Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2
NGS Surveyor

Incorrect ID

Recommended Posts

Incorrect ID

 

I just reviewed the close-up photos of the many USC&GS and NGS survey marks submitted over the last few days. I found at least four which appeared to be incorrectly identified, that is, the data sheet and the information shown in the photo of the disk did not agree!

 

For beginners, here are a few simple rules to use to verify that the survey disk found is indeed the one being searched for:

1. Is the setting agency the same (on the disk and on the datasheet)?

2. Is the type of disk the same (triangulation station, reference mark, bench mark, etc.)?

3. Does the stamped station designation (name) agree?

4. Does the stamped year agree with the datasheet’s date set?

5. Is the disk set the way it is described (in concrete, in bedrock, etc.)?

6. Do the distances to the reference marks agree?

7. Do the distances to the referenced objects agree (edge of road, fence-line, etc.)?

8. Does the rest of the description agree?

 

All this leads to my second point. Many disk photos do not show all of the above information because the photo was taken with some portion of the disk obscured (by dirt, gravel, grass, twigs, snow, the GPSr, even the shadow of the GPSr!

 

I’m working on a “cook book” for recovering survey marks. I’ll post it for comment when complete.

 

GeorgeL

NGS

Share this post


Link to post

I appreciate what you're saying, George...but I'd like to think you are preaching to the choir here! :)

 

Getting that information into the hands (eyes and minds) of the geocaching masses is what is needed.

 

My recent 2000th Geocaching recovery had EIGHTEEN logs on it, but only two actually had photos of the station mark. Many of the 'recoveries' had no photo at all, and the others had photos of one or the other reference mark. If some (how can I put this) BOZO logs a reference mark, many of the followers don't know better, and follow suit.

BRASS DISK+ MOUNTAINTOP=BENCHMARK!

 

EDIT: left out a zero! :)

Edited by AZcachemeister

Share this post


Link to post

NGS Surveyor -

 

There are a couple of benchmark finding and logging 'cookbooks' that we currently use here (and a couple of sections following it), here, here (that one includes a link to the NGS guidelines), and here (a post specifically about NGS logging).

 

Hopefully you can add more information about this important topic and give corrections for anything in those references that's not right.

 

The present benchmark FAQ did seem to do a lot toward improving the quality of logs (and forum questions) after it went online, but as you can see, there are still problems that occur.

 

One issue is the common lack of a 'distant' photo. A frustrating version is the lack of that kind of benchmark view, and instead a 'view from the benchmark' photo is in the log.

 

Your interest of course is NGS logging, but accurate logging on this site can be thought of as part of the learning process for moving on to NGS logging.

Share this post


Link to post

Perhaps what we need is a simple, short, introduction for beginners that is "pinned" at the top of the page. This 1/2 page or so would give the basics and include links to additional details. Beginners may be scared away by the many pages of details presently available.

 

GeorgeL

NGS

Share this post


Link to post

Perhaps what we need is a simple, short, introduction for beginners that is "pinned" at the top of the page. This 1/2 page or so would give the basics and include links to additional details. Beginners may be scared away by the many pages of details presently available.

 

GeorgeL

NGS

I think there's a lot of stuff here that's already ignored.

 

Here's a few other ideas:

 

When you log a station as destroyed, you must click again that you are really sure. How about something along those lines:

 

Idea 1) When A person logs a "found", a dialog comes up that asks you to go down a check list such as George proposed in the initial post, and he/she must click "Yes I all those things match" before the system lets you complete the log.

 

Idea 2) For Geocaches, the owner (as I understand it) can delete logs that don't come up to snuff. How about something like that here where a bunch of volunteers (us) screen logs and pass them or fail them with comments back to the user. How many are logged per week? How big a task would this be?

 

Idea 3) Require a picture. When the picture is uploaded, add a question "does this match the description?"

 

Idea 4) Forget the whole thing, it's just human nature and won't change.

