Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2
holograph

October Statistics

Recommended Posts

The October statistics have been updated. They are available on the statistics page.

 

The maps have been updated also.

 

And yes, Paul, I was in the process of correcting the missing Geocaching numbers when you posted your note in the September thread. They're fixed now. :D

 

It looks like Papa-Bear-NYC's trip to Maine bagged him the easternmost recoveries in the continental U.S. and Shorbird's trip to the Keys gained him all ten of the ten most southern recoveries in the continental U.S.

 

geocac_map_t.gif delta_map_t.gif

Share this post


Link to post

Thanks for another outstanding compilation of statistics, Jim. And congratulations to the group for an impressive number of recoveries!

 

In North Carolina, we had just under 100 recoveries during the month. NorWes, who was visiting the coast from his home territory in Alaska, sent in about a dozen. Ditto for Kyle, who had a great "first month" of NGS reports. ArtMan visited the state on October 17-19, picking up some recoveries on his way to Raleigh, along with additional marks during a team hunt with me.

 

While hunting BM's in the western part of the state, I was able to fill in three previously "white" counties, and two changed color. The entire NW corner of the state now has some color to it--and it's not the autumn leaves! :D

 

There were five or six reports from individuals and agencies, during October. However, GEOCAC carried the month, by far!

 

-Paul-

Share this post


Link to post

Bear and Dolphin run amok! Looks like four counties in NJ changed color: Warren, Somerset, Union and Middlesex? Partially our doing. Sullivan County, New York, we'll take full credit for! What to do for an encore???

Great job, holograph! Thanks.

Share this post


Link to post

how come all geocachers who found benchmarks are not on the list???

 

We have found some very old ones here in mountain, WI and our name is not even on the list?

 

 

Barry and Valarie of sweetlife

Share this post


Link to post

how come all geocachers who found benchmarks are not on the list???

We have found some very old ones here in mountain, WI and our name is not even on the list?

Barry and Valarie of sweetlife

 

See the FAQ under "Hey, why isn't my name on the list?"

Share this post


Link to post

Whoo! Great!!

 

I can see a few counties along my line during my trip - Kentucky, Iowa, Nebraska, Kansas and Colorado. Great! :D

 

Thanks!!

Share this post


Link to post

Nice! You can virtually see my trip from Hanceville, Alabama to Baton Rouge, LA.

Edited by maconart

Share this post


Link to post

Looks like I was the only benchmarker in Oregon to submit anything this month. I am actually surprised to see them show up. I think I reported my recoveries to NGS on the 26th or 29th of October so I really didn't expect to see anything on the map from me this month.

 

Thanks (again) for the monthly stats page.

Edited by TheBeanTeam

Share this post


Link to post

ArtMan visited the state on October 17-19, picking up some recoveries on his way to Raleigh, along with additional marks during a team hunt with me.

 

-Paul-

 

You gotta be careful with Artman around - He's does such a good job of finding marks that there's little if any pickins left for you to enjoy! :D

 

Seriously though, Artman has my profound admiration with his ability to accurately recover an amazing amount of benchmarks,

all logged in a succinct and professional manner. I relish finding the occasional disk that evades his radar.

 

~ Mitch ~

Share this post


Link to post

I certainly agree. ArtMan is very disiplined when it comes to verifying the stamping on the disk and measuring to the nearest reference points.

 

And yes, we are putting limitations on his passport so he cannot visit the Tarheel State too often. Otherwise, he would sweep across North Carolina like Sherman's March to the Sea, and there would be nothing left for the locals to search for. :D

 

-Paul-

 

ArtMan at EZ4332, Johnston County, North Carolina

8a477607-281e-45a6-87fa-ada82894c6e8.jpg

Share this post


Link to post

how come all geocachers who found benchmarks are not on the list???

We have found some very old ones here in mountain, WI and our name is not even on the list?

Barry and Valarie of sweetlife

 

See the FAQ under "Hey, why isn't my name on the list?"

 

 

Don't feel bad Sweetlife, I wasn't on the list either and half of my discoveries this past 2 months were FTF's in Meade county SD. I did check out the link that Holograph posted and thanks for the info. Now it is a matter of getting the info to the NGS.

Share this post


Link to post

Attention Mitch and Paul!

 

CUT IT OUT!

 

You're embarrassing the ArtMan.

 

When I see the kind of extensive research Difficult Run does on finding elusive marks from the early years of the last century (old plats and aerial photos are some of his specialties) ; and when I see the array of equipment PFF brings to the benchmark expedition (not to mention his put-em-at-ease rapport with the locals ("We're not here to widen the road or raise your taxes") I realize how far I still need to go.

