OC0470 Missing

[MR. JOMG]

Data sheet has this at:

 

AT A BRIDGE OVER CAPE NEDDICK RIVER AND IN THE TOP

OC0470''OF THE NORTHEAST WING OF THE CONCRETE ABUTMENT

 

The bridge was lost in a flood a couple of years ago and has been replaced by the state. The maker is gone. Who should be notified?

[2oldfarts (the rockhounders)]

Data sheet has this at:

 

AT A BRIDGE OVER CAPE NEDDICK RIVER AND IN THE TOP

OC0470''OF THE NORTHEAST WING OF THE CONCRETE ABUTMENT

 

The bridge was lost in a flood a couple of years ago and has been replaced by the state. The maker is gone. Who should be notified?

 

1st, did you go to the bridge and actually verify that the mark is gone? The state nay have used the old abutments when putting in the replacement bridge (not unheard of!) and the mark would still exist.

 

To have the NGS declare it destroyed you will need convincing proof that the mark is gone. This would include photos showing before and after the flood, the new bridge with any markings showing when the bridge completed, and pictures showing where the benchmark should be located.

 

Others who have had the NGS declare marks destroyed will have to tell you the proper procedure and whom to contact.

 

John

[+m&h]

MR. JOMG--

 

John's advice is excellent. We would add that if you haven't, you should read the FAQ on the main page of the Benchmarking site, especially the sections concerned with logging marks and with common errors in logging marks.

 

A mark is destroyed only if you can prove that it is no longer at the position where it was set. So if a sidewalk has been poured over the spot where the marker was, the marker is in a sense "gone," because it can't be seen or used in any way by surveyors. But it isn't destroyed if the concrete was simply poured over it. Most of the time it is very hard to prove whether the mark is or isn't under the concrete.

 

So, as John says, you need to be able to demonstrate with photographs that the present bridge's abutments are not the same ones that supported the earlier bridge. If the old abutments are there and have been used in such a way as to cover up the place where the mark was, then it might still (quite uselessly) be there. In such cases the correct recovery phrase is "not found," with explanation.

 

However, if you can find pictures of the old bridge, or detailed newspaper reports of the extent of its destruction, and can put together a report that proves the mark has been removed from the place where it was set, then you can send it by e-mail to Deb.Brown@noaa.gov. What you submit should amount to proof, rather than powerful suggestion or persuasive indication or highly suggestive findings.

 

Cheers,

[andylphoto]

The state nay have used the old abutments when putting in the replacement bridge (not unheard of!) and the mark would still exist.

 

I recovered one last winter where this appears to be the case. I did not log with the NGS yet. I had planned to visit a second time during better weather to investigate further. My first visit was in the middle of winter, during a snowstorm.

 

I found the mark in the described location, in an abutment that certainly appeared to date from 1948, but the bridge on top of it was much newer, and was listed by the state as reconstructed in 2007. My geocaching log is here. RL0735. I don't have a picture demonstrating the difference in concrete, but noted the interesting construction in my log.

[Z15]

Very common for new decks to in built over existing sub-structure (abutments and piers). I can think of many like that in da UP.