Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1
Laffin

Found. . . not really!

Recommended Posts

Is it just me or does it bother you when you look at the logs of some of the benchmarks and see "found it" logs and then in their description people say things like, "didn't find the disk, but it should have been there," or "didn't find the tower but I was in the right location," or "found rm and know where the disk should be but didn't actually see it." Does this bother you or just me?

 

Another thing which bothers me is when people complain in a log about not finding a disk when the log clearly states that the station is a structure, or something along the lines of that where it is clear these people have failed to carefully read the data sheet. Does this bother you or just me?

Share this post


Link to post

My Father used to say, "common sense is very uncommom". So I just think of this type of log as just another person with no common sense. Can't be bothered worrying about it.

Share this post


Link to post

Does it bother me? Not too much. They don't know what they're doing. Sometimes, they're even funny!

 

17670_200.jpg

 

Designation: U 364

Marker Type: bench mark disk

Setting: stainless steel rod

 

No. That's the guy wire for the old telephone pole, not the benchmark disk on a steel rod. (BTW, I still have not found this one)

 

No. The reset is a different marker.

 

The only time it really bothers me is when they lead me astray. "Easy find along the trail" (with no photo). No. That's RM2. The disk is buried under the trail. But I'm learning to take a lot of 'finds' with a grain of salt.

 

Unfortunately, benchmarking is not like geocaching, where a cache owner can delete bogus finds. Check the threads for discussions of the benchmarks logged wrong the most. And notes by benchmarkers telling them that they logged the wrong thing make absolutely no difference!

Share this post


Link to post

I may be somewhat alone in this take on it, but.. I don't geocache. (I found 4? I think, Geocaches about 4 or 5 years ago.) Because of that, I have NEVER looked at GC.com logs before going out to find a mark.

 

In a few times, I would have been better off if I HAD - i.e. some good finds that had good useful information when I ended up not finding it. I'll log here when I get to it, but that'll be the first time I ever see the logs. :D

Share this post


Link to post

I keep a separate database of benchmark recoveries. One of the columns is Found/Not Found. It lists those benchmarks we find that others didn't. If the most recent log is a Not Found or is incorrect, then a notation is made in that column.

 

Currently we have 44 recoveries where the previous logger either didn't find the benchmark or they logged the wrong one.

 

We don't worry about whether they logged in error, we just add it to the correct column in our database when we find it. :)

 

I think that is called making lemonade out of lemons. :D

 

John

Share this post


Link to post

John,

You don't have NJGS to make fun of. :D

 

KU1637'RECOVERY NOTE BY NEW JERSEY GEODETIC SURVEY 1992 (FAC)

KU1637'THE STATION WAS SEARCHED FOR AND NOT RECOVERED AFTER A QUARTER HOUR

KU1637'SEARCH BY A TWO MAN PARTY. THE BLACK ROCK OUTCROP HAS BEEN REMOVED.

KU1637'THE STATION IS CONSIDERED LOST.

 

icon_smile.gif 5/28/2006 Harry Dolphin found KU1637 (NGS Benchmark) [visit log]

N 40° 54.168 W 073° 56.227

Easily found by description. Parked on Essex Drive. Hard part was crossing Rte 9W.

Okay, who's going to break the news to the New Jersey Geodetic Survey that the entire black rock outcropping has been returned to its original position, with benchmark intact???

Share this post


Link to post

>people say things like, "didn't find the disk, but it should have been

>there," or "didn't find the tower but I was in the right location,"

>or "found rm and know where the disk should be but didn't actually >see it."

 

Is that how these people geocache, too? I find this sort of thing unacceptable for geocaches or benchmarks. I get worked up about incorrect logs now and then but it doesn't do much good.

Share this post


Link to post
I may be somewhat alone in this take on it, but.. I don't geocache. (I found 4? I think, Geocaches about 4 or 5 years ago.) Because of that, I have NEVER looked at GC.com logs before going out to find a mark.

 

In a few times, I would have been better off if I HAD - i.e. some good finds that had good useful information when I ended up not finding it.

Although we all have stories about totally wrong Geocaching.com benchmark logs, I strongly recommend that benchmark hunters (amateur or professional) check that site before looking for a mark. For example, I could have saved myself about 20 minutes of search time for one mark in Yosemite that wasn't where the NGS datasheet said it was, had I only looked at the location photo of the mark on someone's Gc.com log. Those logs are right more often than they're wrong.

