Two Benchmark found in Burlington VT

[+PatrickValerie]

Hello, We are looking for some help. We went on a Benchmark hunt yesterday in Burlington VT. We came across two Benchmark that we can't find in GC.com. Since they are fairly visible, I was wondering if they are "loggable" Benckmarks? Here are pictures of these to Benchmarks:

 

 

[2oldfarts (the rockhounders)]

Hi PatrickValerie. Welcome to the world of benchmark hunting.

 

If you searched the coordinates by going here and did not find anything at said coordinates, then you may try to log them in Waymarking.com a sister site of Geocaching.

 

Now I have a question for you. I see that you logged PID PG2506.

 

The description is as follows.

Documented History (by the NGS)

01/01/1845 by IBC (MONUMENTED) DESCRIBED BY INTERNATIONAL BOUNDARY COMMISSION 1845 STATION MARK--A GRANITE POST ABOUT 60 INCHES HIGH SET IN A CONCRETE BASE 3X3X5 FEET DEEP. NOTE--THIS DESCRIPTION HAS NOT BEEN FIELD CHECKED.

 

It would be great to see a picture of the mark - which is the granite post about 5 ft. high. That way we could all see how the mark has faired since it was placed in 1845!

 

Shirley~

 

------------------------------

[mloser]

I would guess that neither is a loggable mark here. The first one is a corner boundary marker--showing the corner of what is most likely a property parcel. The second is a special mark set by the University of Vermont (U.V.M)and its Scientific Advisory Committee (I am guessing about that last part) in 1980. It may have been set as a survey exercise or to mark some point near or on the campus. I see it is entitled "DOCK". Is it near the water, or on a loading dock?

 

Shirley,

There ARE pictures of that 1845 mark. If you read upside down (I had to turn my head) the image shows "No. 653", which is the name of the mark in question, and then has "RENEWED 1902 in the concrete. It looks like the concrete has been placed around something else, possibly the base of a 5 ft high granite post that was broken off at ground level? I can't tell if the disk is in the center of the monument or not--it looks like it is set in concrete though, and not stone.

[Papa-Bear-NYC]

...

Now I have a question for you. I see that you logged PID PG2506.

 

The description is as follows.

Documented History (by the NGS)

01/01/1845 by IBC (MONUMENTED) DESCRIBED BY INTERNATIONAL BOUNDARY COMMISSION 1845 STATION MARK--A GRANITE POST ABOUT 60 INCHES HIGH SET IN A CONCRETE BASE 3X3X5 FEET DEEP. NOTE--THIS DESCRIPTION HAS NOT BEEN FIELD CHECKED.

 

It would be great to see a picture of the mark - which is the granite post about 5 ft. high. That way we could all see how the mark has faired since it was placed in 1845!

 

Shirley~

 

------------------------------

 

There is a photo by JCLBA (who visited the site with PatrickValerie) labeled IMG 0413[1] It shows the bottom of the post in a concrete base inscribed "No. 658 / RENEWED / 1902" (hold your head upside down). What this means is the original post, which was just stuck in the ground, was set in a concrete base while holding it's position constant. The process is described in the old IBC publications from the early 20th century. It would be the equivalent of doing a Reset on a triangulation station.

 

There is also a disk pictured. This is a Bench Mark disk which was set in the base for each monument when the resurvey was done in 1915 - 1920. These disks are not in the NGS database but were used by the IBC to control the elevation of the surveys.

 

These books are actually purchasable from the IBC (part of the US State Dept.) and I bought one for about $10 (it weighs about 10 lb). They are listed on this web page IBC publications. I just sent an email to someone listed and got back instructions for ordering the book. It's got huge amounts of very cool information.

Edited August 8, 2011 by Papa-Bear-NYC

[+PatrickValerie]

@ Shirley : Since it was our first BM, we took a picture of the cement base and the old BM itself. The monument itself is a Boundary Monument that is sitting on the Canada-USA border. Where we found it, there used to be a road that is now fenced off. There was a cache a few feet from it. That's why we took pictures and quickly left the spot... If I remember correctly, the BM was in the cement base as well!

 

@ mloser : Thanks for all of your information. DOCK is for the loading dock for the library right next to the BM. You are probably right about it being used as survey exercise for UVM. We will erase the false log and our pictures!!

