Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1
pgrig

"Lost" Station from 1849 ?

Recommended Posts

(Perhaps of particular interest to Papa-Bear-NYC...)

 

Since I had already run into a couple of 1850s stations monumented by C.O. Boutelle, I went hunting through Special Pub. 76 for others.

 

I found an 1849 Boutelle station called Lufkins Hill (at p. 246), but the database didn't show anything, and Scaredy Cat's map was bare. An NGS query by station name came up blank, but ACME Mapper put the listed coordinates (N 42 38 16.08 W 70 44 40.87) just east of Conomo Point Rd. in S. Essex, MA, quite near what looks like a granite outcrop matching the 1849 description quite well. The station is a drill hole.

 

Is this a station that somehow "fell out" of the network? If I go find it (that would be cool! :) ), what do I do then?

 

-Paul

Share this post


Link to post

(Perhaps of particular interest to Papa-Bear-NYC...)

 

Since I had already run into a couple of 1850s stations monumented by C.O. Boutelle, I went hunting through Special Pub. 76 for others.

 

I found an 1849 Boutelle station called Lufkins Hill (at p. 246), but the database didn't show anything, and Scaredy Cat's map was bare. An NGS query by station name came up blank, but ACME Mapper put the listed coordinates (N 42 38 16.08 W 70 44 40.87) just east of Conomo Point Rd. in S. Essex, MA, quite near what looks like a granite outcrop matching the 1849 description quite well. The station is a drill hole.

 

Is this a station that somehow "fell out" of the network? If I go find it (that would be cool! :blink: ), what do I do then?

 

-Paul

The NGS does have a station "MY4963 LUFKIN HILL 1849" (I searched "LUFK" and got it listed). It's non-published with code "D" which means no description. It gives coordinates "42 38 15.8/070 44 39.0" so that should get you within about 10 feet. The old coordinates in SP 76 won't work since they use a datum from 1900.

 

If you search using the PID MY4953 you will get 2 lines, one with code D and one with NN - the always terrible "No geodetic control at this mark". So even if you find it and supply the description, it will presumably stay non-published since you can't supply geodetic control, and no one from the NGS is likely to spend the time and money to do anything about it.

 

Here's what SP 76 says:

Lufkins Hill (Essex County, C. 0. Boutclle, 1849). In a pasture north of a road

near the Gloucester-Essex line, 6 meters (20 feet) north of a bare granite ledge, and

about 15 meters (50 feet) east of a wall which runs north and south. The station is

marked according to note 20.

Now if you look up note 20 (on page 195) it says:

Note 2O - A copper bolt set in the rock, ... .

So just for fun (but not for publication) use the approximate coordinates from the NGS listing and go find it.

Share this post


Link to post

Papa-Bear-NYC:

 

Thank you! Yes, I will be happy to go look for it. Consider it on the To Do list. :D

 

What does it mean to "supply geodetic control"? I would think that in someone's database there is a relationship between this station and the others from the Mass. triangulation. Can't this be brought back to life?

 

On behalf of COB, I demand that it rise again !! :blink:

 

Sorry about calling it a drill hole. I had thought that was a Note 20, but I had lost my code list. I have printed it out again...

 

-Paul

Share this post


Link to post

Us laypeople can't supply geodetic control. That involves surveyors and occupation of the station and whatnot. However, this is one of those annoying ones where if you go to the datasheet directly it gives you just a "D", but if you use the search by PID function you get additional "NN". I still am not sure what's up with that. Either the direct method fails to give you all the info or the search by PID method gives an erroneous NN. So what I'd do is go to the station and report your findings to the NGS as you would normally. If it comes back to life, then we know the NN is not to be trusted coming via "search by PID". If not, well, there's not much that can be practically done.

Share this post


Link to post

Here is an example problems with some of these old marks and identifying them

 

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.

 

 

gapped..........................

 

RK0487'

RK0487'THE STATION WAS ASSUMED TO HAVE BEEN RECOVERED WHEN THE O-PARTY

RK0487'OCCUPIED THIS STATION. THE MARK WHICH WAS OCCUPIED WAS A NAIL

RK0487'LEADED INTO A DRILL HOLE IN SOLID ROCK (ALTHO THE ORIGINAL

RK0487'DESCRIPTION DESCRIBES THE MARK AS A BRASS

RK0487'FRUSTUM LEADED INTO A DRILL HOLE IN SOLID ROCK).

