Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1
monkeykat

Should this be addressed?

Recommended Posts

I was using my benchmark viewer to plan a trip this weekend, when I noticed a lot more red (not found) marks in my area than I had remembered seeing previously. I know we all keep an eye on "our areas" and I found what I considered some surprising reports to NGS.

 

Here's a few examples.

 

Mark OF2103:

Log on Geocaching: Geocaching OF2103

Log with NGS: NGS OF2103 Log

 

Mark OF2120:

Log on Geocaching: Geocaching OF2120

Log with NGS: NGS OF2120 Log

 

Now I consider myself pretty conservative with my reports to NGS. I usually don't report not found unless I am absolutely POSITIVE the mark is gone. 99% of the time I assume I am at fault and the mark must still exist. So I was quite surprised at the length and language used in these reports:

 

" OF2103'RECOVERY NOTE BY GEOCACHING 2008 (SWK)

OF2103'PREVIOUS DESCRIPTIONS PLACE THIS MARK IN THE MIDDLE OF THE ROAD AND

OF2103'UNDER AN IRON COVER. THE GPSR POINTED DIRECTLY AT A COVER IN THE

OF2103'ROADWAY. I WAS UNWILLING ENTER TRAFFIC TO ATTEMPT RECOVERY OF THIS

OF2103'MARK. I WILL INSTEAD SUGGEST THAT THIS COVER APPEARS TO MATCH THE

OF2103'DESCRIPTION AND FURTHER EFFORT WILL BE NEEDED TO VERIFY THE EXISTENCE

OF2103'OR DESTRUCTION OF THIS MARK.

OF2103'HOUSING IN THIS AREA HAS BEEN REPLACED BY BUSINESSES AND SO ANY

OF2103'REFERENCES IN THE TO REACH INVOLVING HOUSES ARE NO LONGER USEFUL."

 

I mean yikes. Is that the type of report that should be made? In this case (not found), I would never have even made a report, as the recovery was not even attempted. Now this cacher (bvrballs) if you view his profile, has hundreds of Benchmark finds, and is still quite active. (bvrballs profile).

 

So, is this what we want in a GEOCAC recovery? I was thinking of sending a note with a link to one of the threads describing the difference in NGS and Geocaching recovery. Thoughts?

Share this post


Link to post

This would be the same benchmarker who sent e-mails to everyone who made an erroneous 'found it' log on KU3601? (Like the last response...)

 

Some people march to the beat of a different drummer.

Share this post


Link to post

Not Found is supposed to mean "I tried real hard, and I don't think it is there anymore, and by the way here's why I think it's gone."

 

It is not supposed to mean "Something kept me from looking where it probably was and might still be."

Share this post


Link to post

There are a bunch of benchmarks along a railroad in our area that were reported as not found by the NGS when they didn't even look for them. Their notes read:

 

1/1/1983 by NGS (MARK NOT FOUND)

RECOVERY NOTE BY NATIONAL GEODETIC SURVEY 1983 NOT RECOVERED, THE MARK IS INACCESSIBLE TO THE NEW LEVEL LINE AND WAS NOT SEARCHED FOR IN 1983.

 

I have one changed to found. It's JX0171

Share this post


Link to post

Here are 3 similar NOT FOUND reports from a CLJ in 2005 that really bug me. He had 52 "recoveries" in 2005 and only 1 since then. I hope all of his recoveries are not like these.

 

FG0836 HISTORY - 20050711 MARK NOT FOUND GEOCAC

 

FG0836'RECOVERY NOTE BY GEOCACHING 2005 (CLJ)

FG0836'VEGETATION AT THE STATION LOCATION WAS QUITE HIGH. WILL TRY AGAIN

FG0836'ANOTHER TIME.

 

--------------------------

FG0837 HISTORY - 20050711 MARK NOT FOUND GEOCAC

 

FG0837'RECOVERY NOTE BY GEOCACHING 2005 (CLJ)

FG0837'VEGETATION AT THE STATION LOCATION WAS QUITE HIGH. WILL TRY AGAIN

FG0837'ANOTHER TIME WITH METAL DETECTOR.

