Do surveyors/engineers/construction workers pay attention?

[+Harry Dolphin]

We've all seen the resets where the original was destroyed when the new bridge was built, but the original is stiill listed. The surveyors and the engineers and the construction workers were there when the old bridge was destroyed. And the benchmark with it. But nobody thought to mention it to the NGS? (Some confusion as to where the chiseled cross nearest me actually is, but I'd guess it was on the bridge that was just torn down...)

So, I'm watching the new sidewalk on River Road in Edgewater going in. I've recovered three benchmarks there that NJGS was unable to find. One looks to have taken a hit from the handicapped cut in the curb. One is still there, but in an area marked for replacement. The third might still be there, but under a wood wall. Shall have to go searching again...

Don't they know that they are thre? Or don't they care?

[AZcachemeister]

I doubt the engineers or workers care.

Their job is to remove the old bridge (highway, culvert, whatever) and build a new one.

You might think the surveyors would be a bit more aware, but they are doing a job that has already been outlined for them, and I'd bet there are very few construction plans that list 'check for nearby benchmarks that might be affected' as part of the overall project.

[+jwahl]

It used to be that there was a requirement to preserve marks, or notify if it was inevitable to be destroyed on DOT type plans for new work and notice to contractors. Knowing the marks were there was required. I would bet that is no longer done.

 

I see crews out now that probably have no idea there are marks there. I know a few marks near me are likely destroyed by new highway contstruction, fence construction, and the new thing is putting in fiber infrastructure underground. Too many people out there with backhoes and such.

[Z15]

When I worked for the DOT (retired early in 02) is was a continuing battle to preserve any survey mark. Seems to have been a sore point with many construction engineers as many could have cared less. My boss had a very contentious relationship with both the project engineers, the staking crews and inspectors who often just ignored the survey marks be them bench marks or section corners. They figure that we knew where they were so we could put them back at any time at our expense. Same with contractors, they could have cared less and some even made a point of destroying any mark they found.

 

I recall the last incident with a contractor. There was a newer (1996) NGS BM on the project. It was protected with 2 orange NGS posts, stakes, flagging. One day I was driving by and seen the ground all torn up around the mark (it was outside of the slope stake line) and so we stopped and was looking it over when the dozer operator working down the road about 500 ft moved up to where we were and got off his dozer. He asked was that an important point? I said, it sure was and he reply was "good" and he made a few other nasty remarks saying he hated us state workers and would drive over any mark he saw. This is the attitude of many of them and there is nothing you can do about it.

 

DATABASE = ,PROGRAM = datasheet, VERSION = 7.67

1 National Geodetic Survey, Retrieval Date = JULY 25, 2009

AC6144 ***********************************************************************

AC6144 DESIGNATION - U 347

AC6144 PID - AC6144

AC6144 STATE/COUNTY- MI/HOUGHTON

AC6144 USGS QUAD - PORTAGE ENTRY (1984)

AC6144

AC6144 *CURRENT SURVEY CONTROL

AC6144 ___________________________________________________________________

AC6144* NAD 83(1986)- 46 59 12. (N) 088 28 18. (W) SCALED

AC6144* NAVD 88 - 228.899 (meters) 750.98 (feet) ADJUSTED

AC6144 ___________________________________________________________________

AC6144 GEOID HEIGHT- -34.68 (meters) GEOID03

AC6144 DYNAMIC HT - 228.914 (meters) 751.03 (feet) COMP

AC6144 MODELED GRAV- 980,674.6 (mgal) NAVD 88

AC6144

AC6144 VERT ORDER - SECOND CLASS I

AC6144

AC6144.The horizontal coordinates were scaled from a topographic map and have

AC6144.an estimated accuracy of +/- 6 seconds.

AC6144

AC6144.The orthometric height was determined by differential leveling

AC6144.and adjusted in March 1997.

AC6144

AC6144.The geoid height was determined by GEOID03.

AC6144

AC6144.The dynamic height is computed by dividing the NAVD 88

AC6144.geopotential number by the normal gravity value computed on the

AC6144.Geodetic Reference System of 1980 (GRS 80) ellipsoid at 45

AC6144.degrees latitude (g = 980.6199 gals.).

AC6144

AC6144.The modeled gravity was interpolated from observed gravity values.