 

-Art-

 

PS to Paul - it's not depleting Carolina's benchmark supply you need to worry about, it's diggin' into that fabulous BBQ that should set you to worrying next time I haul my sorry yankee a** (see NOTE) down there!

 

NOTE: The forum software has redacted this harmless word, so if you are offended I recommend you substitute "tucus" or "bum" or "gluteus maximus."

Share this post


Link to post
PS to Paul - it's not depleting Carolina's benchmark supply you need to worry about, it's diggin' into that fabulous BBQ that should set you to worrying

I must confess, ArtMan, that I went back to the BBQ joint, yesterday, to make another search for EZ5257 (BAR B Q). Again, no luck. Guess I'll have to keep stopping by until I find it! The staff already knows me by name. :)

 

-Paul-

 

"More hush puppies, Mr. Survey Man?"

Share this post


Link to post
PS to Paul - it's not depleting Carolina's benchmark supply you need to worry about, it's diggin' into that fabulous BBQ that should set you to worrying

I must confess, ArtMan, that I went back to the BBQ joint, yesterday, to make another search for EZ5257 (BAR B Q). Again, no luck. Guess I'll have to keep stopping by until I find it! The staff already knows me by name. :)

 

-Paul-

 

"More hush puppies, Mr. Survey Man?"

 

..Wow. A BAR-B-Q benchmark. That sounds... delicious. :blink:

Share this post


Link to post

Howdy from Colville Wa. I am new to benchmark hunting and was brousing the forums checking it out.I noticed on the Map there is a white county near me.I have found a few marks in that county that I logged onto the geocache site..If I log them onto the NGS site it would help change the color right?

Edited by halffast

Share this post


Link to post

Hi, Halffast,

 

Yes, that would change the color. If you are interested in uploading reports to NGS, read the appropriate section of the FAQ. Also, feel free to run your text by some of us who file reports. As you probably are aware, the sentence structure and vocabulary are quite different in the NGS database from what you find on geocaching.com.

 

Looking at your recent finds, TO0445 and TO1770 would be easy submissions. AB4180 would require some slight rewording.

 

SV1248, however, is an example of why we encourage folks to proceed cautiously in making NGS recovery submissions. It involves an aerial intersection point, which is different in many aspects from ground-mounted benchmarks. NGS does not encourage submission of water tanks. It also is important to understand that a specific point on the object IS the mark. In this case, it is a "ball" at the very top of the tank. One must be very careful to determine that a water tanks or a radio tower has not been modified, or that it has not been dismantled and a new structure built at the exact same location.

 

All this is not difficult. (North Carolina recently added a NGS submitter who is a 16-year-old high school student, and he's doing a great job.) But it does require a change in mindset regarding: what is important, the definitions of GOOD, POOR, or DESTROYED, and how information is worded and arranged in the data sheet.

 

But there is plenty of help available. You may wish to "float" some proposed recovery reports in the National Geodetic Survey forum, which is accessed under GPS RELATED TOPICS in the top-of-page menu. There are lots of experienced folks, as well as several NGS employees, who will be willing to give constructive feedback and suggestions.

 

-Paul-

Share this post


Link to post

Hi, Halffast,

 

Yes, that would change the color. If you are interested in uploading reports to NGS, read the appropriate section of the FAQ. Also, feel free to run your text by some of us who file reports. As you probably are aware, the sentence structure and vocabulary are quite different in the NGS database from what you find on geocaching.com.

 

Looking at your recent finds, TO0445 and TO1770 would be easy submissions. AB4180 would require some slight rewording.

 

SV1248, however, is an example of why we encourage folks to proceed cautiously in making NGS recovery submissions. It involves an aerial intersection point, which is different in many aspects from ground-mounted benchmarks. NGS does not encourage submission of water tanks. It also is important to understand that a specific point on the object IS the mark. In this case, it is a "ball" at the very top of the tank. One must be very careful to determine that a water tanks or a radio tower has not been modified, or that it has not been dismantled and a new structure built at the exact same location.

 

All this is not difficult. (North Carolina recently added a NGS submitter who is a 16-year-old high school student, and he's doing a great job.) But it does require a change in mindset regarding: what is important, the definitions of GOOD, POOR, or DESTROYED, and how information is worded and arranged in the data sheet.

 

But there is plenty of help available. You may wish to "float" some proposed recovery reports in the National Geodetic Survey forum, which is accessed under GPS RELATED TOPICS in the top-of-page menu. There are lots of experienced folks, as well as several NGS employees, who will be willing to give constructive feedback and suggestions.

