Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
deadhorsepoint

Least amount of info for a Legitimate Log?

Recommended Posts

I'd have to say I'd consider it legit. Although a day of benchmarking leads to a good story or two, in my experience, some benchmarks are less than climactic (as are some caches).

 

I try to photograph every mark I recover. Even though I don't have many photos posted, I do have them should anyone ever question a find.

 

Greg

N 39 54.705'

W 77 33.137'

Share this post


Link to post

icon_eek.gif

 

We all have passed numerous benchmarks on numerous occasions. Why then don't we all flood the site with entries?

 

[This message was edited by deadhorsepoint on November 16, 2002 at 04:38 AM.]

Share this post


Link to post

If "Found as described in good condition" is good enough for the USGS, I think something similar should suffice for this site.

 

Of course, if you CAN add more, please do; but, I don't think it's really required. I'd liken it to a TNLN entry in a cache log.

 

Greg

N 39? 54.705'

W 77? 33.137'

Share this post


Link to post

It looks like a legit found report to me. You could add the age of the building, what kind of stone it's made of, and some other stuff for interest, though. icon_smile.gif

 

Since the location is adjusted, you probably don't need to put the location youself, the one given is almost certainly more accurate.

Share this post


Link to post

Sure its legit - why wouldn't it be? Sometimes more prominent/permanet and historic structures are used as benchmarks because they are less likely to be disturbed. I have often gone looking for what I thought would be an easy to find benchmark, only to discover that a new development or road construction has obliterated it. This is less likely to happen with something like a church spire.

Share this post


Link to post

i went out today looking at local benchmarks. i was just looking for an answer as to how to log the buildings. i have numerous BMs with no visible mark.. just a church spire or stack chimney. is it legit to post pics of the spire/chimney and location. my kids are really excited to search out some of the landmarks as well as caches. they love to take pics, and check out the site.

 

thanks

robbie

 

hey >>>------------> , Sua Sponte, and a de oppresso liber from me! drive on ranger.

 

wings_flag.gif

"Fire burns, and when it rains... you get wet."

Share this post


Link to post

A better question to ask would be, what doesn't make it legit? For a spire all you really need to do is see it to log it. Photos are certainly preferable but not everyone can afford a camera (though digital cameras are now pretty cheap indeed!)

 

Jeremy Irish

Groundspeak - The Language of Location

Share this post


Link to post

quote:
Originally posted by deadhorsepoint:

i meant to ask is the first report of the benchmark legit!

the cacher simply claimed he saw it...


Some people don't have digital cameras. Besides taking a picture, what else CAN you really do to verify a find on a church spire? Besides, what difference does it really make if he "just saw it" or if he took a picture? I always take a picture of benchmarks, but I've had a couple where the photo didn't come out. I posted them as finds anyway - I know I found them, and posting a blurry photo seems like a waste of perfectly good cyberspace.

 

25021_1200.gif

Share this post


Link to post

you guys are either crazy or trolling me!

 

how can simply claiming to see a benchmark - spire, tower, disk, or otherwise - give one credit as a find?

 

this isn't a matter of the rich vs. the poor wrt. being able to afford recording equipment. we all have gps's right? shouldn't the bare minimum be a citation of the bench's coordinates and/or a photo?

 

the benchmarking thing was spposed to be a fun alternate of the official recording to the us geodetic people, who have a strict set of guidelines for submissions - but give me a break, we have to have SOME minimum criteria!!

 

how can geocaching, Groundspeak or whatever expect the benchmarking game to gain as much respect as geocaching if there are no set parameters for a claim?

Share this post


Link to post

Oh, all right, deadhorsepoint, here's the bottom line - the church steeple, firetower light, courthouse finial, sort of PID is pretty much the lowest form of hunting and also has the lowest requirement of reporting. There's nothing to read, no name to compare, the coordinates are always far more accurate than our GPSs can measure. The structure is either still there or it isn't. There's nothing else to say in a report.

 

For a real challenge, look for some benchmark disks! icon_smile.gif Plus then we can argue far into the night about how to count them. icon_smile.gif

 

Criteria? Well, not being much of a gameplayer, I prefer using the same standards or even stricter standards than the NGS. But not everyone here agrees.

