Jump to content

Tree ID? Merci...


pgrig

Recommended Posts

I always marvel at these Descriptions that talk about the station being "24.63 ft. west of a flowering gorganzola bush" or equivalent. Yesterday I found the need to establish a new reference point for a newly-found station and wanted to be cool, calling it a "twin-trunked _____ tree." Trouble is, I couldn't identify the kind of tree. :ph34r:

 

But now I've learned where to turn for arcane benchmarking knowledge! :) So could the horticulturally competent among you please take a look at the "Tree" and "Leaf" photos I posted temporarily with my log for MY5293 and clue me in?

 

Thanks!

 

-Paul

Link to comment

Paul-

 

Looks like a great find, and I would agree that the drill hole you found is probably the station mark...

 

But - without the corroboration of any of the three reference marks, I might be a little circumspect about claiming this one right away. I would also hesitate to provide measurement data to newly created reference marks if I were not trained in proper measuring technique. Some sources of error that can creep in: tape not held straight (bent around underbrush); tape not held level (at least one end should be plumbed over a ground point so that you are measuring a horizontal distance, and not a slope distance); tape is constructed of inappropriate material (cloth, plastic, nylon, etc. can stretch significantly); tape is not pulled tight to proper tension (too much sag or too much stretch - even with a steel tape!); temperature correction is not applied (tapes change length with variations in temp); tape is not calibrated to a known standard (now we're nitpicking, but you get the idea). That's just with regard to the distances - direction is a whole other kettle of fish!

 

While I am sure that your intentions are forthright, it should be remembered that an absence of data is way better than an abundance of inaccurate/incorrect data.

Link to comment

There are also issues as to whether you measure to the edge of a feature (a wall) or the center of it (trees), and some are hard for me to call. Distances are generally given from long to short. Directions should be TO the station.

 

I think you have some useful information to record but agree with Holtie there is a danger of giving the impression of more accuracy than you have.

 

I might risk saying "At 12 Spring Hill Rd. Etched crosses not found. Drill hole is approximately 59 ft ENE of the NE wooden post supporting a newly enclosed porch and 25 ft SSE of a two-trunked oak tree."

 

That would narrow down someone's search to a small part of the ledge without telling them that you had professional precision.

Link to comment

I always marvel at these Descriptions that talk about the station being "24.63 ft. west of a flowering gorganzola bush" or equivalent. Yesterday I found the need to establish a new reference point for a newly-found station and wanted to be cool, calling it a "twin-trunked _____ tree." Trouble is, I couldn't identify the kind of tree. :)

 

But now I've learned where to turn for arcane benchmarking knowledge! :huh: So could the horticulturally competent among you please take a look at the "Tree" and "Leaf" photos I posted temporarily with my log for MY5293 and clue me in?

 

Thanks!

 

-Paul

 

Definitely some sort of oak. Whata always gets me are the descriptions "7.8 METERS (25.5 FT) SOUTHEAST FROM A TRIPLE TRUNKED CHERRY TREE" Nice triple-trunked tree, but it's definitely NOT a cherry. Surveyors tend to confuse pines and hemlocks, maples and oaks... They're surveyors, not botanists. :ph34r:

Link to comment

Holtie22--

 

OK, and thanks for the comment!

 

I was uneasy at not being able to recover any of the 3 original RMs. I worked for about 1.5 hrs, scraped off the apparently eligible pieces of ledge, and fretted that I didn't even have a sample of what the "crosses" I was searching for looked like.

 

Then I concluded that if one wanted to accept the drill hole I found and identified as the station, then it would be good to establish a couple of references that would at least enable someone else to recover that position. [Of course, I was pretty sure that I had indeed found the correct location of the station....]

 

You must have been watching me! :huh: I got so much sag in my 59 ft. reference distance that I went over to using a contractor-grade hand-held laser distance measuring device that reads out to two decimals in order to report my one decimal place distances, and took at least three measurements for each of the two references. These seemed highly repeatable. This gadget is new to me, but seems to perform well over distances of over 200 ft.