 

--------------------------

FG0826 HISTORY - 20050716 MARK NOT FOUND GEOCAC

 

FG0826'RECOVERY NOTE BY GEOCACHING 2005 (CLJ)

FG0826'STATION MARK IS LOCATED UNDERGROUND. LOOKS LIKE IT MAY BE INTACT. DO

FG0826'NOT KNOW WITHOUT A METAL DETECTOR. SEVERAL REFERENCE MARKS ARE IN THE

FG0826'AREA AND SEEM TO BE IN GOOD SHAPE. WILL TRY AGAIN SOME OTHER TIME.

Share this post


Link to post

This thread is a timely reminder that the recovery reports we submit to NGS should be brief and factual, and should not be submitted if nothing significant is being contributed. Hence, a Not Found is inappropriate for NGS if you did not look for the mark, whereas information about dense vegetation or traffic might be helpful to someone using GEOCACHING.COM to plan a benchmark outing for a family.

 

I have been following the interesting recoveries of bvrballs/SWK, who travels around the country as part of his activities with a running club. From his first benchmarking days in late 2005, Scott has shown himself to be a "bulldog" when it comes to doing research. He calls city officials about reset marks, talks to park directors about old water tanks, and communicates with USGS about disks which have been restamped.

 

In the field, he's a "never say die" kind of guy. He understands the characteristics of SCALED coordinates, and always gives the printed description priority over where the GPSr is pointing. He attempts to find all the reference marks at Triangulation Stations. When he occasionally does not have his tools along, he will look for a palm-sized rock with which to scrape dirt off a disk's suspected mounting spot atop a boulder.

 

I've never met Scott, but I suspect a team hunt with him would be an awesome experience. There are a couple of instances where I feel his wording at NGS could have been better--but such probably is true for each of us. I'm going to send him a brief note about these. But generally speaking, I'd rate him very high as a NGS submitter, based upon on his diligence in searching, and on the overall quality of his reports.

 

-Paul-

Share this post


Link to post

Now I consider myself pretty conservative with my reports to NGS. I usually don't report not found unless I am absolutely POSITIVE the mark is gone. 99% of the time I assume I am at fault and the mark must still exist. So I was quite surprised at the length and language used in these reports:

 

" OF2103'RECOVERY NOTE BY GEOCACHING 2008 (SWK)

OF2103'PREVIOUS DESCRIPTIONS PLACE THIS MARK IN THE MIDDLE OF THE ROAD AND

OF2103'UNDER AN IRON COVER. THE GPSR POINTED DIRECTLY AT A COVER IN THE

OF2103'ROADWAY. I WAS UNWILLING ENTER TRAFFIC TO ATTEMPT RECOVERY OF THIS

OF2103'MARK. I WILL INSTEAD SUGGEST THAT THIS COVER APPEARS TO MATCH THE

OF2103'DESCRIPTION AND FURTHER EFFORT WILL BE NEEDED TO VERIFY THE EXISTENCE

OF2103'OR DESTRUCTION OF THIS MARK.

OF2103'HOUSING IN THIS AREA HAS BEEN REPLACED BY BUSINESSES AND SO ANY

OF2103'REFERENCES IN THE TO REACH INVOLVING HOUSES ARE NO LONGER USEFUL."

 

I mean yikes. Is that the type of report that should be made? In this case (not found), I would never have even made a report, as the recovery was not even attempted.

 

So, is this what we want in a GEOCAC recovery? I was thinking of sending a note with a link to one of the threads describing the difference in NGS and Geocaching recovery. Thoughts?

 

Here are 3 similar NOT FOUND reports from a CLJ in 2005 that really bug me. He had 52 "recoveries" in 2005 and only 1 since then. I hope all of his recoveries are not like these.

 

What did I miss here? Reporting something that will effect the search for the benchmark is not wanted now? Information that will let a surveyor know that extra time will be required and what type of equipment will be helpful in trying to find said benchmark is Not helpful, especially when the surveyor is trying to determine the time and cost of a project?

 

A recovery was attempted and the mark was not found due to A) heavy traffic, :grin: tall, dense vegetation C) etc.

 

The benchmark was not found when the benchmark hunter was at the described location, so it is a Not Found. Isn't this what should be declared - Not Found? I was there and for whatever reason I did not find the marker, so to log it as anything else would be an error!

 

This thread sounds like it could very easily turn into a "witch hunt" just because someone doesn't like how another writes their logs. Perhaps we should have the NGS ban certain people (like the USPS :) or GEOCAC :rolleyes: ) from logging on their site.

 

Perhaps someone will start a thread describing what info is not useful and why along with info that is good and why.

