Photos of Survey markers and Witness Posts

Here is a photo of a benchmark disk that busted loose from its concrete base exposing the flange used for mounting in concrete. The benchmark is known as Sugarand is located near Elk, California. This was found on my clients property at its original location next to its wooden witness post.

1.4k · October 28, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Team Sagefox:
Here is a photo of a benchmark disk that busted loose from its concrete base

You should log it as destroyed - not "found". Consider filing a report with NGS as well. Simply follow the procedure and send the photo.

October 28, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by GeckoGeek:
You should log it as destroyed - not "found".

I beg to differ. This station was identified. You should log it as "Found." The "Destroyed" logging option should never be used. Here's why. Whether or not you observed the actual setting in this case, the disk proves that the station was essentially destroyed (NGS will certainly list it as such). If the station was a horizontal control with reference marks intact, or if it was a vertical control with the setting intact, you should describe the condition of the station as "Poor" in your log. It's been pointed out numerous times here that these particular circumstances will still allow for using the station in a survey application. If you have positively identified the station (that is, the precise geographic location) and have conclusive evidence that it is no longer viable (for example, a landmark station which has been torn down), then you could describe the condition as "Destroyed." Obviously, it can not be used by anyone. In either case, you (or someone whom you may feel is more qualified) should file an official recovery report to NGS. For the dislodged mark, a digital photo showing the stamping, a photo of the setting (preferably with your GPSr clearly showing the coordinates) and a description of what you actually found can be sent to Deb Brown at NGS for final determination and updating of the datasheet. You have made a legitimate "recovery." Unfortunately it's not the kind we like to see.

Cheers ...

~Rich in NEPA~

--- You might own the cache, but geocaching.com owns you. ---

2.1k · October 28, 2003

Roadcow and I each logged it as found because there is enough physical evidence at the site to establish its location. My previous photo shows the marker on top of its witness post and the broken rock is right where the description places it.

I've been to this one several times in the course of my work, the last time being 3 days ago. The local surveyors know it is damaged and may have reported it. There is a benchmark at the bottom of the hill along the highway that is used for surveying in this area.

It was important for me to note to the geocaching.com site that this marker is on private property with a residence being built 50' away so it is essentially off-limits to benchmark hunters. I'll consider making a report just to see what that is like but my consulting business has been hit very hard by my geocaching diversions so I don't know if I can deal with something new just yet.

1.4k · October 28, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by Rich in NEPA:
I beg to differ. This station was identified. You should log it as "Found." The "Destroyed" logging option should _never_ be used.

I disagree. While there may be some abuse of the "Destroyed" option, the fact that the disk is there positively identifies the point.

quote:
Whether or not you observed the actual setting in this case, the disk proves that the station was essentially destroyed (NGS will certainly list it as such).

If the NGS would log it as destroyed, then it's destroyed. Why should we have a higher standard?

quote:
If the station was a horizontal control with reference marks intact, or if it was a vertical control with the setting intact, you should describe the _condition_ of the station as "Poor" in your log.

I think what you are describing here is where the "mark" is intact, but just the label has come off. That's not the impression I'm getting here.

quote:
It's been pointed out numerous times here that these particular circumstances will still allow for using the station in a survey application.

Depending on what degree of accuracy you want I suppose you can. But again, I'm playing by NGS definitions here. This is supposed to be a hobbyist site, not a place for scrounging marks.

Sagefox, just email your photo(s) of the disk clearly separated from it's setting and showing the markings to Deb.Brown@noaa.gov along with the PID "KT2038".

October 28, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by GeckoGeek:
While there may be some abuse of the "Destroyed" option, the fact that the disk is there positively identifies the point.

Now, didn't I just say that very thing?! Having the disk in hand along with the other on-site evidence is enough to prove the destruction of the station.

My point about the "Destroyed" logging option has nothing to do with abuse, either. My contention is that the only two options needed for logging on the benchmarking site is "Found" and "Not Found" (and, of course, the "Note"). I've been stating this for months: that it was wrong from the start to model the benchmarking logging process after geocaching. The idea of finding the mark is not appropriate or sufficient. The mark is only representative of the station.

quote:
If the NGS would log it as destroyed, then it's destroyed. Why should we have a higher standard?

Where do you get this idea of a higher standard? As a matter of fact, I'm espousing a lower standard. By logging the station as "Found" and by providing a "Condition" field (Good, Poor, Destroyed) and letting NGS (if and when a formal recovery report is submitted to them) make the final determination according to their own very strict standards. This means that I would merely be listing the station's condition as destroyed in my logs.

quote:
I think what you are describing here is where the "mark" is intact, but just the label has come off. That's not the impression I'm getting here.

