Bogus benchmark logs

[Okie'sKid]

Greetings serious BM hunters,

 

I know this has been discussed before, but I just got a double dose of BOGUS logs earlier today. There have been multiple logs for both FS1080 link and FS1081 link that have been posted by someone finding a “nearby” cache. FS1080 BULLSHEAD is 2.4 miles from the cache mentioned.

 

I went out somewhere in the range of 7 miles from FS1081 and didn't even find the cache mentioned. Maybe now would be a good time to admit I'm not into GeoCaching at all. When I do a search for the cache mentioned, I end up in AUSTRAILIA!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

In the 1973 DS recovery for FS 1080 BULLSHEAD tri , FS1081 BULLSHEAD CAIRN was noted as being removed sometime prior to that recovery, but is now being logged as near a cache.

 

Earlier today, KayakBird and I hiked up to FS1080 BULLSHEAD. We located the station, both RMs, and the AZ. As luck would have it, we even located the “end of truck travel” noted in the original description in the DS. The cairn, PIDed as FS1081, indeed, does no longer exist.

 

FS1080 is far removed from the cache people are associating with it. I haven’t even wasted the time necessary to pinpoint the cache being associated with FS1081.

 

The previous logs of both FS1080 and FS1081 are totally bogus. Yes, I do know there is nothing we can do about such bogus listings. I would just appreciate hearing anything from anyone who wants to weigh in on this subject yet again.

 

Cheers,

JCS

[AZcachemeister]

We've seen it before, and many times.

Someone goes caching, and sees a disk mounted somewhere, with some cryptic numbers stamped on it.

As they're logging the cache they found, the memory of the disk (and benchmarking!) pops up, so they search for 'nearest benchmark' from the cache listing, and without reading any details on the benchmark page, they log the closest one as found. 'It's the closes one, so it must be the right one!'

 

Then, some other cachers come along...and follow suit. So-and-so logged it, so it must be right.

 

Sometimes a carefully worded note will get the bogus log deleted, sometimes they will knowingly lie to you to justify their mistake...and keep the log.

 

As long as these boneheads keep away from the NGS site, everything will be fine.

 

A photo of the disk (or maybe a photo of a rubbing of the disk) are the only way I'm believing anyone found the correct mark (with the occasional exception for certain reputable benchmark hunters).

[+GrizzFlyer]

I've often thought about how a committee could be established by Groundspeak to oversee these types of bogus or grossly-in-error logs. Consisting of established benchmarkers, the committee would have the ability to inspect and investigate any logs brought to their attention and request the logger to provide more details or proof of their recovery, or ask them to delete or modify their log, and also have the ability to delete benchmark logs if need be. Similar to what a "cache owner" can do with any geocache they "own".

 

Such a committee could be fraught with problems however, so certain logging guidelines would need to be established and the committee would need to consist of well known and respected benchmarkers. Lots of those here on this section of the forum.

 

As most of us here, I've seen many logs in error, almost always by geocachers that thought they found the correct benchmark. Several times I've sent a gentle private note to the logger and suggested how they might want to re-visit their log, and offered my assistance. Only once was there even a reply, and the local geocacher removed his log and then logged the correct benchmark 30 feet away. I don't do it any more.

Edited March 3, 2010 by GrizzFlyer

[+Klemmer]

Yeah, some benchmark pages get really trashed. One of the worst is almost every survey mark on the Hoover dam. I think the number of logs is into 3 digits of bogus or wrong logs, for 30+ benchmarks. Of course, if you recognize some names from this forum, or look for pictures, there are good logs there (including yours truly), in amongst the... er ...chaff.

 

I'd volunteer for the committee!

[Wintertime]

As long as these boneheads keep away from the NGS site, everything will be fine.

Well, maybe...We know that some professional surveyors use Gc.com to check on whether there's been a recent recovery of a mark they're interested in. I presume that if they see a "FOUND" log without a photo, they're cautious about it. But still, it could temporarily lead them down an unfruitful path.

