Jump to content

Found a Benchmark that had been previously "not found" by NGS recovery team

mikeb226

By mikeb226
in Benchmarking

Followers 2

Recommended Posts

mikeb226

+mikeb226

Posted
Posted

Hello, everyone!

 

I was out and about in the recent heat looking for the old Erie Extension Canal remnants (which I found) when I thought 'd look up the nearest benchmarks and do some hunting.

 

As a GIS analyst for a county gov't, I use ArcGIS everyday, and was able to create a map of all the benchmarks in a two county area, which i carry around with me at all times of travel throughout the two counties ( i live in one county and work in another).

 

Anyway, the closet benchmark to me at the time, according to my map was MB0030. Looking it up on my phone I saw this in the description:

 

1/1/1961 by NGS (MARK NOT FOUND)

RECOVERY NOTE BY NATIONAL GEODETIC SURVEY 1961 MARK NOT FOUND.

 

Well, curiosity got the best of me, since I was a mere 400ft away, so i decided to look anyway.

 

Amazingly, I found it! Right where the description said it would be! Of course, it was under about 4 inches of dirt, but it was there.

 

There are pics and a description on the gc page: http://www.geocaching.com/mark/details.aspx?PID=MB0030

 

This is problem a regular occurrence for all of you, but its the first time for me. Definitely something for the 'win' column.

Bill93

Bill93

Posted
Posted

I'm not sure when US Power Squadron started reporting to NGS, but I know there are later instances where their reports were entered into the data base by NGS people without attribution, and looked just like the one you quote.

 

So I wouldn't be certain that the pros missed it.

 

It still feels good to find one that ANYBODY else couldn't.

foxtrot_xray

foxtrot_xray

Posted
Posted

I'm not sure when US Power Squadron started reporting to NGS, but I know there are later instances where their reports were entered into the data base by NGS people without attribution, and looked just like the one you quote.

 

So I wouldn't be certain that the pros missed it.

 

It still feels good to find one that ANYBODY else couldn't.

I got one the DOD missed - right near one of their own bases, too.

 

Recently, now-local to me, I've been finding MANY stations reported by 'those guys' as 'Not Found' when they're there, and required very little or no searching. Makes me wonder...

LSUFan

+LSUFan

Posted
Posted (edited)

Not trying to hijack this thread, but just pass along some information. The Power Squadron entered into what is called a Cooperative Charting Agreement with the National Oceanic Services back in 1963, which has been updated many times up to present day. They may not do benchmarks anymore, but if I understand correctly, they do still help with nautical charts, etc. The more I have read about it, the more I understand why they did benchmark reporting to begin with.

 

This is taken from one of their chapters website. You can also do a websearch on "NOS-USPS Cooperative charting" and get all kind of info.

 

IN THE BEGINNING.......

The Cooperative Charting Program began in 1963 with a Memorandum of Agreement between USPS and what is now the National Ocean Service (NOS), National Ocean and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), US Department of Commerce.

 

This agreement has been updated several times and will continue to serve well into the future with further updates.

 

CIVIC SERVICES CONTRIBUTED BY USPS

 

Cooperative Charting - One of the major civic services of USPS members is Cooperative Charting. This is the contribution of correction data for nautical and aeronautical charts; reports on marine facilities and condition; and status of geodetic survey marks (bench marks) to the National Oceanic Service (NOS). USPS contributes the largest number of chart corrections to NOAA and NOS. They also receive data from the US Navy, US Coast Guard Auxiliary and Civil Air Patrol.

 

Members who do not have boats can participate in this program by reporting on geodetic survey markers that are used in surveying and map reading. They can also turn in reports on marina facilities which change frequently and require regular updating.

 

Back on topic just a hair, I too have found several obvious benchmarks that have been reported as 'not found' by a certain organization. It seems like they didn't put a lot of effort into recoveries some times.

Edited by LSUFan
Bill93

Bill93

Posted
Posted

I suspect part of the problem was a reporting sheet with a list to look for and check boxes for Found and NF, with no option for "this needs more work than I could put into it today"

glorkar

glorkar

Posted
Posted

Congrats! It's always nice to find one like that. I just recently recovered one I had to dig down for too (only a few inches, much like yours.) That one hadn't been logged in only 5 years, though.

