Critique my logs please

[TillaMurphs]

Being new to Benchmarking (and enjoying it more than geocaching) I want to make sure I am getting off on the right foot with my logs. Could you have a look at my first few logs and let me know what I should be adding/subtracting/doing differently?

 

Here are some of the first few we have logged:

RD4357

RD0740

RD0313

 

Thanks for any help.

[+pgrig]

I looked at RD0313. Excuse the pun, but those photos are really tack (rivet?)-sharp! Yours is also the first image I've seen posted here that includes a micrometer! But it sure works!

 

A thought. One of the things that seems to distinguish the logs done by benchmark-hunters from those done by geocachers is that the former tend to try to correct problems they found with the NGS Description or provide words and images that help others in finding their way to the mark/s, either in general (e.g., a better street address, a city or town designation, etc.) or in detail (e.g., correcting errors in the measurements or bearings found in the Description, or adding new reference points when the old ones disappear or are found wanting).

 

For example, you say it was hard to find the culverts. How about a picture that shows one or more of them from a little distance (telling us the direction of the photo) so that the next person doesn't have to beat the bushes as you did?

[+Harry Dolphin]

The idea of benchmarking, as opposed to geocaching, is to help the next person find it easily.

While I appreciate the honesty of:

N45 35.2XX (where XX varied from 50 – 73) W123 32.4XX (where XX varied from 40 – 60)

N 45 35.266 W 123 32.450 is easier to work from. We realize that the GPS unit has a thirty foot error.

Directon of photo is important. "East towards Portland" is good! But was it north east or south east or east?

Corrections to the original data sheet are helpful. "East Dolphin Street" is now "West Bear Street".

Circling the benchmark on the photos will help others to find it.

You done great!! You found two that the Power Squadron couldn't find! I'm impressed!

[AZcachemeister]

Excellent!

Interesting to note that I used to live just down the road from RD4375, about thirty-some years ago.

 

As noted above, it's good to just post whatever your GPSr is reading, but let it settle a while for the best possible accuracy. I like to use a screen that shows the Estimated Positional Error (EPE) when noting the co-ordinates of a scaled mark, and wait until the number goes as low as it will before marking the location.

 

Your wide-area photo should include as many landmarks as possible for reference...anything that can clue-in someone who will come after you looking for the mark. The relation of the mark to the road, a nearby powerline, a sign or building, etc. All these will help someone see what you saw when you were there.

 

Now for the controversial part.

 

Some BMers like to post a photo of their GPSr laying next to the mark, others abhor the practice. I prefer to show you what my GPSr was reading when I was at the mark. Others are more certain of themselves, and could never transpose a digit in their notes like I might. I also take and post a photo of the mark without the GPSr, because I also like to see photos of nothing but the mark itself.

 

For the wide-area shot, try to get a photo in which the location of the mark is obvious. Your third photo for RD0740 is nearly perfect. The inverted cup is a novel idea(!), but I would have stood on one of the guardrail posts for a better angle of the disk, so hopefully the cup would not be needed to show the disk's position.

 

PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE! Don't ruin your beautiful scenic photos with ugly colored boxes, circles or arrows unless it is ABSOLUTELY necessary to show where the mark is located in the photo.

[Wintertime]

Some BMers like to post a photo of their GPSr laying next to the mark, others abhor the practice. I prefer to show you what my GPSr was reading when I was at the mark. Others are more certain of themselves, and could never transpose a digit in their notes like I might. I also take and post a photo of the mark without the GPSr, because I also like to see photos of nothing but the mark itself.

Sorry, AZ, I'm not understanding your comment about people transposing digits in their notes. Are you saying that you write down the readings from the GPSr? I just take waypoints at the marks I find, and then upload those directly from my Garmin to MacGPS Pro. No writing involved, so no risk of transposing anything. I guess there's a risk of the GPSr failing and losing all my data before I can upload it, but that hasn't happened (yet)! The only notes I take on site are about the condition of the mark, details about its location, etc.

 

Patty

[+pgrig]

I wanted to pipe up that I almost always use "colored boxes" in my wide area shots to highlight the position of the disk. I don't find them ugly, but informative--a very good way to guide another searcher to the position of the mark. Sometimes I can get away with the visibility of my orange-painted large size One-A-Day Multivitamin plastic bottle (about 4" tall) as the only indicator of the mark's position, but often I take my wide-angle shot from such a distance that even this blazing beacon is hard to detect.

