Reporting Coordinates

[lost02]

For Scaled Stations we typically report the coordinates we recorded from our GPSr. Before we report the coordinates we always check the difference from the Scaled coordinates to see if the new coordinates are believable, and then plot the new coordinates on a Road map and a Topo Map to see that they appear to be in the correct location (close to road, close to another landmark, etc.). Doing these extra checks do not guarantee that we report the correct coordinates, but I know that on occasion it has helped to identify a transcription error or two before making the official recovery.

 

Recently, I noted that a recovery that was made after one of our recoveries included coordinates that were way off from both the Scaled and our coordinates. If believe you have coordinates that are way off from the Scaled coordinates and way off from another set of recorded handheld coordinates then please double/triple check your numbers, or consider not reporting the coordinates.

 

Also, when we come upon a Station that already has hand held coordinates reported and are close to what we found we do not re-report them. Is there any good reason to re-report coordinates that are basically the same?

Edited December 18, 2008 by lost02

[+Ernmark]

Whwn the coordinates are reasonably close, I won't bother adding them to a recovery, but if I do, I also translate my coordinates into Deg/Min/Sec format that NGS uses & double check against the map as well to hopefully eliminate a typo.

 

"Also, when we come upon a Station that already has hand held coordinates reported and are close to what we found we do not re-report them. Is there any good reason to re-report coordinates that are basically the same?" No.

[lost02]

Whwn the coordinates are reasonably close, I won't bother adding them to a recovery, but if I do, I also translate my coordinates into Deg/Min/Sec format that NGS uses & double check against the map as well to hopefully eliminate a typo...

Yeah. For some Stations that had reasonably close Scaled coordinates we didn’t report them too, but then I thought that if we always reported coordinates on Scaled Stations it could make finding the Station a little easier because the recovery would show that Station was actually in the near vicinity of the Scaled and hand held coordinates.

[+PFF]

Recently, I noted that a recovery that was made after one of our recoveries included coordinates that were way off from both the Scaled and our coordinates. If believe you have coordinates that are way off from the Scaled coordinates and way off from another set of recorded handheld coordinates then please double/triple check your numbers, or consider not reporting the coordinates.

 

Interesting. Was the 2nd set of coordinates posted to the NGS site, or was it in geocaching.com? If posted to NGS, was it submitted by a professional, an individual, etc?

 

I also report my coordinates for all scaled benchmarks, after converting to DDMMSS.S. For shorthand, the abbreviation for "consumer-grade handheld GPS" is HH2. (HH1 also is a handheld, but it refers to professional-grade equipment which is much more precise--and much more expensive!)

 

-Paul-

[lost02]

Interesting. Was the 2nd set of coordinates posted to the NGS site, or was it in geocaching.com? If posted to NGS, was it submitted by a professional, an individual, etc?

NGS site and by an individual. If it was geocaching.com I don't think it really matters at all - actually the more that’s in the geocaching.com log the better.

 

I also report my coordinates for all scaled benchmarks, after converting to DDMMSS.S. For shorthand, the abbreviation for "consumer-grade handheld GPS" is HH2. (HH1 also is a handheld, but it refers to professional-grade equipment which is much more precise--and much more expensive!)

Yeah, I always convert to their DD MM SS.S system. I simply report "handheld coordinates", which would default to a consumer grade handheld. If/when we ever consider getting a professional grade receiver we would make a special annotation.

 

I figure the coordinates just help to make the station easier to find for the surveyor. I don't assume that they will be used for anything other that finding the station.

[+PFF]

My introduction to the difference between HH1 and HH2 coordinates came in 2007, I was on a team hunt along the NC-SC border. The other fellow showed up with this GPS unit: [grin.]

 

 

Alan-Jon Zupan, South Carolina Geodetic Survey

[kayakbird]

I just started filling out mark recoveries, but have not been adding my HH2 Lat/Long. Are there any standard guide lines for close enough to the DATASHEET? If I remember my military aviation math correctly, one N/S second is about 100 feet.

 

I'm thinking that 0.5" is close enough. Maybe 2.0" should be mentioned in the recovery notes; and something way off emailed to NGS. ML

[+Ernmark]

Most of the time I've reported them, I'd say the scaled coords were off by at least 100'. I also take into account listed references - if it's the only 10-foot high boulder in the area, I'd probably not bother. If I think it will help someone who needs to actually use the mark, I'll add the HH2 coords (in NGS-used format) & any updates to the references that should help.

 

I try to keep in mind that, while it's fun to look at 'stats', as far as reporting to NGS is concerned, we're in a professional database..and one where our mistakes will stick [gulp] for years

[kayakbird]

..and one where our mistakes will stick [gulp] for years

I know that I have already "Blundered" one of my recent recoveries because I didn't delete my remarks prior to back arrowing for another report.

