Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
rogbarn

Major datasheet errors

Recommended Posts

I'm starting a new topic here for major datasheet errors. Please do not post questions, comments or answers about scaled vs adjusted coordinates, how to post benchmarks not in the database, or correcting errors in the history. Errors in history can be easily corrected by submitting a recovery report to the NGS.

 

Here is my current major datasheet error:

MF1823 is listed in Cook County, IL. Everything else listed in the datasheet, including both the coordinates and the description place it firmly in La Salle County, nowhere near Cook County. In the archived datasheets, it is placed in the Cook County file. Can this be corrected?

Share this post


Link to post

Good idea, Rog. Here's one I've come across:

 

JV4061 has a description placing it in Loudoun County, Virginia, but the coordinates have it in Frederick County, Maryland.

 

From what I can tell, this may only be a problem for the Groundspeak database, as it doesn't show up in the NGS archived database for Frederick County, MD.

 

The nearby JV2358 seems to be the same kind of error.

 

Max

Often wrong but seldom in doubt

Share this post


Link to post

quote:
Originally posted by embra:

http://www.geocaching.com/mark/details.asp?PID=JV4061 has a description placing it in Loudoun County, Virginia, but the coordinates have it in Frederick County, Maryland.

 

From what I can tell, this may only be a problem for the Groundspeak database, as it doesn't show up in the NGS archived database for Frederick County, MD.

 

The nearby http://www.geocaching.com/mark/details.asp?PID=JV2358 seems to be the same kind of error.


 

My purpose here is not only to identify errors but also provide the corrected information so that the datasheets can be corrected by someone who is able to help us do that.

 

That said, I had fun researching JV4061 and JV2358. The coordinates for both are the same. The longitude _might_ be correct but the latitude is way off. It looks like it should be about N 39 deg 3.5 min. Both are stamped as resets of Z 89, one in 1947 the other in 1969. I found JV2357 which is stamped Z 89. It has the same coordinates as JV4061 and JV2358 but it's description places it in Frederick County, MD. So, I wonder if the problem is not with the coordinates, but with the descriptions?

 

The search continues.... icon_smile.gif

Share this post


Link to post

duplicate posting... icon_frown.gif

 

[This message was edited by RogBarn on June 06, 2003 at 01:48 PM.]

Share this post


Link to post

5 more seconds and I would have had a better answer....

 

JV2521 is the original Z 89 benchmark SE of Leesburg, VA. The coordinates for JV2358 and JV4061 must have been incorrectly copied from JV2357, which happens to have the same designation but is in MD instead of VA, in addition to having a PID that is just before the first incorrect datasheet. The fact that JV2358's designation is (in part) VADH makes it likely that this marker is really in VA.

 

Sorry, I kinda butchered it and had to edit it to clean it up..

Share this post


Link to post

Some down staters might point to this as just another example of mayor Daly's conspiracy to expand O'Hare. But in all seriousness, I think this is just another one of those errors that we've seen posted here. Some worse than this. I think your intentions are good, but it's probably such a monumental task that it won't get corrected.

Share this post


Link to post

quote:
Originally posted by RogBarn:

http://www.geocaching.com/mark/details.asp?PID=JV2521 is the original Z 89 benchmark SE of Leesburg, VA. The coordinates for JV2358 and JV4061 must have been incorrectly copied from JV2357, which happens to have the same designation but is in MD instead of VA, in addition to having a PID that is just before the first incorrect datasheet. The fact that JV2358's designation is (in part) VADH makes it likely that this marker is really in VA.


 

Looks like you are refining an activity we sometimes see here: virtual benchmark hunting! One other clue is that the JV2358 and JV4061 NGS data sheets list the Frederick USGS quad. Lord knows I get the two places mixed up in my mind enough.

 

Maybe someone down by Leesburg can run these down. It's not all that far from me, so I could even take a little expedition if no one else picks them up.

 

Max

Often wrong but seldom in doubt

Share this post


Link to post

RogBarn -- The corrections you provided for stations JC1817 and AA7385 have been made to the NGS data base. I've also noted your correction to the positions of JV2358 & JV4061. I will have the postions rescaled and send the corrections to the Database manager on Monday.

Share this post


Link to post

quote:
Originally posted by DaveD:

RogBarn -- The corrections you provided for stations JC1817 and AA7385 have been made to the NGS data base. I've also noted your correction to the positions of JV2358 & JV4061. I will have the postions rescaled and send the corrections to the Database manager on Monday.


