Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
xargs

Invalid "finds" being logged

Recommended Posts

I've recently seen several benchmarks that were logged incorrectly as "finds"; sometimes they were described as "destroyed" by the benchmarker; sometimes the wrong benchmark was logged (e.g., EW6033). Is there any way to get these "unlogged?"

Share this post


Link to post

This is a really good question. I see it with some frequency. This is different than caches that are logged incorrectly because the cache owner has some control over the logs. Here in benchmarking, no one controls the logs. We need to discuss a possible solution so that TPTB have something to work from (unless they have already figured it out). Short of having some committee that reviews and approves all benchmark logs, I don't know what the answer is. And, in the long run, it will create rules, red tape and bad feelings, so I'm not sure it is worth it. Actually, I am more concerned with people running over to the NGS site to log their visits and not following the more stringent guidelines over there, although, to be fair, I have not seen any of that. Anyway, more discussion is needed, please post your thoughts.

Share this post


Link to post

I really like to see a closeup picture of a mark - that is fairly unambiguous. But not everyone can afford a digital camera. A friendly e-mail to the logger that is thought to be in error can clear up things sometimes - they have the power to update their post. Otherwise I agree with RogBarn - rules, red tape, hurt feelings - can make for a slippery slope.

 

----- Fighting entropy one benchmark at a time. -----

Share this post


Link to post

xargs -

 

It has been suggested here that we email those people who 'log incorrectly'. As can be seen from that thread, this can immediately lead to arguments about interpretation of rules and disagreement between 'we can all just do what we want' and 'we should be consistently following some rules/guidelines'.

 

(The poll's results are gone, apparently.)

 

Rogbarn - what does TPTB mean?

Share this post


Link to post

quote:
Originally posted by Black Dog Trackers:

xargs -

 

It has been suggested http://ubbx.Groundspeak.com/6/ubb.x?a=tpc&s=5726007311&f=5116058331&m=8546050791 that we email those people who 'log incorrectly'. As can be seen from that thread, this can immediately lead to arguments about interpretation of rules and disagreement between 'we can all just do what we want' and 'we should be consistently following some rules/guidelines'.


That thread references a post by Jeremy (which is no longer archived) allegedly saying that just finding the RM is ok. But that contradicts with what's posted on the web page: "If the station has reference marker disks, they don't count as the find; you must find the station disk itself." Which is correct?

 

quote:
Rogbarn - what does TPTB mean?

My guess is "The People That Benchmark."

Share this post


Link to post

OK - this is a hobby...but the question I want to have answered is "Did you see the benchmark?". Not "Did you get close? or "Did you find some evidence of the mark?".

 

You can always participate by sharing what you did find and how the search went. Since we have a range of ways for people to be involved I would like the to keep the idea of "found" more exclusive rather than inclusive.

 

----- Fighting entropy one benchmark at a time. -----

Share this post


Link to post

I couldn't resist:

 

If TPTB had wanted us to log RM's they would have given them their own PID! icon_wink.gif

 

----- Fighting entropy one benchmark at a time. -----

Share this post


Link to post

Read the log on this benchmark:

 

http://www.geocaching.com/mark/details.asp?PID=AC8459

 

I just don't understand how finding the witness post equates to finding the actual benchmark.... often the benchark can be up to a hundred feet away from the sign... this is a classic example of an invalid find.

 

In fact, this type of 'find' really ticks me off.... icon_mad.gif

 

Jeff

http://www.StarsFellOnAlabama.com

http://www.NotAChance.com

If you hide it, they will come....

Share this post


Link to post

I'm rather new to this. but, I would say that we all work under an honor system. We do this for the challenge and the pleasure. One should, at least find the Bench Mark. The witness post, is obviously not the mark. The fun is in the finding. I would suggest Invalid finds being logged is not much of an issue. Thanks for letting me put in my thoughts.

Share this post


Link to post

As mentioned, TPTB = The Powers That Be. In this case, I meant the wonderful folks at Groundspeak such as Jeremy. They are responsible for the site and the way it works. If they want rules for logging benchmarks or the review thereof, they can create it.

