Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2
TillaMurphs

How do I un-destroy a mark?

Recommended Posts

I found a mark that is listed as destroyed (“Surface mark reported destroyed”) in the NGS database. However, I found it in good condition in its monumented location. It appears that the mark was confused with a genuinely destroyed mark that is about a mile away.

 

How can I get the mark “un-destroyed”?

Share this post


Link to post

I would think contacting the NGS by e-mail would probably be the best way, if it's officially labeled as destroyed and the datasheet isn't available directly. Obviously you'd want to make very sure of what you found, and from what I've read, their definition of destroyed doesn't always mean the disk (or whatever) is gone. I'm sure someone else with more experience will chime in. :)

Share this post


Link to post

I found a mark that is listed as destroyed ("Surface mark reported destroyed") in the NGS database. However, I found it in good condition in its monumented location. It appears that the mark was confused with a genuinely destroyed mark that is about a mile away.

 

How can I get the mark "un-destroyed"?

 

Just retrieve the datasheet and then log it with the NGS. Once it has been logged it will be re-listed in the active portion of their database.

 

Congrats on the recovery.

 

John

Share this post


Link to post

CM1022 HISTORY - 20091116 DESTROYED NGS

 

The date is soon after the GC log, so your theory makes sense.

 

Although the data sheet does not come up with the pidbox type link, it is still available by going through the menus and selecting "Include Destroyed Marks."

Share this post


Link to post

Looking at the area via the benchmark viewer/s My Topo view shows a "St. Johns Church" that looks like it's on the south side of the road. A BM 415 also shows up near that area on the map.

Share this post


Link to post

Just retrieve the datasheet and then log it with the NGS. Once it has been logged it will be re-listed in the active portion of their database.

 

Thanks John. I will do that.

Share this post


Link to post
Just retrieve the datasheet and then log it with the NGS. Once it has been logged it will be re-listed in the active portion of their database.

 

Congrats on the recovery.

 

I *may* be wrong, and hoping I am, but I think it will not work with 'station marks reported as destroyed'. I thought this method only worked with 'no descriptive text' unpublishable marks?

 

But, it's been a looooong while, so I'm probably mus-remembering. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Just retrieve the datasheet and then log it with the NGS. Once it has been logged it will be re-listed in the active portion of their database.

 

Congrats on the recovery.

 

I *may* be wrong, and hoping I am, but I think it will not work with 'station marks reported as destroyed'. I thought this method only worked with 'no descriptive text' unpublishable marks?

 

But, it's been a looooong while, so I'm probably mus-remembering. :)

 

Since I don't report to the NGS, it is possible I remembered wrong. It could be that you just need to notify Deb and send her the pictures and info on the mark.

 

John

Share this post


Link to post
Just retrieve the datasheet and then log it with the NGS. Once it has been logged it will be re-listed in the active portion of their database.

I *may* be wrong, and hoping I am, but I think it will not work with 'station marks reported as destroyed'. I thought this method only worked with 'no descriptive text' unpublishable marks?

 

But, it's been a looooong while, so I'm probably mus-remembering. :)

Since I don't report to the NGS, it is possible I remembered wrong. It could be that you just need to notify Deb and send her the pictures and info on the mark.

 

John

 

I was able to make an NGS submission. Now I just have to wait and see what happens.

 

Thanks!

Share this post


Link to post

I would highly recommend sending Deb an email with the pertinent information so she can intervene. I had an unfortunate experience with a destroyed mark. I had submitted a destroyed mark back in 2008 I believe. Had all the correct documentation, but made a typo in the PID in the email subject line. That typo led to the wrong station being marked destroyed.

 

I subsequently visited the "destroyed" mark and submitted a recovery report, then emailed Deb with an explanation about what had happened. It's been over two years, and the station hasn't "recovered" yet. I've been assured that Deb has it in her queue of things to do, but it looks like manual intervention is required.

 

To see the datasheet on this glaring error of mine, go to http://www.ngs.noaa.gov/cgi-bin/ds_pid.prl and search destroyed marks for RK0515.