 

I like "GrizzFlyer"'s idea about a oversight committee. I don't know how much bandwidth it would require from Groundspeak to set up and supervise. I'm guessing that the existing geocache and Earthcache volunteer reviewers don't require much support from Groundspeak, but I could be wrong.

 

Patty

[kayakbird]

Soft Bogus. The WP pictured

 

at NU0155 is an ID DOT ROW WP that is about 200 feet southerly and 25 feet below the near rail.

Two of us searched along several hundred feet of RR ROW for over 30 minutes before giving up and going to another PID.

 

We spotted the matching WP by dumb luck as we were departing the Lava Hot Springs area for Pocatello.

 

 

Read the DS. people!

[+Harry Dolphin]

The problem can be as easy as a reset vs the original disk: LY2291. To: KU2870. No. That's RM1 not Teddy. My favorite is still: LY2092. No. That's a guy wire post, not a steel rod with disk. Oh, well.

But, the major problem is that most geocachers do not post photos (which are not required), so there's no way of telling what it is that they did find (if anything). I'd still like to know what this guy found! LY0560. I looked a few times, and was unable to find a pipe cap sticking 2 inches above ground. And I measured carefully from the referents.

So, even if we had the power to delete obvious errors, most geocachers do not post photos. So, we would be picking on the people who do post photos.

LY2603. Very nice church, but it was built in 1970. It's the wrong church, and it's a block off.

Dunno. Dunno.

[+LSUFan]

 

But, the major problem is that most geocachers do not post photos (which are not required), so there's no way of telling what it is that they did find (if anything).

 

Yes, that is the biggest stumbling block, to actually see if a log is bogus, or just in error. We had someone come thru our area several years back, logging all kind of easy intersection stations. Problem is, they were logging smoke stacks from factories that had been demolished, water towers that have been gone for decades, and even a radio tower that had collapsed many years prior.

 

We got a laugh from it, and decided it was probably just someone trying to run their benchmark numbers up, just like some do with geocaching. Couldn't see how they could honestly mistake that many intersection stations, that aren't there........especially since there were no pictures with any of the logs.

Edited March 13, 2010 by LSUFan

[Okie'sKid]

But, the major problem is that most geocachers do not post photos

 

Speaking of photos, I'm way behind in posting my own!!!

[+The Fossillady]

I love when they do post a picture and has all the wrong numbers on the disk. People just don't pay attention to what is written. I try to always take pictures, some may be a little fuzzy but you can always read what it is. There is one near where I live that has like 4 markers at Font's Point and folks never get them right.

[+Harry Dolphin]

Was nosing about where I shouldn't, and came across this one: JU4501.

"THE MARK IS A CITY OF PHILADELPHIA HORIZONTAL CONTROL NETWORK BRASS DISC STAMPED EAKIN 1993." The one photo posted (that is legible) is imprinted "United States Engineer Dept 1936" (I cannot make out the rest of the marking.) This one does not seem to appear in NGS. Oh, well. It's close?

[+king.hubi]

Let's log two is the motto of this station.

 

My favorite is still GO0497 - FOUR CORNERS=GLO STA 1. This station is destroyed.

 

It was replaced in 1992 with AD9256 - CO UT AZ NM. Most of the people are logging both marks.

 

 

King Hubi

[kayakbird]

This table exercise BOGUS DESTROYER came to light in another thread:

 

His remarks: "The cedar stake didn't make it over these 126 years"

 

RD1866''THE STATION IS MARKED 20 INCHES UNDERGROUND BY CROSSLINES CUT

RD1866''ON A FLAT STONE AND THE SAME KIND OF A MARK WAS PLACED LEVEL WITH

RD1866''THE SURFACE. THERE IS A CEDAR STAKE AT THE FOOT OF THE CLIFF

RD1866''DISTANT 7.47 METERS S 82 DEG W, MAGNETIC.

