September statistics

[holograph]

The September statistics are available on the statistics page. The maps and counts by county have been updated also.

 

There were 861 datasheets updated with new GEOCAC recovery logs. The most recent recovery added to the datasheets as of October 6 was September 17.

 

Please note that due to changes at the NGS site, it is impossible to capture the most recent datasheets for all states. The statistics are now based on the archived datasheets. Some states may be more than a month out of date. Even if you see your recovery report in the online datasheet, the NGS archived datasheets may still be out of date (see the NGS archive). If your state's archive is dated more recently than October 6, then it was not included in these statistics. If your state's archive is dated older than the date on which you first saw your report appear online, then the NGS archive is simply out of date.

 

Yes, it's messy. There is nothing I can do about it. In short, if you think your reports have not been counted, wait until you are sure the archive has been updated before complaining about it. Better yet, download the archive yourself and examine the datasheet to see if it contains your report.

 

[+billwallace]

Go Arizona!!

[AZcachemeister]

Go Arizona!!

 

Indeed!

I'm just baffled as to why all the southern US isn't colored in just the same?

I assume the high numbers are due to (relatively) good year-round weather and a general lack of vegetation cover, but is there more to it?

Certainly the general terrain, weather, and vegetation are similar in New Mexico at least...?

[+Harry Dolphin]

Curious, by I don't want to add to your problems... I thought that I had 26 logs in Sullivan County, New York? Now, it's only showing 25. Not enough to change the color. I can go looking for another, I guess. Just curious if one has been delted?

[kayakbird]

Go Arizona!!

 

but is there more to it?

 

 

If we are talking just any old color I agree that every county should have one GEOCAC recovered mark. I have generally tried for at least six in the white counties that I have targeted.

 

Getting to the brighter colors is very dependent on the size of the counties and overall potential for more marks. Ran some numbers on all the A's and a few others and came up with an average percentage of marks required to color a county red (factored out all with <100 Total Pids):

 

AR = 62.8%, many <200 counties

AL = 48.5

MT = 44.1

NM = 28.7

CA = 20.0

AK = 17.0

AZ = 9.9, twelve of 15 counties have more than 650 PID's

 

kayakbird

Edited October 8, 2012 by kayakbird

[kayakbird]

 

--- Just curious if one has been delted? ---

 

 

You might want to check to see if one of those is now a ' NONPUB '.

 

I just recovered one as GOOD that had been on the books for a long, long time and it is now NONPUB!

 

DDMMSS.58512(N) DDDMMSS.56644(W) ADJUSTED

5144.5 (feet) VERTCON

 

HISTORY - UNK MONUMENTED

HISTORY - 1951 GOOD USGS

 

PID/NAME info deleted on purpose - MEL

[holograph]

Curious, by I don't want to add to your problems... I thought that I had 26 logs in Sullivan County, New York? Now, it's only showing 25. Not enough to change the color. I can go looking for another, I guess. Just curious if one has been delted?

 

LY2291, which you recovered as NOT FOUND in 2008, has been removed.

 

edit: Just a note, the archives at this page still include LY2291 from September 2008, because my archive is updated by merging, not complete replacement. So datasheets that have been deleted recently may still be available in my archive, even though they are not available online at the NGS site. Unfortunately, as a result of the changes that made, the statistics are now obtained from the NGS archive, not my own, so the deleted stations are no longer counted.

 

Here was your recovery report:

LY2291 STATION RECOVERY (2008)

LY2291

LY2291'RECOVERY NOTE BY GEOCACHING 2008 (PR)

LY2291'BRIDGE HAS BEEN REBUILT. NEW DISK RESET BY NEW YORK DEPT OF

LY2291'TRANSPORTATION MARKED G 449 1982 RESET 1999.

Edited October 8, 2012 by holograph

[+shorbird]

Good to see the updated maps and county totals. We'll all have to adjust to the situation with the archived files. I think that we're all thankful that you have taken it upon yourself to summarize our activity with such colorful maps and with totals which are as current as possible. Cheers!

[+Harry Dolphin]

Curious, by I don't want to add to your problems... I thought that I had 26 logs in Sullivan County, New York? Now, it's only showing 25. Not enough to change the color. I can go looking for another, I guess. Just curious if one has been delted?

 

LY2291, which you recovered as NOT FOUND in 2008, has been removed.

 

edit: Just a note, the archives at this page still include LY2291 from September 2008, because my archive is updated by merging, not complete replacement. So datasheets that have been deleted recently may still be available in my archive, even though they are not available online at the NGS site. Unfortunately, as a result of the changes that made, the statistics are now obtained from the NGS archive, not my own, so the deleted stations are no longer counted.

 

Here was your recovery report:

LY2291 STATION RECOVERY (2008)

LY2291

LY2291'RECOVERY NOTE BY GEOCACHING 2008 (PR)

LY2291'BRIDGE HAS BEEN REBUILT. NEW DISK RESET BY NEW YORK DEPT OF

LY2291'TRANSPORTATION MARKED G 449 1982 RESET 1999.

 

I guess that that will teach me about telling the truth!

I worked long and hard to color in Sullivan County! Guess I'll have to look for another, when I get the opportunity.

Thanks for your help, and your work to keep the statistics up to date,

[+Ashallond]

holo, what's the PID on the JMA unknown mark?

 

Remember I was going to change my initials to that letter set since the county where Geonist has done all of his marks is somewhere I would never go. I just wanted to see if that was one of mine.

[holograph]

holo, what's the PID on the JMA unknown mark?

 

Remember I was going to change my initials to that letter set since the county where Geonist has done all of his marks is somewhere I would never go. I just wanted to see if that was one of mine.

It looks like it is MD0892, in Whitley County, Indiana.

[+Ashallond]

Looks like that one is Genoist, and not me. The date on the datasheet matches the date on the GC page.

 

I was hoping it was me...my GSAK database and my GC account are one BM off...and I can't find it.

[ArtMan]

I'm not at all sure what the workflow is like at NGS, but I'm finding that photos often show up on the datasheet before the recovery reports do.

 

For example, my recovery of DF7916 (reported October 9) and JC0020 (October 12) are not yet reflected in the datasheets, but photos I submitted are linked to the datasheet.

 

-ArtMan-

[+shorbird]

I'm not at all sure what the workflow is like at NGS, but I'm finding that photos often show up on the datasheet before the recovery reports do.

 

For example, my recovery of DF7916 (reported October 9) and JC0020 (October 12) are not yet reflected in the datasheets, but photos I submitted are linked to the datasheet.

 

-ArtMan-

 

I have noticed the same thing as ArtMan about the pictures showing up on datasheets before recovery reports.

[+LSUFan]

I'm not at all sure what the workflow is like at NGS, but I'm finding that photos often show up on the datasheet before the recovery reports do.

 

For example, my recovery of DF7916 (reported October 9) and JC0020 (October 12) are not yet reflected in the datasheets, but photos I submitted are linked to the datasheet.

 

-ArtMan-

 

I have noticed the same thing as ArtMan about the pictures showing up on datasheets before recovery reports.

 

Are you using DSWorld to submit your photos? If so, Malcolm (the author of DSWorld) told me awhile back that he was the one who personally uploaded those pics to the datasheets, but the recovery reports (even if submitted thru DSWorld) are handled by others at NGS......so you have two different people/departments that upload the pics and updated recovery reports.

Edited November 7, 2012 by LSUFan