Logging Intersection Stations to NGS?

[Bill93]

I thought we were told to not log intersection stations to NGS unless we had proof of destruction. However, I see one of the most prolific GEOCAC hunters crossing paths with me and logging GOOD on things like courthouse towers, etc. Has the moratorium been lifted, or is he ignoring it?

NK0740 water tank

MH0554 courthouse tower

 

The courthouse was previously logged GOOD 3.3 years before. I thought the guideline on all marks was 5 to 10 years unless there is an update in condition, description, or to-reach. It seems the pressure to score is affecting judgment.

 

I'll confess to logging a couple HARN stations (shooting fish in a barrel) only 6-8 years after a prior report, just to be sure I could color a county. I thought that was pushing the envelope a little, but still not being too much of a nuisance to NGS. I also work on difficult ones.

 

Opinions?

Edited October 20, 2009 by Bill93

[+Black Dog Trackers]

We were indeed told that.

 

Likely, many GEOCAC hunters don't read all the forum posts, if any. There's no official moratorium unless there's something in writing either in the geocaching site or the NGS site and I can't find any on either. I think the NGS has the right to ignore any such submissions if they want to, and to put them through if they want to do that instead.

 

I have often heard of the guideline of 5 or 10 years, but the only actual NGS guideline I've seen is: "If the data sheet for this mark shows a recovery within the past 12 months and the status has not changed, please do not report it."

[+LSUFan]

I thought we were told to not log intersection stations to NGS unless we had proof of destruction.

 

We were indeed told that.

 

So the NGS does want reports of intersection stations that are destroyed/removed? The reason I ask, is we are still organizing the info to submit for triangulation station Marx CQ2750 that we recovered last week. There was a radio mast on site there at one time (CQ2761/Monroe RAD STA 684 MAST) that had power lines going to it, that according to a report in 1971, required the NGS to set out another reference mark to Marx. This 3rd reference mark, which is also in the NGS database as CQ2760/Mary reference mark 3, was damaged/bumped when they removed the antenna...according to the property owner. The base where the antenna was located, is still on site as well as the power box that went to the antenna, but we didn't take any pics of it at the time. Should I go back and get proof of it being gone, and submit a recovery report to the NGS?

 

Thanks

 

http://www.geocaching.com/mark/details.aspx?PID=CQ2750

 

http://www.geocaching.com/mark/details.aspx?PID=CQ2760

 

http://www.geocaching.com/mark/details.aspx?PID=CQ2761

Edited October 20, 2009 by LSUFan

[foxtrot_xray]

As far as I know, LSUF, e-mail reports to Deb - not submitted on the form online.

 

And, like everything there is exceptions. Example for me is CK3749. I asked Deb about it since the previous people - who shall remain unnamed - reported it as 'not found'. It was definitely there.

[+PFF]

If professionals no longer use them, it seems a little odd that NGS does not do one of the following:

 

(1) Delete intersection stations from the data base; or

 

(2) Program the computer so recovery reports of intersection stations are flagged. That way, Deb would know not to spend time reviewing them or uploading them.

 

Refresh my memory.....Was the directive to stop submitting them, or was it said that NGS preferred not to receive them?

 

Disclaimer: This discussion concerns only reports submitted to NGS. It does not apply to reports entered on the geocaching.com website. In other words, if you see it on geocaching.com, it can be logged on geocaching.com.

[+Black Dog Trackers]

I have searched, and cannot find the post in which we were told about not submitting recoveries for intersection stations.

 

If anyone can find it, please post the link to that post here.

[+LSUFan]

I have searched, and cannot find the post in which we were told about not submitting recoveries for intersection stations.

 

If anyone can find it, please post the link to that post here.

 

BDT, this may be the forum you are thinking about. Post #21 in particular.

 

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php...ection+stations

 

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php...t&p=2694685

Edited October 21, 2009 by LSUFan

[foxtrot_xray]

If professionals no longer use them, it seems a little odd that NGS does not do one of the following:

 

(1) Delete intersection stations from the data base; or

 

I can't speak on why, but I can offer a thought on why..

 

When I went to their office, there's very, very high security there. It's a gov't office, of course. And from a brief discussion with Dave, I have a strong feeling that a security clearance is needed to work on the database. That being the case, I have a feeling that getting things taken out would be EXTREMELY difficult (read: tedious, red-taped, mindblowingly painfully and an agonizingly amount trouble.)

 

Since OPUS is the new database that is starting to get used, I'm not surprised if the trouble to get int stations removed is more trouble than it's worth at the moment.

 

Just my $.02. (Which means my meter runs out at 5:56 instead of 6, darnit.)

[+Black Dog Trackers]

LSUFan -

 

Thanks for finding that! Now that I read it, it seems a bit less official than I remembered. So, it was a directive to the USPSQD that was noted here. So far, we at GEOCAC haven't been notified of this.

Perhaps NGS Surveyor or DebBrown will go ahead and give us the official word here if that's what they want us to follow.

 

 

PFF -

 

I imagine it's a possiblity that the reason the NGS is not deleting all the intersection stations is because some of their 'data' is still part of some location adjustment universes.

Edited October 21, 2009 by Black Dog Trackers

[+LSUFan]

LSUFan -

 

Thanks for finding that! Now that I read it, it seems a bit less official than I remembered. So, it was a directive to the USPSQD that was noted here. So far, we at GEOCAC haven't been notified of this.

Perhaps NGS Surveyor or DebBrown will go ahead and give us the official word here if that's what they want us to follow.

 

 

PFF -

 

I imagine it's a possiblity that the reason the NGS is not deleting all the intersection stations is because some of their 'data' is still part of some location adjustment universes.

 

BDT, post 21 (or the link below) was supposed to be an email from Deb Brown stating she didn't want intersection station reports, but would take them. I agree, an official word directed to us, would be better.....or at least make us feel special.

 

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php...t&p=2694685

Edited October 21, 2009 by LSUFan

[ForlornWanderer]

I logged an intersection station the other day. BE3228 (sorry havnt figured out the link thing) No recovery since 1964, originally listed as 1100 feet was reduced to 300 feet in 1988 (FCC/FAA ASR reissued to reflect new height). Would it be appropiate to recover as destroyed or poor due to signifigant deviation from the original data. The structure is still there just not at the height it was when the top light was used as an intersection. As far as I can tell there is only one mark that uses it that is viewable to it at its current height (BE4118 azimuth) . Trouble is that mark was monumented in 1988 but unknown if it was at the current height or old height splitting hairs by dates. When I surveyed this tower in 2005 it was where it says it was AZEL and HAMSL (50 year old towers dont move very far) just an 800 foot deviation in HAAT.

FW

[+PFF]

I believe the appropriate action is to not submit a recovery report, regardless of the condition. The intersection stations are not used, so there is nothing to be gained by reporting the height modification.

 

However, you could send your documentation to Deb Brown, with a suggestion that the mark be removed from the data base. (As you can see from reading the Forum, eventually intersection stations probably will be deleted, anyway.)

 

-Paul-

[ForlornWanderer]

Wasnt planing a recovery mostly just curiosity. From other posts and topics it seems they are trying to purge them from the DB for any reason even if its not destroyed beyond a reasonable doubt.

FW

 

I believe the appropriate action is to not submit a recovery report, regardless of the condition. The intersection stations are not used, so there is nothing to be gained by reporting the height modification.

-Paul-