 

-Paul-

Thanks for the info PFF...The marks you mentioned ( AB4180 & SV1248) Was logged that way so geo-cachers were informed on what to expect if they looked for them.Like I said I am new to finding and logging Benchmarks.I have read all the forums and all the FAQs in the forums on this subject.I was hoping to join in and learn how to submit logs to the NGS .It sounds like I made a mistake for ofering to help up here in my part of the world.Which I was willing to learn how I could help but I think after your reply I will just log them onto the geocaching site and let you professional benchmark hunters do the rest.

Happy hunting

Share this post


Link to post

Hi halffast,

 

It is good to have you come over to benchmark hunting and this forum..welcome!

 

The 2oldfarts do not log with the NGS and many other benchmark hunters do not as well. It is your choice.

 

Logging with the NGS is not that critical since we have found out that some surveyors actually come to GC for info on marks.

 

You can still get in on the fun with Holograph's Stat Page though, by letting him know that you would like to be included on the list. Then when he posts the next one, just click on the "Geocaching Total Rank" to get the 'true rank' of all the hunters. Me & Bucky is #1 with 4041 logs to GC only, while we come in at a lowly 24th with 853 logs.

 

Keep coming back to the forums to let us know how you are doing and to crow a little (or a lot if you find a really old one or something really interesting). We allow that (crowing) all the time here on the 'Benchmark Hunting Forum'. :rolleyes:

 

And if you have any questions you may either post them in the forum or PM or E-mail anyone you wish, we will try to answer them to the best of our ability. Also, we are lucky to have several Surveyors from different areas of the country that frequent the forums and answer questions.

 

We look forward to hearing from you again.

 

Shirley~

Edited by 2oldfarts (the rockhounders)

Share this post


Link to post
It sounds like I made a mistake for ofering to help up here in my part of the world.Which I was willing to learn how I could help but I think after your reply I will just log them onto the geocaching site and let you professional benchmark hunters do the rest.

 

Hi, Halffast,

 

I worked very hard on my previous response to make it encouraging, while, at the same time, attempting to convey that logging with NGS is a separate (and more serious) part of the hobby. I hope I did not offend you, or make it sound impossibly difficult.

 

One way to "ease into" NGS reporting is to submit only those marks which you have found and identified by the stamping on the disk. If it has been more than one year since the last NGS entry, a simple "RECOVERED AS DESCRIBED" or "RECOVERED IN GOOD CONDITION" can be valuable to professional surveyors. If something obvious has changed, the report might say "RECOVERED AS DESCRIBED, EXCEPT THE GULF STATION IS NOW DEE'S CRAFT SHOP" or "MONUMENT IS LEANING 20 DEGREES TOWARD THE WEST, BUT DISK IS INTACT."

 

As submitters gain experience and get more familiar with NGS terminology, the range of reported finds (or not found's) can be expanded. And there are plenty of experienced folks to help with the wording and arrangement of reports.

 

The Forums are great because you get more than one person's input. Shirley's post is an excellent example. As she pointed out, whether or not you report to NGS is not critical. We're glad to have your participation on geocaching.com/mark. So, keep those good finds and photos coming!

 

-Paul-

Share this post


Link to post
It sounds like I made a mistake for ofering to help up here in my part of the world.Which I was willing to learn how I could help but I think after your reply I will just log them onto the geocaching site and let you professional benchmark hunters do the rest.

 

Hi, Halffast,

 

I worked very hard on my previous response to make it encouraging, while, at the same time, attempting to convey that logging with NGS is a separate (and more serious) part of the hobby. I hope I did not offend you, or make it sound impossibly difficult.

 

One way to "ease into" NGS reporting is to submit only those marks which you have found and identified by the stamping on the disk. If it has been more than one year since the last NGS entry, a simple "RECOVERED AS DESCRIBED" or "RECOVERED IN GOOD CONDITION" can be valuable to professional surveyors. If something obvious has changed, the report might say "RECOVERED AS DESCRIBED, EXCEPT THE GULF STATION IS NOW DEE'S CRAFT SHOP" or "MONUMENT IS LEANING 20 DEGREES TOWARD THE WEST, BUT DISK IS INTACT."

 

As submitters gain experience and get more familiar with NGS terminology, the range of reported finds (or not found's) can be expanded. And there are plenty of experienced folks to help with the wording and arrangement of reports.

 

The Forums are great because you get more than one person's input. Shirley's post is an excellent example. As she pointed out, whether or not you report to NGS is not critical. We're glad to have your participation on geocaching.com/mark. So, keep those good finds and photos coming!

