Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
xargs

Invalid "finds" being logged

Recommended Posts

Benchmark hunting, as it is done on this website, is a game. My numbers are for me and I'm not trying to out-do another benchmark hunter. I agree with Flask that there are people that log finds when they really didn't find anything. Like him, I don't let the incorrect logs bother me, but I do understand how they might be bothersome to others, and I greatly respect their concern for correctness in the logging process. My logs contain information that is unnecessary for the 'game' are probably quite 'sterile' for the average reader. (I'm going to attribute this to my training as a surveyor.)

 

To jeff35080: as I said in the last paragraph of my initial post, (right after the comment about the flame mail), I do appreciate some of the updated benchmark logs, particularly the 'To Reach' descriptions. I also appreciate the attention to detail you would provide as to the condition of a monument. As a cacher/benchmark hunter, if I was to follow you and find one that you'd logged, I would probably log it similarly, or just say that I found the same. As a surveyor however, I would never draw a conclusion about the value of a monument without actually seeing the monument for myself. Your description would help me to determine what I may find when I get to the site, but it would have little bearing as to my conclusion about the value of the monument in the survey that I would be performing. (Don't let this offend you - as surveyors, we generally don't take the word of other surveyors at face value either. I draw my conclusions from what I find, not someone else.)

 

Again, my concerns are with benchmark hunters who report benchmarks that they were unable to find, as destroyed marks to the NGS. In some cases, it is very evident that they were destroyed - such as water tanks and buildings that are obviously gone. I don't think there is any harm done in this type of situation. Keep in mind though that the type of surveying that this type of monument (very tall structures which could be seen from a long distance) was used for is rarely done in practice anymore. So although they are interesting to find (and I've found my fair share of tanks and towers) and learn about a secondary function for the object as a benchmark (which interestingly enough, most of the owners of such landmarks never knew about), it is doubtful that these features will ever be used in the capacity as a benchmark again. At least as they were used when they were first monumented.

 

Brass disks are another thing entirely. Many times it's condition is not black and white. There can be a huge grey area that can only be muddled through with some professional expertise. What looks destroyed, or even damaged, may not be. As an example, there was a thread posted here a few months ago by someone who looked for a brass disk set in an abutment for a railroad bridge. He only found a drill hole where the stem was set and a slight impression/discoloration defining the location of the mark. This mark has no accessory ties or evidence, so he logged it (on the geocaching site) as destroyed. I (and I think ElCamino) looked at the original data sheet and saw that it was a third order vertical mark. An elevation station with an accuracy of +/- 0.05-0.08 feet. That's more than the thickness of the mark itself. If I was leveling to it, I could use the setting (the top of the abutment) without the physical mark, and still be within the published accuracy of that mark. It was destroyed to the benchmark hunter because the mark was missing, but to a surveyor, it was probably still usable, a consequently, not destroyed.

 

In most areas, surveyors who have been in practice for a while, already know the locations of the marks and use them. In some cases, they already have the data. I worked for a surveying firm a number of years ago that had much of the data for the NGS (USGS & USC&GS) already. This was before computers and the internet and getting the data sheet required using the US Postal Service. Once a data sheet was obtained, it was kept in a binder and refered to when necessary. Many of those data sheets were 30+ years old, but the data on them was still good. So we still used them, and consequently, didn't feel it necessary to update them.

 

I know of a local surveyor who has updated a few marks, but he was using them as a reference tie to a Record of Survey which was to be recorded with the County. He reported an updated condition to the NGS so his map would reflect the current NGS data. (This may not particularly useful now, but it could be very useful in the future to help another surveyor retrace his map in the field.)

 

I'm not trying to convince anyone to stop making reports to the NGS. If you find the present condition of a mark has changed greatly from its description, and you feel it warrants a report to the NGS, then go ahead. If they accept and publish it, you just may have helped someone in the future. I'm just trying to bring some understanding to the fact that while hunting for benchmarks and posting your findings on the geocaching website is a game, making changes to the NGS data sheets is not. Real professionals use that data for real world applications, and an erroneous update report by a hobbyist can be more detrimental than good.

 

Keep on Caching!

- Kewaneh

 

[This message was edited by Kewaneh & Shark on July 10, 2003 at 06:33 AM.]

Share this post


Link to post

quote:
Originally posted by Kewaneh & Shark:

 

Again, my concerns are with benchmark hunters who report benchmarks that they were unable to find, as destroyed marks to the NGS.

 

Brass disks are another thing entirely. Many times it's condition is not black and white. There can be a huge grey area that can only be muddled through with some professional expertise. What looks destroyed, or even damaged, may not be. ]


 

Kewaneh-

 

(As I'm sure you know), reporting "destroyed" to the NGS requires a lot of documentation that I don't think most cachers have [feel free to correct me], so can we talk about "not found"?