 

This thread has generated several replies today. That is good to see. IMHO, the bottom line is similar to what PwZ just said, it's a game and there is little to be gained from trying to correct other peoples logs. It will only take away the fun and discourage newbies from joining. And, as I said in my first post, we need to emphasize the need to be more accurate when posting to the NGS.

Share this post


Link to post

quote:
I would say that we all work under an honor system. We do this for the challenge and the pleasure. One should, at least find the Bench Mark. The witness post, is obviously not the mark. The fun is in the finding. I would suggest Invalid finds being logged is not much of an issue

 

Well... you are welcome to your opinion, as is anyone else. This may be only a 'game' for many of us, but if I am going to play a game with other people, I expect them to play by the same rules. The rules, in this case, involve finding a benchmark be it disk, rod, etc., the game is not to find a witness post/sign.

 

What if someone is reporting such a find to the NGS? The data sheets that are update with such a bogus find may be used be a real surveyor and may end-up wasting this surveyor's valuable time.

 

I only need 3 more benchmarks to hit 100 found. I have honestly found all of these benchmarks and have physically touched each of them, with the exception of some water tanks and spires. These are the rules of the game.

 

What may seem trivial to you, seems to be cheating to me.

 

Your profile states that you spent working with the space program. Did NASA accept anything other than the exact/precise answer to a problem? Did you ever fudge while working on a space program project? While you may see this as a simple game, if this person reported this find to the NGS, it is bogus and misleading.

 

Like you stated, we all work under the honor system and it seems that some are less than honorable or, at the very least, don't understand the rules or just refuse to play by them.

 

Jeff

http://www.StarsFellOnAlabama.com

http://www.NotAChance.com

If you hide it, they will come....

Share this post


Link to post

quote:
Originally posted by jeff35080:

If I am going to play a game with other people, I expect them to play by the same rules. The rules, in this case, involve finding a benchmark be it disk, rod, etc., the game is not to find a witness post/sign.


 

I agree; yes it's all for fun, but games are rarely fun when not all of the players play by the rules. And I think the rules are very clear when it comes to survey disks, if we are to go by the main benchmark hunting page. I don't see any room for debate or interpretation when it comes to a "find." Things like "couldn't find" vs. "destroyed" vs. "note" are another matter.

 

I guess the real question is whether what's stated on the Benchmark Hunting web page constitutes "rules," or are they simply guidelines that everyone is free to ignore?

Share this post


Link to post

quote:
Originally posted by RogBarn:

Short of having some committee that reviews and approves all benchmark logs, I don't know what the answer is. And, in the long run, it will create rules, red tape and bad feelings, so I'm not sure it is worth it.


I don't think anything so formal is required. It'd just be nice to be able to report an obviously wrong "find" somehow.

Share this post


Link to post

Check out the log file NH0016 Waukesha County, WI. Sad face. Was it logged right? I haven't looked at all logs, but I haven't seen any other sad faces on bench marks. I have posted another reply on this forum, which see. Now, I get the feeling that there are some, not all, in this forum who want a lot of rules and regs. Is this a hobby and education thing? Maybe because I'm new at this (not orienteering) I don't realize I'm among professionals. Someone set me straight. I'm doing this solely for enjoyment, So guess I'll not log any more.

Share this post


Link to post

quote:
Check out the log file NH0016 Waukesha County, WI. Sad face. Was it logged right?

 

Yes, you didn't find the marker and thus couldn't log it.

 

quote:
want a lot of rules and regs. Is this a hobby and education thing?

 

I just think that if we are searching for benchmark, that we should find the benchmarks, not witness posts/signs which may be nowhere near the mark.

 

quote:
I don't realize I'm among professionals.

 

Yes, there are quite a few professionals who post here and I have learned volumes from them. I am not a professional surveyor but strive to be professional in my finds and in what I report to the NGS as other professional surveyors may use the information that I provide.

 

quote:
I'm doing this solely for enjoyment, So guess I'll not log any more.

 

Why aren't you going to log anymore? I don't understand that statement. Please have fun and log all the markers that you find. My original post simply stated that finding a witness post/sign does not equal finding the actual benchmark.

 

Jeff

http://www.StarsFellOnAlabama.com

http://www.NotAChance.com

If you hide it, they will come....

