oh, it magically sunk" or something, but luckily the nice couple nearby noticed us and chatted with us a bit. They said that the marker had been stolen, and that some people (wasn't sure who, but presumably one of the state DOTs?) came by and put that one in. What say the panel? I'm leaning towards a "NOT FOUND", but I'm not sure if/how to include the neighbor's report. Something like "NEIGHBORING RESIDENTS INDICATED POST WAS STOLEN AND THAT CREWS INSTALLED THE NEW MARK"?

 

Second, MC0284 (GC, NGS). Simple enough - it's a VERTCON disk with SCALED horizontal coords. The concrete monument's there right by the witness post, measurements check and there's a nice disk-shaped impression. So here's the silly thing. Like I said, I don't usually report NOT FOUNDs. (Obviously, since I don't have the disk, can't get it DESTROYED.) But, this would make the last county in the coast-to-coast chain! But should our "Promontory Point" really be a NOT FOUND? Suggestions?

[+seventhings]

Shorelander -

 

My opinion - I would report both to the NGS as FOUND - POOR.

 

The object in your photos of MC1715 seems to conform perfectly with the description of the top of the station. In my recovery report, I would say something like "TOP OF POST IS NOW FLUSH WITH THE GROUND. LOCAL RESIDENTS REPORT THAT THE STATION WAS REMOVED FROM ITS ORIGINAL SETTING AND LATER RE-SET OR REPLACED BY AN (UNKNOWN) STATE AGENCY. CURRENT POSITION COULD BE VERIFIED WITHIN THE TOLOERANCE OF A RECREATIONAL-GRADE HANDHELD GPS UNIT ONLT. USE WITH CAUTION."

 

It seems highly unlikely to me that the state DOT would fashion a new but identical granite post to preserve the position. Its also unlikely that the current post (whether new or used) occupies the exact same horizontal position as the described station.

 

For MC0284, if you are very very confident that the impression you found was, in fact, the impression of MC0284, I would describe what I found, and include the handheld coordinates.

 

For Geocaching, I would log each as DIDN'T FIND IT. I think these two examples represent those rare cases where the Geocaching "standards" (whatever they might be) are higher than those acdceptable to the NGS. But, with sufficient description and qualification, FOUND - POOR reports to the NGS would provide potential users of those two stations with very useful information.

 

Will

[+Ernmark]

..regarding MC1715 - based on the description "IT IS A GRANITE POST, 0.67 FT (20.42 CM) BY 0.83 FT (25.30 CM) SQUARE, FLUSH WITH THE GROUND" - I'd say you found he correct post. I would bet that a different post was stolen - I've noticed that state lines are often marked w/ multiple posts/markers over the years, some of which are broken, etc. Assuming the garage & spike (if it hasn't been paved over) measurements still check, I'd be confident w/ a 'found good'

 

..regarding MC0284 - I've run across some of these myself & I believe the general consensus in the forums & in reading over availabe information from NGS was a 'found poor' - as the location is verifiable, but it use for vertical control is suspect. If I'm correct, this coat-to-coast Holomap connection could warrant a Shorelander Wing in the new Benchmarking Hall of Fame Museum under construction in Cary, NC (Temp. HQ in PFF's garage) .

 

I usually log the same in GC as w/ the NGS - although if the bridge is gone, for example, I'm more apt to log on CG as 'destroyed'...

Edited September 9, 2007 by Ernmark

[CallawayMT]

Ernmark,

 

There is no doubt in my mind that you found Milepost 68, it fits all descriptions. Professionally I have heard many times from landowners about their property monument being moved or that they know where their monument is only to show me an old nail or some sort of odd thing. It just appears that the grade has been raised in that area. I saw the same thing around Milepost 3, 4 or 5. You will only know for sure if you dig down along the side to read the inscriptions.

 

Just for fun I am including some photos from the 1915 survey book.

 

 

Regards,

CallawayMT

[mloser]

I have pondered this one for hours... well, at least 15 minutes, while I procrastinated on some work I need to do, and I am mystified. I think everyone here has a point, but this mark is an enigma. CallawayMT's cool book shows exactly what to look for, and pics of other boundary marks along the MI-OH line confirm that. We can, and I think should, assume that the mark once protruded 18 inches or so, according to the book. That means that the 1993 recovery, which mentions it at ground level, isn't a good recovery. So at some point either the world was lifted up 18 inches AROUND the post (not very likely), or it was reset lower, either due to being struck and broken off, or as a preventative measure against being broken. Was it resurveyed at that time? There is no indication in the datasheet. Was it resurveyed in 1993 when the PLSO redescribed it? Without more clues I would hesitate to trust any of these ground-level border marks!

[CallawayMT]

Mloser et al,

 

Here is a photo of post number 67:

 

It is at ground level and just the same as that found at 68 and here at number 3:

 

The groove is gone on number 3, which would lead to believe that it is possibly broken off at some point. 68 clearly does have the original groove on top, which would lead to believe that it is whole and just buried deeper than it was set.

 

I definitely do not believe that they reset a 1400 pound monument, but I can believe that in approximately 75 years of progress that the road grade was raised on many of these. This was set along Michigan Street and progress will raise the grade of the roads for widening and drainage. Which this monument is flush with the ground just as it was found 1993 by the PLSO.

 

Also, look at how the horizontal coordinates were generated for these monuments. The original survey was used and and the Lat Lon position was held on the west end of the line. These were not triangulated they were traversed as a boundary line. Any error in the traverse will be projected down the line, so if these have been moved a little you would not be able to see it compared to the whole line. Also, these are first boundary monuments and so as long as they fall within the tolerances of the time, the monument controls for any boundary work.

 

These were a pleasant surprise for me last fall while on a trip from Ft. Wayne for two days to visit the Berntsen factory, 4th Principal Meridian extended, a Mississippi River Commission cap in Iowa, various marks in Illinois and Wisconsin, Notre Dame Campus, the Michigan Initial Points and then down into Ohio for some marks. An 800 mile frenzy of searching. I found the book on the Professional Land Surveyors of Michigan website. Next time I get back to Indiana I hope to follow the whole line across.

 

CallawayMT

[+Shorelander]

Well, they're definitely not all at ground level: WM25FF

 

 

Of course, obligatory shot of something else I found nearby (WM25F6):

 

[CallawayMT]

Shorelander,

 

You are quite right that most are not below grade, I was just trying to make the point that it is not unusual for these older marks to get buried.

 

By the way, I did not know that the disk had been placed at the exact point for IN-OH-MI or I would have gone into the road and opened it up. By coincidence I had taken this photo at the Berntsen Factory the day before.

 

 

Mine is cleaner than yours.

 

CallawayMT