 

-Paul-

As I said I read through the forums and learned a lot about how to log a mark.From what I read I need to let geocachers know if they can find the mark.The water tank can not be logged so I let them know.The one I put the coords in the log was for those who are not from the area.It took a little time for me to find the post office with the coords on the site.They were off quite a ways.I no that posting new coords on the NGS site is a no no .All they want to know is if the mark was found and the condition.Some of the logs on the geocache site I went back and edited after reading the forums to change them from destroyed to not found.I know these marks cannot be found but because I didnot find them doesnt mean they were destroyed.They are under 50 foot of water or under the Hwy that was widened.Alot of the marks around here was placed in the 1930s and 40s.and have not been updated.It is exiting for me to find a benchmark from way back then with the mention of the mark being so far from a wagon trail or on the old Hwy that no longer exists because it was rerouted but the marks are still in the forest somewhere.I sent in my application to volunteer for the National maps corps and am waiting for acceptance.I will try that and see how it goes.

Share this post


Link to post
It sounds like I made a mistake for ofering to help up here in my part of the world.Which I was willing to learn how I could help but I think after your reply I will just log them onto the geocaching site and let you professional benchmark hunters do the rest.
And I would add to Paul's reply that we are mostly not professionals. We are amateur hobbyists who just have been at this for a while. Reporting to NGS has a different set of rules, and that process is more formal and official than logging on Geocaching.com, but that hardly means it's out of reach. There's a lot of satisfaction to be had from contributing to as useful a project as the National Spatial Reference System, knowing that your report may be useful to surveyors and other professionals perhaps a century from now. On the other hand, as 2oldfarts indicated, many Geocaching benchmarkers are perfectly happy to limit their contributions to Geocaching. Your choice entirely, of course, but at least give it some consideration.

 

-ArtMan-

Share this post


Link to post
I went back and edited after reading the forums to change them from destroyed to not found.

 

I read a lot of your recoveries, Jay, and they are very good. You take the extra time needed to determine the current status. The way you handled the magnetic stations in the lake was excellent!

 

The comment from Evan Williams deserves a response. Since Evan does not log benchmarks or caches on geocaching.com under the Evan Williams "handle", I could not index to the NGS database to determine the level of his activity. True, getting input from others prior to sending reports to NGS is not a requirement, but it is strongly recommended. (Nobody likes to make errors--especially in a national medium used by professionals!)

 

Our organization enjoys a great working relationship with NGS. Members of the NGS staff participate in our forums by giving us updates and suggestions. They also respond to inquiries via E-Mail. We consistently are told by NGS that our contributions are valuable and of high-quality.

 

Our member-to-member support system is a key factor in our success. Asking questions or seeking suggestions is encouraged. As ArtMan pointed out, most of us are non-professionals. However, there are a number of licensed surveyors who are willing to share the benefits of their training and experience. And that's how we grow in skill and knowledge.

 

-Paul-

 

A young man had reached his 5-year anniversary with the small company where he worked. "Boss," he said, "I want a raise. I now have 5-years experience."

 

"No, John," the boss replied. "You have 1 year's experience, repeated 5 times."

Share this post


Link to post

>it took a little time for me to find the post office with the coords on the site.They were off quite a ways.I no that posting new coords on the NGS site is a no no .All they want to know is if the mark was found and the condition.

 

There are really 3 types of item in the data base, a very few falling into 2 classes at once. What to report depends on the type.

 

Posting your coordinates to NGS for benchmarks that have only SCALED horizontal coordinates is a valuable service and highly recommended. As you note, those coordinates can be off a long way and obsolete to-reach information like former post offices and moved fire hydrants can be a problem. If the old information is obsolete, noting that it is 17 feet south of the center of a sewer cover and 12 feet east of the curb, under the sod, can be a big help to the surveyors and future hobbyists.

 

Stations that have ADJUSTED coordinates are more accurate than your hand-held and therefore you shouldn't include your values for them. Just note condition and update the to-reach.

 

The third class is "intersection stations" where there is no disk but instead the ADJUSTED coordinates of a tower, water tank, church spire, etc. NGS no longer wants routine reports on those but will accept photo evidence of their destruction.

Share this post


Link to post

We consistently are told by NGS that our contributions are valuable and of high-quality.

 

Our member-to-member support system is a key factor in our success. Asking questions or seeking suggestions is encouraged.

What Paul said here is very important. There are other amateur organizations that have not had the best reputation at NGS. That's why you'll often see questions on this forum even from cachers who've been making reports to the NGS for years, making sure that they're correctly reporting some special circumstance they haven't encountered before. We do everything we can to help each other craft high-quality NGS reports.

 

Patty

Share this post


Link to post

Looking at your recent finds, TO0445 and TO1770 would be easy submissions. AB4180 would require some slight rewording.