 

Who encouraged these people to log with the NGS and why didn't they give them better info about how to do it? Or were they led to the water and couldn't be made to drink?

 

Time to take a deep breath.

 

John

Share this post


Link to post
John wrote:

 

Information that will let a surveyor know that extra time will be required and what type of equipment will be helpful in trying to find said benchmark is Not helpful, especially when the surveyor is trying to determine the time and cost of a project?

 

 

Good point, and similar to what I was thinking. Clearly some kind of traffic control measure would be needed in order to occupy a station in a highway lane. I can see how knowing this in advance would be helpful.

 

GEOCAC has three advantages over the PWRSQD, if we will take advantage of them. The first is "peer review", where we look at each others photos/logs and make suggestions. The second is direct interaction with NGS folks, who give us insight into what they want or don't want.

 

The third is the large number of professional surveyors who participate in the Forum and give us their "where the rubber meets the road" viewpoints.

 

This combination of factors produces a unique situation where we can have fun, at the same time that we're learning and making meaningful contributions.

 

-Paul-

Share this post


Link to post
A recovery was attempted and the mark was not found due to A) heavy traffic, :) tall, dense vegetation C) etc.

 

The benchmark was not found when the benchmark hunter was at the described location, so it is a Not Found. Isn't this what should be declared - Not Found? I was there and for whatever reason I did not find the marker, so to log it as anything else would be an error!

If I, as an amateur, cannot reach the specified location due to circumstances that would not be an obstacle to a professional surveyor--such as putting up cones and redirecting traffic, or getting permission to remove undergrowth--then I simply do not file a report with the NGS. I would post a "Not Found" log to Geocaching.com, but not to NGS. I believe that "Not Found" reports should be submitted to NGS only when a professional-level attempt to find the mark was made.

 

Patty

Share this post


Link to post
A recovery was attempted and the mark was not found due to A) heavy traffic, :) tall, dense vegetation C) etc.

 

The benchmark was not found when the benchmark hunter was at the described location, so it is a Not Found. Isn't this what should be declared - Not Found? I was there and for whatever reason I did not find the marker, so to log it as anything else would be an error!

If I, as an amateur, cannot reach the specified location due to circumstances that would not be an obstacle to a professional surveyor--such as putting up cones and redirecting traffic, or getting permission to remove undergrowth--then I simply do not file a report with the NGS. I would post a "Not Found" log to Geocaching.com, but not to NGS. I believe that "Not Found" reports should be submitted to NGS only when a professional-level attempt to find the mark was made.

 

Patty

 

The surveyor doing the planning for a specific job can use the info about dense vegetation to determine what to expect on site and to budget for the extra expense and time of getting permission to remove said vegetation and The time to actually remove such vegetation.

 

Does not the surveyor in charge of a project need to contact the DOT before closing off or disrupting traffic? Knowing this ahead of time can prevent headaches that could have been avoided and save time in the process.

 

This is the kind of information that can provide foresight and expedite the use of these markers. Knowing what to expect allows the surveyor to come prepared for the situation he will encounter.

 

John

Share this post


Link to post

John:

 

You rhetorically asked...."Reporting something that will effect the search for the benchmark is not wanted now?"

 

I think it's fine to report something significant and useful that may help someone else in the future. But there is NOTHING useful in the three NOT FOUNDS (NFs) that I cited above. The marks associated with these NFs are located in an extremely rural county (e.g. wilderness and near-wilderness) of which I am intimately familiar. In that county dense vegetation is the rule rather than the exception, and any surveyor working there would know that. He wouldn't need a half-hearted recovery report to tell him that he might encounter such vegetation.

 

In addition, the datasheet for FG0826 makes clear that in 1971 the surface mark was 8 inches below ground surface. So nothing was added by stating that "STATION MARK IS LOCATED UNDERGROUND." How it was determined that the mark "LOOKS LIKE IT MAY BE INTACT" but "DO NOT KNOW WITHOUT A METAL DETECTOR" is beyond me. It doesn't appear that any digging occurred...after all, 8 inches isn't all that deep. Finally, stating that "I WILL TRY ANOTHER TIME" adds nothing to the report and only reflects badly on the rest of us. It wouldn't be much of a stretch from these reports to something like...."I drove past the general area of this mark, but it was raining and cold and I forgot my shovel and metal detector so I didn't stop. The mark may still be there. I'll come back later when the weather is more accommodating, so for now I'm calling it NOT FOUND."

