Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1
DukeOfURL01

destroyed?

Recommended Posts

Do you consider this one destroyed? I was thinking about it because the concrete post (the disc is on top but not visible in this picture, but I have others if want them) is obviously not in the same horizontal position as when it was placed there, probably due to land sliding (the place is right next to a large agricultural canal that raises and lowers frequently)

 

KT0213-1.jpg

Share this post


Link to post

IMHO, if it has no underground mark (doesn't look like it would) then I would report it destroyed. However, if it has an underground mark, then I'd go for 'poor'. :)

 

..And now, back to work.

Share this post


Link to post

foxtrot is correct. If the station is an old triangulation station with an underground mark then it's horizontal position is preserved and therefore not destroyed. If's it's strictly a bench mark (vertical control only) then this mark is definitely destroyed.

Share this post


Link to post

Do you consider this one destroyed? I was thinking about it because the concrete post (the disc is on top but not visible in this picture, but I have others if want them) is obviously not in the same horizontal position as when it was placed there, probably due to land sliding (the place is right next to a large agricultural canal that raises and lowers frequently)

 

KT0213-1.jpg

 

Your find is in better condition than 1 of our finds today.

 

The concrete post of our find is definitely in good condition, except that it is clear out of the ground.

 

Anyone want a souvenir, just e-mail Deb for permission to retrieve the disk and we will be glad to show you where it is located!

 

GP0054 - P 49

 

Here is a good picture of it.

 

41f9307a-fcdd-4137-875e-2716aa00093b.jpg

 

A good day benchmarking 3 finds (with the last logs being N/F), 1 destroyed, 1 N/F, all of them set in 1934.

 

 

John

Share this post


Link to post

Do you consider this one destroyed? I was thinking about it because the concrete post (the disc is on top but not visible in this picture, but I have others if want them) is obviously not in the same horizontal position as when it was placed there, probably due to land sliding (the place is right next to a large agricultural canal that raises and lowers frequently)

 

KT0213-1.jpg

 

Your find is in better condition than 1 of our finds today.

 

The concrete post of our find is definitely in good condition, except that it is clear out of the ground.

 

Anyone want a souvenir, just e-mail Deb for permission to retrieve the disk and we will be glad to show you where it is located!

 

GP0054 - P 49

 

Here is a good picture of it.

 

41f9307a-fcdd-4137-875e-2716aa00093b.jpg

 

A good day benchmarking 3 finds (with the last logs being N/F), 1 destroyed, 1 N/F, all of them set in 1934.

 

 

John

 

I have too may as it is, but thanks for the offer. ;)

Share this post


Link to post

IMHO, if it has no underground mark (doesn't look like it would) then I would report it destroyed. However, if it has an underground mark, then I'd go for 'poor'. :)

 

If there is no underground marker then I would log this as "poor condition" because the disk is still there. Destroyed, to me, means that the marker and its host have been removed.

 

The concrete post of our find is definitely in good condition, except that it is clear out of the ground.

 

I would still log this as "poor condition".

Share this post


Link to post

I suppose from a geocaching point of view the disk is still there to be found.

 

For NGS or other surveyors' purposes it is more important is to describe what is there than to worry about classification. But when you do classify it, what is important is not the quality of the marker itself, but the quality of the position in space it is to mark. If the post has fallen over, the position is DESTROYED for all surveying purposes. (Again unless the horizontal position is still marked by an underground disk.)

Edited by Bill93

Share this post


Link to post

The only one I've had marked as destroyed by the NGS was KG0654. I submitted photos along with a recovery report describing the condition of the mark and they reported it as destroyed.

 

9c2d736d-0ed6-42db-8450-a987d03799dc.jpg

Edited by Rotareneg

Share this post


Link to post

The only one I've had marked as destroyed by the NGS was KG0654. I submitted photos along with a recovery report describing the condition of the mark and they reported it as destroyed.

 

9c2d736d-0ed6-42db-8450-a987d03799dc.jpg

Huh, and that looks like a triangulation station, too. Per Dave's comment after mine, it shoulda been poor. (Unless..

 

Edit: Nevermind, I just read the datasheet, and apparently it had no underground mark. So, that answers that..

Share this post


Link to post

 

Huh, and that looks like a triangulation station, too. Per Dave's comment after mine, it shoulda been poor. (Unless..

 

Edit: Nevermind, I just read the datasheet, and apparently it had no underground mark. So, that answers that..

 

Don't forget: they've got three categories of destroyed, X being surface mark only, Y being both surface and underground, and Z meaning presumed destroyed.

Share this post


Link to post

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...
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1

×
×
  • Create New...