Share this post


Link to post

I am definitely with xargs and jeff35080 on this.

 

I think that in all games, no matter how much of just-a-game it is, there are both rules and etiquette. People purposefully not playing according to the rules degrades the game, not just a bit, but a lot.

 

While most benchmarkers are making sure to 'play by the rules', the other (very few) people should not be playing this game like trying to play scrabble where you claim a word even though you are actually missing a couple of its letters.

 

I don't want to appear that I'm 'bashing the newbie', that is not my point at all. New people, like I once was, and probably still am, are certainly allowed to make all the mistakes they need to make while they figure out the game. That's also the etiquette of games!

 

Benchmark logs can be fixed by the 'player' here, and we should do that. I've probably got a couple that I've done incorrectly and should change if I can ever figure it out, and may need other players' help to do so.

Share this post


Link to post

PwZ -

 

Your log of NH0016 is perfectly fine. It sounds like you did an excellent job of searching. All of us really know that those sad-face logs are the hard ones, the ones we spend the most time on. I give credit to all those too.

 

Haven't seen any sad-face logs? Click on my name and then on the word Found in Benchmarks Found and you'll see plenty of them! Same with the rest of us. When we register a not-found, we're taking Credit for doing a good job of looking like you did, whether we find the mark or not.

 

So, please continue the quest with us, there are over 700,000 to go!

Share this post


Link to post

quote:
I've probably got a couple that I've done incorrectly and should change if I can ever figure it out, and may need other players' help to do so.

 

I agree... I'm by no means perfect. I have 3 to go before I hit 100 found. As I have progressed in the 'game' I have become more proficient at playing the 'game'. I can read a 'To Reach' with the best of 'em now and have a new-found admiration for my compass while hunting marks.

 

While some of my earlier logs are lacking the polish that my later ones have, I always logged the actual benchmark and not just a post or sign. The logging of a post or sign just isn't the purpose of the 'game' or 'sport' and when I saw that one yesterday, it really aggravated me when I stopped to wonder how many people might actually be doing that.

 

Anyways, I'm not out to bash anyone. I'm simply expressing my feelings on the subject and to state it in the most simple of terms, I believe that in order to log a find one must actually find and see the benchmark. Cheers!

 

Jeff

http://www.StarsFellOnAlabama.com

http://www.NotAChance.com

If you hide it, they will come....

Share this post


Link to post

I would say that, much like the NGS logs the benchmarks themselves, they rely on the goodness of others to validate whether the benchmarks still exist. If someone errs and logs a benchmark when they log a reference mark, etc, feel free to email them and let them know it has been incorrectly logged.

 

True, there is no "owner" of the data, so we'll have to figure out ways to devalue the find if it is incorrect. Deleting people's logs would be very difficult to keep up with.

 

frog.gif Jeremy Irish

Groundspeak - The Language of Location™

Share this post


Link to post

quote:
True, there is no "owner" of the data, so we'll have to figure out ways to devalue the find if it is incorrect. Deleting people's logs would be very difficult to keep up with.

 

I understand what you mean Jeremy it is just one of those things that really ticks me off when I see someone post a find for a witness post instead of the mark.

 

I'm not a professional but have learned so much from the professional surveyors here that I strive to do the right thing. I attempt to write better 'To Reach' descriptions to aid others and I report my finds both here and to the NGS.

 

Anyways... I guess it's a moot point, but like Black Dog Trackers stated, bogus finds degrade the game. Of course, it's a game with no real winners, except the personal satisfaction of finding a 116 year-old benchmark on top of a mountain. I just can't imagine how anyone could feel this same sense of satisfaction by cheating themself and others of a true find. Cheers!

 

Jeff

http://www.StarsFellOnAlabama.com

http://www.NotAChance.com

If you hide it, they will come....

Share this post


Link to post

quote:
Originally posted by Jeremy (Admin):

If someone errs and logs a benchmark when they log a reference mark, etc, feel free to email them and let them know it has been incorrectly logged.


To make it more intuitive and more ego-pleasing therefore acceptable, could we get an add'l log type, say 'Found hallmarks' or 'Found supporting elements'? Whenever the original BM wasn't documented but some unique adjacent objects were id'd correctly?