Share this post


Link to post

All my recent attempts to email Deb have been kicked back as undeliverable.

Anyone else?

 

Interesting. i sent her a message about three weeks ago, and it did not bounce.

 

-Paul-

Share this post


Link to post

fyi

 

The NGS Data Sheet

See file dsdata.txt for more information about the datasheet.

 

DATABASE = NGSIDB , PROGRAM = datasheet95, VERSION = 7.87.4.2

 

*** NOTE - The station below is destroyed.

 

1 National Geodetic Survey, Retrieval Date = NOVEMBER 24, 2011

CM1022 ***********************************************************************

CM1022 DESIGNATION - B 379

CM1022 PID - CM1022

CM1022 STATE/COUNTY- AL/RUSSELL

CM1022 USGS QUAD - CRAWFORD (1984)

CM1022

CM1022 *CURRENT SURVEY CONTROL

CM1022 ___________________________________________________________________

CM1022* NAD 83(1986)- 32 27 17. (N) 085 12 11. (W) SCALED

CM1022* NAVD 88 - 126.364 (meters) 414.58 (feet) ADJUSTED

CM1022 ___________________________________________________________________

CM1022 GEOID HEIGHT- -27.66 (meters) GEOID09

CM1022 DYNAMIC HT - 126.218 (meters) 414.10 (feet) COMP

CM1022 MODELED GRAV- 979,479.8 (mgal) NAVD 88

CM1022

CM1022 VERT ORDER - SECOND CLASS 0

CM1022

CM1022.The horizontal coordinates were scaled from a topographic map and have

CM1022.an estimated accuracy of +/- 6 seconds.

CM1022

CM1022.The orthometric height was determined by differential leveling and

CM1022.adjusted in June 1991.

CM1022

CM1022.The geoid height was determined by GEOID09.

CM1022

CM1022.The dynamic height is computed by dividing the NAVD 88

CM1022.geopotential number by the normal gravity value computed on the

CM1022.Geodetic Reference System of 1980 (GRS 80) ellipsoid at 45

CM1022.degrees latitude (g = 980.6199 gals.).

CM1022

CM1022.The modeled gravity was interpolated from observed gravity values.

CM1022

CM1022; North East Units Estimated Accuracy

CM1022;SPC AL E - 216,900. 259,260. MT (+/- 180 meters Scaled)

CM1022

CM1022 SUPERSEDED SURVEY CONTROL

CM1022

CM1022 NGVD 29 (??/??/92) 126.363 (m) 414.58 (f) ADJ UNCH 2 0

CM1022

CM1022.Superseded values are not recommended for survey control.

CM1022.NGS no longer adjusts projects to the NAD 27 or NGVD 29 datums.

CM1022.See file dsdata.txt to determine how the superseded data were derived.

CM1022

CM1022_U.S. NATIONAL GRID SPATIAL ADDRESS: 16SFA688922(NAD 83)

CM1022_MARKER: DB = BENCH MARK DISK

CM1022_SETTING: 30 = SET IN A LIGHT STRUCTURE

CM1022_SP_SET: CULVERT

CM1022_STAMPING: B 379 1952

CM1022_STABILITY: D = MARK OF QUESTIONABLE OR UNKNOWN STABILITY

CM1022

CM1022 HISTORY - Date Condition Report By

CM1022 HISTORY - 1952 MONUMENTED CGS

CM1022 HISTORY - 20091116 DESTROYED NGS

CM1022

CM1022 STATION DESCRIPTION

CM1022

CM1022'DESCRIBED BY COAST AND GEODETIC SURVEY 1952

CM1022'0.4 MI W FROM CRAWFORD.

