Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2
DukeOfURL01

Logging with NGS

Recommended Posts

When logging a BM with NGS, and then retrieving the datasheet several months later, I have noticed that the exact day was not carried over into the log. Would it be acceptable or taboo to include in the log with NGS the actual date of find, and maybe the actual coordinates?

Share this post


Link to post

If I understand the question correctly, it's not necessary to add the recovery (find) date to the free-form log text. When you fill out the online recovery form, it requests the date from you. This is added to an index of recoveries which appears on the datasheet above the station description and recovery reports.

 

In this example, the final report (by me) was for June 21, 2009:

 

AS0143 HISTORY - Date Condition Report By

AS0143 HISTORY - 1967 MONUMENTED CGS

AS0143 HISTORY - 1975 GOOD NGS

AS0143 HISTORY - 1984 GOOD USPSQD

AS0143 HISTORY - 1987 GOOD USPSQD

AS0143 HISTORY - 1989 GOOD USPSQD

AS0143 HISTORY - 19971002 GOOD USPSQD

AS0143 HISTORY - 20090621 GOOD GEOCAC

 

And by the way, the date you enter should be the date you observed the mark, not the date you are submitting the report, which might be days or weeks later, or even longer.

 

~ArtMan~

Share this post


Link to post

If I understand the question correctly, it's not necessary to add the recovery (find) date to the free-form log text. When you fill out the online recovery form, it requests the date from you. This is added to an index of recoveries which appears on the datasheet above the station description and recovery reports.

 

In this example, the final report (by me) was for June 21, 2009:

 

AS0143 HISTORY - Date Condition Report By

AS0143 HISTORY - 1967 MONUMENTED CGS

AS0143 HISTORY - 1975 GOOD NGS

AS0143 HISTORY - 1984 GOOD USPSQD

AS0143 HISTORY - 1987 GOOD USPSQD

AS0143 HISTORY - 1989 GOOD USPSQD

AS0143 HISTORY - 19971002 GOOD USPSQD

AS0143 HISTORY - 20090621 GOOD GEOCAC

 

And by the way, the date you enter should be the date you observed the mark, not the date you are submitting the report, which might be days or weeks later, or even longer.

 

~ArtMan~

 

 

You do understand perfectly. At first I didn't see the date for one that I submitted, but eventually I did. KT1269

 

Now about the GPS coordinates. Is it ok to put those in? Only to help somebody in the future...

Edited by DukeOfURL01

Share this post


Link to post
...I submitted, but eventually I did. KT1269 Now about the GPS coordinates. Is it ok to put those in? Only to help somebody in the future...

The entry you submitted to the NGS would make a great recovery entry here at geocaching.com!

 

For the NGS, the personal anecdotal notes and things that are bound to change with the season aren’t typically noted. If you go and read the recovery entries for a bunch of the stations in your area you’ll see they are pretty cut and dry and straightforward.

 

For example with this recovery, since KZYX has not been mentioned prior, you may note the distance of the Mark from a corner or point of the KZYX Radio Station building. Also, was everything else listed in the 1964 entry still accurate? If not, identify the discrepancies.

 

If you look at the coordinates, they already have Consumer Handled coordinates listed for this Station. If you find a large discrepancy (rare - I’ve only found this once) you may potentially make a note of it.

Share this post


Link to post

If you look at the coordinates, they already have Consumer Handled coordinates listed for this Station. If you find a large discrepancy (rare - I’ve only found this once) you may potentially make a note of it.

 

My guess is that the industrious Mr. D or someone else added those HH2 coordinates based on Duke's geocaching log, since they're the same.

Share this post


Link to post
...I submitted, but eventually I did. KT1269 Now about the GPS coordinates. Is it ok to put those in? Only to help somebody in the future...

The entry you submitted to the NGS would make a great recovery entry here at geocaching.com!

 

For the NGS, the personal anecdotal notes and things that are bound to change with the season aren’t typically noted. If you go and read the recovery entries for a bunch of the stations in your area you’ll see they are pretty cut and dry and straightforward.

