An old mark with questions, questions, questions

[Papa-Bear-NYC]

Back in September my wife an I took a trip to Downeast Maine and Coastal New Brunswick. Along the way we (or rather "I" not "we") bagged some survey markers. I started a thread back when I got back: Thread, which has most of the nuts and bolts of what I found and what I didn't find.

 

But one station, PD0690 "QUODDY" kept my attention after I wrote up the log for both GC and the NGS. The station was a copper bolt set 1860 with 2 CGS reference marks which I first assumed were put there in 1935. I thought this since they were stamped "QUODDY NO 1 1860 1935" and "QUODDY NO 2 1860 1935". Here's the station:

 

 

So that was that - another nice old station found and logged.

 

... Except for my curiosity at the recovery history:

 

1860 CGS - monumented

1913 CGS - found

1932 MEGS - not found

1935 MEGS - not found

1960 CGS - found

1972 IBC - found

 

So what happened in the 1930s with MEGS (Maine Geodetic Survey ??)? I figured, WHATever, and left it at that.

 

[several months go by ...]

 

Then I downloaded the 1918 CGS special Publication "Triangulation of Maine" and found this description of the station:

 

 

This was interesting for 2 reasons: it had the dates 1860 & 1913 and it stated that a reference mark was set which it gave a note "4" for. This note reads: "Note 4. - A standard disk station mark wedged in a drill hole in a bowlder."

 

Well fine. But I assumed the reference disk was set in 1913 (the second of the 2 dates) rather than 1860, since they were not in use in 1860. So effectively the description was a conflation of the 1860 and 1913 recoveries.

 

Now notice the descriptions on the NGS datasheet:

 

 

The two descriptions are both similar to the one published in 1918 but with a few differences: "Very little cutting" becomes "partly surrounded by small trees", the description of the trail up the hill is missing, "Life-Saving Service" becomes "Coast Guard", etc. But the "standard disk" is in both 1860 and 1913 descriptions, so I figured, well that's just a mix up when they transcribed the old reports.

 

Next I noticed the 1918 report actually had a picture of a "Standard Disk":

 

 

Voila! Look, That's just like RM 1!

 

This was no 1935 disk! This was one of the early flat disks (the ones GEL was looking for) and it's just like the picture from the report. Notice 3 things: 1) it's flat, 2) it has a very long arrow practically touching the writing, not used in later disks and 3) it says "SUPERINTENDENT" instead of "DIRECTOR" found in later disks. So this disk had to be set in 1913, very soon after the CGS started using disks. So the reference mark (singular) mentioned in the early reports is still there and in perfect shape!

 

Next I re-read the datasheet (Note to self: "re-read the datasheet before you search for the mark") and finally noticed that the other disk was set in 1960. No wonder it looked so different from RM1 (which difference I had pretended not to notice ):

 

 

So here's my timeline

 

1) station is established in 1860

2) the reference mark (now stamped NO 1) was set in 1913

3) The Maine folks could not find the station in 1932 or 1935

4) The CGS found it in 1960 and set RM 2. I assume they then stamped both reference disks

5) the IBC found it in 1972

6) I found it in 2007.

 

Notice the very wide time periods between recoveries:

 

1) to 2) - 53 years

2) to 4) - 47 years

4) to 5) - 12 years

5) to 6) - 35 years

 

Unanswered questions:

 

1) why does the 1860 description say a "standard reference disk" was set about 50 years before the CGS used disks?

2) Why couldn't MEGS find the station in the 1930s?

3) Why does the date "1935" appear on the reference disks? Did the CGS misinterpret the logs when they set the second reference disk in 1960 (and presumably stamped both disks)?

 

I would love to see some of the original notes. I wonder what they really said in 1860. I wonder what the really did in 1960 (hey, that's 100 years later) and what they thought happened in 1935.

 

Speculations are welcome - no charge. Actual information more than welcome (Like if DaveD can find the original 1860 report!, or hell, even the 1960 report!)

 

Lesson: If you look hard and dig deep, you will find lots of answers - and lots of new questions!

Edited March 10, 2008 by Papa-Bear-NYC

[+Black Dog Trackers]

Interesting problem(s).

 

Here's my take on the timeline (basically the same):

 

1. 1860: The station was set and a 1.3 foot triangle was inscribed around it (perhaps the 'crevice' of 1932).

2. 1913: CGS sets an unstamped reference disk 2.718 meters from the station but reports it as 2.66 meters.

3. 1932: MEGS looks 5.8 cm short (and possibly somewhat north) of the station's position and doesn't find it.

4. 1933 (or something): someone sets 3 ring bolts near the station, but it is not in the center of their triangle.

5. 1935: MEGS (probably the same as the 1932 person) again fails to find the mark (while looking for a disk).

6. 1935: CGS hears of the MEGS not-founds and sets a second reference mark and stamps it and the 1918 RM.

7. At some point, the descriptions are somewhat homogenized and a 1935 CGS note (if indeed they made one) was lost.

 

The fonts of the stamping or RM1 and RM2 look very similar or identical and I think they were stamped at the same time.

