Jump to content

Does this one meet the qualification for destroyed?


Recommended Posts

We went looking for this one (GP0523) today. We found where the station disk had been.

 

d3cefde2-943d-4875-8260-660ce79082bd.jpg

 

Being a Horizontal Control Station we would have called this one poor if the stem had still been there. We checked with the metal detector and there is nothing in the hole but dirt. We did find RM 2 (the copper nail and washer), but could not find RM1. The NGS datasheet does not give the location of the RMs only what they were.

 

So the question is "Should it be called destroyed?" since even the stem is gone and only 1 RM was located? Or would "poor" be the correct condition for it?

 

Would any surveyors even consider using it in its present condition?

 

Here's a nice shot of RM 2.

 

a6d85b53-8e68-4f04-ae65-554f555cf020.jpg

 

 

John & Shirley

Link to comment

As a surveyor, given sparse control in that area, I would not hesitate to use it after verifying the RM for horizontal work, and rough vertical I could estimate the height of the cap above the bedrock and be good enough for many purposes.

 

I did work in the general area (Tuba city and East) in the 1980 era. Before GPS, this kind of thing would be a blessing to tie work into.

 

That probably means nothing in regards to the official definitions of desroyed, however.

 

- jlw

Link to comment

This whole topic might merit a thread (or a convcation of benchmarking druids) of its own!

 

I would call your mark "Found" (poor). But then again, this thing, one of my earliest reports, I logged as "Found" on GC but apparently turned in as "Destroyed" to Deb Brown. She recently accepted that coding, which I guess I would now disagree with. :ph34r: Go figure...

 

Deb also accepted another of my earlier submissions, for MY5877, which I called "Destroyed" because it had apparently been paved-over. I now believe this was wrong, because if the pavement were removed, it could "rise again." [should I ask her to change it back to "NF"?]

 

I still come upon ones for which there is little doubt, using the criterion which seems to be the most unarguable one: that the likely setting point has simply been removed altogether. Here is one for which the setting was simply blown up. And for this one, the mark was an iron rod piercing the roof of an old reservoir gatehouse, which is clearly now long gone.

 

But I am troubled by something that I didn't understand in the beginning. An accepted "Destroyed" report causes all previous description from the Datasheet to be deleted. I wonder why. This means that possible errors in the "Destroyed" classification cannot be checked by others. It also removes all traces of the "golden oldies"--marks like those from 1850 that I am currently involved with. I just reported this 1848 station as "destroyed", and I'm sad to think that this report will cause all traces of it to disappear from the database.

 

It seems to me that the classification does matter. A "Destroyed" label should tell the surveyor or benchmark-hunter "don't you bother with this one--it's G-O-N-E." On the other hand, perhaps NGS needs another category, "Likely Destroyed". I suppose MY4857 could actually be placed in that "Likely" category, since there just possibly could be an old rock from 1848 that survives after all the foundation-building and site work for the house built almost on top of it. [i believe the pbty of that is about .005.]

 

Maybe the "Destroyed" label should be done away with. A mark you couldn't see is either "Not Found" [and others should consider that it just might be worth visiting (or using) it if they're very enterprising (or desperate for a tie-in point out in the desert)] or "Not Found-Likely Destroyed", if you have some good evidence that it simply no longer exists. The latter would include the current "Destroyed" marks, but would not result in all the old description being deleted.

Link to comment

2oldfarts (the rockhounders) -

 

I'd tend to report it as Found (in poor condition). You found very strong evidence of the mark so let a surveyor decide if they think it is where the mark was and can use it. I lean toward the perspective of a recovery report being for surveyors' use. I just can't 'get my head around' the idea of reporting, even just on the GC site, without that perspective solidly in mind, even assuming that chances are no surveyor will ever look at my GC report.

 

pgrig -

 

I certainly agree. It always makes me feel unfortable that, here in these forums, it seems that many people have a goal to get marks declared as destroyed on the NGS site or to call them destroyed in reports on the GC site. (This is not the case in this particular thread where the OP is asking a technical judgement question without bias.) It seems to some that getting a station declared destroyed is some kind of accomplishment. The problem is, as you point out, that then the station disappears as if it had never existed. Surveyors have no way to even consider using it then, assuming some fragment of it remains. The NGS leans 'hard over' toward not easily declaring marks as destroyed, and we should all adopt that same attitude, I think.

Link to comment
But I am troubled by something that I didn't understand in the beginning. An accepted "Destroyed" report causes all previous description from the Datasheet to be deleted. I wonder why. This means that possible errors in the "Destroyed" classification cannot be checked by others. It also removes all traces of the "golden oldies"--marks like those from 1850 that I am currently involved with. I just reported this 1848 station as "destroyed", and I'm sad to think that this report will cause all traces of it to disappear from the database.

I'm not sure where you got this from. Maybe I'm misunderstanding? I reported EE0346 as destroyed, but everything's there. I mean, you pull it up, and all you see is a new history entry by Deb saying that a 'Destroyed' report was submitted by me.