 

For example with this recovery, since KZYX has not been mentioned prior, you may note the distance of the Mark from a corner or point of the KZYX Radio Station building. Also, was everything else listed in the 1964 entry still accurate? If not, identify the discrepancies.

 

If you look at the coordinates, they already have Consumer Handled coordinates listed for this Station. If you find a large discrepancy (rare - I’ve only found this once) you may potentially make a note of it.

 

 

Yes, I already logged it here on geocaching.com way back when I actually recovered it on 5/27/09.

 

The problem is, I was not actually hunting this mark, I found it by accident, so did not have the datasheet with me to compare the description.

 

It would seem to me that the coordinates are almost always several hundred feet off, and are usually only good for a starting place. I have only seen the coordinates exactly right once. The coordinates are usually scaled from a map, and they say so.

Share this post


Link to post

If you look at the coordinates, they already have Consumer Handled coordinates listed for this Station. If you find a large discrepancy (rare - I’ve only found this once) you may potentially make a note of it.

 

My guess is that the industrious Mr. D or someone else added those HH2 coordinates based on Duke's geocaching log, since they're the same.

 

Um, what is HH2? The last log on this mark is from me. I'm AG, this is the only one I have logged without my middle initial, my other ones are labeled APG. I usually log on both Geocaching.com and also with NGS. Which coordinates are you talking about?

Share this post


Link to post
...It would seem to me that the coordinates are almost always several hundred feet off, and are usually only good for a starting place. I have only seen the coordinates exactly right once. The coordinates are usually scaled from a map, and they say so.

Some stations are adjusted, like KT2037.

Share this post


Link to post
...Um, what is HH2? The last log on this mark is from me. I'm AG, this is the only one I have logged without my middle initial, my other ones are labeled APG. I usually log on both Geocaching.com and also with NGS. Which coordinates are you talking about?

That's for Hand Held 2 (consumer grade - like most of us have). Southpawaz guessed that someone took the coordinates you posed in your geocaching.com log and updated the Datasheet with your numbers (since they are the same).

Share this post


Link to post
...Um, what is HH2? The last log on this mark is from me. I'm AG, this is the only one I have logged without my middle initial, my other ones are labeled APG. I usually log on both Geocaching.com and also with NGS. Which coordinates are you talking about?

That's for Hand Held 2 (consumer grade - like most of us have). Southpawaz guessed that someone took the coordinates you posed in your geocaching.com log and updated the Datasheet with your numbers (since they are the same).

 

Oh. I'm looking at the datasheet live from the NGS 1 minute ago and I don't see the updated coordinates, but I do notice that is says adjusted, where the copy of the datasheet on Geocachings server from 2000 says it's scaled.

Share this post


Link to post
...Oh. I'm looking at the datasheet live from the NGS 1 minute ago and I don't see the updated coordinates, but I do notice that is says adjusted, where the copy of the datasheet on Geocachings server from 2000 says it's scaled.

In the current NGS datasheet you see HH2 coordinates. In the “old” datasheet that is on geocaching.com you just see scaled coordinates. The HH2 coordinates in the current NGS datasheet just happen to match the coordinates you posted in geocaching.com. Southpawaz has speculated that someone (other than you), looked at the coordinates you posed on geocaching.com and updated the datasheet to HH2 coordinates based on your geocaching.com log.

Share this post


Link to post

Yes, but where in the datasheet is it?

Oh, the coordinates? Right up with the HH2 - "39 03 21.1 (N) 123 25 47.6 (W)"

 

it's in DD MM SS.S format instead of DD MM.MMM format.

 

In other words, N 39 03.351 W 123 25.793 is the same as N 39 03 21.1 W 123 25 47.6.

Share this post


Link to post

Oh, they just converted it. No wonder when I searched for the last 3, I couldn't find it.

DukeOfURL01,

 

Copy/paste from the current DS of one of two far outs (both more that a mile) that I found in Glen Canyon last winter.

