Jump to content

adding to older text entries?


StripeMark
Followers 1

Recommended Posts

In Folsom, NM, there is a foundation of a water tower that has a survey marker placed on the top of its SW concrete leg foundation. The water tower is gone, but the 4 concrete foundations remain.

 

The survey marker is GL1152. The water tower was GL1521.

 

now the strangeness.......

 

The marker was placed in 1934. The 1934 description says that the marker is on the foundation of a large water tank (it sounds as though the tank still exists). But at the end of the 1934 description there is a note stating that the tank has been removed.

 

When you look at the datasheet for GL1521, it shows that it was "first observed" in 1945 and then logged as in good condition in 1970.

 

OK, what's happeing here?

 

The way I would read it, according to the GL1152 datasheet, the tank was removed already in 1934. But then how could of it been observed 1945? And why would of GL1521 been logged as in good condition in 1970?

 

If the tank was indeed standing until sometime after 1970, then where does the note in the 1934 entry in GL1152 come from? I assume that someone just contacted the NGS and they manually inserted it or something.

 

It's no big deal...... I logged GL1152 with the NGS as good condition and I sent images off to Deb to destroy GL1521. Just thought it was kind of weird that it was attached to the 1934 entry.

 

hmmmmm OK, now my brain hurts.

-scott

Link to comment

What you have here appears to be a case of reporting the disk under the wrong PID. The Army fellow logged it at the tank's PID. Since this was in the days of paper reports, he may not have known that the disk had a PID of its own. (Having seen the paper versions of benchmark indexes from the 1940's, I can see how this would occur.)

 

-Paul-

 

P.S. I have seen similar situations where the submitter uses the wrong CONDITION. Almost always, these errors are from some group which makes occasional reports, rather than from organizations which submit 100 or more per year.

 

It is an easy mistake to make. I've found myself clicking the wrong radio button on occasion. To prevent this kind of error, I changed the order in which I submit recoveries. I enter all the NOT FOUND marks first, followed by POOR CONDITION. Then I enter all of the GOOD finds. If you "mix and match", you're inviting trouble! :)

Edited by PFF
Link to comment
The marker was placed in 1934. The 1934 description says that the marker is on the foundation of a large water tank (it sounds as though the tank still exists). But at the end of the 1934 description there is a note stating that the tank has been removed.
I have seen numerous datasheets where the entry in one year appears to include comments added much later.

 

I don't actually know what's going on, but I suspect it's something like this: The later comment was added to the original hard-copy description or recovery report, rather than clearly marked as a separate, newer report. Maybe it was clear in that format because a different typewriter was used, or the addendum was handwritten. Either way, when the paper records were computerized (retyped by humans, not scanned) the fact that the narrative under one year actually represented both the original observations and an additional comment added years, or even decades later, was lost.

 

Anyway, that's just my speculation, but I suspect something like that explains what you're seeing.

 

-ArtMan-

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...
Followers 1
×
×
  • Create New...