 

What is the effect on professionals if we report a "not found" to the NGS? (I don't do that unless I'm sure it's destroyed, but even if an error is made here.) The various searches on the NGS website aren't affected by "not found", are they?

 

So if a professional looks at a datasheet and sees that GEOCAC reported it as "not found", can't s/he use that as additional information? Maybe the description (of why it is "not found") helps them, maybe it doesn't. But does it hurt them?

 

4 FTF

1 LTF

20 pending LTF

Share this post


Link to post

Well from my perspective working in the survey field for some 31 yrs with the state DOT. A mark reported as not found only meant (to us)that the person/crew could not find it and it may still exist, matter if fact we would go out of our way to prove them wrong. I have found marks USGS and NGS said could not be found. But the worst by far are the power squadron, if they say not found, it a 99& chance its there and ones they find are often not to be found. Lets not get like that here.

 

We have found marks buried as much as 3 ft below ground. If we had a BM along a highway and had the plans, it would be easy to compare the plan elevation to the BM elevation to determine if it was buried etc. Found several doing this and confirmed some would be standing ft in the air.

Share this post


Link to post

For an example of benchmark logging abuse, check out this profile. I make the following observations:

1. Account used by multiple people in multiple households.

2. All the logs that I have looked up are without photos.

3. Benchmarks not logged in a timely manner, there are 11 new entries today from yesterday, five have a log date of yesterday, 1 has 3/29/03, 3 have 4/29/03 and 2 have 5/29/03. Despite being three months apart, the 6 older logs are all in the same area and have almost identical verbage and are all for the same day of the month (one a Saturday, one a Tuesday, one a Thursday).

4. In my area, the ones being logged are not always the easy or closest benchmarks that have been found.

 

These observations are not necessarily idicative of anything wrong. I'm not sure if multiple people using the same account is technically OK, but it certainly creates confusion and concern. If these people can step forward and clear things up, I would be very interested.

Share this post


Link to post

quote:
helps them, maybe it doesn't. But does it hurt them?

 

That's kinda my thoughts.... I'm not a surveyor, but I still think it would prove to be helpful to anyone looking at a datasheet of a BM placed over 100 years ago and not recovered in the past 60 years to have someone go see if it's still there and prove that the mark still exists. I may be an amateur, but I can write a 'To Reach' as good as anyone else and I can observe landmarks as well as anyone else. Just knowing it's still there has got to be useful. An example of what I'm talking about can be found here:

 

http://www.geocaching.com/mark/details.asp?PID=DH0704

 

The mark was set 100 years ago... and last visited in 1944 and the 1917 description is now inaccurate because the landmark (the Southern Railway station) no longer exists. By me providing a more current 'To Reach' complete with modern road names/numbers, I feel as if I have both verified the mark is still where it should be and given a better idea of how to reach the mark.

 

As an amateur I have no way of changing the coordinates listed for the mark, but have merely verified its existence. Since the NGS has given us the GEOCAC designation, they must want/appreciate the efforts of those of us who take our time to search for and log these marks. Even before we had the GEOCAC code you could report as and individual using the INDIV code.

 

I do somewhat understand what K&S is saying though. I am leery of reporting destroyed marks, with just a couple of exceptions i.e. water tanks, spires, etc.. I also understand that persons such as K&S and others here rely on this information for real-life projects and don't want to have to sort through erroneous information. If someone were to report to the NGS that they found a witness post and not really the mark, they would be doing a disservice to both the NGS and the surveyors that use that information.

 

The NGS doesn't want "Text such as RECOVERED AS DESCRIBED, or MARK NOT FOUND, or DESCRIPTION IS ADEQUATE, etc. is not necessary" descriptions as stated on their recovery form. They appear to want updated information about the mark.

 

DaveD stated this "As I have commented before, NGS is grateful to the public to continuously parterning with us to enhance and ensure the integrity of all data items in the National Spatial Reference System." in this thread:

 

http://ubbx.Groundspeak.com/6/ubb.x?a=tpc&s=5726007311&f=5116058331&m=91960026

 

From this I have to assume that the NGS is glad to have recovery reports logged on their site.

 

Anyways, cheers and happy hunting!

 

Jeff

http://www.StarsFellOnAlabama.com

http://www.NotAChance.com

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

Share this post


Link to post

quote:
All the logs that I have looked up are without photos.

 

They seem to rely on others pictures and descriptions icon_frown.gif i.e. "Thanks to previous finder for description".