AC6144

AC6144; North East Units Estimated Accuracy

AC6144;SPC MI N - 245,940. 7,888,050. MT (+/- 180 meters Scaled)

AC6144

AC6144 SUPERSEDED SURVEY CONTROL

AC6144

AC6144.No superseded survey control is available for this station.

AC6144

AC6144_U.S. NATIONAL GRID SPATIAL ADDRESS: 16TCT880047(NAD 83)

AC6144_MARKER: I = METAL ROD

AC6144_SETTING: 15 = METAL ROD DRIVEN INTO GROUND. SEE TEXT FOR ADDITIONAL

AC6144+WITH SETTING: INFORMATION.

AC6144_STAMPING: U 347 1996

AC6144_MARK LOGO: NGS

AC6144_PROJECTION: FLUSH

AC6144_MAGNETIC: I = MARKER IS A STEEL ROD

AC6144_STABILITY: B = PROBABLY HOLD POSITION/ELEVATION WELL

AC6144_SATELLITE: THE SITE LOCATION WAS REPORTED AS SUITABLE FOR

AC6144+SATELLITE: SATELLITE OBSERVATIONS - 1996

AC6144_ROD/PIPE-DEPTH: 2.1 meters

AC6144

AC6144 HISTORY - Date Condition Report By

AC6144 HISTORY - 1996 MONUMENTED NGS

AC6144 HISTORY - 20020730 POOR MIDT

AC6144

AC6144 STATION DESCRIPTION

AC6144

AC6144'DESCRIBED BY NATIONAL GEODETIC SURVEY 1996 (GAS)

AC6144'6.5 KM (4.05 MI) SOUTHERLY ALONG U.S. HIGHWAY 41 FROM THE POST OFFICE

AC6144'IN CHASSELL, 30.4 M (99.7 FT) SOUTH OF THE CENTER OF A DRIVEWAY, 22.2

AC6144'M (72.8 FT) EAST OF THE HIGHWAY CENTERLINE, 17.3 M (56.8 FT) SOUTH OF

AC6144'A UTILITY POLE, 1.1 M (3.6 FT) SOUTH OF UNDERGROUND CABLE JUNCTION BOX

AC6144'NUMBER 31 39B3, 1.0 M (3.3 FT) BELOW THE LEVEL OF THE HIGHWAY, 0.4 M

AC6144'(1.3 FT) WEST OF A WITNESS POST, AND 0.4 M (1.3 FT) SOUTHWEST OF A

AC6144'FENCE CORNER. NOTE--ACCESS TO THE DATUM POINT IS THROUGH A 5-INCH

AC6144'LOGO CAP. THE SLEEVE DEPTH DOES NOT MEET THE SPECIFICATIONS FOR A

AC6144'CLASS A MARK. THE ROD WAS DRIVEN TO REFUSAL AND ANCHORED.

AC6144

AC6144 STATION RECOVERY (2002)

AC6144

AC6144'RECOVERY NOTE BY MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 2002 (MPR)

AC6144'THE MARK WAS DISTURBED BY UNDERGROUND CABLE RELOCATION WITHIN A FEW

AC6144'FEET OF MARK. IT DOES NOT APPEAR THE ROD HAS MOVED BUT THE BOX AND

AC6144'SURROUNDING EARTH IS PUSHED UP, ACCESS TO THE DATUM POINT COULD BE

AC6144'DIFFICULT BECAUSE BOX IS LEANING EAST. A DITCH WAS USED TO BURY THE

AC6144'CABLE.

 

*** retrieval complete.

Elapsed Time = 00:00:00

 

Edited July 25, 2009 by Z15

[+jwahl]

Those water horizontal drill things they use all the time now to put in fiber optic lines do considerable vertical displacement. They came down my street and messed up a lot of driveways and gutter. Even tapping off into a house was the same. Any BM would be unreliable after they came through.

[+GEO*Trailblazer 1]

I think it should be mandatory and in some places it is the County Surveyors responsibility.

But from what I have seen they do not maintain the NGS marks in this area.

 

I think heavier fines should be imposed for destruction of marks and followed through on.

 

I also feel this should be incorporated into the training of any new survey student.

 

I have always had this question ...

If a Surveyor does not tie to a higher standard mark(1st 2nd or 3rd Order) how can he claim that his lower than 3rd order survey is within 6 feet?

