Jump to content

Need Help With DS Language


pgrig

Recommended Posts

I am thinking about going after this mark and its RMs, but I have run into language about "normal" measurements that I have never seen before. It's at the end of the 3rd para. of the Station Description and immediately following. The mark is likely set in the surface of one of several adjacent former coast artillery gun positions. Can someone help me out?

-Paul

Link to comment

I am thinking about going after this mark and its RMs, but I have run into language about "normal" measurements that I have never seen before. It's at the end of the 3rd para. of the Station Description and immediately following. The mark is likely set in the surface of one of several adjacent former coast artillery gun positions. Can someone help me out?

-Paul

In this context, normal simply means perpendicular to. (ie. the shortest distance from the station to the linear feature being measured to.)

Link to comment

Thank you, guys. I sort of knew "normal" meant a right angle, but since there was no line to draw a right angle from, I was stumped. The "shortest distance" definition might be more helpful. I'll have to actually get to the site to see.

Paul, Maybe this will help. (I also put it on the GC Page)

165896a0-6795-41e6-adee-9c26bfdbcf68.jpg

 

When intersecting distances from a distinct point, like an RM, you would swing a tape from the RMs to see where the arcs of the record distances meet.

To intersect "normal" distances from a linear feature, such as the edge of the gun emplacement, you would offset the linear features by the record distances to see where those offset lines meet.

Edited by Holtie22
Link to comment

Dear Holtie22--

 

Once again, you have proved yourself to be a Patron Surveying Saint (PSS) of the Coast Defense geodetic mark-hunting community (or at least this one member of it!). When I get down there, this station should almost find itself, which is a good thing, since the Description suggests that even back in 1933 it was set in asphalt that had been poured over the gun battery(!).

 

Your work is a nice Christmas present for me.

 

Have yourself a merry one too!

 

-Paul

Link to comment

Paul,

 

I am jealous. Since your original post I have been looking at some photos of Fort Totten – I WANT TO GO!

 

A long tunnel and cool ruins to explore – AND a benchmark to find – you lucky dog. (Fort Totten looks similar to the remains of the old shore batteries that we have in Oregon at Fort Stevens (only we don’t have a tunnel).)

 

Can you roam freely at Fort Totten or do you have to be escorted around as part of a group?

 

Enjoy your trip. Please let us know how it turned out and bring back some photos.

Link to comment

TillaMurphs--

 

You're always welcome!

 

But you've got my curiosity up. The only "long tunnel" I know of is associated with the old mortar battery, and it hasn't been seen since the 1940s. True, I would like to explore it once again, but how could you know (unless you're channeling (pardon the pun) Coast Artillery)? The best history of the fort isn't on the web (I'm working on that), so I don't see how you could know....spooky.

 

I believe visitors to the fort (which is now a state park) can "roam (more or less) freely,"--in season--but I am in contact with the Park Rangers, since I want to explore the old "concrete batteries" (and the Fort Totten mark) which are somewhat deteriorated and, I believe, largely fenced off from general visitors.

 

-Paul

Link to comment

Cool. I have no idea what the "400--foot tunnel" is! From the photos, it seems to start near one of the old Endicott Period batteries, and might run from there to connect with the "old fort," otherwise known as the Water Battery, a Third System fortification located to the northeast of the Endicott main gun line. My friend the Park Ranger can likely tell me, but he's on detail to another facility until after Christmas. I will also ask people who know a lot more about Ft. Totten than I do. More news as it happens...

 

I'll also ask about an "Under Sound" tunnel towards Ft. Schuyler, but I would be very sceptical of that one. The waters between the two forts were used by the Army Engineers to test different underwater explosives for submarine mine systems in the period 1870-1895.

 

-Paul

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...