 

I've also found one's missed by the USPSQ. There was one in particular, a pipe cap from 1908. I parked my car and walked the 10 feet off the road to it, right next to the pretty white witness post! :ph34r:

Harry Dolphin

+Harry Dolphin

Posted
Posted

Naw. My favorite people to make fun of (and I'll probably regret this) is NJGS. They must have had a bad few days in 2/92.

02/20/1992 by NJGS (MARK NOT FOUND)

RECOVERY NOTE BY NEW JERSEY GEODETIC SURVEY 1992 (FAC) THE STATION WAS SEARCHED FOR AND NOT RECOVERED AFTER A QUARTER HOUR SEARCH BY A TWO MAN PARTY. THE PALISADES AMUSEMENT PARK HAS BEEN ABANDONED AND CONSIDERABLE IMPROVEMENTS HAVE BEEN MADE IN THE AREA SINCE THE ORIGINAL DESCRIPTION.

It wasn't that hard to find, by description!

93f05fa2-dd2d-46a7-afd9-c576380657f8.jpg

Or:

02/21/1992 by NJGS (MARK NOT FOUND)

RECOVERY NOTE BY NEW JERSEY GEODETIC SURVEY 1992 (FAC) THE STATION WAS SEARCHED FOR AND NOT RECOVERED AFTER A QUARTER HOUR SEARCH BY A TWO MAN PARTY. THE BLACK ROCK OUTCROP HAS BEEN REMOVED. THE STATION IS CONSIDERED LOST.

Right where it should be, by description!

92969d23-4f0d-4f2a-bcc8-1b472ec93c6f.jpg

02/20/1992 by NJGS (MARK NOT FOUND)

RECOVERY NOTE BY NEW JERSEY GEODETIC SURVEY 1992 (FAC) THE STATION WAS SEARCHED FOR AND NOT RECOVERED AFTER A QUARTER HOUR SEARCH BY A TWO MAN PARTY. CONSIDERABLE IMPROVEMENTS HAVE BEEN MADE TO THE AREA SINCE THE ORIGINAL DESCRIPTION.

60f90a82-687e-42e5-992f-3c188484a8e1.jpg

Umm... How hard was that to find?!?

 

Okay. Everybody has a bad day, but why advertise it?!?

Okie'sKid

Okie'sKid

Posted
Posted

Hi Y'all,

 

Can't help jumping on this one. KayakBird and I have found many previously "Not Found"s, both individually and hunting together. Some of the easy ones make you think there should be a category titled "Did Not Search For".

 

Cheers,

John

foxtrot_xray

foxtrot_xray

Posted
Posted
Back on topic just a hair, I too have found several obvious benchmarks that have been reported as 'not found' by a certain organization. It seems like they didn't put a lot of effort into recoveries some times.

 

I don't really have a problem with it being 'too much work'. However, i came across this a couple years ago. This is just pathetic, honestly. Before submitting it, I did check with Dave and Deb (since it is an intersection station) before reporting a 'correction'. :laughing:

LSUFan

+LSUFan

Posted
Posted (edited)

I don't really have a problem with it being 'too much work'. However, i came across this a couple years ago. This is just pathetic, honestly. Before submitting it, I did check with Dave and Deb (since it is an intersection station) before reporting a 'correction'. :laughing:

WOW!

 

Of course, sometimes it can be just be a case of error submissions, wrong PID's on the report, or something of that sort. Like this one, that had a find and dnf within a few months of each other from mostly likely the same person, according to the initials. I am guilty of forgetting to change the PID once when using the browser back button on submitting recovery reports to the NGS, but luckily Deb caught it and told me.

 

 

CQ0484

 

Not near as big as Foxtrot_xrays lighthouse, but not something you can easily overlook or miss......which leads me to believe it was just a clerical error.

 

5865827a-6cc8-4bb1-a5bc-b38d886e26da.jpg

Edited by LSUFan
Wintertime

Wintertime

Posted
Posted

I wonder whether the USPSQD member who couldn't find the lighthouse thought that all survey marks had to be disks, so the word "lighthouse" went right past him. I can't explain the person who couldn't find the disk in that huge arch. :-)

 

Patty

AZcachemeister

AZcachemeister

Posted
Posted

Hi Y'all,

 

Can't help jumping on this one. KayakBird and I have found many previously "Not Found"s, both individually and hunting together. Some of the easy ones make you think there should be a category titled "Did Not Search For".