RK0487'WHEN COMPUTATIONS WERE FINISHED ON THE STATION IT WAS DETERMINED

RK0487'THAT THE POINT OCCUPIED DIFFERED FROM THE OLD GEOGRAPHIC POSITION BY

RK0487'42.32 METERS LONGITUDE AND 8.18 METERS LATITUDE. THE OLD STATION

RK0487'BEING NORTH AND EAST OF THE POINT OCCUPIED. WHEN THIS WAS

RK0487'DISCOVERED, A MAN WAS SENT BACK TO THE STATION TO DETERMINE IF THE

RK0487'MARK FOUND WAS A BRASS FRUSTUM OR A NAIL AND TO SEARCH FOR A

RK0487'SIMILAR MARK IN THE VICINITY OF THE LOCATION GIVEN ABOVE. IT WAS

RK0487'DETERMINED THAT THE MARK OCCUPIED WAS NOT BRASS BUT WAS IRON OR STEEL

RK0487'LEADED INTO THE DRILL HOLE. A SEARCH OF THE AREA INDICATED

RK0487'DID NOT REVEAL ANOTHER MARK BUT A HOLE WHICH APPEARED TO BE A DRILL

RK0487'HOLE WAS FOUND IN A BOULDER. WHETHER THIS BOULDER HAD BEEN

RK0487'BEDROCK AND HAD BECOME SEPARATED COULD NOT BE DETERMINED. NO LEAD OR

RK0487'BRASS THAT COULD HAVE BEEN USED IN THE MARK WAS FOUND. TIME DID NOT

RK0487'PERMIT FURTHER INVESTIGATION.

 

Edited by Z15

Share this post


Link to post

Hi Shorelander--

 

Actually, this thread is just to demonstrate to you how much we need your assistance back here in God's Country. And you wouldn't have to fiddle with silly vaned-thingys that you have to disassemble to photograph (let alone occupy). :D

 

Yes, I think I get it that I myself can't supply "geodetic control," but the point in question was part of the great Triangulation of Massachusetts, and therefore, I assume, must somewhere have generated several notebooks of data linking it to others in the network. I believe this is "geodetic control" (actually, I believe that's its definition, even though I'm not sure :blink: ).

 

But we shall see if I can find it, report it, and then await a reawakening....

 

-Paul

Share this post


Link to post

I would suspect that some stations in the older networks were not brought forward into later adjustments due to an evaluation of the quality of the measurements, or specific decisions based on the monumentation quality. Mostly the former. Many stations in the original North American Datum were not published in NAD27 and a significant number of stations in NAD27 were not included in NAD83.

 

Theoretically they all still have observations to them and station data, but it must have not been of sufficient quality to merit inclusion on the later work.

 

- jlw

 

Hi Shorelander--

 

Actually, this thread is just to demonstrate to you how much we need your assistance back here in God's Country. And you wouldn't have to fiddle with silly vaned-thingys that you have to disassemble to photograph (let alone occupy). :D

 

Yes, I think I get it that I myself can't supply "geodetic control," but the point in question was part of the great Triangulation of Massachusetts, and therefore, I assume, must somewhere have generated several notebooks of data linking it to others in the network. I believe this is "geodetic control" (actually, I believe that's its definition, even though I'm not sure :blink: ).

 

But we shall see if I can find it, report it, and then await a reawakening....

 

-Paul

Share this post


Link to post

There may be a clue in SP 76 on this station's control.

 

On page 142, the station "Lufkin Hill, 1849" is listed with a position and links to 2 other stations, namely Browns Hill and Choate, together with azimuths and distances to those stations. However there is a foot note - 1, which states "Unadjusted but checked by additional observations".

 

Both Browns Hill and Choate are listed as "Principal Points" but this station is listed as a "Supplementary Point" Many of the other stations among the Supplementary points have a similar foot note.

 

My guess is that the principal points were fully adjusted but the supplementary points were not, due to the fact that they were of low order, or not needed to control other surveys, or maybe even because of a lack of computational capacity (which was done by hand in those days).

 

One might check a few other of these supplementary points with this foot note and see if they have also ended up with the dreaded "NN" status.

Edited by Papa-Bear-NYC

Share this post


Link to post

Prior to the publication of the NAD 83 in 1986, and the North American Vertical Datum of 1988 in 1991, all of these geodetic data were in paper format. Before the development of the NGS Integrated Geodetic Database which supports all of our data publication, horizontal and vertical control were published in paper booklets of 30' of latitude by 30' of longitude and were called "quads." Horizontal and vertical each had their separate publications.

 

The adjustments of NAD 83 and NAVD 88 were the first national geodetic datum adjustments anywhere in the world to be fully automated. It required more than 10 years of painstaking automation of all the original observations to create the data structure necessary to complete these adjustments. For example, NAD 83 consisted of more than 250,000 points supported by more than 1.8 million observations (angles, distances etc.) A policy of these adjustments was that any station that was not fully determined by sufficient observations would not be published. Regrettably, there were several thousands points were the field observations either no longer existed or was difficult or impossible to read and many of these points were from the earliest surveys. You can imagine that the original records for surveys from the mid-1800's were difficult to locate.