Thanks DaveD! I did see the changes for JC1817 had been made. I haven't checked AA7385 recently, so that is good news. Glad to hear embra's problems with JV2358 & JV4061 will be taken care of also, once we figured out what was going on with them. What about MF1823 (see first entry in this thread)? Is there anything you can do to correct just the county?

 

Just trying to correct the database one datasheet at a time....

 

Rog

Share this post


Link to post

I visited the general location of JV2358 and JV4061 today (in the pouring rain). The landmarks of 1947 (JV4061) and 1969 (JV2358) are all gone. (Telephone pole 496 was not searched for, since all poles are about a hundred feet SW of the obviously widened highway. Highway 7 in the area is now 6 lanes with a median strip. Large new office buildings and investment properties have replaced the farm scenario.

Share this post


Link to post

DBleess mentions in his text file about his problem with ML1199. It is listed under the wrong county. It should be Dawson County. From what I can tell, everything else appears OK. I checked coordinates, topo quad, description and all point to Dawson County. I checked A 321, it is listed as destroyed but with very close coordinates. A 320 is also in Dawson County and is OK.

Share this post


Link to post

My understanding from a previous post is that the USGS quad is calculated from the coordinates.

 

The city or county is a different story. I have found a number of PID's that list the wrong city or county. I generated a list by doing a radius search on the NGS database and doing a text search of the output. Any cities that were know to be outside that radius where flagged. After determing the correct cities I e-mailed the list with corrections to NGS.

 

Given the limited resources that NGS has to maintain the database this is something we can do to help. Assuming that they can assimilate the data we provide.

Share this post


Link to post

quote:
Originally posted by geocletic:

I have found a number of PID's that list the wrong city or county. I generated a list by doing a radius search on the NGS database and doing a text search of the output. Any cities that were know to be outside that radius where flagged. After determing the correct cities I e-mailed the list with corrections to NGS.

 

Given the limited resources that NGS has to maintain the database this is something we can do to help. Assuming that they can assimilate the data we provide.


 

It is interesting that you just emailed them the corrections. Have you checked the datasheets to see if the corrections have been made?

 

In looking over my list for the St. Louis area, I find 4 benchmarks on the flood plain of the Missouri River which is the boundary between St. Louis County and St. Charles County. All four benchmarks are in St. Louis county but are listed in St. Charles county. They are:

JC1783

JC1784

JC1787

JC1788

 

Hopefully, that is something that DaveD can correct fairly easily.

Share this post


Link to post

I found one here in wyoming that the cordantes were so far off it wasnt funey. IT said scalled so we went to the basment of the forest service office and dug out the exact map they owuld have used when they bench mark was set. and even using the corndnates on that map make sit even firther off. there cordnates put it dang near in town not near yellowsoten park. They also moved a ranch over 10 miles boy isnt that nigce that a hole ranch can just be moved by some surveriors error

quote:
Originally posted by RogBarn:

I'm starting a new topic here for major datasheet errors. Please do not post questions, comments or answers about scaled vs adjusted coordinates, how to post benchmarks not in the database, or correcting errors in the history. Errors in history can be easily corrected by submitting a recovery report to the NGS.

 

Here is my current major datasheet error:

http://www.geocaching.com/mark/details.asp?PID=MF1823 is listed in Cook County, IL. Everything else listed in the datasheet, including both the coordinates and the description place it firmly in La Salle County, nowhere near Cook County. In the archived datasheets, it is placed in the Cook County file. Can this be corrected?


Share this post


Link to post

Not all things are what they appear to be. If you find something 10 miles away from where it was supposed to be, you are probably finding something entirely different. The great majority of errors in the data are clerical in nature, such as typos, due to the massive amount of data that has been processed, and not the result of the survey data itself, which except for the most remote points, has been used and checked many times down through the years. Points listed in the wrong county, and other similar office blunders, not related to the actual mathematical data, are usually just ignored by surveyors, since they are so obvious that they are not likely to cause any problems for professionals who generally already know where the points in their work area are.

Share this post


Link to post

RogBarn -- The county changes for the 4 stations you listed have been checked and verfied. I've sent a notice to make the corrections.

Share this post


Link to post

Well on this particulre one I will re look it up and post it they list the drive way to our familes ranch. ther eis only one rnach by that name and there is no way that there cna be abnother one by that name. So the bench mark they are describng the cordnates are way off.