 

Patty

Share this post


Link to post

Although we all have stories about totally wrong Geocaching.com benchmark logs, I strongly recommend that benchmark hunters (amateur or professional) check that site before looking for a mark. For example, I could have saved myself about 20 minutes of search time for one mark in Yosemite that wasn't where the NGS datasheet said it was, had I only looked at the location photo of the mark on someone's Gc.com log. Those logs are right more often than they're wrong.

While I'm not arguing with you (I believe that in many cases they ARE right!) I don't want the extra help. :laughing: I'm stubborn and want to use what the NGS has. If I find it or not find it, I'll add a recovery note and give any pertinent info updated. ("Not Found - The road has been widened at this point.")

Share this post


Link to post

It only bothers me if they do not make corrections.

I leave notes and if no one follows it it is their loss.

 

I have had to go back and edit a few myself when I was first learning.

So there is always room for a slip up now and then but if someone asks or you are really wanting to learn you make the required adjustments and go on and learn some more.

Share this post


Link to post

I stopped letting GC.com recoveries bother me a long time ago. For the most part I consider them casual remarks, and rarely do I bother to post a note or contact the incorrect recoverer. I can only recall one time I contacted a person to correct his recovery and I only did it because it seemed he was getting somewhat serious about benchmark recovery. In that case he was happy to hear from me and to get a bit of information about what he didn't find.

 

Like Foxtrot, I NEVER look at the GC.com site before I go out hunting. For me it really isn't the recovery itself, but the hunt AND recovery. I prefer to head in using only the NGS datasheet and have referred to the GC.com recovery only a few times when I failed in my search--one time I was impressed with the intuition and/or persistence of the previous benchmarker, and once I was embarrassed that I hadn't spotted the mark without help.

Share this post


Link to post

Does it bother me? Not too much. They don't know what they're doing. Sometimes, they're even funny!

 

17670_200.jpg

 

Designation: U 364

Marker Type: bench mark disk

Setting: stainless steel rod

 

No. That's the guy wire for the old telephone pole, not the benchmark disk on a steel rod. (BTW, I still have not found this one)

 

No. The reset is a different marker.

 

The only time it really bothers me is when they lead me astray. "Easy find along the trail" (with no photo). No. That's RM2. The disk is buried under the trail. But I'm learning to take a lot of 'finds' with a grain of salt.

 

Unfortunately, benchmarking is not like geocaching, where a cache owner can delete bogus finds. Check the threads for discussions of the benchmarks logged wrong the most. And notes by benchmarkers telling them that they logged the wrong thing make absolutely no difference!

Great shot, this one made me laugh too.

Share this post


Link to post

At least, on geocaching.com and Waymarking.com, incorrect logs don't hurt anyone. Until now, logs going to NGS have a good track record for accuracy. But I hope that a recent recovery note for FZ1106 is not going to be a trend. The entry consists only of a reference to Waymarking.com. (It is somewhat confusing. JHL is not with NGS. He is a geocacher who found one disk and four aerial intersection points, between April and July of this year. The URL points to the correct mark, but JHL denies submitting this to NGS. Meanwhile, Deb did not respond to an inquiry asking how this got into the system, and whether this was appropriate.)

 

 

STATION RECOVERY (2008) RECOVERY NOTE BY NATIONAL GEODETIC SURVEY 2008 (JHL) WWW.Waymarking.COM/WAYMARKS/WM3NEM

 

Share this post


Link to post
Until now, logs going to NGS have a good track record for accuracy. But I hope that a recent recovery note for FZ1106 is not going to be a trend. The entry consists only of a reference to Waymarking.com.

Yikes! :laughing: Let us know if you hear back from Deb, Paul. I certainly hope she can nip this sort of thing in the bud.

 

Patty

Share this post


Link to post

Generally, I do look at recent logs. I decided not to bother with this one: LY0782. The photo clearly shows a 1981 reset. And, the nearby parking spot was taken by hunters. Hmm... It was logged in 1995!

(Yes. That's a really fun bridge to drive over. It's a privately owned toll bridge.) It should be noted that most of the bridges over the Delaware were taken out by a hurricane in 1955. This one survived, but probably required a lot of rebuilding.

Edited by Harry Dolphin

Share this post


Link to post

Incorrect logs will always be a part of this site. Some may provide comic relief, but perhaps an educational email to the logger might enlighten him/her. I doubt that many past loggers return to their incorrectly logged benchmark page, but a note there may help to educate future seekers.

Incorrect logs to the NGS are serious, and I hope that the "casually incorrect" loggers don't send their logs there!

Share this post


Link to post

Thanks for all the input. I will try not to get upset with incorrect logs and try to find the humor in some of them.

