December Statistics

[holograph]

The statistics page has been updated with the December statistics. 613 new GEOCAC recoveries appeared in the NGS datasheets.

 

Any 2007 recoveries that do not yet appear in NGS datasheets will show up in the totals and the 2007 column when the January statistics are updated.

 

The maps have been updated, also.

 

[+89SC]

Thanks for putting up the maps and stats. It's fun watching my area of the State change colors

Edited January 1, 2008 by 89SC

[+GEO*Trailblazer 1]

I like the new zoom map it is great!!

No more starting in Maine.

 

Thanks again for all your hard work and effort.

[+Klemmer]

Thanks again, Holograph. Always great to see the maps and stats. Your work over the last year(s) is really appreciated.

 

Question: Is there a way to get the actual numbers for the GEOCAC recoveries for a county off the total map? Or is there a link to your data (spreadsheet)? It would be really cool if when you zoomed down to the lowest level, the actual number for tyhe county would display on the map (no idea how feasible that is).

 

Reason I'm asking: There area a couple SoCal counties I would like to "kick up" a color or two this year. If not feasible to link to the numbers, please drop me an email with the numbers for the follwing CA counties:

San Bernadino, San Diego, Imperial, Ventura

 

Thanks, and Best Wishes for the New Year!

[holograph]

I can't augment the map to provided counts interactively, but you can download a list of the counts by county from here.

[+m&h]

As always, a superb combination of usefulness and elegance. Many thanks.

[+Harry Dolphin]

Thanks, holograph!

Bad Klemmer. Giving Dolphin ideas. hmm... Not that he hadn't wondered himself.

One each in Somerset and Mercer, NJ and Sullivan, NY. 19 in Hunterdon, NJ. But the tough project is turning my home county dark red. Not sure that there are 100 findable benchmarks in Morris, NJ.

Do DNFs count? Got a couple to log in Monmouth...

[holograph]

DNFs count, but getting one destroyed will likely reduce the count when the datasheet goes off the books.

[+Klemmer]

Got the data, thanks holograph. Looks like I really need to get out to Imperial County this winter. As for the others, well, we'll see!

[AZcachemeister]

I can't augment the map to provided counts interactively, but you can download a list of the counts by county from here.

 

Am I safe in presuming those numbers are 'totals to date'?

It seems some rather large Arizona counties have fairly small numbers of recoveries.

[holograph]

Yes, the counts are total to date.

[+shorbird]

Many thanks for your continued efforts to provide us with the latest GEOCAC stats and maps. I just love to watch the maps change! Also, thanks for the link to the GEOCAC totals. That tells us which counties need a lot more work and which ones are pretty much completed. Thanks again!!

[andylphoto]

I can't augment the map to provided counts interactively, but you can download a list of the counts by county from here.

 

Thanks again for your work on all this data. I see Baraga County, MI is ripe for turning dark red, with 99 recoveries. I made it a point to search out several over the weekend while on a trip up that way, so hopefully it will change colors next month. I do have to credit Z-15 for most of those recoveries though, even if it's mine that push it over the top.

[foxtrot_xray]

I can't figure out when the cut-off for the new sheets is. I see that some of my finds in Colorado finally showed up from mid-November, but the one in Texas hasn't, nor the ones in Georgia, my home state.

 

Great job as always, holograph!

 

*sigh* I'll never catch up to you guys.

[+PFF]

*sigh* I'll never catch up to you guys.

 

Yes, you will. One of two things eventually will happen to those at the top of the list. Either we will work all the marks in our area, or our families will ask us to please come home and spend time with them.

 

Meanwhile, let me share the results of private exchanges among some of the busiest benchmark hunters--conducted via E-mail and in person. The feeling is that there is a certain appeal in not being focused on numbers.

 

I witnessed this recently during a team hunt with three geocachers who also enjoy benchmarks. We were working a rural road which had benchmarks every quarter-mile. But the group diverted occasionally to find a cache, or to waymark an object. I enjoyed watching them plan each "what's next", and I discovered that a broader focus can be a lot of fun!

 

-Paul-

Edited January 8, 2008 by PFF

[+Klemmer]

Some of us have also become "selective" in our targets, like really old ones, ones at the tops of local (or not) peaks that require lots of off-road jeep / hiking, etc.

[foxtrot_xray]

Yeah, yeah, I know - it's not about the numbers.

 

But, it couldn't hurt to WANT to be up there, can it?

 

I was selective when I started, actually, now I've decided to try going to anything.

 

I get good satisfaction out of finding unique ones (one that weren't found last time they attempted, or ones along my railroad) or hard to find ones (like Hick, after 4 attempts.)

 

Heck, I just like seeing the shiny disks.