 

Sent an email on that one; in which I also asked about the many, many marks that I have found on the wrong county lists here in Montana - particularly International Boundary Monuments. Anyone else running across these types of errors in the DATASHEET? ML

[kayakbird]

..and one where our mistakes will stick [gulp] for years

I know that I have already "Blundered" one of my recent recoveries because I didn't delete my remarks prior to back arrowing for another report.

 

Sent an email on that one; in which I also asked about the many, many marks that I have found on the wrong county lists here in Montana - particularly International Boundary Monuments. Anyone else running across these types of errors in the DATASHEET? ML

[+Harry Dolphin]

..and one where our mistakes will stick [gulp] for years

I know that I have already "Blundered" one of my recent recoveries because I didn't delete my remarks prior to back arrowing for another report.

 

Sent an email on that one; in which I also asked about the many, many marks that I have found on the wrong county lists here in Montana - particularly International Boundary Monuments. Anyone else running across these types of errors in the DATASHEET? ML

 

I think the NGS said it wasn't interested if fixing wrong county errors.

[kayakbird]

 

I think the NGS said it wasn't interested if fixing wrong county errors.

 

I am still requesting parameters on when to add HH2 numbers to a recovery form.

 

In reference to above quote and "Completed Counties" thread in the Benchmarking Forum; how do you know if "ALL" have really been recovered? ML

[+TheBeanTeam]

..and one where our mistakes will stick [gulp] for years

I know that I have already "Blundered" one of my recent recoveries because I didn't delete my remarks prior to back arrowing for another report.

 

Sent an email on that one; in which I also asked about the many, many marks that I have found on the wrong county lists here in Montana - particularly International Boundary Monuments. Anyone else running across these types of errors in the DATASHEET? ML

 

I think the NGS said it wasn't interested if fixing wrong county errors.

''Really, I had one that I reported and they fixed the county. Of course the state was wrong as well.

 

GC.com has Wasco County Oregon but the NGS updated to Kickitat County Washington after an email to Deb.

[+Ernmark]

I am still requesting parameters on when to add HH2 numbers to a recovery form.

It's a bit subjective - if the coordinares are far enough off that you believe that it will help someone's search - i.e. flush w/ the ground in a desolate field, in the middle of a field strewn w/ like-sized boulders, in a city but 2 blocks off (watch for multipath error) - then I'd add.

 

Here's an example:

NGS Recovery - J 161 (JV2063)

(being anal retentive, I should've put the 'N' & 'W' in ( )'s

 

Geo Log - J 161 (JV2063)

(speaking of anal retentive - I've got a spelling error to fix)

 

Anyway - this one VEX'd me for over a year - 3 biiig boulders, but no disk on top of any one of them. Finally found it on a low 'rock' near the nortnernmost boulder:

 

..not the first place I'd've looked - the big boulder has a nice flat surface! (My other visits were when vegetation [mostly poison ivy] was in full disk-covering glory). Actually the addition to to the description is probably more useful in this case, but I added the coords to help zero in for the person that will have to brave the weeds in July!

 

(The scaled coordinates are about 100' to the SE - closer to a different boulder - so given that + the original description, someone in a hurry may have went off looking for another mark)

Edited December 31, 2008 by Ernmark

[Bill93]

Another line in the recovery report on the data sheet doesn't cost anything. I include HH2 coordinates if there is any chance they will help.

 

Remember, that even if the data sheet coordinates are exact, when they are SCALED nobody will trust them. So adding your HH2 with nearly identical values still adds information, the fact that the scaled values were good after all.

[lost02]

...Remember, that even if the data sheet coordinates are exact, when they are SCALED nobody will trust them. So adding your HH2 with nearly identical values still adds information, the fact that the scaled values were good after all.

I agree. We originally didn't report ones that had really close Scaled coordinates, but later thought about it more and figured it would help even if they were close.

[+shorbird]

 

I think the NGS said it wasn't interested if fixing wrong county errors.

 

I am still requesting parameters on when to add HH2 numbers to a recovery form.

 

In reference to above quote and "Completed Counties" thread in the Benchmarking Forum; how do you know if "ALL" have really been recovered? ML

 

kayakbird,

 

If you pull the county list from the NGS website, you can usually get pretty close on the total number of benchmarks in a county. You don't really know for sure until you check all of the datasheets, since some marks in the list may no longer have datasheets(and as such are not counted in the total).

 

shorbird

[kayakbird]

If you pull the county list from the NGS website, you can usually get pretty close

 

shorbird

 

Thanks shorbird,

 

I'm still wondering about the ones that may have the correct Lat/Long but the wrong county name. I guees that if you are scrolling through the Benchmark "nearest" they will be in the right location, just have the wrong county in the text - which you may or may not notice. ML

[+PFF]

Here's an update on the terminology we use. I recently submitted a recovery report on a 110-year-old meridian marker to our state's geodetic survey organization. Before adding it to their website, the NCGS staff changed "consumer-grade GPS receiver" to "recreational-grade GPS receiver".

 

It's still "HH2" at NGS, but North Carolina's definition was interesting to see. :-)

 

-Paul-