 

I don't see a need for anyone to "take a deep breath," and this certainly isn't a witch hunt or a mere case of not liking the style that another uses to write their logs. Submitting a recovery report to NGS is different than a report on Geocaching.com. Patty has it exactly right. I'm just surprised anyone would defend such reports.

 

Tim

Edited by tosborn

Share this post


Link to post

The marks associated with these NFs are located in an extremely rural county, of which I am intimately familiar, where dense vegetation is the rule rather than the exception. A surveyor working in that county would know that. He wouldn't need a half-hearted recovery report to tell him that he might encounter such vegetation.

 

We have seen surveyors working in our area and they were from Phoenix which is about 250 miles away. They are probably not as familiar with this area as you are with your area. Even the county seat is over 140 miles away and there are surveyors that come from there to this area and work. I'm sure they all know this terrain like the backs of their hands as well.

 

Be that as it may, I personally don't log with the NGS and have questioned, in the past, the propriety of the recommendation, given to others to log with the NGS.

 

The real question now becomes how do you do damage control? Will there be benchmark logging police who will need to approve the logs before they can be submitted to the NGS? Or will there be those that check every new NGS log and then recommend to Deb those they feel are not up to standards? How can you prevent that type of log from Happening?

 

John

Edited by 2oldfarts (the rockhounders)

Share this post


Link to post

Glad to get the discussion going about NGS logs. Paul, your information was very interesting to read. I respect your thoughts and opinions on bvrballs benchmark hunting and if there's anyone here who has the tact to broach this subject with him, I've no problem with you doing it.

 

Yes, the logs I read were not at all how I would write them. Its just, with no real regulation of how the logs get into the database it only takes a few poor reports from anybody to dirty the GEOCAC reputation, and make all our logs "unreliable".

 

I know a friend at work once asked me what was there to stop him from submitting false reports to the NGS. And all I could say, was nothing. There was nothing to stop him from going in and messing with the database.

Share this post


Link to post

I think all recovery reports submitted to NGS are scanned by a human to weed out graffiti and very obvious off-topic material. That's often hundreds per month so they can't get analyzed in depth. If they look mostly like honest and remotely possible useful reports, they seem to get through even if not thorough or particularly informative.

Share this post


Link to post
Does not the surveyor in charge of a project need to contact the DOT before closing off or disrupting traffic?

Yes, knowing beforehand that one needs to redirect traffic is useful. And that information is contained in the previous reports from the professional surveyors, who reported that the marks were east of the center line of the road, west of the edge of the pavement, and under a cover flush with the pavement. Ergo, in the road.

 

Patty

Share this post


Link to post
Does not the surveyor in charge of a project need to contact the DOT before closing off or disrupting traffic?

Yes, knowing beforehand that one needs to redirect traffic is useful. And that information is contained in the previous reports from the professional surveyors, who reported that the marks were east of the center line of the road, west of the edge of the pavement, and under a cover flush with the pavement. Ergo, in the road.

 

Patty

 

When deciding to go look for benchmarks I will pull up the datasheet and check to see if there had been a recovery since it was monumented, if so I then check the last log. I usually look for information concerning whether or not the mark had been found. Reading the last log first relates the latest information about the mark and can determine if I am interested in searching for that mark at that time. I would expect the surveyor considering the use of a mark to do something along those lines, that is check the last log first, before making a decision on its use for that project.

 

One thing that I have noticed is that on benchmarks that have a number of recoveries you find duplicate information from one recovery log to the next. This being done by professional surveyors themselves. So it appears that posting duplicate information in the logs is acceptable to those that use the database.

 

Perhaps someone would care to contact Deb at the NGS and get some clarification of the type of information to be put into a recovery log. Perhaps something explaining how much effort must go into the recovery before it will be accepted and whether duplicate information is or is not acceptable now.

 

Perhaps a thread in the NGS forum explaining what should be in recovery logs to the NGS and what should be avoided. Then there will still be the problem of getting the people to read it before they log with the NGS.

 

Just some insights from someone who does NOT log with the NGS (I only use their datasheets). :)

 

John

Share this post


Link to post

I can't recall if I've made NF reports with NGS, but if I did, I believe I would follow something like the following rules:

 

1. Log a NF if you have searched diligently and have good reason to believe that additional "reasonable" effort would not succeed in recovering a mark. If so, report why you believe the recovery would not be made.