[+Harry Dolphin]

Phase 1 of Project 2008: Let's Play With Colors complete.

Two recoveries logged for Sullivan County, New York should change color from light green to orange. Hmm... All eleven recoveries are mine. Doesn't anyone else like Sullivan County?!?

[Papa-Bear-NYC]

Phase 1 of Project 2008: Let's Play With Colors complete.

Two recoveries logged for Sullivan County, New York should change color from light green to orange. Hmm... All eleven recoveries are mine. Doesn't anyone else like Sullivan County?!?

Don't take it personally. All 11 in Putnam County are mine. It's just the role of the dice sometimes. You might say "Papa Bear why did you hit Putnam County and not Sullivan", and I would say "Dunno".

[foxtrot_xray]

I realized something unfair about the maps, however..

 

Not all counties HAVE more than 100 marks, so they'll never read the "deep red" state. :/

[+Klemmer]

I hereby propose that if ALL the marks of a county are recovered, it be made "deep red"!

[holograph]

Unfortunately, it will be virtually impossible to recover all the marks in a county. There are usually at least a handful that are destroyed, but not marked destroyed. I've come across a number of "NOT FOUND" reports that say "mark should be considered destroyed" with good explanations.

 

I tried coloring by percentage of marks recovered, but it unfairly penalized the urban counties because so many of their marks are forever unrecoverable. Most people don't want to go around submitting yet another "NOT FOUND" report just to color their counties red, and I'm not sure the NGS would appreciate those kinds of unproductive and uninformative reports. At a minimum, it would require submitting reports on intersection stations, and we already know the NGS no longer wants those.

 

The simple scheme base on counts looked better than the other schemes I tried, and it gives an accurate picture of the total GEOCAC activity across the nation.

 

edit: Here was the map based on percentage of recoveries that I created last November when the subject was discussed:

 

Click the map for a larger image:

Edited January 14, 2008 by holograph

[Wintertime]

Most people don't want to go around submitting yet another "NOT FOUND" report just to color their counties red, and I'm not sure the NGS would appreciate those kinds of unproductive and uninformative reports.

Ugh, yeah, we don't want to get a reputation like that of The Group That Shall Not Be Named, filing reports just to boost our personal counts.

 

However, I plan to do my part to increase the number of carefully researched, accurate FOUND reports. In fact, I have one particular county in my sights right now.

 

Patty

[+Klemmer]

OK. I understand, Holograph. It was just a thought, but not practical. Surely not the first impractical idea I've had (nor the last!). Thanks anyway.

[+shorbird]

There are still plenty of counties with no color at all.....

[+Rumpled]

I've only actually submitted one of my recoveries to NGS.

I need to go back and probably submit a bunch.

As I'm relatively new to this and learning what is appropiate for NGS, I've been holding off.

 

Klemmer,

I got about a dozen in Imperial County back in September (~112ºF!), maybe that can add to the coloring.

[andylphoto]

Ugh, yeah, we don't want to get a reputation like that of The Group That Shall Not Be Named, filing reports just to boost our personal counts.

 

However, I plan to do my part to increase the number of carefully researched, accurate FOUND reports. In fact, I have one particular county in my sights right now.

 

Same here. I was browsing stations in a county I get to on occasion and found quite a few that had 3 or 4 NOT FOUND reports by the Unnamed Group, many (including multiple not founds on a single station) by the same individual. I plan to look for a number of these, but I will report a not found only if I can perform a thorough search and provide additional information.

 

I believe many are in fact findable. I have found at least two of this individual's not founds, one being a hundred foot tall intersection station. Even more amusing to me, I noted at least two stations that were reported FOUND in July of last year (with details) by another geocacher (Z15) then not found in August by the Unnamed Individual from the Unnamed Group.

[+YeOleImposter]

I believe many are in fact findable. I have found at least two of this individual's not founds, one being a hundred foot tall intersection station. Even more amusing to me, I noted at least two stations that were reported FOUND in July of last year (with details) by another geocacher (Z15) then not found in August by the Unnamed Individual from the Unnamed Group.

 

As I am sure you will, make sure to check that the geocacher actually found the actual disk. We have a some cachers in this area that will mark a disk as found if they find the survey marker (with a note that the disk must be buried) and willl mark a disk as found as long as they found some disk near the coordinates -- never mind that the stamping does not match at all.

[AZcachemeister]

Most people don't want to go around submitting yet another "NOT FOUND" report just to color their counties red, and I'm not sure the NGS would appreciate those kinds of unproductive and uninformative reports.

Ugh, yeah, we don't want to get a reputation like that of The Group That Shall Not Be Named, filing reports just to boost our personal counts.

