Need help with BM drilled into rock

[+Thack Pack]

When a BM is going to be set in a rock outcrop how big is the drill hole? Anybody have a picture?

 

I was searching for a BM today that was set in a rock outcrop. I found a small hole that had been driiled into the rock and a small amount of concrete next to the hole. My guess is that I found the location but that the mark is gone.

[+Rich in NEPA]

 

 

 

 

Howdy, TP! Here's a couple of photos from two stations that were found with missing marks. In the first photo (LY2714) the stem still remains in the hole. In the 2nd and 3rd pics (LY1342) the entire disk has been removed. The hole for the stem appears to be about 5/8-inch diameter. Not sure about the depth.

 

Cheers ...

 

~Rich in NEPA~

 

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

[+Thack Pack]

Thanks Rich. After looking at your pictures I feel more comfortable thinking I may have found the spot GW2237 used to reside in.

 

[MOCKBA]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rich in NEPA:

...http://www.geocaching.com/mark/details.asp?PID=LY1342 the entire disk has been removed.

---

Nice pictures, I've seen a hole like this for the BM on Clayton Peak here in the Wasatch, it was logged as 'not found'. Yours is logged as 'destroyed' though. But I saw elsewhere on this forum that for certain lower-precision BMs, the drill hole is in itself sufficient for positive recovery. Check e.g. this thread:

http://ubbx.Groundspeak.com/6/ubb.x?a=tpc&s=5726007311&f=5116058331&m=29960786&r=16560496

Incidentally Rich - what kind of automation and robotics? Not liquid handling robots by chance?

[+GeckoGeek]

quote:

---

Originally posted by MOCKBA:

I've seen a hole like this for the BM on Clayton Peak here in the Wasatch, it was logged as 'not found'. Yours is logged as 'destroyed' though.

---

 

I think the biggest problem with logging these as "destroyed" (by NGS standards) is the lack of positive identification. After all, the BM could be hiding under a rock two feet away from the hole photographed. Whatever status you give it, always log what you did find.

[+Rich in NEPA]

 

quote:

---

Originally posted by MOCKBA:

 

But I saw elsewhere on this forum that for certain lower-precision BMs, the drill hole is in itself sufficient for positive recovery.

---

Yes, I admit that there seems to be a lot of ambiguity and confusion as to how these situations should be logged. Even the NGS reporting guidelines are unclear and result in numerous conflicting reports. I understand the notion that in many cases a station is still useful/useable if the mark is missing, but that seems to be a decision best left to the user and his/her standards and needs at the time. The fact remains that the mark itself is indeed destroyed or missing. However, based on what seems to be the general consensus of this benchmark hunting community, I have changed my report for LY1342 to indicate "Not Found" as opposed to "Destroyed." I agree that it makes more sense from a utilitarian perspective.

 

Since I am not very knowledgeable of the surveying profession, I do not presume myself to be qualified enough to submit an NGS report on any of my "amateur recoveries" (especially involving "Not Found" and "Destroyed" marks). When there are signs that a mark is missing there will always be doubt that this evidence refers to the mark in question. (It's logically impossible to prove a negative.) So, it all boils down to a matter of degrees of certainty—that is, how much evidence is there and how reliable is it. That's why I attempt to provide clear photographs, reasonably close GPS coordinates, and whatever other visible evidence I can recover at the site, given my own personal resources. As I learn more and more during my benchmark hunting activities, I am (hopefully) improving my methods of logging my recoveries on the benchmarking website (we definitely need more precisely defined guidelines and standardized formats), with the intent that someday all this information will be recognized as having significant professional value.

 

quote:

---

Incidentally Rich - what kind of automation and robotics? Not liquid handling robots by chance?

---

I worked in the color television picture tube industry for over 23 years in a highly automated manufacturing facility. Our equipment handled everything from the transfer of hot glass panels and funnels, precision assembly, process chemistry and acid/caustic washes, welding, packaging and warehousing, painting/striping/gluing, electronic testing and high-voltage aging, quality assurance and data logging, sizing and inspection, and many other industrial control tasks.

