How long until someone logs this destroyed BM as Found it!?

[+elrojo14]

I was in Anaheim this weekend and I saw that the Big A Scoreboard at Anaheim Stadium was a landmark! Well today when I went to log it, I could clearly tell it was no longer at the correct location and should have never been logged as found. As us true die hard benchmarkers know, this doesn't discourage people from logging it as Found It! anyway. So now I ask the question, how long until someone comes along, reads my log, and marks it as found anyway?

 

ANAHEIM BIG A SCOREBOARD LT

Edited January 20, 2022 by elrojo14
spelling

[+Michaelcycle]

Well, it will still be a landmark...

[+elrojo14]

This seems pretty clear.

 

Quote

• "Destroyed" means that you know that the benchmark cannot be in its original location because the structure it was on is gone. Don't log as destroyed unless you are absolutely 100% sure. If there is any doubt at all, it's best to refrain from using this option and let someone else have a chance at finding it. Remember, you can always seek advice from more experienced hunters by posting a message, which may enable you to increase your chances of success!

• What do the choices "Found It", "Didn't Find It", "Destroyed", and "Post a Note" mean?

[+dprovan]

I've always assumed that people posting finds after destroys don't see the destroy log. I've seen this a couple times. HS5122 (MOUNT DIABLO AVIATION BEACON) comes to mind. The beacon was moved 80 years ago so no longer functions as the original 1935 mark. But since it's locally famous, people log it all the time. The logs make it clear they're just BM tourists and would never even think of the possibility of looking at past logs -- or even the last log, for that matter -- to see the two destroys logged on it, each explaining clearly why the current location of the beacon can't possibly be the benchmark described.

 

In the case of HS5122, the answer to your question is that after the 2014 destroy, a find was logged 4 months later, and after the 2008 destroy log, it was 9 months later. In both cases, this looks like a little less than the prevailing rates. I think that a few people might notice the destroy log and skip logging the find, but eventually someone doesn't notice the destroy and logs, anyway. Then after the destroy is no longer the last log, the rates go back to normal. I'm not convinced anyone reads the destroy log, shrugs, and logs their find, anyway.

[Z15]

NGS Guideline

https://www.ngs.noaa.gov/surveys/mark-recovery/mark-descriptions-help.shtml#condition

 

DESTROYED;   Irrefutable evidence of destruction. Absent such first-hand evidence, report as "not found"

NOT FOUND:  Existence doubtful; recovery un-likely without extraordinary effort.

POOR:   Damage or movement excessive for the designated stability &/or accuracy

GOOD: No evidence of tampering, subsidence, frost heave, etc. It is likely where it was when first observed.

 

Irrefutable - impossible to deny or disprove.

---

Edited May 31, 2019 by Z15

[+elrojo14]

On 5/28/2019 at 2:30 PM, dprovan said:

I've always assumed that people posting finds after destroys don't see the destroy log. I've seen this a couple times. HS5122 (MOUNT DIABLO AVIATION BEACON) comes to mind. The beacon was moved 80 years ago so no longer functions as the original 1935 mark. But since it's locally famous, people log it all the time. The logs make it clear they're just BM tourists and would never even think of the possibility of looking at past logs -- or even the last log, for that matter -- to see the two destroys logged on it, each explaining clearly why the current location of the beacon can't possibly be the benchmark described.

 

In the case of HS5122, the answer to your question is that after the 2014 destroy, a find was logged 4 months later, and after the 2008 destroy log, it was 9 months later. In both cases, this looks like a little less than the prevailing rates. I think that a few people might notice the destroy log and skip logging the find, but eventually someone doesn't notice the destroy and logs, anyway. Then after the destroy is no longer the last log, the rates go back to normal. I'm not convinced anyone reads the destroy log, shrugs, and logs their find, anyway.

I read the logs!!! Though that is kind of my point. Most people don't and most people just want to log a find whether it is accurate or not. However, that is what makes this game so great. It is what you make it and not really so much about how others play the game. 

[+dprovan]

31 minutes ago, elrojo14 said:

I read the logs!!!

Me, too! That's how I noticed the 2008 destroy pages and pages back in the HS5122 log when I was about to log yet another bogus find on it in 2014.

 

32 minutes ago, elrojo14 said:

Though that is kind of my point. Most people don't and most people just want to log a find whether it is accurate or not.

