Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Papa-Bear-NYC

Bringing a non-publishable data sheet back to life.

Recommended Posts

One of the most frustrating experiences, is when you are searching for assorted marks in an area, and you come upon one that is marked non-publishable. To give an example, yesterday I was studying an old map and checking stations that appeared on it against one of the old CGS Special Publication In this case it was Special Publication No. 76 "Triangulation in Massachusetts".

 

There looked like there should be a station called "Poplar Hill", up near the New Hampshire border. The only problem is that although the Special Publication listed the station in the index, and listed a latitude and longitude, there was no description given. So in other words they knew what it was called and where it was located but not what the heck it was or how to find it (this was published in 1922 -WAY before there was anything like a GPS). This was the tip off.

 

So I tried the NGS data sheet retrieval page, and selected station name "Poplar Hill", state "Massachusetts".

 

Then up came the little index window and I got this:

|Dist|PID...|H V|Vert_Source|Approx.|Approx..|Stab|Designation
|----|------|- -|-----------|-------|--------|----|-----------
|....|MY2672|4 .|29/SCALED..|N424408|W0711523|....|POPLAR HILL
|....|MY2659|3 .|29/SCALED..|N424406|W0711520|....|POPLAR HILL BORDEN
|....|MY2658|4 .|...........|N424407|W0711520|....|POPLAR HILL SPOFFORD
|....|MY2669|4 .|...........|N424411|W0711519|....|POPLAR HILL STONE MONUMENT 

 

So far, so good. I got more than I expected. So I selected the first one, and clicked on Get datasheets, and Bam! this is what I got:

 

DATABASE =  ,PROGRAM = datasheet, VERSION = 7.61

*** retrieval complete.
Elapsed Time = 00:00:00
Msg=FATAL_ERROR - No Marks found


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-   This listing contains control for which complete digital				-
-   data sheets where not provided.  The complete data sheets were		  -
-   not provided for the reason listed below.  The reason below is		  -
-   associated with a horizontal control Nonpub code shown under			-
-   the heading 'H' and/or a vertical control Nonpub code shown under	   -
-   the heading 'v'														 -
-																		   -
-   The format of the records are as follows:							   -
-	   Pid  = Station Permanent Identifier)								-
-	   Name = Station Designation										  -
-	   Lat  = Approx. Latitude (Degrees, Minutes, truncated Seconds)	   -
-	   Lon  = Approx. Longitude (Degrees, Minutes, truncated Seconds)	  -
-	   O	= Horizontal Order											 -
-	   o	= Vertical Order											   -
-	   H	= Horizontal Nonpub Code									   -
-	   v	= Vertical Nonpub Code										 -
-																		   -
-	   H Nonpub HORIZONTAL CONTROL NONPUB REASON						   -
-	   -------- --------------------------------						   -
-	   X		Surface Mark Reported Destroyed							-
-	   Y		Surface and underground mark reported destroyed			-
-	   A		A-Order Horizontal mark not tied to an adjusted HARN	   -
-	   C		C-Nonoperational CORS Station							  -
-	   W		Weakly determined position.								-
-	   P		Purpose of position is not for network control			 -
-	   D		No Descriptive Text available							  -
-	   R		Restricted position										-
-	   O		Outside NGS Publication Area							   -
-	   N		No geodetic control at this mark						   -
-																		   -
-	   v Nonpub VERTICAL CONTROL NONPUB REASON							 -
-	   -------- ------------------------------							 -
-	   X		Surface Mark Reported Destroyed							-
-	   Y		Surface and underground mark reported destroyed			-
-	   F		Bench Mark not yet adjusted.							   -
-	   D		No Descriptive Text available							  -
-	   Z		Presumed destroyed										 -
-	   R		Restricted elevation									   -
-	   O		Outside NGS Publication Area							   -
-	   N		No geodetic control at this mark						   -
-	   S		Mark is in a subsidence area							   -
-																		   -
-																		   -
-   NOTE - Stations found in this listing may still have a valid			-
-		  datasheet produced by use of other publishable values.		   -
-		  For example, an ADJUSTED height may be non-publishable		   -
-		  but a good GPS height might be found on the datasheet.		   -
-		  This listing does not imply that values found on the datasheet   -
-		  are restricted.  If it's on the datasheet, use it.			   -
-																		   -
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Pid	Name						   Lat		Lon		 Elev	 O o Hv
 ------ ------------------------------ ---------- ----------- -------- - - --
>MY2672 POPLAR HILL					42 44 07.7/071 15 22.8		  3   D 

If you look at the very last line, you'll see the station listed with a code at the end of the line of "D". If you look up at the explanations you'll see this is a non-publishable code of "No Descriptive Text available".

