Jump to content

Found Benchmark - not on file


sbukosky
Followers 0

Recommended Posts

Actually, many of the benchmarks in the NGS database were placed by other local, state and federal agenies, such as state departments of transportation, state dept of natural resources, bureau of land management, US Geological Survey, etc.etc. The paperwork is then sent to the National Geodetic Survey (part of NOAA) to be added to the database. But, I would assume, that the people who placed the marker have to send in the paperwork because there is backup documentation to show it was placed according to NGS standards. This would negate any effort on our part to add markers that we find that are not in the database.

Link to comment

I recently found a new horizontal control marker. I notified the state advisor and he congratulated me and said it probably wouldn't be in the database for a couple of years. This is an NGS marker but was set by the state dnr. He gave me no tech. data on it. Of course it has no PID,but I found a 4-char ID at the state FBN site.

 

I have info on its location and two photos. Can I post this info and pics here? And if so, how do I get the pics in here? This disk is located in a scenic area (easy to find) and I'm sure alot of people would like to see it.

Link to comment

Web-ling, are you sure you've got the right mark?

 

According to the description, the disk is stamped 4742 1947.

 

But the photo clearly shows that the number on the disk is 6338 or 6336 [no date].

 

Is it possible that the disk went missing - it was reported as 'not found' in 1986 - and then was replaced with a different disk? The subsequent recoveries by US Power Squadron could represent well-meaning amateurs who may have mis-reported this. Possibly the local authorities (Fort Worth engineering dept?) could shed light on this, and perhaps they have a local database or datasheet that would be more helpful.

 

I'm not sure what's going on here, but it doesn't look exactly right to me.

Link to comment

As far as I can tell, it's a new disk in the exact same spot. I measured pretty carefully to be sure. I believe they just stuck the new disk in the old hole.

 

The point I was trying to make is that any mark that was ever reported as missing, even if it was later found, does not show up in the search results, even though they exist in Jeremy's database. There are numerous examples. Do a radial search on the NGS website, then do a radial search on Groundspeak. Manually search the ones that are in the NGS database but not in Jeremy's. Many of them ARE in Jeremy's database, but NOT in the radial search results. Some of these DO still exist.

quote:
Originally posted by ArtMan:

Web-ling, are you sure you've got the right mark?

 

According to the description, the disk is stamped 4742 1947.

 

But the photo clearly shows that the number on the disk is 6338 or 6336 [no date].

 

Is it possible that the disk went missing - it was reported as 'not found' in 1986 - and then was replaced with a different disk? The subsequent recoveries by US Power Squadron could represent well-meaning amateurs who may have mis-reported this. Possibly the local authorities (Fort Worth engineering dept?) could shed light on this, and perhaps they have a local database or datasheet that would be more helpful.

 

I'm not sure what's going on here, but it doesn't look exactly right to me.


 

25021_1200.gif

Link to comment

When I first went to the benchmark page I thought the benchmark disc looked familiar, but it wasn't until yesterday that I figured out why...I saw one before I knew what geocaching was...

I saw one on Sandstone Peak - the highest point in the Santa Monica Mountains (see Circle X Ranch Trail Info).

The coords I logged were N34*07'13.1 W118*55'55.8 which matches up with NOAA discs EW7493 and/or EW7495 (they're off by 1/2 second).

They show up in the NGS database, but retrievals of their datasheets also return "Msg=FATAL_ERROR - No Marks found". Not quite sure what that means.

Anyway, neither are in the geocaching.com database

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...
Followers 0
×
×
  • Create New...