 

@ Papa-Bear-NYC : Thanks for all of your informations!!

[2oldfarts (the rockhounders)]

I would guess that neither is a loggable mark here. The first one is a corner boundary marker--showing the corner of what is most likely a property parcel. The second is a special mark set by the University of Vermont (U.V.M)and its Scientific Advisory Committee (I am guessing about that last part) in 1980. It may have been set as a survey exercise or to mark some point near or on the campus. I see it is entitled "DOCK". Is it near the water, or on a loading dock?

 

Shirley,

There ARE pictures of that 1845 mark. If you read upside down (I had to turn my head) the image shows "No. 653", which is the name of the mark in question, and then has "RENEWED 1902 in the concrete. It looks like the concrete has been placed around something else, possibly the base of a 5 ft high granite post that was broken off at ground level? I can't tell if the disk is in the center of the monument or not--it looks like it is set in concrete though, and not stone.

mloser,

 

I beg to differ.

 

The concrete is just the base for the GRANITE POST which in actual fact IS the station mark.

 

PatrickVarerie, you stated "The monument itself is a Boundary Monument that is sitting on the Canada-USA border." Yes it is a Boundary Monument but also the 1845 station mark itself. Was it in good shape? Is there anything inscribed into the sides of that Monument?

 

Below I have included the NGS Documented History again for clarification.

 

It Definitely is the GRANITE POST that is the 1845 station mark with the concrete being just the base 3X3X5 feet deep. Now the concrete has been "RENEWED in 1902" so, it has probably been added to. But, it doesn't change the Granite post at all. The years might have taken a toll, but we will never know if we cannot see a picture of this wonderful old post, now can we?

 

I cannot afford to fly and go visit this mark, can you? So, pictures are the only way to appreciate such a mark.

 

Documented History (by the NGS)

01/01/1845 by IBC (MONUMENTED) DESCRIBED BY INTERNATIONAL BOUNDARY COMMISSION 1845 STATION MARK--A GRANITE POST ABOUT 60 INCHES HIGH SET IN A CONCRETE BASE 3X3X5 FEET DEEP. NOTE--THIS DESCRIPTION HAS NOT BEEN FIELD CHECKED.

 

Here is the picture that was taken of the concrete base in which you can see a small portion of the granite post.

 

Shirley -- she who loves to look at pictures.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

[mloser]

2oldfarts,

 

This isn't worth arguing about. You were looking for images of the post. I was looking to see if they were at the SITE of the mark. Although I would have liked to know more about the post itself, I was satisfied that what they took pictures of is the base of the original monument, and that they were at the right place and saw what was there. Papa Bear's information helped clarify that even more.

 

Would more pictures have been nice? Sure.

 

Is it a find? I wouldn't log it as such since it doesn't fit the description. But this is a hobby and we all do it our own way.

 

BTW, if you want to see pics of IBC monuments there are a lot of them out there: PG2495 for example

[2oldfarts (the rockhounders)]

2oldfarts,

 

This isn't worth arguing about. You were looking for images of the post. I was looking to see if they were at the SITE of the mark. Although I would have liked to know more about the post itself, I was satisfied that what they took pictures of is the base of the original monument, and that they were at the right place and saw what was there. Papa Bear's information helped clarify that even more.

 

Would more pictures have been nice? Sure.

 

Is it a find? I wouldn't log it as such since it doesn't fit the description. But this is a hobby and we all do it our own way.

 

BTW, if you want to see pics of IBC monuments there are a lot of them out there: PG2495 for example

 

I know of several marks where there are additional disks that are not the benchmark in the description. Just being in the area does not qualify as a find if you log the disks and not what is in the description. Since the description in question describes a 5 foot high granite post and not a brass disk the found log should describe the condition of the post itself and not of the brass disk that was added at a later date.

 

Yes it is a hobby, but how many threads have been done complaining that the wrong mark has been logged? We do have minimal standards for what is considered acceptable logging and logging the correct mark is the primary standard. We all make mistakes when making our logs, but we also try to guide others in the correct procedures for logging. "He was at the right spot so he can log whatever he finds" doesn't quite fit in what has been determined to be good logging form.