 

Then there are the situations like MY2897 that I just posted in which the disk is likely hidden, and a box is the only way to indicate its assumed position. I also use these very handy bright orange contractor's stakes I found at Home Depot to indicate the assumed position of a station thought long-since deceased. I did this for MY4777, which is also an example of using more text boxes to communicate information about a complicated site.

 

[The smaller sized versions of these stakes are very useful for marking supposed locations of an underground mark that you have found from taping-out reference mark directions and distances. Once you have a few of these indicated, you can often dig (or scan) within them to find the station. And sometimes not. See MY0657.]

 

If I had lofty mountains and spreading scenic vistas to show, I might be less inclined to clutter up these wide shots, but mine are usually much more hum-drum.

[+Black Dog Trackers]

TillaMurphs -

 

The logs look very good. On the last one, the picture with the statement "can you find it", well I didn't see it. I saw some things that could've been it, but they could be a rock too. So, to me the picture was useless.

 

I suggest using photo-editing to show where a mark is if it is not immediately obvious.

 

One option is to use microsoft paint and instructions for that are here. Other editors are fine too, of course.

 

I agree that if the mark is obvious then the photo is useful as is, but if there is any difficulty at all in seeing the mark, then using an arrow, box, triangle, circle, or a physical marker (like your cup) is good.

[TillaMurphs]

Thank you for all your critiques so far. These are very helpful.

 

I will work at adding more hints and photo items to help the next person find the mark.

 

Per Black Dog Trackers suggestion, I added a fourth photo to RD0313 to indicate where the rivet is. Now there is one photo to play “find the rivet” and another photo you can look at to confirm where it is.

 

I would really appreciate more help on how to report my GPS coordinates. In the logs you already looked at, I listed my coordinates showing the extremes that my GPS reported. I tried walking up to the mark from different places and then letting the GPS set but every time it would report a different number – hence my ranges.

I could just wait until the error goes as low as possible and then record the reading and the estimated position error shown on the screen. Is that the best way to go? Because even that reading can change if I pick up the GPSr and set it back down to repeat the process.

I have heard that some handheld GPSrs have an averaging feature but my GPSr does not (at least, not that I know of).

 

This is fun.

[AZcachemeister]

Some BMers like to post a photo of their GPSr laying next to the mark, others abhor the practice. I prefer to show you what my GPSr was reading when I was at the mark. Others are more certain of themselves, and could never transpose a digit in their notes like I might. I also take and post a photo of the mark without the GPSr, because I also like to see photos of nothing but the mark itself.

Sorry, AZ, I'm not understanding your comment about people transposing digits in their notes. Are you saying that you write down the readings from the GPSr? I just take waypoints at the marks I find, and then upload those directly from my Garmin to MacGPS Pro. No writing involved, so no risk of transposing anything. I guess there's a risk of the GPSr failing and losing all my data before I can upload it, but that hasn't happened (yet)! The only notes I take on site are about the condition of the mark, details about its location, etc.

 

Patty

 

A picture is worth a thousand words.

If I show you a photo of my GPSr next to the mark, there can be no question whether I made any errors in recording it's readings.

 

I wanted to pipe up that I almost always use "colored boxes" in my wide area shots to highlight the position of the disk. I don't find them ugly, but informative--a very good way to guide another searcher to the position of the mark. Sometimes I can get away with the visibility of my orange-painted large size One-A-Day Multivitamin plastic bottle (about 4" tall) as the only indicator of the mark's position, but often I take my wide-angle shot from such a distance that even this blazing beacon is hard to detect.

 

Then there are the situations like MY2897 that I just posted in which the disk is likely hidden, and a box is the only way to indicate its assumed position. I also use these very handy bright orange contractor's stakes I found at Home Depot to indicate the assumed position of a station thought long-since deceased. I did this for MY4777, which is also an example of using more text boxes to communicate information about a complicated site.

 

[The smaller sized versions of these stakes are very useful for marking supposed locations of an underground mark that you have found from taping-out reference mark directions and distances. Once you have a few of these indicated, you can often dig (or scan) within them to find the station. And sometimes not. See MY0657.]