 

Well heck, I knew that already, but I just want to go there anyway and see what it is and hopefully find it.

 

Well, Poplar Hill is something I may look for sometime, but a couple of months back I had a similar situation. I was tracking down boundary monuments and there was one that wasn't listed. It looked like the most northern station in Massachusetts. I found a reference to it from a nearby triangulation station and found it was called "BAGLEY MONUMENT". When I tried the same business as above for Poplar Hill, I got the same non-publishable nonsense. But I did find out it had a PID of MY5375.

 

So I went there anyway and found the granite block, 5 feet high, Good as new (almost - it's 118 years old). Here it is:

019831d8-076e-49b7-a47f-0a9739b7c25b.jpg

 

So I said to myself "What will happen if I just log this as found with the NGS. And I did. I was careful to give a full description including what it was, who put it there, detailed description and detailed to-reach. Since there was no prior description, I figured I needed to make up for it with a really full description.

 

Then ... 6 weeks go by. Finally in mid August the July recoveries went in and I tried to bring up the data sheet for this one. Like this: MY5375

 

Da dah! Success. The lost station with no description has been found and is now PUBLISHABLE!! Furthermore (Holograph take note) it IS the most northern station in Massachusetts. And not just the most northern station, but since it's on the boundary at a turning point, it's the most northern POINT in Massachusetts. That's one "extreme" recovery for me!

 

Try it yourself. But if you do make sure you get you details right since yours will be the only description.

 

Since that time I've entered a few more and one got itself in there and I'm waiting for the other.

 

Anyone else ever do this?

 

An amusing side affect. Many of the routines we use, when the monumentation line says "UNK" will take the data from the first history line to get the date and agency. So this one looks like it was monumented in 2008 by GEOCAC. Not bad for something set in 1890!

Edited by Papa-Bear-NYC

Share this post


Link to post

The Bagley station must've been already adjusted, otherwise it would've had a N code. I assume that only D code PIDs can be resurrected in this way.

 

It seems somewhat odd at this technological point in time that horizontal control marks with adjusted coordinates and a designation but no description are not considered publishable. Adjusted coordinates should lead one to the spot, and if there is a monument with the correct name, then that should be enough to publish the datasheet. Perhaps the policy should be modified for such cases. The datasheet would look funny with no descriptive text but it should be findable.

Share this post


Link to post

Excellent work. The only thing I can think of that would have improved on the recovery report would have been a reference to the CGS publication, which substantiates your report.

Share this post


Link to post

Excellent work. The only thing I can think of that would have improved on the recovery report would have been a reference to the CGS publication, which substantiates your report.

Actually Bill, since the monument said "BAGLEY" cut into the granite post, there's little need to substantiate anything further. That and the fact that it's marked on the topo map at the exact point found. That's what's nice about boundary markers. They tend to stay where they're supposed to be since the states/localities usually have to "walk the line" ("perambulate" I think they call it) every so often by law.

 

It's hardly different from a published station that provides ties to trees or driveway's that have disappeared 60 years ago. I think as long as the text you provide is accurate, then the next person can corroborate whether you really found it (e.g. USPSQ).

 

I think in areas where there aren't old publications like the 1922 Special Pub No. 76,. you should go ahead with the data on the ground.

 

The other thing you can do is to get it published with a "Not Found" (by providing a description), then you can check the published data sheet for things like reference marks or ties in the box score plus the more accurate coordinates. And then go back and find it. I actually did that with this one: MY3731. Haven't gone back yet but I will.

 

I agree with BDT that the lack of a description should not keep stations with adjusted coordinates non-publishable. Perhaps if there are some NGS folks reading this (DaveD? NGS Surveyor?) they could look into it. At least in Massachusetts, where there are many many old tri-stations with lost or otherwise missing early descriptions, it would be a great help to those of us searching that area.