 

As for my GPSr, here was the comparison:

 

As described 42o 46' 11.864" N 70o 57' 02.186" W

As measured " 11.96 " 02.14

 

I took it that this was close (within perhaps 10 ft.), but that there was always my GPSr's addtional built-in accuracy limit of perhaps 10 ft. plus or minus. :)

 

So what do you think I should report, either to GC or NGS?

 

_______________________

 

Bill93--

 

Sounds like I should back it off a bit.

 

But then again, I'd be pretty sure of the reliability of the .1 ft. precision of my hand-held laser. I don't think I'm making unreasonable claims here. [Of course, I don't have any standard to go on in terms oif making these reports...except the opinions of the "real pros"...wait a minute, that is you and Holtie22 after all! :) I'm listening...]

 

Perhaps I should describe my equipment. That would also clarify that I'm doing measurements to surfaces. And I stated distances from the station to the marks because that was what the original Description did. Maybe things have changed in the past 120 years. :ph34r: Seriously, I'd love to know the standard for reporting these, which I do all the time.

 

_______________________

Link to comment

Nice find. It always feels so good to find a mark set before 1900, and the older the better the feeling.

 

As to what to log on GC.com, a simple "found the station, but I need to go back and do some careful measurement for the crosses" - would work just fine.

 

The description gives some measurements in feet that could be used to locate the crosses. It also gives directions for each RM, so that should narrow down the search area.

 

Congrats on the find.

 

John

Link to comment

It's a northern red oak. The leaf you picked is weird, though. The ones still on the tree look like northern red oak. Northern red oak leaves have shallow indentations and usually 7 or more lobes. Oaks hybridize often and this specimen might be a bit hybridized with something else, possibly blackjack oak which has almost no indentations and a very broad end, like the one you picked.

 

A black oak has very dark brown bark and if you cut into the bark, it is yellow underneath. The leaves of a black oak are quite variable on the same tree, so this one could possibly be a black oak, but I rather doubt it. The leaves aren't indented enough and the bark is too light.

 

As far a surveying purposes go, I'd just say "oak". :anibad:

Link to comment

Assuming you have it, very nice recovery!

 

It's an oak tree. For our purposes, I doubt more is helpful. That leaf photo is weird!

I agree with previous posts that it's better to be vague than to imply better precision than you really can verify.

Why else (other than the benchmark) would there be a drill-hole there in the rock? Until you can find (at least one or two of) the scribed crosses, there will still be a lingering doubt.

 

As far as what to report:

For Geocaching you might post a note if you're not too certain what was found. But, as you certainly know there is no such 'gray area' for NGS reports. As I pointed out earlier, 'If it ain't the mark, then who's been drilling out the rocks here, and why?' But, without the corroboration of the scribed cross RMs, you really can't be certain.

I don't envy your quandry, but I think I would personally post a note on Geocaching.com with a description of my findings, and a 'Not Recovered' at the NGS site, with a description of my findings. You can always return at a later date, miraculously locate those RMs and vindicate yourself.

Link to comment

One thing to note is that your distance measuring device may be measuring the direct distance between it and your target, but that is what is called 'slope distance' and the data reported on the data sheet will be horizontal distance. The distance must be reduced to horizontal by some accurate means of measuring the angle from the horizontal (or level) line between the points. Some of these gadgets may do that if they contain some sort of vertical sensor. Perhaps it has a level bubble. - jlw

 

You must have been watching me! :anibad: I got so much sag in my 59 ft. reference distance that I went over to using a contractor-grade hand-held laser distance measuring device that reads out to two decimals in order to report my one decimal place distances, and took at least three measurements for each of the two references. These seemed highly repeatable. This gadget is new to me, but seems to perform well over distances of over 200 ft.

...

But then again, I'd be pretty sure of the reliability of the .1 ft. precision of my hand-held laser. I don't think I'm making unreasonable claims here. [Of course, I don't have any standard to go on in terms oif making these reports...except the opinions of the "real pros"...wait a minute, that is you and Holtie22 after all! :) I'm listening...]