 

While every effort was made to locate lost or misplaced data records ultimately the demands of the adjustments required that only a limited amount of effort could be spared looking for data for older marks, many of which had not be reobserved in many years and were only of modest importance to the integrity of the geodetic networks.

Share this post


Link to post

Interesting. Thanks, Dave.

 

{I also had to look up what a Frustum was. You'd think as an engineer I'd have known. Nope.}

Share this post


Link to post

Very interesting (and helpful), you guys. The data for this one were probably written with a quill pen on parchment! Thanks. But I still want my station back! :)

Share this post


Link to post

Hi Bean Team--

 

Perhaps you can help me. A while back, following your suggestion, I made an entry for this site at Waymarking.com. Using that site for the first time was one of the most difficult things I have ever had to do with my PC!! --if this is what one has to go through just to make a post, I'm not sure if I'll be a very regular participant! :grin:

 

I just went back to check and I see that my info is still "awaiting review" or some such.

 

What do I do!!??

 

Thanks,

-Paul

Share this post


Link to post

Hi Bean Team--

 

Perhaps you can help me. A while back, following your suggestion, I made an entry for this site at Waymarking.com. Using that site for the first time was one of the most difficult things I have ever had to do with my PC!! --if this is what one has to go through just to make a post, I'm not sure if I'll be a very regular participant! :grin:

 

I just went back to check and I see that my info is still "awaiting review" or some such.

 

What do I do!!??

 

Thanks,

-Paul

 

HMMM. Sorry you had trouble with the process. I am so used to it now it is second nature and I forget the problems inherent with it.

 

Email me through my profile with which of the categories you posted it in and I will do some research and see if I can direct you in the correct way. My guess is it was called for a vote and is stuck in limbo. A bug that they (Groundspeak) is supposedly aware of or the members of the group you submitted to are not completing their duties. I have never had a problem with either category but have only submitted one to the Historic category.

 

Edit to add that both categories I referenced have had recent approvals so it isn't an AWOL management team issue. If you go to the category and select the managed by link and email the most recently active officer and ask them to check the status.

 

Black Dog Trackers is the leader of one of the groups and is an officer in the second group. I would recommend contacting them first.

Edited by TheBeanTeam

Share this post


Link to post

:rolleyes: Forget it !!!

 

After all that work, I just got an anonymous email saying my post had been "denied"!

 

I was describing the likely location of the mark I didn't find (in what I thought was a painstaking, professional way) , but the Waymarking committee, or whatever, said they don't accept posts for things not found!!

 

I guess that's their right, but it's the last time I'll waste my time slogging through all their bull$&$#!!

 

Who runs this thing, anyway, and just what is their major malfunction? I've never seen anything like this..!!

 

-Paul

Edited by pgrig

Share this post


Link to post

Sorry you found the process so frustrating, Paul. :rolleyes:

 

Waymarking is quite a different beast from geocaching. The purpose of Waymarking is to list objects that other people can subsequently find and log. So if you didn't find the station, then there's no way of creating a waymark for other people to visit.

 

That's very different from the benchmarks on the Geocaching.com site, which may or may not still exist. Therefore, a "Not Found" report (if it results from a careful search) can be as valuable as a "Found" report.

 

Patty

Share this post


Link to post

Hi Patty--

 

You're a good soul and experienced at this, so perhaps you can help me.

 

My objective here, as described earlier in this thread, was to try to give a "re-birth" to a poorly described historic benchmark and help create a basis for finding it. Papa Bear suggested I go out and try to find it and let others in on my results. I thought this would be a worthy endeavor and fun too. :)

 

I was pleased to get probably within a few feet of the old mark (making a good friend of the property owner in the process, hopefully paving the way for later follow-up), and it was suggested I pass my results along via this Waymarking.com site. So I wrote about a page of annotated info (with images) and tried to post it. They (whoever they are :)) then tossed my work back at me (after about a week of review). [i didn't exactly find this frustrating--my reaction was more like extreme irritation and then wonderment at all the process--like what are they trying to "protect" against in rejecting my "improper" post? :unsure: ]

 

I can't post the info here, because the site is an "X-NN" from NGS.

 

Am I at a dead end as far as info-sharing is concerned?

 

-Paul

Share this post


Link to post

:) Forget it !!!

 

After all that work, I just got an anonymous email saying my post had been "denied"!

 

I was describing the likely location of the mark I didn't find (in what I thought was a painstaking, professional way) , but the Waymarking committee, or whatever, said they don't accept posts for things not found!!

 

I guess that's their right, but it's the last time I'll waste my time slogging through all their bull$&$#!!

 

Who runs this thing, anyway, and just what is their major malfunction? I've never seen anything like this..!!

 

-Paul

I am truly sorry about this.