 

RD1866

 

Chances are pretty good that one of the two etched stones have survived, and even the cedar stake might surprise him if he if he actually went to the location. I am not going to waste time to see if any of the 30 or so that he logged DESTROYED on the same day have any validity.

 

Another example of why I think that DESTROYED should be eliminated from the logging options here. Write a note, then prove it to NGS.

 

kayakbird

[Bill93]

I sent him a gentle note about a couple of his logs.

 

It appears that he went through and logged Destroyed on everything in his area that showed NF on the NGS data sheet as captured by GC. I looked at several and saw no notations that indicated he had been there to look for any of them.

 

If someone is in the area, they should check out some of them like QE0714 where USPSQD logged NF but someone else has found a possible object, and this guy doesn't claim to have even looked before logging Destroyed.

Edited September 3, 2010 by Bill93

[Wintertime]

It appears that he went through and logged Destroyed on everything in his area that showed NF on the NGS data sheet as captured by GC. I looked at several and saw no notations that indicated he had been there to look for any of them.

Boy, I wouldn't automatically consider a station destroyed even if the DNF came from USGS or NGS, much less from USPSQD!

 

Patty

[+PFF]

Good point, Wintertime.

 

The fellow also marked OA0502 destroyed, based upon not being found by NGS in 1987. As Paul Harvey would say, "Here's the REST of the story." (Like Bill93, I also sent him a note requesting that he refrain from logging without looking.) -Paul-

 

OA0502 HISTORY - Date Condition Report By

OA0502 HISTORY - 1941 MONUMENTED CGS

OA0502 HISTORY - 1970 MARK NOT FOUND NGS

OA0502 HISTORY - 1987 MARK NOT FOUND NGS

OA0502 HISTORY - 19940630 GOOD USPSQD

OA0502 HISTORY - 20011102 GOOD USPSQD

OA0502 HISTORY - 20050408 GOOD USPSQD

OA0502 HISTORY - 20061006 GOOD USPSQD

OA0502

OA0502 STATION DESCRIPTION

OA0502

OA0502'DESCRIBED BY NATIONAL GEODETIC SURVEY 1970

OA0502'IN COOS BAY.

OA0502'AT NORTH BEND, COOS COUNTY, AT A PRIVATE RESIDENCE AT 2264 SOUTH

OA0502'MCPHERSON AVENUE, ON THE SOUTH EDGE OF LAWN, AND 12 FEET WEST OF THE

OA0502'EDGE OF THE SIDEWALK. A STANDARD DISK STAMPED F 468 1941 AND SET IN

OA0502'THE TOP OF CONCRETE POST FLUSH WITH GROUND. NOTE-- THE SIDEWALK IS

OA0502'BROKEN UP IN CERTAIN SECTIONS.

OA0502

OA0502 STATION RECOVERY (2001)

OA0502

OA0502 RECOVERY NOTE BY US POWER SQUADRON 2001 (AES)

OA0502'LAWN HAS BEEN LANDSCAPED WITH BARK. MARK IS 3 FEET NORTH OF CONCRETE

OA0502'DRIVEWAY AND FLUSH WITH SURFACE ABOUT 6 INCHES ABOVE DRIVEWAY.

OA0502'SIDEWALK NOTED AS BROKEN IN 1970 HAS BEEN REPLACED.

[Wintertime]

Looks like your efforts are starting to pay off, Paul and Bill. He has changed his log for OA0502 from Destroyed to Not Found. I wonder whether he even looked at the NGS website to see all those "Good" reports from this decade. (In addition to the one that is on Gc.com from 1994.) He still has RD1866 and QE0714 logged as Destroyed.

[TillaMurphs]

This table exercise BOGUS DESTROYER came to light in another thread:

kayakbird

It appears that he went through and logged Destroyed on everything in his area that showed NF on the NGS data sheet as captured by GC. I looked at several and saw no notations that indicated he had been there to look for any of them.

 

If someone is in the area, they should check out some of them like QE0714 where USPSQD logged NF but someone else has found a possible object, and this guy doesn't claim to have even looked before logging Destroyed.