 

Cheers,

John

 

Yup, I'm with ya here.

I also have found many that were easy for me to spot. In their defense, it is possible that changes in vegetation cover and/or road alignments made my job easier.

Sometimes you do have to wonder if 'Did Not Find' really means 'Didn't Really Even Look For It'.

TheAlabamaRambler

+TheAlabamaRambler

Posted
Posted

I wonder whether the USPSQD member who couldn't find the lighthouse thought that all survey marks had to be disks, so the word "lighthouse" went right past him. I can't explain the person who couldn't find the disk in that huge arch. :-)

 

Patty

Off topic but not finding a lighthouse reminded me of this old joke:

 

Radio conversation released by the Chief of Naval Operations on November 10, 1995.

 

Americans: Please divert your course 15 degrees to the North to avoid a collision.

 

Canadians: Recommend you divert YOUR course 15 degrees to the South to avoid a collision.

 

Americans: This is the Captain of a US Navy ship. I say again, divert YOUR course.

 

Canadians: No. I say again, you divert YOUR course.

 

Americans: THIS IS THE AIRCRAFT CARRIER USS LINCOLN, THE SECOND LARGEST SHIP IN THE UNITED STATES' ATLANTIC FLEET. WE ARE ACCOMPANIED BY THREE DESTROYERS, THREE CRUISERS, AND NUMEROUS SUPPORT VESSELS. I DEMAND THAT YOU CHANGE YOUR COURSE 15 DEGREES NORTH, THAT'S ONE FIVE DEGREES NORTH, OR COUNTER-MEASURES WILL BE UNDERTAKEN TO ENSURE THE SAFETY OF THIS SHIP.

 

Canadians: This is a lighthouse. Your call.

jellis

+jellis

Posted
Posted

I found one that hadn't been recovered since 1988. No mention after that. No cachers had found it either til I did and I placed a puzzle cache there. No biggy if I post it here. Most of the locals know how to figure it out.

kayakbird

kayakbird

Posted
Posted

I found one that hadn't been recovered since 1988. No mention after that. No cachers had found it either til I did and I placed a puzzle cache there. No biggy if I post it here. Most of the locals know how to figure it out.

 

Any chance of posting the PID? On this forum we all like to learn from what and where other BENCHMARKERS are hunting and making recoveries for the public record. MEL

andylphoto

andylphoto

Posted
Posted

I don't really have a problem with it being 'too much work'. However, i came across this a couple years ago. This is just pathetic, honestly. Before submitting it, I did check with Dave and Deb (since it is an intersection station) before reporting a 'correction'. :unsure:

 

Did they want the correction noted in the datasheet, even with it being an intersection station? My favorite USPSQD "not found" was RL1597--similar situation. I logged it here, but did not log with NGS since it was an intersection station. Almost as good as the lighthouse. And not just a generic "not found." Here was the 2004 recovery:

 

RL1597 STATION RECOVERY (2004)

RL1597

RL1597'RECOVERY NOTE BY US POWER SQUADRON 2004 (GG)

RL1597'STACK HAS BEEN TAKEN DOWN.

 

Well, not exactly...

 

50aa2b82-04e1-4366-8f8a-28d609ed4217.jpg

Harry Dolphin

+Harry Dolphin

Posted
Posted

Of course, sometimes an intersection station can be destroyed and rebuilt, thus leading people who don't know the history to think that the specified survey station is still extant. But yeah, I don't think that smokestack is only six years old. :unsure:

 

Here's an example of one that was rebuilt and fooled people:

 

http://www.geocaching.com/mark/details.aspx?PID=HT2630

 

Patty

 

And it doesn't stop people from logging it anyway!

LY2603

Nice church. Nice steeple. But it was built in 1970, so I don't think it was observed in 1942. And it's a block off. Oh, well.

LSUFan

+LSUFan

Posted
Posted (edited)

 

And it doesn't stop people from logging it anyway!

LY2603

Nice church. Nice steeple. But it was built in 1970, so I don't think it was observed in 1942. And it's a block off. Oh, well.

