+DukeOfURL01 Posted August 9, 2012 Share Posted August 9, 2012 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) Quote Link to comment
foxtrot_xray Posted August 9, 2012 Share Posted August 9, 2012 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. Quote Link to comment
AZcachemeister Posted August 10, 2012 Share Posted August 10, 2012 Per previous discussion on this issue it's 'POOR', since the disc and monument are still in place. Quote Link to comment
DaveD Posted August 27, 2012 Share Posted August 27, 2012 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. Quote Link to comment
2oldfarts (the rockhounders) Posted September 2, 2012 Share Posted September 2, 2012 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) 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. 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 Quote Link to comment
AZcachemeister Posted September 5, 2012 Share Posted September 5, 2012 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) 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. 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. Quote Link to comment
+Sagefox Posted September 14, 2012 Share Posted September 14, 2012 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". Quote Link to comment
Bill93 Posted September 19, 2012 Share Posted September 19, 2012 (edited) 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 September 19, 2012 by Bill93 Quote Link to comment
+Rotareneg Posted September 19, 2012 Share Posted September 19, 2012 (edited) 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. Edited September 19, 2012 by Rotareneg Quote Link to comment
foxtrot_xray Posted September 19, 2012 Share Posted September 19, 2012 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. 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.. Quote Link to comment
+Rotareneg Posted September 19, 2012 Share Posted September 19, 2012 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. Quote Link to comment
Recommended Posts
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.