-Paul-

 

Halffast, regarding AB4180, if you would decide to log it with the NGS, your GC.com log would supply needed information to the next surveyor who might want to use that survey marker. Meaning it has position coordinates that a surveyor could enter into a handheld unit and then go find the station mark. If the surveyor can't use a set of coordinates, why is he a surveyor? I doubt most surveyors will complain about what format the coordinates are in, given that they are familiar with all the common formats used in the common handheld units. It's a good bet they will not complain about getting any assistance in locating a marker and finding out its condition.

 

Some of the folks here forget that making it easier for the next person is reason enough to log with the NGS. Keeping it simple and accurate is all that is needed. Surveyors use the NGS database to determine which if any survey marks are close to the area where their next project will be. If there are "recent" coordinates given for a mark that will save them time searching for that mark. Saved time = saved money and that makes them happy.

 

Logging on the NGS just to change the color of the county is nice, but is aimed at the GC.com group and not the professional surveyor.

 

Just remember that the first requirement of benchmark hunting here at GC.com is enjoyment. If you want to log with the NGS and help change the colors of the map do so and take no offense at those that sometimes get "EXCITED" at having another GCer logging with the NGS. They forget sometimes, that It may be your first posts here in the forum, but you may already know what is required to log at the NGS.

 

Don't let their over-enthusiasm get to you. :rolleyes:

 

Evan Williams

Share this post


Link to post

Looking at your recent finds, TO0445 and TO1770 would be easy submissions. AB4180 would require some slight rewording.

-Paul-

 

Halffast, regarding AB4180, if you would decide to log it with the NGS, your GC.com log would supply needed information to the next surveyor who might want to use that survey marker. Meaning it has position coordinates that a surveyor could enter into a handheld unit and then go find the station mark. If the surveyor can't use a set of coordinates, why is he a surveyor? I doubt most surveyors will complain about what format the coordinates are in, given that they are familiar with all the common formats used in the common handheld units. It's a good bet they will not complain about getting any assistance in locating a marker and finding out its condition.

 

Some of the folks here forget that making it easier for the next person is reason enough to log with the NGS. Keeping it simple and accurate is all that is needed. Surveyors use the NGS database to determine which if any survey marks are close to the area where their next project will be. If there are "recent" coordinates given for a mark that will save them time searching for that mark. Saved time = saved money and that makes them happy.

 

Logging on the NGS just to change the color of the county is nice, but is aimed at the GC.com group and not the professional surveyor.

 

Just remember that the first requirement of benchmark hunting here at GC.com is enjoyment. If you want to log with the NGS and help change the colors of the map do so and take no offense at those that sometimes get "EXCITED" at having another GCer logging with the NGS. They forget sometimes, that It may be your first posts here in the forum, but you may already know what is required to log at the NGS.

 

Don't let their over-enthusiasm get to you. :rolleyes:

 

Evan Williams

Thanks Even

I posted here I guess to see if I could possibly get into logging on the NGS site seeing how I am recovering some old marks from the 30s and 40s but It dosn't seem I am needed so I will just keep logging onto the Geocache site for now.Maybe later after I have found all that I can in the 3 counties near me I might try the NGS site on my own.No problem.

Share this post


Link to post

Evan & Halffast,

 

I am one of the land surveyors who do frequent this forum, but I do not speak up very often unless I feel that I have something worthwhile to add. I also neither encourage nor discourage anybody here to log to the NGS database. I do want to say that I will look at both the NGS and the geocaching databases to see how long ago control was recovered in an area. I use my own judgement based on the posts of the people who recovered a mark and also their photos or lack thereof.

 

I will say that the posts that you are receiving are not meant to shoot you down or discourage you and they are not trying to defend their territory, but they are trying to defend their reputations as accurate and useful geocaching recoverers(is that a word?). As long time posters and finders in this area we have all seen people who love going out and finding caches and then benchmarks and watching their numbers go up, even if they aren't quite sure what they found. They(the people who have responded) do not want that to happen in the NGS database and then have that recovery program shut down to geocachers. It is a valuable help to a very understaffed agency. Just so you understand, NGS did not allow anybody, but government agency and a few select surveyors to submit recoveries to their data base just a number of years ago.

 

I just went to the photo gallery and on page 6 and also page 1 I could see inaccurate recoveries based on the photos. On both of these pages the people recovering were told by earlier posts that these were not correct, but they still posted them as finds. I have no problem with that at all in this arena, but it can be damaging in the NGS data base arena.

 

Look at these two marks for examples of inaccurate recoveries:

CANBY

Signal Mountain

 

Once again, I am neither encouraging nor discouraging, but I am asking that if you do report to the NGS, believe be careful and accurate.