 

quote:
Originally posted by survey tech:

Not all things are what they appear to be. If you find something 10 miles away from where it was supposed to be, you are probably finding something entirely different. The great majority of errors in the data are clerical in nature, such as typos, due to the massive amount of data that has been processed, and not the result of the survey data itself, which except for the most remote points, has been used and checked many times down through the years. Points listed in the wrong county, and other similar office blunders, not related to the actual mathematical data, are usually just ignored by surveyors, since they are so obvious that they are not likely to cause any problems for professionals who generally already know where the points in their work area are.


Share this post


Link to post

quote:
Originally posted by teamcourage:

I found one here in wyoming that the cordantes were so far off it wasnt funey.


 

Can you provide details please? Can you find it in geocaching? If so, what is the PID? It should be in the format of XXNNNN. What were the coordinates where you found it? On the datasheet you looked at? Anything stamped on the disk? We need all of this to help us identify the disk you found.

Share this post


Link to post

I will go up this weekend and phto it. I know it has been reported to the blm who aclty the forest service sid has the ultimte respobity for all bounderies and lands. the head forest enginer said they are aboe the people whose database were using. But he siad when they moved the highway they ran into that oen being real wrong.

quote:
Originally posted by teamcourage:

Well on this particulre one I will re look it up and post it they list the drive way to our familes ranch. ther eis only one rnach by that name and there is no way that there cna be abnother one by that name. So the bench mark they are describng the cordnates are way off.

 

quote:
Originally posted by survey tech:

Not all things are what they appear to be. If you find something 10 miles away from where it was supposed to be, you are probably finding something entirely different. The great majority of errors in the data are clerical in nature, such as typos, due to the massive amount of data that has been processed, and not the result of the survey data itself, which except for the most remote points, has been used and checked many times down through the years. Points listed in the wrong county, and other similar office blunders, not related to the actual mathematical data, are usually just ignored by surveyors, since they are so obvious that they are not likely to cause any problems for professionals who generally already know where the points in their work area are.



Share this post


Link to post

In reply to Rogbarn - I e-mailed them to Deb Brown at the address given on the recovery entry page.

 

I did a quick check of one of the datasheets and it has been corrected. It is good that we can get this data corrected. Those of us that download the zipped dat files for a particular county are not getting all of the relevant datasheets. You end up having to cross check by doing a radius or boundary search to make sure you have everything.

 

I continue to be impressed as to how much of the data is "good" given the thousands of people that have been involved in compiling and maintaining all this data.

Share this post


Link to post

quote:
Originally posted by geocletic:

I continue to be impressed as to how much of the data is "good" given the thousands of people that have been involved in compiling and maintaining all this data.


 

I agree! It's amazing to think about how many years some of this data has been around and consequently, how many files, both computer and paper, it's been in, how many times someone has had to type it, etc, etc. Good work to keep it in such good shape.

 

Now, I offer for your consideration, these two points, PIDs JC1514 and HC0888. JC1514 shows an elevation of 1,804 feet and HC0888 shows an elevation of 1,923 feet. Both are in Missouri. The highest point in Missouri is Taum Sauk Mountain with an elevation of 1,772 feet. I checked these out on topozone and both show coordinates that seem to match the description well. JC1514 shows a spot elevation of 1,093 feet. HC0888 shows a spot elevation of 1,268 feet. JC1514 is a 2nd order horizontal point, HC0888 is a first order horizontal point, but the elevation for both is scaled. Is it possible to get these corrected?

Share this post


Link to post

Embra, stations JC2358 & JC4061 you reported on June 6 with incorrect scaled positions, and RobBarn, stations JC1783, JC1784, JC1787, and JC1788 you reported on June 10 as being in the incorrect county have all been corrected. I will review JC1514 and HC0888 and let you know.

Share this post


Link to post

Hey Dave, DE7339, DE7297, DE7296 and DE7266 are in Stephenson County not Winnebago County.

Not major, as I could still find them, but dadgum inaccurate. Ayers knew they were working for Winnebago County when they did the work, so obviously all 100+ they set were in Winnebago, right???

Share this post


Link to post

Wolf, I have reviewed your changes and concur with the exception of DE7339 which is on the east side of Goeke Road, the centerline of which is the boundary between Winnebago and Stephenson counties.

Share this post


Link to post

Wolf, I have reviewed your changes and concur with the exception of DE7339 which is on the east side of Goeke Road, the centerline of which is the boundary between Winnebago and Stephenson counties. I have sent the request for changes to one of our database coordinators.