Boy, I wouldn't automatically consider a station destroyed even if the DNF came from USGS or NGS, much less from USPSQD!

Patty

Good point, Wintertime.

 

The fellow also marked OA0502 destroyed, based upon not being found by NGS in 1987. As Paul Harvey would say, "Here's the REST of the story." (Like Bill93, I also sent him a note requesting that he refrain from logging without looking.) -Paul-

 

Ta Daaa!

 

One down - many to go. Click here: QE1902

 

(I am sure he is well–meaning; he probably just doesn’t quite understand the guidelines for logging).

[Bill93]

Great work!

[Wintertime]

Ta Daaa!

 

One down - many to go. Click here: QE1902

Excellent work, "TillaMurphs"!

[kayakbird]

Maybe a new World Record - does proximity to Vegas have any correlation?

 

FS0056

 

 

Expect many more with new White Rock Canyon (read AZ Hot Springs) trail head parking lot right there. MEL

[foxtrot_xray]

Great image of the old bridge. It LOOKS new, thanks to the desert sun there.

[Okie'sKid]

Good one KayakBird. Wish I were BM hunting with you instead of stranded in Port Townsend. If I get a chance today, I'll sneak over to the Fort and try to find the one I missed last trip.

[kayakbird]

Extra points for extra distance? How many pages do you have to scroll through to get 45 miles away?

 

HO0036 From the calls looking toward H 27 1931 RESET 1962

 

 

The 1962 RESET. It has a slight L/L problem.

 

 

HO0037

 

kayakbird

[Wintertime]

What a beautiful photo!

 

What are "the calls"? Some local landmark?

[kayakbird]

---

What are "the calls"? Some local landmark?

 

HO0036''DESCRIBED BY NATIONAL GEODETIC SURVEY 1934

HO0036''7.0 MI SE FROM PANGUITCH.

HO0036''IN SOUTHWEST END OF LARGE TRIANGLE FORMED BY ROADS IN THREE

HO0036''DIRECTIONS. 30 FEET EAST OF HATCH-PANGUITCH HIGHWAY. 53 FEET

HO0036''NORTHWEST OF HATCH-BRYCE CANYON HIGHWAY.

 

Bold distances are now paved over or disturbed. I haven't looked at GOOGLE EARTH, but I'm guessing that it would show the massive changes at this T intersection with Y turning lanes.

 

Got lucky on the photo. Talked with a Garfield County Sheriff Deputy for a bit just as I found the RESET and that delayed the shot until the perfect time.

 

kayakbird

[kayakbird]

Visiting friends just up the shore and had to target this no picture log when I saw that the closest cache is 0.90 miles away.

Not likely that any of the seven pieces of brass in the LESTER RIVER complex were actually observed.

 

 

USLS LESTER RIVER 1871

 

kayakbird

[+Harry Dolphin]

AARGH! Sometimes you wonder if some geocachers have any idea what benchmark hunting means? Or what a benchmark is? KU3895

The Iron Steam Boat Company operated from 1881-1932. The station is a 3/8" auger hole surrounded by copper tacks in the 'aged and instable' pier. Nope! Ain't no pier there! The area was filled in with the fill from excavation to build Yankee Station.

AARGH!

[+EdrickV]

I know the original post is old, but I did a little looking and there is a High Voltage cache not too far away. Since BMs and Caches don't show up on the same maps, here are some driving directions from the BM to the cache using regular Google Maps:

FS1080 Benchmark to High Voltage

 

High Voltage:

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?wp=GC18VEZ

 

I also found (but can't view) the Northern Lookout cache in Arizona: GC18VEW

Can't view it (even though it's disabled) because it's premium member only. But it is listed here:

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/nearest.aspx?u=Dylan%27s+Pirates

 

Doesn't mean they were making proper logs, but I don't think they were "armchair" logging.

[Okie'sKid]

. . . not too far away. . . "armchair" logging.