 

The Waymarking site was set up for categories to be managed by committees.

The US Benchmarks category has 5 people on the committee, including me, and two others who are major participants in the forum here.

 

Fairly early on in the history of this category, there was a voting issue on not-founds, including a lot of email discussion on both sides. It was finally decided by vote that not-founds would not be allowed. A result of this was that I removed two not-founds that I had waymarked, based on an Arlington County, VA database. I looked for marks described in the database, and I didn't find two of the marks. After the vote, I went back and removed those waymarks. The prevailing opinion was that the US benchmarks Waymarking category would be for marks that are found, not for marks that were not found (even if they were described in a database).

 

I don't think we have a major malfunction. I also don't think the result of the voting on the question of Waymarking not-founds is a major malfuction either.

 

My personal culpability in this matter is that I saw your waymark but postponed declining it until after I figured out what I would say in the decline message. Someone else did that first, since I had been stalling for too long. It really hurts me to have to decline someone's waymark, especially someone that I have had good conversations with here in the forum, and I know that getting a notice that a waymark was declined hurts too - been there, had that. However, I fully intended to do so after I figured out what I would say. :unsure:

 

Another issue is that after that vote, I forgot to remove the choice of Not Found in the condition dropdown menu - bad management on my part.

 

However, the rules do say that a closeup photo of the benchmark is required.

Edited by Black Dog Trackers

Share this post


Link to post
I was pleased to get probably within a few feet of the old mark (making a good friend of the property owner in the process, hopefully paving the way for later follow-up), and it was suggested I pass my results along via this Waymarking.com site. ...

 

Am I at a dead end as far as info-sharing is concerned?

Not at all! The information sounds very interesting. You can post it to your own web site, then mention it here. Lots of people post information about benchmark hunts to their own sites. For example, someone just pointed out some accounts of searches for historic marks that are posted on Jerry Penry's website. Zhanna, who hasn't posted here recently but is an avid benchmark hunter, has a lovely website, Planet Zhanna. And I, of course, have my Disney benchmarks web pages. (When Waymarking was started, we created categories there for people to find the Disney marks. But my site came first, and has more information that we can't put on the Waymarking site. That's one of the other benefits of using your own website.)

 

So put up a website or a blog or something and let us share your adventures!

 

Patty

Share this post


Link to post

Wintertime--

 

Thanks for the suggestion. I guess I'd better get my web design skills back up to speed! When I started about a year ago, I registered a nice domain name, but since then have been too busy to do anything about it! This might be a good wintertime activity for me. :unsure:

 

BDT--

 

I wasn't aware that you were in charge over there.... Thanks for your nice words. For what it's worth, I couldn't find any way to communicate with the site's managers, or I would have said something directly. I was really disappointed, since I work hard on my benchmarking, and this mark was particularly important to me. The "malfunction" I referred to reflected my arduous work to get my initial Waymarking post done properly (answering your 20 or so questions!!) and then the anonymous "committee's" refusal to publish my info. Sites that work like this are foreign to me, and as far as I'm concerned, foreign to the spirit of sharing I believe should infuse all of our work in this hobby.

Share this post


Link to post
I guess I'd better get my web design skills back up to speed! When I started about a year ago, I registered a nice domain name, but since then have been too busy to do anything about it!

I think most ISPs offer ready-to-use web page formats these days. They may not have quite the design you want, but if all you need is somewhere to toss your benchmark hunting reports, you could quickly customize one of those templates and get your info posted.

 

Patty

Share this post


Link to post

pgrig -

 

I would agree that setting up your own website would be the best way to demonstrate and chronicle finds-in-process, successes, etc. Many of us have made our own benchmark website for one reason or another. I have made websites using a text editor with html code directly. Later on, I sometimes used Netscape 7.2 (the last release that included an html editor). There are many html editors of course, some free, some not.

 

As for the USA Benchmarks site, it has 11 required questions:

 

Your name for the mark

Coordinates

Country (dropdown)

State (dropdown)

Short Description

Long Description

Condition (dropdown)

Designation

Benchmark Agency (dropdown)

Monumentation Type (dropdown)

Find Type (radio button choice)

 

The rest are optional.

 

I really don't think these are too many questions considering that the category was made for benchmarks found without any known datasheet - no description, no coordinates, no to-reach, nothing at all.

With almost half of the questions being dropdown menus I think it isn't really difficult to fill out, but we'd welcome any suggestions to make it easier and still be a fairly good approximation of datasheet information.

 

To contact a category's managers and see who they are, click on the link to the right of "Managed By:" near the top of the category's page. Clicking on a name will get you to a send-message link.

 

It is true that the USA Benchmarks category was only designed for logging finds (4388 currently) of things, same as the other 802 different categories of Waymarking.

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1

×