CM1022'ABOUT 0.45 MILE WEST ALONG U.S. HIGHWAY 80 FROM THE JUNCTION OF

CM1022'STATE HIGHWAY 169 AT CRAWFORD, ABOUT 0.55 MILE EAST OF A 50-FOOT

CM1022'BRIDGE OVER ISLAND CREEK, ABOUT 100 YARDS WEST OF A CHURCH WHICH

CM1022'IS ON NORTH SIDE OF HIGHWAY, IN THE TOP OF THE EAST END OF THE

CM1022'NORTH HEAD WALL OF AN 8-FOOT CONCRETE CULVERT WITH PARTITION, 28

CM1022'FEET NORTH OF CENTER LINE OF HIGHWAY, 1 FOOT WEST OF EAST END OF

CM1022'HEAD WALL AND ABOUT 3 FEET BELOW LEVEL OF HIGHWAY.

CM1022

CM1022 STATION RECOVERY (2009)

CM1022

CM1022'RECOVERY NOTE BY NATIONAL GEODETIC SURVEY 2009 (DRD)

CM1022'DISK HAS BEEN REMOVED.

Share this post


Link to post

All my recent attempts to email Deb have been kicked back as undeliverable.

Anyone else?

Just sent her an emailed on a destroyed station two days ago. No bounce-back for me?

Share this post


Link to post

Confirming: Deb's address is working okay.

 

I received an e-mail from Deb today, in which she mentioned receiving an earlier message from me. So, it looks like everything is the same as it has been in the past.

AZC probably is typing too fast for his old keyboard to handle, and it scrambles the address. [Grin.]

 

-Paul-

Edited by PFF

Share this post


Link to post

Confirming: Deb's address is working okay.

 

I received an e-mail from Deb today, in which she mentioned receiving an earlier message from me. So, it looks like everything is the same as it has been in the past.

AZC probably is typing too fast for his old keyboard to handle, and it scrambles the address. [Grin.]

 

-Paul-

Yup,. I heard form her too, and my destroyed reports I sent in are all now in place! :)

Share this post


Link to post

Just retrieve the datasheet and then log it with the NGS. Once it has been logged it will be re-listed in the active portion of their database.

 

Thanks John. I will do that.

 

Well. That didn't work. Or else they are still looking into it.

 

I submitted a dozen or so last month, including this one, and this is the only one that did not make it into the database.

 

Paul or PFF,

 

Could you possibly send me Deb's e-mail address through the geocaching Send Message function and I will see if she can fix this?

 

Thanks,

Share this post


Link to post

Nah, your report made it, it just didn't "un-destroy" it. I thought it wouldn't - I think ony submitting a report works when the reason it's non-pub is that it has no description specified..

 

 CM1022                          STATION RECOVERY (2011)
CM1022
CM1022'RECOVERY NOTE BY GEOCACHING 2011 (KMB)
CM1022'FOUND NO INDICATION OF THIS MARK BEING MOVED FROM ITS MONUMENTED
CM1022'LOCATION.  IT WAS FOUND AS DESCRIBED IN THE 1952 DESCRIPTION WITH THE
CM1022'FOLLOWING CHANGE, ADJUSTMENT AND ADDITION.
CM1022' 
CM1022'THE MARK IS ABOUT 100 YARDS WEST FROM THE GREATER ST. JOHN BAPTIST
CM1022'CHURCH WHICH IS ON THE SOUTH (OPPOSITE) SIDE OF HIGHWAY 8, AND ABOUT
CM1022'75 YARDS WESTWARD ALONG HIGHWAY 8 FROM A DRIVEWAY SOUTH TO THE CHURCH.
CM1022' 
CM1022'THE MARK IS 0.8 FEET WEST OF THE EAST END OF THE HEADWALL.
CM1022'THE MARK IS 8.8 FEET WEST-NORTHWEST OF A METAL POST WITH A SMALL
CM1022'YELLOW REFLECTOR.
CM1022' 
CM1022'HH2 COORDINATES FOR THIS MARK = N 32 27 16.80, W 85 12 10.26
CM1022' 

Share this post


Link to post

Nah, your report made it, it just didn't "un-destroy" it. I thought it wouldn't - I think only submitting a report works when the reason it's non-pub is that it has no description specified..

 

Good point Mike - Thank you! I guess I should have used the "other" method to look up the datasheet.

 

Now I have to attempt to get it undestroyed. The process through which this was mistakenly marked as destroyed is very clear.