 

Hmmm Harry, that reminded me again. I just found something similar to that situation, last month. Unfortunately, the cache page notes that there is a benchmark beside the cache, which I am sure helps lead to the confusion of everyone thinking it is loggable. I believe they are just clicking on the "nearest benchmark" option from the cache page and assuming that has to be it.

 

I tried to post a lengthy explanation on it, to help educate others. I will be now keeping an eye on it to see if the same thing happens with it as your LY2603, after reading your post.

 

http://www.geocaching.com/mark/details.aspx?PID=CP0413

Edited by LSUFan
mloser

mloser

Posted
Posted

Intersection stations can be a bit tricky at times. Granted, if there is nothing there it is usually pretty obvious, but if you are looking for "the eastern of two towers" and there is only one stack, can you be sure the one remaining is (or isn't) the one you want.

 

I visited KW3050 three times before I met the engineer, who had worked there for decades and cleared up which of the 4 towers at the location were original, and IF they were original! He also gave me permission to walk around the towers (which made me a bit nervous, as I know that while FM antennas are boxes on TOP of a tower, AM antennas are the tower itself as well as a grid in the ground used to broadcast upwards for reflection back down, and the grid in the ground was quite noticeable. I am also aware that AM towers are energized with high enough voltage to kill a person--at the base of most AM towers you can see a rickety wooden ladder that is meant to eliminate the possibility of the climber being grounded as he goes from the earth to the tower.) I was even able to get close enough to the towers in question to confirm my GPSr readings closely matched the coordinates.

 

Years ago there was a long thread here about intersection stations, and especially radio towers. One poster stated that he never claimed a find on one until he was at the base because the tower could have been replaced and it it impossible to tell from a distance if the base was in the correct spot. I took that poster's comments to heart and made sure I could see the base of any tower and confirm that it was in the right location before claiming it. In the case of KW3128 I am glad I did, because I don't think the tower is original. I doubt I will ever prove that however--it is just base on my findings when I got to the tower base--old supports for a tower.

 

Churchwise, KW3013 is an example of not looking closely enough.

68-eldo

68-eldo

Posted
Posted

Having spent many hours on the bridge of a Navy ship I can tell you there are too many things wrong with that story to be true. It does make a funny joke.

Difficult Run

Difficult Run

Posted
Posted

I found one today that the USGS guys reported as a "no joy" back in 1977. I think the fence is what may have threw them off. I don't think the fence there now was the one referenced to in the 1949 description, so they may have concentrated their efforts on the wrong side of it. The measurements from the road told the true story.

 

http://www.geocaching.com/mark/details.aspx?PID=CQ0666

Nicely done.

 

From the way your log is written, it appears you're getting ready to submit a recovery to the NGS.

Be sure to change the HH2 coordinates from DD MM.MMM to DD MM SS.S

 

~ Mitch ~

LSUFan

+LSUFan

Posted
Posted (edited)

 

Nicely done.

 

From the way your log is written, it appears you're getting ready to submit a recovery to the NGS.

Be sure to change the HH2 coordinates from DD MM.MMM to DD MM SS.S

 

~ Mitch ~

 

Thanks Mitch and Foxtrot. I do submit recoveries to the NGS and make sure to change the coordinate formats, which is a good reminder to everyone reading this. I just changed the information in the original description to match what is there now......like the school, fence, below ground, etc.

 

Funny thing is, I actually had to shorten my description down for the NGS recovery report submittal. It had too many characters in it. :laughing:

Edited by LSUFan
mloser

mloser

Posted
Posted
Funny thing is, I actually had to shorten my description down for the NGS recovery report submittal. It had too many characters in it.

 

LSUFan,

Usually that doesn't mean your entire description is too long, but that you put it all on one line. Try pressing Enter once in a while to put a carriage return character in the description.

LSUFan

+LSUFan

Posted
Posted
Funny thing is, I actually had to shorten my description down for the NGS recovery report submittal. It had too many characters in it.

 

LSUFan,

Usually that doesn't mean your entire description is too long, but that you put it all on one line. Try pressing Enter once in a while to put a carriage return character in the description.

 

Aaaahh. I just copied and pasted it over from the geocaching log, then changed the decimal minutes over to seconds. Didn't even think about it being on one line by doing it that way. (slaps forehead)

 

Many many thanks for the advice, Mloser. I'll try to not let it happen again. :laughing:

AZcachemeister

AZcachemeister

Posted
Posted

I found one today that the USGS guys reported as a "no joy" back in 1977. I think the fence is what may have threw them off. I don't think the fence there now was the one referenced to in the 1949 description, so they may have concentrated their efforts on the wrong side of it. The measurements from the road told the true story.