 

1a. A sort of a corollary to this rule would be that a NF report could be very useful in providing new information which makes the mark less likely to be findable (e.g., buildings have been destroyed, property has been re-graded, a parking lot has been paved over the mark's previous location, a bridge has been replaced, etc.).

 

3. Do not file an NGS NF report if you believe that more hunting effort could reasonably result in finding the mark. In other words, if you consider the mark "open" (it goes into your "go back here again some other time and work on it some more" file), then don't file a NF with NGS.

 

Does this seem right?

 

By the way, I believe I have filed roughly a dozen "Destroyed" reports with Deb (out of maybe 120 reports filed) , and I don't think any of them has been rejected. Interestingly, some of these have included examples of marks which had likely been paved over or had evidently been built upon.]

 

-Paul

Share this post


Link to post

Not Found is supposed to mean "I tried real hard, and I don't think it is there anymore, and by the way here's why I think it's gone."

 

It is not supposed to mean "Something kept me from looking where it probably was and might still be."

 

This about covers it.

 

There are a bunch of benchmarks along a railroad in our area that were reported as not found by the NGS when they didn't even look for them. Their notes read:

 

1/1/1983 by NGS (MARK NOT FOUND)

RECOVERY NOTE BY NATIONAL GEODETIC SURVEY 1983 NOT RECOVERED, THE MARK IS INACCESSIBLE TO THE NEW LEVEL LINE AND WAS NOT SEARCHED FOR IN 1983.

 

I have one changed to found. It's JX0171

 

Seen this a few times, and recovered the marks, too! :)

 

I can't recall if I've made NF reports with NGS, but if I did, I believe I would follow something like the following rules:

 

1. Log a NF if you have searched diligently and have good reason to believe that additional "reasonable" effort would not succeed in recovering a mark. If so, report why you believe the recovery would not be made.

 

1a. A sort of a corollary to this rule would be that a NF report could be very useful in providing new information which makes the mark less likely to be findable (e.g., buildings have been destroyed, property has been re-graded, a parking lot has been paved over the mark's previous location, a bridge has been replaced, etc.).

 

3. Do not file an NGS NF report if you believe that more hunting effort could reasonably result in finding the mark. In other words, if you consider the mark "open" (it goes into your "go back here again some other time and work on it some more" file), then don't file a NF with NGS.

 

Does this seem right?

 

By the way, I believe I have filed roughly a dozen "Destroyed" reports with Deb (out of maybe 120 reports filed) , and I don't think any of them has been rejected. Interestingly, some of these have included examples of marks which had likely been paved over or had evidently been built upon.]

 

-Paul

 

I totally agree with 1 and 1a. There is noting I hate more than a 'Not Found' report that only says 'Mark Not Found', especially from the Power Rangers! :lol: WHY was it not found? (in many cases, it seems it was not found because they were looking out the other window as they drove past).

 

I completely disagree with point 2. You are absolutely out of line on that one! :P

 

I also tend to follow the spirit of point 3, but there are very few such marks that I didn't do a complete search that I needed to go back for. Sometimes there is a haunting feeling that I am missing something, so I don't report those. There have been a few cases where someone HAS found a mark I reported as not found, but not many.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

As for the report transcribed in the OP, I do agree that this sounds more like a DNF for a cache, than an NF for a benchmark, and should never have been posted. Now that it's there, I see little to be done, excepting that a little friendly coaching from PFF may prevent this in the future.

 

As bad as it is, at least he didn't claim the co-ordinates were off, and the mark needed to be moved. :D

Share this post


Link to post

As bad as it is, at least he didn't claim the co-ordinates were off, and the mark needed to be moved. :D

 

Yeah, I remember that one. :lol:

Share this post


Link to post

While many members of the Power Squadron supplied excellent recovery logs, there were far too many drive-by NFs. Disk on the penthouse of a 14 story building... Not Found. (Not even looked for.

Drove by.)

We all hope that Geocac would provide a bit more credibility.

Though my favorite group to laugh at is NJGS.

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.

 

It wasn't that hard to find! Five or six they didn't find about then that he had no problem finding. Oh, well.