[2BeDadAtHome]

I have been a surveyor since 1977 and have seen survey equipment evolve from theodolites and 200' steel measuring tapes to today's RTK equipment that gives a consistent accuracy less than an inch of error. (of course there must still be checks built in to the survey) What the changes in equipment means to the surveyor in the field is that he is no longer bound to the local triangulation station if he wants to tie a survey into a geodetic system. Why? There are continuously operating reference stations that are gathering satellite data 24/7 and the data that these stations gather is available here http://www.ngs.noaa.gov/CORS/ and is ready for download almost instantly for a surveyor to tie his local control point to. Or a surveyor can upload collected satellite data from a control point observation to the NGS OPUS site and the NGS will return a coordinate usually in less than ten minutes which will result in solutions with an absolute accuracy of less than 1 centimeter for 8 hours of uploaded data. These stations are networked together and the coordinates are adjusted by the NGS on a regular basis to give an accuracy far greater than that of the old 1st 2nd or 3rd order standard. If you will look at the data sheets on one of the CORS stations you will see that the error is given in an absolute value. In the old accuracy standard, the further away a point was from the origin of the survey, the greater the absolute accuracy would be. First order control, if my memory serves me correctly, was an error of 1:100,000 (a mark that was 19 miles away from the origin could have a calculated position up to a foot off and still be 1st order) which is great control but by today's standard it is substandard for tying into a geodetic system. With these options available and the price that is charged for a survey crew, searching for tri stations to base a survey from has become almost obsolete. With that said I will add that my son and I are avid bench markers. I enjoy finding the old monuments and am amazed by the amount of work those surveyors put into setting them and networking them together. In the area that we live in they are always set on places with incredible views in remote locations where they will never be lost except to wind or rain! I hope this helps!

Edited July 27, 2009 by 2BeDadAtHome

[+jwahl]

Not to get into a surveying debate on the benchmarkers forum, but...

 

It is true that today with GPS the surveyor can get accurate horizontal coordinates almost anywhere using CORS for L1 or OPUS for L1/L2 equipment. However there are still parts of the country that do not have a dense population of CORS stations. That means that long occupations are the rule (at least 2 and maybe 44 or more hours may be needed to bring in control).

 

On the other hand for vertical control it is my opinion that the accuracy of GPS is not only less, but to get orthometric heights requires good geoid modeling, and if the CORS stations are 10-50 miles away and there are not too many high order stations in the area. that can be questionable.

 

So the existent nearby 1st of 2nd order monumented vertical station(s) are still the standard which should be at least checked into if not used as the primary control.

 

Thus today in the age of wonderful GPS, the traditional published vertical benchmark is probably as important as ever.

 

Now that is not so for third order stuff which may not even have elevation in the current vertical datum.

 

Also, there is often a need to know the historical datum that was used for the local infrastructure. It doesn't do any good to precisely know the ellipsoid elevation or even the orthometric elevation in the lastest datum if the sewer system was designed and built based upon a city datum who you can best recover from those old benchmarks.

 

Everything is relative some times.

 

jlw

Edited July 27, 2009 by jwahl

[2BeDadAtHome]

My opinion is not important enough to me to get in a debate...I am just calling it how I see it.

[+pgrig]

Oh boy, a surveyor debate, otherwise known as a theodofight....

[+TheBeanTeam]

Oh boy, a surveyor debate, otherwise known as a theodofight....

 

Yep, You can see them "marking their territory" now.

 

[+Renegade Knight]

... The surveyors and the engineers and the construction workers were there when the old bridge was destroyed. ...Or don't they care?

 

Personally the only marks I care about are the ones that I need to do my project. Ongoing association with surveyors, who do care about all marks, has led me to respect the larger pool of marks. State law (in my state) demands that I show any known marks within my project on my plans. Since I'm not a surveyor and only need some marks, it puts me in in a position to hire a surveyor to find marks, recover them and note them on plans. Then the contracter who has dire warnings all over my plans "here is a mark, retain and protect it or you will pay to replace it yourself at your own cost" has better information for their use in their ongoing quest to destroy all marks. Or so it seems.

 

My surveyor is very passionate about protecting marks.

Edited July 27, 2009 by Renegade Knight

[kayakbird]

Is this a good time/place to ask why most official NOT FOUND recoveries do not list a reason? Like maybe there was three foot of snow at West Yellowstone, Montana in 1983 ( PY0266 HISTORY - 1983 MARK NOT FOUND NGS); which I found in plain sight yesterday.

 

Also, why do many poster not list NOT FOUNDS? Mike

[+Harry Dolphin]

It would certainly be nice if people would list the reason for the NOT FOUND. But that can make one look, umm... Not too bright, at times(?)

