ME2997

[CoyoteTrust]

OK, seeking some words from the experts in here. Maybe this is a simple question, but I'd just your opinions. While granite can be found in here & there in this area, the stones I found were pretty isolated. Ultimately, my question is: Having found what I believe are the mark's above-ground reference stone AND the southern stone reference post, would the NGS consider this an actual find of this mark? Please read/see below.

 

The mark in question: ME2997 on geocaching (where I logged it 'found').

 

What I found is what I really believe to be the surface marker stone; the true mark is buried below it. The surface stone was re-set into postion by the last recovery in 1952 but, being curious, I tried to move it a little. I just bent down and jostled it, making sure it wasn't just some stone literally on the surface. It moved very little, but enough to make me think that this stone was set intentionally with the aid of human hands.

 

Excited with the find, I looked for the other stone reference posts. To the south, I practically tripped over one. Per my non-professional measurements, THIS was the southern stone reference post! It had some sort of "C" or "U" shaped cut on top, and the measurement seemed about right (per ME2996, which also uses the stone reference posts as "RMs". I sought the eastern and western stone posts with no luck.

 

I'm guessing you read my g-c post by now, so I won't re-type the whole thing. But I'll re-post a few pics.

 

ME2997 surface marker stone

 

ME2997 foreground, ME2996 witness in background

 

ME2997 southern stone reference post

 

One day I'll probably go back out there anyway, hoping to find other stone reference posts. I already realized that I should have taken a pic from the southern reference stone looking toward the marker stone. Ah well. TIA for your opinions.

Edited May 30, 2008 by CoyoteTrust

[andylphoto]

I'm very curious what others would have to say on this one, but I've got a couple of thoughts. At this point I probably would not report it.

 

Technically, you didn't find the station, which is buried four feet down. There may be some value in reporting that the marker stone was recovered, apparently in place. In all likelihood, the underground stone is there and undisturbed, but at this point, it's only an assumption.

 

I'm not sure I would be inclined to dig it up either. Four feet is a lot of digging. While its historic value is great, its practical value is questionable...how many surveyors would dig up a station four feet below ground level when there's a triangulation station just a few feet away? I don't know...maybe more than I would guess.

 

The second question I'd have (personally) about digging it up would be, "What would I find at the bottom?" Not knowing exactly what "a stone of the usual form" would have been in 1879, I'd be concerned about disturbing it. If its a four-foot long post and would still be buried four feet when I removed the four feet of earth on top of it, then it probably wouldn't be a concern. If I knew more, it might be a fun afternoon to recover this one.

 

I'll be looking forward to hearing what others have to say about this station.

Edited May 30, 2008 by andylphoto

[mloser]

I wouldn't report it, at least not yet.

 

I see Andilphoto's point about it not being the station, which is technically true, but if I was certain I had found the station "reference stone" (set on top of the underground station) I would report it as found. This description is typical of 1880 era tri-stations that describe the underground mark as being the station (a beer bottle, a croc, a flat stone with a drill hole, etc.--see BARRY 1885 for an example) and then refer to the surface mark, which is meant to be used as the actual geodetic control point. As with more modern stations, the underground mark exists as a means of recreating the station if it should get damaged or destroyed.

 

The reason I wouldn't report it is that I am not certain it is the station. It is indeed a suspiciously "station-looking" rock, but it is in such poor shape that I can't see any markings. What you are most likely looking for is a squared off stone that is approximately 6" x 6" x 4' (it could be larger--up to 12" x 12"), and has some sort of markings on the top and possibly the side. The top marking would most likely be a cross, either from corner to corner or from edge to edge. On the side would be USLS or US, or something (or maybe nothing). Finding and measuring to 2 or 3 reference stones would make me much more confident that I had found the actual stone. The reference mark disks are most likely 6" x 6"--I looked around GC.com for similar marks and found a description of the reference disks as being that size.

 

Based on what you have located I think you found the stone. If you feel confident that it is you may want to submit a Found, Poor recovery, since there are no cross-marks on the stone top any more. The existence of a reset disk nearby rules out any real use of this mark anyway--you will be reporting it for historical purposes anyway!

[Bill93]

If you could move the surface stone, it either isn't big enough to be what you are looking for, or else it is broken just under the surface.

 

It does look a lot like the other post in your picture. I'd go ahead and uncover the rest of the top and maybe even dig a few inches (not feet!) down beside it and see for sure I really was looking at a squared-off stone post and not just some rock that happened to be nearby.

[+Harry Dolphin]

My experience with stone markers is fairly limitied, but this is more like what I would expect...

KV6951 (And it's a very geniss post!)

Edited May 31, 2008 by Harry Dolphin

[Wintertime]

My experience with stone markers is fairly limitied, but this is more like what I would expect...

(And it's a very geniss post!)

Did you mean to say that it's gneiss, which would differentiate it from a gnaughty post? :-)

 

Patty

[andylphoto]

I see Andilphoto's point about it not being the station, which is technically true, but if I was certain I had found the station "reference stone" (set on top of the underground station) I would report it as found. This description is typical of 1880 era tri-stations that describe the underground mark as being the station (a beer bottle, a croc, a flat stone with a drill hole, etc.--see BARRY 1885 for an example) and then refer to the surface mark, which is meant to be used as the actual geodetic control point. As with more modern stations, the underground mark exists as a means of recreating the station if it should get damaged or destroyed.

 

Thanks for that info...that's one reason I would have been hesitant. I hadn't run into a station like this before, so by my reading of the datasheet, my assumption was that the surface stone was more for use as a "witness post" of sorts, to recover the actual station, rather than as the control point. Very interesting stuff, and why I enjoy reading here.

[CoyoteTrust]

Whoa - I made a post and hadn't checked on it in a few days. Thanks for all the input, folks. I reported ME2996 (Orland2) but haven't done anything with ME2997 yet. Maybe I should go back out there first and dig around a little... only a little. I almost think I might be able to find the other reference posts, too.

 

Speaking of that: based on the description and using my mapping software, I projected where the southern RP would be and it was a mere 6 feet off of where I marked it in the field. That kind of boosts confidence that I found the true RP and quite possibly the surface marker stone.

 

I've reasoned with self a little more and, per the pic, the surface stone seems a little out of place -- as in shifted, but maybe it settled some more after the 1952 party's recovery. Like I said maybe I should go back out there; I work down near that area anyway.

 

Another question though: Why would they set Orland2? Nothing in recovery reports for ME2997 states that it is not useful. The only note suspicious statement is in a recovery of nearby ME2996 (which also uses the RP's for RM's): they found the RP's 'useless' for 2997 due to their distance and location. How does this come in to play if ME2997 (per reports) was technically still legitimately set at the time?

 

Thanks again - I'm always learning here and I appreciate your thoughts.