Share this post


Link to post
at least he didn't claim the co-ordinates were off, and the mark needed to be moved. :D

I've seen a couple reports from Yosemite that complained about how the mark wasn't at the coordinates it was supposed to be at (they were scaled coordinates, of course), but at least the person who filed those reports didn't suggest that ther marks should be moved to their "correct" places!

 

Patty

Share this post


Link to post

1/1/1983 by USPS (MARK NOT FOUND) [Location: Apex, North Carolina]

 

 

RECOVERY NOTE BY US POSTAL SERVICE 1983 (RKG) NOT RECOVERED - HEAVY UNDERGROWTH SEVERELY LIMITED ACCESS TO FENCE LINE FROM U.S. 1. - OBSERVER IS FAMILIAR WITH REFERENCED HOLIDAY INN SIGN, HAVING SEEN IT THIS PAST WINTER. WILL ATTEMPT RECOVERY WHEN FOLIAGE GOES DORMANT THIS COMING WINTER.

 

 

Maybe we should add the US Postal Service to the list of questionable recovery submitters. :)

 

Which raises the question, why would the Postal Service be looking for a benchmark? Or was it really the US Power Squadron? The data sheet for EZ1064 at NGS (see below) differs from what is visible at geocaching.com/mark (above). Wonder if there was a revision sometime after the year 2000? Either way, I see no indication that "RKG" ever went back for another look.

 

-Paul-

 

 

NGS Data Base:

 

EZ1064 STATION RECOVERY (1983)

EZ1064

EZ1064'RECOVERY NOTE BY US POWER SQUADRON 1983 (RKG)

EZ1064'NOT RECOVERED - HEAVY UNDERGROWTH SEVERELY LIMITED ACCESS TO FENCE

EZ1064'LINE FROM U.S. 1. - OBSERVER IS FAMILIAR WITH REFERENCED HOLIDAY

EZ1064'INN SIGN, HAVING SEEN IT THIS PAST WINTER. WILL ATTEMPT RECOVERY

EZ1064'WHEN FOLIAGE GOES DORMANT THIS COMING WINTER.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post

Just my three cents..

 

While some information would be useful - like it bbeing in the middle of the road, I think the TONE of the report could have been more professional.

 

I'm out of money now, darnit.

Share this post


Link to post
Just my three cents..

I'm out of money now, darnit.---foxtrot_xray

 

That was fast. "Easy come, easy go." :) Since it's the end of the month, and knowing you're broke, perhaps NGS will get our expense account checks in the mail to us in the next few days.

 

Regarding the whimpy recovery report above, I just realized this could NOT have come from the US Postal Service. With an apology to Dave Letterman and his "Top Ten" list, here's why:

 

REASON NUMBER 3. The Postal Service would have sent in a First Class report.

 

REASON NUMBER 2. The Postal Service has its own navigation system which has nothing to do with benchmarks. *All numbering begins in the center of town. *There are 100 numbers per city block. *There are 12 blocks per mile. *Odd numbers are on the left as you progress outward from the starting point.

 

And the NUMBER ONE REASON this did not come from the U.S. Postal Service: (drum roll)

 

The organization is not hindered by rain, snow, sleet, or dark of night. It would not have allowed a cluster of Kudzu to prevent a search for the mark!

 

-Paul-

Edited by PFF

Share this post


Link to post

]That was fast. "Easy come, easy go." :D Since it's the end of the month, and knowing you're broke, perhaps NGS will get our expense account checks in the mail to us in the next few days.

 

Regarding the whimpy recovery report above, I just realized this could NOT have come from the US Postal Service. With an apology to Dave Letterman and his "Top Ten" list, here's why:

 

REASON NUMBER 3. The Postal Service would have sent in a First Class report.

 

REASON NUMBER 2. The Postal Service has its own navigation system which has nothing to do with benchmarks. *All numbering begins in the center of town. *There are 100 numbers per city block. *There are 12 blocks per mile. *Odd numbers are on the left as you progress outward from the starting point.

 

And the NUMBER ONE REASON this did not come from the U.S. Postal Service: (drum roll)

 

The organization is not hindered by rain, snow, sleet, or dark of night. It would not have allowed a cluster of Kudzu to prevent a search for the mark!

 

-Paul-

 

Funny stuff. But....