Share this post


Link to post
At least, on geocaching.com and Waymarking.com, incorrect logs don't hurt anyone. Until now, logs going to NGS have a good track record for accuracy. But I hope that a recent recovery note for FZ1106 is not going to be a trend. The entry consists only of a reference to Waymarking.com. (It is somewhat confusing. JHL is not with NGS. He is a geocacher who found one disk and four aerial intersection points, between April and July of this year. The URL points to the correct mark, but JHL denies submitting this to NGS. Meanwhile, Deb did not respond to an inquiry asking how this got into the system, and whether this was appropriate.)

 

 

STATION RECOVERY (2008) RECOVERY NOTE BY NATIONAL GEODETIC SURVEY 2008 (JHL) WWW.Waymarking.COM/WAYMARKS/WM3NEM

 

 

 

 

 

Which is why I don't submit a report to the NGS even if its a FTR in 30+ years. I'm too afraid of making a mistake or doing something as well, idiot, as the above.

Share this post


Link to post
Which is why I don't submit a report to the NGS even if its a FTR in 30+ years. I'm too afraid of making a mistake or doing something as well, idiot, as the above.

 

 

Actually, AstroD, I've been intending to write you about expanding your activity. I believe you could handle NGS reporting in excellent style . I enjoy reading your recovery notes. For instance, PN0147 (circa 1930) was a great find.

 

-Paul-

Share this post


Link to post
At least, on geocaching.com and Waymarking.com, incorrect logs don't hurt anyone. Until now, logs going to NGS have a good track record for accuracy. But I hope that a recent recovery note for FZ1106 is not going to be a trend. The entry consists only of a reference to Waymarking.com. (It is somewhat confusing. JHL is not with NGS. He is a geocacher who found one disk and four aerial intersection points, between April and July of this year. The URL points to the correct mark, but JHL denies submitting this to NGS. Meanwhile, Deb did not respond to an inquiry asking how this got into the system, and whether this was appropriate.)

 

 

STATION RECOVERY (2008) RECOVERY NOTE BY NATIONAL GEODETIC SURVEY 2008 (JHL) WWW.Waymarking.COM/WAYMARKS/WM3NEM

 

 

 

 

 

Which is why I don't submit a report to the NGS even if its a FTR in 30+ years. I'm too afraid of making a mistake or doing something as well, idiot, as the above.

 

The ability to question your own competence is possibly the most important indicator that you are indeed competent.

Share this post


Link to post
AZcachemeister observed: The ability to question your own competence is possibly the most important indicator that you are indeed competent.

 

Well said!

Share this post


Link to post

All right, I promise that the next mark I find that hasn't been reported in awhile I will submit a report. I'd be willing to revisit some other "goodies" we already found to submit a report.

Share this post


Link to post

For Patti, et. al.:

 

(Received today)

 

 

Re: Reference to Waymarking.com in NGS data sheet

 

Hi Paul,

Thank you for alerting me to this. No,...this slipped through. I try to catch

references to such sites and eliminate them from the recoveries prior to

publication. I'll take care of getting this off the datasheet.

deb

Share this post


Link to post

Thanks for the update, Paul. Glad to know that the inclusion of the Waymarking.com URL was not something Deb approved of.

 

Patty

Share this post


Link to post

Is it just me or does it bother you when you look at the logs of some of the benchmarks and see "found it" logs and then in their description people say things like, "didn't find the disk, but it should have been there,"

 

Yep.

 

I try to tell myself that it doesn't really matter, because... it doesn't really matter. But I don't like it.

 

Often when there is a bm disk near a geocache it will get many hits. I have come across several where they find a reference mark or the wrong benchmark and log it as found even when the recovery notes clearly describe the benchmark in easily understood language. And even when some of us post logs that the bm is either destroyed, or the benchmark is not the water tank, or the water tank is not the benchmark, subsequent cachers will pile on the Found Its.

 

The most erroneous logs I have seen on a benchmark are for the Willamette Stone in Portland, OR. The benchmark was removed decades ago and currently there is a very nice new monument that looks like a benchmark. This is the origin point of the Willamette Base and Meridian that covers all of Washington and Oregon. Many of us have marked destroyed and yet people kept piling on. Sheeshs!

 

Yep. I hate it.

Share this post


Link to post

Is it just me or does it bother you when you look at the logs of some of the benchmarks and see "found it" logs and then in their description people say things like, "didn't find the disk, but it should have been there," or "didn't find the tower but I was in the right location," or "found rm and know where the disk should be but didn't actually see it." Does this bother you or just me?

 

I know it shouldn't ......... but still!