 

Is the e-mail that you are using for Deb the same one that is on the NGS "Mark Recovery Entry" submission page?

 

Thanks,

Share this post


Link to post

Nah, your report made it, it just didn't "un-destroy" it. I thought it wouldn't - I think only submitting a report works when the reason it's non-pub is that it has no description specified..

 

Good point Mike - Thank you! I guess I should have used the "other" method to look up the datasheet.

 

Now I have to attempt to get it undestroyed. The process through which this was mistakenly marked as destroyed is very clear.

 

Is the e-mail that you are using for Deb the same one that is on the NGS "Mark Recovery Entry" submission page?

 

Thanks,

It's good to know. I wasn't 100% sure - I thought that because I believe that in the past I 'accidently' submitted a report for a destroyed station, and when I couldn't find my notes on the station I MEANT to log it, I eventually found it on the destroyed mark. :D

 

I'm really not sure the status differences between a 'destroyed' and a 'non publishable' station, however. If I look around my office, there are two stations that are "Presumed Destroyed". They appear on a query, but do *NOT* appear when querying for "destroyed" stations only. So there's SOME kind of difference, I just dunno what. ???

Share this post


Link to post

My take:

"Presumed destroyed" is a recovery note, not a status.

 

Active, destroyed, and unpublished are various statuses that affect whether they appear in the searches and whether you can get any kind of data sheet at all.

 

Unpublished means there is not accurate data to put on a data sheet. Destroyed means it was good at one time but the evidence shows it is no longer there. This distinction may be useful for relating the position to other positions. The NGS keeps all the old observation data and re-uses it when they do a readjustment, so they might include the data for destroyed stations but never unpublished ones.

Share this post


Link to post
"Presumed destroyed" is a recovery note, not a status.

Sorry, I should have been more clear. If you look here, this is the 'status' I'm meaning:

 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Pid    Name                           Lat        Lon        Elev      O o Hv
 ------ ----------------------------- ---------- ----------- --------- - - --
>HV3986 RV 47                         38 59 21. /077 01 36.    103.988   1 DZ
>HV3986 RV 47                         38 59 21. /077 01 36.     104.     1 NN

And the list of letters, specifically the 'Z' above:

 -       X        Surface mark reported destroyed                            -
-       Y        Surface and underground mark reported destroyed            -
-       Z        Presumed destroyed                                         -

When we submit destroyed reports to Deb, they get flagged with an 'X'. These stations DO appear when you do a search limiter to 'Only Include Destroyed Marks'. However, if a station is non-pub, either because of the 'Z' status, or the 'D' status, they will *NOT* appear under 'Only Include Destroyed Marks'.

 

Er, sorry, I'm straying off-topic. What all I meant to say is this - I've only been able to zombify(*) a mark that's had a 'D' code for it's non-pub, not an 'X'.

 

(*)- Zombify. Bring back from the dead.

 

Me. :D

 

[[Edit: The reason I strayed off-topic is because I'm discussing these exact issue with someone at NGS right now, for my Android app. Because asking for "Destroyed" marks is NOT the same as asking for "Non-Pub" marks, which limits my ability to filter out non-pub marks from being displayed on my App's map.]]

Edited by foxtrot_xray

Share this post


Link to post

Yesterday, while finishing up a multiple day project along a neat 1935 level line about 16.8 miles 'S FROM MOUTH OF DETRITAL WASH. 6.9 MILES SOUTH ALONG DETRITAL WASH FROM THE SOUTH SHORE OF LAKE MEAD', I chanced to see

 

NONPUB FS 0967 K 119 1935

186f895e-dfb7-494b-8e53-157e2b777170.jpg

 

in perfect condition with someones somewhat recent flagging. (photos are scabbed onto J 119 under the power line in the distance)

4eeb0b92-e45b-4067-8cc8-ccb879f95c12.jpg

 

DSWORLD had not pinned it on GE, but it popped up as non-published with a DS radial search.