_______________________

Link to comment

Thank you all!

 

I appreciate the pats on the back re finding what is likely the old (for me, the oldest so far) mark, but I am also convinced by you experienced voices that I shouldn't yell "found" quite yet. I'll turn my GC log into a note and hold off reporting to NGS until the pine needles clear on that ledge. :) I'll go back yet a third time to try and find those pesky 19thC crosses. Good thing the homeowner is such a gracious host!

 

I do wonder though about how much accuracy we require to make acceptable, helpful reports that are more than "found it" here or with NGS.

 

My new laser measurer does have a built-in level. I just wasn't paying much attention to it. :D I've recently acquired a very light tripod, so I think I'll take it along next time, level my laser tool, and re-shoot the distances and bearings (using a pocket transit) to my two "new" reference points. A little trig says that if I was shooting 4 ft. high at my 60 ft. distant target (unlikely I was that far off, as I remember), the resulting error in the level distance measurement would have been about .1 in. This was confirmed by my test shots today at my garage door. :D I think this is good enough for our purposes, but I will re-shoot and not forget that little bubble in the future. Good learning experience!

 

I also muttered a bit at the angular tolerances in the original Description of the RMs for MY5293. "Northerly" and "southerly" imply what--a 90 deg. tolerance? Grumble, grumble...

 

Also, it appears (once again) that if I had just read my Description more carefully. I might have been able to pick up a clue about my mystery tree. The team from 1889 was quite clear about the "grove of young oaks" surrounding the station... :anibad:

 

-Paul

Link to comment

You have to be cautious with drill holes. They may be more than one in the area. Seem that once before.

 

An interesting recovery or lack of.

 

RK0487_STABILITY: D = MARK OF QUESTIONABLE OR UNKNOWN STABILITY

RK0487

RK0487 HISTORY - Date Condition Report By

RK0487 HISTORY - 1873 MONUMENTED USLS

RK0487 HISTORY - 1955 GOOD CGS

RK0487

RK0487 STATION DESCRIPTION

RK0487

RK0487'DESCRIBED BY US LAKE SURVEY 1873

RK0487'ABOUT 3 MILES SOUTHWEST OF GRANITE POINT, ON BALD GRANITE KNOB,

RK0487'HIGHEST HILL IN VICINITY. MARKED BY BRASS FRUSTUM LEADED INTO SOLID

RK0487'ROCK.

RK0487

RK0487 STATION RECOVERY (1955)

RK0487

RK0487'RECOVERY NOTE BY COAST AND GEODETIC SURVEY 1955 (NET)

RK0487'STATION MARK WAS RECOVERED AND FOUND IN GOOD CONDITION. REFERENCE

RK0487'MARKS 1 AND 2 AND AN AZIMUTH MARK WERE ESTABLISHED.

<gap>

FROM HERE THERE ARE TWO TRAILS LEADING TO THE SUMMIT

RK0486'OF THE MOUNTAIN AND THE AZIMUTH MARK. ONE IS MARKED STEEP CLIMB,

RK0486'THE OTHER EASY CLIMB. THE STEEP CLIMB IS FASTER, ABOUT FIFTEEN

RK0486'MINUTE PACK TO THE TOP.

<gap>

RK0486'THE STATION WAS ASSUMED TO HAVE BEEN RECOVERED WHEN THE O-PARTY

RK0486'OCCUPIED THIS STATION. THE MARK WHICH WAS OCCUPIED WAS A NAIL

RK0486'LEADED INTO A DRILL HOLE IN SOLID ROCK (ALTHO THE ORIGINAL

RK0486'DESCRIPTION DESCRIBES THE MARK AS A BRASS

RK0486'FRUSTUM LEADED INTO A DRILL HOLE IN SOLID ROCK).

