Did I Find It or Not?

[+pgrig]

I haven't had one like this before: MY4093.

 

It's described as the "center of a foundation" for a WW2 radar tower, which I defined as the intersection of two lines connecting opposing pairs of concrete piers for the tower. The piers survive in excellent condition. Whether or not the tower was actually constructed I do not know.

 

What say you all?

-Paul

[kayakbird]

I haven't had one like this before: MY4093.

 

It's described as the "center of a foundation" for a WW2 radar tower, which I defined as the intersection of two lines connecting opposing pairs of concrete piers for the tower. The piers survive in excellent condition. Whether or not the tower was actually constructed I do not know.

 

What say you all?

-Paul

 

I think that this was a work in progress that remained unfinished at the war's end.

 

MY4093.Superseded values are not recommended for survey control.

MY4093.NGS no longer adjusts projects to the NAD 27 or NGVD 29 datums.

MY4093.See file dsdata.txt to determine how the superseded data were derived.

 

No indication that an actual station mark was set

 

MY4093

MY4093 HISTORY - Date Condition Recov. By

MY4093 HISTORY - 1943 MONUMENTED CGS

MY4093

MY4093 STATION DESCRIPTION

MY4093

MY4093''DESCRIBED BY COAST AND GEODETIC SURVEY 1943 (PLB)

MY4093''STATION IS THE CENTER OF THE FOUNDATION OF THE STRAWBERRY POINT

MY4093''SCR. THE FOUNDATION OF THE SCR WAS IN PLACE, BUT THE TOWER WAS

 

Like a lot of DS descriptions, I think that the wording suffered in the translation from the field surveyors notes to the office clerk typed, but not proofed, final draft. I think that the above line should read 'FOUNDATION piers OF THE SCR WAS were IN PLACE'---; and the below line also changed as indicated.

 

MY4093''NOT ERECTED, HENCE, THE CENTER OF THE FOUNDATION between the piers WAS the POINT LOCATED. STATION WAS LOCATED BY DISTANCE AND DIRECTION FROM

MY4093''STATION STRAWBERRY POINT (U.S.E.).

 

I think that the last sentence above was to describe the methodology used; and the tower when erected would have become an intersection station, and not actually a mid point is a traverse line that went somewhere, meaning that the last sentence is not required.

 

MY4093''THIS IS A TRAVERSE STATION.

 

kayakbird

[+pgrig]

Thanks, Kayakbird.

 

Actually, I believe the tower, if it was built, would not have become an intersection station. Its center was being marked for fire control purposes, not as part of a triangulation, and they wanted a precise location for the center of the antenna. It was intended to direct some of the guns defending Boston Habor during WW2.

 

I thought I would "bump" this to get opinions on my "found" log--I have a number more like this I'll probably be logging over the next year.

-Paul

[NGS Surveyor]

A small percentage of tanks and towers were positioned by traverse. This one clearly states that. I recall a case where we turned a direction to the a large standpipe (tank sitting on ground), measured to the near edge of the tank, measured the circumference of the tank, computed the radius of the tank, and add the radius to the distance to the near edge of the tank and obtained the distance to the center of the tank. Thus, the tank had a position determined by traverse. If there is nothing to point on to obtain the direction to the center of the tank, the observe sometimes observed both tangents (left and right edges) of the tank and meaned the directions.

 

Since this is an unusual case, the recovery note should explain the situation.

 

GeorgeL

NGS