One of my favorites is for KU1637:

2/21/1992 by NJGS (MARK NOT FOUND)

RECOVERY NOTE BY NEW JERSEY GEODETIC SURVEY 1992 (FAC) THE STATION WAS SEARCHED FOR AND NOT RECOVERED AFTER A QUARTER HOUR SEARCH BY A TWO MAN PARTY. THE BLACK ROCK OUTCROP HAS BEEN REMOVED. THE STATION IS CONSIDERED LOST.

My GC log was:

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???

I was kinder on the NGS report. :X

 

So, my quandary is what to do with this one? I can find photos of the building. But there is a parking lot at the described location. I've tried e-mailing the city of Williamson, but have not received any response. GY0090 Sure, I could log a DNF with NGS, but I'd feel dumb if they changed the street names, and the city hall is a few bloks away...

[andylphoto]

I would think it really depends on who is involved in the project. There was a run of four marks that were in jeopardy of being destroyed by a construction project a couple years ago. Resets were placed--I did a thread about them here, after spotting them. Only one of the marks was actually destroyed when the rock outcropping was blasted away. The remaining ones were spared as M-DOT placed guardrails rather than remove the outcroppings. I posted a NOT FOUND for the one that was destroyed. M-DOT followed up with a second NOT FOUND, confirming the information I submitted. They also referenced the nearby reset mark, but messed up the designation. hehe RK0458

 

There is a major construction project ongoing right now near where I grew up. Two marks have for sure been destroyed as the rock outcroppings along the highway where they were set have been blasted away for safety reasons. I know for sure they're gone--I'm familiar with the area, and have before & after pictures. Being disks, they won't get "official" destroyed status unless someone from M-DOT gives NGS the official "we destroyed this one" word. I have already posted destroyed logs on GC, and will be submitting NOT FOUND logs with the NGS on these two with a detailed explanation.

 

One of them had a reset mark placed last fall--I spotted that one long before construction began. I would suspect the other one did as well, but can't say for sure.

[Z15]

I reset one of those back in 2002ish just before I retired. The one by the Baraga/Marquette County line. We had to reset several other in Baraga County in similar rock outcrops and they were talking back in 2002 about the rock outcrops in Marquette County being next of the agenda as soon as they solved the problem of what to do with the mine shaft near Mt Shasta so the could relocate the bad curves at Michigamme.

 

There has been a turn over in Surveyors at the DOT, my PS retired when I did in 02, the guy who took his place left in 2007ish for the private sector and a new guy came from the LP (born in da UP) to take over. I believe the only have like 4 for the whole UP, 1 in charge and 3 to do all the work. They work out of the Region office in Escanaba. The local TSC's only have construction staking staff and no PS's.

Edited July 28, 2009 by Z15

[NGS Surveyor]

When a mark is not found, its helpful to state the number of person hours spent looking. That gives the next person some idea of how much effort was spent in trying to find the mark.

 

GeorgeL

NGS

[andylphoto]

I reset one of those back in 2002ish just before I retired. The one by the Baraga/Marquette County line. We had to reset several other in Baraga County in similar rock outcrops and they were talking back in 2002 about the rock outcrops in Marquette County being next of the agenda as soon as they solved the problem of what to do with the mine shaft near Mt Shasta so the could relocate the bad curves at Michigamme.

 

 

That's of course the project I'm talking about. RL1458 and RL1460 are now in rock piles somewhere. If RL0004 is still in place on the box culvert, it is directly underneath the westbound lane of the temporary highway reroute. The reset for G 328 (RL1460) is the one I found last fall, set a couple hundred yards away, along the railroad.

 

Any chance you have any information, either in print or from memory about the locations of the resets between Michigamme & Three Lakes? I stumbled across one--F 328--the reset for RL1462. I was in the area looking for RL1462, assuming it had been destroyed, and saw a witness post lying on the ground in the woods. I figured it had been just tossed over the top of the hill and was going to reposition it in my garage. When I got there, I found myself staring at the reset mark in the top of a boulder, so I stood the post back up and tried to anchor it a bit better.

 

I am guessing there are resets for RL1461 and RL1463 as well, but my brief searches have not come up with them, and none have made it into the database.

[VagabondsWV]

It would certainly be nice if people would list the reason for the NOT FOUND. But that can make one look, umm... Not too bright, at times(?)

