100/100 Club

[BeachBum22]

quote:

---

Is there a leaderboard for benchmarks like there is for caches?

---

 

No, but there's a FAQ. If you can find it

 

It may be my imagination, but I get the distinct feeling that Geocaching and Benchmark Hunting aren't on the same priority list at the webmaster's house.

 

Maybe he's one of those young guys with a real job and kids...

 

BeachBum22

[+Colorado Papa]

quote:

---

While it's fun to play the numbers game, you have to always remember to keep it in perspective. A count of benchmarks found is in no way a good perspective of how interested or dedicated a hunter is. Too many extranious factors, like:

 

How much time do you have to spend hunting? Where do you live? Some parts of the country are loaded with benchmarks. Others are not.

---

 

What a good comment! How much time is spent at a local library researching old maps for old railroads and roads that no longer exist? How about looking for BMs that were wiped out by floods?

 

I pride myself in not finding a BM. I would much rather confirm a BM was wiped out by a railroad being abandonded and all tracks and signals removed. Or a road being relocated. Or read about a flood. Unfortunately, no credit is given for NOT FINDs, but more time was spent at a library researching old documents than in the field.

 

The numbers don't really mean a thing. The question should really be about dedication and time spent for a location. Did it require doing research to determine where the river bed once was? What were the names and locations of the roads back when?

 

I've seen too many entries that say "Found as described" which is an easy "PLUS". See how many they find if the roads have been relocated, railroads have been abandonded, mountains have been moved.

 

It's a different world out there.

 

1950 Surveyor

[AE5D]

I've located exactly one cache and it was a lot of work, especially on a 100-degree day.

 

So my "score" is 1/102.

 

Benchmarks are much easier, I think, especially when you live near an area with a benchmark every half mile. There are several benchmarks in the downtown areas of Grand Prairie and Fort Worth (Texas) which are not far from each other, and they're right where they are supposed to be. And in most cases they are not hidden.

 

Someone (other than me, of course) should compile a list a really easy benchmarks for beginners.

[ArtMan]

AE5D writes:

 

quote:

---

Someone (other than me, of course) should compile a list a really easy benchmarks for beginners.

---

 

Good luck. It's a big country....

 

Generally, I've found that newer benchmarks tend to be easier to find for reasons probably too obvious to mention. Also, if you search for benchmarks that have previously been logged as 'found,' you'll at least have some degree of likelihood (though certainly not assurance) that the mark actually exists.

 

I went out this morning on my first cache hunt in months. I did eventually find the cache, but I kept looking in vain for bright colored flagging or a witness post :-) As difficult as it sometimes is to find benchmarks, let's not forget that they have been placed, and datasheets created, to facilitate their rediscovery.

[+seventhings]

ArtMan is right - newer (post 1985) and recently-found benchmarks are easier to find. In my experience, the easiest and most reliably-there benchmarks are disks mounted vertically in the walls of old, prominent buildings (like courthouses, etc.) that are defined with ADJUSTED coordinates. Marks with adjusted (rather than scaled) coords are relatively easy to find using the GOTO function on most handheld GPS units (or by just homing in on the location with the coord readout).

 

Finding benchmarks may be easier than finding caches except when the benchmark is not there. Then, it may take considerable time and effort to determine why a mark you can't find is unfindable.

[+beejay&esskay]

100/100 club today.

[+Rich in NEPA]

 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Colorado Papa:

I pride myself in not finding a BM. I would much rather confirm a BM was wiped out by a railroad being abandonded and all tracks and signals removed. Or a road being relocated. Or read about a flood. Unfortunately, no credit is given for NOT FINDs, but more time was spent at a library researching old documents than in the field.

