Jump to content

Destroyed or Not Found?


Knighthawk

Recommended Posts

I've read a couple people suggesting that one should always put "Not Found" on a log unless you have first-hand knowledge of the BM being destroyed.

 

Does that also apply to big BMs? In Pontiac, we have a lot of BMs that are auto-plant water tanks or manufacturing smokestacks. While I could be missing a disc set at ground level, I can feel pretty certain that a 150-foot-tall structure really isn't there.

 

I thought, given the snow cover, that it would be easier to look for above-ground BMs, but I'm not having much luck. I've found one of five, so far. Two missing smokestacks, one missing water tank and one marker on the wall of a department store that has been gone for 25 years.

Link to comment

whenever possible, provide whatever supporting information you can for benchmarks that are destroyed. A photo of the area is often helpful.

 

A better bet is to check with local authorities for information on when the mark was destroyed. If the mark was a church steeple, smoke stack, or water tower, there is almost always someone around who remembers it being brought down.

 

Bench mark disks on the other hand may have simply been paved over, or may have a burried component that will allow the mark to be relocated at some time in the future should that be of interest to the NGS or local surveyors.

 

If you read through the descriptions of enough finds, or even in this forum, you will find markers that were "not found" for many years, then found by someone who dug down 6 to 12 inches. This is part of why the NGS wants evidence of a marker being destroyed whenever possible. They very often want the marker disk itself if at all possible.

 

That's my opinion at least, some of the real professionals may have other opinions.

 

-Rusty

Link to comment

In a nutshell, you should have conclusive evidence to use the destroyed classification. In cases such as mentioned here, the best evidence is often testimony of someone who personally observed the object and its fate. Looking through the NGS datasheets, you will see many that say "Informed by property owner that the tower was taken down in 1957", for example. Of course, you may not be interested in pursuing the matter to this extent, in which case its best to declare it not found with a note such as "Tower not in evidence, described location, at northeast corner of Main St. and Jones Ave., is now occupied by an apartment building", which conveys the idea that it may be gone, while leaving others the option to investigate further if they wish and draw their own conclusions.

 

Well said Rusty, you just beat me to it, we were thinking, and typing, the same thing at the same time.

Link to comment

Event the experts can be wrong. I took us about 1 hour to find this mark with the aide of hand held GPS Garmim eTrek Vista. None of the 1934 references beside the RR tack were found

 

quote:
1 National Geodetic Survey, Retrieval Date = MARCH 15, 2003

QL0087 ***********************************************************************

QL0087 DESIGNATION - R 56

QL0087 PID - QL0087

QL0087 STATE/COUNTY- MI/DELTA

QL0087 USGS QUAD - ENSIGN (1985)

QL0087

QL0087 *CURRENT SURVEY CONTROL

QL0087 ___________________________________________________________________

QL0087* NAD 83(1986)- 45 53 54. (N) 086 51 14. (W) SCALED

QL0087* NAVD 88 - 212.345 (meters) 696.67 (feet) ADJUSTED

QL0087 ___________________________________________________________________

QL0087 GEOID HEIGHT- -35.65 (meters) GEOID99

QL0087 DYNAMIC HT - 212.346 (meters) 696.67 (feet) COMP

QL0087 MODELED GRAV- 980,618.5 (mgal) NAVD 88

QL0087

QL0087 VERT ORDER - SECOND CLASS 0

QL0087

QL0087.The horizontal coordinates were scaled from a topographic map and have

QL0087.an estimated accuracy of +/- 6 seconds.

QL0087

QL0087.The orthometric height was determined by differential leveling

QL0087.and adjusted by the National Geodetic Survey in June 1991.

QL0087

QL0087.The geoid height was determined by GEOID99.

QL0087

QL0087.The dynamic height is computed by dividing the NAVD 88

QL0087.geopotential number by the normal gravity value computed on the

QL0087.Geodetic Reference System of 1980 (GRS 80) ellipsoid at 45

QL0087.degrees latitude (g = 980.6199 gals.).

QL0087

QL0087.The modeled gravity was interpolated from observed gravity values.

QL0087

QL0087; North East Units Estimated Accuracy

QL0087;SPC MI N - 123,940. 8,011,340. MT (+/- 180 meters Scaled)

QL0087

QL0087 SUPERSEDED SURVEY CONTROL

QL0087

QL0087 NGVD 29 - 212.344 (m) 696.67 (f) ADJ UNCH 2 0

QL0087

QL0087.Superseded values are not recommended for survey control.

QL0087.NGS no longer adjusts projects to the NAD 27 or NGVD 29 datums.

QL0087.See file dsdata.txt to determine how the superseded data were derived.