 

They may be totally legit persons making legit finds, but it does seem to somewhat of an abuse to have multiple people using one account. Just think what kind of numbers we could get if we created one account for all the regulars that visit this forum 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:
Originally posted by jeff35080:

Just think what kind of numbers we could get if we created one account for all the regulars that visit this forum icon_biggrin.gif

 

Jeff

http://www.StarsFellOnAlabama.com

http://www.NotAChance.com

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


 

But I thought it wasn't about the numbers. icon_wink.gif

 

Let's say E-S is a group. If they are real finds (even assisted by previous descriptions), do we care?

 

E-S is a prolific creator of caches (at least one of which I've visited), so this isn't just someone who posts bogus stuff on this site.

 

(I don't have any idea if the benchmark finds are "real" or not. A quick check seems to indicate E-S isn't reporting these in areas I've been in.)

 

Rog-Do you have an example of a "find" that you think is impossible

 

-----------------------

Current caching status

4 FTF

1 LTF

20 pending LTF

Share this post


Link to post

quote:
But I thought it wasn't about the numbers

 

I never said that icon_smile.gif My goal is to find 3 BM's by Sunday to finally hit one-hundred and my next goal is 200. The main benchmark page lists the numbers found thus far. By looking at my found number, it motivates me to go find more, but it's also not just about the numbers. There is nothing like the satisfaction I feel when I find a small disc set in a bridge one-hundred years ago. There's no way to explain that feeling to a non-BMer. 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 beejay&esskay:

E-S is a prolific creator of caches (at least one of which I've visited), so this isn't just someone who posts bogus stuff on this site.

 

Rog-Do you have an example of a "find" that you think is impossible


I hadn't looked at their caches numbers and they do seem to be rather prolific. That's good for everyone.

 

Since their benchmark finds are always ones that have been previously logged, none of them are going to seem impossible. In fact, in looking it over, I think the visits are probably legit. It's just weird the way that benchmarks are picked seemingly at random and always ones that have been previously visited. I'm curious how they pick which ones they will visit.

Share this post


Link to post

quote:
Originally posted by jeff35080:

quote:
But I thought it wasn't about the numbers

I never said that icon_smile.gif My goal is to find 3 BM's by Sunday to finally hit one-hundred and my next goal is 200...There is nothing like the satisfaction I feel when I find a small disc set in a bridge one-hundred years ago.


Don't you see a *big* contradiction? Satisfaction from quality vs. racing for the numbers? If anything, I feel kind of embarassed to log a boring find. It waters down the logs. Better to have a good no-find than a bundle of nondesript finds IMVHO.

quote:
There's no way to explain that feeling to a non-BMer

Like for a cellist to lay hands on Stradivari's instrument? Or for a cowboy, Sundance Kid's gun? icon_smile.gif

Share this post


Link to post

quote:
Originally posted by RogBarn:

For an example of benchmark logging abuse, check out this http://www.geocaching.com/profile/default.asp?A=74242. I make the following observations:

1. Account used by multiple people in multiple households.

2. All the logs that I have looked up are without photos.

3. Benchmarks not logged in a timely manner, there are 11 new entries today from yesterday, five have a log date of yesterday, 1 has 3/29/03, 3 have 4/29/03 and 2 have 5/29/03. Despite being three months apart, the 6 older logs are all in the same area and have almost identical verbage and are all for the same day of the month (one a Saturday, one a Tuesday, one a Thursday).

4. In my area, the ones being logged are not always the easy or closest benchmarks that have been found.

 

These observations are not necessarily idicative of anything wrong. I'm not sure if multiple people using the same account is technically OK, but it certainly creates confusion and concern. If these people can step forward and clear things up, I would be very interested.


 

 

1. Isn't teamwork good? The family that BM's together....

2. Are photos necessary for a find?

3. I didn't know that there was a time limit for logging a find.

4. Irrelevant to whatever point you're trying to make.

 

Shouldn't any member of the geocaching team be allowed to log a find? It's a family sport after all. I don't see any confusion caused by more than one member logging finds. When they find a cache is only one allowed to see what's in the box? It's supposed to be fun right?

Just my observations on the situation. John

 

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

Share this post


Link to post

quote:
Don't you see a *big* contradiction? Satisfaction from quality vs. racing for the numbers?

 

My numbers are for me and are personal goals I set for myself. By setting goals, it helps motivate me to get out and search for marks. I'm not competing with anyone but myself when it comes to finds. I log my no-finds along with my finds. There is no shame in having no-finds. I love the search and rush you get when I find a mark. All of my searches are quality searches and not just 'drive by and see the witness post' searches. Of course some finds are quite easy while others require hours of hiking to the top of a mountain through virgin forests covered with briars. I admit my find quantity motivates me. I'm not competing with anyone with found numbers (or not found) but my numbers do motivate me.

 

Here lately, I have concentrated on benchmarks instead of geocaches. Those little round disks and their associated history really intrigues me. I still do an occasional geocache, but right now my benchmark addiction is stronger than the geocache addiction I have. So am I wrong for being motivated for my numbers? I don't think so, as it motivates me to get outside and search and doccument these little round disks.