---

There really needs to be a major change in the paradigm used for logging benchmarks. Based on the concept of positive identification I am now logging missing/destroyed marks as "Found," but only as long as I can positively identify (beyond any reasonable doubt) that I've located the station itself. The "Destroyed" option needs to be removed immediately from the BM logging form, and a "Condition" field (with dropdown list or radio buttons) added for all "Found" logs. This field will indicate that the station is either "Good," "Poor," or "Destroyed." In most cases I would hesitate to mark a station as "Destroyed" until I could file an official recovery report to NGS and a determination was made by them and added to the datasheet. I'd go back and edit the BM log afterwards. (Also, once a station has been logged as "Destroyed" subsequent "finders" should not be allowed to log it as "Found." This will give the credit where it's due.) The "Not Found" option should remain as it is now—that is, the mark wasn't found, or if there is any question about its identity.

 

Cheers ...

 

~Rich in NEPA~

 

--- A man with a GPS receiver knows where he is; a man with two GPS receivers is never sure. ---

[+GeckoGeek]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rich in NEPA:

Also, once a station has been logged as "Destroyed" subsequent "finders" should not be allowed to log it as "Found."

---

I disagree. What should it be if you declare "destroyed" and I later find it with photos?

 

Just recently I found a BM by accident – blocks away from where it’s description indicated it should be. Either the marking on the datasheet is wrong, or the description is wrong. (or maybe there is two disks with the same marking within a mile of each other.)

[+Rich in NEPA]

quote:

---

Originally posted by GeckoGeek:

What should it be if you declare "destroyed" and I later find it with photos?

---

What is it about the terms positively identified that you don't understand? Let me give you an example: a triangulation station with a missing station disk, two intact reference marks, and adjusted coordinates. This station is identifiable beyond any reasonable doubt. As a matter of fact, it is still considered a viable station since the exact location can be precisely determined from the reference marks. But according to NGS standards, the station will be classified as "destroyed."

 

Here's another example: I'm about to log the recovery of an old airway beacon tower that was used as a third order control station. The tower has been dismatled and no longer exists. I know this to be true because the evidence at the site is adequate to prove it. The coordinates were adjusted so I know that I'm standing where the tower was while my GPSr indicates the same WAAS-corrected coordinates. Three of the original anchor points for the legs still exist at the site. One of the legs was used in the description of a positively identified triangulation station not more than 18 feet away. I intend to log this station as "Found" with its condition described as "destroyed." A formal recovery report will be submitted to NGS for final determination and will be noted with the banchmark log.

 

quote:

---

Just recently I found a BM by accident – blocks away from where it’s description indicated it should be. Either the marking on the datasheet is wrong, or the description is wrong. (or maybe there is two disks with the same marking within a mile of each other.)

---

I've found many marks with errors in their descriptions. The errors are usually obvious if you take the time to verify the directions. The historic description is not the only way of identifying a station. It's probably the least reliable method. Note also that the coordinates listed on the datasheets for many marks are "scaled from topographic maps." In this case it's quite likely for listed coordinates to disagree with the actual coordinates by hundreds of feet or more.

 

I seriously doubt that there would be two marks in the same general area with the same stampings. Have you actually witnessed this? If so, I feel quite certain that there's a way to resolve the dilemma.

 

Cheers ...

 

~Rich in NEPA~

 

--- A man with a GPS receiver knows where he is; a man with two GPS receivers is never sure. ---

[JamesAG]

(Also, once a station has been logged as "Destroyed" subsequent "finders" should not be allowed to log it as "Found." This will give the credit where it's due.)

 

eh? You lost me here. You really want just anyone to have the ability to 'lock' a page with no option to refute their findings? You certainly have more trust in human nature than I do. Even with their screening process, NGS still (unknowingly) accepts bad information.

 

What's your goal here? To bring this to the NGS level of accuracy?

[+Rich in NEPA]

 

quote:

---

Originally posted by dgarner:

What's your goal here? To bring this to the NGS level of accuracy?

---

Actually, yes. NGS is and should be the final aribter in the determination of the status of a station. Once the evidence is presented to NGS it is up the them to decide if it is sufficient for their purposes. (You may not always like the calls of the umpire when your favorite team is playing, but everyone has already agreed to trust his judgment beforehand. Does NGS make mistakes? Certainly. But they've also corrected their mistakes when they were pointed out and the evidence found justifiable.) No system is ideal, but it can be made to suit the requirements quite well. There are plenty of stations in the NGS database right now that are designated as destroyed. Anyone is free and able to go out and find them and submit the evidence to NGS. I'm sure they'd be willing to make whatever changes are necessary.