Share this post


Link to post

Perhaps what we need is a simple, short, introduction for beginners that is "pinned" at the top of the page. This 1/2 page or so would give the basics and include links to additional details. Beginners may be scared away by the many pages of details presently available.

 

GeorgeL

NGS

I think there's a lot of stuff here that's already ignored.

 

Here's a few other ideas:

 

Idea 1) When you log a station as destroyed, you must click again that you are really sure. How about something along those lines: when a person logs a "found", a dialog comes up that asks you to go down a check list such as George proposed in the initial post, and he/she must click "Yes I all those things match" before the system lets you complete the log.

 

Idea 2) For Geocaches, the owner (as I understand it) can delete logs that don't come up to snuff. How about something like that here where a bunch of volunteers (us) screen logs and pass them or fail them with comments back to the user. How many are logged per week? How big a task would this be?

 

Idea 3) Require a picture. When the picture is uploaded, add a question "does this match the description?"

 

Idea 4) Forget the whole thing, it's just human nature and won't change.

Edited by Papa-Bear-NYC

Share this post


Link to post
Idea 4) Forget the whole thing, it's just human nature and won't change.
Due to my previous encounters and discussions with folks at Groundspeak, I believe this is the route that will be taken, at least for the time being. :laughing:

Share this post


Link to post

Only four mismatches?!? Not bad. Lots of well noted errors by geocachers. After being burnt a few times, I've learnt to look closer at the photos provided. Nope. That's a reset. Nope. That's RM 4. Sorry to say that run-of-the-mill geocachers are not the best source of info. And I don't see any way to change that.

Best source is to check GEOCAC logs to NGS. Then check Geocaching. Hopefully, we do a lot better. Or some list of reputable geocachers/benchmarkers.

Share this post


Link to post

I think we're seeing the effects of Speed and Inexperience.

 

If you click the User Name, it takes you to the profile page. Clicking the GEOCACHES tab brings up the individual's activity count.

 

Generally speaking, scrolling to the bottom of the list (where Benchmarks hide) reveals that the sloppy entry came from someone with one, two, three, or perhaps ten finds. They log stations so seldom that even if you train them, they would forget.

 

The other thing I notice is that the stations where a lot of errors have been logged are generally in the vicinity of a geocach. And given the astounding number of cache's some folks report on a single day, it has to be a case of quickly glancing at the disk and then jumping into the car to rush to the next site. ("Arrow? I didn't see an arrow. I didn't even see the Indian.")

 

I appreciate the enthusiasm of the geocacher's and new benchmark hunters. And George's list is excellent advice. Now, how do we get these high-energy folks to slow down and read it? :laughing:

 

-Paul-

Share this post


Link to post

I think we're seeing the effects of Speed and Inexperience.

 

If you click the User Name, it takes you to the profile page. Clicking the GEOCACHES tab brings up the individual's activity count.

 

Generally speaking, scrolling to the bottom of the list (where Benchmarks hide) reveals that the sloppy entry came from someone with one, two, three, or perhaps ten finds. They log stations so seldom that even if you train them, they would forget.

 

The other thing I notice is that the stations where a lot of errors have been logged are generally in the vicinity of a geocach. And given the astounding number of cache's some folks report on a single day, it has to be a case of quickly glancing at the disk and then jumping into the car to rush to the next site. ("Arrow? I didn't see an arrow. I didn't even see the Indian.")

 

I appreciate the enthusiasm of the geocacher's and new benchmark hunters. And George's list is excellent advice. Now, how do we get these high-energy folks to slow down and read it? :laughing:

 

-Paul-

Share this post


Link to post
I just reviewed the close-up photos of the many USC&GS and NGS survey marks submitted over the last few days. I found at least four which appeared to be incorrectly identified, that is, the data sheet and the information shown in the photo of the disk did not agree!

George, which submissions are you talking about? Logs on Geocaching.com, or recovery reports filed with the NGS?