Share this post


Link to post

black dog

 

I love your byline "urban search in fescue!" Had to ponder that one for a sec.. icon_wink.gificon_wink.gificon_wink.gificon_wink.gificon_wink.gificon_wink.gif

 

Yes, benchmark searching has been more challenging for me too. Except for that one lighthouse I was sure did NOT move since my last visit. Talk about dangerous locations. Here in the NY area most disks are in developed corridors near highway and rail abutments. icon_eek.gificon_eek.gificon_eek.gificon_eek.gificon_eek.gificon_eek.gificon_eek.gificon_eek.gificon_eek.gif

 

I love a good argument as long as everyone involved knows my occasional verbage is not personal but rather an intellectual joust - thanks to all for being a civil bunch. icon_rolleyes.gificon_rolleyes.gificon_rolleyes.gificon_rolleyes.gificon_rolleyes.gificon_rolleyes.gif

Share this post


Link to post

quote:
Originally posted by Black Dog Trackers:

here's the bottom line - the church steeple, firetower light, courthouse finial, sort of PID is pretty much the lowest form of hunting and also has the lowest requirement of reporting. There's nothing to read, no name to compare, the coordinates are always far more accurate than our GPSs can measure. The structure is either still there or it isn't. There's nothing else to say in a report.

 

For a real challenge, look for some benchmark disks! icon_smile.gif Plus then we can argue far into the night about how to count them. icon_smile.gif

 


 

I agree with the description that "structure benchmarks" are a pretty low form of hunting... right down there with virtual caches that require answers found on historic markers. And also that looking for the benchmark disks is much more challenging.

But I like finding the structure benchmarks. I used to have a friend who traveled on a geodetic survey team. They traveled with their families in motorhomes. I think that's why I think the structures are so cool. I imagine the team deciding what existing structure to use and making their calculations from there.

Here is one of my favorites.

http://www.geocaching.com/mark/details.asp?PID=BR1450

Share this post


Link to post

quote:
Originally posted by Black Dog Trackers:

...the church steeple, firetower light, courthouse finial, sort of PID is pretty much the lowest form of hunting and also has the lowest requirement of reporting.


 

CS3013 is a TV tower about 8 miles from my home. I can see it from my front yard. I could very easily snap a picture from my driveway, and claim it as a find, but I haven't. Why? Because there'd be no fun in doing it like that! Instead, I'd rather go to the tower, get as close as I can, and then claim the find.

 

As far as I'm concerned, this is just a hobby. I don't really care how other people log their finds, whether they have a photo or not, or whatever. If I find a benchmark disk, and the batteries in my camera have died, I'm still going to claim a find. I know I found it. Getting all hung up on what's a find and what isn't kinda misses the point - we're doing this for fun!

 

I certainly agree that logging at the NGS site is an entirely different matter.

 

25021_1200.gif

Share this post


Link to post

I won't claim a find on a benchmark unless I can get an accurate GPS reading. I thought it was funny that bob393 thought his benchmark find was a cache find. I'm sure he knows better now (seeing that he is over 100 finds), but it just made me giggle when I read his log entry (which included no picture and no GPS coords).

 

--Marky

"Everyone spends time in the darkness, dreamers learn to steer with a backlit GPSr"

Share this post


Link to post

quote:
http://www.geocaching.com/mark/details.asp?PID=CS3013 is a TV tower about 8 miles from my home. I can see it from my front yard. I could very easily snap a picture from my driveway, and claim it as a find, but I haven't. Why? Because there'd be no fun in doing it like that! Instead, I'd rather go to the tower, get as close as I can, and then claim the find.

 

I'm not a professional surveyor, but I believe one purpose of using tall objects as benchmarks is that they can be seen from a considerable distance and thus may be useful for position-finding purposes within a much greater area than a survey disk on the ground, which generally must be physically occupied to be useful (I think!).

 

For example, this summer I logged

Washington Monument 1913 (HV4442), the familiar 555+ foot tall obelisk visible for miles around. Though I certainly could have walked up to the base of the monument, I don't think the fact that I was perhaps 1/3 mile away makes it any less valid.

Share this post


Link to post

I used to live in Wash DC and saw the Washington Mon. regularly. Does that mean I can log it? icon_biggrin.gif For the truly serious I would not log that as a find however we need to remember this is for fun. I agree that structure BM's are not the most challenging but some are very interesting or picturesque. To each their own.

