Jump to content

40,000 benchmarks is approaching!


Recommended Posts

On Aug. 17, the number of benchmark remaining fell below 700,000.

On Aug. 22, the number of benchmarks found reached 5% of the total.

The final major milestone of the summer is to reach 40,000 benchmarks found. Despite a recent slowdown in benchmark finds, it will probably be reached on Saturday, Sept. 20th. Congratulations to all who have helped add to this number.

Link to comment

Apparently we have entered the major slowdown of the season. The pace of benchmark finds has fallen dramatically this week. We hit 20,000 benchmark finds on March 25th. Since March 13th, the rolling 7-day average has mostly been above 100, raising as high as 163 on July 12th. The lowest point was the beginning of June when it fell to 72 on June 9th. Last Sunday it again fell under 100 and has continued to drop. Today the 7-day average is at 75, the lowest since June 9 and since March 8 before that. The bottom line is that the 40,000 milestone is slipping and it is currently expected on Monday 9/22. As long as we hit it before next Thursday 9/25, we can claim to have gone from 20,000 to 40,000 in less than 6 months. A pretty amazing feat!

Link to comment

Originally posted by JoGPS:

I know we have been a slacker, be busy with other things, but will be back hunting in a jiffy.....JOE

Yea Joe, with 470 benchmark finds, you're way behind! Not to mention the 2,000+ cache finds and over 100 caches owned. Yea, you've been a real big slacker!!! Don't you get what I've been saying???? icon_biggrin.gificon_biggrin.gificon_biggrin.gificon_biggrin.gif


Really Joe, thanks for your contributions. icon_smile.gif

Link to comment

Originally posted by GeckoGeek:

So what happens when I start submitting my destroyeds? I've got 5 I need to post and I've got a bunch more cued up.

Unfortunately, GC.com currently only tracks benchmark finds. If and when they also track not founds and/or destroyed, I'd be more than happy to track those too.

Link to comment


Originally posted by RogBarn:


Unfortunately, GC.com currently only tracks benchmark finds. If and when they also track not founds and/or destroyed, I'd be more than happy to track those too.

In my opinion destroyed marks should rightfully be logged as "Found." I know this sounds counter-intuitive to some of you but in order to claim that a mark is destroyed it needs to be positively identified. It's not as self-contradictory a concept as it may appear. Think of it as, "The 'station' itself was found, but the mark/landmark is missing/destroyed and the 'station' is no longer viable." The station that is the subject of this post is a very good example. The evidence from RACooper's research is certainly adequate. Perhaps a more qualified forum member could explain this better than I can. For benchmark hunting purposes, once a station has been officially (NGS) reported or listed as destroyed, it can not be logged again on the GC.com website as "Found." This gives the "recoverer" the credit he deserves for his efforts.


Cheers ...


~Rich in NEPA~


--- A man with a GPS receiver knows where he is; a man with two GPS receivers is never sure. ---

Link to comment

Rich, I agree with you. After much deliberation I decided to use the same criterion when logging HU1397. I couldn't care less about the numbers themselves, but we should get credit for all our successful recoveries, including those cases in which we were the first to positively identify a station that no longer exists.



Link to comment

It might be relatively easy to transfer the benchmark-logging process to a competing caching / point-hunting site. Indeed

- the BM location info is not proprietary

- the BM info as reflected in the internal DB of GC.com is out of date

- the history of BM finds by the members is inconsistent, with plenty of woefully substandart finds, fake finds, and general lack of oversight and review by qualified people (a new site would still be able to provide a link to un-reviewed logs at gc.com, of course)

- the interface / functionality is poor (no regional maps, unsorted lists, problems with stats and counts, parsing problem with would-be skulls, buggy log deletion, no link-up to NGS recovery sheets, no way to query for unpubs, no way to add unlisteds, even the ones explicitly on USGS quad maps, to list just a few)

- and (of course not least) a stepparent attitude of TPTB.

What do you think? Perhaps gc.com is indeed a wrong place for this activity?