 

http://www.geocaching.com/mark/details.aspx?PID=CQ0666

Nicely done.

 

From the way your log is written, it appears you're getting ready to submit a recovery to the NGS.

Be sure to change the HH2 coordinates from DD MM.MMM to DD MM SS.S

 

~ Mitch ~

 

Why?

Don't they know how to convert co-ordinate formats?

Difficult Run

Difficult Run

Posted
Posted

I found one today that the USGS guys reported as a "no joy" back in 1977. I think the fence is what may have threw them off. I don't think the fence there now was the one referenced to in the 1949 description, so they may have concentrated their efforts on the wrong side of it. The measurements from the road told the true story.

 

http://www.geocaching.com/mark/details.aspx?PID=CQ0666

Nicely done.

 

From the way your log is written, it appears you're getting ready to submit a recovery to the NGS.

Be sure to change the HH2 coordinates from DD MM.MMM to DD MM SS.S

 

~ Mitch ~

Why?

Don't they know how to convert co-ordinate formats?

The NGS (normally) doesn't edit the text file that is sent to them.

Besides, you wouldn't submit a cache using the wrong format... would you?

AZcachemeister

AZcachemeister

Posted
Posted

 

The NGS (normally) doesn't edit the text file that is sent to them.

Besides, you wouldn't submit a cache using the wrong format... would you?

 

Yes, I know that.

 

Since I am not 'submitting' a benchmark, you are talking apples and oranges.

I could certainly post a log for a cache stating my co-ordinates in UTM if I cared to. B)

 

If (in the unlikely event) someone wants to locate a mark I have posted HH2 co-ordinates for, they certainly should have the skill needed to convert my numbers to whatever format they prefer. If they don't like my numbers, they can easily ignore them. :D

foxtrot_xray

foxtrot_xray

Posted
Posted

Which is better:

HH2 co-ordinates in an alternate format.

or

NOTHING.

 

Those are the choices.

So, wait. Are DeLorme GPSs the ony GPS that can specify coordinates in a different format than whatever they're defaulting to display coordinates in? I mean, I know GSAK shows them in all formats (at once).. DeLorme's PN-xx series shows them in two user-selected formats (and datums). I can't speak for any other GPS since I never owned them, but I'd be surprised if that's the case.. :)

68-eldo

68-eldo

Posted
Posted

My Garmin III+ from 1998 - 2002 can be set to hddd.ddddd; hddd mm.mmm; hdd mm ss.s and 12 other options including British Grid; Loran; USER/UTM and UTM. I leave it on hdd mm ss.s and I use an old version of GCALC to convert to other formats as needed. It’s pretty easy.

 

IMHO If you are going to submit to NGS you should go by their rules/conventions.

Not knowing that much about surveying, maybe there is an industry standard and to submit in a non standard format is problematic. Just saying.

AZcachemeister

AZcachemeister

Posted
Posted

I have set my software and GPS units to display H DDD MM.MMM.

Futzing around with conversions is only going to increase the chance for errors, and degrade the precision.

 

Now it's a poll.

 

Should I continue entering co-ordinates in the format I am accustomed to, or cease submitting HH2 co-ordinates altogether.

kayakbird

kayakbird

Posted
Posted

Check my math, but I believe that in the north-south direction DDD.ddddd is 3.65 ft, MM.mmm is 6.07

ft and SS.s is 10.11 ft.

 

Do a multiple occupation test with your non-precision, recreational grade HH2 over a period of several days and log to GC which ever format you can consistently beat; but follow the rules for NGS recoveries.

 

kayakbird

foxtrot_xray

foxtrot_xray

Posted
Posted
Should I continue entering co-ordinates in the format I am accustomed to, or cease submitting HH2 co-ordinates altogether.

Honestly, I don't even worry about coords. If it's adjusted, then coords are pointless. If it's not adjusted, then coords aren't important (elevation usually is) then the description is good enough to find it. (And if the description isn't good enough, then I fix THAT.)

 

My 2¢.

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...
×
Followers 2
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...