 

Since it's been quite some time since I posted anything and my old "BOGUS" posting came to life again, thot I'd make a couple comments on this last "reply". BULLSHEAD is roughly 2.5 air miles or 6.5 road miles and a moderately arduous climb from the High Voltage cache. I wouldn't say "not too far away".

 

The non-PID BM right at the base of the power tower is what geocachers were erroneously logging as BULLSHEAD. It's right there, but it still ain't BULLSHEAD. ""Armchair" logging" (not my term) is a totally different animal from blatant BOGUS logging.

[+EdrickV]

To me the term bogus seemed to indicate people deliberately logging benchmarks without even going out there. So what I was basically saying is that there were caches out there that people were going to, and they apparently went to the benchmark area while they were out there. So they thought they were finding the benchmark. To me an inaccurate log isn't the same as a bogus log, and apparently they were making inaccurate logs.

 

The "armchair logging" term isn't mine, it comes from the Geocaching forums here. People apparently would try logging Geocaches that they never went near. (Like one person I saw who logged Geocaches all over the world, including Antarctica, that he/she supposedly visited on a single day.)

 

As far as the distance of the cache, 6 miles doesn't seem that far for me, especially since I know of a 5 stage multi-cache locally that apparently is 20 miles round trip. I'm sure I've covered more then 6 miles when out doing Geocaches.

[kayakbird]

I wasn't going to stick another iron in this fire until I ran across another blatant example via computer research or in the field;

but I would like to clear up a misconception that maybe many players on the other side of this game board hold.

 

The purpose of Bench Mark logging here, and better yet the NGS Recovery of them, is to provide a service to the professionals that need the accurate geodetic information that can only be put to use if they can find the Bench Mark or Triangulation Station. Being in the

"benchmark area" does them no good.

 

By the same token you can save them a scouting trip, and their customers $$$, if a well worded report with reasons for a NOT FOUND is available. What does this remark - "This mark is East of the locked gate to the Shell refinery." found earlier today will doing follow up snooping on a previous case - do but boost the count totals for the logger? Not accessible does not mean NOT FOUND!

 

Most BOGUS logs could be disregarded if every one would post photos that clearly show the stamping.

 

 

No help from this one logged at a two headed BOGUS location. kayakbird

Edited September 4, 2011 by kayakbird

[+EdrickV]

To me at least, the term "bogus" implies an intent to deceive, so I personally wouldn't call a case of mistaken identity a bogus log. Incorrect, improper, or even bad, but not bogus. (I'm sure there's got to be a better term that would indicate that the log info is wrong without implying that the logger was intentionally lying, just can't think of it right now.) I suppose this may be a difference in how we all use the word bogus.

 

I do agree that, in my opinion, a log here without pictures isn't really a proper log. I wouldn't log a Geocache without signing the log book, and I wouldn't log a benchmark without pictures. And seeing that picture above, I really have to wonder if the logger intended to upload that particular image, or if it was a case of picking the wrong file. Of course, I'm not exactly sure what that person was trying to log. It does look to my untrained eye like there are some marks on the rock, but I have no idea if they are related to anything. (I know there is a thread with people posting all sorts of man made marks on rocks/structures, but I don't know much about that.) Don't know if that picture was even intentionally taken. I know I've ended up with pictures on my camera that I know I didn't take on purpose.

 

I think I like my picture better:

http://www.geocaching.com/mark/details.aspx?PID=AA5413

 

One of 5 images I got today of this benchmark, the first I've found. Haven't logged it yet. Took this close-up, one a little farther away, one showing the base of the witness post, one facing North, and one facing South. In retrospect I think I should have got a pic from the west side of the sidewalk looking towards the witness post, I think there may be a nail/bolt/something in the sidewalk that lines up with the witness post, and which might be useful for finding the mark in the future if the post is gone. It's not mentioned in the datasheet though. I'm surprised at how small that mark actually is, and how shiny it looked. (Of course, we did have rain around here yesterday so that might have helped.) Not sure if I'd have found it without the datasheet info, I didn't expect it to be as concealed as it was by the grass. (I did conceal it again before leaving.) Forgot to check and see what coordinates/elevation my GPS was giving me though. (I'm sure the coordinates are accurate, not quite as sure about my Tilt. ) I was busy using it to take pictures though. (Smartphone.)