I guess it's just hard for people to do a lot of physical and mental work and to find something interesting and not to log it as a find of a sort... Then it becomes a slippery slope. Like, for http://www.geocaching.com/mark/details.asp?PID=LO1058 , someone logged a find and I thought, if they could log *this*, I should do it too. The verbal description of LO1058 has an obvious error, and both of us took advantage of this error to claim that we've been there. It was almost a mile away in reality. But then it becomes a different question: 'If others use so relaxed standarts for logging finds, why not me, too?'

Share this post


Link to post

I'm with jeff35080 and Black Dog Trackers on this issue. As I have gained experience, I have tightened up my standards for both finding and describing benchmarks. I've even "unfound" and "undestroyed" a mark or two. Though I agree in principal with MOCKBA regarding logging related elements or close calls, I disagree as a practical matter. The four possibilities we have now are comprehensive, and are sufficiently detailed for providing relevant summary information. The close call scenario can be handled with comments attached to either a no-find or a note.

As I read this thread I see two parallel conversations going on. One, regarding rules or standards and, two, regarding enforcement of those rules. I think that the rules should be fairly stringent but not impossible. The world according to Black Dog Trackers seems to be about right. Enforcement of those rules should be informal and peer-based. It's relatively easy to follow up somebody else's erroneous find with one's own not-found, accompanied by tactfully cast comments positing why the posted find was invalid.

Also, I suggest that we adpot another rule: if you're not professionally qualified to update public records, you should probably refrain from updating the NGS database itself.

Finally, why do so many hunters find the disk in the lawn but fail to find the 100 foot church spire 40 yards behind the lawn? Is there something unworthy about church spires and water tanks?

Share this post


Link to post

quote:
Also, I suggest that we adpot another rule: if you're not professionally qualified to update public records, you should probably refrain from updating the NGS database itself.

 

I think by the NGS having an online system that allows an individual to log a mark, it encourages citizens to log marks, I just hope it is done in a manner that would help future surveyors. An individual such as myself can not change the coordinates the NGS lists, but can only change the 'To Reach'.

 

quote:

Finally, why do so many hunters find the disk in the lawn but fail to find the 100 foot church spire 40 yards behind the lawn? Is there something unworthy about church spires and water tanks?


 

I log 'em all icon_biggrin.gif but I have noticed that some people don't log these types of marks. I am an equal opportunity recoverer icon_biggrin.gif

 

Jeff

http://www.StarsFellOnAlabama.com

http://www.NotAChance.com

If you hide it, they will come....

Share this post


Link to post

quote:
Is there something unworthy about church spires an water tanks?

 

Well, not intrinsically, but I find the idea of 'hunting' them to be uninteresting, so I haven't done any.

Share this post


Link to post

quote:
Originally posted by jeff35080:

quote:

Finally, why do so many hunters find the disk in the lawn but fail to find the 100 foot church spire 40 yards behind the lawn? Is there something unworthy about church spires and water tanks?


 

I log 'em all icon_biggrin.gif but I have noticed that some people don't log these types of marks. I am an equal opportunity recoverer.


 

I'm an equal opportunity recoverer, too. The choice made by some to ignore spires and tanks closely parallels the choice made by some to ignore locationless and virtual caches. I'll log anything I can find that has an individual PID or GC waypoint ID.

 

To my knowledge, I haven't logged a find unless I saw the "station" as described. Anything less gets a note, a not found, or a destroyed. We should all "play" by the same rules. I invite any of you to critique my list. Be warned, however. My descriptions are rarely wordy if the published description will suffice, and a photo of the brass disk is usually all I include. I figure that if I could find it with the published description, you can too. icon_smile.gif

Share this post


Link to post

quote:
I figure that if I could find it with the published description, you can too.

 

I found several over the past couple of days and all I did was update the description with modern road names such as "County Hwy 331" from a "gravel road". Often times the old descriptions work great. In fact, the disks I got yesterday were from 1949 yet the "to reach" descriptions were still fairly accurate sans some old farm houses and fences.

 

Jeff

http://www.StarsFellOnAlabama.com

http://www.NotAChance.com

If you hide it, they will come....