 

GP0238_MARKER: DB = BENCH MARK DISK

GP0238_SETTING: 66 = SET IN ROCK OUTCROP

GP0238_SP_SET: SANDSTONE BLUFF

GP0238_STABILITY: A = MOST RELIABLE AND EXPECTED TO HOLD

GP0238+STABILITY: POSITION/ELEVATION WELL

GP0238_SATELLITE: THE SITE LOCATION WAS REPORTED AS NOT SUITABLE FOR

GP0238+SATELLITE: SATELLITE OBSERVATIONS - February 05, 2010

GP0238

GP0238 HISTORY - Date Condition Report By

GP0238 HISTORY - UNK MONUMENTED CGS

GP0238 HISTORY - 1934 MARK NOT FOUND NGS

GP0238 HISTORY - 20100205 GOOD GEOCAC

GP0238

GP0238 STATION DESCRIPTION

GP0238

GP0238'DESCRIBED BY NATIONAL GEODETIC SURVEY 1934

GP0238'9.0 MI NE FROM LEES FERRY.

GP0238'9.0 MILES UPSTREAM ALONG COLORADO RIVER FROM LEES FERRY, COCONINO

GP0238'COUNTY, ON THE LEFT-HAND BANK OF THE RIVER LOOKING UPSTREAM, OPPOSITE

GP0238'THE OUTLET OF A LARGE SPRING, AND IN A RED SANDSTONE BLUFF. A

GP0238'STANDARD DISK. NOTE-- THIS MARK CAN BE REACHED ONLY BY BOAT.

GP0238

GP0238 STATION RECOVERY (2010)

GP0238

GP0238'RECOVERY NOTE BY GEOCACHING 2010 (MEL)

GP0238'HH2 365241.7 1113103.8

GP0238'MARK IS 0.13 MILE DOWNSTREAM FROM THE VAULT TOILET AT THE NINE MILE

GP0238'CAMP AND ON THE SAME ROCK TERRACE ABOUT MIDWAY BETWEEN THE DROP TO THE

GP0238'RIVER AND THE TOE OF THE NEXT, MUCH HIGHER, ROCK TERRACE. DISK IS

GP0238'STAMPED P 7 1921.

GP0238'

 

HH2 DDMMSS.s DDDMMSS.s is the first thing that I always put in the text box; copy/pasting it from my running excel file which has comparison columns showing

the +/- from the DS. This reduces 'clerical errors' (wish I could say 'eliminates') when I have a large backlog of recoveries to do.

 

The DS L/L has not been updated.

GP0238* NAD 83(1986)- 36 52 46. (N) 111 32 16. (W) SCALED

 

http://img.geocaching.com/benchmark/lg/d60...4fcedc125a9.jpg

 

GP0238

 

I am quite sure that the two previous GC logs are BOGUS - it would take a good spotting scope and a lot of luck to spot it from the river left canyon rim.

 

kayakbird

Share this post


Link to post
I think the running theme of this thread is pretty much do whatever you think is appropriate.

 

Let's re-group. It is unfortunate if the comments in the thread gave that impression. Logging with NGS is serious business. It should be done only after one has some experience using the actual NGS data sheets (versus the ones on geocaching.com); and, specific guidelines must be followed.

 

Regarding the current thread: Only include coordinates in the recovery report under one of these circumstances:

 

*The current NGS data sheet has SCALED coordinates.

 

*The current NGS data sheet has ADJUSTED coordinates and you are confident they are in error.

 

Use DDD MM SS.S format. Always proof your work--especially coordinates. The system used by kayakbird is excellent because it reduces the chances of a "typo". I do something similar. I compose my NGS recovery notes in WORD, and then I cut-paste onto the NGS form. Before going to the NGS site, I log my finds on geocaching.com, using my WORD document as a guide. Sometimes during the process of entering the text and photos on the hobby site, I discover an error. I make the correction in WORD. Then, when I feel confident that it's right, I go to NGS and make my entries.

 

When composing in WORD, I put the "not found" entries first, followed by "poor". Then I do those in "good" condition. With lines between the categories, I'm not likely to click the wrong button on the NGS form. The WORD document also has notations about marks which are not suitable for satellite observations.

