I gotta boast...

[foxtrot_xray]

[PROUD]

So I'm out here in Colorado, visiting folks. Did some BMin' along the drive here. While here, didn't really plan on getting any done. However, folks needed to run out to their trailer over in the mountains to seal it up for the winter. So I loaded up my GPS and picked a few random marks to go find while they were packing everything up. I didn't realize until I got out there that a couple of the ones I had picked were already 'attempted' by another folk here!

 

Now, I got kinda jealous - I mean, my folks have a place there, and someone's comin' around finding all the marks! (I only had the NGS datasheets - so I didn't know who it was.)

 

So, found the first one kinda easily, in fact. First recovery since '53.

 

The second one was closer to the trailer, and was NOT found by the last geocacher out here. So I didn't have much faith in trying to find it. However, driving down a little road to where I THOUGHT it was going to be, my dad in the passenger seat, pointed and said, "Could that be it?" And sure enough, it was! That made my day.

 

Two more left. After dropping the 'rents off to seal their little tin-can, I drove off in search for the third one. (Also, being a rail foamer, I was going to do some climbing for pictures, too, so going after this one wasn't just for the BM.) this one wasn't found by the last person - the geocacher - and also wasn't found by someone looking back in 1976. (Why thee folks, in 1976, reported THIS one missing, and didn't report ANY of the others in the area, I dunno.) Sure enough, looking around the are, it was gone, or probably moved since the rock could have rolled down the hill.

 

The fourth one was back up where the second one had been, and after about twenty minutes of walking through spiny-weeds, came across the mark. I was (and still am) curious as to why the geocacher tried to find one, and didn't try to find another that was less than 500 feet away.. maybe someday I'll ask him.

 

Anyways, got back home and went to log the ones I did find, and come to discover that the guy that got to 'em before I did was Colorado Papa! That was a surprise to me - only because I thought he found EVERYTHING he went after. But, having said that, for me it was a good day - got to go do some hunting on this trip after all, and found one that someone else couldn't (even if it WAS a better hunter than I) and got some great pictures along the way. (I can't post them until I get home and off this little POS laptop, tho..)

 

Okay, I'm finished.

[/PROUD]

 

I do have one question, tho.. sometimes, in the description, I see a line that says "Height of light above mark: 3 meters." or something similar to that. What light(s) are they talking about? I never thought to question it until it came up in a datasheet I was reading the other day.

 

Cheers!

Mike.

[mloser]

Congrats on a great day! I haven't been out in weeks due to some health issues but am itching to get out. The weather has been perfect here in the east for the past couple weekends and I GOTTA get out!

 

"Height of light" is how high they had to put the signal lamp to have it viewed from other triangulation stations. Tri-stations were usually used by setting up a tower over the mark and putting a bright light on the tower. Above another tri-station would be an observing instrument. On clear nights the light would be lit and observed, and angles measured.

For some pics of signal lamps (and earlier, daytime mirrors called heliotropes), look at NGS Signal Lamps. You can browse around that site and see more images of triangulation station parties, and other images from the NGS also.

Edited October 17, 2007 by mloser

[+Harry Dolphin]

Congrats! And don't forget photos. Then Colorado Papa will know where to look, next time.

[+PFF]

We have not heard anything from Colorado Papa in two and a half years. I wonder if he "retired" from benchmark hunting? He used to be very active.

 

-Paul-

[Bill93]

Although he hasn't posted a benchmark log to GC since early 2005, his biographical page says

Last Visit: Thursday, September 06, 2007

 

So, remembering he said he had some health problems, I suspect he is quietly monitoring what goes on here.

 

Best wishes to you, Ted.

 

BH

[+2/3 Marine]

Good Job! I have found VERY many of the same ones that Colorado Papa has found, a few of them due to his good description and/or coords. Of all of these, possibly a hundred, I have only found 2 of his DNF's. This one KL0225 I just found 2 weeks ago north of Beuna Vista. I saw those you found while I was planning a "Poker Fun Run", but I was headed to Leadville. Always a "red letter day" to find one a great benchmarker like Colorado Papa was unable to locate. After logging one of his caches, a couple years ago, and seeing how many he had found is what got me started looking for BM's. Thanks Coloraro Papa

[foxtrot_xray]

Now, nobody don't get me wrong - I didn't mean to minimalize ColoradoPapa's findings in any way. Heck, I look up to him because of some of the ones he found!

 

He had made a log in one near me back in '04 stating that anyone in the Colorado area wanted to go look, to drop him a line. I may try, just to see if I get a responce and how he's doing.

 

2/3 - good to see you're from Woodland Park. I'm in the springs now, heading back out to Atlanta on Friday. I come back often tho - y'know, family. I'm thinking, this coming summer, I'll borrow my folks' trailer (out there just south of Buena Vista) for a week and go up and down that rail line, seeing what I can still find.