QL0087

QL0087_U.S. NATIONAL GRID SPATIAL ADDRESS: 16TER113827(NAD 83)

QL0087_MARKER: DB = BENCH MARK DISK

QL0087_SETTING: 7 = SET IN TOP OF CONCRETE MONUMENT

QL0087_STAMPING: R 56 1934

QL0087_STABILITY: C = MAY HOLD, BUT OF TYPE COMMONLY SUBJECT TO

QL0087+STABILITY: SURFACE MOTION

QL0087_SATELLITE: THE SITE LOCATION WAS REPORTED AS NOT SUITABLE FOR

QL0087+SATELLITE: SATELLITE OBSERVATIONS - March 14, 2002

QL0087

QL0087 HISTORY - Date Condition Report By

QL0087 HISTORY - 1934 MONUMENTED CGS

QL0087 HISTORY - 1972 MARK NOT FOUND NGS

QL0087 HISTORY - 20020314 GOOD MIDT

QL0087

QL0087 STATION DESCRIPTION

QL0087

QL0087'DESCRIBED BY COAST AND GEODETIC SURVEY 1934

QL0087'0.5 MI E FROM ENSIGN.

QL0087'0.5 MILE EAST ALONG THE MINNEAPOLIS, ST. PAUL AND SAULT STE.

QL0087'MARIE RAILWAY FROM ENSIGN, DELTA COUNTY, BETWEEN THE SIXTH AND

QL0087'SEVENTH POLES EAST OF MILEPOST 355, 25 FEET SOUTH OF THE

QL0087'CENTERLINE OF THE TRACK, AND 15 FEET NORTHEAST OF A 14-INCH

QL0087'BIRCH TREE. A STANDARD DISK, STAMPED R 56 1934 AND SET IN THE

QL0087'TOP OF A CONCRETE POST PROJECTING ABOUT 4 INCHES ABOVE GROUND.

QL0087

QL0087 STATION RECOVERY (1972)

QL0087

QL0087'RECOVERY NOTE BY NATIONAL GEODETIC SURVEY 1972

QL0087'MARK NOT FOUND.

QL0087

QL0087 STATION RECOVERY (2002)

QL0087

QL0087'RECOVERY NOTE BY MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 2002 (MPR)

QL0087'ENSIGN, 0.68 MILE EAST OF 'Y' RD (NORTH), 0.18 MILE WEST OF 'Z' RD

QL0087'(NFS2235), ABOUT 260 FT NORTH OF THE C/L US-2, 63 FT N32E OF POWER

QL0087'LINE POLE NO.143, 58 FT NORTH OF POWER LINE, 26 FT SOUTH OF SOUTH

QL0087'RAIL, 5.5 FT WEST OF 15-INCH BALSAM, 2 FT SOUTH OF WITNESS POST, 2 FT

QL0087'BELOW RR GRADE AND PROJECTING 7-INCHES ABOVE GROUND.


Link to comment

One more thought (for BMs that are not towers and such).

 

I've found benchmarks that were more than 100 yds off target.

 

I've found benchmarks where the description said South instead of North, or West instead of East.

 

My rule is, if I don't see pieces, I don't log it as destroyed.

 

DustyJacket

...If life was fair, a banana split would cure cancer.

Link to comment

Time for a bump. I recently attempted a recovery in OH (LA2282). I didn't find the mark (a water tower) but definitely found evidence I was in the right place:

 

The coords are spot on (based on camparison to aerail photos which pictures the tower)

The location matches the description

I found four concrete pads (corresponding to a 'four-legged tower')

The mark is clearly gone, but since I didn't see it fall, should I call it destroyed?. I feel I have enough evidence in this case to do so, but I'm interested in what others think.

 

Greg

N 39 54.705'

W 77 33.137'

Link to comment

BTW, I also do have 2 photos I took of the area. I haven't uploaded them yet because I'm waiting to see what kind of log I'll choose (I hate unnecessarily editing logs).

 

I've reduced them just a bit for posting here. I haven't yet tackled the NGS photo protocol, so any of my photos wouldn't be appropriate for official submission.

 

LA2282_01small.jpg

 

LA2282_02small.jpg

 

Greg

N 39 54.705'

W 77 33.137'

Link to comment

OK, comments from a newbie.

 

Gripe: I look at the list of BMs in my area with no visits. But when I look they official record says it was destroyed around 1964 or so. So why is it even listed in geocache.com? If nothing else I'd like to see an icon in the list that indicates at least the probable status. If someone really wants a challenge, they can look and find it anyway.

 

I'm not sure if "note" is quite strong enough a hint in the broad listing to convey the status. I tend to be very careful about coming to any conclusions, but if I know the history of the area and reasonable certain the building is gone (I'm talking buildings, not little disks here.) then I plan to mark it as destroyed on the geocache.com site. I need to find out about NGS site. They may have already declared it gone.

 

Flame away, I've got my asbestos underwear on. Just do it with class. <g>

Link to comment

GeckoGeek -

 

I certainly agree with your frustration. Let me tell you how I deal with it.

 

First of all, please don't blame geocaching.com for what's in and not in the database. They did a really excellent job of taking the NGS database as is, parsing it in, and giving it a nice format for us to use.

 

When I decide I'm going benchmark hunting I study the database. A lot of the PIDs I decide not to try to find. Yes, some of them even say destroyed, yet, the NGS, for some reason unknown to me, keeps them in active status.