One of my favorites is for KU1637:

2/21/1992 by NJGS (MARK NOT FOUND)

RECOVERY NOTE BY NEW JERSEY GEODETIC SURVEY 1992 (FAC) THE STATION WAS SEARCHED FOR AND NOT RECOVERED AFTER A QUARTER HOUR SEARCH BY A TWO MAN PARTY. THE BLACK ROCK OUTCROP HAS BEEN REMOVED. THE STATION IS CONSIDERED LOST.

My GC log was:

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???

I was kinder on the NGS report. :X

 

So, my quandary is what to do with this one? I can find photos of the building. But there is a parking lot at the described location. I've tried e-mailing the city of Williamson, but have not received any response. GY0090 Sure, I could log a DNF with NGS, but I'd feel dumb if they changed the street names, and the city hall is a few bloks away...

 

from this website www.williamsonwestvirginia.us/Personal%20Web%20Page.htm

 

I found this bit of info.......... "The first fire station was located in the building housing the Dollar General store on second Avenue today. The JCPenney Store has previously occupied the same location. The original City Hall was located on second Avenue and the fire station and City Hall were combined in 1915 at the corner on Third Avenue and Harvey Street. The present fire station was built in 1990. City Hall presently occupies the former N and W Passenger Station on East Fourth Avenue"

 

Seems the building holding the benchmark has been demolished and yep, City Hall is indeed a few blocks away

[Z15]

Any chance you have any information, either in print or from memory about the locations of the resets between Michigamme & Three Lakes? I stumbled across one--F 328--the reset for RL1462. I was in the area looking for RL1462, assuming it had been destroyed, and saw a witness post lying on the ground in the woods. I figured it had been just tossed over the top of the hill and was going to reposition it in my garage. When I got there, I found myself staring at the reset mark in the top of a boulder, so I stood the post back up and tried to anchor it a bit better.

 

I am guessing there are resets for RL1461 and RL1463 as well, but my brief searches have not come up with them, and none have made it into the database.

 

No I never kept any of the info but maybe I should have as it may be lost now with all the change over in people. All the leveling and paperwork was done and was sitting in a file for the new PS to forward on to the state advisor who also retired around the same time. I am sure he had other things to do and it never was sent on. As I recall we reset 3 in Baraga Co in 2002 and that one just into Marquette County since we were in the area. Two of the new marks are on the westbound side of 41 in rock in woods, 1 was set just in farther from the original and the other had to be moved a few hundred feet Easterly to find a good setting. One is on the river side up near end of guard rail (on long grade cresting to see 3 Lakes) in rock ledge with WP grouted in same. Was by there last Tuesday and I could see the WP plain as day (there a row of big Pines to the west), that's the only one we moved to the other side of the road because nothing was safe on the west bound side in that area.

Edited July 29, 2009 by Z15

[andylphoto]

Was by there last Tuesday and I could see the WP plain as day (there a row of big Pines to the west), that's the only one we moved to the other side of the road because nothing was safe on the west bound side in that area.

 

Thanks Mike. That gives me something to go on--I know right where you're talking about with this one. The one I found is the middle of the three, and the one just further into the woods from the original location. With this information, hopefully I'll be able to find all three.

 

I'll be up in Keweenaw Co. for a couple days next week at Fort Wilkins. Have plans to get HH2 coordinates for a couple in Copper Harbor, then look for a bunch in Eagle Harbor, then the line set in 96 down the road to Delaware--most you found back in 03-04. Also have a few DNFs in the stack, just for fun. If you're down in Marquette County benchmarking some time, maybe we can do a joint venture.

 

We now return this thread to its original discussion.

[Z15]

If you are thru Hubbell (m26), my shop is down by TWP park on Torch Lake. Just look for the AMSOIL signs.

 

I recall when NGS was leveling those in 1996. I seen them running the line from Hancock out along M203 to the USCG CORS station out by McClain State Park. I also ran into the Recon team(older guy and younger guy) in Chassell. I was coming out of the boat launch/ park one day and a guy was holding a tape in the middle of the road and another guy was digging a hole in the bushes where I new there was a 1934 BM buried. So I stopped and bs'd with them for a while.

 

They ran from Chassell to Portage Entry

from Hancock to McClain state park vicinity (CORS)

Delaware to Eagle Harbor

Delaware to Bete Grise (Medota Light House)

Edited July 30, 2009 by Z15