Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1
CallawayMT

New Geocacher Reports Mark to NGS

Recommended Posts

This is tricky stuff and it's easy to misinterpret these forum posts, perhaps mine particularly.

 

On just the part about whether or not to say to the NGS that a station should be considered destroyed is quite different between intersection stations and all other stations. (Just for a quick review, an intersection station is a radio tower, church steeple, rocky mountain peak, water tower top, and other such things. Any disk, rivet, rod, etc. is not an intersection station.)

 

For an intersection station, report destroyed if you don't find it when you are personally at its adjusted coordinates.

For non-intersection stations (disks, etc.), report destroyed if you find it, AND it is out of it's proper position, like dug up and found lying on its side on the ground, fallen over a cliff and found at the bottom, etc.

 

For non-intersection stations that you don't find, don't suggest to the NGS that they are destroyed no matter what proof it seems you have. Instead report NotFound and tell all of your proof in your report.

Share this post


Link to post
I know that this one was set in 1888 by the USC&GS in front of the Captitol.
Nifty. I'll have to stop by that next time I'm in Sacto. Patty
I waymarked this with some other interesting links and facts.

Sacramento Longitude-Granite Meridian Stone-1888

 

http://www.Waymarking.com/waymarks/WM3MPB

Edited by TheBeanTeam

Share this post


Link to post
I know that this one was set in 1888 by the USC&GS in front of the Captitol.
Nifty. I'll have to stop by that next time I'm in Sacto. Patty
I waymarked this with some other interesting links and facts.

Sacramento Longitude-Granite Meridian Stone-1888

 

http://www.Waymarking.com/waymarks/WM3MPB

 

BeanTeam,

 

Thanks for the extra historical information and link to the bulletin.

 

Kurt

Share this post


Link to post

I need a bit more education to help me make a difficult decision.

 

It looks like most of the regulars here file NGS recovery reports, but I'm wondering what ratio of the Geo logged Benchmarks were just for pleasure. Can a case be made for leaving some marks that would be classified as "DESTROYED" just as they were found for their historical and recreational value?

 

I am running more than ten percent (13 out of 90) previously "NOT FOUND" here in Gallation County, Montana this winter (55F+ today and almost all snow is gone off the valley floor). I am very glad that the DATASHEETs for those did not evaporate, particularly the one on the Belgrade State Bank, QX0208 O4. The Special Publication #18 that provide a clue for that one, also includes information that lead me to two NONPID marks west of Bozeman.

 

Yesterday, in Jefferson County, a friend and I found the undisturbed bottom of concrete post QY0052 H 143. The top portion, with the brass, was sheared off, leaving behind marks of the form board. No pretty piece of metal to take a picture of; but it was great fun to measure the calls from the RR crossing and the power pole to discover the concrete under the grass. Later we found two of the 1907 Precise Level Net Pipe Caps in the vicinity of Lewis & Clark Caverns State Park, one of which was "NOT FOUND" in 1958.

 

Now the tough part. Ten days ago I found the first of three PID stone posts with a chiseled square and U S B M chiseled into the corners from the 1907 PLN. Is is laying flat and about 80 % covered with dirt - of course I excavated the wrong end first - and the lettered end is cracked. I missed it on the first pass,but if I had used what I thought was an obsolete call from the DATASHEET, I could have walked right to it. All in all a very enjoyable two hours in the Yellowstone Valley.

 

The second stone post, QW0234 D6 is in place with some of the S and M chipped off.

 

The third post is likely at least ten feet from its hole and is out in plain sight.

 

I am quite sure that these post never will be, or would have been, used by a professional. Each has a newer mark close by.

 

Do I just leave the disturbed ones be for another GeoBenchmarker to search out. NGS recovery "DESTROYED" them and salvage the stone for the county (2) historical society, or GeoLog them?

 

Thanks for any and all input. Mike

Edited by kayakbird

Share this post


Link to post

Hi Mike,

 

It looks like most of the regulars here file NGS recovery reports, but I'm wondering what ratio of the Geo logged Benchmarks were just for pleasure. Can a case be made for leaving some marks that would be classified as "DESTROYED" just as they were found for their historical and recreational value?

I'm unclear on what you mean exactly by "leaving some marks" and may be misinterpreting it, but I think it's an important issue. If you meant letting them physically stay where they are, then yes, leave them right where they are. (Here is geocaching.com's rule on that.) This is true partly because it's difficult for any of us to say whether or not the NGS would classify them as destroyed, since we don't work in their office. Also, the NGS owns the database, not all the marks. Hundreds of thousands of marks in the NGS database are not actually NGS or CGS marks; they are marks of the USGS and other federal and local agencies. An NGS classification of a mark as destroyed does not in itself mean go ahead and take them, even if it's to a historical society or something.