 

Do keep searching and have fun,

CallawayMT

Share this post


Link to post
I just went to the photo gallery and on page 6 and also page 1 I could see inaccurate recoveries based on the photos. On both of these pages the people recovering were told by earlier posts that these were not correct, but they still posted them as finds. I have no problem with that at all in this arena, but it can be damaging in the NGS data base arena.

 

Look at these two marks for examples of inaccurate recoveries:

CANBY

Signal Mountain

Yep, just the kind of mistake we have to keep out of NGS logs.

 

A survey mark atop Diamond Head on Oahu was apparently destroyed in the 1960s, yet dozens of geocachers have reported it found. Someone finally researched it and reported it to the NGS, but I'm betting that won't stop some cachers from continuing to log the reset (TU1337)--and some people are logging references marks as that one! -_- I've seen similar situations near me: marks that bear almost no resemblance to the specified station being logged as it.

 

Patty

Share this post


Link to post

Just curious, How many errors have been made in the logs for the NGS by Geocachers? I know some of the "Regulars" have stated that they needed Deb to go in and correct their NGS logs, but has anyone seen any other logs by Geocachers that were wrong?

 

How much of a problem is it in reality? Is there any way to even know if there have been any logs that were completely wrong?

 

Just curious to know how big the "problem" really is.

 

John

Share this post


Link to post

The most egregious bogus logs seem to be where benchmarks are prominently located near caches or popular tourist destinations, where cachers see them and figure they'll notch an extra find. They are uninformed, and I find it annoying, but usually it's pretty transparent what's happening. (As when a posted photo shows an obvious reference mark rather than the main station disk.)

 

More troubling are obviously bogus posts — a team called Electric Shavers, now apparently inactive or banned, comes to mind. They posted 'found' logs without photos or any other indication of actually having visited the site, let alone found the mark, in apparent effort to rack up some big numbers.

 

As has often been noted before in this forum, members of the U.S. Power Squadrons filed thousands of NGS reports, usually a barebones found/not found, and with a relatively high level of inaccuracies.

 

GEOCAC reports to NGS aren't 100 percent accurate either, though I think we do better than the Power Squadrons. For that matter, NGS itself and professional surveyors don't get it right all the time either. No one is perfect. All we can do is strive for the best accuracy possible.

 

-ArtMan-

Share this post


Link to post

Perhaps NGS will weigh in on that question.

Edited by PFF

Share this post


Link to post

Evan & Halffast,

 

I am one of the land surveyors who do frequent this forum, but I do not speak up very often unless I feel that I have something worthwhile to add. I also neither encourage nor discourage anybody here to log to the NGS database. I do want to say that I will look at both the NGS and the geocaching databases to see how long ago control was recovered in an area. I use my own judgement based on the posts of the people who recovered a mark and also their photos or lack thereof.

 

I will say that the posts that you are receiving are not meant to shoot you down or discourage you and they are not trying to defend their territory, but they are trying to defend their reputations as accurate and useful geocaching recoverers(is that a word?). As long time posters and finders in this area we have all seen people who love going out and finding caches and then benchmarks and watching their numbers go up, even if they aren't quite sure what they found. They(the people who have responded) do not want that to happen in the NGS database and then have that recovery program shut down to geocachers. It is a valuable help to a very understaffed agency. Just so you understand, NGS did not allow anybody, but government agency and a few select surveyors to submit recoveries to their data base just a number of years ago.

 

I just went to the photo gallery and on page 6 and also page 1 I could see inaccurate recoveries based on the photos. On both of these pages the people recovering were told by earlier posts that these were not correct, but they still posted them as finds. I have no problem with that at all in this arena, but it can be damaging in the NGS data base arena.

 

Look at these two marks for examples of inaccurate recoveries:

CANBY

Signal Mountain

 

Once again, I am neither encouraging nor discouraging, but I am asking that if you do report to the NGS, believe be careful and accurate.

 

Do keep searching and have fun,

CallawayMT

I understand that nobody so far has disscouraged me from logging the marks on the NGS site.I myself Have discouraged myself.I am fairly new to the benchmark part of geocaching and I myself have decided to wait until I know what I am doing before I comit myself to the NGS site.How long that will take only time will tell.Right now I am not comfortable enough to do it.I will still visit these forums to learn what I need to.Thanks for all of the comments.

Share this post


Link to post

The question remains - How big a problem are we looking at with bad logs to the NGS by Geocachers?

 

John

 

For myself,I can say I have one that has been queried about.

1 questioned I corrected at GC but never reported to the NGS.

But the one's I have recovered as not found by both the Power Squadron and the NGS out weigh this in my opinion.

 

There will always be questionable marks.

But it is the obvious errors we need to seek out.

If (I)we as GEOCAC need to tighten our belts (I) we can do this.

