Jump to content

Reporting dicovered errors to NGS


Recommended Posts

I'm sure that this is an old thread (that I can't locate), but what is the link/form/site to report an error (or 2!) to the proper authority? GA0346 lists 2 Reference Points at the same location (named differently). GA0345 and GA0347 contain an additional 2 errors (each) that are not mutually off-setting (it isn't a simple reversal of PIDs).

Link to comment

Reports of errors should be made to the National Geodetic Survey on their

Recovery Form. Your report will be appended to prior reports for this station and will be available to surveyors and other professional users of the NGS datasheets. For this reason, it is important you be sure of what you report, since it becomes part of an official record. You can use the Geocaching.com agency code (GEOCAC) or file as an individual (INDIV) - it's up to you. But please, to avoid embarrassment to yourself and to Geocaching, be sure of your facts before you file this report. Thank you.

Link to comment

Happycycler and I have found two cases where the coordinates are just plain wrong. In one case, the coordinates were copied from the datasheet for the PID just previous (JC1817/JC1816). In the second case, the latitude was off by exactly one degree (can't find it right now). These errors are more serious than desription errors, they place the benchmark miles away from where it actually is. Anyone doing a search in a particular area will miss these benchmarks. Is there anyway to get the NGS to correct errors in the datasheet itself?

Link to comment

RogBarn -- I have reviewed the data you posted for JC1918 and compared it with various maps to ensure the integrity of your data. I have ordered that the coordiantes of the station on the datasheet be corrected to reflect the values you provided.

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by DaveD:

RogBarn -- I have reviewed the data you posted for JC1918 and compared it with various maps to ensure the integrity of your data. I have ordered that the coordiantes of the station on the datasheet be corrected to reflect the values you provided.


 

Wow. I'm impressed. A couple of notes. Happycycler submitted an recovery for JC1817 which is on the current datasheet on the NGS website. It notes the incorrect coords, but of course the datasheet itself is still wrong. Also, the State/County and the USGS quad is incorrect. The county is "C OF ST LOUIS" (City of St. Louis). I think the quad should be WEBSTER GROVES, but that needs to be verified. I'm sorry I didn't mention this before, but I didn't expect this kind of service. Thanks.

Link to comment

I just submitted a recovery to the NGS. It was

for PID: Kw1910 Designation: V 153. I

submitted it because it has not been found in

sixty years. It was not found by the C and GS

in 1953. I found the posted coordinates two

tenths of a mile off. I sent new directions to

reach but I did not post coordinates. Should I

send in another report with coordinates even

though they are from a consumer grade GPS?

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by RogBarn: In the second case, the latitude was off by exactly one degree (can't find it right now).

 

It is PID AA7385. Happycycler and I agree that the latitude should be 37 degrees north instead of 38 degrees. Everything else, including the minutes, seems OK. Since neither one of us have actually visited this one yet, I guess we need to put off asking the NGS to fix it. Find it first, then try to get it corrected, right?

Link to comment

Airnut writes:

quote:
I found the posted coordinates two

tenths of a mile off. I sent new directions to

reach but I did not post coordinates. Should I

send in another report with coordinates even

though they are from a consumer grade GPS?


 

My response is, of course, not official, but I would think you should report new coordinates, but if you do it is important you note they are from a consumer grade or handheld GPS receiver, and that you try to average out a long reading to get the best possible data out of your unit.

 

In any event, it will be an improvement over the existing coordinates, and of course the 'to reach' should also be as clear and accurate as possible.

Link to comment

I was thinking of starting a new topic on this very same point - 'should we try to update SCALED position coordinates?', but it came up here, and perhaps DaveD can give us some perspectives on it.

 

The case in point, KW1910, found by Airnut after a CGS not-found, is a position-Scaled benchmark. Also, it is in an undeveloped area without many landmarks like there would be in a city or suburban setting.

 

In such cases of position-Scaled benchmarks, it would seem an advantage for the NGS to have on file the coordinates from a recreational GPS (+/-15 feet) as a significant improvement over coordinates scaled from a topographic map (+/-500 feet).