 

To get back to the original point that I made back on page one of this thread is that I just expect everyone to 'play' by the same rules as I do and not just log a witness post/sign but rather actually see the real benchmark. 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 RogBarn:

 

Since their benchmark finds are always ones that have been previously logged, none of them are going to seem impossible. In fact, in looking it over, I think the visits are probably legit. It's just weird the way that benchmarks are picked seemingly at random and always ones that have been previously visited. I'm curious how they pick which ones they will visit.


 

Well, maybe that's what they do in unfamiliar territory. Print out the information for ones they know they can find and go find them.

 

(They do have some "not founds", some near their home territory, so they do more than just that.)

 

-----------------------

Current caching status

4 FTF

1 LTF

20 pending LTF

Share this post


Link to post

quote:
Originally posted by xargs:

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., http://www.geocaching.com/mark/details.asp?PID=EW6033). Is there any way to get these "unlogged?"


 

Wow, I imagine I would have logged it as the found BM, seeing as how it is very near the described location and says BENCHMARK on it and has the correct PID. As for the Reference tag, I thought a reference mark was placed when a BM is known to soon be destroyed and they needed to move it. So yeah, I would have logged it too. Oops.

 

Even though I'm trying to learn more, I guess I don't know squat about all the different types of BM or the arcana of the different initials or words that might be found on the disc which might happen to disqualify it.

 

Is there a visual reference guide or something that will let a casual benchmarker know that a benchmark isn't really a benchmark like in this case where even though it's a brass plate that says BENCHMARK on it and has the correct PID, you will know it's not a BM because it's really a RM?

 

Though it probably sounds like it, I'm not being flippant, I do really think this is a bit confusing and I do really want to do this the right way.

 

In fact I found two Reset Markers on some rail road tracks today and a really fancy one in San Francisco a while back (haven't logged it because I was just walking by and happened to see it without camera or pen and paper). And so I'm wondering if Resets count as benchmarks. Maybe I'm confusing Reference marks with Resets?

 

-Dan

 

Team Kender - "The Sun is coming up!" "No, the horizon is going down."

Share this post


Link to post

Team Kender -

 

Reference marks are permanent markers associated with some triangulation stations. They help to locate the main station.

 

In order to say you've found a station, it must have the same Designation (its name) on the disk as in the PID description. Disks never have the PID on them. They have the Designation instead.

 

A reset mark will have the word RESET stamped in it, and a Reference mark will say Reference on it, or perhaps just "R 1" or "R 4", etc.

 

If the PID you are looking for has a Designation of "CREEK", for example, you have to find the disk that says "CREEK" stamped on it. If you find one that says "CREEK RESET", or "CREEK R 1", or "CREEK AZ", it does not count as a find.

 

One way to recognize a Reference mark or Azimuth mark (besides being stamped as such on the disk) is that they have a line across the middle of the disk with an arrow on one end. The arrow points to the main station that you're supposed to find.

 

Once in a while, you will see a PID description that has a Designation of something like "MASON AZ", or "MASON R 1". This tells you that the Azimuth mark or reference mark has a PID of its own. This is not common, but that's the only time that you can count a find on these marks - if they have their own PID.

 

It may happen that a Reset mark isn't in the database, in which case you're out of luck for logging it.

Share this post


Link to post

quote:
Originally posted by Black Dog Trackers:

In order to say you've found a station, it must have the same Designation (its name) on the disk as in the PID description. Disks never have the PID on them. They have the Designation instead.


I have found disks that have a Designation that doesn't correlate to the stamping. There is a series of benchmarks designated "XX C OF V" which neither the XX nor the "C OF V" appears on the disk. For example, EW5280 has a designation "44 C OF V", yet the description says "STAMPED CITY OF SAN BUENAVENTURA BENCH MARK." I've found several City of Ventura (C OF V) benchmarks, and they are always stamped CITY OF SAN BUENAVENTURA BENCH MARK YY-100, where the YY does not equal the XX in the desigation. I've not been able to figure out what the XX in the designation means.

quote:
a Reference mark will say Reference on it, or perhaps just "R 1" or "R 4", etc.

 

Or sometimes "RM" or "R.M.".

Share this post


Link to post

This is an example of a reference mark (that happens to be 116 years old icon_smile.gif ):

 

http://www.geocaching.com/mark/details.asp?PID=DH2455

 

If you look at the pics (the last one) you can actually see the COOSA witness post and sign in the distance (about 62' away).

 

and it is a reference to this mark (which was set in 1939):

 

http://www.geocaching.com/mark/details.asp?PID=DH2456

 

Happy hunting!