Share this post


Link to post

I completed a study in which I downloaded all points for the state of Missouri, sorted them by county and then by latitude and identified points that seemed to have a latitude not in the same area as others in the same county. I repeated the process for longitude. I took the result and examined them. About half of them were OK, just placed on the edge of a county with no other points near them. Here are the other half:

 

This first group are points in which the coordinates and description seemed to be in agreement, but in a different county than what is listed:

 

PID - Listed County - Coord County

HC1126 - MO,RALLS - St. Francois

HC1125 - MO,RALLS - St. Francois

JD1523 - MO,HENRY - St. Clair

JC0947 - MO,PHELPS - Osage

JC0894 - MO,OSAGE - Maries

AE7148 - MO,ADAIR - Macon

KE1507 - MO,LAFAYETTE - KS, Leavenworth

KE1509 - MO,LAFAYETTE - KS, Leavenworth

JD2228 - MO,JACKSON - Johnson

AF9497 - MO,ST LOUIS - IL, St. Clair

AB6289 - MO,ST LOUIS - IL, St. Clair

AC6233 - MO,WASHINGTON - Franklin

 

Plus, there are two that I can't quite determine the problem:

LF0777 is listed in Saline County and the coordinates put it in Atchison County. I can not determine it's exact location based on the description. I could not locate a "Friend" in Missouri. Perhaps it is in a different state. It's designation is R 209 RESET, there is a R 209 (PID LF0776) in Atchison County. So, perhaps LF0777 got some data copied from LF0776, creating the problem.

 

AA7371 is listed in Cass County and the coordinates put it in Clinton County. The description puts in Cass County. It's designation is Z 267 RESET. There is no Z 267 in Missouri, but there is another Z 267 RESET; PID JE2101 in Cass County. Perhaps another case of data getting copied incorrectly.

Share this post


Link to post

quote:
Originally posted by RogBarn:

LF0777 is listed in Saline County and the coordinates put it in Atchison County. I can not determine it's exact location based on the description. I could not locate a "Friend" in Missouri. Perhaps it is in a different state. It's designation is R 209 RESET, there is a R 209 (PID LF0776) in Atchison County. So, perhaps LF0777 got some data copied from LF0776, creating the problem.


 

Update on LF0777:

It's description is copied (with the stamping information dropped from the end) from LG0445 in Nebraska. I still can't tell what LF0777 should be, but hopefully DaveD or someone can help strighten it out.

Share this post


Link to post

quote:
AA7371 is listed in Cass County and the coordinates put it in Clinton County. The description puts in Cass County. It's designation is Z 267 RESET. There is no Z 267 in Missouri, but there is another Z 267 RESET; PID JE2101 in Cass County. Perhaps another case of data getting copied incorrectly

Update on AA7371:

The coordinates for AA7371 are the same as for JE2101 EXCEPT that the latitude is exactly one degree further north. I don't know what to make of it, but curious none the less.

Share this post


Link to post

I'll check these proposed corrections and recommend changes as necessary next week. As I have commented before, NGS is grateful to the public to continuously parterning with us to enhance and ensure the integrity of all data items in the National Spatial Reference System.

Share this post


Link to post

quote:
Originally posted by DaveD:

I'll check these proposed corrections and recommend changes as necessary next week. As I have commented before, NGS is grateful to the public to continuously parterning with us to enhance and ensure the integrity of all data items in the National Spatial Reference System.


Dave - It's a holiday - the 4th of July no less - take day off - I didn't expect anyone to look at that until Monday.

 

On the other hand, thanks for your work and contribution to the workings of the US government. It certainly is the combination of the effort of both the people and the agency to help things work right.

Share this post


Link to post

I just finished a similar analysis for eight counties in Illinois, four near St. Louis and four in southeastern Illinois. Here are the county errors that I found (out of 800 benchmarks):

 

PID - Listed county - Correct county

HB1896 - IL,SALINE - Pope

HB1897 - IL,SALINE - Pope

HB1874 - IL,SALINE - Gallatin

HB1886 - IL,GALLATIN - Hardin

JC1130 - IL,ST CLAIR - Monroe

Share this post


Link to post

Here is a strange situation.

 

PID JC0114 appears in the list of non-published stations. But there is no history of it being destroyed.

 

Also, PIDs JD0047 and JD2086 appears as both a published and non-published station. Neither has any destroyed history.

 

My reference to published vs. non-published is in reference to the archived files available thru the NGS web site.

 

DaveD, any ideas about what's going on here?