Share this post


Link to post

quote:
Originally posted by jeff35080:

quote:
I figure that if I could find it with the published description, you can too.

 

I found several over the past couple of days and all I did was update the description with modern road names such as "County Hwy 331" from a "gravel road".


 

Right! Good examples. I've noted several times that church names, store names, and others have changed. It's good to note these. I don't measure how far the mark is from the centerline of the highway, however. icon_wink.gif

Share this post


Link to post

quote:
Originally posted by seventhings:Also, I suggest that we adpot another rule: if you're not professionally qualified to update public records, you should probably refrain from updating the NGS database itself.

 

I disagree. That's why NGS has a classification for who is logging. If they decide GEOCAC is unhelpful, they could remove all those entries.

 

I'm pretty sure NGS wants reports, even from non-professionals.

 

However, I urge care in submitting NGS updates, since it does reflect on geocaching and does update a public record. For instance, I don't log a "not found" there, unless I am convinced the mark is destroyed.

 

On the other hand, "Not founds" in our data base take up about 1/2 my entries...I looked, I didn't find.

Share this post


Link to post

quote:
Finally, why do so many hunters find the disk in the lawn but fail to find the 100 foot church spire 40 yards behind the lawn? Is there something unworthy about church spires and water tanks?

 

Just comes down to what you find interesting. I'm with "Black Dog Trackers" - I don't have much interest in logging landmarks. The hunt for the disk is my thrill. And perhaps suprisingly I don't have any interest in looking for caches.

 

----- Fighting entropy one benchmark at a time. -----

Share this post


Link to post

Just a quick note to those who want a photo of the actual benchmark / tower / steeple. Photography on and around many DOD reservations, Airports, and other sensitive locations is now strictly prohibited. I have just started logging benchmarks around Ft. Knox and was amazed to find photos of major landmarks posted on the net. I really enjoy this hobby so far and I would hate to see anyone get in trouble due to ignorance of laws or regulations

 

Bret Bellizio

Share this post


Link to post

Bret -

 

Do you have a reference, perhaps on the internet, that we could read on this prohibition?

 

I'd like to know what the law says.

 

I'll bet that, in Washington DC, people take about 100 pictures of the Capitol Building per day, if not several times that.

Share this post


Link to post

OK you got me. Not the capitol building, but places that would seem just as deserving of a photograph like the Gold Vault at Ft. Knox. Stopping to take a photo is a quick way to meet the US Mint police and the MP's. I have also seen vehicles stopped and film confiscated after people have taken pictures on Ft. Knox anywhere other than the Patton Museum or specified events where it is authorized. The only reason I brought this up is the photo of GZ2836 are less than a kilometer from a restricted access area. I will try and find the regulation and post a link in my next message.

 

Bret Bellizio

Share this post


Link to post

i hunt with another benchmarker, and if he postes a photo in the same season nder similar conditions, i won't. likewise, if i post the photo, he won't. we try to split the uploading duties.

 

and in an unrelated thought, i have noted that a local benchmarker who is very careless has several bad find logs. for instance, one assumes that the mark has moved to the opposite side of the road (it has not) and the other claims as found a church spire that is no longer existant. i KNOW it's not there anymore, because the building BURNED DOWN in 1972.

 

it doesn't matter if you get to camp at one or at six. dinner is still at six.

Share this post


Link to post

quote:
other claims as found a church spire that is no longer existant. i KNOW it's not there anymore, because the building BURNED DOWN in 1972.

 

This is a classic example of some of the things that are being logged. Why the heck would someone do such a thing? To increase their 'found' number? Some other compelling reason?

 

Why would anyone want to cheat themself out of the thrill of genuinely finding a piece of history?

 

Jeff

http://www.StarsFellOnAlabama.com

http://www.NotAChance.com

If you hide it, they will come....

Share this post


Link to post

This has been brought up before, but at this point in this thread, I think it bears bringing up again. Perhaps each person's profile should have a not-found count as well as a found count. I know this doesn't make a lot of sense in the caching world, but for benchmarking it is significant.

 

It might help to point out that both found and not-found are creditable items. Also, those with not-founds in the few-to-none range would be made obvious.