 

Jeff

http://www.StarsFellOnAlabama.com

http://www.NotAChance.com

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

Share this post


Link to post

WELL here is the rest of the story e - s was in my area the first of May and logged about 50 caches without ever signing a log book. The local cacher’s got together and had a mass deleting day and contacted e - s about the hole thing and they deleted the rest but they also logged a hole lot of benchmarks at the same time , never a picture. If the cache finds were bogus don’t you think the benchmarks were to. WELL DA .

 

But nobody deleted the BENCHMARKS

 

And on another note when I travel most of the benchmarks have already been found except the virtual ones. Sometimes I take pictures some not, and never of a radio tower because they all look just about the same. I also log a lot of no finds and destroyed ones to.

 

But that’s how I play the game, and a game it is.

Share this post


Link to post

quote:
Originally posted by JoGPS:

WELL here is the rest of the story e - s was in my area the first of May and logged about 50 caches without ever signing a log book. The local cacher’s got together and had a mass deleting day and contacted e - s about the hole thing and they deleted the rest


 

Did E-S admit to logging caches they never found?

 

I don't know E-S, but they do put out a lot of caches...they aren't bogus, they are really there. So it's not like EVERYTHING they do is falsified.

 

But I find this puzzling and troubling.

 

-----------------------

Current caching status

4 FTF

1 LTF

17 pending LTF

Share this post


Link to post

quote:
Originally posted by beejay&esskay:

quote:
Originally posted by JoGPS:

WELL here is the rest of the story e - s was in my area the first of May and logged about 50 caches without ever signing a log book. The local cacher’s got together and had a mass deleting day and contacted e - s about the hole thing and they deleted the rest


 

Did E-S admit to logging caches they never found?

 

I don't know E-S, but they do put out a lot of caches...they aren't bogus, they are really there. So it's not like EVERYTHING they do is falsified.

 

But I find this puzzling and troubling.


 

Huh! Two of my latest San Francisco BMs have been hit by E-S on July 1st and use a cut and paste log. Well, these people are either traveling salesmen with a lot of time on their hands or something funny is going on for sure.

 

Doesn't really bother me as I know my finds are legit and I carry with me the happy memories of the hard work and then elation of finding them. Whatever they are doing, I suppose that's their business... just a slightly annoying headscratcher to be piggybacked by someone who's possibly making bogus logs.

 

Black Dog Trackers: Thanks for the in-depth explanation, that really helps! Does the NGS or someone around here keep a lexicon of terms for all the different types of marks?

 

Jeff35080: Thanks for the link to your find- you're excitement is contagious!

 

Do any of you keep an online log of your coolest finds?

 

Team Kender - "The Sun is coming up!" "No, the horizon is going down."

Share this post


Link to post

BJ&SK & jeff35080(re. July 10 posts): Like ElCamino said, when most professionals see a 'not found' description, it only means that it wasn't found, not that it doesn't exist. It's not uncommon for the areas surrounding the benchmarks to change, making the descriptions difficult (or impossible) to use, or for them to get buried. It's also common for people (and surveyors are people too) to give up too easily on a search. Surveyors are fairly adept at finding items left by surveyors for surveyors, (benchmarks, section corners, property corners, etc.), even if the surrounding have changed. It's our job. We know how to read maps, interpret site evidence, and understand how site conditions change over time. If a mark can be found, we will find it.

 

The information that is provided to the NGS through the geocaching community can be helpful. A 'found' or 'not found' report filed by anyone can be helpful to a certain degree. It may let the surveyor know that he could have a challange ahead when looking for a particular mark or that the mark is an easy one. In this case, the additional information doesn't hurt at all. I've maintained that through this thread (and others). I've also maintained that reports by hobbists can be damaging. I can't speak for the entire survey/engineering community, but I think it's safe to say that even though the NGS has recognized geocachers with their own GEOCAC designation, most surveyors and engineers have no idea who it is or what it means. Reports filed by GEOCAC will probably not be regarded as highly as a report filed by the NGS, BLM, or LOCSUR and/or LOCENG. I do know that the Power Squadron reports are largely ignored because it is known that they are not surveyors, but amatures. This is not to say that their reports are not correct or true. It means that the survey/engineering community has little faith in non-surveyors for survey data. I would expect that GEOCAC reports could be viewed in a similar manner.

 

Keep on Caching!

- Kewaneh

Share this post


Link to post

So what about that happycycler guy? He admits that his wife finds most of the caches that he logs and he has some benchmark logs from states other than Missouri. icon_eek.gif Of course he does not have a lot of finds -- but maybe that is part of his strategy? Low profile do you think?

 

Is he bogus? Or does he just travel some with his wife when she wants to hit the road for a spell?