Share this post


Link to post

Stations JC0114, JD0047 and JD2086 are listed as non-publishable by horizontal component only. That is they have high quality elevations, but do not have corresponding horizontal values. In the case of JC0114 it's because it was only scaled from a map, while for the other marks an analysis of the survey geometry determined that their positions were too weakly determined to be of the highest geodetic quality.

Share this post


Link to post

More Illinois county errors:

 

PID - recorded county - actual county

JB2074 - IL,ALEXANDER - Marion

MF1825 - IL,BUREAU - La Salle

DE6924 - IL,JEFFERSON - Effingham

DE6923 - IL,JEFFERSON - Effingham

MF0357 - IL,LA SALLE - Livingston

HB1854 - IL,MASSAC - Pope

MF1827 - IL,OGLE - La Salle

MF1826 - IL,OGLE - La Salle

DE6925 - IL,WAYNE - Clay

 

I have roughly 60% of the Illinois counties done. I have skipped Cook County for now.

 

DaveD - thanks for your reply on the non-published points. It made me go reread the information page on the datasheet more closely.

Share this post


Link to post

RogBarn

 

I have reviewed your county changes and I agree. I have forwarded this information to our data base team for correction.

Share this post


Link to post

I decided to change the area of the county I'm working on. Missouri and Illinois were getting kinda boring. So, I'm showing some of my roots.

 

Massachusetts county corrections:

 

This was an interesting exercise. Lots of issues dealing with boundaries in coastal waters. In the end, I only found six that I think are placed in the wrong county:

 

LW2788 - MA,PLYMOUTH - appears to be in coastal waters of Dukes County just east of the Dukes/Bristol/Newport RI tripoint.

 

LW4877 - MA,BRISTOL - appears to be in the coastal waters of Plymouth County.

 

LW5458 - MA,BRISTOL - actually in Plymouth Co.

 

MY4425 - MA,SUFFOLK - appears to be in the coastal waters of Plymouth County.

 

MY5769 - MA,ESSEX - actually in Middlesex Co.

 

MZ0437 - MA,HAMPSHIRE - this one was tough. In MapQuest, the Hampshire/Berkshire boundary runs along the West Branch of the Westfield River. A railroad runs along the river but when the river takes a northward bend, the tracks cross the river (and therefore, change county) for a short while until it recrosses the river. This marker appears to be along the railroad on the Berkshire side of the river. I tried to use Topozone to help clarify the situation but it didn't help.

Share this post


Link to post

While I'm thinking about Massachusetts, why are some many of the datasheets (about 3/4) missing the USGS Quad?

 

And why are so many (about 1/3) missing the marker type and another 600 (out of 7,000) have either "NOT SPECIFIED OR SEE DESCRIPTION" or "SEE DESCRIPTION"?

 

On the more esoteric side, where else can you find a marker type of LONE TREE (LW5044) or CONSPICUOUS ROCK (LW2778)? Both, sadly, seem to be gone. And there are four (count them, 4!) different kinds of chisled shapes; circle, cross, square and triangle...

Share this post


Link to post

quote:
Originally posted by DaveD:

RogBarn

 

I have reviewed your county changes and I agree. I have forwarded this information to our data base team for correction.


 

Dave,

Do you want error information posted here, emailed to you directly, or have us fill out a Mark Recovery Entry for obvious mistakes like the wrong county or coordinates not matching the description?

 

1950 Surveyor

Share this post


Link to post

5. Notches.

The older ones had notches cut in the Granite Stone designating the 1/4's. and also for distances. I will have to look back and see their correct wordings.

 

WHEN ALL ELSE FAILS *GEOTRYAGAIN*

 

**1803-2003** "LOUSIANA PURCHASE"

http://www.lapurchase.org

 

"LEWIS AND CLARK EXPADITION"

http://lewisclark.geog.missouri.edu/

Initial Points Page

http://www.True-Meridiansubscribe@yahoogroups.com

Share this post


Link to post

I've begun checking PA's counties for county errors or incorrectly scaled coords. I've had Rog double check this first list and he agrees with my conclusions.

 

PID - Listed County - Coord County

JV1945 - PA, ADAMS - Franklin

JV2088 - PA, ADAMS - Cumberland

JV2089 - PA, ADAMS - Cumberland

KW1968 - PA, ADAMS - Cumberland

KW2089 - PA, ADAMS - Cumberland

KW2091 - PA, ADAMS - Cumberland

 

All of these should be incorrect counties. The descriptions seem to match the location and coords listed on the datasheets.

 

Greg

N 39 54.705'

W 77 33.137'

Share this post


Link to post

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...
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

×
×
  • Create New...