 

The Postal Service reporting has been brought up before. LSUFan mentioned a station here that was possibly reported by USPS in Louisiana. Many pointed out that it was probably the Power Squadron but Wintertime made an interesting statement that the USPS is an official reporting agency. So maybe it was the postal service. :)

 

Here is the thread where USPS is first mentioned.

Share this post


Link to post

Hi, Bean Team,

 

Thanks for finding that previous discussion.

 

I, too, have seen the US Postal Service in data sheets, and on the list of organizations. However, the fact that the data sheet was corrected at NGS, sometime between 2000 and 2009, is a strong indication that USPS and USPSQD initials were used interchangably in the past.

 

As indicated in the interesting thread you referenced, members of USPSQD might have mistakenly entered the USPS code. About all we can conclude, based upon the correction in the NGS data base, is that not all USPS recoveries are from the Postal Service.

 

So, why was EZ1064 singled out for revision? Perhaps because the mark is only 10 miles from the national headquarters of the US Power Squadrons.

 

Or, more likely, someone noticed that he/she was not receiving the correct number of community service points. This theory is supported by a same day recovery by USPS and USPSQD for EZ1062. (On the NGS data sheet, a correction has been made, and both 1/1/1983 reports are from the Power Squadron. RKG picked up double points for this one!)

 

Again, just a head's up that when you see the US Postal Service as the organization, be aware that the report actually might be from our boating friends, instead of your neighborhood mail-carrier.

-Paul-

Edited by PFF

Share this post


Link to post

 

Again, just a head's up that when you see the US Postal Service as the organization, be aware that the report actually might be from our boating friends, instead of your neighborhood mail-carrier.

-Paul-

 

You are most likely right. I wonder how many USPS mail carriers were also US Power Squadren Members. :)

 

Anyhow back to the regularly scheduled thread.

 

The report obviously was not done in a professional tone but in my opinion it probably should be just left alone.

Share this post


Link to post
And the NUMBER ONE REASON this did not come from the U.S. Postal Service: (drum roll)

 

The organization is not hindered by rain, snow, sleet, or dark of night. It would not have allowed a cluster of Kudzu to prevent a search for the mark!

 

:drama:

 

I dunno--I've heard fear in the voices of grown adults when they talk about kudzu and its growth habits! But I wonder whether the data sheet you quoted was even referring to kudzu; the filer talked about coming back when the undergrowth was dormant, but from what I've heard, kudzu grows 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 52 weeks a year. :-)

 

Patty

Share this post


Link to post
I dunno--I've heard fear in the voices of grown adults when they talk about kudzu and its growth habits! But I wonder whether the data sheet you quoted was even referring to kudzu; the filer talked about coming back when the undergrowth was dormant, but from what I've heard, kudzu grows 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 52 weeks a year. :-)

 

Patty

 

Nah - actually, Kudzu is one of the later plants in spring to get its leaves, and it dies off 'bout the middle of fall. As for other aspects - yes, it grows fast. And literally as much as a foot a day. Lived in Georgia for 20+ years, and when I started working at the railroad down there, we'd have that stuff all over our rails. We would roll over a section on the way out of town, and then, four hours later would roll over it again on the way in. There would be new shoots over the rails by then.

 

A lot of my coworkers thought the smell was displeasing. I never really noticed. <shrug>

Share this post


Link to post

How did that affect traction?

 

A number of years ago the railroad I work with went out on a section of track that had not been run on for a long time. The grass had grown up over the rails. On the way back (up grade) we lost traction on the crushed grass. Wouldn’t you know it but the sanders were out of sand. I became the sander, scooping up dirt on the side of the track and sprinkling it on the rails in front of the loco. Fun fun fun.

 

The state now allows us to get the good weed killer so we can keep the tracks clear.

Share this post


Link to post

Kudzu and Railroads

 

In Raleigh, NC, along a downtown railway, there is a growth of Kudzu which is said to resemble Jesus, with arms outstretched--like the well-known statue in South America. As you can see from the 2nd photo, it appears He is blessing the passing trains.

 

 

79b5f8c3-d637-40bb-af52-0c3efccb391a.jpg102ab634-2a84-4dd3-9beb-7edcaa8f5322.jpg

 

Photo credits: (1) McClatchy Newspapers; (2) Private individual.

 

-Paul-

Share this post


Link to post

How did that affect traction?

 

Oh, it was bad. That part of the track is called 'Kidzu Hill' lovingly.

 

We never run without sand - even in the top of summer, because of that. :)

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...