 

I do have to ask, do professional surveyors actually come to this site and/or the Waymarking site to get info on benchmarks they intend to use in their work? (I can see surveyors who like finding benchmarks coming here, but I figured a lot of them would not likely know about these sites and would just use the NGS datasheets.)

Edited September 5, 2011 by EdrickV

[AZcachemeister]

 

I do have to ask, do professional surveyors actually come to this site and/or the Waymarking site to get info on benchmarks they intend to use in their work? (I can see surveyors who like finding benchmarks coming here, but I figured a lot of them would not likely know about these sites and would just use the NGS datasheets.)

 

Yes, they do.

While 'bogus' may be a bit strong (in the context of an intentional attempt to deceive), there are many other adjectives that are equally applicable and are also just as descriptive.

 

A cacher finds a cache, and notices a survey disk nearby.

He searches for the nearest BM in the database, which is miles away.

The cacher logs a 'find' on the nearest Benchmark, since the nearest (even though it's co-ordinates are several miles away) one must be the right one.

 

Bogus

Retarded

Ill-informed

Over-zealous

Greedy

Co-ordinate challenged

 

The fact that there is no mechanism to remove such logs is a festering thorn in a respectable Benchmark Hunter's side, and is something that is apparently not going to be resolved anytime soon.

[+EdrickV]

The fact that there is no mechanism to remove such logs is a festering thorn in a respectable Benchmark Hunter's side, and is something that is apparently not going to be resolved anytime soon.

 

It does seem strange that there wasn't any method of moderating the log entries. Hopefully Waymarking.com is better in that respect. At least they're not doing recovery logs on the NGS site.

 

That said, I've recently discovered (online) a benchmark that seems like it might have been destroyed and had a reset marker placed in a slightly different location, but the NGS datasheet has a recovery log (From US Power Squadron) years after the date stamped on the reset disk and the reset disk doesn't appear to be in the online NGS database. Was looking to see what benchmarks may be available in an area I may be able to do searching in at some point in the future. So this sounds like an interesting mystery. (I'm wondering if the original is there or not. If it was destroyed, then it looks like US Power Squadron goofed when logging that recovery.) There are of course Geocaching.com members logging the reset disk on the page for the regular mark.

[Wintertime]

It does seem strange that there wasn't any method of moderating the log entries. Hopefully Waymarking.com is better in that respect.

A photo is indeed the standard way of proving a waymark visit, but I don't know whether all category managers enforce it. I've had a waymark visitor snipe at me because I asked him to provide the required photo. He whined, "It's just a game." Exactly, and games have rules.

 

Patty

[AZcachemeister]

it looks like US Power Squadron goofed when logging that recovery

 

YOU'RE KIDDING!!

 

Most of us have found that Power Squadron logs recovery notes should (almost always) be viewed with a jaundiced eye.

 

Of course we also know that geocachers don't exactly have a pristine record, either.

[+LSUFan]

Most of us have found that Power Squadron logs recovery notes should (almost always) be viewed with a jaundiced eye.

 

I'm heading out of town this evening for a football game, and plan to check on one tomorrow that I hope the Power Squadron couldn't find (2 different times). I think I may be seeing the actual benchmark from 1919 on the side of a building using Google Maps/streetview ....but can't tell for sure. I will know tomorrow if I can correct (or agree with) their assessment.

Edited September 10, 2011 by LSUFan

[+m&h]

We found SD0558, and discovered that, though we are about the fifth log, we may be the first actual finders (there are a couple of logs without photos). Get within sight of a witness post, and you may be in the right place . . .