 

It's a rather benign way of altering the 'numbers game' since not-founds always require much more searching, and the addition of both found and not-found is really more of the measure of work a person has done. One could even go so far as to feature this total, and give the other two counts as secondary information.

 

Does anyone have any comments on this? Does it make any sense?

Share this post


Link to post

quote:
Originally posted by Black Dog Trackers:

Perhaps each person's profile should have a not-found count as well as a found count.


I'll second that. And why not also add a count of benchmarks found that were previously "not found" by other players, and a count of "skull" benchmarks?

Share this post


Link to post

quote:
Originally posted by Black Dog Trackers:

This has been brought up before, but at this point in this thread, I think it bears bringing up again. Perhaps each person's profile should have a not-found count as well as a found count. I know this doesn't make a lot of sense in the caching world, but for benchmarking it is significant.

 

It might help to point out that both found and not-found are creditable items. Also, those with not-founds in the few-to-none range would be made obvious.

 

It's a rather benign way of altering the 'numbers game' since not-founds always require much more searching, and the addition of both found and not-found is really more of the measure of work a person has done. One could even go so far as to feature this total, and give the other two counts as secondary information.

 

Does anyone have any comments on this? Does it make any sense?


 

Ooooh I like that idea. It would make all that hard work with no pay-off and ugly purple frown faces have some meaning. I work hard to not find those benchmarks, sometimes returning 3 times before giving up on them.

 

************

 

Till a voice, as bad as Conscience, rang interminable changes

On one everlasting Whisper day and night repeated -- so:

"Something hidden. Go and find it. Go and look behind the Ranges --

"Something lost behind the Ranges. Lost and waiting for you. Go!"

 

Rudyard Kipling , The Explorer 1898

Share this post


Link to post

quote:
Originally posted by jeff35080:

quote:
other claims as found a church spire that is no longer existant. i KNOW it's not there anymore, because the building BURNED DOWN in 1972.

 

This is a classic example of some of the things that are being logged. Why the heck would someone do such a thing? To increase their 'found' number? Some other compelling reason?

 

Why would anyone want to cheat themself out of the thrill of genuinely finding a piece of history?


 

I think you are trying to read way too much into people's actions. The causal benchmarker isn't interested in counts or rules for logging. And if there are rules setup or even people emailing suggesting that their logs are wrong we will only run off the causal benchmarker.

 

quote:
Originally posted by xargs:

quote:
Originally posted by Black Dog Trackers:

Perhaps each person's profile should have a not-found count as well as a found count.


I'll second that. And why not also add a count of benchmarks found that were previously "not found" by other players, and a count of "skull" benchmarks?


I think BDT's suggestion is good but to go further will only complicate matters. Personally, I'd like to do away with the whole concept of "skull" benchmarks, just list them all the first time a search is done. As with caches, people have to look at the logs to make sure it is still available, if there are any special circumstances, etc and the same is true of benchmarks. The stable nature of benchmarks makes it a bit different but not enough to make things complicated. Just make sure the FAQ mentions that both geocaching logs and previous history from NGS should be read. Perhaps a highlighted line on the benchmark page itself to highlight the issue.

Share this post


Link to post

Re Black Dog Trackers' suggestion that not-founds be added to the profile, I vote absolutley YES. A good search and not-found is as important as a find, and hunters who go after a lot of low-probability of find marks peform a valuable service for other hunters. Such value should be reflected on the profile with a not-found count.

Finding a mark is merely a by-product; the principal act is the search.

Share this post


Link to post

quote:
Originally posted by Black Dog Trackers:

Perhaps each person's profile should have a not-found count as well as a found count


 

Absolutely yes. Everybody else who has responded has said the same. Can TPTB tell us it's a planned enhancement?

Share this post


Link to post

In response to the invalid finds being logged. I would think that a short (but pleasant) e-mail to the person who mislogged it explaining the concerns may be enough to get the 'finds' reported correctly, if not removed. In my area, I am really the only active benchmarker, but there are less-active hunters within about 50 miles. I know of one who has logged a few as finds when he has only seen the witness posts. One day in particular, he 'found' 3 or 4, and in each log he mentions that the white sign he found didn't look anything like the round brass disk that was described and that there was nothing that looked like a disk anywhere around. I have yet to send him a note. Before I do, I'd like to see the disks (or the area) myself.