 

[Edit added later:] I'd like to address the comment about human nature. When the benchmarking website first appeared a certain few surveying professionals became aware of this activity and they immediately responded with their concerns that we were nothing but a bunch of yahoos who would go around prying up disks for souvenirs and performing other malicious acts. But those within our group who are quite serious about participating in this activity's truly practical aspects went a long way to assure the skeptics that our goals were indeed noble and that our intentions were to help protect and preserve a valuable national resource and heritage—to the point where we now are recognized by NGS with a contributor ID of our very own. I, for one, intend to do my part (for as long as I'm involved with amateur benchmark recoveries) to ensure that our reputation remains as unsullied as possible.

 

Cheers ...

 

~Rich in NEPA~

 

--- A man with a GPS receiver knows where he is; a man with two GPS receivers is never sure. ---

 

[This message was edited by Rich in NEPA on October 06, 2003 at 02:53 PM.]

[+GeckoGeek]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rich in NEPA:

What is it about the terms _positively identified_ that you don't understand?

---

OK, let me try another example. Suppose Joe Blow geocacher logs a mark as destroyed. You come along later and find it - and have photos to prove it. It sounds to me like you are advocating that you shouldn't be able to contradict Joe Blow. While some of us are careful, the world is full of Joe Blows. But the rules apply to all of us equally.

 

quote:

---

I've found many marks with errors in their descriptions.

---

The question in my mind is the error a typo on the datasheet's description of the disk, or were the original guys that clueless about street names? Since the coordinates come from a map, a bad description will get you bad coordinates. GIGO.

[+Rich in NEPA]

 

quote:

---

Originally posted by GeckoGeek:

Suppose Joe Blow geocacher logs a mark as destroyed. You come along later and find it - and have photos to prove it.

---

If Joe Blow was thorough and positively identified the station, this shouldn't be an issue. That's where NGS comes in. When you submit a station recovery report and list the condition as missing or destroyed, you need to supply them with certain evidence—specifically a photo of the detached mark, or photos of the area and a detailed description of the conditions. DaveD has been very instrumental in helping us understand the standards of proof and the submission process, and I've seen cases where Deb Brown at NGS has been extremely willing to help with questions and following up on the reports. The bottom line is that when the proof is inadequate, the result is that the station is simply described as not found.

 

We need to set good examples for others to follow. As it is now there's too much confusion and ambiguity in the logging process. I'm still learning the fine points of this activity and am grateful to all the experts on these forums for taking the time to explain and answer questions. There needs to be a better-designed form which makes logging more accurate and reliable. We need FAQ's where questions and issues like this can be answered and defined. Nobody's trying to take the fun out of finding benchmarks as a casual activity. I'm doing it 'cuz it's fun! But I've found that in general most people are willing to listen and want to learn.

 

[Edit added later:] BTW, here's a very good example.

 

Cheers ...

 

~Rich in NEPA~

 

--- A man with a GPS receiver knows where he is; a man with two GPS receivers is never sure. ---

 

[This message was edited by Rich in NEPA on October 06, 2003 at 04:31 PM.]

[+Colorado Papa]

quote:

---

Originally posted by GeckoGeek:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rich in NEPA:

I've found many marks with errors in their descriptions.

---

The question in my mind is the error a typo on the datasheet's description of the disk, or were the original guys that clueless about street names? Since the coordinates come from a map, a bad description will get you bad coordinates. GIGO.

---

That has not been my experience. I have come across numerous errors in data sheets where north/south and/or east/west are reversed. How can that be a typo error. My theory is that original data sheets were hand written in the field and the handwriting was not properly read when transfered to the data base. That's not a typo error, just someone misreading the original info.

 

I also find that whoever has tried to plot the location from the description on a map then guestimate the coordinates followed the wrong road or railroad.