Share this post


Link to post
Anyone else ever do this?
Yup! In fact I had posted about it HERE back when the July postings were done on the site. My story isn't as wonderfully fun as yours (it was a simple reference mark) but I had recovered it and sent in a recovery log 'by accident'. You can see that even tho in my case the USPSQD had recovered it, no-one had ever written a 'description', so when mine went in, the data entry person made it publishable. :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post

I've had a somewhat similar experience with a destroyed mark a couple years ago, that I found in good condition (stumbled on it, as it was scaled and I had no descriptive text). It had a similar sort of situation, except it was code "X" (under vertical control) = "Surface Mark Reported Destroyed". No datasheet to look at, and I couldn't enter a recovery report (it wouldn't "complete", I just got error screens). I took good pics, and emailed them to Deb. Next month, there it was, including the "destroyed" report from the previous person (don't remember who it was). I then filed my recovery report. I'll post a link tonight if I can find it.

 

This one shows a good example why NGS is very reticent to accept destroyed reports without very good documentation, or the disc in hand (or in studio :rolleyes: ). Of course, it must have been coded destroyed before Deb's time at NGS :)

Share this post


Link to post

Once again, Mr. Bear, amazing work and a thoroughly enjoyable report!

Share this post


Link to post

Anyone else ever do this?

 

 

Yes...sort of.

 

I went looking for a mark (JS101) that had a very odd description. The first few descriptions indicated it was on a rooftop. A description in the middle indicated it was in a fountain ledge in a park then a few more recoveries detailed the rooftop again. When I did a station name search there were two marks by the same name and in the same area. One was unpublished because of no text description.

 

When I was in Sacramento I went looking for the marks one morning. The rooftop marks were unaccessible in a vacant building that was undergoing remodel. The one in the fountain ledge was across the street in right where the misplaced description put it. Two marks with the same name and within 500 feet of each other (except for the multiple stories on the building) somehow got merged into one sheet.

 

I posted about it over in the NGS forum section and it was forwarded to NGS where it was sorted out and the unpublished became published. It turns out the PID in the GEOCAC database was for the one I found and the rooftop marks was the unpublished one so JS4841 is not in the geocaching database but now published.

 

It has the proper monumented date since they were able to drag the information from the merged datasheets.

JS101

033809d9-fb91-44a0-9e56-906e849bdd32.jpg

JS484 location

1880abf0-1c96-4a1c-9bab-8196d13dc18d.jpg

 

Fun recovery and great thread.

Share this post


Link to post

..I brought my 2nd non-published sheet back to life last month - an AZ mark in my home county. As w/ the others, I added the descriptive text & it came back on line. On a slightly embarassing note, it turns out it is a 3rd order horizontal control mark ..& I added HH2 coordinates - d'owh! (I expected it would be scaled & couldn't pull up the detalied sheet) ..won't be doing that again. At least I verified them w/ projection software so thay aren't 20 feet off.. :D

Edited by Ernmark

Share this post


Link to post

Fun recovery and great thread.

Neat old building. You sure you can't get in there? That'd be amazingly cool. :anibad:

 

Well, I think it is possible to get in but not for me. I dropped in while on my last day of vacation. There was no one in the area when I got there and the bottom floors were gutted and everything was behind construction fencing. It would make for an interesting find and the views from up there would be wonderful.

Share this post


Link to post

Dredging up this thread, but I was curious: I was looking through Special Pub 161 and found descriptions for two marks that lack them: TU0979 and TU0986. Of course, I plan to look for them, but should I report the description even if I don't find it?

Share this post


Link to post

Dredging up this thread, but I was curious: I was looking through Special Pub 161 and found descriptions for two marks that lack them: TU0979 and TU0986. Of course, I plan to look for them, but should I report the description even if I don't find it?

IMHO, I'd go out and find them first. The 'directions' you found on paper may need adjustments because of progress and time. :D

Share this post


Link to post

Dredging up this thread, but I was curious: I was looking through Special Pub 161 and found descriptions for two marks that lack them: TU0979 and TU0986. Of course, I plan to look for them, but should I report the description even if I don't find it?

IMHO, I'd go out and find them first. The 'directions' you found on paper may need adjustments because of progress and time. :D

No, I understand. Like I said, I plan to look for them. But let's say they're gone and thus not there for me to find. Should I report the description under a NOT FOUND (sourcing it to the publication)?

Share this post


Link to post

Dredging up this thread, but I was curious: I was looking through Special Pub 161 and found descriptions for two marks that lack them: TU0979 and TU0986. Of course, I plan to look for them, but should I report the description even if I don't find it?