 

As a cacher/benchmarker, I also agree that this is a game. My 'find' numbers are for me and not for anyone else. If another finder wants to count his finds differently that I do, or if he wants to accept witness posts (or any other evidence) as finds, then let them. It doesn't hurt me, my 'find' numbers, or make the marks I find any less special. Besides, who am I to impose the obsessive-compulsive rules I've made for myself on anyone else.

 

Also, I like the idea of seeing how many 'no-finds' a person has as much as everyone else who has posted here. Personally, I would also like to see how many of a particular individual's benchmark finds have adjusted vs. scaled coordinates. But really, how much data (or metadata) do we really need to immediately see. I think all of this info can be obtained by looking at an individual's finds. (Unless Jeremy is has a bunch of spare time and is itching to write some more code.) This may work aganst a few of us who don't log 'no finds', or log very few of them. I am one of those people. I tend to believe that many times, if I didn't find it, I didn't look hard enough.

 

Now if I may add my two cents as a surveyor... I do aggree with seventhings when he suggests that '...if you're not professionally qualified to update public records, you should probably refrain from updating the NGS database itself.' As a surveyor, these benchmarks, what they represent, and the records of them, make up a portion of how I make my livelyhood. I do not care for untrained and/or unqualified persons making changes to data that I may have to have to hang my professional career on. In all my benchmark finds, I have only found 2 or 3 that I have felt warranted a report to the NGS, even when many of the marks I've found had not been reported in over 40+ years.

 

This concern is mostly directed at reports of a benchmark being destroyed. Surveying involves a lot of intrepretation of evidence found at a particular site and the accompanying data. I've seen many posts and reports that use the logic of: IF [i search for a benchmark] AND [i didn't find the benchmark] THEN [it must be destroyed]. For many benchmarks, this is an illogical approach as the site evidence and data are not taken into account, and taking that evidence and data into account takes some degree of training and expertice. Basically, what looks destroyed to the layman may not be destroyed to a surveyor; maybe damaged, but not destroyed. I also don't know any surveyor who is going to spend the time to look for a mark that has been reported as destroyed. If a benchmark hunter (well intentioned or not) reports a mark as destroyed when it in fact it still exists, and that report gets posted, that benchmark hunter may have effectively destroyed it.

 

Now, before the flame-mail starts, let me say that I do believe that most, if not all of the persons who make amends to the NGS data are doing so with good intent. I also know that the NGS does not accept reports that are blatently wrong. I know that by reading the logs and posts in this forum, that most of the active benchmark hunters are concerned citizens and are in many cases, quite knowledgable about the significance of the marks they seek. I also believe that in many cases, the changes that are being reported to the NGS are are in instances when the surrounding area has changed significantly. This type of report can be a help to a surveyor, especially if a project is on a budget. I appreciate these changes, and am thankful for them. I just ask that before you send a report to the NGS remember this: Geocaching and benchmark hunting is a game, NGS data is not.

 

Keep on Caching!

- Kewaneh

Share this post


Link to post

Kewaneh & Shark makes the most sense so far.

I was under the impression that logging a "find" or "destroyed" on geocaching did not automatically get posted to the NGS database.

Does the NGS use our postings for their database or do we need to go to their web site to affect the database?

John

 

Smile, make others wonder what you're up to!!!

Share this post


Link to post

the guy who logged the find on the burned down building appears to simply not understand that the mark is not replaced if they put up a new building on the same general site.

 

he also does not seem to understand that where there are two marks near each other they are not interchangeable.

 

i don't really care if he claims them as found; he doesn't seem to be doing it to inflate his numbers. it seems to me that he ws cheerfully looking for a thing that he appeared to have found. he's happy.

 

i'm happy too, since i've done my homework and KNOW. it doesn't actually harm me in any way.

 

it doesn't matter if you get to camp at one or at six. dinner is still at six.

Share this post


Link to post

2oldfarts -

 

Your impression is correct. When a log is made on a benchmark page on the Geocaching website, the NGS database IS NOT automatically updated to reflect those logs. The NGS database is it's own entity and the geocaching database, which is occasionally updated, is a reflection of that database. I apoligize for any confusion.