 

I'm hoping I just read or misunderstood what you meant there.. 'cuz otherwise I'm special. :grin:

Link to comment

I know you're special, FX, but that's still another thread. :grin:

 

When I pull up one of my "Destroyed" reports from the NGS website, I get only a single sheet that gives me the dreaded "X" and "NN" codes--no description and no geodetic control for the PID, plus a page of notes explaining the various NGS codes.

 

And BDT--

 

As a Benchmarking Druid, could you give me your thoughts on the other questions I asked? I imagine that even Deb Brown makes a mistake every 50 years or so; if I think she erred in accepting my (inappropriate) "paved-over" Destroyed submission, should I ask her to re-consider? And what about actually (1) changing the NGS cateogry name and/or (2) getting descriptions to survive a "Destroyed" coding?

 

-Paul

Edited by pgrig
Link to comment

I know you're special, FX, but that's still another thread. :D

Oh, ouch!

Now I'm hurt.

Fine. Don't expect a Benchmarking Christmas Card from me this year. Hmph.(*)

 

When I pull up one of my "Destroyed" reports from the NGS website, I get only a single sheet that gives me the dreaded "X" and "NN" codes--no description and no geodetic control for the PID, plus a page of notes explaining the various NGS codes.

Ah! When you search for the marks via PID, make sure the option "Include Destroyed Marks" is selected. Then you'll get the sheet AND the trailing information block explaining all the codes. :grin:

 

Or go straight to the URL - it'll pull up the the same information as above.

For example, go to:

http://www.ngs.noaa.gov/cgi-bin/ds_mark.prl?PidBox=

And add the pid at the end of the "=" there. That should then give you everything. :grin:

 

Cheers,

"Special" Mike.

Link to comment

I certainly agree. It always makes me feel unfortable that, here in these forums, it seems that many people have a goal to get marks declared as destroyed on the NGS site or to call them destroyed in reports on the GC site. (This is not the case in this particular thread where the OP is asking a technical judgement question without bias.) It seems to some that getting a station declared destroyed is some kind of accomplishment. The problem is, as you point out, that then the station disappears as if it had never existed. Surveyors have no way to even consider using it then, assuming some fragment of it remains. The NGS leans 'hard over' toward not easily declaring marks as destroyed, and we should all adopt that same attitude, I think.

 

On the other fin, if the mark is destroyed, it is better off if it marked destroyed. I can think of a few on buildings that have been torn. KV0143 Documentation does not hurt. Though NGS listed it as 'not found'. The building is gone; the disk is gone. It has been destroyed.

As to 2OldFarts disk, that's 'found in poor condition'.

Link to comment

FX--

 

Wow! You're right! I get the whole description and even get to see my name in print! :) If this is what Deb does with these reports, I'd better not screw up!

 

See--you are special, and my education (since these are my first "Destroyed" reports returning) continues!

 

P.S. You should take a peek at MY0334 to see that I continue workin' on the railroad... :rolleyes:

 

-Paul

Link to comment

About the one you reported as destroyed, can you probe the pavement and find it? The best way I would think to revive a mark mistakenly reported as destroyed is to go recover it.

 

About the hole full of sand, I'd have no problem tying into that with all that evidence that it's the real mark.

Link to comment

Thank you all, for your answers and input.

 

My thinking on this one was that it was lost/destroyed. We checked the mounting hole for the station disk with a metal detector and there was no sign of the disk stem which would have been a 'found in poor condition' for sure. Logically this would be a destroyed, except this was a triangulation station. The NGS datasheet said there were 2 RMs set, but it gave no other information as to where they were located in relation to the station disk. There is no "box score" to look at and determine where to find the RMs, not even general directions (N, S, E, W) in the description. This combined with the fact that we only found RM2 would make doing a reset difficult.

 

We will leave our log on the benchmark page as is, describing what we found. Thanks for your guidance.

 

John

Link to comment

I think we have to be aware of what we are doing when we mark a station as destroyed. Yesterday I marked one station as destroyed on GC site because of the danger in locating the station (I took the dangerous approach and the station was gone, it appears erosion threw the station down about 100ft.). Even though I marked this station as destroyed on the GC site I am not yet reporting this station as destroyed to the NGS until I can hike/climb down to where the station may have fallen and find evidence of the destroyed station (ie. mangled disk).

 

As to the question of the op, this would meet the qualification for "poor condition," even though the mark is not identifiable by you or I, there may be a mark underground (deeper than your detector can see, or even made of stone).

Link to comment

As to the question of the op, this would meet the qualification for "poor condition," even though the mark is not identifiable by you or I, there may be a mark underground (deeper than your detector can see, or even made of stone).

 

If you read the description on the benchmark page, there is no underground mark.....

 

"STATION MARK--STANDARD TABLET STAMPED---FLAT 1953---, CEMENTED IN SOLID ROCK OUTCROP.

 

It is very hard to set an underground mark in a solid rock outcrop. :laughing:

 

John

Link to comment

As to the question of the op, this would meet the qualification for "poor condition," even though the mark is not identifiable by you or I, there may be a mark underground (deeper than your detector can see, or even made of stone).