 

The only way to correct these errors is by US, the amateurs, going out and doing the most thorough job we can to give feedback to NGS. We can't stop cheaters, but they have nothing to gain. I don't really care about who has the most FINDS. I just want to be part of a team who gains respect with a Government agency. Apparently, US Power Squadron has that status in spite of all the errors I have found in their reports.

 

So let's just do the best job we can and not worry about those that are only interested in numbers. Maybe those of us who believe in the effort could have a higher Member Only status and only those could have access to making reports to NGS.

 

1950 Surveyor

[+GeckoGeek]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rich in NEPA:

If Joe Blow was thorough and _positively identified_ the station, this shouldn't be an issue. That's where NGS comes in.

---

This topic is on how GC should operate an I'm assuming were talking about "Destroyed" for logging on GC.com - not NGS. There is no one to review the destroyed on GC and I'm not sure if it would be a good idea to do so. (Politics, power, etc) Right now the idea of letting everyone post and each reader decide whose post is accurate seems to work. Yes, the data can get "interesting", but this is a hobbyist site so I don't really see that as a major problem. Perhaps not the ultimate in desirability, but it does seem to work.

 

quote:

---

As it is now there's too much confusion and ambiguity in the logging process. I'm still learning the fine points of this activity and am grateful to all the experts on these forums for taking the time to explain and answer questions. There needs to be a better-designed form which makes logging more accurate and reliable.

---

Absolutely no disagreement there - but we were talking about rules that govern the way CG's servers should work. That's a related but separate issues from what people will actually do. Unless we decided that CG will show "destroyed" if and only if NGS shows it as destroyed, then we still have to work out our own procedures. I continue to think that "locking out" finds after a mark is listed on CG as destroyed is not a good idea. It only takes one careless person to mess up the system and there is no guarantee that the careless person is the finder and not the logger. I think there are cases where people here have found marks the pros think have been lost. As such I don't think destroyed should be irreversible.

[JamesAG]

_

 

quote:

---

Originally posted by dgarner:

What's your goal here? To bring this to the NGS level of accuracy?

---

 

Actually, yes. NGS is and should be the final aribter in the determination of the status of a station.

 

==============

Ok, well that's where we differ. As far as I am concerned NGS is the place for the effort of accuracy. They are the professionals. It appears to me that GC.com took a copy of their database to allow us to do our own research for personal enjoyment, not to be the NGS front line researchers. There is an process to provide info to NGS if one chooses, or not. I choose not.

 

My underlying point about human nature is that this is a hobby, a sport, a game, not a job and placing limits on what people can log is not the game I came to play. You might be able to restrict people’s entries, but that still won’t insure they are correct ones. Pulling out or damaging a disc may be a crime. Logging poorly here is not.

 

I've said this before, what I like about this set up is that I can log a find in any detail and it will not affect another's log of the same mark. And I kind of doubt if GC.com is worried about their name being sullied from my entries.

 

If you want to maintain a high level of accuracy for yourself, go for it, I am behind you 100%. Seriously.

 

Me? I’m just here to have fun and I will do the best I can. Just don’t expect NGS quality reports.

 

Oh and to be on topic I am striving for 100/100.

[+saso_362]

100/100??

 

After I decided I was going to have to fill in some time between paydays finding benchmarks instead of caches I managed to make it just over the 300 caches / 200 benchmarks total!

Those trips to the gas station were killing me and benchmarks were a neat time filler.

 

Like caches, I have found some really unusual benchmark locations. But I stick by finding the traditional caches as my favorite activity.

[+Rich in NEPA]

 

quote:

---

Originally posted by dgarner:

My underlying point about human nature is that this is a hobby, a sport, a game, not a job and placing limits on what people can log is not the game I came to play.

---

Have no fear, my friend. There will always be a place for mediocrity in this world.

 

Cheers ...

 

~Rich in NEPA~

[+Sagefox]

544/102

 

I'm having fun with benchmarks. Our geocaching requires an overnight stay so we don't get to it all that often. Benchmarks on the other hand are scattered all over our rural county.

 

Our 100th benchmark find was the Point Arena Lighthouse and here is a view from 115' up at the lantern level. (If I figure out how to post a photo.)

 

[BeachBum22]

Have no fear, my friend. There will always be a place for mediocrity in this world.

