OK GC Jury, Is This One "Destroyed" ?

[+pgrig]

Please take a look at my report on MY0242 and tell me what you think. Although I found a drill hole that I'll bet used to hold the disk, I don't see how a reset could be done for this scaled station from the information given....

 

Thanks,

-Paul

[Z15]

Mark not found is what this would be.

 

You can't call it destroyed when you can't find it.

Edited October 6, 2008 by Z15

[+Klemmer]

Maybe:

For Geocaching purposes: Destroyed

For NGS purposes: Not Found, with explanation, maybe "probably lost".

[+Harry Dolphin]

LY0230

Similar circumstances, except there is an impression of the disk in the concrete. Deb advised 'found poor' for NGS. I logged 'not found' for GC. With notes and photos.

[AZcachemeister]

Well, you certainly found a drill-hole in the rock at the described location!

 

It does not at all look to me like a drill-hole that ever held a disk. If it had, there would be a chiseled-out area so the disk would be horizontal...I doubt a disk would ever be placed at the off-angle of the surface in your photo. (well, maybe an RM, but not the station disk)

 

I think the disk is still present below the current soil level!

 

I'd call it 'Not Found'. (And I'd come back with the metal detector.)

[+pgrig]

Thank you all! I love this...

 

I never would have thought of looking underground for this one, but that is one of the few explanations that would make the phrase "in the top of the base" (of the rock) intelligible. Here is a shot at rt. angle to the one in my report to show that we do have a little "base" space to explore...

 

If this gets recovered, it's going to be officially noted as the "AZcachemeister Special." [You can see a chiseled area around the DH, only it's square. I considered the idea that it was mounted by someone sorta on-the-fly during the war years.]

 

They are similar, Harry Dolphin. I just balk at the idea of calling this NGS-not found if there's no way to recreate it (no position and no RMs). It's just plain not useful in its current state... (if I'm right about the DH). But I get it....

 

I will be up there again before too long, and I will give it a good sweep!

[foxtrot_xray]

I will be up there again before too long, and I will give it a good sweep!

Interesting thing. Espically the 'set if top of base' bit. The descriptioon says "AT A LARGE SLOPING ROCK" - not "IN A LARGE SLOPING ROCK". Assuming it's not your house and you can't just start digging.. maybe a metal detector? Stupid question - did you measure from the street the 27.5 feet?

[+pgrig]

Hi FX--

 

Nope. I sorta gave it an eyeball and said, "That's the drill hole, of course." I can and will check the distance, however.

[+jwahl]

MS Livesearch oblique

 

My interpretation is somewhere on the top. Perhaps one end of the outcrop seems more like a base or low end of the outcrop, but the top is in the cross section. I would search all of the top surface area, particularly any and all horizontal areas.

[foxtrot_xray]

Hi FX--

 

Nope. I sorta gave it an eyeball and said, "That's the drill hole, of course." I can and will check the distance, however.

Good luck! I'm really curious to what you find.

 

Looking at your picture, it oddly looks like a chiseled square around a drill hole.

 

Is it possible that because of the setting they decided to not set a disk and someone just didn't update the notes?

[+Klemmer]

What you found could of course, be the remains of a different benchmark disk or drill hole.

[+Black Dog Trackers]

I agree with Z15 on this.

 

More specfiically -

Geocaching site: Not Found

NGS site: Not found

 

Destroyed should not be used on either site unless the marker is found out of position, or the mark's physical mounting location has ceased to exist.

[+Klemmer]

BDT:

 

I think you are trying to apply the very strict (as it should be!) NGS definition of "destroyed" to also apply to Geocaching. Although that is a laudable goal, realistically, it is one that I do not think is practical. There are many disks logged as "destroyed" on Geocaching (by folks of various levels of expertise) which might still be present. We even reward ourselves in various of our fun contests when we can find such a mark. I think the looser definition on Geocaching is OK. Not that we can do much about it anyway. All it really tells a surveyor (if one should look at it) is that an amateur hobbyist didn't find it, and has reason to believe (for better or worse) that it's gone. Depending on the write up (or lack thereof) he could make up his own mind to look for it, or not.

 

Just my opinion.

[+Black Dog Trackers]

Klemmer & TeddyBearMama -

 

Instead of acquiescing to the lowest common denominator of reporting, I think that advice on reporting given by us in these forums should be toward the "laudable goal" of using the NGS as a guide for writing recovery reports. This is important, I think because many benchmark hunters here soorner or later do NGS recovery reports. Advocating a double standard is confusing and essentially pointless, I think. Why not the best?

 

In the case of this mark, I'd report Not Found. If I look for a mark and don't find it, psychologically, I'd prefer to believe that it is not there at all anymore (destroyed). However the 'high road' is to go ahead and report Not Found, with a description of the search, and perhaps any arguments as to why it could be considered destroyed.

In the case of this mark, what could those arguments be?

[AZcachemeister]

I was just looking at the original datasheet, searching for some chink in the armor...some sort of potential clue.

 

Despite the fact that altitude is a consumer-grade GPSr's least accurate dimension, could that measurement perhaps help eliminate either the top or the bottom of the suspect outcrop from the area to look?

 

I have no idea how well the survey geoid matches up with the MSL used by our GPSrs. (but I suspect the degree of matching is location-dependent)

[+2oldfarts (the rockhounders)]

Please take a look at my report on MY0242 and tell me what you think. Although I found a drill hole that I'll bet used to hold the disk, I don't see how a reset could be done for this scaled station from the information given....

 

Thanks,

-Paul

 

I don't believe that you found the remains of the benchmark that you were searching for.

 

I looked at your log and several things raise doubt about what you found. 1st, there is no epoxy on the rock around the drill hole. There appears to be a chiseled square around the hole. And finally you say the drill hole is 1" deep in your log. If the "drill hole" was for a benchmark then it should be deep enough for the entire stem of the benchmark - over 3" deep.

 

From your log:

 

"Since I don't see how the drill hole can be positively linked to the (scaled) station, and because the hole is well weathered, I don't see how the station could be accurately re-set from the details available. I am therefore calling this veteran of WW II "destroyed." -- How can you declare it destroyed if you can't positively link the drill hole to the (scaled) station?

 

I don't know what you found, but I'm sure that I would Not declare this one destroyed based on what you have found thus far.

 

John

[+pgrig]

Thank you all. I have revised my log to a NF and will go back to take another look. I did scour the rest of the exposure carefully for a disk somewhere on the top of this huge exposure, but none was found.