 

You are allowed some freedom regarding placement of the HH2 coordinates. I put mine at the end of the recovery report. See the sample, below. (Condition is "good" unless otherwise noted.)

 

-Paul-

 

BENCHMARK RECOVERY SEPTEMBER 18 2010

 

 

EZ0082 NC 35 NOT FOUND

 

NOT FOUND IN A 30 MINUTE SEARCH WITH A METAL DETECTOR. THE REFERENCED SIGN IS GONE. THE CEMENT BRIDGE HAS BEEN REPLACED. THE NEW BRIDGE MAY BE SLIGHTLY WEST OF THE ORIGINAL SITE, BASED UPON A 1937 SURVEY SHOWING THE ROAD AND BRIDGE. (SEE BOOK OF MAPS 1946-75, WAKE COUNTY REGISTRY.)

 

 

 

EZ0079 NC 36

 

RECOVERED IN GOOD CONDITION BETWEEN THE CURB AND SIDEWALK IN FRONT OF HOUSE NO. 3340. THE ORIGINAL SCHOOL HAS BEEN TORN DOWN AND A NEW SCHOOL HAS BEEN BUILT ON THE SITE. ADD THAT MARK IS 51.2 FEET NORTHWEST OF A PHONE PEDESTAL RECENTLY PLACED AT THE CORNER OF WENDELL BLVD AND N. MAGNOLIA ST.

 

HH2 GPS COORDINATES N35 47 04.6 W078 22 20.3.

 

(NOTE. THE 1976 RECOVERY REPORT DESCRIBES THE AZIMUTH MARK.)

 

 

 

AA7902 CASTLE CREEK

 

RECOVERED IN GOOD CONDITION. THE STATION IS AN –X IN THE CENTER OF THE ALUMINUM PLATE.

 

 

GW2564 AMHERST 364

 

RECOVERED AS DESCRIBED AT MILEPOST 57.6 ON THE BLUE RIDGE PARKWAY. ADD THAT MARK IS APPROX 36 FEET WEST OF THE EAST END OF A GRASSY TRAFFIC ISLAND.

 

 

GW2499 3 MLS

 

RECOVERED AS DESCRIBED. ADD THAT MARK IS APPROXIMATELY 3 FEET ABOVE THE ROAD.

 

 

GW2105 18 RAK USGS (NOT SUITABLE)

 

RECOVERED IN GOOD CONDITION. HH2 GPS COORDINATES N37 27 11.3 W079 15 40.6.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post

I'd have to agree with Paul, in that I've seen some pretty darn poorly-written recovery notes, mostly by GeoCachers. (I'll append this to say that: 1. I've seen poor recoveries written by other agencies, too, and 2. *I've* written some bad ones. My worst is sending a good recovery to the wrong station.)

 

IMHO, Coordinates don't matter in the end. They may aid in recovery, but they don't affect the positioning or usage of the station in surveying projects. I've seen some recoveries that had coordinates posted for stations that were about as easy to find as a democrat in northern Virginia. When a station is in the face of the courthouse in Boise City, OK, and the written description SAYS it's "in the face of the courthouse", then I highly doubt coordinates would help at all. Or even if the mark is in the right wing-wall of an overpass. The only time coordinates would help would be if the surveyor is blind, or there was an identical bridge over the interstate 100 feet south of the bridge the mark is in. (Possible!)

 

Sorry for sounding curt, but I think too much emphasis is put into the coordinates, when a LOT more effort should be in recognizing the CORRECT mark, and DESCRIBING it well.

 

..I'm old fashioned that way. :P

Share this post


Link to post

I lean towards foxtrot's opinion about coordinates. I am a bit spotty in collecting them in the first place--it depends on how sweaty and miserable I am by the time I have found a mark, in addition to other things, but I will be less likely to include them in the more obvious situations such as the county courthouse (more likely if the courthouse has been moved and the old courthouse is now an office building!). If the mark is somewhere vague, such as at the "top of a hill", "the end of a shallow cut", or the "outside of a curve" I try to take the extra effort to collect and report them in the hopes that they can help a future searcher get decently close to the mark before digging into the description.