IMHO, I'd go out and find them first. The 'directions' you found on paper may need adjustments because of progress and time. :D

No, I understand. Like I said, I plan to look for them. But let's say they're gone and thus not there for me to find. Should I report the description under a NOT FOUND (sourcing it to the publication)?

Share this post


Link to post

Dredging up this thread, but I was curious: I was looking through Special Pub 161 and found descriptions for two marks that lack them: TU0979 and TU0986. Of course, I plan to look for them, but should I report the description even if I don't find it?

I would report them NOT FOUND to the NGS but be sure you include a complete description.

Why: you will get the station published which means you will get full adjusted coordinates, which may help if you go back and look a second time. I did this for station MY3831, which I fully intend to go back and hopefully dig up.

Share this post


Link to post
No, I understand. Like I said, I plan to look for them. But let's say they're gone and thus not there for me to find. Should I report the description under a NOT FOUND (sourcing it to the publication)?
Ah, sorry, misunderstood! Yeah, like Papa-Bear sauid, I would then report it as a 'not found', and include the original descriptions. Similar to EE0049 that I recovered, the original monumentation isn't described, but the first recovery is a 'NOT FOUND' with the full description. I've seen this a lot, actually, down here by me.

Share this post


Link to post

Coincidentally to this thread being brought back up, I found this mark yesterday.

 

>DV1864 DYNA AZ MK 33 44 40.1/112 09 41.4 2 D

>DV1864 DYNA AZ MK 33 44 40.1/112 09 41.4 2 NN

 

N No geodetic control at this mark

 

Would the N code indicate that it's not worth pursuing getting it published? It was easy enough to find from the station's description, and the above coordinates are accurate enough to find the mark even being truncated.

Share this post


Link to post

Coincidentally to this thread being brought back up, I found this mark yesterday.

 

>DV1864 DYNA AZ MK 33 44 40.1/112 09 41.4 2 D

>DV1864 DYNA AZ MK 33 44 40.1/112 09 41.4 2 NN

 

N No geodetic control at this mark

 

Would the N code indicate that it's not worth pursuing getting it published? It was easy enough to find from the station's description, and the above coordinates are accurate enough to find the mark even being truncated.

Just curious, what did you find there? I always wondered what the 'N' code meant. :huh:

Share this post


Link to post

Actually, this is something that has been bugging me. So if you go directly to the datasheet for DV1864 (or TU0979 for that matter) you just get a D code. But if you go through the PID form you get both D and NN. Why is this? Which do we trust?

Share this post


Link to post

Just curious, what did you find there? I always wondered what the 'N' code meant. :huh:

 

I found the azimuth mark for DV1863 DYNA, as described therein and shown below:

 

0d65fddf-b16f-4d2c-8227-5e3f1da9f944.jpg

Share this post


Link to post

Actually, this is something that has been bugging me. So if you go directly to the datasheet for DV1864 (or TU0979 for that matter) you just get a D code. But if you go through the PID form you get both D and NN. Why is this? Which do we trust?

 

Or if you get the data sheet by station name you also get only the D code. I would submit the description and see what happens. At least they will have the description and then someone else could provide the geodetic control. I imagine its possible (maybe through special request) to see the information that is available. With a good description the mark can be found and the proper measurements taken to get it published.

Share this post


Link to post

Not quite sure if this is the correct forum topic to post this question in, but it is kinda similar. One of the local geocachers found a benchmark disk and asked me about it. It turned out to be a reference mark 3 to a triangulation station called "Rayville". I couldn't find Rayville in the current datasheets, but did find it when doing a destroyed search.

 

Reading the datasheet, especially the report for 1970 which says the surface disk was replaced then, and looking at the RM 3 pic with a 1970 date on it (the RM disk is set into the step of the courthouse), I tend to believe the station may actually be there. Do you think that this station is listed as destroyed due to a data entry error....or am I missing something here. We may gather up a search party this weekend and head over to look for it, if ya think it would be worthwhile after reading the datasheet below. Can a disk marked as destroyed be brought back to life?

 

a1ed3781-486b-4e9b-8175-d1e3a4002808.jpg

 

NOTE - This dataset contains Destroyed Marks Only.