 

If the former, incorrect logs have been an ongoing frustration. You can find many threads on the subject here in the Benchmark Hunting forum. There probably isn't much we can do about it, and some people who have tried to politely explain about mistakes have gotten nasty emails in return. :laughing:

 

If the latter, then I'm also not sure what you can do about it. I would imagine that most of the incorrect reports are coming from amateur benchmark hunters, and there would be no organized way of reaching all of them to educate them. Perhaps you could lobby for adding a FAQ page to the NGS website with a note on the recovery page that says, "If you're new to recovery reports, please click here." That at least wouldn't put information for novices on a page that professionals use. But how many people would actually read it, I don't know. And you'd still have the people who *think* they're professionals but don't have the faintest idea how to interpret NGS datasheets, such as the person I've seen reports from who proudly talks about how long he integrated the readings but is confused when marks aren't at their specified (scaled) coordinates. :blink:

 

A FAQ linked from the recovery page would be worth a try, though, and I'm sure that several people here would be happy to help with it.

 

Patty

Share this post


Link to post

I don't have any solutions, but thought this board would be interested in the discussion on a thread on a professional forum where someone found an error in the tie distances and a mention of confusing a reset for the original. They didn't say who made the recovery reports.

 

I was surprised by how many professional surveyors, who undoubtedly are familiar with reading data sheets, are not familiar with submitting recoveries to NGS to update descriptions and make corrections in the ties. That indicates that responsible GEOCAC submissions are indeed a beneficial contribution. We must do anything we can to build and maintain a reputation for responsibility and accuracy.

 

I don't claim to be a professional, but snuck into their forum a while back and get away with posting there so long as I confine myself to things I'm pretty sure about. It can be a rowdy bunch at times and if you mess up they let you know it.

Share this post


Link to post
interested in the discussion on a thread on a professional forum

Interesting read. I was most surprised at the people surprised that there hadn't been updates since the 1960's on some marks. .. Kidding? Unless it was hit by another Benchmarker here, I see more marks NOT updated since then that are.. :laughing:

 

Me

Share this post


Link to post

NGS Surveyor, of the 8 points you listed we have found 3 that have not matched the datasheets.

 

4. Does the stamped year agree with the datasheet’s date set? - We have found marks set by another agency and monumented years later (stamped 1917 and monumented in the 1950's).

 

5. Is the disk set the way it is described (in concrete, in bedrock, etc.)? - set in round concrete monument and found in square concrete monuments or vice-versa & set flush with the ground and either buried when found or sticking way up out of the ground.

 

7. Do the distances to the referenced objects agree (edge of road, fence-line, etc.)? - Roads change, fences move, tree dies and new tree grows in the same general area, tree listed as 1 type (hickory for example) and it is a walnut, etc.

 

There are a large number of cachers who "find" an occasional benchmark, but never visit the benchmark forum or read the FAQs available, they just click on the "Nearest Benchmark" link and choose the 1 closest to where they were. If they never come to the forum you cannot teach them the correct way to log a benchmark. Most of those that make the glaring errors have no wish to learn about benchmarking, so they would not even take the time to read the "directions".

 

Good luck,

 

John

Share this post


Link to post

Idea 2) For Geocaches, the owner (as I understand it) can delete logs that don't come up to snuff. How about something like that here where a bunch of volunteers (us) screen logs and pass them or fail them with comments back to the user. How many are logged per week?

How big a task would this be?

 

Idea 3) Require a picture. ...

That is somewhat like the benchmark waymark categories work. Instead of just deleting logs, they are sent back to the submitter for fixing with an explanation. This happens to only about 1 in 25 submissions. Then there are psychological issues of wanting to avoid being some picayune jerk and yet be useful in the position of basic quality control. There is a lot of programming behind that whole system as one might imagine and campaigning a lot for it might end up with benchmarking being stuffed into Waymarking and that would be painful to many, for whatever reasons. So, it might be best to think of the other, more passive solutions for benchmarking.

 

How big a task would this be?