 

I am quite sure that these post never will be, or would have been, used by a professional. Each has a newer mark close by.

Again, you can't be sure of what the NGS will say before you report to them. The nearby newer marks may be another type of control, the marks of other agencies, etc.

 

Do I just leave the disturbed ones be for another GeoBenchmarker to search out. NGS recovery "DESTROYED" them and salvage the stone for the county (2) historical society, or GeoLog them?

You must leave these old stones exactly where they are.

By the way, ten feet difference with a handheld GPS is not sufficient to say that it's in the wrong position.

We can't tell the NGS to classify a mark as destroyed; we can only suggest that to them based on evidence we provide. They make the decision, not us.

Whether or not you wish to log/report any of these marks to the NGS or this benchmark site is up to you.

Edited by Black Dog Trackers

Share this post


Link to post

Hi Mike,

 

I'm unclear on what you mean exactly by "leaving some marks" and may be misinterpreting it, but I think it's an important issue. If you meant letting them physically stay where they are, then yes, leave them right where they are. ---By the way, ten feet difference with a handheld GPS is not sufficient to say that it's in the wrong position.------Whether or not you wish to log/report any of these marks to the NGS or this benchmark site is up to you.]

 

Black Dog Trackers,

 

Thanks for the remarks. I'm tending to leave these two 1907 chiseled stones in place without a Geo Log or NGS Recovery. They are both exactly where I found them between old US 10 and the tracks along the Yellowstone River - just removed, and then replaced, enough dirt on the one to get photos. I may scab a couple of photos onto the undisturbed one.

 

I pretty much use the GPSr only to tell me about where to park. The "ten feet" is based on the calls for the one that is out in the open.

 

An aside: We are losing our telegraph poles out here. As the wire is salvaged, the poles are cut off or pulled out. Some evidence will remain for awhile.

 

Mike

Share this post


Link to post

I have been writing a 101 section on benchmarks for our local geocaching organization down here in Louisiana. I added a section on submitting official recovery reports to the NGS, from things I have learned here in the forums.

 

Would the experts here mind taking a look at it and let me know what I may need to add, change, or delete. Hopefully, any geocachers who read it, will learn enough not to make the same mistake as the one who this topic originally started about.

 

Thanks

 

http://www.nelageo.net/index.php?topic=248.msg6862#msg6862

Share this post


Link to post

I would dwell more heavily on the need for experience in benchmark recovery before reporting to NGS. Do not encourage people to do it. If they have an interest, help them learn, but do not recruit.

 

There is a lot to learn in terms of the criteria NGS uses for GOOD vs POOR, reading and writing the terminology used and expected in recovery reports, and when a search has been thorough enough to warrant a NF report. You can't possibly have a good feel for all this until you have seen quite a few of the typical and atypical situations.

 

A NF should give some indication as to the thoroughness. Did you find the reference ties to measure from? Did you probe? Did you use a metal detector? Does the ground appear regraded? Etc.

Share this post


Link to post

I would dwell more heavily on the need for experience in benchmark recovery before reporting to NGS. Do not encourage people to do it. If they have an interest, help them learn, but do not recruit.

I would agree with Bill on that.

 

In fact, you might want to move this topic to the 201 section of the tutorial rather than the 101.

Share this post


Link to post

I would dwell more heavily on the need for experience in benchmark recovery before reporting to NGS. Do not encourage people to do it. If they have an interest, help them learn, but do not recruit.

I would agree with Bill on that.

 

In fact, you might want to move this topic to the 201 section of the tutorial rather than the 101.

 

Good points to consider. I like Papa-Bear-NYCs suggestion of it being a 201 class. :D

 

Our whole point of the 101 tutorials, either for geocaching or benchmarking is to help everyone learn. The hardest thing in my mind is at what point does someone (as in amateurs like myself) have enough real world experience in benchmark hunting to start benchmark reporting to the NGS. Is there such a thing as (pardon the pun) a benchmark for benchmarkers? :)

Edited by LSUFan

Share this post


Link to post

So .. there are about three current topics I could post this update to, I'll just do it once here.

Score one for the datasheet preservers. :)

 

Just got an email back from the NGS and she said that FV1779 should be submitted as found and POOR as there is a possiblilty that the station still exists "(in part)". The pic is of the surface mark and one of the RMs. I walked the entire site and found no evidence that the underground mark or the other RM had been pulled. Wish I had a metal detector.

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

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...