 

My concern is with persons with little or no formal training making the claims about a mark without looking at, or understanding, all of the evidence for the mark. Most particularly if they claim it to be destroyed.

 

Keep on Caching!

- Kewaneh

Share this post


Link to post

quote:
making the claims about a mark without looking at, or understanding, all of the evidence for the mark. Most particularly if they claim it to be destroyed.

 

My entries into the NGS database are updated 'To Reach' descriptions, often with modern road names along with any landmark changes that may have happened since the 'Monumented' date (or subsequent recoveries).

 

I have reported a few 'Destroyed' marks to the NGS, but they were water tanks and buildings that have been razed.

 

I do frequently find the need to report a 'Poor, disturbed, mutilated, requires maintenance' to marks that have been ripped from the stems (found 2 of those this week) and marks along roadways that have been pulled from the ground by machinery such as Bushogs that may be mowing the ROW. I include in the description how the mark has been disturbed i.e. "THE CONCRETE POST CONTAINING THE DISK HAS BEEN DISLODGED AND IS NOW AT A 45-DEGREE ANGLE TO THE SURFACE OF THE GROUND". It has been posted here that the NGS does not have the finances or persons to repair or replace these types of disturbed marks, but it is my hope that my description may help a professional know that the mark is still physically there but has been disturbed from its correct position rendering it possibly useless until reset.

 

What are your thoughts on my actions Kewaneh & Shark? Would you find these types of updates to the NGS database useful? As a professional do you find it helpful to know that the mark was recovered i.e. verified that it still exists, even if the recovery was done by an amateur such as myself?

 

So often I find myself recovering marks that haven't been recovered in decades. I would think that most professionals, when planning a surveying project would possibly look at data sheets to see if there are any pre-existing benchmarks in the area. I would hope that just by knowing that 'someone' had actually seen the mark it would prove to be helpful. Am I thinking along the right lines?

 

I always enjoy listening to the professionals and hearing their opinions. I have learned a lot from many of the professionals that post here and look forward to learning more. Cheers!

 

Jeff

http://www.StarsFellOnAlabama.com

http://www.NotAChance.com

If you hide it, they will come....

Share this post


Link to post

I feel a bit unqualified to go ahead and make formal reports to the NGS database, so I haven't. I have noticed a few changes in street names and such, but none were anything I thought they absolutely couldn't do without.

 

I'm under the impression that the public window for reporting marks is really for professional surveyors, not hobbyists. Perhaps I'm mistaken in that opinion.

 

At this point, I have no interest in reporting any marks as destroyed to them. There are so many hundreds or thousands on their database where even the description says they are destroyed, yet are still in active status. If neither they nor any of the local professional surveyors are going to do it, why should I?

 

Am I off track here?

Share this post


Link to post

quote:
I'm under the impression that the public window for reporting marks is really for professional surveyors, not hobbyists. Perhaps I'm mistaken in that opinion.

 

If that was the case the NGS would not have individual and geocaching designations.

 

quote:
If neither they nor any of the local professional surveyors are going to do it, why should I?

 

I do it because I feel it's important for future generations. Even though you and I may be able to find the marks today with the landmarks mentioned, our grandkids may not find those same landmarks 30 years from now. I feel that I am doing a service to future generations by helping to update the 'To Reach' description.

 

If everyone relied on someone else to update the descriptions, they may never get updated. DaveD, a NGS professional, has also stated here that the NGS welcomes these reports. Cheers!

 

Jeff

http://www.StarsFellOnAlabama.com

http://www.NotAChance.com

If you hide it, they will come....

Share this post


Link to post

quote:
Originally posted by flask:

...does not seem to understand that where there are two marks near each other they are not interchangeable...cheerfully looking for a thing that he appeared to have found.


Apparently professional surveyors also have this 'I found something, therefore it must be what I was looking for' attitude. Like an LA BM which I've recently found ( http://www.geocaching.com/mark/details.asp?PID=DY1731 ). What has been documented as a county BM is a larger, better visible CGS BM four feet away.

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

×