 

One thing I use to determine if the coordinates are helpful is how close the scaled coordinates are to the actual mark. If I have just spent 20 minutes at the scaled coordinates searching, just to discover that the mark is 100 feet away, I will probably try to help the next person out by getting them closer.

 

I also agree with Paul---this is serious business. If the datasheet is accurate then no additional text is necessary. I do this often with a mark on a bridge--how many "south abutments" can there be after all? But if the area has changed--signs removed, trees cut down or new ones there, new buildings, etc., I try to measure to as many new reference points as possible. I have added 5 or more measurements to some of my recoveries if I feel the existing references are in danger of disappearing, or if I just think they are lame. When I get to a mark and find that the survey team described it as being 150' from a sewer inlet, but not 15' from a 4' tree (which I am sure was there when the mark was set), I will certainly add the tree. When I feel extra nice I use degrees instead of cardinal directions (41' at 158 degrees from...). That was at the suggestion of a surveyor a few years ago.

 

I also think that describing the process taken to declare a mark Not Found is important. I try to always include some reason, road widened at this area, building torn down, new bridge built, not found after 30 minute search with metal detector, etc. Again, this is to be helpful to the next searcher and let them know that I tried my best and give my reasons.

Share this post


Link to post

I think it depends on where you are and how well the description was written. Around here, some level runs along dirt roads give two calls: a mileage along the road and a distance and bearing from the centerline. And if the witness post is gone, you're probably going to be searching for a while. If my HH2 coordinates can get you to within 10 feet, I think you'd be glad to have them, and nothing I could add to the description other than that would be more helpful, so I usually leave it at that.

Share this post


Link to post

Being forgetful, a very poor typist and attempting to eliminate errors in the tedious recovery procedure when I have been on long road trips with backlogs of dozens of points; I have had to devise a very systematic - read do it exactly the Marine way every time - method which includes a copy/paste of a double checked DDMMSS.s DDDMMSS.s directly from my Excel spreadsheet.

 

This entry doesn't take up much time or space and I don't care if the math shows an error of 0.1S or 1+ MI (which I would triple check). kayakbird

Share this post


Link to post

I don't know how useful azimuth marks are anymore in real-world surveying, but a lot of times the description and to-reach are sketchy, if they are there at all. So when I recover an azimuth mark, I try to take special pains to describe the location and get HH2 coordinates.

 

For Geocaching logs, I occasionally post aerial images snared from Google or Bing Maps. Here's an example.

 

Sometimes if I forget to get coordinates from my own GPS, I'll snare them from Google Maps. I've found that they are invariably at least as good, and usually better, than scaled NGS coordinates. Also, if you're typing coordinates into a recovery form — either on Geocaching or with the NGS — copy the coordinates from your report and paste them into Google Maps to make sure it takes you to the right place.

 

~ArtMan~

Share this post


Link to post

I think it depends on where you are and how well the description was written. Around here, some level runs along dirt roads give two calls: a mileage along the road and a distance and bearing from the centerline. And if the witness post is gone, you're probably going to be searching for a while. If my HH2 coordinates can get you to within 10 feet, I think you'd be glad to have them, and nothing I could add to the description other than that would be more helpful, so I usually leave it at that.

 

Actually, see, I disagree. Sure, as the first finder with a poor description you WISH you had them. As a later finder (like me after you've found it), I'd look to your re-written description over your coordinates.

 

Not saying coordinates wouldn't help, but in two years, when they introduce NAD18(*), the coords would be mostly useless anyways. :)

 

(*) - I made this up as an example, of course.

 

--Me.

Share this post


Link to post

The coordinates will not become any less useful than at present.

 

I'm going to bet the next NAD or NSRS coordinate datum will be a very small change from any of the present versions of the datum, at least compared to the scale of HH2 accuracy. The changes have gotten progressively smaller as they hone in to better and better accuracy.

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2

×