In benchmarking: "In the last 7 days, 950 benchmarks have been logged by 347 users." Yeow!!! :o

In u.s.benchmarks Waymarking in October so far (22 days) there have been 96 submissions, so that's about 30 per week; about 1/32 as much as in benchmarking. There are 6 of us doing the u.s.benchmarks reviews at the moment - whoever sees a stack waiting does them. So, for benchmarking review we might need 32*6=192 reviewers for the same (not too taxing, but always there) pace! We would never muster 192 reviewers, or anything close to that. There's another reason to not merge benchmarking and waymark benchmarks. :)

 

The idea of more accuracy prompts in the logging software is a good approach for a couple of major things and shouldn't be terribly hard to do. Even that can become routine to get past when you have several logs to do and want to click away that the logging software at a fast pace.

 

I don't agree with any idea of just laying down and doing nothing. Education is always useful. Surely those poor benchmarks close to geocaches get regularly logged incorrectly but those are only a tiny fraction of the 700,000.

 

The forums are not the only place to learn benchmark hunting. The FAQ exists too, in an obvious place.

 

I like the wiki idea MUCH better than a pinned topic but unfortunately none is hosted by Groundspeak at this time. With a wiki, everyone can participate in fixing up a nice educational system, and it can be brought up to date almost immediately if there are any required changes in procedure.

 

As for the NGS, I continue to be amazed at the lack of any but the most meager instructions for logging (they do have good 'to-reach' instructions) on the NGS website. The idea of opening up the logging process to John Q. Public must've been a brave one, especially coupled with a lack of detailed instructions for reference.

Share this post


Link to post

 

The idea of more accuracy prompts in the logging software is a good approach for a couple of major things and shouldn't be terribly hard to do. Even that can become routine to get past when you have several logs to do and want to click away that the logging software at a fast pace.

 

There are buttons that need to be pushed in order to get a cache published. Did you read the TOS? Did you read the guidelines for having your cache published? How many have actually read the TOS and the guidelines and how many just click the buttons to get the cache submitted? Having to click a button saying that you read the FAQ or whatever information directive that might be presented will cause just that, someone just clicking the button without actually reading the "required" information.

 

Will the required accuracy buttons just get clicked so the benchmark will get logged?

 

There are a good many people who find unwanted advice very distasteful and offensive and if we start using "logging police" to delete logs there could be a very harmful backlash from those that had their logs deleted. (If a cache log is deleted there is a possibility of the cache being plundered, what would be the target if it is a benchmark log that would be deleted?)

 

The only reasonable thing to do would be to post a note on the benchmark page following the faulty log and let it go at that. Perhaps GC would give a few people access to the logging database so they could add the 'corrective' note immediately after the faulty log.

 

John

Share this post


Link to post
interested in the discussion on a thread on a professional forum

Interesting read. I was most surprised at the people surprised that there hadn't been updates since the 1960's on some marks. .. Kidding? Unless it was hit by another Benchmarker here, I see more marks NOT updated since then that are.. :anicute:

 

Me

 

Foxtrot and Bill,

 

The POB forum is just like this forum; there are a very few people who live and breathe to make posts. Some are helpful and others are very rude; they may or may not know everything they are talking about, but they are going to post anyway.

 

You should not be surprised that there are many surveyors who have no reason to use NGS monuments and so have little to no experience with the NGS data base or data sheets. Surveying is a very diverse profession with many surveyors practicing in a very narrow range of practices. Boundary surveyors generally do not need to locate bench marks and with the use of CORS and OPUS, they don't need to find horizontal stations even if they need real world (latitude-longitude or state plane coordinates) positions for their survey monuments.

 

I have been very busy this year and have not been in this forum as frequently, but I still read them when possible. I don't post here or in the POB forum unless I feel I have something of value to add. That being said, I continue to use the logs of the geocaching website when I need control in an area. Many times this data base has a newer site log with photos which is more helpful than the NGS site. I ALWAYS take the logs here with a grain of salt and scutinize the photos posted as well as the poster. As Paul mentioned above, there are many erroneous posts near geocaches where overzealous cachers want to claim a find and are not really interested in the fine print. Most of these are produced by cachers with generally 20 or less benchmark logs.

