what is this?

[+cuzz_cache_cliff]

Hi guys. I found a cache yesterday (ya ya) and anyways, this marker was between the cache and the truck, But I can not find it to log it. I am believing it is a survey marker, not a listed benchmark. Any thoughts or directions I should follow? Picture is in the log by CCC at GCRR5E, Thanks

 

Thanks and have a great Saturday

 

CCC

[Bill93]

It is a section corner of the land survey, and not a benchmark.

 

[+cuzz_cache_cliff]

It is a section corner of the land survey, and not a benchmark.

 

 

Thanks Bill, I did not understand that. Oh, well darn.

[TillaMurphs]

It is a section corner of the land survey, and not a benchmark.

Sometimes if you get lucky they can be both: NX0106

[Bill93]

Lucky indeed - it is unusual to find them serving both cadastral and geodetic purposes.

 

There are hundreds of thousands of geodetic marks in the NGS data base (out of gazillions of survey marks total) and hundreds of thousands of land survey marks, and maybe hundreds that are dual purpose?

[+_dxd_]

Lucky indeed - it is unusual to find them serving both cadastral and geodetic purposes.

 

There are hundreds of thousands of geodetic marks in the NGS data base (out of gazillions of survey marks total) and hundreds of thousands of land survey marks, and maybe hundreds that are dual purpose?

 

hmm, so is this one too ? Did I actually find something a little different ? CZ0649

[Bill93]

Yes, that is another land survey disk that was also measured twenty years later for geodetic position.

 

From what I've seen discussed here, this situation seems to be more common in the SW than in other parts of the country. One reason is that bronze disks weren't in use when the original surveys were done in much of the country (other types of markers instead) so relatively few land survey disks have been placed in those areas. Another reason is that the terrain in the SW allowed easy leveling to those existing disks, whereas in other places it was easier to set new disks where they preferred to do the level runs.

 

Note that it was leaning in 1962, so the POSITION is POOR, regardless of the aesthetic quality of the disk itself. Even if someone has straightened it, a land surveyor may not have even known it was a geodetic mark, so they would have only been concerned about horizontal position when they rehabilitated it. So the GOOD report was probably ill-advised.

Edited December 19, 2010 by Bill93

[+cuzz_cache_cliff]

Yes, that is another land survey disk that was also measured twenty years later for geodetic position.

 

From what I've seen discussed here, this situation seems to be more common in the SW than in other parts of the country. One reason is that bronze disks weren't in use when the original surveys were done in much of the country (other types of markers instead) so relatively few land survey disks have been placed in those areas. Another reason is that the terrain in the SW allowed easy leveling to those existing disks, whereas in other places it was easier to set new disks where they preferred to do the level runs.

 

Note that it was leaning in 1962, so the POSITION is POOR, regardless of the aesthetic quality of the disk itself. Even if someone has straightened it, a land surveyor may not have even known it was a geodetic mark, so they would have only been concerned about horizontal position when they rehabilitated it. So the GOOD report was probably ill-advised.

Hummm and I just really thought that I was an intelligent person, but, I am now finding the facts that I just don't know squat. Humm, So hummbling I shall remain. Thanks guys.

[+_dxd_]

Yes, that is another land survey disk that was also measured twenty years later for geodetic position.

snipped.....

So the GOOD report was probably ill-advised.

 

well, at least I didn't report that one to NGS I'd only been sort of looking for benchmarks for a little while, and didn't know all the specifics of conditions, etc. Still don't, but anyway, at the time I just probably thought it meant the condition of the disc. Hah ! I just looked at the current datasheet, and they used my photos from the log at GS

 

btw, where does it say that it was leaning in the 1962 report ? It is mentioned as a slight angle in the 2003 log by wildearth2001.

[kayakbird]

To my farmers eye for fence post plumb that GLO post (CZ0649) could easily be moved to the vertical and still be within its published elevation accuracy.

 

Was it called POOR in 1962 for some other reason? Can the raw field notes that might clarify these questions ever be found?

 

kayakbird

[Bill93]

Sorry, I guess I put together a cacher log remark about slight angle with the NGS recovery condition as POOR. I can't find anything in the NGS log to say why it was POOR.

[AZcachemeister]

Lucky indeed - it is unusual to find them serving both cadastral and geodetic purposes.

 

There are hundreds of thousands of geodetic marks in the NGS data base (out of gazillions of survey marks total) and hundreds of thousands of land survey marks, and maybe hundreds that are dual purpose?

 

In Arizona, there are about 170 of these 'converted' USGLO marks where the datasheet says 'MONUMENTED USGLO', and quite a few more where the description just states that it's a USGLO disc. I totaled them up once, and I think it came to around 200.