 

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

Pid Name Lat Lon Elev O o Hv

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

>FS0967 K 119 35 51 00. /114 30 11. 620.882 3 DZ

 

D No descriptive text available

Z Presumed destroyed

 

Obviously it has not been DESTROYED, but I am wondering if I collected enough information to have it re-instated? It is 59.5 ft east of the road centerline on a nearly barren minor ridge top, HH2 L/L 355059.9 1143010.5 and elev 620 M (GE elev also 620 M) all correlate.

 

It would be a three or four hour backtrack after my upcoming return visit to Arizona Hot Springs to take more photos or measurements. Any suggestions of what would get this one back in the system will be appreciated.

 

kayakbird

 

PS. I did find three of the remaining four in the 1935 ALPHA 134 string on top the cliffs downstream of Hoover Dam.

Share this post


Link to post

All my recent attempts to email Deb have been kicked back as undeliverable.

Anyone else?

 

Just to follow-up here:

Although my ISP kicked-back my eMail, it seems the one destroyed mark and two incorrect county issues got mysteriously corrected. :huh:

I'm just glad the database is a little bit cleaner thanks to my effort. :)

Share this post


Link to post

Yesterday, while finishing up a multiple day project along a neat 1935 level line about 16.8 miles 'S FROM MOUTH OF DETRITAL WASH. 6.9 MILES SOUTH ALONG DETRITAL WASH FROM THE SOUTH SHORE OF LAKE MEAD', I chanced to see in perfect condition with someones somewhat recent flagging. (photos are scabbed onto J 119 under the power line in the distance)

 

DSWORLD had not pinned it on GE, but it popped up as non-published with a DS radial search.

 

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

Pid Name Lat Lon Elev O o Hv

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

>FS0967 K 119 35 51 00. /114 30 11. 620.882 3 DZ

 

D No descriptive text available

Z Presumed destroyed

 

Obviously it has not been DESTROYED, but I am wondering if I collected enough information to have it re-instated? It is 59.5 ft east of the road centerline on a nearly barren minor ridge top, HH2 L/L 355059.9 1143010.5 and elev 620 M (GE elev also 620 M) all correlate.

 

It would be a three or four hour backtrack after my upcoming return visit to Arizona Hot Springs to take more photos or measurements. Any suggestions of what would get this one back in the system will be appreciated.

 

kayakbird

 

PS. I did find three of the remaining four in the 1935 ALPHA 134 string on top the cliffs downstream of Hoover Dam.

 

In a case like this, if you take enough measurements, you can recover this from the dead - write a proper, full description and submit the recovery. The 'No Descriptive Text' as far as I understand it, just means that there's no items in the list. Once you submit a recovery, yours will be the first, and it will be revived.

 

I've had to do this a few times, actually, and it's kinda neat seeing your recovery as the *first*. :) But since it will be the first, make sure you write a good recovery. :)

 

--Me.

Edited by foxtrot_xray

Share this post


Link to post

 

In a case like this, if you take enough measurements, you can recover this from the dead - write a proper, full description and submit the recovery. The 'No Descriptive Text' as far as I understand it, just means that there's no items in the list. Once you submit a recovery, yours will be the first, and it will be revived.

 

I've had to do this a few times, actually, and it's kinda neat seeing your recovery as the *first*. :) But since it will be the first, make sure you write a good recovery. :)

 

--Me.

 

foxtrot_xray,

 

Thanks for the advice. Do you think that NGS would accept mapping program distances, or should I punch my trip meter at the center of the Hoover Bypass Bridge as I head east later this morning? (looks like 22 miles via GE path segments) Chances are that I will revisit the mark after several days kayak camping at AZ Hot Springs.

 

Can you give me an idea of just what measurements to take, the required accuracy and how much photo documentation is needed. Sounds like a fun project to keep me out of the snow zone for a couple more days - would welcome onsite assistance if any Bench Marker would like to rendezvous next week.

 

Interestingly, several of the marks back north towards the reservoir are marked with very fresh flagging and have been upgraded to HH1 status.