 

If you read the description on the benchmark page, there is no underground mark.....

 

"STATION MARK--STANDARD TABLET STAMPED---FLAT 1953---, CEMENTED IN SOLID ROCK OUTCROP.

 

It is very hard to set an underground mark in a solid rock outcrop. :anibad:

 

John

Guess, I should have read the benchmark page before posting (something which usually ticks me off when others don't do) :laughing:

Link to comment

As to the question of the op, this would meet the qualification for "poor condition," even though the mark is not identifiable by you or I, there may be a mark underground (deeper than your detector can see, or even made of stone).

 

If you read the description on the benchmark page, there is no underground mark.....

 

"STATION MARK--STANDARD TABLET STAMPED---FLAT 1953---, CEMENTED IN SOLID ROCK OUTCROP.

 

It is very hard to set an underground mark in a solid rock outcrop. :laughing:

 

John

Underground mark or no underground mark, I would say a drill hole minus the disk for a horizontal control station is Found, poor condition. The hole represents the mark. The hole is (IMHO) more important then the stem, because the stem might have gotten twisted when the disk was removed. The hole has a better chance of maintaining it's integrity (rock is stringer than brass). Remember, surveyors have often stuck disks in holes to reset a mark, or recovered old drill holes that once had copper bolts in them. If you blow the dirt away from that spot in the photo, you may well find a nice round hole.

 

Of course we can have doubt as to whether we found the right spot - but that can be resolved by a surveyor from the reference marks or by shooting angles (now-a-days they would use GPS) to other marks.

Edited by Papa-Bear-NYC
Link to comment

Definitely destroyed ;unless by some miracle the underground mark still exists, as this disk could be many yards from the correct position. Did you see an irregular mass of concrete around? If so, it probably has the underground disk that used to be 40 inches down.

 

This photo and closeups of the disk so the stamping can be read will probably be sufficient to have Deb Brown mark them as officially destroyed in the records.

 

If the underground disk was undisturbed, the surface disk could be reset, but it looks likely that they graded that far down. Anyway, finding it would require professional GPS or traverse and I doubt anybody would go to that trouble for a second order disk. It seems nobody cries much over them now. They put a reference GPS on a higher order mark somewhere and do differential from that and wouldn't use a second order reference.

Link to comment

I ran across these today. Found? Poor? Destroyed? The marks are in good shape just not where they are supposed to be. The farthest concrete cylinder is FV1779 and the nearest is RM1. RM2 didn't seem to be around.

 

It would depend on whether there is evidence to suggest that the underground mark is intact or otherwise. I actually just got an email back from Deb on a very similar situation: RK0528. I haven't posted a destroyed report from my last visit yet--I need to correct that oversight. It'll be marked as destroyed on GC, but a poor/disturbed report is warranted for the NGS. In this case, the surface mark was yanked and the area graded for a parking area, but there is nothing to suggest that the underground mark is disturbed. She suggested a "poor" report with details on what has happened at the location.

 

I can't tell from the one "before" picture of the area where this one would have been. If it seems the underground mark is destroyed as well, then yes, it would warrant a destroyed report with photos. If it seems likely the underground mark is intact, a found poor with lots of details about the current state, and a note that the surface mark has been destroyed.

Link to comment

The one with the hole I would report as POOR and in the descriptive field describe the situation.

 

The condition of the mark is not always the physical condition but the condition of the location. Like in the pic's above a mark could be considered in good condition but it is without a doubt destroyed as the position is destroyed.

Edited by Z15
Link to comment

I ran across these today. Found? Poor? Destroyed? The marks are in good shape just not where they are supposed to be. The farthest concrete cylinder is FV1779 and the nearest is RM1. RM2 didn't seem to be around.

30c6f1ac-8c51-4b52-bcf8-dbaeb19265ec.jpg

 

I found a similar situation today and was just rummaging through the forums before posting to ask how I should log this mark: AA6969. Adjusted coordinates indicate that the disc is still within a foot or two of where it should be, but clearly it is not flush with the ground, and more mysteriously, there is no hole! I have no agenda to have marks declared destroyed, quite the opposite, but what else is this?

 

55fb7f7c-7e26-4f8e-9f94-cd15ac9b9778.jpg

Link to comment

 

I found a similar situation today and was just rummaging through the forums before posting to ask how I should log this mark: AA6969. Adjusted coordinates indicate that the disc is still within a foot or two of where it should be, but clearly it is not flush with the ground, and more mysteriously, there is no hole! I have no agenda to have marks declared destroyed, quite the opposite, but what else is this?

 

 

Send an email to Deb with the pictures as attachments and any other relevant evidence as described on the NGS site. She makes the updates for destroyed anyway so she'll make the judgement & mail you back with what it is - sometimes, like the OP's situation she might say for you to log on the NGS site in poor condition otherwise she'll say she's going to mark it destroyed.

On GC.com update the visit log with the pics in the form of a note which you've done. Then when you get an answer from Deb you can go back and update the gc.com log. Bill93 said it, describe what's there (although I have not always done so) first since usability isn't really our call.

Edited by sjkimmel99
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...