 

And even though the world has people who spend thirty minutes a day making sure they put their socks on the right foot, there will still be room for those of us who have a lifestyle that doesn't require socks.......

 

BeachBum22

http://www.benchmarkhunting.com

Just because I can't find it doesn't mean it's not really there.

[+Olystats02]

In response to Beachbum 22's inquiry:

 

I have (I think) 225 caches and 176 benchmarks found. Congratulations on finding your first cache, Beachbum.

 

--Olystats02

[+GEO*Trailblazer 1]

I reached the Goal 100 Cache's today YeAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

And 474 Benchmarks .

I wanted to try for 100/500 at the same time but oh well...................

 

Happy............................................................................................ Geotrails

:

[+happycycler]

THREE CHEERS for GEO*Trailblazer!! and for all of you folks who are doing all of this finding!! Way to Go!

[+wray_clan]

Sorry if somebody said this...Me&Bucky is at 1000/1000. I'm at 137/around 10

[+Klemmer]

We do both, but I need to get more benchmarks. We're at 246 caches, 30 benchmarks. If only the "no finds" counted...... being in a fast developing area (SoCal), SO many benchmarks are really destroyed, but no way to "prove" it, so they stay "not found".

 

New Years resolution: MORE BENCHMARKS!

Edited December 22, 2003 by Klemmer

[+wildearth2001]

I have the opposite counts of many people. I enjoy both caches and benchmarks. I have found something like 40benchmarks and 4caches. My profile says different because I am just to lazy to log these things.

[+WaldenRun]

Sorry if somebody said this...Me&Bucky is at 1000/1000.

Uh, those are nice numbers, but have you asked them why they don't post photos of the marks? Their camera seems to work fine when they cache.

 

-WR

[+Dragonpearl]

I'm even on benchmarks and Caches. 1/1 LOL found them both yesterday

[TimSkells]

benchmarking is still cool but i do liek geocaching too. but I will be doing both. But caching is cool because you can put stuff in them and people hide them.

[TimSkells]

I'm even on benchmarks and Caches. 1/1 LOL found them both yesterday

haha nice

 

yea im 0/1 lol

 

theres 2 benchmarks right by my house though that i will go find. no one has found them yet.

[+happycycler]

YAY, YAY & YAY for Trailblazer!! He just passed me up again! I bet he has over 500 benchmark finds SOON!!

Edited January 2, 2004 by happycycler

[+ddnutzy]

As of today I have found 152 geocaches and 124 benchmarks with numerous reference disks. All stations and references are documented with photo's. Benchmarking is my favorite hobby although it gets tough with up to 18 inches of snow at times here in new England. The oldest marks found so far were mz1846 mt warner 1885 and mz1847 north mt warner 1885. Both of these are in Massachusetts.