 

1 National Geodetic Survey, Retrieval Date = MARCH 15, 2010

CP1754 ***********************************************************************

CP1754 DESIGNATION - RAYVILLE

CP1754 PID - CP1754

CP1754 STATE/COUNTY- LA/RICHLAND

CP1754 USGS QUAD - RAYVILLE (1982)

CP1754

CP1754 *CURRENT SURVEY CONTROL

CP1754 ___________________________________________________________________

CP1754* NAD 83(1992)- 32 28 35.42572(N) 091 45 33.71586(W) ADJUSTED

CP1754* NAVD 88 - 24.46 (+/-2cm) 80.2 (feet) VERTCON

CP1754 ___________________________________________________________________

CP1754 LAPLACE CORR- -0.98 (seconds) USDV2009

CP1754 GEOID HEIGHT- -25.99 (meters) GEOID09

CP1754 HORZ ORDER - SECOND

CP1754 VERT ORDER - THIRD ? (See Below)

CP1754

CP1754.The horizontal coordinates were established by classical geodetic methods

CP1754.and adjusted by the National Geodetic Survey in January 1993.

CP1754

CP1754.The NAVD 88 height was computed by applying the VERTCON shift value to

CP1754.the NGVD 29 height (displayed under SUPERSEDED SURVEY CONTROL.)

CP1754.The vertical order pertains to the NGVD 29 superseded value.

CP1754

CP1754.The Laplace correction was computed from USDV2009 derived deflections.

CP1754

CP1754.The geoid height was determined by GEOID09.

CP1754

CP1754; North East Units Scale Factor Converg.

CP1754;SPC LA N - 219,387.137 1,069,617.342 MT 0.99996217 +0 23 29.7

CP1754;SPC LA N - 719,772.63 3,509,236.23 sFT 0.99996217 +0 23 29.7

CP1754;UTM 15 - 3,593,932.684 616,578.349 MT 0.99976759 +0 39 58.5

CP1754

CP1754! - Elev Factor x Scale Factor = Combined Factor

CP1754!SPC LA N - 1.00000024 x 0.99996217 = 0.99996241

CP1754!UTM 15 - 1.00000024 x 0.99976759 = 0.99976783

CP1754

CP1754|---------------------------------------------------------------------|

CP1754| PID Reference Object Distance Geod. Az |

CP1754| dddmmss.s |

CP1754| CY4553 RAYVILLE RM 3 36.000 METERS 00140 |

CP1754| CP3040 BM 16 STAKE 2 56.279 METERS 00407 |

CP1754| CP1755 RAYVILLE RM 1 77.000 METERS 00601 |

CP1754| CP1757 16 CAP 52.631 METERS 01401 |

CP1754| CP3042 RAYVILLE MUNICIPAL TANK 415.528 METERS 0514501.7 |

CP1754| CS7234 RAYVILLE RM 4 24.314 METERS 06759 |

CP1754| CP3039 RAYVILLE COMPRESS CO STACK APPROX. 0.6 KM 0850627.3 |

CP1754| CP3044 RAYVILLE UNION COMP CO TANK 476.748 METERS 0881107.6 |

CP1754| CY4552 RAYVILLE AZ MK 0995041.7 |

CP1754| CP1756 RAYVILLE RM 2 46.232 METERS 10917 |

CP1754| CP3045 RAYVILLE GIN RAD STA KER 457 APPROX. 1.3 KM 1741225.4 |

CP1754| CS7235 RAYVILLE RM 5 20.357 METERS 25025 |

CP1754| CP3136 OAK RIDGE LA PWR AND LT KYL 86 APPROX.11.1 KM 3451553.8 |

CP1754| CP3043 RAYVILLE ASTRONOMIC PIER 1931 8.020 METERS 35632 |

CP1754|---------------------------------------------------------------------|

CP1754

CP1754 SUPERSEDED SURVEY CONTROL

CP1754

CP1754 NAD 83(1986)- 32 28 35.43781(N) 091 45 33.70846(W) AD( ) 2

CP1754 NAD 27 - 32 28 34.92700(N) 091 45 33.25800(W) AD( ) 2

CP1754 NGVD 29 (07/19/86) 24.49 (m) 80.3 (f) LEVELING 3

CP1754

CP1754.Superseded values are not recommended for survey control.

CP1754.NGS no longer adjusts projects to the NAD 27 or NGVD 29 datums.

CP1754.See file dsdata.txt to determine how the superseded data were derived.