 

This forum and most of the contributors are doing a great job and I hope you continue to do so.

 

Thanks,

Kurt

Share this post


Link to post
...My recent 2000th Geocaching recovery
Congrats.. You like saying that don't you ;)

 

I don't want to push it too far, but I think I'm entitled to be just a bit proud. :anicute:

Share this post


Link to post

Reading this brings back memories. Once upon a time we were doing a rather large GPS project and were short a man (sickness) to go set up on a existing triangulation station this one day. The party chief volunteered to do the set up that date.

 

Well one of the PS's was doing the comps and something was not coming out correctly, the station the chief has set up on was off about 30 meters. To make a long story short, he had recovered the station the day before but when he went back (in the dark) the next am, he set up on a Reference Mark instead of the station. Of course he refused to admit fault and we had to include that station in another days observation schedule to prove he had goofed up. He had a hard time living that down since he was a self proclaimed highly educated (beyond his intelligence) expert in every field of surveying and the only time he every made a mistake before this was when he had thought he made one but really didn't. He was later promoted to head of all the survey crews.

Share this post


Link to post

Pikes Peak thin(air) descriptions:

 

I did do a topic search and hope that this one will fit in here. I have seen many DATASHEET typo/errors that makes it a bit difficult for this amateur corps to always do the right thing.

 

Anyway, I just posted the below note with JK1247.

 

I haven't been here - just backtracked the paper trail of a previous logger. Note that the below, just downloaded, DATASHEET, is much different than the one here in geocache; and it still contains a typo. Lines between the dashed line are identical to the description for JK1245 DESIGNATION - PIKES PEAK 2 and got carried to this one somehow.

 

Read the 1991 recovery by a professional surveyor. A rod leaded into the stone, which happens to have a shot-up plaque on its side, sounds and looks like the photos of what everyone is calling a disk stem. (Just noticed that what must have been foot and inch tick marks got changed to minutes and seconds !!!)

 

However, text in the 1912 description- lower down, between solid lines- for the 1879 JK1242 wire nail in lead in drill hole seems to indicate that the 1923 station was a disk (a 1923 mark described in 1912?!).

 

JK1247 HISTORY - Date Condition Report By

JK1247 HISTORY - 1923 MONUMENTED USGS

JK1247 HISTORY - 19910919 GOOD SCHERB

JK1247 HISTORY - 20090625 GOOD GEOCAC

JK1247

JK1247 STATION DESCRIPTION

JK1247

JK1247'DESCRIBED BY US GEOLOGICAL SURVEY 1923

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

JK1247'THE STATION, PIKE PEAK IS LOCATED IN PIKE NATIONAL FOREST ON THE

JK1247'SUMMIT OF PIKES PEAK, 94.5 FEET NORTHEAST OF THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF

JK1247'THE SUMMIT HOUSE, 38 FEET EAST OF THE EAST EDGE OF A DRIVE

JK1247'AND 23.5 FEET NORTHEAST OF A LARGE U.S. FOREST SERVICE SIGN.

JK1247'THE DISK IS CEMENTED FLUSH IN A DRILL HOLE IN A BOULDER AND

JK1247'IS STAMPED PIKES PEAK 2 1953.

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

JK1247'

JK1247

JK1247 STATION RECOVERY (1991)

JK1247

JK1247'RECOVERY NOTE BY SURVEYOR SCHERBEL LIMITED 1991 (PNS)

JK1247'MONUMENT IS A STEEL ROD EMBEDDED IN A GRANITE BOULDER 3 MIN X 6 MIN X

JK1247'2 MIN ABOVE GROUND IN CENTER OF CIRCULAR ROAD WAY WITH 8 SEC X 4 SEC

JK1247'ALUMINIUM PLAQUE INSCRIBED, U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY PIKES PEAK

JK1247'LATITUDE 38-50-26 LONGITUDE 105-02-37 14109 ABOVE SEA LEVEL 1923.