Link to comment

Since the GC.com data isn't directly reported to NGS, I think a suggestion I saw a few weeks ago (sorry, don't remember who!) would be perfect.


Split the found/not found/destroyed into two fields:


a) status--found/not found(/note). Exact location of mark was confirmed or not.


:( condition--good, poor, destroyed.


This would allow GC to give credit for marks that the location has been confirmed, but the marker is missing/destroyed, and still not give "credit" for not founds (but could include them in the stats counts as a "not found" field).


I know I've marked a couple as "not found" that I plan to go back and research in depth at a later date. I guess I would edit my entry at that time (presuming I either found it or confirmed destruction) to update the status.

Link to comment


I'm sure the goal is to maintain a certain amount of parity of form with the Geocaching side, and I can understand that not everyone using the Benchmarking site wants to get involved with the formal aspect of making official recovery reports, updating "to reach" descriptions, submitting photos, GPS coordinates, etc., to the NGS. That's fine, but I think the site can easily accommodate those of us with more serious aspirations, too. Changing and limiting the logging options to "Found," "Not Found," and "Note" will not affect the ability of casual hunters for enjoying the activity and recording their experiences as they always have. On the other hand, adding a condition field to the "Found" option (Good, Poor, Destroyed) allows logging missing/destroyed marks, as well as giving credit for the effort of the recovery itself. Remember, if you can't identify the station then it should be logged as Not Found, much the same way that not signing the logbook constitutes not finding a Geocache. (Personally, I really don't feel it's OK to log a Geocache as found if the container is gone, even if you believe you found the hiding spot, but that's my opinion and I've always been true to it. If people want to log having seen only a reference mark as an actual find of the station itself, there's really nothing to stop them except their own integrity and sense of fairness. I'm generally satisfied that NGS requires proof of identity.) There are plenty of cases where stations with missing marks are still identifiable and useful. NGS recognizes this, too. Examples could be provided in a Benchmarking FAQ or some such similar guide to help users make that determination for the purpose of logging it, or the station in question could be brought to the attention of the forum for discussion and resolution. In this way we can all learn something new.


Cheers ...


~Rich in NEPA~


--- A man with a GPS receiver knows where he is; a man with two GPS receivers is never sure. ---


[This message was edited by Rich in NEPA on September 19, 2003 at 08:02 AM.]

Link to comment

I have no doubt that you are listening and it is much appreciated. I am certainly NOT asking in a "What's the matter, aren't they listening to us?!?" manner. I know that GC.com has many things they are trying to do and many things they would like to do. I was just curious if anything has been formally presented to GC.com and whether or not there were specific changes GC.com was pursuing. I should have presented my question better. Thanks!

Link to comment

No it was a good question and we did not take it in an unfavorable manner, I have asked for several of the things that everyone here in the benchmarks section wants, and GC.com is pursuing specific changes, other than that ,I have no details to give other than they are still trying to get the caching side of the site worked out first, some of the changes will go hand in hand with locationless and virtuals when they are redone. That’s about all I know, but please keep making suggestion to make this a better site, even if I don’t have anything to do with them.



Link to comment

Originally posted by happycycler:

I got a few today....every little bit helps? icon_cool.gif


Everybody loves benchmarks more! icon_smile.gif

To rephase it properly, it should be:

every little bit helps! icon_cool.gif


We are currently less than 100 from the magic 40,000. Hopefully, some time later today, it will go over and someone will post it here! icon_biggrin.gif

Link to comment

I got a few more too. we are off vacation from the original 13 Colonies wow what great STONE MONUMENTS they got there.

Standish Monument

Plymouth National Monument












Arkansas Missouri Geocachrs Association



Link to comment

As reported here be several people, the third major milestone of the summer fell last night when the benchmark front page reported that 40,001 benchmark had been found by the geocaching/benchmarking community. Thanks to all who contributed in both finding and in making this an enjoyable hobby.

Link to comment

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.

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.

  • Create New...