CP1754

CP1754_U.S. NATIONAL GRID SPATIAL ADDRESS: 15SXR1657893932(NAD 83)

CP1754_MARKER: DD = SURVEY DISK

CP1754_SETTING: 30 = SET IN A LIGHT STRUCTURE

CP1754_SP_SET: CONCRETE BLOCK

CP1754_STABILITY: D = MARK OF QUESTIONABLE OR UNKNOWN STABILITY

CP1754

CP1754 HISTORY - Date Condition Report By

CP1754 HISTORY - 1931 MONUMENTED CGS

CP1754 HISTORY - 1934 GOOD DOD

CP1754 HISTORY - 1936 GOOD LAGS

CP1754 HISTORY - 1956 SEE DESCRIPTION USGS

CP1754 HISTORY - 1966 SEE DESCRIPTION CGS

CP1754 HISTORY - 1966 MARK NOT FOUND CGS

CP1754 HISTORY - 1970 DESTROYED NGS

CP1754

CP1754 STATION DESCRIPTION

CP1754

CP1754'DESCRIBED BY COAST AND GEODETIC SURVEY 1931 (PAS)

CP1754'STATION IS IN THE SW CORNER OF THE COURTHOUSE SQUARE AT RAYVILLE,

CP1754'33.7 METERS (111 FEET) S 1/2 W OF SW CORNER OF COURTHOUSE, 13.3

CP1754'METERS (44 FEET) N OF N CURB OF MADALINE STREET, 47.2 METERS

CP1754'(155 FEET) W OF W CURB OF JULIA STREET, AND 8.02 METERS (26.3

CP1754'FEET) S OF A SMALL BRICK ASTRONOMICAL PIER.

CP1754'

CP1754'SURFACE, UNDERGROUND, AND REFERENCE MARK NO. 1 ARE STANDARD

CP1754'BRONZE DISKS SET IN CONCRETE.

CP1754'

CP1754'REFERENCE MARK NO. 1 IS 26.1 METERS (86 FEET) N OF NW CORNER

CP1754'OF COURTHOUSE, 9.9 METERS (32 FEET) W OF A DRIVEWAY, AND

CP1754'77.0 METERS (253 FEET) FROM STATION N 6 DEG 01 MIN E.

CP1754'

CP1754'REFERENCE MARK NO. 2 IS A STANDARD DISK SET IN THE SIDEWALK

CP1754'IN SE CORNER OF SQUARE, 2.1 METERS (7 FEET) N AND 2.3 METERS

CP1754'(8 FEET) W OF CURB LINE, AND 46.28 METERS (151.8 FEET) FROM

CP1754'STATION S 70 DEG 43 MIN E. THE ASTRONOMICAL PIER

CP1754'REFERRED TO ABOVE IS N 3 DEG 28 MIN W.

CP1754

CP1754 STATION RECOVERY (1934)

CP1754

CP1754'RECOVERY NOTE BY US DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 1934

CP1754'IN RAYVILLE.

CP1754'P.B.M. TRI. RAYVILLE IS A BRONZE DISC SET IN A CONCRETE BLOCK LOCATED

CP1754'IN RAYVILLE, RICHLAND PARISH, LOUISIANA. IN RICHLAND PARISH

CP1754'COURTHOUSE YARD. 33.7 METERS SOUTHWEST OF THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE

CP1754'COURTHOUSE. 13.3 METERS NORTH OF THE NORTH CURB OF MADALINE STREET.

CP1754'47.2 METERS WEST OF THE WEST CURB OF JULIA STREET AND IS 8.0 METERS

CP1754'SOUTH OF A SMALL BRICK PIER.

CP1754

CP1754 STATION RECOVERY (1936)

CP1754

CP1754'RECOVERY NOTE BY LOUISIANA GEODETIC SURVEY 1936

CP1754'STATION RECOVERED AS DESCRIBED. ORIGINAL DESCRIPTION ADEQUATE.

CP1754

CP1754 STATION RECOVERY (1956)

CP1754

CP1754'RECOVERY NOTE BY US GEOLOGICAL SURVEY 1956

CP1754'STATION FOUND, BUT IT HAS BEEN HIT AND KNOCKED OVER ON ITS SIDE.

CP1754'NO ATTEMPT WAS MADE TO DIG UP NEW SODDED LAWN AND RECOVER

CP1754'UNDERGROUND MARK. A NEW COURTHOUSE HAS BEEN BUILT AND THE LAWN

CP1754'HAS BEEN WORKED OVER AND RESODDED.

CP1754'

CP1754'REFERENCE MARK 1 WAS NOT FOUND.

CP1754'

CP1754'REFERENCE MARK WAS RECOVERED IN GOOD CONDITION.