 

Check out http://www.geocaching.com/mark/details.aspx?PID=GL1435

 

No matter how many times it's stated that "this is not the benchmark", the next person logs it as a "Find".

Share this post


Link to post

Stripemark,

 

Don't people look at previous logs/photos? So far, as a newbie, I want to check on the previous logs of "MY" bench mark and I expect that I will monitor future activity

 

If I'm still snowbound tomorrow I'll check myself; but do those GLO's that are not GL1435 have PID's? ML

Share this post


Link to post

...... but do those GLO's that are not GL1435 have PID's? ML

 

They probably do, on some other database. They are just like 1000's of others out there that are not included in the NGS database. They only have meaning to the agency that placed them.

Share this post


Link to post

ALL

 

In researching the real northernmost mark INSIDE Montana I have run across two "RENEWED" Boundary Monuments. TL0782, renewed in 2005 (the photo shows "RENEWED 2005" stamped in the new concrete base), was logged as not found. TL0786, renewed in 2001 was logged as found. Neither current NGS DATASHEET indicates this change - last recovery was in 1975.

 

Does RENEWED equate to RESET in International Boundary Commission terminology? ML

Share this post


Link to post

Is it just me or does it bother you when you look at the logs of some of the benchmarks and see "found it" logs and then in their description people say things like, "didn't find the disk, but it should have been there," or "didn't find the tower but I was in the right location," or "found rm and know where the disk should be but didn't actually see it." Does this bother you or just me?

 

I know it shouldn't ......... but still!

 

Check out http://www.geocaching.com/mark/details.aspx?PID=GL1435

 

No matter how many times it's stated that "this is not the benchmark", the next person logs it as a "Find".

Nice find!

 

I made a mistake like that involving a water tower back when I started caching. Still drives me nuts but no one seems to care when it is pointed out.

Share this post


Link to post

ALL

 

In researching the real northernmost mark INSIDE Montana I have run across two "RENEWED" Boundary Monuments. TL0782, renewed in 2005 (the photo shows "RENEWED 2005" stamped in the new concrete base), was logged as not found. TL0786, renewed in 2001 was logged as found. Neither current NGS DATASHEET indicates this change - last recovery was in 1975.

 

Does RENEWED equate to RESET in International Boundary Commission terminology? ML

For the IBC, RENEWED is similar to RESET for Triangulation stations: a new or rebuilt monument is placed in the same location as the old one and the PID and location stay the same. But the Designation is typically not changed (Tri-stations OTOH usually have the word RESET appended to the designation, so MT DESERT becomes MT DESET RESET). Note that RESETS of Bench Marks are in a different place with a new elevation and a new PID.

 

I have often noticed that when the IBC does a renewal, this is not necessarily reported or logged to the NGS. If I recover such a station, I generally mention the Renewal. See for example QH0502 "MON 475 IBC"

Edited by Papa-Bear-NYC

Share this post


Link to post

ALL

 

In researching the real northernmost mark INSIDE Montana I have run across two "RENEWED" Boundary Monuments. TL0782, renewed in 2005 (the photo shows "RENEWED 2005" stamped in the new concrete base), was logged as not found. TL0786, renewed in 2001 was logged as found. Neither current NGS DATASHEET indicates this change - last recovery was in 1975.

 

Does RENEWED equate to RESET in International Boundary Commission terminology? ML

 

Kayakbird,

 

Both of these appear to have been reported correctly. TL0782 does have a new stainless monument and so would be totally different than the original. TL0786 as well as many of the monuments across the northern Montana and North Dakota Borders were simply repainted and had nice concrete aprons poured around the existing cast iron monuments.

 

CallawayMT

Share this post


Link to post
I have often noticed that when the IBC does a renewal, this is not necessarily reported or logged to the NGS. If I recover such a station, I generally mention the Renewal. See for example QH0502 "MON 475 IBC"

Not only that, extra points for the nice historical annotation —

QH0502'THIS MONUMENT, ALSO KNOWN AS THE 'CROWN MONUMENT', MARKS THE NORTHERN

QH0502'TERMINUS OF THE BORDER BETWEEN NEW HAMPSHIRE AND MAINE. THE ORIGINAL

QH0502''CROWN MONUMENT' WAS SPECIFIED IN THE WEBSTER ASHBURTON TREATY OF 1842

QH0502'AS THE STARTING POINT OF THE NEW HAMPSHIRE SECTION OF THE

QH0502'INTERNATIONAL BOUNDARY.

Happy holidays, all!

-ArtMan-

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 1

×
×
  • Create New...