Share this post


Link to post

quote:
Originally posted by happycycler:

So what about that happycycler guy? He admits that his wife finds most of the caches that he logs and he has some benchmark logs from states other than Missouri. icon_eek.gif Of course he does not have a lot of finds -- but maybe that is part of his strategy? Low profile do you think?

 

Is he bogus? Or does he just travel some with his wife when she wants to hit the road for a spell?


 

Just another hen-pecked hubby.... icon_biggrin.gif

 

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

Share this post


Link to post

Electric Shavers recently logged cache finds in Arizona which have been proven fake finds. Any benchmarks found in Arizona are likely false finds as well.

 

For the record, I have no online photos of our benchmark finds since I don't as yet have access to a scanner. But our benchmark finds are legit.

 

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 Tsegi Mike and Desert Viking:

Electric Shavers recently logged cache finds in Arizona which have been proven fake finds.


 

Just curious...how was it proven?

 

-----------------------

Current caching status

5 FTF

1 LTF

22 pending LTF

Share this post


Link to post

Also noticed that you do not get credit for finding a destroyed benchmark? I think that if you know 100% that it's not there anymore that it should be credited. For one thing these usually take the longest to verify. Just a thought

Share this post


Link to post

First time I've seen this: a benchmark logged by Electric Shavers that wasn't logged by someone else first.

 

HV4470

 

Not that church steeples are particularly difficult to find....

Share this post


Link to post

quote:
Originally posted by Shark River Pirates:

The Electric Shavers strike again.

 

I was kind of skeptical about this mark since it's fairly close to my house and sure enough it was there is plain sight.

 

http://www.geocaching.com/mark/details.asp?PID=KV0799

 

Strange... Their comments include "might be buried" when the description says "2 FEET ABOVE THE SIDEWALK" and "SET VERTICALLY".

Share this post


Link to post

Can we possibly file some sort of complaint and at least ask them to explain why they are incorrectly logging these benchmarks?

 

If you go into the huckleberry region back of Shark River you had better not scorn the story of the great pirate ship that sails without trouble in twelve inches of water, and has skeletons dangling at the mastheads. - Stephen Crane 1894

Share this post


Link to post

quote:
Originally posted by Shark River Pirates:

Can we possibly file some sort of complaint and at least ask them to explain why they are incorrectly logging these benchmarks?


 

 

What's to complain about? They logged it as a not found meaning they could not find it. How is that incorrect?

Just curious.

 

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

Share this post


Link to post

quote:
Originally posted by beejay&esskay:

quote:
Originally posted by Tsegi Mike and Desert Viking:

Electric Shavers recently logged cache finds in Arizona which have been proven fake finds.


 

Just curious...how was it proven?


 

Sorry it took so long to respond. I haven't had time to check on the forums so much.

 

Various cache owners went to their own caches for cache maintainance and verified that they (ES) did not sign the logs.

Share this post


Link to post

quote:
Various cache owners went to their own caches for cache maintainance and verified that they (ES) did not sign the logs.

 

So, if they neglect to sign the log they didn't find it? That just proves they didn't sign the log. I'm guessing "Their Game" is to find a cache and/or benchmark quickly and move on to find again. No harm in that.

 

Are we taking ourselves too seriously?

 

EMike

"It's what you learn after you know it all, that counts."

Share this post


Link to post

Speaking of no finds how about this mistake? This certainly doesn't sound like a GOOD to me. The old powerplant is indeed gone and has been for a long time. The current "physical plant" as it is now called is on the north side of campus. The "Classroom Building" or clubhouse as we called it in college now sits in this space north of the Student Union and south of "Engineering South".

 

-beatnik-

Share this post


Link to post

I guess LOCSUR clicked the wrong button when he was doing this. (Or checked the wrong box on the form, however they did this years ago.)

 

I've seen similar cases where the description clearly indicated "not found" but the summary was "good".

 

I'd say this certainly rates a "not found" entry with NGS.

Share this post


Link to post

Back in the days when Benchmarking first appeared on Geocaching.com, I asked the following question regarding RMs in the forums:

quote:
What if the main disk no longer exists, but I find one or more of the auxillary disks? How should I log it?


 

Jeremy's response:

quote:
A find. Good enough for government work

icon_wink.gif


 

So, for a long time, I logged "finds" for benchmarks where I had only found the RM. Later on, the following was added to the main Benchmarking page:

quote:
The only reference marks and azimuth marks that can be logged on their own are those that have their own PID. If you're looking for a triangulation station and only find its reference mark or azimuth mark, you can't properly claim "Found it" (unless the reference mark or azimuth mark has its own unique PID, in which case you'd log it under that PID), but you could log it as "Couldn't find it" and even upload the picture of the reference mark.


So basically, the rules were changed.