CP1754'

CP1754'THE ASTRONOMICAL PIER HAS BEEN DESTROYED.

CP1754

CP1754 STATION RECOVERY (1966)

CP1754

CP1754'RECOVERY NOTE BY COAST AND GEODETIC SURVEY 1966 (CND)

CP1754'THE STATION MARK WAS DESTROYED DURING THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW

CP1754'COURTHOUSE AT RAYVILLE IN 1949-50 ACCORDING TO A REPORT FROM

CP1754'THE JANITOR OF THE COURTHOUSE.

CP1754'

CP1754'R.M. 1 WAS SEARCHED FOR BUT NOT RECOVERED. SAME REPORT FROM

CP1754'JANITOR OF COURTHOUSE AS SHOWN FOR THE STATION MARK.

CP1754'

CP1754'R.M. 2, STAMPED RAYVILLE NO 2 1931, IS AT RAYVILLE, IN SECTION

CP1754'9, T 17 N, R 7 E, 111 FEET SOUTHEAST OF THE SOUTHEAST CORNER

CP1754'OF THE COURTHOUSE, AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION

CP1754'OF WEST MADELING AND SOUTH JULIA STREETS, 407 FEET SOUTH OF THE

CP1754'SOUTH RAIL OF THE ILLINOIS CENTRAL RAILROAD, SET IN THE TOP

CP1754'OF THE WEST EDGE OF A SIDEWALK, 7 FEET WEST OF THE WEST CONCRETE

CP1754'CURB OF SOUTH JULIA STREET, 6-1/2 FEET NORTH OF THE NORTH

CP1754'CONCRETE CURB OF WEST MADELING STREET, 0.6 FOOT EAST OF THE

CP1754'WEST EDGE OF THE SIDEWALK, AND ABOUT 1/2 FOOT ABOVE THE LEVEL

CP1754'OF THE STREETS.

CP1754

CP1754 STATION RECOVERY (1966)

CP1754

CP1754'RECOVERY NOTE BY COAST AND GEODETIC SURVEY 1966

CP1754'MARK NOT FOUND.

CP1754

CP1754 STATION RECOVERY (1970)

CP1754

CP1754'RECOVERY NOTE BY NATIONAL GEODETIC SURVEY 1970 (WWS)

CP1754'THE STATION IS LOCATED IN THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE COURTHOUSE

CP1754'LAWN IN RAYVILLE, LOUISIANA.

CP1754'

CP1754'THE STATION SURFACE MARK WAS DESTROYED. THE UNDERGROUND

CP1754'STATION MARK WAS RECOVERED AND FOUND IN GOOD CONDITION AND

CP1754'A NEW SURFACE DISK WAS ESTABLISHED AT THIS DATE.

Edited by LSUFan

Share this post


Link to post
Reading the datasheet, especially the report for 1970 which says the surface disk was replaced then, and looking at the RM 3 pic with a 1970 date on it (the RM disk is set into the step of the courthouse), I tend to believe the station may actually be there. Do you think that this station is listed as destroyed due to a data entry error....or am I missing something here. We may gather up a search party this weekend and head over to look for it, if ya think it would be worthwhile after reading the datasheet below. Can a disk marked as destroyed be brought back to life?

To me, reading that, it was a data entry error. The description says that a new station mark was set. However, there would be caveats, like say if they never filed the right paperwork, or if something looked amiss like they didn't set the new surface mark in the right spot - it may be there, but it may not be reliable.

Share this post


Link to post

This is a question for the NGS folks for sure--NGS Surveyor or DaveD should be able to handle it. There may be more documentation for this mark that we can't see online.

 

It IS possible to bring destroyed and non-pub marks back from the dead. I managed to get one undestroyed (it was basically a clerical error). KV3662 is an important disk, since it was part of the Eastern Oblique Arc, and even has a plaque explaining it. It was a shame that it was listed as destroyed, especially since the status was based on the report of the reference mark being destroyed, and even more so since the RM is not destroyed but just in poor condition.

 

KW2650 is a mark I found when searching for USGS marks and recalled seeing it in the NGS non-pub list. It took a while to get it re-listed, but there it is!

Share this post


Link to post

LSUfan, I sent your info to our "database guy". I'll let you know what he says.

 

GeorgeL

NGS

 

Thanks George, Mloser, and Foxtrot for your replies and the help. I'll (almost anxiously :) ) await to see what the database person says.

