Benchmarks and Resets

[+Web-ling]

If a benchmark has been reset, does the original mark ever still exist? Can anyone cite an example where both the original mark and the reset mark still both exist? When I note that there has been a reset, is it worth the effort to even bother looking for the original?

 

[Z15]

Yes, then can still exist. I worked for 31+ yrs for the Michigan DOT and reset a lot of marks myself (maybe 100?). Just this year we reset 4 marks because future highway construction will probably destroy the originals. Several years ago we reset 3 marks that were to be destoyed by a new highway but a change in plans put the road somewhere else, so the originals are still. I have also recovered NGS marks that were reset 30+ yrs ago and for whatever reason the original was still in place. I have on occasion found marks that other agencys said were not found, even NGS survey crews. USGS is the worst, they often employ summer help whod will report the mark as not found becuase they did not even look for it.

[+patw]

In 1664 a patent was issued to NJ which described the northern boundary of their deed to extend from the nothernmost branch of the Delaware River (also described as the intersection of N41 41 with the Delaware) to N41 degrees on the Hudson River. Problem was, there is no river branch at N41 41 so for some 220 years NY and NJ engaged in a boundary war. In 1774 a royal commission conducted a physical survey of the line and placed 48 4x4 foot stone markers every mile from Port Jervis, NY to Tappan, NY. (Lots of history here.) In 1887 the line was resurveyed and new markers were placed beside any original markers which were still discovered. In 1950 a couple of amateurs recovered and photographed 20 of the remaining markers that they could find. They had to restrict publication of their findings, however, as one monument was stolen immediately following a local newspaper article.

 

Anyway, yes, there are original markers still extent beside reset markers.

 

patrick & shirley

[survey tech]

This is an entirely different use of the word reset. In boundary surveying, which is at issue in this example, the goal is always to reset the point in question at the original location or as near as possible thereto. In geodetic surveying, however, there is no reason to reset the point in the same place if it is not convenient to do so, and therefore that is seldom done. Sadly, this is a good example of why many surveyors justifiably fear the publicization of historic or unique points, since it does often attract the unwanted attention of vandals.

[+patw]

Originally posted by survey tech:

This is an entirely different use of the word reset.

Noted and appreciated! Thanks for the come-uppance.

I'm on the road for the present but when we get back to Port Jervis, NY, I'll check my references to see just what the 1887 commission called the duplicating markers. I do repeat that the history of this stretch of the NY-NJ state boundary is fascinating history. In the course of following that history, I came across some more fascinating material on the NY-PA boundary also. I wonder if this subject of the history of state boundary lines might not make for interesting research with the local historical societies(?). . . . patrick

 

patrick & shirley

[survey tech]

I agree that this area of history can be very interesting. In fact, there are several other state boundaries that have also been the source of long running litigation and some have been resurveyed many times over, which usually only results in even greater confusion, such as California/Nevada, Texas/New Mexico, Texas/Oklahoma, Tennessee/Kentucky, Tennessee/Georgia, New Hampshire/Massachusetts, New Hampshie/Maine and others.