 

However, I plan to do my part to increase the number of carefully researched, accurate FOUND reports. In fact, I have one particular county in my sights right now.

 

Patty

 

I don't really enjoy looking for and logging previously 'Not Found' marks...mostly because I typically don't find it either (there have been enough exceptions to keep my hopes up though). One thing I can do is to add some reason WHY I didn't find it! There are just too many 'MARK NOT FOUND' reports with no elaboration as to why. Perhaps it is considered too editorial to say 'road widened, 23 ft from the centerline is now in the curb lane' or 'culvert removed', but that is what I'm doing and I hope it adds a bit to the database to do so.

[+shorbird]

I agree with AZCachemeister's reasoning about including in a log a reason why the mark was not found.

When I see a simple not found log with no elaboration, it makes me want to check it out, simply because I have found so many marks which had been previously logged as not found. I would be more likely to skip it, though, if I saw a notation saying "culvert headwall removed" or "measurements fell under the pavement." I recently found a mark (AD2720) previously logged as not found which was 2 feet underground. Thankfully, the digging was in soft sand!

Edited January 16, 2008 by shorbird

[Papa-Bear-NYC]

There was one Which I hesitated to bother with. It was reported as covered by new fill for a riverside development in 1939.

RECOVERY NOTE BY COAST AND GEODETIC SURVEY 1939 (CT)

STATION IS NOW COVERED BY A FILL. INFORMATION SUBMITTED BY THE TENDER GILBERT WHILE MAKING FIELD INSPECTION OF AIR PHOTOGRAPHS IN MARCH 1939.

I went there anyway, and the development (which was an open grassy area between two piers) was totally overgrown and the two piers were reduced to some rocks and pilings. I scrambled through some poison ivy and phragmites and when I got to the shore line, lo and behold, 75 years of high tides and ice had washed out the area behind the bulkhead at the upstream end, and there was the mark sitting there, unlooked for since 1939! These are the kinds of finds that make you happy to be a benchmark hunter!

 

Bottom line: If there's a chance, go for it!

 

KU4047 "FOREST"

 

[andylphoto]

 

As I am sure you will, make sure to check that the geocacher actually found the actual disk. We have a some cachers in this area that will mark a disk as found if they find the survey marker (with a note that the disk must be buried) and willl mark a disk as found as long as they found some disk near the coordinates -- never mind that the stamping does not match at all.

 

I always do check for the appropriate disk, as you noted. But in cases where I'm following this particular geocacher, I am not worried about accuracy. I've never met him, but maybe someday we'll cross paths in the field. He is a wealth of information here in the forums, having retired as a survey tech from M-DOT. I have always found his reports to be extremely reliable, both as a geocacher, and in reading his work in datasheets from his time with the state. In fact, I have been saved from looking in a couple of cases because his reports included information about roadways that had been realigned that I wouldn't have known about.

 

I do look for other not found marks, and have recovered a bunch that were not found by other agencies. But most of the time, if Mike has submitted a not found report, I don't bother to look for that station. Maybe someday when I've hit every mark within a hundred mile radius I'll go after some of those. But I've seen enough of his work to know that if he didn't find it, I probably won't either.

Edited January 19, 2008 by andylphoto

[+Klemmer]

On the other extreme, there was a local geocacher (alleged benchmark hunter) out here who never quite understood the difference between scaled and adjusted marks. I sent him a polite & friendly explanations, but never heard back. I think he gave up after 10 or 15 DNF's. He is still geocaching, and thank goodness never did any NGS reports that I have seen.

 

Confession time? When I started hunting benchmarks in 2001, before the GC benchmark section was started, and way before this forum, there was not any nice explanation or Wiki anywhere about benchmarks. So for the first couple months, I had no clue about the difference between scaled and adjusted marks! Luckily, I didn't log with NGS then, and went back and edited a couple boo-boos on GC.

 

Anyone else? Or is all the instructional material out there working well?

[+Harry Dolphin]

I agree with AZCachemeister's reasoning about including in a log a reason why the mark was not found.

When I see a simple not found log with no elaboration, it makes me want to check it out, simply because I have found so many marks which had been previously logged as not found. I would be more likely to skip it, though, if I saw a notation saying "culvert headwall removed" or "measurements fell under the pavement."

 

Yes. It would nice to know why the previous DNF was logged! I seldom log DNFs with NGS without good reason. (Though even a good reason can be wrong.) I just logged :

KU0801'THIS ENTIRE AREA HAS BEEN TORN DOWN, AND REDEVELOPED. OCEAN AVENUE IS

KU0801'NOW A LAWN. PRESUMED DESTROYED.

Perhaps too editorial? But you know why I didn't find it.

When just 'DNF' is logged, there is no way to know the reason.