 

Cache cash for all

Share this post


Link to post

A while back, we were all looking with anticipation on reaching the 10,000 found mark. 15,000 and 20,000 have been mentioned. Do the church steeples and standpipe tanks not count in these totals?

 

Here's my opinion: If it has a PID and you find it, log it.

Share this post


Link to post

I agree with cache man. I like the photogenic character of some of the landmarks such as my churches and water towers, so for me the log is icing on the proverbial cake. I get off to a degree (no pun intended)on posting pretty photos of my landmarks.

Share this post


Link to post

The eye is connected to a nerve which is connected to the brain. icon_smile.gificon_smile.gificon_smile.gificon_smile.gificon_smile.gificon_cool.gif

 

If you use your eye to observe something, the brain records it, and you therefore BELIEVE you have seen it.

 

icon_biggrin.gificon_biggrin.gificon_biggrin.gificon_biggrin.gifBelief is subjective. icon_cool.gificon_cool.gificon_cool.gificon_cool.gif

 

What if I say I BELIEVE to have observed all the landmarks icon_confused.gificon_confused.gificon_confused.gif

Share this post


Link to post

Thank you for your thoughts. I have logs of a stack and a church. I prefer to search for disks but some of the older "benchmarks" in St. Louis are church spires, etc.

Share this post


Link to post

the log is valid, and the point about all having GPS is not.

many of the benchmarks i have found, i have done so without bringing a GPS with me. what about the good old days of maps, dividers and a sextant?

the descriptions of location are usually good enough to find the mark without the GPS anyway.

if i find a benchmark, and post a photo of said benchmark, but leave my GPS at home, is my log not valid?

Share this post


Link to post

Those with any significant amount of experience agree that in most cases a person using only a description will reach their objective more quickly and easily than a person using only GPS. On the other hand, this game/hobby would never have come into existence if not for the fact that it constitutes a valid GPS application. The goal, ideally, of participating, is to learn about both traditional surveying technology and GPS technology while safely engaging in an enjoyable outdoor activity.

Share this post


Link to post

quote:
Originally posted by deadhorsepoint:

What if I say I BELIEVE to have observed all the landmarks icon_confused.gificon_confused.gificon_confused.gif


 

I dunno, do you believe you saw a 4-legged steel structure when you took a picture of MZ2445?

 

-WR

 

"Why worry when you can obsess?"

Share this post


Link to post

Ooooops!

 

Good point, WaldenRun.

 

It looks like a destroyed PID to me, at least that's how I'd log it here. By the dates, the USPSQD shouldn't have counted it as a find either.

 

Which tank was there in 1981, deadhorsepoint?

 

I imagine the 4-legged steel structure built in 1930 was the usual for its type with a pointy thing on the top, or at least a recognizable center of a dome top, that was the actual PID. The 1986 pic shows a replacement tank that may very well NOT be centered exactly where the 1930 version was. Therefore, the position would be different; destroyed.

 

The tank pictured in 1986 looks like a huge cylinder. Can a surveyor make use of a huge cylinder with no central finial? How far away would you have to be for the whole width of the tank to be usable as a point? Surveytech?

Share this post


Link to post

quote:
Originally posted by Black Dog Trackers:

It looks like a destroyed PID to me, at least that's how I'd log it here. By the dates, the USPSQD shouldn't have counted it as a find either.

I imagine the 4-legged steel structure built in 1930 was the usual for its type with a pointy thing on the top, or at least a recognizable center of a dome top, that was the actual PID. The 1986 pic shows a replacement tank that may very well NOT be centered exactly where the 1930 version was. Therefore, the position would be different; destroyed.


 

The ortho photo shows what appears to be a smaller tank just to the south of the big one. The coordinates plot right between the two tanks. Maybe the four-legged one is still there.

 

-WR

 

"Why worry when you can obsess?"

Share this post


Link to post

BDT

I agree that the picture of the Latham Tank does not match the description and it cannot be assumed that it is in the same place as the original. To answer your question, yes, surveyors can also use cylindrical tanks as targets. From a distance of several miles, the width of the tank is not a factor. The center of the object is sighted, so any small object on top, marking the exact center, probably could not be seen anyway, and so would be of no help. The exception to this would be those tanks with a light on the top center, which is helpful, allowing it to be used at night.

Share this post


Link to post

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

×
×
  • Create New...