 

I no longer log finds when I only find the RMs. The current rules say this is incorrect. However, I don't feel any obligation to delete or change finds for hunts previous to the rule changes. These were found under the rules at the time of the hunt.

 

Just to ease some minds, these "questionable" finds under the "old rules" were NOT logged at the NGS as finds. The NGS has yet a different set of "rules" for logging.

 

web-lingbutton.gif ntga_button.gif

Share this post


Link to post

quote:
However, I don't feel any obligation to delete or change finds for hunts previous to the rule changes. These were found under the rules at the time of the hunt.


 

There's no reason to change your logs. As you have mentioned, you were playing under the rules at the time. No one could ask for more than that icon_smile.gif Happy benchmarking!

 

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:
However, I don't feel any obligation to delete or change finds for hunts previous to the rule changes. These were found under the rules at the time of the hunt.


There's no reason to change your logs. As you have mentioned, you were playing under the rules at the time. No one could ask for more than that icon_smile.gif Happy benchmarking!

 

Jeff


I guess my point is that there are some older logs that are incorrect by the current standards, but by the standards at the time were correct. In the early days of benchmarking at GC.com, there really weren't any standards.

 

As for more recent logging errors, it would help if benchmarking were more prominently a part of the Geocaching.com website. Which it supposedly will be in the future.

 

I think a lot of geocachers completely bypass the main Benchmarking page and access the benchmark pages by clicking the "nearest benchmarks" links from individual cache pages. They never see the instructions on the main Benchmarking page. I'm not really sure how long they were there before I ever noticed them. Perhaps a link to the guidelines could appear prominently on each benchmark page to assist the geocachers who dabble in benchmarking to be more aware of what constitutes a legitimate "find."

 

web-lingbutton.gif ntga_button.gif

Share this post


Link to post

First I bought a GPS.

 

Then I found a word - GEOCACHING.

 

Then I found a web site.

 

Ammo boxes with plastic toys inside didn't really blow my dress up......

 

But then I found another word. BENCHMARK.

 

Seemed interesting, go play with the GPS and see a little metal piece of history. So I went and found a couple.

 

And then I found the "discussion" forums.

 

Now I wonder.... Will I be criticized because I logged a marker and didn't log the lighthouse I could see from the marker? Will the guy who was standing on the marker I logged when he took the picture of the lighthouse he logged be criticized because he didn't log the marker? Are all the "found it" entries that I make going to be scrutinized by the pros and sooner or later am I going to get called on the carpet for making a mistake? Will I get nailed because I didn't make the entries the same day I made the finds? Did I read someplace that RealMen don't log water towers?

 

I showed my wife the pictures of the first marker I found, and the web site, and it was obvious that the concept went right over her head. After a bit of thinking she said "That's nice. Do they pay you for finding those things?". I told her no, I'm just going to do it for FUN, get out of the house, enjoy the nice weather, get some exercise, learn a little bit more about how to use my amazing little GPS.

 

If this stuff "really ticks you off" then maybe it's time to take the batteries out of the GPS and put them back in the remote for the TV.

 

You guys really need to lighten up.

 

If you don't, the new kids won't come and play with you anymore........

 

Have a nice day,

BeachBum22

Share this post


Link to post

Quote: Will I be criticized because I logged a marker and didn't log the lighthouse I could see from the marker?

 

No, but if you log a "found" and I do my own research and I can prove it was actually destroyed before you "found" it, would you want to know? Would you change your log?

 

Thanks

Share this post


Link to post

quote:
No, but if you log a "found" and I do my own research and I can prove it was actually destroyed before you "found" it, would you want to know? Would you change your log?

 

Probably not. I wouldn't have logged it if I didn't think I found it.

 

Why would you bother spending your time doing research to disprove what I "found" when you could be spending your time finding 700,000 markers that haven't been found yet?

 

Think about this. If you guys are getting schmoozed, it's not by Shaving Cream, the guy who never posts pictures. It's by Slick Rick, the guy who can put any stamping he wants on a digital photo of a marker in 3 minutes with Photo Shop....

 

Have A Nice Day,

BeachBum22

Share this post


Link to post

quote:
We're trying to be interested in what we're doing here and learn from each other - for FUN.

 

Thanks for letting me know. I could have sworn this was the Beat Up Shaving Cream For Not Taking Pictures discussion forum...

 

Have A Nice Day,

BeachBum22

Share this post


Link to post

Quote: Why would you bother spending your time doing research to disprove what I "found" when you could be spending your time finding 700,000 markers that haven't been found yet?

 

My goal is not to discredit anyone, but I have researched benchmarks that other people have found that I have verified as being destroyed. My question was what would you want to do about it, instead you twist it into an attack on my part. There is no rule that says I can't find a benchmark that someone else found. I have less than 230 marks for 40 miles in every direction. I don't have 700k to choose from.