JK1247'PLAQUE HAS BEEN SHOT AND SCRAPED BY STEEL WITH INSCRIPTION DIFFICULT

JK1247'TO READ. NEEDS MONUMENT REBUILT AND PROTECTED FROM VEHICLES.

JK1247

JK1247 STATION RECOVERY (2009)

JK1247

JK1247'RECOVERY NOTE BY GEOCACHING 2009 (LPC)

JK1247'RECOVERED IN GOOD CONDITION.

 

___________________________________________________________________________________

A UNITED STATES

JK1242'GEOLOGICAL SURVEY BENCH-MARK TABLET IS EMBEDDED IN THE TOP

JK1242'OF A LARGE BOULDER 13.594 METERS (44.60 FEET) FROM THE

JK1242'STATION N 80 DEG 08 MIN WN. IN THE SOUTH FACE OF

JK1242'THIS SAME BOULDER IS AN ALUMINUM TABLET INSCRIBED WITH THE

JK1242'LATITUDE AND LONGITUDE, BUT IT IS BADLY DEFACED BY BULLET MARKS.

____________________________________________________________________________________

 

Go figure! I need to edit today's photo. kayakbird

Share this post


Link to post

To answer a question from some time ago, my original post in this thread was in response to posts I had seen on the Geocaching site.

 

Sometimes when I see a post that is obviously in error, I send a polite email to the poster diplomatically pointing out the problem. Most of the time I get a quick and pleasant response saying that they will fix the problem. Unfortunately, I don't have the time to do this for all posts.

 

GeorgeL

NGS

Share this post


Link to post

Hiya

I had no idea that all those things had to agree! For my first and only find I thought only the stamped station designation was enough. For mine, the distances were off and some of the referenced land marks were gone or changed. and the published coordinates did not agree with either the data sheet or the geocaching websites. Not by much but some. It was JT0367 if you are interested and I did get a pic...

Horsec8z

 

Incorrect ID

 

I just reviewed the close-up photos of the many USC&GS and NGS survey marks submitted over the last few days. I found at least four which appeared to be incorrectly identified, that is, the data sheet and the information shown in the photo of the disk did not agree!

 

For beginners, here are a few simple rules to use to verify that the survey disk found is indeed the one being searched for:

1. Is the setting agency the same (on the disk and on the datasheet)?

2. Is the type of disk the same (triangulation station, reference mark, bench mark, etc.)?

3. Does the stamped station designation (name) agree?

4. Does the stamped year agree with the datasheet’s date set?

5. Is the disk set the way it is described (in concrete, in bedrock, etc.)?

6. Do the distances to the reference marks agree?

7. Do the distances to the referenced objects agree (edge of road, fence-line, etc.)?

8. Does the rest of the description agree?

 

All this leads to my second point. Many disk photos do not show all of the above information because the photo was taken with some portion of the disk obscured (by dirt, gravel, grass, twigs, snow, the GPSr, even the shadow of the GPSr!

 

I’m working on a “cook book” for recovering survey marks. I’ll post it for comment when complete.

 

GeorgeL

NGS

Share this post


Link to post

Hiya

I had no idea that all those things had to agree! For my first and only find I thought only the stamped station designation was enough. For mine, the distances were off and some of the referenced land marks were gone or changed. and the published coordinates did not agree with either the data sheet or the geocaching websites. Not by much but some. It was JT0367 if you are interested and I did get a pic...

Horsec8z

 

Incorrect ID

 

I just reviewed the close-up photos of the many USC&GS and NGS survey marks submitted over the last few days. I found at least four which appeared to be incorrectly identified, that is, the data sheet and the information shown in the photo of the disk did not agree!