RK0486'WHEN COMPUTATIONS WERE FINISHED ON THE STATION IT WAS DETERMINED

RK0486'THAT THE POINT OCCUPIED DIFFERED FROM THE OLD GEOGRAPHIC POSITION BY

RK0486'42.32 METERS LONGITUDE AND 8.18 METERS LATITUDE. THE OLD STATION

RK0486'BEING NORTH AND EAST OF THE POINT OCCUPIED. WHEN THIS WAS

RK0486'DISCOVERED, A MAN WAS SENT BACK TO THE STATION TO DETERMINE IF THE

RK0486'MARK FOUND WAS A BRASS FRUSTUM OR A NAIL AND TO SEARCH FOR A

RK0486'SIMILAR MARK IN THE VICINITY OF THE LOCATION GIVEN ABOVE. IT WAS

RK0486'DETERMINED THAT THE MARK OCCUPIED WAS NOT BRASS BUT WAS IRON OR STEEL

RK0486'LEADED INTO THE DRILL HOLE. A SEARCH OF THE AREA INDICATED

RK0486'DID NOT REVEAL ANOTHER MARK BUT A HOLE WHICH APPEARED TO BE A DRILL

RK0486'HOLE WAS FOUND IN A BOULDER. WHETHER THIS BOULDER HAD BEEN

RK0486'BEDROCK AND HAD BECOME SEPARATED COULD NOT BE DETERMINED. NO LEAD OR

RK0486'BRASS THAT COULD HAVE BEEN USED IN THE MARK WAS FOUND. TIME DID NOT

RK0486'PERMIT FURTHER INVESTIGATION.

1 National Geodetic Survey, Retrieval Date = AUGUST 16, 2008

Edited by Z15
Link to comment

>>about .1 in.

 

60 ft slope distance and 4 ft height gets 0.13 ft or 1.6 in

 

And I would appreciate some education on that other variable-should you measure to the face or center of a column supporting a porch?

________________

 

Hi Bill--

 

Are you just joking with me or being serious? For my slope difference calculation, I got .13318551349163... ft. but rounded it off. I'm not sure what you mean about the pillar, but I measured to its surface. I believe the measurements I usually see in my Descriptions are usually to surfaces, that's what my laser tool delivers, and I don't really know how I'd adjust to get a reliable distance to the center of the pillar.

 

-Paul

Link to comment

Heeding the good advice I got, I visited the site a third time and "miraculously vindicated" myself :D by finding one of the three chiseled cross RMs and re-claiming the "find." I got some practice at making better distance measurements and apparently found that my hand-held bearing measurements need improvement.

 

If you look at the new report on MY5293, there's a "find the chiseled cross" game everyone can play! :D Look at the image called Westerly-Cross-Perhaps.

 

Thanks again,

-Paul

Link to comment
Heeding the good advice I got, I visited the site a third time and "miraculously vindicated" myself :D by finding one of the three chiseled cross RMs and re-claiming the "find." I got some practice at making better distance measurements and apparently found that my hand-held bearing measurements need improvement.

 

If you look at the new report on MY5293, there's a "find the chiseled cross" game everyone can play! :D Look at the image called Westerly-Cross-Perhaps.

Honestly, to me it looks like a cross, dead center in the picture, with a punched center. Did you measure from your drill hole to that area and come up with that?

 

Good find. :huh:

Link to comment

Excellent work! Tenacity (stubbornness) pays off again! :)

 

I see a couple of artifacts there that could be the scribed cross, but I also see a 3/4 profile of Jesus in the upper-right. :)

 

I think there is no substitute for being on-site to see that one (the cross), the 2D nature of a photo just doesn't cut it.

Edited by AZcachemeister
Link to comment

Actually, it's about as hard seeing the "cross" there on site as it is in front of your computer! :D I was expecting a nice, crisp, staight cross like the one I found, and there are a variety of otherwise weird choices on this ferschluggoner rock! :) I am NOT going back a 4th time! :)

Link to comment

You have to be cautious with drill holes. They may be more than one in the area. Seem that once before.

 

An interesting recovery or lack of.