 

Cheers ...

 

~Rich in NEPA~

 

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

[MOCKBA]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rich in NEPA:

"Not Found" and "Destroyed" marks). When there are signs that a mark is missing there will always be doubt that this evidence refers to the mark in question. (It's logically impossible to prove a negative.) So, it all boils down to a matter of degrees of certainty—that is, how much evidence is there and how reliable is it

---

we are in a bind here, the existing categories of "Not Found" vs. "Destroyed" are just too wide to describe the reality adequately, yet adding more categories (like "Damaged / Recoverable"? ) is probably going to create even more confusion.

quote:

---

transfer of hot glass panels and funnels, precision assembly, process chemistry and acid/caustic washes, welding, packaging and warehousing, painting/striping/gluing, electronic testing and high-voltage aging, quality assurance and data logging, sizing and inspection

---

wow, the real thing! My robots only transfer miniscule droplets of biologicals from one group of puny wells to another; no sparks flying (hopefully ) ; and the final outcome of production is loads of info rather than something physically tangible.

[+Rich in NEPA]

 

quote:

---

Originally posted by MOCKBA:

 

We are in a bind here, the existing categories of "Not Found" vs. "Destroyed" are just too wide to describe the reality adequately, yet adding more categories (like "Damaged / Recoverable"? ) is probably going to create even more confusion.

---

I can't help wondering if the better solution wouldn't be to simplify things and do away with the "Destroyed" option for all logs on the benchmarking website. (At least for the time being—since it's painfully obvious that the benchmarking section is the oft-neglected stepchild of Geocaching.com and I don't expect these kinds of issues will ever get the administrative attention that they deserve!) A mark would be either "Found" or "Not Found." Which means it's positively identifiable or not, and in either case it's condition can/should be described. "Notes" could also be entered as usual for any other purposes. I agree the more "categories" that are available, the greater the chance for misinterpretation and confusion. I know that if I were to ever submit a destroyed/missing report to the NGS, I would merely provide all the evidence that I could and then leave it up to them to decide how to describe its condition on the datasheet. It's probably best for the sake of consistency that in these cases only one qualified individual or agency make that determination.

 

Cheers ...

 

~Rich in NEPA~

 

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

[+FourHighlandsRats]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rich in NEPA:

 

I can't help wondering if the better solution wouldn't be to simplify things and do away with the "Destroyed" option for all logs on the benchmarking website. [...] A mark would be either "Found" or "Not Found."

---

 

Well, I recovered one mark as positively destroyed: JERK RM 1

 

I submitted it to Deb Brown and the NGS database has been updated. Why would this mark be "Not Found" when it clearly passes the NGS standard for "Destroyed"?

 

What we really need is a better laid out description of each status type. Part of the problem probally stems from Geocaching using the same "Not Found" term used by NGS but with different meanings. From the Geocaching side it means "couldn't find it, maybe it is missing or maybe it stumped me". On the Benchmark side it means "searched and referenced to the best of my abilities; it is either buried or destroyed without complete proof".

 

--- J

[+Rich in NEPA]

 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Four Summerlin Rats:

 

I submitted it to Deb Brown and the NGS database has been updated. Why would this mark be "Not Found" when it clearly passes the NGS standard for "Destroyed"?

---

Howdy, FSR! If the "Destroyed" option were eliminated, that particular mark would be logged as "Found" since you have positively identified it, but its condition would be described as "destroyed."

 

I agree that the common terms should have different meanings between the Geocaching section and the benchmark section. (It's also one of the reasons it is so difficult to check the Not Found option when your search turns up only the hole where the disk should be!) Until things change and the benchmark section is taken more seriously by its administrators, limiting the logging options to "Found," "Not Found," and "Note" may very well be the better solution.

