Was this recovered in 1961 or not?

[TillaMurphs]

Based upon the datasheet, would you say that QE1046 was, or was not, found in 1961?

 

Link to QE1046 datasheet

 

Thanks,

 

The TillaMurphs

[+m&h]

Our somewhat limited experience is that apparent conflicts between the summary line and the descriptive note can go either way. The 1961 crew could have had the earlier description in their possession, and failed to find the mark; or they could have found the mark, described it, and committed a clerical error in the summary line (now an electronic check button). Hard to say without access to old files.

[mloser]

From my experiences I would definitely say it was NOT found in 1961. I have seen a number of those datasheets (with NOT FOUNDs that have the description with them) and my assumption was that the information was added to the sheet when the mark was not recovered.

 

Rarely the end of the description will have some reference to the mark not being found: JU1548 - "NOTE-- DESCRIPTION INADEQUATE TO DETERMINE APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF MARK." follows the description that is on the 1955 recovery (the mark was set in 1935). At least one other mark in this 106 series nearby had a similar note.

[Bill93]

I also vote NF in 1961.

[+jwahl]

I also vote for not found. They may have searched for it and even submitted a modified 'go to' description of how to get to the place.

 

Just enough ambiguity to make you wonder though.

[AZcachemeister]

Clearly 'Not Found', although the recovery team did include the 'to reach' text from the original paper datasheet.

[+PFF]

Clearly 'Not Found', although the recovery team did include the 'to reach' text from the original paper datasheet.

Agreed. This was a common practice in the first database entry for a previously-monumented mark. Also keep in mind that the sequence is from the oldest recovery date to the newest--NOT from the date the information was submitted. Hence, a recovery might appear to duplicate earlier entries; when, in fact, someone entered information which was not in the database at the time, and afterward, a recovery with an earlier date came along.

 

I've had this happen several times with my submissions, when NCGS (which runs several years behind with its routine updates) posts a recovery note which predates mine. One might wonder why I entered language such as "delete the barn, which no longer exists. Add that mark is 15.5 feet NE from the base of a cell tower," when the same information appears directly above my entry. The answer is, the earlier recovery had not been posted when I submitted mine

 

.-Paul-

Edited November 3, 2009 by PFF

[TillaMurphs]

Thank you ALL for your input on this!

 

In a couple of hundred searches we had never run across this situation on a datasheet before. After more research, we found about 10 more datasheets of stations observed in this Project (L9145) with a similar situation (listed as Not Found by NGS in 1961 but with what looks like a recovery description) along this road.

 

Thanks for continuing to educate us.

 

--The TillaMurphs

[Z15]

Heep in mind this info was entered into electronic format years ago by data entry people. They did not edit the data they were adding, they just copied from paper manuscripts. I am sure there were things they came across that they did not understand the meaning of and typed it like they seen fit.

Edited November 9, 2009 by Z15

[+PFF]

Excellent responses. If any question remains about whether some entries are simply administrative notes, I think NE1365 will remove all doubt.

-Paul-

Edited November 11, 2009 by PFF

[Z15]

Also note, just because a survey mark cannot ever be found does not mean it no longer exists. It will always exist as historical data even though it can be proved to be lost forever.

Edited November 12, 2009 by Z15