good vs poor? destroyed vs not found?

[+JL_HSTRE]

What classifies as poor condition for NGS:

The mark being painted over, but stamping still legible?

The mark being badly scratched up but stamping all still legible?

Only if the stamping on the mark is mostly/total illegible?

 

What other conditions have you found marks in that you feel should be logged as "Poor Condition"?

 

If part of the mark is found, but part is broken off is that "Poor Condition" or "Destroyed"?

 

If the mark was located on a building or bridge that has been entirely demolished, should it be logged as Destroyed or Not Found?

[TillaMurphs]

I will give this a shot. I am sure others can improve on my comments.

 

“Poor” would be a condition between “Good” and “Destroyed”.

 

“Good” means there is no evidence of tampering or movement.

 

“Destroyed” means there is absolutely positive evidence that a mark was destroyed (such as finding the disk separated from its setting). I can provide you with a few examples if you want.

 

"Poor" would be a find in between these two conditions – the NGS suggests that Poor is found with: “Damage or movement excessive for the designated stability and/or accuracy”. In the submission form it also mentions a mark that is “disturbed, mutilated, or requires maintenance”. However, I would think that as long as it was still solidly set in its original location that it could be cosmetically pretty well mutilated and still be “good”.

 

If the mark is scratched or painted over, with stamping that remains decipherable, I would record it as “Good” as long as it was still solid in its original location.

 

Of course, in my opinion, you need to be more careful in your condition description if you are reporting to the NGS (versus making a geocaching.com log).

 

For submitting to the NGS I would be extremely cautious about reported as “Destroyed. Actually, I don’t think I have ever submitted a “Destroyed” to the NGS (even though I have positive proof in a few cases). But that is just me.

[Bill93]

I agree with the previous post, but will emphasize: Good or Poor has almost nothing to do with cosmetics. It is how well the surveyed elevation or position can be determined from the disk.

 

If a disk is badly mutilated, but the elevation of the original high point of the disk (or for a horizontal position the position of the center dot) can be precisely determined, then it is still Good, but probably warrants a comment about the mutilation.

 

On the other hand, the most pristine disk in a post that is leaning badly is Poor.

[+EdrickV]

My personal opinion probably doesn't mean much, so I won't go by it. Here is a pic (taken by a Geocacher) of a mark that was recorded as poor in a recovery report by an individual contributor:

 

http://www.geocaching.com/mark/details.aspx?PID=AA5409

http://www.ngs.noaa.gov/cgi-bin/ds_mark.prl?PidBox=AA5409

[Bill93]

I'd also call it poor, not because of the lawnmower scrapes, but because a hit has moved the disk off center in its mounting.

[+EdrickV]

I have not been to that mark, and am no engineer, so I can't say for sure if it moved or if the concrete on one side just got worn away or something. (Freeze/thaw cycle maybe?) The recovery report that lists it as poor just mentions the top is damaged, not that it moved. Of course, I suppose "moving" it could be considered damaging it in the case of benchmark, but if the position was off I would have expected that to be noted in the recovery report. (As I've seen on another datasheet somewhere.)

[joegeodesist]

Here's how NGS defines condition:

• GOOD = an undisturbed mark. No evidence of tampering or movement (subsidence, frost heave, etc.)
  
• POOR = poor condition, a disturbed mark. Damage or movement excessive for the designated stability &/or accuracy.
  
• NOT FOUND = mark not found. Description insufficient or existance doubtful. Recovery unlikely without extraordinary effort.
  
• DESTROYED = mark found but destroyed. Irrefutable evidence of destruction. Absent such first-hand evidence, report as "not found"
  

[mloser]

I'd also call it poor, not because of the lawnmower scrapes, but because a hit has moved the disk off center in its mounting.

 

I agree with Bill. Even in the picture it is obvious that the disk has been shifted in the mounting by about 1/2 inch. For an adjusted point this is definitely a consideration. I am not a surveyor but I would think it might be usable for some work, depending on accuracy needed. The concrete monument, though much the worse for wear (and lawnmower blades I suspect) seems stable, so it isn't a factor in determining poor condition.

 

but if the position was off I would have expected that to be noted in the recovery report. (As I've seen on another datasheet somewhere.)

My guess is that both recent recoverers (is that even a word!?) are amateurs, like most us here, and may not have known enough to say that the disk was shifted in its mounting.

 

When I submit recoveries I try to think like a surveyor, assuming that what they want is the center point on the disk to be exactly where it should be, either the right elevation or horizontal position, and then try to determine if the disk is usable for that. I believe that more words are better than few if I am in doubt, so if all is not well I try to describe what I see so that a surveyor who is reading my recovery can make a determination about using the disk without having to travel to it. In this case I would have said something like "Monument is solid but disk has been damaged and has shifted by approximately 1/2 inch horizontally. It may be shifted vertically also. Center point is visible."

Edited November 2, 2011 by mloser

[Z15]

If the mark was located on a building or bridge that has been entirely demolished, should it be logged as Destroyed or Not Found?

 

Not Found

 

Re

 

SG0052 HISTORY - 19960717 MARK NOT FOUND NGS

 

SG0052 STATION RECOVERY (1996)

SG0052

SG0052'RECOVERY NOTE BY NATIONAL GEODETIC SURVEY 1996 (GAS)

SG0052'THE BUILDING HAS BEEN RAZED. ASSUMED DESTROYED.

 

Here an example of a mark not found but should be there as the building still is. We looked and looked for this same mark prior to NGS with same results.

 

SG0056 HISTORY - 19960709 MARK NOT FOUND NGS

SG0056

SG0056 STATION DESCRIPTION

SG0056

SG0056'DESCRIBED BY NATIONAL GEODETIC SURVEY 1934

SG0056'AT HANCOCK.

SG0056'AT HANCOCK, HOUGHTON COUNTY, IN THE SECTION OF THE CITY KNOWN AS

SG0056'RIPLEY, ON PORTAGE LAKE, AT THE HOUGHTON COUNTY ROAD COMMISSION BRICK

SG0056'OFFICE BUILDING, AT THE EXTREME SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE SANDSTONE

SG0056'WATER TABLE, AND ON THE CENTER OF THE BEVEL. A CHISELED CUT.

SG0056

SG0056 STATION RECOVERY (1996)

SG0056

SG0056'RECOVERY NOTE BY NATIONAL GEODETIC SURVEY 1996 (GAS)

SG0056'A THOROUGH SEARCH REVEALED NO EVIDENCE OF THE MARK.

Edited November 2, 2011 by Z15

[ArtMan]

Chiseled marks on sandstone after many decades of exposure to the elements can certainly be lost through erosion.

 

I am, like most here, a hobbyist. I am not an engineer or surveyor, but I rarely report a mark (to NGS, that is) as destroyed. If there is the least doubt, I'll report it as not found, and in my recovery report I'll explain why I think the station is 'lost' - that's the term I use, which I have seen numerous times in recovery reports that appear to have been filed by professionals.

 

Disks can often get beat up pretty bad. If it looks undisturbed, despite the cosmetic damage, and if it's pretty clear that this is the correct disk (not always easy if the stamping is gone), I'll report it as found/good. If it may be disturbed in such a way that its horizontal or vertical position may have been affected - whichever is relevant - then I'll report it as poor. In any event, it's important to document in your recovery report what you found. If I am pretty sure this is station FOO, but the stamping is illegible, my recovery report will say something like "station believed found four feet from fire hydrant as described, but disk is defaced and stamping is illegible. Datum point is visible."

 

If it's a judgment call, make a reasonable call, but explain what you found. My two cents, anyway.

 

-ArtMan-