 

But as a whole our average is probably the best of all.

Save the NGS.

 

I think they understand we are not Professionals,well not all of us are.

So I do the best I can for a volunteer effort.

If I was to get paid to do it I would hold a much greater standard than a recreational (non professional)recovery.

Share this post


Link to post

The question remains - How big a problem are we looking at with bad logs to the NGS by Geocachers?

 

John

I have logged a bit over 600 stations with the NGS and of course I've made mistakes. There are several categories of errors:

 

Errors on the ground: I have logged stations as Not Found when I was looking in the wrong spot. I usually ask Deb to take the wrong one out and log it again if I find it in the right spot. The main casualty here is embarrassment to me. I would consider this only a problem if the poster DIDN't AsK Deb to take the wrong entry out and fix it.

 

Errors with submission: The way the web based entry works is (for me) a bit error prone. All the entries from one mark are left so you need change only what differs for the next one you are doing in a batch. Occasionally I have typed in new recovery information but left the PID the same or did not change the status (Good, Poor, Not Found) That results in a PID with two entries, one good, one bad or a wrong status. I did this today!

 

The result is I think no damage to the surveyor looking at it but some embarrassment to myself. If I did it often my rep with Deb and anyone else who happened to see my entries before that got fixed would suffer (Who's that dork who keeps logging things twice for the same day?) The overall number of these is only a few (less than 10) total. Of course I would like to move that number closer to zero.

 

The only compensating factor (outside of my NYC recoveries) is that I tend to go after marks that no surveyor or other bench mark hunter is likely to visit in 100 years :laughing:

Edited by Papa-Bear-NYC

Share this post


Link to post

The question remains - How big a problem are we looking at with bad logs to the NGS by Geocachers?

 

John

 

Dunno I always include photos showing the benchmark in my submissions as 'found' to NGS. DNF is a different story. Not making any claims except that I didn't find it. Albeit, copper plugs and rivets can be much more subjective.

I see many egregious errors in GC. Example: The one showing in the banners recently: UWEKAHUNA BLUFF. Nice photos. Except that the disk in the photos is at 4076 feet, whereas Uwekahuna Bluff is at 4089 feet. The NGS page is not clear, but I would expect this disk to be stamped "Uwehahuna Bluff". This appears to have been logged in error by someone at GC.com. So, I guess errors by gc.com loggers do occur.

Share this post


Link to post
UWEKAHUNA BLUFF. Nice photos. Except that the disk in the photos is at 4076 feet, whereas Uwekahuna Bluff is at 4089 feet. The NGS page is not clear, but I would expect this disk to be stamped "Uwehahuna Bluff".

 

Looking at the topo map, it appears that the disk folks are logging is not in the CG database. The coordinates in their logs consistently point to the museum area, while UWEKAHUNA BLUFF is marked on the topo maps as being NNE.

 

I guess the only thing to do is to mount an expedition to Hawaii to check it out in person. Who's available over the holidays? :blink:

 

-Paul-

 

Does everyone in the party fly, or will some be taking the boat?

Edited by PFF

Share this post


Link to post

Guess the only thing to do is to mount an expedition to Hawaii to check it out in person. Who's available over the holidays? :ph34r:

:unsure: Paul, there has also been a terrible problem with incorrect logs at Diamond Head. So we'll need to go to Oahu as well as the Big Island. To be thorough, we should also find out whether there are any issues with marks on Kauai and Maui. :cool:

 

Patty

Share this post


Link to post

About all I wish to add is:

 

Man Oh Man, am I ever glad this thread materialized; I've learned a lot from some pretty smart and experienced people about Benchmark hunting.

 

I've found a few Disks and Landmarks, but have been holding back recently, being somewhat intimidated by all the details involved, and thinking it was almost my duty to report to the NGS to be considered a true Benchmark hunter. Now I realize there is really no pressure whatsoever to report to the NGS, unless I choose to. Now I can resume my BM hunting, enjoy it, and decide later if the "NGS thing" is for me.

 

Thanks everyone; learned a lot today!

 

Dick

Share this post


Link to post

The question remains - How big a problem are we looking at with bad logs to the NGS by Geocachers?

 

John

I've only submitted two errors:

1. I put a measurement "above" when it was supposed to be "below". (My bad, obviously when writing down notes, I inverted myself.) My report was posted pretty darn quickly, as another professional team submitted a recovery two months after mine, and 'corrected' me. I felt really dumb, and consider this worse than #2, below..

2. I submitted a recovery for the wrong mark. Notes and directions didn't match the mark. This was taken care of by Deb, whom I e-mailed.

 

I haven't come across anyone else's errors, save for a 'Not Found' by a GEOCAC of which I did find.

