Where is OC1356 - an old 1876 mark in NH? - help needed!

[kd6pce]

I find the lat-long and the mt. peak named for OC1356 are over 4 miles apart. I have posted a map and some of my thoughts at

http://www.eheart.com/OC1356map.jpg

 

I'd like input from some of you more experienced benchmark hunters.

[+Black Dog Trackers]

I suspect a database problem. There's a place near here where these: HV8303, HV9588, and HV9682 have their names, coordinates, and descriptions mixed up. Two of us have tried and failed to find any of them. If we did, we could fix the descriptions, etc.

 

If you find any of yours, you could fix the problem.

[+happycycler]

Yes the database CAN be in error. Rogbarn (my benchmark hunting mentor) found that the lat. /lon. forJC1817 were 19.5 miles too far West. I followed his suggestion to look where the description indicated and the benchmark is right where described. Probably a typo by the data entry person.

[+rogbarn]

quote:

---

Originally posted by happycycler:

Yes the database CAN be in error. Rogbarn (my benchmark hunting mentor) found that the lat. /lon. JC1817 were 19.5 miles too far West. I followed his suggestion to look where the description indicated and the benchmark is right where described. Probably a typo by the data entry person.

---

 

Thank you to happycycler for the kind words, but you continue to outpace me. I just had an earlier start.

 

Actually the case of JC1817 is another case of parts of the datasheet getting incorrectly copied to another datasheet. In this case, the coordinates for JC1816 were copied over to JC1817. Everything else about JC1817 appears to be accurate, including the elevation and certainly the description since happycycler used that to find it.

[+rogbarn]

quote:

---

Originally posted by kd6pce:

I find the lat-long and the mt. peak named for OC1356 are over 4 miles apart.

---

 

Here are my thoughts:

 

The description says the station is located on Mount Larcom but then mentions Ledgy Peak. In looking at the 1:25,000 scale map on topozone, it appears there could be a sub-peak at the coordinates given. (There is a big curve in the 1,000 ft contour line) Also, as you mentioned, the elevation fits well. So, I suspect that the mention of Mount Larcom was meant to indicate the general location (even at that I think it fails, Mt. Larcom is well south and across a valley) and that the station is at a ledge at the coordinates listed. Don't forget that topo maps work in NAD27 and the datasheet is NAD83 so some adjustment is probably necessary. If you do find it, it would be a great find!

[kd6pce]

Thanks for all the comments.

 

As to Ledgy Peak, it is ledgy peak - generic description, not the name of a peak.

 

I agree it must be a database problem. I plan to check out Great Hill, Mt Larcom, and the spot given in the datasheet. I'll report what I find.

 

And the comment on just following the description seems a good idea - as I said, the description does fit Mt Larcom