 

If I had lofty mountains and spreading scenic vistas to show, I might be less inclined to clutter up these wide shots, but mine are usually much more hum-drum.

 

TillaMurphs -

 

The logs look very good. On the last one, the picture with the statement "can you find it", well I didn't see it. I saw some things that could've been it, but they could be a rock too. So, to me the picture was useless.

 

I suggest using photo-editing to show where a mark is if it is not immediately obvious.

 

One option is to use microsoft paint and instructions for that are here. Other editors are fine too, of course.

 

I agree that if the mark is obvious then the photo is useful as is, but if there is any difficulty at all in seeing the mark, then using an arrow, box, triangle, circle, or a physical marker (like your cup) is good.

 

Circles, arrows, and text boxes certainly have their place, and can be absolutely crucial in describing a recovery, or explaining the lack of a recovery.

Although it is not always possible (with terrain, lighting and vegetation interference), I appreciate a wide-view photo of the mark in which I can imagine myself at the site, and notice the mark for myself.

[Wintertime]

[whole buncha quoted stuff deleted]

AZ, was that a "yes"? You write down the readings as well as taking a photo? Do you also take a waypoint?

 

Patty

[+Black Dog Trackers]

I would really appreciate more help on how to report my GPS coordinates.

Your GPSr's range is +/- 0.01 minutes in each coordinate (a range of 0.02), if I read your logs correctly. If both are off by 0.02 at the same time, then that is an error of over 150 feet. Even if only 1 coordinate is off by 0.01 minutes, then the error is about 50 feet. I think that is a sort of large amount of error for reporting coordinates. As I recall, mine moves around 0.002 minutes. Maybe it might be better if you found an averaging function in that GPSr, or average it yourself, or got a new GPSr, or even consider not reporting coordinates. Map scaling can be off by 600 feet or more, but I'm not so sure the average scaling error is worse than +/- 0.01 minutes. I think that reporting the variation observed is good and so, such a log gives sufficient information for judging the information you provide, but it might not be worth your reporting coordinates at all with that level of unaveraged variation. I really don't like being negative about this, but that is my conclusion from the data, and you did ask for a critique.

 

By the way, FizzyCalc is an excellent tool for looking into such things, as well as its more conventional uses. It is an alternatiive to NGS's program Forward, but I think it is better because it has a lot more functionality, including allowing different coordinate formats.

[TillaMurphs]

I would really appreciate more help on how to report my GPS coordinates.

Your GPSr's range is +/- 0.01 minutes in each coordinate (a range of 0.02), if I read your logs correctly. If both are off by 0.02 at the same time, then that is an error of over 150 feet. Even if only 1 coordinate is off by 0.01 minutes, then the error is about 50 feet. I think that is a sort of large amount of error for reporting coordinates. As I recall, mine moves around 0.002 minutes. Maybe it might be better if you found an averaging function in that GPSr, or average it yourself, or got a new GPSr, or even consider not reporting coordinates. Map scaling can be off by 600 feet or more, but I'm not so sure the average scaling error is worse than +/- 0.01 minutes. I think that reporting the variation observed is good and so, such a log gives sufficient information for judging the information you provide, but it might not be worth your reporting coordinates at all with that level of unaveraged variation. I really don't like being negative about this, but that is my conclusion from the data, and you did ask for a critique.

No. No. That is not being negative at all. That is exactly the kind of critique I was looking for. Thanks.

 

I was indeed worried about the accuracy of my reading and that is why I included the variation of the readings and the type of GPSr. Thanks for the explanation on how much distance (in feet) that variation really represents. In the future, I will just leave coordinates off of my logs.

 

Thanks.

[+greg1701]

I would really appreciate more help on how to report my GPS coordinates.

Your GPSr's range is +/- 0.01 minutes in each coordinate (a range of 0.02), if I read your logs correctly. If both are off by 0.02 at the same time, then that is an error of over 150 feet. Even if only 1 coordinate is off by 0.01 minutes, then the error is about 50 feet. I think that is a sort of large amount of error for reporting coordinates. As I recall, mine moves around 0.002 minutes. Maybe it might be better if you found an averaging function in that GPSr, or average it yourself, or got a new GPSr, or even consider not reporting coordinates. Map scaling can be off by 600 feet or more, but I'm not so sure the average scaling error is worse than +/- 0.01 minutes. I think that reporting the variation observed is good and so, such a log gives sufficient information for judging the information you provide, but it might not be worth your reporting coordinates at all with that level of unaveraged variation. I really don't like being negative about this, but that is my conclusion from the data, and you did ask for a critique.