 

For beginners, here are a few simple rules to use to verify that the survey disk found is indeed the one being searched for:

1. Is the setting agency the same (on the disk and on the datasheet)?

2. Is the type of disk the same (triangulation station, reference mark, bench mark, etc.)?

3. Does the stamped station designation (name) agree?

4. Does the stamped year agree with the datasheet’s date set?

5. Is the disk set the way it is described (in concrete, in bedrock, etc.)?

6. Do the distances to the reference marks agree?

7. Do the distances to the referenced objects agree (edge of road, fence-line, etc.)?

8. Does the rest of the description agree?

 

All this leads to my second point. Many disk photos do not show all of the above information because the photo was taken with some portion of the disk obscured (by dirt, gravel, grass, twigs, snow, the GPSr, even the shadow of the GPSr!

 

I’m working on a “cook book” for recovering survey marks. I’ll post it for comment when complete.

 

GeorgeL

NGS

 

Welcome to Benchmark Hunting. Your log for G 191 reset is great! Congrats on your "First Recovery". Your picture shows that you found the correct mark. Good going.

 

And, NO they do not all have to agree all the time. As long the stamping on the disk is correct and the setting reasonably agrees with the description, call it a find.

 

John & Shirley~

Share this post


Link to post

 

Welcome to Benchmark Hunting. Your log for G 191 reset is great! Congrats on your "First Recovery". Your picture shows that you found the correct mark. Good going.

 

And, NO they do not all have to agree all the time. As long the stamping on the disk is correct and the setting reasonably agrees with the description, call it a find.

 

John & Shirley~

 

TY! Good to know they do not all need to agree. Only reason I knew that things were a bit off was because I've been around so long! Going after a few more obscure ones today. Has anyone used metal detectors doing this? might save time digging if what you think is there is buried.

 

horsec8z

Share this post


Link to post

 

TY! Good to know they do not all need to agree. Only reason I knew that things were a bit off was because I've been around so long! Going after a few more obscure ones today. Has anyone used metal detectors doing this? might save time digging if what you think is there is buried.

 

horsec8z

 

The stamping is probably one of the most permanent aspects that should be considered when deciding if you found the correct disk. Sometimes the stamping is unreadable (due to vandalism or other factors) and you need to check the other details t be reasonably certain you have the right mark.

 

Yes, sometimes metal-detectors are used to hunt for benchmarks, and occasionally they are even helpful. There have been a couple of threads discussing usage and purchase options...

Share this post


Link to post

The correct stamping is a good indicator, but here are two cases where the stamping may agree and you still have the wrong disk:

1. You found the Azimuth Mark. The stamping on the triangulation station (main mark) and the azimuth mark is supposed to be exactly the same. So, one has to look at the factory stamping (TRIANGULATION STATION versus AZIMUTH MARK) and the symbol in the center of the disk (triangle versus arrow).

 

2. You found a disk set by another agency with the same name. The year would most likely be different, but there are many cases where the name of the station is the same on two different agency's disks.

 

GeorgeL

NGS

Share this post


Link to post

Another time when you could have the wrong disk is when the designation is followed by "RESET." Yes, folks on this forum know that means it isn't the original disk, but a lot of geocachers don't. (I'm not talking about situations where the reset itself has been entered in the NGS database, but where the original disk described on the datasheet has been replaced.) Klemmer and I found one such station just a few weeks ago that geocachers had been merrily logging as "found" for years...

 

Patty

Share this post


Link to post

Another time when you could have the wrong disk is when the designation is followed by "RESET." Yes, folks on this forum know that means it isn't the original disk, but a lot of geocachers don't. (I'm not talking about situations where the reset itself has been entered in the NGS database, but where the original disk described on the datasheet has been replaced.) Klemmer and I found one such station just a few weeks ago that geocachers had been merrily logging as "found" for years...

 

Patty

Goo point Patty

 

But even this good advice is not true of all stations.

 

When a bench mark (that is a vertical control station) is replaced, it is generally moved (because of construction, etc.) and resurveyed and the disk is stamped xxx RESET (where xxx is the original name). Sometimes (but unfortunately not all the time) the original is removed from the data base and the new one is entered. This is the case you have noticed and is most common.