 

I doubt that the CGS would 'reward' the MEGS non-finds by stamping 1935 on the disks. Therefore I think it's likely that CGS set the RM2 disk and stamped both RMs in sometime later in 1935. It's also possible that they also did some kind of significant maintenance on the station mark in 1935, otherwise I think they would not refer to it as 1860-1935. That kind of doube-dating is, I think, an older way of saying RESET.

[Papa-Bear-NYC]

Interesting problem(s).

 

Here's my take on the timeline (basically the same):

 

1. 1860: The station was set and a 1.3 foot triangle was inscribed around it (perhaps the 'crevice' of 1932).

2. 1913: CGS sets an unstamped reference disk 2.718 meters from the station but reports it as 2.66 meters.

3. 1932: MEGS looks 5.8 cm short (and possibly somewhat north) of the station's position and doesn't find it.

4. 1933 (or something): someone sets 3 ring bolts near the station, but it is not in the center of their triangle.

5. 1935: MEGS (probably the same as the 1932 person) again fails to find the mark (while looking for a disk).

6. 1935: CGS hears of the MEGS not-founds and sets a second reference mark and stamps it and the 1918 RM.

7. At some point, the descriptions are somewhat homogenized and a 1935 CGS note (if indeed they made one) was lost.

 

The fonts of the stamping or RM1 and RM2 look very similar or identical and I think they were stamped at the same time.

 

I doubt that the CGS would 'reward' the MEGS non-finds by stamping 1935 on the disks. Therefore I think it's likely that CGS set the RM2 disk and stamped both RMs in sometime later in 1935. It's also possible that they also did some kind of significant maintenance on the station mark in 1935, otherwise I think they would not refer to it as 1860-1935. That kind of doube-dating is, I think, an older way of saying RESET.

 

Sounds good BFT, EXCEPT the 1960 report says:

 

RECOVERY NOTE BY COAST AND GEODETIC SURVEY 1960 (HRL) STATION AND REFERENCE MARK NO. 1 WERE RECOVERED AND FOUND IN GOOD CONDITION. REFERENCE MARK NO. 2 WAS ESTABLISHED. A COMPLETE NEW DESCRIPTION FOLLOWS-- ,,,

 

I also had an inkling that the CGS might have shown up in 1935 but unless they RESET the station mark (maybe found the hole only and put in a new copper plug? Why not put in a disk which would be normal procedure?) the 1935 date still makes no sense. I would think since the mark is (presumably) the original, they would just use the one date "1860". Or if they were referring to the dates for the RMs, #1 would get "1860 1913", and #2 would get "1860 1960".

 

I agree the stamping on the RMs was almost certainly done at the same time, but that would be 1960. Besides, RM2 doesn't look like a 1935 disk. Here's a 1935 disk: PE1778 RM1 which was set in the same general area of Maine.

 

Oh well ....

Edited March 9, 2008 by Papa-Bear-NYC

[holograph]

The MEGS parties in 1932 and 1935 might have been depression-era unemployed engineers and surveyors not experienced in looking for ancient triangulation stations. The phrase "AT THE POINT WHERE THE TABLET SHOULD HAVE BEEN" seems to indicate that the person was looking for a disk and didn't find one, so marked it NOT FOUND.

[+seventhings]

Very interesting (and well-documented) case.

Papa Bear = "... conflation of the ... recoveries."

BDT = "... somewhat homogenized."

This illustrates something that experienced benchmark hunters eventually realize: The datasheet descriptions and histories, while immensely valuable (the most valuable tool for finding marks), are not inerrant. Over the years, the official record occasionally gets "conflated", "homogenized", inadvertently abridged and, from time to time, updated with confusing, ex post facto material. I guess that happens when a database is migrated from hand-written to type-written to digital media.

 

Several years ago, sixthings found a 1903 1911 monumentation description that advised using a helicopter to get to the station. (He mentioned it in the forum but I can't find it now). There were no subsequent additions to the history. The 1903 1911 helicopter is either a clerical phenomenon or the original survey party was led by Nostradamas.

 

7

Edited March 9, 2008 by seventhings

[+Klemmer]

The 1903 helicopter is either a clerical phenomenon or the original survey party was led by Nostradamas

Or maybe led by Igor Sikorsky ? Edited March 9, 2008 by Klemmer & TeddyBearMama

[+Black Dog Trackers]

That station is RY0904.

[Z15]

MAINE (WPA)

 

The work in this State was in charge of Mr. L.D. Stephenson,

Instructor in Civil Engineering, University of Maine, Orono.

Work started on December 6, 1933 and was carried through to July

7, 1934; started again on January 1, 1935 and was discontinued on

June 30, 1935. A maximum of 57 men were employed in anyone

week, the average being 32 during the life of the project. All

told, 263 miles of levels and 222 miles of traverse were

accomplished. Some triangulation work was also done in the

neighborhood of Augusta. The notes and computations have been

forwarded to this office. Work is acceptable, and conforms to

second-order accuracy. Final computations await the final

adjustment of triangulation in this State.

Edited March 9, 2008 by Z15