No. No. That is not being negative at all. That is exactly the kind of critique I was looking for. Thanks.

 

I was indeed worried about the accuracy of my reading and that is why I included the variation of the readings and the type of GPSr. Thanks for the explanation on how much distance (in feet) that variation really represents. In the future, I will just leave coordinates off of my logs.

 

--having said that, if the coordinates are wildly off as is often the case, I'd appreciate an "updated" set even if they are off by 50 feet... but that's just me... I thought your logs looked good... and I too fall into the camp of "No Boxes, Squares, Circles" on scenic photos.. but that's just a personal preference...

 

Enjoy!

Thanks.

[+PFF]

I agree with others about letting the GPSr reading "settle" for a moment. Also, the wide variance in your readings suggests you are getting signal reflection from nearby objects. Try this technique and see if the results improve:

 

*When taking a reading do not place the GPSr on a surface near the benchmark. Instead, hold the receiver as high as possible (arm's length) above the mark. Stand very still and watch the reading for a minimum of 30 seconds. (More than 60 seconds usually is not productive--and your arm gets very tired!)

 

*Watch the Estimated Accuracy number. When it appears to have passed its lowest number and is starting to get higher, hit the MARK (or MAKE WAYPOINT) key to preserve the reading. Or, as you are waiting for the reading to settle, record the Degrees and the first two digits of the Minutes on your data sheet, and then fill in the final digit when you feel comfortable that it is as accurate as it will get.

 

*If the benchmark has ADJUSTED horizontal coordinates, taking a GPSr reading is not the best use of your time. The published coordinates are accurate to a very high degree. You cannot improve on them. However, SCALED coordinates can be off by hundreds of feet. A GPSr reading is helpful to those who come after you.

 

By the way, when logging benchmarks with SCALED coordinates on GEOCACHING.COM, you can click the Add Coordinates box and you will be given an opportunity to insert your GPSr reading, using one of several formats. The default is Degrees and Decimal Minutes, which is the norm for this website.

 

If you do this, your reading will appear as the first line of your log--above the descriptive text you type. [but you will not see it until you click SUBMIT.] If you feel your reading might be off because of tree cover, you can note that in the text.

 

I hope these guidelines are helpful. Enjoy the hobby, and keep up the great work! As was pointed out in a previous post, the score at this point is Power Squadron 1, Greg 3. [Grin.]

 

-Paul-

Edited August 12, 2008 by PFF

[+Harry Dolphin]

However, SCALED coordinates can be off by hundreds of feet. A GPSr reading is helpful to those who come after you.

 

By the way, when logging benchmarks with SCALED coordinates on GEOCACHING.COM, you can click the Add Coordinates box and you will be given an opportunity to insert your GPSr reading, using one of several formats. The default is Degrees and Decimal Minutes, which is the norm for this website.

 

Yes! Please include the coordinates from your hand-held GPS! As Paul said, scaled coordinates can be 150' off. It definitely helps the next hunter to have the more accurate GPS coordinates. I found one that was over a thousand feet off. I use holograph's coords when hunting a disk that he's found. If my GPS disagrees with his by 20', that's a heck of a lot better than the scaled coords off by 150'!

[+Black Dog Trackers]

Well not all scaled coordinates are off by 150 feet. However, probably most are off by farther than the accuracy of a typical handheld GPS receiver.

 

I looked at nuvi 760 on the internet. It is what I call a "car GPS". My car GPS gives coordinates to the nearest second and so does a car GPS of a friend of mine. My handheld GPS gives coordinates to the nearest 1/10 second. The specs page on the nuvi 760 had a row called "geocaching friendly" and the answer for this model was "no". Precision and averaging are probably only two more minor aspects of what geocaching-friendly-no means.

 

I would propose that a "car GPS" is excellent for car navigation purposes but may or may not be good for providing coordinates in logs.