 

The way I see the problem with the benchmarking logs is that some people (notably the more qualified professionals on this forum) feel that even though a mark is missing or destroyed (by NGS standards), the station itself may still be useable. Let's look at the two examples I used earlier. I had originally logged LY1342 as destroyed but was informed that since a surveyor could still use the station for leveling purposes I should have logged it as "Not Found" instead. And, I said that I agreed with a "Not Found" in this case for utilitarian purposes. I could probably send in a recovery report to NGS describing the situation and let them decide how to list it on the official datasheet. There's little doubt in my mind that Deb Brown would describe it as destroyed, based on the evidence. Nor could I log it as "Found" for the simple reason that I could not positively identify it (as you were able to do with JERK RM1, even though it is only a reference mark and not the station mark). What I'm saying is that in the case of our benchmarking logs, the criteria for "Found" versus "Not Found" is identification. As GeckoGeek pointed out above, I could not be 100% sure that the hole I found in the rock belongs to LY1432!

 

That brings me to the next example. Since LY2714 is a tri-station with two perfectly intact reference marks, even though the station disk is missing it can be positively identified as the correct station. In this situation I believe that it should properly be logged as "Found," with its condition listed as "Poor" but maybe not "Destroyed." Again, when submitting a recovery report to NGS, it should be left to them to determine how to list it on their datasheet. The description and photos will explain the situation completely.

 

I'm convinced that if you think this through, you will see that eliminating the "Destroyed" option makes these situations easier to deal with. Perhaps the format for the log entry form should provide a series of radio buttons for indicating the condition of the marks. Does this make sense to anyone else, or am I way out in left field?!

 

Cheers ...

 

~Rich in NEPA~

 

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

[+GEO*Trailblazer 1]

What if you find the 3 references the azimuth and the (underground) mark?

There is always an underground mark at the base of the Station mark.

NGS says destroyed but it can be used to reset the station?????

To me the mark is there if you can find most of the evidence based on the description and the Latt. and Long.the map,and any other reference's such as witness trees,witness posts,and the likes.

I have several I just really do not know how to log Professionaly,not being a pro at it.

 

WHEN ALL ELSE FAILS

*GEOTRYAGAIN*

TAKE PRIDE IN AMERICA

http://www.doi.gov/news/front_current.html

1803-2003

"LOUSIANA PURCHASE"

http://www.lapurchase.org

"LEWIS AND CLARK EXPADITION"

http://lewisclark.geog.missouri.edu/index

 

Arkansas Missouri Geocachrs Association

http://www.ARK-MOGeocachersAssociatoin@msnusers.com

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Ark-Mo-Geocachers

[+GeckoGeek]

quote:

---

Originally posted by GEO*Trailblazer 1:

There is always an underground mark at the base of the Station mark.

---

 

Not always, but in many cases there is. But that is a good point. It's possible that a station that has a underground station isn't destroyed unless the underground station is also destroyed.

 

It would be good to point out that no one "marks" a station as destroyed for NGS. On can submit reports suggesting it is but they decide if the evidence is sufficent.

 

What rules should be adopted for the geocaching site is another matter. When a method to update the from the NGS is set up perhaps the best thing is to list it destroyed if and only if the NGS lists it as destroyed.

[+GeckoGeek]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rich in NEPA:

I'm convinced that if you think this through, you will see that eliminating the "Destroyed" option makes these situations easier to deal with. Perhaps the format for the log entry _form_ should provide a series of radio buttons for indicating the condition of the marks. Does this make sense to anyone else, or am I way out in left field?!

---

 

Keep in mind that the criteria for destroying landmarks (buildings, towers, etc.) are different then for disks. It's pretty hard to miss a radio tower if your anywhere in the area.

 

In fact, it’s sometimes hard to “find” such as landmark because you’re never quite sure if the radio tower you see today is the same one listed in 1960. Technology does change.