 

GR0428 DESIGNATION - P 120

 

GR0428* NAD 83(1986)- 36 01 15.76 (N) 114 28 12.21 (W) HD_HELD1

 

A NPS employee at Temple Bar did not know of any activity by their engineers.

 

Thanks, kayakbird

Share this post


Link to post

In a case like this, if you take enough measurements, you can recover this from the dead - write a proper, full description and submit the recovery. The 'No Descriptive Text' as far as I understand it, just means that there's no items in the list. Once you submit a recovery, yours will be the first, and it will be revived.

 

I've had to do this a few times, actually, and it's kinda neat seeing your recovery as the *first*. :) But since it will be the first, make sure you write a good recovery. :)

 

--Me.

 

foxtrot_xray,

 

Thanks for the advice. Do you think that NGS would accept mapping program distances, or should I punch my trip meter at the center of the Hoover Bypass Bridge as I head east later this morning? (looks like 22 miles via GE path segments) Chances are that I will revisit the mark after several days kayak camping at AZ Hot Springs.

 

Can you give me an idea of just what measurements to take, the required accuracy and how much photo documentation is needed. Sounds like a fun project to keep me out of the snow zone for a couple more days - would welcome onsite assistance if any Bench Marker would like to rendezvous next week.

 

Interestingly, several of the marks back north towards the reservoir are marked with very fresh flagging and have been upgraded to HH1 status.

 

GR0428 DESIGNATION - P 120

 

GR0428* NAD 83(1986)- 36 01 15.76 (N) 114 28 12.21 (W) HD_HELD1

 

A NPS employee at Temple Bar did not know of any activity by their engineers.

 

Thanks, kayakbird

Hey -

For a case like this, I would get odometer readings, and depending on the distance round to the nearest 'x'. Like, if it's a 10-mile drive or greater, I round to the nearest half-mile. For < 10 miles, I round to the nearest tenth. Under a mile, nearest two tenths, usually means I walk it and track it on my GPS. :)

 

For reference distances, the more the merrier - George L from NGS has posted here a couple times the 'requested' description format (I will try to dig up after I post this - I'm *positive* others here have bookmarked it as well..!) How I usually do it is longer distances first, then narrowing down. For a good example - especially in this case where you have other stations in the line - look at one of those and see how the initial descriptions were written up, and mimic it.

 

Everything else should pretty much be the same - photographs and such. :)

 

Of course, I'm NOT an expert, and I happily yield to others here who are. When I find a station like this (I think I have.. 4 or 5 to my name, now..) I just be sure to make my description as *complete* as possible, I follow the old format of "To Reach" directions on roads, and then the current location of the marker, from the telephone ole, curb, above/below ground, and then the status of the station ('Station is a CGS disk stamped X 342 1922') and then at the very end I'll put HH coords. (I, myself, normally don't take HH readings, I prefer the written description.. But in these cases I make an exception..!)

 

--Mike.

Share this post


Link to post

With regard to the fresh flagging, I remember hearing a couple years back that the NGS was looking for a contract surveyor to do a new level run in that area, I think to replace some work that was going to be destroyed by the rerouting of the highway onto the new bridge, so they may have tied that into this level run.

 

If you end up not going back, I think you could write an adequate description using the To Reach from J 119 and L 119. As for local ties, with your HH2 coordinates, distance from the road CL and the witness post would probably be enough.

Edited by southpawaz

Share this post


Link to post

 

If you end up not going back, ---

 

Thanks, Bobby,

 

I'm actually heading back there from the Willow Beach area as soon as I finish my coffee - partly because I noticed on GE that I missed Charlie in that 119 string.

 

"---replace some work that was going to be destroyed by the rerouting of the highway onto the new bridge---"

 

I don't think that they would have had to tie to marks that far north (14.6 air miles from the Temple Bar turnoff) of the new road project. I think that I have now recovered GOOD about a dozen 1930's Bench Marks between the Willow Beach turn off and the new bridge. This includes several BPR's along the old road segment that is still open north west of the Willow Breach road (were I'm parked right now after scab camping last night.

 

I'll e-mail you the numbers that I come up with today - including a double occupancy of B 119 (a S.sssss station) as I go past it to get C 119.

