Shouldn't Destroyed Benchmarks be Archived?

[+LindaLu]

Shouldn't destroyed benchmarks be archived on this site? I noticed that the option for logging "this cache should be archived" is not available on benchmark pages.

 

I guess I don't understand why a benchmark still has a page (either here or on the official pages) if it was destroyed in 1958, which a number of the ones around here were.

 

Can we clean up the gc.com pages at least by getting rid of the marks that are not there any more?

 

Just wondering.

 

LindaLu

[+Just a Short Walk]

I have found a mark that was listed as destroyed!

If you didn't find a cache you would just mark it as not found!

Others my find it...

 

Just a short walk

Monterey, CA

 

quote:

---

Originally posted by LindaLu:

Shouldn't destroyed benchmarks be archived on this site? I noticed that the option for logging "this cache should be archived" is not available on benchmark pages.

 

I guess I don't understand why a benchmark still has a page (either here or on the official pages) if it was destroyed in 1958, which a number of the ones around here were.

 

Can we clean up the gc.com pages at least by getting rid of the marks that are not there any more?

 

Just wondering.

 

LindaLu

---

 

-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

"Just a Short walk" Says....

If You plant a cache they will come.....

[+Bluespreacher]

quote:

---

Originally posted by LindaLu:

Shouldn't destroyed benchmarks be archived on this site? I noticed that the option for logging "this cache should be archived" is not available on benchmark pages.

 

I guess I don't understand why a benchmark still has a page (either here or on the official pages) if it was destroyed in 1958, which a number of the ones around here were.

 

Can we clean up the gc.com pages at least by getting rid of the marks that are not there any more?

 

Just wondering.

 

LindaLu

---

 

These things are not ours. We may find them (or not). We may observe their condition. We may make a report about them. I don't think they are ours to archive.

 

Bluespreacher

 

"We've got the hardware and the software, the plans and the maps ..." -- Citizen Wayne Kramer

[+makaio]

By archive, I believe Linda is simply referring to Geocaching benchmark database created by querying the actual NOAA NGS database, not the NOAA database itself.

 

I imagine Jeremy simply does a query for all benchmarks regardless of the latest known status on the associated Data Sheet. As the Data Sheet content is likely just plain text (versus delimted fields) within the database, it wouldn't be a simple matter of quantifying the query to omit those which are listed as destroyed. It would take some coding to parse the contents of the Data Sheet and even then may not be possible or worth the effort involved.

 

I agree with Short Walk for the reason he mentions. I've also located at least one mark which was previously listed as destroyed, so you can't always trust what the Data Sheet says.

 

-

[+Web-ling]

I'd like to see both destroyed and Not Found benchmarks stay on the site, but to be flagged somehow. Maybe a frowny face icon next to the listing. Currently, benchmarks with a Not Found in the official NGS datasheet are not displayed on the Nearest Benchmarks page, even though many have more recent Found logs. If the benchmark with a frowny face is later found by a cacher/benchmarker, the system would drop the frowny face.

 

[custer]

A provision for destroyed benchmarks is already on the site - just list them as "unavailable". First one I went to [EW7354] was only 0.26 miles from my house. Unfortunately someone else's house now sits on that spot - apparently the benchmark was bulldozed in 1979 along with everything else around here.

 

http://custer37.livejournal.com/