[+Rich in NEPA]

 

quote:

---

Originally posted by GeckoGeek:

 

Keep in mind that the criteria for destroying landmarks (buildings, towers, etc.) are different then for disks. It's pretty hard to miss a radio tower if your anywhere in the area.

---

Can you explain in what way they are different? I'm not sure that I follow you. It might be pretty hard to miss something as prominent as a tower, but it's still necessary to identify it as the correct tower and/or the original one. I'd think that this is where a little research would be required, perhaps a visit to the local library to find old photos, etc.

 

By leaving the determination of a destroyed mark up to qualified individuals (at NGS), the only thing I as an amateur benchmark recoverer need to worry about is whether to log my search as "Found" or "Not Found," based on positive identification. If I don't know that a tower, for example, is the same one in the datasheet description, then it's no different than if I find a drill hole where a disk should be.

 

The criteria for logging a Geocache find is in essence signing the logbook. (If the cache is missing, it's not enough to say that I'm pretty sure I know where it was hidden in order to claim a find!) I'm merely suggesting that the criteria for logging a benchmark find ought to be in essence positive identification. Sure, sometimes it might be difficult to do, just like looking for a well-hidden cache. More than once I've looked for hours only to discover that a cache was indeed missing, and I was sincere enough to log it as "Not Found." But each of us has to decide how much that challenge means to us.

 

If the form for logging benchmark searches on the website were to include a picklist of conditions, it would still be mostly a subjective choice, but there's also the option of posting a message to the forum to ask for qualified help. Perhaps it would be a good idea to have a resident moderator for the benchmark forum who is a surveying professional with a knowledge of NGS practices.

 

Cheers ...

 

~Rich in NEPA~

 

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

[+GeckoGeek]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rich in NEPA:

Can you explain in what way they are different?

---

 

Let’s start off with a couple of quotes from emails from Deb at NGS. Previously beatnik posted this reply

quote:

---

NGS policy restrains me from logging a station as destroyed without actual proof of the identity of the disk designation. So in this case, please use the online form to submit a NOT FOUND or POOR report and in the text portion of the form indicate it's actual condition - ie: not there!

---

 

In a follow-up email I received the following:

quote:

---

The criteria for listing a landmark station as destroyed is a little more relaxed than a station disk. For landmark stations such as a tower, just send me a photo in JPEG format of the area where the tower was and please include the PID and Designation of the station.

 

For disks, a photo of the remnants of the disk is required. If the setting is there but no disk, then use the online form to list it NOT FOUND or POOR and in the text portion of the form state what you found.

---

Note that you send a email to Deb for a destroyed station, you use the on-line forms for submitting all other reports.

 

 

quote:

---

I'm not sure that I follow you. It might be pretty hard to miss something as prominent as a tower, but it's still necessary to _identify_ it as the correct tower and/or the original one.

---

 

Let me phrase it this way. When you find a disk there is no doubt you have found it. The stamping is the proof. That satisfies everyone. When you find a landmark, their maybe some doubt if it is the same landmark or if it has somehow been moved or replaced. But there seems to be few guidelines in this regard. Everything seems to be left up to the judgment of the hunter.

 

When going to log a landmark as destroyed, there is rarely doubt about it’s disappearance. Large structures do not hide very well. As long as everything in the description matches up and you’re in the right location. Again, this satisfies everyone. Where this can be a bone of contention is how much checking is required. There’s always the possibility that the datasheet is in error and you’re in the wrong location.

 

The confusing part is when dealing with a station disk. By NGS rules, a station that is missing it’s disk is technically destroyed, but it can’t be logged as destroyed unless the station can be positively identified – and to do that you have to find the disk (Catch 22) . The textbook example of destroyed is finding a disk on a monument, but the monument has toppled. The disk has positively identified the station, but because it has moved, it is considered destroyed (although some people having found the disk have logged it as a “find”.)

 

Hope that cleared it up.