 

However when a Triagulation station is replaced by another point nearby, it is generally called xxx 2 where the "2" indicates the second or replacement point (generally for the same reasons, e.g. construction etc.). As above, sometimes the old one is removed and the new one added to the data base.

 

And furthermore, when the disk is replaced in the same spot, it is generally stamped "xxx old date". but sometimes "xxx, [RESET,] old date, new date" (RESET is occasionally, but not usually stamped on the disk). It has the same PID, and the same adjusted location. It's just an upgrade from an old drill hole, or broken disk. These RESETs are 100% equivalent to the old station and the change is generally noted in the log. See for example PE1778. The station designation is "MOUNT DESERT RESET" but it's the same station as the original 1856 MOUNT DESERT. Notice the enormous effort the CGS surveyor went to in 1931 and 1932 to verify that he had found the original station and then remarked it (a drill hole) with a disk, The disk is stamped "MOUNT DESERT 1856" although it was set in 1931.

 

ff16a036-9733-4194-bd9b-346c898fe023.jpg

 

Here's one that has both dates, but the change was not put into the log nor is the designation changed:

PE1778 COPECUT

 

d7a2afa2-4b2a-4016-a494-5f47de78f2b4.jpg

 

So there are RESETs and there are RESETs

Edited by Papa-Bear-NYC

Share this post


Link to post

In the late 1970s we were instructed not to stamp “RESET” on a horizontal mark. We used the specifications now on-line at: http://www.ngs.noaa.gov/web/about_ngs/hist...ntrol_Marks.pdf . Case III on page 5 describes the situation that PapaBear mentioned – stamping the name, the original date and the current date when a disk is set again in the original location. Case IV gives the specs. for setting a new disk nearby but not in the exact same location. Keep in mind that the date of this publication is 1968. An earlier version of these specs. is in Special Publication No. 247, 1959, page 86.

 

GeorgeL

NGS

Share this post


Link to post

The correct stamping is a good indicator, but here are two cases where the stamping may agree and you still have the wrong disk:

1. You found the Azimuth Mark. The stamping on the triangulation station (main mark) and the azimuth mark is supposed to be exactly the same. So, one has to look at the factory stamping (TRIANGULATION STATION versus AZIMUTH MARK) and the symbol in the center of the disk (triangle versus arrow).

 

2. You found a disk set by another agency with the same name. The year would most likely be different, but there are many cases where the name of the station is the same on two different agency's disks.

 

GeorgeL

NGS

 

Here is a good example of one that could very easily be confusing to someone new, with two stations having the same designation, and monumentation dates only a year apart.

 

RL0742 GREENLAND is set in bedrock 24 inches below ground level. RL0743 GREENLAND is set just 37 feet away, also in bedrock. RL0742 was set by the USC&GS in 1939. RL0743 was set by the USGS in 1938. The datasheet for RL0743 has scaled coordinates with an adjusted elevation. Another datasheet, RL1598 exists for the same disk, but with adjusted coordinates, and a designation of GREENLAND USGS 1939 (but stamped GREENLAND 1938.) Both datasheets describe the disk as being directly under the center of the lookout tower, with a stamping of GREENLAND 1938.

 

While the designations for this disk are "GREENLAND" AND "GREENLAND USGS 1939," the datasheet for RL0742 (the USC&GS TRI station) refers to the USGS disk by its stamping, "GREENLAND 1938."

 

These can take a few reads before the confusion wears off! I haven't gone after these, only because of the one 24 inches below ground level--they're about 2 hours from home. One day I'll get up there and recover all of them. Or both of them. There are also two GREENLAND reference marks to add to the fun.

 

I wonder if the datasheets for those two stations (RL0743 and RL1598) could be merged? But that's getting off the original topic...

 

EDIT: to say that a careful reading of the datasheets would clear up any confusion on these stations. But we all know that many "drive-by" benchmarkers do no such thing. ;) I'll refer further comment to my rant about ARVON.

Edited by andylphoto

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 2

×
×
  • Create New...