 

Either a hunter has integrity or they don't. Personally I don't care if they leave a valid log or leave any log at all. But if a hunter doesn't get that this "game" is about accuracy they will eventaully lose interest and I won't have to say a thing to make that happen.

 

[This message was edited by TeamX40 on August 09, 2003 at 06:51 PM.]

Share this post


Link to post

quote:
My goal is not to discredit anyone, but I have researched benchmarks that other people have found that I have verified as being destroyed. My question was what would you want to do about it, instead you twist it into a personal attack on you. There is no rule that says I can't find a benchmark that someone else found. I have less than 230 marks for 40 miles in every direction. I don't have 700k to choose from.

 

Either you have integrity or you don't. Personally I don't care if you leave a valid log or leave any log at all. But if you don't get that this "game" is about accuracy you will eventaully lose interest and I won't have to say a thing to make that happen.


 

No, I didn't take it as a personal attack. I simply stated that I feel that I have enuff integrity to log only marks I honestly think I've found. And I'm still confused as to why you have taken on the task of verifying what other people find.

 

I found the web site a couple days ago. Benchmarks looked like fun. So I logged a few. But now, since I'm very confused about the true intent of the "game", I removed them and won't add any others until I figure the "official rules".

 

I think one of the rules is that you can't log a benchmark unless you can read the designation stamped on it. Today I found nine new ones. I can only read a designation on one of the nine, but since most of them are on buildings that are 100 years old, and the directions I used to find them worked flawlessly, I assume they are the ones I was looking for. When I go thru gallery pictures, I see no designation stamps on many benchmarks that are pictured.

 

At this point, I'm lost. Is the game "find a marker and be as accurate as you can", is it "don't bother looking for old markers because the stamping is worn off and nobody cares if you find them", or is it "find nine markers and log only the one that has a designation readable"?

 

I'll be happy to play by the rules, if they suit my taste, and if I figure out what they are. If they don't suit my taste, I'll be happy to go away and not play at all.

 

The reason I posted anything here in the first place is because I found it pretty distasteful that people who weren't present were being beat up for not "playing fair".

 

Is there a FAQ for Benchmarking? The main pages thanks a few people for updating it, but I'll be darn if I can find it. Where are the "official rules"?

 

Have A Nice Day,

BeachBum22

Share this post


Link to post

quote:
Originally posted by BeachBum22:

And I'm still confused as to why you have taken on the task of verifying what other people find.


I think he was simply noting that the number of benchmarks available for him to hunt is too small to be limited to those that haven't been searched for by other players. So he searches for some that have been logged "found", and finds them to be destroyed.
quote:
I think one of the rules is that you can't log a benchmark unless you can read the designation stamped on it.
No, the rule is that you can't log it found unless you can read the designation. You can still log notes, not found, and destroyed. There was some discussion here recently bemoaning that only "founds" show up in one's stats, while many feel that other log entries should also show up.

quote:
Is there a FAQ for Benchmarking? The main pages thanks a few people for updating it, but I'll be darn if I can find it. Where are the "official rules"?
I think the main page is the FAQ, if you scroll down.

Share this post


Link to post

Quote: And I'm still confused as to why you have taken on the task of verifying what other people find.

 

I'm not taking on the task, I am simply trying to find the mark for myself, the result is a difference in documentation. I have never notified anyone of my results.

 

The fact is that there are errors in designation lead to "invalid" entries when those errors are not caught.

 

If fellow hunters find invalid entries, distasteful, they are certainly allowed to have those opinions. This discussion is a chance to debate the options on controlling, if necessary, if possible, those invalid entries.

Share this post


Link to post

BeachBum the rules are very simple for benchmarks regardless of what others may tell you.

 

First you find the benchmark and verify what is supposed to be stamped on the disk. Then you take a picture (preferably digital) of you have a camera. If you don't have a camera then don't worry about that part. Verify the coordinates of the disk with the datasheet coordinates. Finally, log the find and upload pictures if you have them.

 

If the disk is stamped different from what is in the datasheet then run a search for those coordinates and see if a disk stamped with what you found is listed. If not then it doesn't count.

 

Quite simple and fun.

 

For Teamx40 if you do your research and find a disk that has been logged wrongly why don't you simply log the disk with the correct information and let it go at that rather than rant and rave. Better yet make your log to the NGS!!

 

John of 2oldfarts

Share this post


Link to post

Quote why don't you simply log the disk with the correct information and let it go at that rather than rant and rave.

 

I haven't ranted and raved about invalid entries. I do simply log my findings.

 

The question of what would you do if you logged an invalid entry, would you correct, it was an attempt to bring the conversation back on topic. And since I can't get it back on topic, I'll just shut up now.

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

×