Edited January 8, 2004 by ddnutzy

[+ddnutzy]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I've noticed that many geocachers don't hunt benchmarks at all, and many benchmark hunters don't geocache. Is there anyone else out there besides myself who has logged at least 100 geocache finds and 100 benchmark finds?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>I'm new, and I'm not interested in caches, but in the week that I've been banging around the web site, I've seen lots of people who have logged over 100 benchmarks.<BR><BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>There are six people that I know of that have at least 100 benchmark finds. Four of them also have 100 cache finds. There are three more that have over 100 caches and are in the 90s for benchmarks.<BR><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>From what I've seen browsing, I think if we could make the database give us a report, you'd see that there are many more than six with over 100 benchmarks.<BR><BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Just out of curiosity, who are some of the others?<BR><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR><A HREF="http://www.geocaching.com/profile/default.aspx?A=82664" TARGET=_blank>370</A><BR><BR><A HREF="http://www.geocaching.com/profile/default.aspx?A=25945" TARGET=_blank>156</A><BR><BR><A HREF="http://www.geocaching.com/profile/default.aspx?A=46190" TARGET=_blank>266</A><BR><BR><A HREF="http://www.geocaching.com/profile/default.aspx?A=68663" TARGET=_blank>110</A><BR><BR><A HREF="http://www.geocaching.com/profile/default.aspx?A=18523" TARGET=_blank>134</A><BR><BR><A HREF="http://www.geocaching.com/profile/default.aspx?A=53052&u=1266060431" TARGET=_blank>136</A><BR><BR><A HREF="http://www.geocaching.com/profile/default.aspx?A=80148" TARGET=_blank>281</A><BR><BR><A HREF="http://www.geocaching.com/profile/default.aspx?A=62165" TARGET=_blank>171</A><BR><BR><A HREF="http://www.geocaching.com/profile/default.aspx?A=113456" TARGET=_blank>210</A><BR><BR><A HREF="http://www.geocaching.com/profile/default.aspx?A=118612" TARGET=_blank>103</A><BR><BR><A HREF="http://www.geocaching.com/profile/default.aspx?A=25021&u=4576069331" TARGET=_blank>150</A><BR><BR>Those I found just browsing the last 500 pictures posted in the gallery, and from this thread. <BR><BR>While it's fun to play the numbers game, you have to always remember to keep it in perspective. A count of benchmarks found is in no way a good perspective of how interested or dedicated a hunter is. Too many extranious factors, like:<BR><BR>How much time do you have to spend hunting? Obviously, old retired guys (like me) have more time than young working guys with kids....<BR><BR>Where do you live? Some parts of the country are loaded with benchmarks. Others are not. If you live in Iowa, you might have to drive 75 miles to the closest one to you. If you live in Florida, you'll find two on any of 10,000 bridges....<BR><BR>What are your physical capabilites? I wouldn't do very well in the desert if I had to hike 5 miles up a hill to find a benchmark in a boulder - two bad knees and too many old bones. But I do fine looking for roadside benchmarks from an air conditioned truck.<BR><BR>What are you looking for? Obviously it's much harder to find a marker that's buried in the middle of a field with no witness post then it is to find a water tower or a church steeple.<BR><BR>How dedicated are you? Do you spend 10 minutes and give up, or do you go back to the same spot and keep looking as many times as it takes to convince yourself it's no longer there or to find it?<BR><BR>We all set our own standards. I don't like to look for markers that somebody else already found, I like to find one that have been MIA for a long time - the longer the better. Water towers aren't much fun, but if I see one I'll log it because maybe other people like water towers. I've found 43 benchmarks my first week, so I don't think 100 will be a major milestone for me. And I don't think I'm a better hunter than someone who has found 40 in thier first year. I think my first milestone might be 500, or maybe even a thousand. Just depends on how much time I have to take off for real life....<BR><BR>Shouldn't take the web site guys more than 15 minutes to write some code to generate a report, how many over 100, 200, 300, etc. Be fun to look at but it's not an indication of much. <BR><BR>Keep the numbers game fun. Let's hunt together and not against each other.<BR><BR>BeachBum22<BR>In the land of many bridges.

As of today I have 152 cache finds and 124 benchmark finds with numerous reference disks all documented with photo's. I find benchmarking more challenging then caches because many of the trees walls and buildings used as references are no longer around.

[+ddnutzy]

As of today I have 152 cache finds and 124 benchmark finds with numerous reference disks documented with photo's. Benchmarking is my favorite of the two as a lot of the coords are off and old reference points have been destroyed or cut down.

[+WaldenRun]

As of today I have found 152 geocaches and 124 benchmarks with numerous reference disks. All stations and references are documented with photo's.

And, that guy goes after some of the toughest ones. I have a lot of drive-bys, but many of his are seldom visited hilltops (or mountaintops!). Of course, not all drive-bys are easy, especially when they are in Interstate median strips (who, me?).

 

We did

one from 1885 today. Oh, and another. And another.

 

-WR

[Pschtyckque]

Today, I joined the 1/1 club! (I've only had my GPSr for 2 days)

 

I fully intend to search both caches and benchmarks. They're both like scavenger hunts, and finding things is finding things!

[+GEO*Trailblazer 1]

106 CACHES

501 BENCHMARKS

 

I AM SLOWLY GETTING THERE THOUGH.