 

Different geocachers could quibble about the last decimal positions of the coordinates, but it would still be better than 0.1 mile off.

Link to comment

In a previous thread I indicated that NGS is currently developing a mechanism to update scale positions with 2 forms of GPS provided by the public -- augmented or differently corrected (e.g., WAAS, NDGPS) or autonomous position. This requires writing considerable code to actively update the NGS database, not to mention the need for a warm body to QC the data. Unfortunately, like so many other government agencies, NGS is experiencing a significant deficit of personnel, which means our resources are stretched pretty thin. We all agree that this is an important application to develop, however it's in a long list of other very important applications to work on and will require some time to implement. Until then, I would recommend that if you submit a recovery note on the NGS web site you include your updated position, or if the value is way off (more than 1/2 mile) post it to me directly and I'll try and see what I can do on a case-by-case basis.

Link to comment

How about updated descriptins when the how-to-get-to has changed because of recent road improvements? Many in my immediate area (several monumented as recently as 1991) have descriptions that refer to a handful of intersections that have since been turned into no-access overpasses, as well as a state highway that was moved a few blocks to a new bypass. Would updated get-to descriptions for these be beneficial, or are surveoyrs smart enough to figure it out on their own?

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by DaveD:

In a previous thread I indicated that NGS is currently developing a mechanism to update scale positions with 2 forms of GPS provided by the public -- augmented or differently corrected (e.g., WAAS, NDGPS) or autonomous position

 

Until then, I would recommend that if you submit a recovery note on the NGS web site you include your updated position, or if the value is way off (more than 1/2 mile) post it to me directly and I'll try and see what I can do on a case-by-case basis.


 

How would suggest we word the position from our GPS's? Do you care what the GPS says the accuracy is? Are there any conditions where you would not want our positions for scaled locations?

Link to comment

This one is stirring up some controversy here.The Louisiana Purchase survey error puts Arkansas in Missouri.On May 2,2003 on the opening of the Exhibit "The Louisiana Purchase:From this Point on",at the Old State House Museum,on loan from the Archives in Washington D.C.,is full of artifacts,papers and memrabilia from the Louisiana Purchase.The 1803 Purchase added 828,000 square miles of land West of the Mississippi River to the U.S.,Included the Future State of Arkansas.The Party headed by Joseph Brown and Prospect K. Robbins in 1810.For the Starting Point(INITIAL POINT) a wilderness area at the Northwest intersection of the dihedral angle of the mouths of the St. Francis and Arkansas Rivers.It was from this precise point the ENTIRE GRID SYSTEM resposible for all the land boundries in the Purchase began.The Historic spot,marked today by a impressive stone marker,is located in Eastern Arkansas at the confluence of Phillips,Monroe and Lee Counties.The only problem is,the (SPOT) is wrong.The Actual point in the TINY MARGIN of ROBBINS journal,corroborated by Bill Gatewood,Old State House Museum Director.:I can't imagine how the error went undetected for so long""THE ORIGINAL AND PRECISE POINT OF ORIGINIS,INFACT,A BIT MORE THAN 16 MILES DUE SOUTH OF THE CURRENT MARKER.INTERIOR OFFICIALS ARRIVED LAST FRIDAY TO MOVE THE MARKER TO THE BANKS OF PRARIE CYPRESS GARDENS.

 

THE MOST DANGEROUS ANIMAL IN THE FOREST DOES NOT EVEN LIVE THERE*********WHEN ALL ELSE FAILS*GEOTRYAGAIN **1803-2003 "LOUSIANA PURCHASE" 200TH ANNIVERSARY AND THE "LEWIS AND CLARK EXPADITION" http://www.lapurchase.org http://www.msnusers.com/MissouriTrails

Link to comment

Note for Dave and hopefully of interest to others. Today I returned from a weekend trip that included taking a look at AA7385. It is really there in Park Hills, MO as the description indicates. The latitude degree value somehow got to be 38 rather than 37 in the database. Rogbarn is the one who figured out that it was off by an even degree in latitude. I submitted a recovery to NGS today and also to our Geocaching benchmarking site. I also sent some snapshots to the Geochaching site.

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...