OK to submit as POOR to indicate maintenance required?

[TillaMurphs]

QB0576 is over 100 years old and I would hate to see it end up as “destroyed”. Currently it appears to be stable. However, due to extensive erosion I believe it will not last much longer unless maintenance is performed. (pictures below)

 

Can I submit to the NGS as condition = POOR to alert that maintenance is required (even though the mark is currently OK)?

 

I would include text in the description to clarify the reason for the condition = POOR submission.

 

 

 

The NGS Mark Recovery submission sheet lists the POOR option as:

Poor, disturbed, mutilated, requires maintenance.

 

What do you think?

[ArtMan]

Very excellent mark. And a good question you raise.

 

Thanks, too, for the fine photos. It looks like NGS has already scraped some of your photos posted on Geocaching.com and added a link to their datasheet, so in a sense they already are on notice, sort of.

 

But as to whether to report this as POOR, I don't see any harm in it, provided you make clear in the text of your recovery report that the station is threatened, but remains usable for now.

 

I would question, however, whether any action would be taken as a result of a POOR recovery report.

 

For one, there is the bureaucratic question: this is a USGS station, so would a report to NGS — a totally separate agency within a different Cabinet department — even come to the attention of the U.S. Geological Survey? Maybe you should contact USGS directly.

 

Then there is the funding question: does either agency have any money to shore up a threatened bench mark? And where does this particular station stand in a queue of other threatened stations? Sadly, I would not be optimistic that this mark will survive very long into its second century.

 

-ArtMan-

[Z15]

NGS and USGS etc do not have the resources ($ and people) to travel all over to repair or replace marks. In each state they have a Geodetic Advisor who can delegate local resources to preserve the mark. I know when I was with the State DOT we often were asked to go check on a mark, relocate it or mark it so it does not get disturbed. While ou Survey section gladly did this, our higher ups did not want to authorize funds for this so we had the do it without asking or telling them.

 

So if you really are concerned, go to the NGS website and find the NGS State Advisor and contact him/her with your concerns. Be it a NGS, USGS or NOS mark, he will be concerned and might have someone in the area he can count on who can go there and assess the situation.

Edited May 15, 2012 by Z15

[Bill93]

If you push a probe diagonally into the ground near the base, you might find how much concrete or even pipe is under the surface.

 

If it does seem endangered, I might report it as good, note that it is threatened, and contact the advisor.

 

You might also hand the nearby land owner a copy of the NGS data sheet and give them a pitch as to why it is important that it be preserved, and that when they do any work around it they can't take it out and reset it "where it was".

[+EdrickV]

From what I have seen in datasheets, I would say good but threatened by erosion. One big question about this mark in particular is whether the elevation info in the datasheet is actually accurate or not, since it seems there was once a mix up in the datasheets.

[AZcachemeister]

The mark is either good, or not.

Nobody knows how long it will take this (or any other mark) to erode out. Perhaps it has been like that for the last 65 years?

 

Given the decreasing importance of passive marks, I don't think any agency is going to do anything to save it...as sad as that may be.

[southpawaz]

Given the decreasing importance of passive marks, I don't think any agency is going to do anything to save it...as sad as that may be.

 

Heh! I actually had cause to do a level run off of one today.

[+EdrickV]

On some of my benchmark hunts I've seen evidence that they have been used (ribbons tied to witness posts) in the not too distant past, so I know that, even if recovery reports aren't being submitted, they're still being used. And a lot of the marks in my main benchmark hunting areas (two different areas about 3 hours apart) are relatively recent. (1990 or newer.)

 

As far as the benchmark in this thread, I'd say the advice about talking to the state advisor and/or the landowner would be worth a try. I mean, what've you got to lose?

[TillaMurphs]

Given the decreasing importance of passive marks, I don't think any agency is going to do anything to save it...as sad as that may be.

 

Heh! I actually had cause to do a level run off of one today.

 

Great to know that they are still getting some love from someone other than us obsessive hobbyists!