[+happycycler]

Welcome Pschtyckque!! and Congrats. to Trailblazer!!

[+WaldenRun]

501 BENCHMARKS

Please tell me that this one is not indicative of those finds.

 

-WR

[Max Cacher]

Back on Topic please.

 

TG

[+NorStar]

11/3/4

GC/TB/BM

 

I have only been doing this since November, but I hope to reach 100 benchmarks by the end of this year, the 100/x/100 club within two years and 100x3 soon after that.

 

This might be a little bit of a ramble, but I hope to put down some of my thoughts on why I am excited about pursuing ALL THREE. They appeal to me for very different reasons.

 

Geocaches - Finding GCs appeal to me because they represent hunting for something 'of value' that someone left behind (yes, 'value' is definitely in the eyes of the geocacher). Since starting this, I have already been amazed by the variety of caches and the objects that are found in them. Some are exactly at the coordinates specified, some involve some other activity, such as solving puzzles. It has been fun to read the notes from people who have been there before, and I love the concept of trading items for other items. Geocaches have helped me to 'discover' places I had not been to, before, including a tour of Saxonville (my first), and two parts of Cutler Park I had never been to.

 

Travel Bugs - Unlike either Geocaches or Benchmarks, Travel Bugs represent hunting for something that is not fixed in place and may have an interesting activity to do with it. My first two finds were completely by chance - they had been placed there less than a day before. Another one appeared in a nearby cache, so I specifically went to that cache to get it. Again, I am amazed at the variety of TBs, and it has been fun trying to help these TBs along on their journeys.

 

Benchmarks - Finding BMs appeals to me for two reasons. One, I have always had a strong sense of wanting to reference myself to something (my trailname indicates this), and being a lover of maps, and an amateur geologist, like the idea of finding benchmarks, knowing that people had carefully measured positions to place them, often on mountaintops. Second, I am also researching historical industrial sites, and I had not realized that there was a class of benchmarks that used smokestacks, spires, and other large objects as a type of benchmark. My first benchmarks, done this week, were with a friend of mine at work, who also loves to investigate things. Together, we have uncovered a lot about the history of Cambridge, and learned both what still exists, and what has disappeared. Looking for benchmarks has only created another excuse to go exploring. Plus, since it looks like few people in the Boston metro area seem to be looking for BMs, I have many opportunities to be the first to recover benchmarks. I have already posted a find on one that had a note indicating that it might not exist anymore. True, there is no 'guarantee' that the benchmark is there. But, that is part of the challenge of benchmarks. Do I always want to know that something is there? As a previous commentor had noted, sometimes it is more interesting to understand why it isn't there, anymore. The world is everchanging, even if it isn't immediately apparent - that includes city blocks.

 

Some other comments:

 

This region is dense in both benchmarks and geocaches. But I think that there are at least 4 benchmarks to one geocache in a given area.

 

Benchmarks are good to look for in cities where there are few caches available, geocaches are good to look for in suburban or rural areas where there are fewer benchmarks. Thus, it shouldn't be hard to find one or the other wherever I am (at least in the Boston area).

 

Benchmarks are easier to find. In one hour, I found four BMs, while in two hours I found two GCs. There is not right or wrong with this, but the level of effort is different between them.

 

I have had people send me comments from posts in all three areas, now. It is quite a community. I look forward to meeting more of you (especially two that I keep seeing in the logs ahead of me).

 

I'll stop now.

 

N/S

[+GeckoGeek]

Benchmarks are good to look for in cities where there are few caches available, geocaches are good to look for in suburban or rural areas where there are fewer benchmarks.

Except in a city the tight spaces and rate of change you'll probably have more lost BMs then normal. To do a proper job of declaring something destroyed to the NGS requirements takes time and effort.

[+NorStar]

Oh, I fully agree that many of these benchmarks don't exist, anymore. A quick survey of Kendall Square in Cambridge underscored that (between MIT and the biotech companies, many of the older industries, such as Lever Bros. Soap, have been wiped out). Also, there are others that may be unreachable due to locations on highway and railroad right of ways, and private land. Still, many are left to investigate.