Share this post


Link to post

holograph, you are awesome! Just a few comments about Alaska not having any color, and John posting his little map, and others then chiming in. What do you do? You take the time to set it up so your map now shows the colors for Alaska. Totally amazing!

 

Now if there could be some way to show the areas missing for just the GC logs for those of us who do not log with the NGS......

 

I know - :laughing: - to me. :(

 

Really, we are happy with the GC ranking. Thank you!

 

Shirley~

Share this post


Link to post

The graphic with a color indicating the number of logs is a good indicator, but is there a graphic showing the percent of logs compared to the total benchmarks available per county?

 

Thanks,

Brendan

Share this post


Link to post
is there a graphic showing the percent of logs compared to the total benchmarks available per county?

 

No, and the reason is that it doesn't work well. When I first created the map, I experimented with calculating the % of marks that had GEOCAC reports. In almost all parts of the country the regions have experienced growth and there are a large proportion of marks that are destroyed or forever lost, even though the datasheets were never marked destroyed. That biases the % found toward low numbers in urban areas, and in fact most counties have a remarkably low percentage reported, even the counties that have high total counts.

Share this post


Link to post

 

No, and the reason is that it doesn't work well. When I first created the map, I experimented with calculating the % of marks that had GEOCAC reports. In almost all parts of the country the regions have experienced growth and there are a large proportion of marks that are destroyed or forever lost, even though the datasheets were never marked destroyed. That biases the % found toward low numbers in urban areas, and in fact most counties have a remarkably low percentage reported, even the counties that have high total counts.

 

I realize that percent found would be relatively useless, but I meant all logs; not just found logs. It just struck me while viewing the graphic that it would be interesting to see at a glance if a particular county was thoroughly searched or not.

 

Brendan

Share this post


Link to post
it would be interesting to see at a glance if a particular county was thoroughly searched or not.

 

The maps in their present format give a good indication of what counties probably have not been searched by any organization. The "whiter or lighter" they are, the less likely that there has been any heavy activity.

 

Since the NGS database allows viewing by county, it's easy to scan the datasheets and see how long it's been since anyone worked there. Just knowing whether a station has been recovered is not the whole story. What matters is how long it has been since the last recovery.

 

Trying to automate the process introduces error, as some of us have found when using the ScardyCat benchmark viewer. It codes marks as green if they have a recovery log, and white if they do not. The problem is, some of the green marks have not been recovered in 30 to 50 years!

 

-Paul-

Share this post


Link to post

I realize that percent found would be relatively useless, but I meant all logs; not just found logs. It just struck me while viewing the graphic that it would be interesting to see at a glance if a particular county was thoroughly searched or not.

 

I was talking about percentage of logs, not percentage found. The map on the left shows the percentage of stations visited (logged) by county. Click the thumbnail to see a larger image. The map on the right is the current one based on counts.

 

percentage_map_t.gif geocac_map_t.gif

 

Here is a list of the top counties. Barry County, Missouri has greater than 100% because some marks have been logged more than once. That is the exception, since most marks have at most one GEOCAC log. Only 10% of the counties have more than 10% of the stations logged.

 

GEOCAC  TOTAL   PCT  STATE		   COUNTY
------  -----   ---  --------------  -------------------
 112	105	107  Missouri		Barry
1	  1	100  Virginia		C of Manassas Park
1	  1	100  Puerto Rico	 Fajardo
4	  4	100  Wisconsin	   Menominee
3	  3	100  Virginia		C of Galax
 171	205	 83  Pennsylvania	Lebanon
 230	310	 74  Pennsylvania	Dauphin
 253	347	 73  Pennsylvania	Cumberland
 367	510	 72  Ohio			Mahoning
  46	 66	 70  Missouri		Platte
 160	233	 69  New York		New York
  10	 15	 67  Virginia		C of Harrisonburg
  35	 53	 66  Missouri		Clay
 280	428	 65  Pennsylvania	Lancaster
  68	106	 64  Massachusetts   Hampshire
 127	199	 64  Pennsylvania	Adams
 162	255	 64  Missouri		Jackson
  13	 21	 62  Virginia		C of Falls Church
  28	 46	 61  Missouri		Clinton
9	 15	 60  Virginia		C of Fredericksburg
  93	162	 57  Pennsylvania	Perry
 132	245	 54  Ohio			Trumbull
 132	248	 53  Illinois		Iroquois
  13	 25	 52  Ohio			Carroll
 145	281	 52  Pennsylvania	Franklin

Edited by holograph

Share this post


Link to post

...you know it's really scary when you can look at all those counties & recognize who the GEOCAC'ers are!

Share this post


Link to post

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...
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2

×
×
  • Create New...