 

RK0486'WHEN COMPUTATIONS WERE FINISHED ON THE STATION IT WAS DETERMINED

RK0486'THAT THE POINT OCCUPIED DIFFERED FROM THE OLD GEOGRAPHIC POSITION BY

RK0486'42.32 METERS LONGITUDE AND 8.18 METERS LATITUDE. THE OLD STATION

RK0486'BEING NORTH AND EAST OF THE POINT OCCUPIED. WHEN THIS WAS

RK0486'DISCOVERED, A MAN WAS SENT BACK TO THE STATION TO DETERMINE IF THE

RK0486'MARK FOUND WAS A BRASS FRUSTUM OR A NAIL AND TO SEARCH FOR A

RK0486'SIMILAR MARK IN THE VICINITY OF THE LOCATION GIVEN ABOVE. IT WAS

RK0486'DETERMINED THAT THE MARK OCCUPIED WAS NOT BRASS BUT WAS IRON OR STEEL

RK0486'LEADED INTO THE DRILL HOLE. A SEARCH OF THE AREA INDICATED

RK0486'DID NOT REVEAL ANOTHER MARK BUT A HOLE WHICH APPEARED TO BE A DRILL

RK0486'HOLE WAS FOUND IN A BOULDER. WHETHER THIS BOULDER HAD BEEN

RK0486'BEDROCK AND HAD BECOME SEPARATED COULD NOT BE DETERMINED. NO LEAD OR

RK0486'BRASS THAT COULD HAVE BEEN USED IN THE MARK WAS FOUND. TIME DID NOT

RK0486'PERMIT FURTHER INVESTIGATION.

 

Interesting that you posted about this station, Mike. I just found this thread today, and I was actually looking at this datasheet last week. I've had it in my folder for a year or two, and have been thinking about a trip up to look for it. With GPS, it may be easier to find the general area, but I'd be very cautious about claiming a find on this one. It would be an interesting search, in any case.

Link to comment

pgrig:

 

In your last report you state that "Bearings were measured with a Brunton pocket transit adjusted for 15d W declination and aligned on the top of the laser device." You also say "I was surprised at the variance of the bearings" compared to what you got previously.

 

I'm taking that to mean that you set the pocket transit on top of the laser device to take your bearings.

 

That raises the question of whether the magnetic needle in the pocket transit was affected by 1) the 1/4" x 20 mounting screw (most likely a steel screw) of the tripod going into the bottom of the laser measurer, and/or 2) any ferrous metal that might be contained within the body of the laser measurer.

 

Did you check to see if the needle of the pocket transit was affected by such local attraction?

 

The reason I ask is that I have a Leica Disto A8 laser measurer and it definitely will deflect the needle of a compass held in close proximity. I've also observed that my Suunto KB-14 compass is deflected by the mounting screws of photographic tripods and monopods.

 

Just wondering.

Link to comment

tosborn, aren't you thoughtful?

 

Nope, I haven't checked this. I took a shortcut, just placing the Brunton on top of the laser device, instead of taking the time to dismount the laser and attach the Brunton with its proper ball joint thingy. Although I believe the tripod is aluminum, I'll bet you're right and the laser contains ferrous metal.

 

I will now check to see whether the Osborn Adjustment needs to be made! B)

 

Thanks!

 

-Paul

Link to comment

Regrettably, the Osborn Assumption is not sustained. With the Brunton sitting by itself on a wooden table, resting atop the laser tool, or sitting atop the laser tool while the latter was screwed onto the tripod (in its low, "concentrated" position), the Brunton't readings did not seem to vary more than 1d, which is the best these old eyes can read off that hunk of aluminium.

 

Now I notice that in my image, the tripod was set up so that the "piggybank" Brunton would have been about 24 in. over my SuperTrowel (a 6"-long steel blade), but it's getting dark, so I put off testing for other sources of magnetic interference until later.... I don't wear a watch. Maybe my earlier hand-held readings were put off by my belt buckle, since I read the Brunton per instructions, wedged against my (six-pack) abs.

 

Nice try, though! Looks like the difference might have been advanced awkwardness on my part, but I hate to think I could make an almost 20d error sighting an otherwise precision compass... Maybe it was peer pressure to find that ##@*& chiseled cross, and my hands were shaking! B)

Link to comment

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...
×
×
  • Create New...