Edited by LSUFan

Share this post


Link to post

LSUfan, Here is what the DB guy said:

 

We have a RAYVILLE RESET (CU7543) in the data base , set in 1970, However, there isn't a position or an elevation on the mark ( I need to move the position and obs to the reset mark and scale an elevation in order to get the mark published.) LSU fan can send in a recovery note and a picture if he/she wants to and I'll fix up the mark tomorrow.

 

Thanks for your input,

 

GeorgeL

NGS

Share this post


Link to post

LSUfan, Here is what the DB guy said:

 

We have a RAYVILLE RESET (CU7543) in the data base , set in 1970, However, there isn't a position or an elevation on the mark ( I need to move the position and obs to the reset mark and scale an elevation in order to get the mark published.) LSU fan can send in a recovery note and a picture if he/she wants to and I'll fix up the mark tomorrow.

 

Thanks for your input,

 

GeorgeL

NGS

 

Good deal, George. Thanks so much for the help. I am going to try and go over there Friday, and attempt a recovery on it. I want to go while the courthouse is open, and get permission.

 

Would I just send the pics and recovery notes to you, George, since it is unpublished...........or are the DB people going to move the position/observations from the original mark and then publish it on the reset, where I can then submit a recovery report for the reset?

 

I can't tell you how much I appreciate all of this.

Share this post


Link to post

Well, we made it over to check on the Rayville Triangulation Station, that I asked about in the above posts. We struck gold (or was that brass, LOL) and found the RESET? surface disk from 1970.......along with reference mark 3 (which was what started the whole process) also set in 1970.

 

Rayville Triangulation Station (Reset?)

 

RM 3

 

However, we did encounter something, that I am unsure of. There is a reference mark 4 and 5 listed in the box score for the original Rayville triangulation station. I just assumed that they were placed at the same time that the surface disk was reset, along with the setting of reference mark 3, which is 1970.

 

We used the box score information, and found RM 4 and RM 5, exactly the distance as indicated in the box score, as there was no other info on the datasheet to reference from.The stamping on reference marks 4 and 5 indicate they were actually placed in 1984......and not 1970.

 

RM 4

 

RM 5

 

Do you think it would be correct to assume, that there was some work done on this triangulation station during that time, that may be associated with Rayville Reset CU7543, but somehow got entered onto the datasheet for Rayville CP1754?

Edited by LSUFan

Share this post


Link to post

Ran across this one while adding a 'PLACED BY' column to my NGS recovered database.

 

33baea5b-e35a-4724-b66c-eeedc90df7c8.jpg

 

PHOTO SCABBED ONTO K 65

 

Can't recall how I figured out that there was a a non-published pid for it, but I did a recovery

and it is now in the DATABASE:

 

SR1082 HISTORY - Date Condition Report By

SR1082 HISTORY - 1948 MONUMENTED

SR1082 HISTORY - 20090918 GOOD GEOCAC

SR1082

SR1082 STATION DESCRIPTION

SR1082

SR1082'DESCRIBED BY GEOCACHING 2009 (MEL)

SR1082'HH2 474410.0 1085555.3

SR1082'SEE NOTE WITH SR0220.

 

SR0220'RECOVERY NOTE BY GEOCACHING 2009 (MEL)

SR0220'HH2 474410.1 1085555.4

SR0220'DATE MONUMENTED SHOULD BE 1933. THE 1948 STATION RECOVERY TEXT IS

SR0220'CORRECT EXCEPT THAT THE STATION IS IN BLAINE COUNTY. ALSO FOUND WERE

SR0220'RM 1 1948(SET IN ROCK ABOUT 15 FEET NORTH) AND RM 2 1948 (SET IN THE

SR0220'TOP OF A CONCRETE POST ABOUT 11 FEET SOUTH SOUTHEAST-THE NOT PUBLISHED

SR0220'SR1082). REFERENCE OBJECT SR1080 GAGING STATION WAS NOT FOUND - SEE

SR0220'RECOVERY.

SR0220'

 

Now I'm wondering if I should squander most of a day for a trip into the Missouri Breaks to take better photos, get accurate measurements and write a complete description. There are great hamburgers at the Winifred Tavern!

 

To address LSUFan's question above on RM 4 & 5; I would say yes to clerical errors. Note - RAYVILLE RESET (CU7543) is still non-published.

 

kayakbird

Edited by kayakbird

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 0

×
×
  • Create New...