No! I'm describing the opposite—the situation where the mark is not intact, which is exactly the condition that Team Sagefox has indicated. In his case, the setting is also unusable. It is indeed appropriate for him to submit a formal recovery report indicating that the station is destroyed (as it certainly will be, according to NGS standards). Again, this leaves the benchmarking site out of the equation. If the setting was intact, with only the mark missing, and there was sufficient evidence to verify the station's identity (such as a set of reference marks, for example), then the station's condition ought to be described as poor (in the log) simply because it is still usable in certain survey applications. NGS will still declare it destroyed for their own purposes. NGS has stated that their standards are intended to be the highest, as noted by the fact that even though there are numerous USGS marks in existence, and they are used by surveyors all the time, these particular marks seldom meet NGS guidelines for accuracy to be included in their database. That doesn't mean that these marks are no good!

quote:
Depending on what degree of accuracy you want I suppose you can. But again, I'm playing by NGS definitions here. This is supposed to be a hobbyist site, not a place for scrounging marks.

I have absolutely no idea what this means. Nothing I've said earlier changes the nature of the "game" for most players. Certainly, if it is a game, then the scoring mechanism should befit the play. When a station is identified with certainty, it is a legitimate "find" whether the mark exists or not. I don't understand why this simple concept is so difficult to comprehend?

Cheers ...

~Rich in NEPA~

--- You might own the cache, but geocaching.com owns you. ---

1.7k · October 28, 2003

I suggest the discussion of logging destroyed should be on another thread. This one is for folks to find out what survey markers and witness posts look like.

DustyJacket

Not all those that wander are lost. But in my case...

October 28, 2003

Ooops! Sorry, DJ. It's all too easy to go off on tangents.

Cheers ...

~Rich in NEPA~

--- You might own the cache, but geocaching.com owns you. ---

1.4k · October 29, 2003

quote:
Originally posted by DustyJacket:
I suggest the discussion of logging destroyed should be on another thread. This one is for folks to find out what survey markers and witness posts look like.

Can the powers that be spin this discussion off into another thread starting from Team Sagefox's post?

December 15, 2003

time for a BUMP.

1.7k · January 4, 2004

OK, I just added all the photos people have sent me over the last 3 months.

Added a new rivet, a reference tag, some alien-looking structure, and a couple of really old monuments.

http://www.dustyjacket.com/benchmarks.html

Thanks to all the contributors.

(I am still soliciting different types of markers, but not every state/county/private variation of the standard disk marker. I don't have the space to hold one of every disk in the world.)

1.5k · January 4, 2004

I was talking with a fellow cacher last Saturday and he told me of finding a sign for a witness tree. I specifically asked him about the wording and he said it actually said "witness tree" and was attached to a tree. I've never seen any mention of anything like that here so I thought I'd mention it. I asked for pictures but he didn't take any. It was down in Arkansas somewhere.

Sounds like a witness to a section corner, They have signs that says "Witness Tree" or "Bearing Tree". I have seen USGLO witness tree signs before. There is likely a nail or notch cut into the tree for reference to the distance to the section corner and or land boundary monument. USFS uses signs that say "Bearing Tree".

Edited January 4, 2004 by elcamino

1.6k · January 4, 2004

Thanks for the cool website, DustyJacket. I really enjoy seeing all the variations. Keep up the good work!

Edited January 4, 2004 by Klemmer

1.7k · January 4, 2004

From the web page

January 10, 2004

Really enjoyed the web page! Thanks for doing it!!

January 11, 2004

Great resourse page! Thanx for the effort.

1.7k · January 11, 2004

I added a couple of Missouri River Comission markers to the end of the page.

They are different, and cruder than most, and are rusting which you don't see a lot.

Thanks for the kind words.

When I first did this page, I was looking to post a photo of a witness post, since I knew a lot of folks didn't know what one was. So I posted a photo (the first metal witness post on the page) and asked for "donations" of other photos. I thought this page would be neat to show the different "kinds" of posts and markers to folks that want to go out to find them.

Wow. What a response. I have not counted, but there are probably a hundred or more photos.

Some that got sent to me were not posted, because it was just a variation on a theme. (I can't post every state/city disk ever created, so if it is just another disk with nothing unusual or diferent, I see no reason to post it. Sorry.)

When I get the time (probably months away) I am going to reorganize them into seperate pages for NGS/USGS, state and local government, and private markers. And maybe an "unusual" page for the shacks, cloth markers, reference tags, bearing trees, and really odd things.

Suggestions are welcome.

[Edited to add this link again: http://www.dustyjacket.com/benchmarks.html ]

Edited January 11, 2004 by DustyJacket

January 12, 2004

As helpful as this thread, and DustyJacket's webpage have become to many new (and some not so new) benchmark hunters, I'd like to suggest to the Admin that this thread get pinned to the top of the forum.

1.4k · January 12, 2004

As helpful as this thread, and DustyJacket's webpage have become to many new (and some not so new) benchmark hunters, I'd like to suggest to the Admin that this thread get pinned to the top of the forum.

I don't know as the thread is that useful, but a link would be nice.

Photos of Survey markers and Witness Posts

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Join the conversation