 

John

[kayakbird]

 

-----

 

There is also a disk pictured. This is a Bench Mark disk which was set in the base for each monument when the resurvey was done in 1915 - 1920. These disks are not in the NGS database but were used by the IBC to control the elevation of the surveys.

 

-----

 

 

All,

 

An interesting thread here on the Minn Arrowhead shore of Lake Superior. It would be very nice if a recovery with a 'FIELD CHECKED DESCRIPTION' makes into the DATASHEET.

 

West of here along the Medicine Line a good number of the small diameter U.S. & C. B. SURVEY disks and the short stake RM's do have a PID.

 

 

PID TB0247

 

 

TC0447

 

And this disk is a Triangulation Station.

 

 

CHILD

 

Would like to gather up a few more of them, but I think that my return to Montana in a week or so will be along a southern South Dakota route.

 

kayakbird

Edited August 9, 2011 by kayakbird

[Papa-Bear-NYC]

 

-----

 

There is also a disk pictured. This is a Bench Mark disk which was set in the base for each monument when the resurvey was done in 1915 - 1920. These disks are not in the NGS database but were used by the IBC to control the elevation of the surveys.

 

-----

 

 

All,

 

An interesting thread here on the Minn Arrowhead shore of Lake Superior. It would be very nice if a recovery with a 'FIELD CHECKED DESCRIPTION' makes into the DATASHEET.

 

West of here along the Medicine Line a good number of the small diameter U.S. & C. B. SURVEY disks and the short stake RM's do have a PID.

 

<cut>

 

TC0447

 

And this disk is a Triangulation Station.

 

<cut>

 

CHILD

 

Would like to gather up a few more of them, but I think that my return to Montana in a week or so will be along a southern South Dakota route.

 

kayakbird

 

Don't need to go to Montana. Maine, NH, and VT have tons of them. I've been working the area for several years. See this map for example: NH IBC stations

 

The red line is the border and the red icons are the monuments. The grey icons are triangulations stations (most or which are in the NGS database) connected by blue lines which shows the 1915 triangulation. The green icons are reference marks along both sides of Hall's Stream, most of which are not in the NGS database. For those I could find in the old docs. I have also included the original description in the info-window. See Hereford, QH0620, (far left of screen) which is one of my prized finds.

 

Click on an icon and you'll see what is what.

Edited August 9, 2011 by Papa-Bear-NYC

[+PatrickValerie]

Hello to all, since it was our first ever BM, we didn't really know what kind of pictures were in fact needed to prove that we did visit the BM itself. As I can remember, the granite post was in great shape! I was discussing this thread last night with JCLBA. If we have to go back and snap a picture of it, we can do it quite easy...Just les me know!!!

 

Patrick

[2oldfarts (the rockhounders)]

Hello to all, since it was our first ever BM, we didn't really know what kind of pictures were in fact needed to prove that we did visit the BM itself. As I can remember, the granite post was in great shape! I was discussing this thread last night with JCLBA. If we have to go back and snap a picture of it, we can do it quite easy...Just les me know!!!

 

Patrick

 

It is NOT necessary to return and get another picture. When you log a benchmark, it helps to post a picture of the mark so anyone who decides to go there (as in an active surveyor) can determine that the correct mark has been found and the condition of the mark is as stated in the log. Posting a picture is not required to log a mark. Just put a note in your log about the condition of the mark, was it still solid, or damaged by vandals, and coordinates if it is a "scaled" horizontal position. In the case of the 5' granite post, did it appear to be leaning and did it appear to be 5 feet tall would be nice things to mention in your log. A noticeable difference in the height would indicate something has change and a surveyor would then be cautious when deciding to use that mark.

 

Welcome to benchmark hunting and finding those old marks builds great memories.

 

John

[TillaMurphs]

Hello to all, since it was our first ever BM, we didn't really know what kind of pictures were in fact needed to prove that we did visit the BM itself....

If we have to go back and snap a picture of it, we can do it quite easy...Just let me know!!!

 

Patrick

 

Hi Patrick,

 

No need to go back and get a photo. However, if you ever return to the area I would like to see what the monument looks like just for fun. Also, any photos of the abandoned border station building would be cool. I saw some on Panaramio and it looked interesting.

 

Good job on your benchmarking finds!