Jump to content

27 Logs - Not One Actual Find?


frex3wv

Recommended Posts

frex3wv-

 

I suggest posting a note on that mark's page. Give distances and directions from both reference marks (which seem to be findable) to the leaded bolt. Generally people don't bring the box score information, but they might bring a copy of the GC.com data sheet and its logs.

 

I did that for this mark.

It looks like 2 people may have found it, but I see no photo proof yet.

Link to comment

BDT:

 

Since I don't often use the Data sheet - would this be right?

 

RM 1 is 21.5 Meters North of Station (bolt)

RM 2 is 10.2 Meters away from Station (bolt)

 

Because the location is adjusted - on a good day a gps should get to within a few feet of the bolt.

 

Is that enough to say - outside of a more descriptive post which i would do?!

Link to comment

So, what I would say is this:

 

The station MOUNT ELBERT (KL0637) is not a disk. Instead it is a copper bolt, 1/2 inch in diameter and leaded into a boulder.

Pictured so far are only its reference marks "No1" and "No2". They are not a find of the MOUNT ELBERT station.

To find the bolt from the disk marked "No1", go 70.8 feet Southwest (215 degrees True).

To find the bolt from the disk marked "No2", go 33.5 feet North (12 degrees True).

Link to comment

I can't imagine trying to recover a mark without the description! I highly recommend that everyone print-out the description and analyze it before even going to the area of the mark Often times there are multiple clues buried in the original description and the several recovery notes. By combining all these clues, one can often find a mark that you can't find with GPS alone or can't find with the original description only.

 

GeorgeL

NGS

Link to comment

So, what I would say is this:

 

The station MOUNT ELBERT (KL0637) is not a disk. Instead it is a copper bolt, 1/2 inch in diameter and leaded into a boulder.

Pictured so far are only its reference marks "No1" and "No2". They are not a find of the MOUNT ELBERT station.

To find the bolt from the disk marked "No1", go 70.8 feet Southwest (215 degrees True).

To find the bolt from the disk marked "No2", go 33.5 feet North (12 degrees True).

Or just post this and tell them to follow the diagram -

 

KL0637%20diagram%20annotyated.JPG

Link to comment

Thanks all - I have posted a "note" on the page.

 

Papa - I agree that diagram would be great to put up there as well - just not sure how to though - so if you could do that step for me that would be awesome!

 

Now I just need to figure out a real good reason to get to Colorado to look for it myself - a Denver Bronco home game maybe! (Go Broncos!)

Link to comment

Thanks all - I have posted a "note" on the page.

 

Papa - I agree that diagram would be great to put up there as well - just not sure how to though - so if you could do that step for me that would be awesome!

 

Now I just need to figure out a real good reason to get to Colorado to look for it myself - a Denver Bronco home game maybe! (Go Broncos!)

Easy

 

1) download the diagram to your machine. Feel free to reuse it. Put it at some convenient folder on your machine. Something like "My Pictures/Benchmarks/KL0637 diagram.jpg"

2) go to the GC page and for KL0637

3) click on "visit log" for your log

4) click on "[upload image]" which is on the upper right of the screen

5) fill in the first box with the place on your system where you put it

6) give it a caption and a note and you're done

 

You can then also edit your log and tell people the diagram is there and what it means.

 

Warning: it's would not be too too surprising if the next 27 folks logging the station ignored your note and logged reference Mark 1 or 2. I know most ignore similar notes I have placed. Whatever! :ph34r: The problem is many (most?) folks read the other logs (if at all) after they have been to the spot. Mighty few will go back up 14440 feet to find something someone told them they ought to have found the first time!

Edited by Papa-Bear-NYC
Link to comment

Or just post this and tell them to follow the diagram -

KL0637%20diagram%20annotyated.JPG

Papa-Bear-NYC,

 

Could you tell me how you created that map? I often create similar maps of the station and RMs but I have yet to find a quick and easy way to do it.

Google Earth allows me to draw one line with distance and directions but I have not been able to figure out how to draw multiple lines (other than using the Path function which it typically too restrictive).

 

Thanks,

 

--The TillaMurphs

Link to comment
...

Papa-Bear-NYC,

 

Could you tell me how you created that map? I often create similar maps of the station and RMs but I have yet to find a quick and easy way to do it.

Google Earth allows me to draw one line with distance and directions but I have not been able to figure out how to draw multiple lines (other than using the Path function which it typically too restrictive).

 

Thanks,

 

--The TillaMurphs

There's three parts

 

1) I use the NGS>GPX utility developed by our own foxtrot xray to process data sheets into GPX format and I then load them into GSAK. I usually keep a county worth of stations in a GSAK database (there are many databases which can exist in GSAK - I have about 50). In this case I just took the single data sheet for that particular station. The preprocessing utility takes the box score and calculates the lat and long of the reference marks and makes them child waypoints. This part is routine and involves no special knowledge or techniques.

 

2) I then run a couple of GSAK macros which I wrote. The first builds a command line for a Google Map application I wrote, and the second starts up the application on the web. Both of these merely move data fields around and puts them into a URL and then sends that URL out to the web.

