Jump to content

Aluminum Survey Disks


NGS Surveyor

Recommended Posts

All, Anyone have photos of any National Ocean Survey and/or National Geodetic Survey survey disks made of aluminum from the years prior to 1981 for NOS, 1975 for NGS Bench Mark disks, and 1977 for Reference Mark disks?

 

Thanks,

GeorgeL

NGS

 

George (and everyone), do you know if these older aluminum disks would show up on the datasheet as "MARKER: A = ALUMINUM MARKER"?

 

The reason I ask, is I was using GSAK and Bullygoats new marker macro to filter out the ones in Louisiana to see if there were some of these that you are inquiring about anywhere. Everything that came back, was for 1991 and later. They were all NOS.

Edited by LSUFan
Link to comment

LSUFan - Aluminum disks should probably be listed as "Aluminum Marker" but may not. NGS and NOS both used aluminum marks for several years.

 

AZcachemeister - Your USGS disk is very old and interesting, but not of use for my paper which only covers USC&GS, NOS, and NGS marks. I know that USGS used survey disks a few years before USC&GS, but I don't know which year they started.

 

Thanks,

GeorgeL

NGS

Link to comment

George & all,

 

These are going to be tough to sort out. I just did a Full Text Search for 'ALUMINUM' in the GSAK files for Montana and Minnesota and only came up with a few USGS disks that were later appropriated by the CGS for triangulation stations.

 

The TheBeanTeam entry shows that 'ALUMINUM' may not appear in the DS. kayakbird

Link to comment

BeanTeam, Yours appears to be brass.

 

The disks made of aluminum are gray and have a somewhat rough surface. For some photos, see my paper at: http://www.ngs.noaa.gov/web/about_ngs/history/Survey_Mark_Art.pdf page 35.

 

GeorgeL

NGS

 

Thanks, George

 

That is a great paper with excellent information. I thought it was likely brass but was unsure they seemed darker almost black so were odd to me when I found them (I recovered more than just this example).

 

On a separate note; I am pretty sure that for figure 42 the photos used are my photos but they are credited to someone else. I may be wrong but I don't think so.

Link to comment

BeanTeam, I apologize - you are absolutely correct - the photos of the MAGNETIC STATION are yours. I got permission from the other person to use theirs but liked yours better and somehow got confused. I just corrected the new, updated version of the survey mark paper (still on my computer), in both the text (next to the photos) and in the list of credits near the end.

 

GeorgeL

NGS

Link to comment

I thought of that trio (AA3903, 3904, 3905) but wasn't sure if they fell within scope of his request.

 

Those marks are a strange case, which I didn't fully understand at the time I logged them, although I knew something was wrong. I think what happened is there were C&GS/State Survey disks along the road that was being widened, that had no data sheets, but somebody carefully recorded the difference in elevation to these new RESET disks along the wider ROW. They submitted the data, and the office found the closest ones with those designations (5, 8, and 12) in the data base, which happened to be in the wrong counties. So the elevations on the RESET data sheets were carefully computed as x.xxx feet above disk 12 in the other county, and are thus totally meaningless (off by 100 feet or more from reality).

 

Some of them might make usable GPS points, but there is a tree or pole near each. Maybe somebody local has used them somehow. Otherwise they are worse than useless. I hope any user would notice the data sheet elevations being off that much from the topo map.

Link to comment

I thought of that trio (AA3903, 3904, 3905) but wasn't sure if they fell within scope of his request.

 

Those marks are a strange case, which I didn't fully understand at the time I logged them, although I knew something was wrong. I think what happened is there were C&GS/State Survey disks along the road that was being widened, that had no data sheets, but somebody carefully recorded the difference in elevation to these new RESET disks along the wider ROW. They submitted the data, and the office found the closest ones with those designations (5, 8, and 12) in the data base, which happened to be in the wrong counties. So the elevations on the RESET data sheets were carefully computed as x.xxx feet above disk 12 in the other county, and are thus totally meaningless (off by 100 feet or more from reality).

 

Some of them might make usable GPS points, but there is a tree or pole near each. Maybe somebody local has used them somehow. Otherwise they are worse than useless. I hope any user would notice the data sheet elevations being off that much from the topo map.

 

Bill,

 

I think that you figured it out if Iowa was anything like Nebraska where 470 were set but very few had levels run to them. There I'm coming up with less than 50 maybe's with PID's and a few NONPID. The field crew must not have paid any attention to anything in the DS when they set these and field stamped them.

 

Hope you don't mind that I have inserted your photo of one of the real '5's. Do you have any more of that unique marker? kayakbird

 

9fe1ea34-12d7-4720-ae02-d455909ff47b.jpg

Link to comment

['----prior to 1981 for NOS, 1975 for NGS Bench Mark disks, and 1977 for Reference Mark disks?]

 

Maybe just a clerical error, but maybe the pre-1977 RM that George is looking for.

 

GC0547_MARKER: DR = REFERENCE MARK DISK

 

GC0547 HISTORY - 1974 MONUMENTED NGS

 

GC0547'DESCRIBED BY NATIONAL GEODETIC SURVEY 1974

 

GC0547'OF ROAD, A STANDARD ALUMINUM CAP ATTACHED TO THE TOP OF A

GC0547'3 FOOT PRE-CAST ALUMINUM POST PROJECTING 4 INCHES.

 

No log/recovery or photo. Anybody in Robertson Co, Tennessee need a target? Looks like a drive station with easy access off I 65, Exit 108 at White House. kayakbird

Link to comment

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...
×
×
  • Create New...