+_dxd_ Posted August 24, 2009 Share Posted August 24, 2009 Finally getting around to submitting a few reports to NGS, and wasn't too sure on this one. I'm guessing Poor ? I suppose it's doubtful that anyone would ever use it for anything anyway, but is an oddity for a benchmarker to find CZ0592 Quote Link to comment
+_dxd_ Posted August 24, 2009 Author Share Posted August 24, 2009 And this one, NGS called it Poor back in 1962... probably because it leans a little ? CZ0649 Quote Link to comment
Z15 Posted August 24, 2009 Share Posted August 24, 2009 (edited) I am not so certain you have the mark itself, I think you just have the location poster. The tag looks to be higher on the tree than the actual mark from my reading of the description. Although the description is vague on what the mark really is, it says mark is in sawed off limb 1 ft above ground. Must be a nail and it might be hard to find if tree has grown over it unless you have a metal detector. Those tags are typical USGS witness signs and not marks, I have seen them before. Of course I am not there, just have your photos and the vague description to go by but I would be hesitant to assume that's the mark. Edited August 24, 2009 by Z15 Quote Link to comment
Z15 Posted August 24, 2009 Share Posted August 24, 2009 (edited) And this one, NGS called it Poor back in 1962... probably because it leans a little ? CZ0649 It could very well have been a lot worse back then and in the interim someone fixed it. I have seen that before. I found on concrete post once uprooted from the ground. Came back a month later to remove the disk and someone had dug a hole and stuck it back in the ground. It had to be the house owner nearby as it appeared it was knocked out by snow plowing. I have also seen where a post was leaning and someone straightened it up. I also found where they moved the mark. I recall once we were searching near this oil fire tower sit for a Triangulation Station. The surface mark was gone and we were trying to locate the ug mark when a framer approached us. He was only using the land for hay and said the mark was not destroyed, he knew right where it was and took us to it. It was sticking in the ground along a field break line and propped up by field stones. When the PS said it was of no use, he could not understand that and though he was doing a good think by placing it like this, some 500 ft from the original position. He had saved it, it was not destroyed in his opinion. Btw-We did find the ug mark. Edited August 24, 2009 by Z15 Quote Link to comment
+jwahl Posted August 24, 2009 Share Posted August 24, 2009 On the second example, the mark is the GLO iron post and cap section corner. It looks to be in pretty good condition and probably suitable for vertical benchmark. From what I can see in the picture it looks vertical and does not appear to have been disturbed. Those posts are about 36 ins. long and are flanged at the bottom as well as filled with concrete. Quote Link to comment
AZcachemeister Posted August 25, 2009 Share Posted August 25, 2009 I am not so certain you have the mark itself, I think you just have the location poster. The tag looks to be higher on the tree than the actual mark from my reading of the description. Although the description is vague on what the mark really is, it says mark is in sawed off limb 1 ft above ground. Must be a nail and it might be hard to find if tree has grown over it unless you have a metal detector. Those tags are typical USGS witness signs and not marks, I have seen them before. Of course I am not there, just have your photos and the vague description to go by but I would be hesitant to assume that's the mark. "A METAL TAG STAMPED REF. MARK 2005.1 IS FASTENED TO THE TREE" Good I guess, since that's the way it was 'monumented'. Quote Link to comment
AZcachemeister Posted August 25, 2009 Share Posted August 25, 2009 And this one, NGS called it Poor back in 1962... probably because it leans a little ? CZ0649 It looks 'GOOD' to me. Most of these GLO pipes are on a bit of an angle. Since there is no mention of WHY they thought it was 'poor', I would state that (if indeed it was the case) the mark seems solid and un-disturbed. Quote Link to comment
andylphoto Posted August 25, 2009 Share Posted August 25, 2009 "A METAL TAG STAMPED REF. MARK 2005.1 IS FASTENED TO THE TREE" Good I guess, since that's the way it was 'monumented'. I'm not sure on this one. My first thought was that the metal tag was the mark, which I thought was odd. After reading Mike's (Z-15) post above, I re-read the description. It does not say that the tag is the mark. I would tend to concur that the actual mark was a nail or spike or something in the limb, and that the tag was placed to help identify the correct tree, like a witness post. However, the data sheet is pretty vague on this one. Quote Link to comment
southpawaz Posted August 25, 2009 Share Posted August 25, 2009 I've been along that stretch of road and while looking for a different mark I found a different one of these (not in the database) that was set more as described in this one's description, flush on the end of a sawed off branch. I was surprised that it is in such good condition for having been there more than 50 years: I think you're right that this is really only a curiosity, especially with a good mark set in a monument just 50 feet away across the road. I probably wouldn't submit a report to the NGS given the questions raised about whether the tag is the mark. My guess is that when the C&GS did their second level run along here in 1951 they checked in to these USGS marks where they found them. Quote Link to comment
Bill93 Posted August 25, 2009 Share Posted August 25, 2009 (edited) I agree that you are looking for a spike or something that you could set a level rod on to get a definite elevation point. The tag is just a RM. The wording could be clearer, but I'm pretty sure that's what they are saying. Edited August 25, 2009 by Bill93 Quote Link to comment
andylphoto Posted August 25, 2009 Share Posted August 25, 2009 Speaking of witness posts on trees... Found earlier this month at KENTUCKY, RK0642. Quote Link to comment
Recommended Posts
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.