 

kayakbird

Share this post


Link to post

Post #1 in this thread:

 

I found a mark that is listed as destroyed (“Surface mark reported destroyed”) in the NGS database. However, I found it in good condition in its monumented location. It appears that the mark was confused with a genuinely destroyed mark that is about a mile away.

 

How can I get the mark “un-destroyed”?

 

It took awhile, but this one did get updated. MEL

 

CM1022 HISTORY - Date Condition Report By

CM1022 HISTORY - 1952 MONUMENTED CGS

CM1022 HISTORY - 20091116 DESTROYED NGS

CM1022 HISTORY - 20110912 GOOD GEOCAC

 

CM1022'RECOVERY NOTE BY GEOCACHING 2011 (KMB)

CM1022'FOUND NO INDICATION OF THIS MARK BEING MOVED FROM ITS MONUMENTED

CM1022'LOCATION. IT WAS FOUND AS DESCRIBED IN THE 1952 DESCRIPTION WITH THE

CM1022'FOLLOWING CHANGE, ADJUSTMENT AND ADDITION.

CM1022

Share this post


Link to post

Post #1 in this thread:

 

I found a mark that is listed as destroyed (“Surface mark reported destroyed”) in the NGS database. However, I found it in good condition in its monumented location. It appears that the mark was confused with a genuinely destroyed mark that is about a mile away.

 

How can I get the mark “un-destroyed”?

 

It took awhile, but this one did get updated. MEL

 

CM1022 HISTORY - Date Condition Report By

CM1022 HISTORY - 1952 MONUMENTED CGS

CM1022 HISTORY - 20091116 DESTROYED NGS

CM1022 HISTORY - 20110912 GOOD GEOCAC

 

CM1022'RECOVERY NOTE BY GEOCACHING 2011 (KMB)

CM1022'FOUND NO INDICATION OF THIS MARK BEING MOVED FROM ITS MONUMENTED

CM1022'LOCATION. IT WAS FOUND AS DESCRIBED IN THE 1952 DESCRIPTION WITH THE

CM1022'FOLLOWING CHANGE, ADJUSTMENT AND ADDITION.

CM1022

 

Recovery report is there in the datasheet, but it's still flagged as destroyed.

Share this post


Link to post

I found a mark that is listed as destroyed (“Surface mark reported destroyed”) in the NGS database. However, I found it in good condition in its monumented location. It appears that the mark was confused with a genuinely destroyed mark that is about a mile away.

 

How can I get the mark “un-destroyed”?

 

It took awhile, but this one did get updated. MEL

 

Recovery report is there in the datasheet, but it's still flagged as destroyed.

 

Thanks for alerting me to this kayakbird. I sent Deb an e-mail a few months ago informing her of the situation for CM1022.

 

But, darn it, Edrick is correct, this is still a “destroyed” datasheet. I am confused.

Share this post


Link to post

I found a mark that is listed as destroyed (“Surface mark reported destroyed”) in the NGS database. However, I found it in good condition in its monumented location. It appears that the mark was confused with a genuinely destroyed mark that is about a mile away.

 

How can I get the mark “un-destroyed”?

 

It took awhile, but this one did get updated. MEL

 

Recovery report is there in the datasheet, but it's still flagged as destroyed.

 

Thanks for alerting me to this kayakbird. I sent Deb an e-mail a few months ago informing her of the situation for CM1022.

 

But, darn it, Edrick is correct, this is still a “destroyed” datasheet. I am confused.

 

As far as I understand - you can still ADD logs to non-publishable datasheets. Doing so does NOT make them suddenly become publishable(*) - so you just added a log. Deb or another NGS folk would have to remove the 'destroyed' flag from the datasheet to get it to appear again. (How do I know this? I once submitted a recovery to the wrong station. Took me forever to find it, and when I did I facepalmed.)

 

(*) The only non-pub status I know you can reverse is the 'D' one - no descriptive text available. As soon as you submit a recovery, that flag disappears.)

 

--Me.

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

×