Jump to content

NGS "Mark not found" Question


Garminator

Recommended Posts

Today I found two benchmarks reported by the NGS in 1954 as a "no find". Both turned out to be in good condition and as described. Should I report these to the NGS or just chalk them up in my "found" column? They really didn't take that much to find, I found both within a half-hour and that included 5mi. drive time.

 

Garminator

 

"I seen Elvis making crop circles"......................Are the Soprano's on yet?

Link to comment

I would especially make the effort to report these to the NGS. It would correct someone else's (obviously) less than complete search in 1954. Anyone looking at the history would now know those marks are available. I know I put a fair amount of validity into the last report, so correcting a "not found" to "found" would be important to me if I was looking for them. If the previous description is adequate, then not much if anything needs to be put in, just the fact that you found it.

Link to comment

Make certain that the markings exactly match those given in the description in each case, otherwise you have probably found some newer points that happen to be at or near the described location. Even if the name and date stamped on them matches, look especially carefully to see if the word "reset" is stamped on any of them. This occurs fairly often, because certain areas are more useful than others and when a point in such a place is destroyed another marker is usually set, sooner or later, in that same area, but very seldom in the exact same spot. If they are the original points, its likely that they have been included in a local database. Remember that the "not found" status of description is not intended to indicate that the points are no longer in existence, but merely to indicate that they were not visited at that particular time. Often it simply means that they were not used during the work done in that year and they may not even have been looked for by that survey crew, unless it is specifically stated that a search was made without success.

Link to comment

Quoting survey tech

Remember that the "not found" status of description is not intended to indicate that the points are no longer in existence, but merely to indicate that they were not visited at that particular time. Often it simply means that they were not used during the work done in that year and they may not even have been looked for by that survey crew, unless it is specifically stated that a search was made without success.

 

Question(s):

Why would they submit any update if they did not visit the site? I mean .. by that definition aren't all benchmarks "Not Found" by someone at sometime? Or is there a deeper, perhaps darker meaning?

 

>Personally Responsible for the Recovery of .00244% of the Benchmark Database!<--watch this number!

Link to comment

Crews were typically assigned areas and were generally expected to report on the status of all markers in that area. Some crews interpreted the instructions to mean that they must file some kind of report on every existing marker including those they did not have the time or the need to visit, indicating, at least, the mere fact that they did not have occasion to use those markers, while acknowledging them rather than simply ignoring or overlooking them. This practice was more common in the earlier years and faded away as the number of markers increased to a point where it was no longer feasible to make note of all of them in a given area. In most cases, recovery notes prepared by NGS personnel state whether a search was made or not. The moral to be gathered is that a good benchmark hunter always sets out operating on the presumption that a marker described as not found does still exist until the contrary is proven conclusively. This is the reason for the traditionally strict limitation on the use of the description destroyed, because it is a conclusive finding, whereas not found is inconclusive. Many here have already discovered that not found, particularly when listed by the Power Squadron or other amateurs, is not to be trusted and therefore meaningless.

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...