 

3) I wrote a Google map application for benchmarks. There are others out that do that, but mine specializes in displaying one station of choice, not every station in a state, county etc. As such it displays the RMs as an option and even has a "blank" map type which can be zoomed in very close which is what I used here. Note the scale in the lower left of the map image is 20 ft to about an inch, and note the map type in the lower right is "blank map". If one tried to plot them on any real map type (satellite view, USGS topgraphic, etc.) You couldn't get down close enough.

 

This is the same map application I use for triangulations (see my recent Eastern Oblique Arc thread) and can also display track logs for when I bushwhack to a station. This map application is the one part that required a lot of programmatic effort on my part. If you bring up the interactive map which I gave the link for in the first note of that thread: This Link, you should get a Google Map showing a triangulation scheme for down-east Maine. Click on a station such as Trescott Rock and an info-window pops up. Click on "Map" in that window and you'll get one of my single marker maps. By default (for Trescott Rock) it shows the two RMs (the ones in the box score). Switch the map type to "blank" by using the selector in the upper right, then zoom in as far as you like and you'll get a diagram such as the one I displayed in this thread. If you click on the line from the station to either RM, it will give the distance.

 

Once the work of getting the map application to work was done, there's practically no work to produce the diagrams for any station. I usually run of a bunch of these when I go on a trip and it helps enormously, as you might imagine.

 

If you're interested in the map program, email me off line. Due to it's highly evolving nature (evolving as we speak - I got the track logs working yesterday) I'm not (yet) able to release it to the public - nor am I sure there's much public interest, given the plethora of map software out there from Google and others. Besides, the usefulness of the maps depends on getting GSAK up and running and getting the stations of interest into GSAK. It's easy once you're up and running, but there is obviously a learning curve. To make that one diagram it took me a few minutes. To start from zero, would be quite a bit of work, mostly learning how to use GSAK, and learning to use my maps. For what I do, it was well worth the effort, and besides I'm a computer guy and I enjoy working with this software.

Edited by Papa-Bear-NYC
Link to comment

Our relatively slow pace of searching and recovering has so far meant that we haven't felt the need of programs like GSAK, but we do find it useful to have fairly accurate drawings when there's a main mark with some reference objects. We use an elementary survey platting program called Plat Pronto. A short steep learning curve, but useful results. We don't know of any way to overlay the drawings, though.

 

We also fairly habitually run the old NGS program FORWARD.EXE between the main mark and each of the reference objects, to get separate sets of coordinates. These are very rarely useful on the ground, being too close together, but plugged in to Google Earth they can give a helpful picture of the layout.

 

Cheers,

Link to comment

I'm planning a trip this fall to recover a couple of marks that confuse many people as well. This one is even more confusing to amateurs: ARVON.

 

Only 15 logs so far, but not one is correct, and in one respect it's even a worse error. It's not even a reference mark being logged--these cachers aren't even on the right hill! The people logging this one have not done any homework at all--not only do they not have the description, but obviously they do not have the coordinates either! One mistaken logger has also posted a found log on the ARVON LOOKOUT TOWER, which is on the same hill as ARVON--four miles west of where he took his photos! I'm guessing the lookout tower has been torn down, like 95% of all of them, but either way, he didn't even find the correct site.

 

A bit of history...when ARVON was monumented in 1956, it was just another triangulation station, named because it is located in Arvon Township, underneath the Arvon lookout tower. At the time, Mount Curwood, about 4 miles south, was listed as the state's high point. In 1982, a survey with modern equipment found that Mount Arvon, about 4 miles to the east, was actually about a foot higher. At that time, the USGS placed a marker there, MT ARVON 1982.

 

So now we have the state's high point, Mount Arvon, with a USGS mark, but nothing in the NGS database. Then ARVON, RL1514, 4 miles to the west, in the database, but with an elevation of 1867, 112 feet lower than Mount Arvon, at 1979. To add a bit more trivia to the puzzle, while Mount Arvon is the highest point in Michigan, ARVON (which again is not on Mount Arvon) is not even the highest NGS benchmark. HIGAN, with an elevation of 1949 gets that honor. It is located about a mile southeast of Mount Arvon (the high point, not the NGS benchmark!)

 

I am hoping to visit all three sites this fall, at which point I will post a detailed log with photos on the ARVON page for other casual benchmarkers to ignore when they log their visit to a mountain four miles away. Here is an illustration of the layout...ARVON and HIGAN are the benchmarks labeled in red, while Mt. Arvon is labeled on the map. The Arvon Lookout Tower is at the same location as the ARVON benchmark.

 

arvon.jpg

 

Interestingly, there are six (yes, six!) waymarks for Mount Arvon, in six different categories: Mountain Summits, Summit Registers, US Benchmarks, Elevation Signs, Geographic High Points, and a tree on the summit in Native American Trail Trees. All created by the same person, none with any visits.

Link to comment

1) I use the NGS>GPX utility developed by our own foxtrot xray to process data sheets into GPX format and I then load them into GSAK. I usually keep a county worth of stations in a GSAK database (there are many databases which can exist in GSAK - I have about 50). In this case I just took the single data sheet for that particular station. The preprocessing utility takes the box score and calculates the lat and long of the reference marks and makes them child waypoints. This part is routine and involves no special knowledge or techniques.

r.. I'm surprised someone actually still uses my program. :unsure: Guess I should get along with the next version then, eh?

 

I am interested in the maps thing, I'll drop you a PM.

 

Cheers,

Mike.

Link to comment

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...
×
×
  • Create New...