[StripeMark]

Good work, Foxtrot!

 

Here's one that I just got also. It took an hour to receover, but I just knew it had to be there. Just a bit deeper than I was expecting......... http://www.geocaching.com/mark/details.aspx?PID=GL1435

[+Ernmark]

Good work, Foxtrot!

 

Here's one that I just got also. It took an hour to receover, but I just knew it had to be there. Just a bit deeper than I was expecting......... http://www.geocaching.com/mark/details.aspx?PID=GL1435

 

Nice ! (never realized that NM had a ~1.5 mi. 'kink' in it's eastern border, either!)

[+Harry Dolphin]

And only eleven wrong logs on it! I've seen worse. Nice find!

Curious. I didn't know that either, ernmark.

Edited October 18, 2007 by Harry Dolphin

[wwflover13]

I'm feeling pretty good myself after finding 10 benchmarks after school today! I think ten out of fifteen is pretty good without a metal detector, although most were already marked with stakes. I also stumbled upon two more local benchmarks that I can't find listed anywhere. I'm hoping to get out and find some more tomorrow if I don't get loaded down with homework.

[foxtrot_xray]

Good work, Foxtrot!

 

Here's one that I just got also. It took an hour to receover, but I just knew it had to be there. Just a bit deeper than I was expecting......... http://www.geocaching.com/mark/details.aspx?PID=GL1435

 

Nice ! (never realized that NM had a ~1.5 mi. 'kink' in it's eastern border, either!)

Nice! I'm wondering - did you have a metal detector, or did you 'guess' where to dig based on the fence?

[mloser]

I have done my share of digging. The first one that comes to mind is KW2661, which was under about 2 feet of dirt piled up at the base of a rock cut. I am not sure what kept me going on this one--I just kept measuring, then digging and digging until I got a hit on the metal detector. I think what turned the corner for me was simply understanding how these rock cut marks were set by the surveyors and where I thought it would be set. The measurements were pretty far and somewhat vague too, but I triangulated them and them took an educated guess where I thought the mark would be. Turned out I was right.

 

I dug out KW0976 a few years ago, and wasted more time digging in the wrong places. The soil was soft though so the digging was easier. However, the day was about 90 degrees and I nearly passed out after exposing the mark.

 

Finally, my coup de grace was JV4772, which was 24 inches deep and in the middle of a field. If I hadn't found both reference marks I would never have been able to locate it. The fact that I forgot my "real" shovel and had to dig with a camp shovel made the find all the more sweet.

[+Holtie22]

StripeMark

 

What a great find! It would be very interesting to learn the history of the two monuments that each purport to mark the Tri-State corner. I would tend to believe that the GLO mark is the actual corner, but it seems unusual that it is located more than 6 feet from the fence, meaning that portions of that farmer's field lie in all three states. I wonder if that's the way his deed is written? On the other hand, if the tri-station is the actual Tri-State corner then how did the GLO mark end up where it is? Who's on first? What's on second? I don't know - Third base!

[StripeMark]

No metal detector. The mark was "adjusted" and I knew that my GPS couldn't be off by 31 feet!

 

I've run across so many gravel roads that have shifted over time and the fenceline seemed like my best bet to start with. I actually recovered RM 1 first and found the station mark from there. But even then, I didn't figure that it would be that deep.

 

And according to the description, it sounds like this is the actual corner point.

[holograph]

Nice ! (never realized that NM had a ~1.5 mi. 'kink' in it's eastern border, either!)

Warning! Topic drift!

 

The boundary of Texas and New Mexico has a long and contentious history. In 1850, the boundary was the subject of intense debate because of its effects on the extent of slavery in America. The Missouri Compromise settled the northern boundary of Texas at 36°30" north. A subsequent compromise bill set the boundary between Texas and New Mexico at 103° W, southward to to the 32° parallel, thence westward to the Rio Grande.

 

Unfortunately, when the boundary was surveyed in 1860 by John H. Clark of the U.S. and Texas Boundary Commission, he made a mistake in the placement of the 103th meridian and gave Texas almost 2 miles too much territory. This was later recognized, but in order not to disrupt the accepted boundary, Congress affirmed the Clark line in 1911.

 

Later when the Oklahoma territory boundary with New Mexico was set north of 36° 30", the actual 103th meridian was used, so there resulted a kink in the New Mexico boundary at the 36°30" parallel.

 

There is an interesting article on "perhaps the most incorrect of any land line" in the American Surveyor magazine.

[+Ernmark]

Holo - thanks for the info - great link also. I was actually thinking of starting a thread on this subject, as thare are so many 'anomalies' along borders & we BM hunters often seem to be following them during our hunts!