Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1
lost02

Destroyed

Recommended Posts

I was recently looking though some of our past recoveries and noticed that one Station that we submitted to Deb to be destroyed (and was marked as destroyed in 2007) has recently received a new “Mark Not Found” recovery. It appears that even though the Mark has been “removed” from the database, the system still permits new recoveries to be added.

 

Before we go out looking for Stations I look at the latest NGS Data Sheet to ensure the recovery will be logable. A one month overlap of duplicate recoveries can and will occur when two or more individuals recover the same Station before the database has had a chance to be updated, but before submitting recoveries to the NGS one should look at the most recent NGS Data Sheet to ensure that the new recovery is actually needed.

Share this post


Link to post

I was recently looking though some of our past recoveries and noticed that one Station that we submitted to Deb to be destroyed (and was marked as destroyed in 2007) has recently received a new “Mark Not Found” recovery. It appears that even though the Mark has been “removed” from the database, the system still permits new recoveries to be added.

It is quite true that you can still log recoveries of "Destroyed" stations. The station is not removed from the database, it is simply marked as destroyed and the datasheet will not come up with conventional datasheet searches. But you can get the old datasheet if you ask for it by number. As far as I know, stations are never actually removed from the database. You are right, a "Not Found" is kind of useless on a destroyed station. But not so a "Found".

 

I have found a couple of destroyed stations and asked for them to be undestroyed, but so far they are still listed as destroyed.

Share this post


Link to post

Papa-Bear-NYC - Yeah, I guess I should have been more specific about “removed”. If you use the Recovery by PID page and don’t select “Include Destroyed Marks”, you get the “No Marks Found” page with an indication it was Destroyed. If you do select the “Include Destroyed Marks” you do get the Data Sheet.

 

I just assumed that once it was marked as Destroyed you couldn’t log anything in it unless someone from the NGS (Deb) did something special to allow a new entry - like actually finding a Destroyed Mark so it can be un-destroyed.

 

We have found some “Mark Not Found”, but never found a Mark that was Destroyed - they must have been some great finds!

Share this post


Link to post

Deb was able to "un-destroy" a mark I found that had been erroneously marked as destroyed, DX3251. No indication on the datasheet of the "temporarily destroyed" history of the mark. I just emailed Deb a note with a picture of the mark, and the area around it. No idea why it was marked as destroyed, by the local county surveyor. Just an error, I guess. The mark was clearly where it was supposed to be. Nice to be able to do that. A high point in my BM hunting career, so to speak.

 

As an aside, the mark dates from 1935, but as it was in a "destroyed state" in 2000 or so, when Geocaching grabbed a snapshot of the NGS database, it does not appear in the Geocaching database! This is one reason for that situation to occur.

Edited by Klemmer & TeddyBearMama

Share this post


Link to post

Klemmer & TeddyBearMama - We’ve never actually gone out to look for destroyed marks before. It looks like you and Papa-Bear-NYC have actually done it and succeeded in un-destroying Stations!

 

…No indication on the datasheet of the "temporarily destroyed" history of the mark…
I know that when we submit destroyed Stations to Deb we have some write-up along with the pictures. The write-up portion never gets into the entry - I assume Deb keeps it somewhere else. It would be interesting to see what was written.

 

As an aside, the mark dates from 1935, but as it was in a "destroyed state" in 2000 or so, when Geocaching grabbed a snapshot of the NGS database, it does not appear in the Geocaching database! This is one reason for that situation to occur.
Right, you can’t go by the Geocaching database when submitting reports to the NGS!

Share this post


Link to post

I've run across several 'destroyed' marks myself which appear to be in excellent condition - one of which was verified by 2 of 'us' - KW2805 (KINK). Mloser submitted this one for undestruction many months ago (Matt, correct me if I'm wrong) but it is still destroyed. My only thought is that in this one's case, it was slated to be removed during road improvements that never occured...although NGS seems to always be cautious about marking one as destroyed - even if a 'KINK2' would've been set. Interestingly I have run into more marks with the same gentleman's name that are 'destroyed' from the same time period (~2001) but are still in place and appear to be in good condition ...not sure if it was an NGS person or the submitter, which I would expect.

 

Edit - spelling

- and again for clarification.

Edited by Ernmark

Share this post


Link to post

Ernmark - guess finding Destroyed Marks is more common than I thought. :laughing:

 

For KW2805, the submitter was ANTHONY HANLON, and the entry was made by Deb (DB/NGS), but there’s no evidence in the Destroyed entry who the submitter is affiliated with. In my Destroyed entries I see: Reported by NGS, (DB), and my name - no mention of GEOCAC or JM.

Share this post


Link to post

So what about marks that would be temporary?

 

For example, I have a few near me that were "spray painted" back in 1972. Obviously the paint is gone, and one of the many has been marked as destroyed. I wouldn't dare go and un-mark it as destroyed, but one 'supposed' mark, someone put some fresh paint on. (And I saw it before it was painted, so I know there was no already-existing paint there.)

 

So does that mean I can go back and start painting random marks and declare them undestroyed? :D

 

(Note: Not that I *WOULD*, of course!!)

Share this post


Link to post
B):) Pobre chico! We found a dead cache also in St. Cloud. This may be the work of seem evil cache-destoying gang B)

Share this post


Link to post

Interesting that I just ran across this thread. I was perusing destroyed datasheets this morning, and came across several with large overlaps--several years.

 

RK0126

RL0180

 

It has been noted before that recoveries are sorted by recovery date, not submission date. Some of these may have been submitted as destroyed well after the fact. A backlog of 10 years is a bit extreme though. :ph34r:

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 1

×
×
  • Create New...