 

I don't make any report to geocaching unless I arrive personally on the scene of the PID for a look. I think that's the fair thing to do, even with Post-a-Note.

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by GeckoGeek:

When I look they official record says it was destroyed around 1964 or so. So why is it even listed in geocache.com? If nothing else I'd like to see an icon in the list that indicates at least the probable status. If someone really wants a challenge, they can look and find it anyway.

 


 

When the NGS record has a "not found", Geocaching puts a skull next to the entry (and you don't see these entries unless you ask for "all").

 

[Even this is a matter of some debate here, since a "not found" entry does not mean it's not there, just that someone reported it was "not found". Some take this a personal challenge to go out and find it.]

 

It's always good if you give an example of what you see, since a casual look at benchmarks in Hawaii didn't show the problem you describe.

 

(I have seen cases where the NGS log says "see description" rather than "not found". When the description clearly indicates the structure is no longer present, you wish they had reported it as "not found", but it's not Geocaching's fault.)

 

quote:
Originally posted by GeckoGeek:

 

I'm not sure if "note" is quite strong enough a hint in the broad listing to convey the status. I tend to be very careful about coming to any conclusions, but if I know the history of the area and reasonable certain the building is gone (I'm talking buildings, not little disks here.) then I plan to mark it as destroyed on the geocache.com site. I need to find out about NGS site. They may have already declared it gone.

 


 

That's what I'd do. If there isn't a "not found" entry at NGS, I'd report that also, even if there is a "see description" entry that indicates it's not there.

 

quote:
Originally posted by GeckoGeek:

Flame away <g>


 

I think you'll find posters here very well-behaved and very few flames.

 

Welcome to the world of benchmarking.

 

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

Current caching status

4 FTF

1 LTF

17 pending LTF

Link to comment

Black Dog Trackers wrote:

 

quote:

I don't make any report to geocaching unless I arrive personally on the scene of the PID for a look. I think that's the fair thing to do, even with Post-a-Note.


 

I have recently begun to occasionally leave a pertinent note for stations I have not visited when I spot information - either in the datasheet or from knowledge of the area - that may be helpful to other benchmarkers. For example, reading the datasheet for HV8625 led me to post the following note:

 

Note this is a rooftop station and will likely not be accessible unless you live at or know someone at this apartment building.

 

Any thoughts?

Link to comment

ArtMan -

 

Actually I was going to contact you about us doing just that.

 

I suggest using Note on all the of those kinds that us geocachers should just forget about. The tops of buildings is a good example.

 

Some of the local PIDs/Designations I have in my memory as that type, but we might as well put Notes on them instead of trying to remember the ones we won't be going to.

 

What do you think of the private property ones? There are some that are way inside someone's private property and I don't want to look for them.

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by ArtMan:

Black Dog Trackers wrote:

 

For example, reading the datasheet for http://www.geocaching.com/mark/details.asp?PID=HV8625 led me to post the following note:

 

_Note this is a rooftop station and will likely not be accessible unless you live at or know someone at this apartment building._

 

Any thoughts?


Two thoughts:

 

1) The roof MAY be accessible. You don't know unless you visit. But I agree one must be reasonable about trying to get access.

 

2) The building may be gone. What I would do is at least verify the existence of the building and see if it matches the description as well as taking GPS readings from the outside to see of the location is reasonable (description isn't for something 1/2 mile away from logged reading.

 

In this case you've expressed a viewpoint but no additional information nor set a "status" icon to help others. I don't see the addition of the note being much help.

 

If by your personal knowledge of the area or a different log from which have information to add, or updating some points mentioned in the description, then my all means make a note.

Link to comment

GeckoGeek, I like your suggestion.

 

Still, these notes are real pain to dig through to decipher. If someone determines, like ArtMan did, that the station is on a rooftop, then reading this in a note saves people time. I know my area fairly well enough to know that I won't be going to any rooftops and seeing this in an entry will save me time.

 

Perhaps we could separate these into two different helpful notes -- one that merely helps us realize where the benchmark is and the other as verification.

Link to comment

Speaking purely for myself, I don't mind hunting for controls that the NGS has listed as "destroyed". Even the pros make mistakes. I've submitted two Recovery Reports which correct really silly errors in the Descriptions - things like the wrong number on a power pole (confusing a "6" for an "8") - so if they can goof on this, they can goof on a control being destroyed; they're just as human as I am. If the "destroyed " notation is from the Power Squadron or some similar agency, I definitely don't mind looking. These people are good, but they don't know every area as well as we who live there might. I've never found a disk that was listed as destroyed (what a surprise! icon_wink.gif), but that doesn't stop me from trying. How many "lost" geocaches have actually been there all along, just better-hidden than even very experienced geocachers expected? Gold is where you find it, and some given-up-for-lost controls are out there, waiting to be found.

 

So many caches; so few pairs of decent shoes

Link to comment

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...
×
×
  • Create New...