Need opinion - NF, Found Poor, or Destroyed?

[+HotRod205]

I would like an opinion from some of the pros on this one. I logged this one as destroyed on GC.com (which I will change to NF if I need to) but have NOT logged with the NGS yet. I was considering submitting an NGS log for it but wasn't sure if it should be "NOT FOUND", "FOUND POOR", or attempt to have it "DESTROYED".

 

The disk was on a rock under an abandoned LOT. A GEOCAC find in 2002 was good, no photos but the guy found lots of BMs then, most with photos so I don't think he fudged it. He was a good cacher and sheriff's deputy who has now left the cacher game. The place is now a teen hangout/party place, and the disk appears to have been pried from it's spot.

DH2512 - Disk Damaged

 

And I'm not going to try to submit the LOT, I know they don't want Intersection station reports, but here's the link for reference and to show I was in the right spot, under the LOT. Unless it moved...

DH2513 - LOT Found

Edited January 9, 2011 by HotRod205

[foxtrot_xray]

I would like an opinion from some of the pros on this one. I logged this one as destroyed on GC.com (which I will change to NF if I need to) but have NOT logged with the NGS yet. I was considering submitting an NGS log for it but wasn't sure if it should be "NOT FOUND", "FOUND POOR", or attempt to have it "DESTROYED".

 

The disk was on a rock under an abandoned LOT. A GEOCAC find in 2002 was good, no photos but the guy found lots of BMs then, most with photos so I don't think he fudged it. He was a good cacher and sheriff's deputy who has now left the cacher game. The place is now a teen hangout/party place, and the disk appears to have been pried from it's spot.

DH2512 - Disk Damaged

 

And I'm not going to try to submit the LOT, I know they don't want Intersection station reports, but here's the link for reference and to show I was in the right spot, under the LOT. Unless it moved...

DH2513 - LOT Found

 

IMHO, Since it's a Horizontal Class 2 station, and the disk is gone, I would report it destroyed at most, Not Found at least.

[2oldfarts (the rockhounders)]

I would say that is "Not Found".

 

From the datasheet - "THE STATION MARK, A STANDARD DISK STAMPED TEDD 1971, IS SET IN A DRILL HOLE IN OUTCROPPING BEDROCK THAT PROJECTS ABOUT FOUR FEET ABOVE THE GROUND SURFACE."

 

There is no drill hole in the picture you posted showing an imprint, so I would think that was not where the mark had been. Was there any bedrock in the area that projected 4 feet above the ground surface? Do the arrows on the RMs point to that impression?

 

John

 

Edit to add - It is not under the tower. It is northeast of the southeast corner of the tower.

 

John

Edited January 9, 2011 by 2oldfarts (the rockhounders)

[mloser]

If what you found is UNDER the tower it is most likely reference mark 2

REFERENCE MARK 2, A STANDARD DISK STAMPED TEDD NO 2 1971, IS SET

IN A DRILL HOLE IN OUTCROPPING BEDROCK THAT PROJECTS ABOUT 3 INCHES

ABOVE THE GROUND SURFACE AND IS UNDER THE APPROXIMATE CENTER OF THE

LOOKOUT TOWER. IT IS 57.6 FEET SOUTH-SOUTHWEST OF THE WITNESS

POST AND 37 FEET WEST-NORTHWEST OF THE EDGE OF THE CLIFF.

 

The station is 32 feet northeast of the tower

THE STATION MARK, A STANDARD DISK STAMPED TEDD 1971, IS SET IN A

DRILL HOLE IN OUTCROPPING BEDROCK THAT PROJECTS ABOUT FOUR FEET

ABOVE THE GROUND SURFACE. IT IS 35 FEET SOUTH OF A METAL WITNESS

POST, 32 FEET NORTHEAST OF THE SOUTHEAST LEG OF THE LOOKOUT TOWER,

24 FEET EAST OF THE NORTHEAST LEG OF THE LOOKOUT TOWER AND 8.5

FEET WEST-NORTHWEST OF THE EDGE OF A CLIFF.

 

It may well be there.

 

Reference mark 1 is about 40 feet north of the tower too and may remain.

[+HotRod205]

Well I'll be... That ought to teach me to read the datasheet better. Maybe trying to read it on a Blackberry while climbing a steep hill wasn't the best idea. Correcting pronto, and I guess I need to make another visit to find the actual mark. Luckily it's only about 10 miles from the house.

[+billwallace]

... Maybe trying to read it on a Blackberry while climbing a steep hill wasn't the best idea. ....

I'm convinced that the small display of my Colorado has led to not reading the datasheet thoroughly. I've started taking paper and am considering a device with a larger display that will handle text/pdf/html.

[Z15]

I would call it not found but explain the conditions.

Edited January 11, 2011 by Z15

[Bill93]

We've been told, and I thoroughly believe, that it is far more important to report what you saw, that someone else might want to know, than to overthink the classification.

[mloser]

I blame my Blackberry's small screen for some missed recoveries also. I prefer the convenience of a printout and the ability to make notes on it, especially when I start to remeasure for new calls.

 

I have printed all the datasheets for the counties near me, where I hunt the most. But when I go away and think I may have time to grab a few marks along the way it is wasteful to print all the datasheets for that area, and I usually have a slight plan in mind but it often gets changed by chance--I may end up looking along a totally different path than I planned. If I had taken datasheets that fit my plan I would be out of luck. So I count on getting them on my Blackberry and suffer through reading the small, badly formatted text.