Yeah, most people don't even look at the past logs, and even many that do might not really understand the issues discussed in a destroy log. What I was saying, though, is that I don't think that many people intentionally log it when they know the find is not accurate. (Although the benchmark I mentioned, HS5122, is a bad example since the aviation beacon is a bit of a geocaching tourist attraction. It wouldn't surprise me if its fame leads some people to log it even after reading all about how the beacon isn't where the BM was.)

 

34 minutes ago, elrojo14 said:

However, that is what makes this game so great. It is what you make it and not really so much about how others play the game. 

For sure. I don't mind people logging missing BMs, I just feel kinda sorry for them because I know they're making a mistake that I suspect a lot of them would be embarrassed about if they knew it.

 

[+BenchmarkHunter]

I've sometimes used "Not Found" to mean "likely still there, but you're not going to see it." Example - paved over in a parking lot, where it's obvious that a new layer of blacktop was put over the old, rather than excavating the old surface (which would have made the mark "Destroyed"). I'm very cautious about "destroyed" reports because those could well discourage anyone from looking for the mark in the future. Just because I didn't find it doesn't mean that it's destroyed, unless, as stated, there's irrefutable evidence that the mark is gone. If there's any evidence of the mark, it's definite not "destroyed" and not "Not Found." I use "Fair" for a mark that's identifiable, but severely battered, or gooped over with layers of paint obscuring the markings (except where someone scratched out the stampings), etc. For me, "Poor" would be things like - a diskless stem, or a mark severely leaning and accuracy compromised. I always research a little about "Not Found" reports because it's not unusual, even on an NGS datasheet, to see several "Not Found" reports followed by a recovery. That said, it's a common mistake to mark something like a water tank as recovered, when the tank is clearly not the one described on the datasheet. Another mistake is when a benchmark is reset, often because the original mark has been destroyed (though the original could still exist, perhaps disturbed), and someone didn't look at the full description or the complete stampings.

[foxtrot_xray]

On 8/17/2019 at 5:14 PM, BenchmarkHunter said:

If there's any evidence of the mark, it's definite not "destroyed" and not "Not Found."

 

This, I believe is incorrect. Based on past conversations with Deb, years ago, on vertical control marks (true 'bench marks'), if the disk is ripped off, but the mounting location and/or stem still remain, it is destroyed. Horizontal control marks - especially those with underground marks - are not destroyed.

[Bill93]

I have some disagreement with the NGS on diskless stems. I reported a remaining stem from a vertically mounted disk as POOR and they changed it to NF. There was no doubt of the identity and could have given the original elevation within 3 mm, which is good enough to be useful for most non-geodetic purposes.

 

Even a regular horizontally mounted disk that is gone leaving a stem could serve as a check within a cm.

[+dprovan]

On 8/17/2019 at 2:14 PM, BenchmarkHunter said:

I've sometimes used "Not Found" to mean "likely still there, but you're not going to see it."

Speaking as a casual BM seeker, this is what I expect. When I remember, I read the log to see how serious the DNF is. Sometimes a DNF is just someone that didn't really figure out where to look. I won't do that if I have serious doubts about where I should have been looking, but I might log a DNF with lesser cause than a complete "you aren't going to see it". For example, a few disks I've looked for were probably since in place and could have been uncovered with a little digging to expose concrete that had been covered by erosion over the years. If I don't do the digging, I didn't find it so I'll log a DNF, but that doesn't mean someone with better tools couldn't get a little more serious.

 

Once in a while, I use destroyed for structures that are clearly gone, but only after I'm absolutely convinced where the building was and that it's no longer there. For actual disks, I've only marked one destroyed, and that was because I was looking at the uprooted cement cylinder with the disk still in it laying on the ground nearby where the construction people redoing the street had dumped it.

[+elrojo14]

Glad to have revisited this topic and no one has logged it since!!! 

Here is another one I just logged this morning (though I found it in July, I am that far behind on uploading photos). Let's see if it gets logged again. I do enjoy doing the research on these to prove they were destroyed. 

 

https://www.geocaching.com/mark/details.aspx?PID=HU1373

[+elrojo14]

I like that the very first log on this one was a DNF and was 100% correct that it was gone. Then everyone marked it as found for years! 

 

https://www.geocaching.com/mark/details.aspx?PID=SY4001

[+elrojo14]

Here is one that even Power Squadron incorrectly logged as present in 1990. Weak.

https://www.geocaching.com/mark/details.aspx?PID=TZ0048

[+Michaelcycle]

elrojo14:

 

Since you are revising this topic I must point this out from the "to err is human" department. Please go back and re-read the first sentence of your opening post. Then re-read my reply. I never responded to your reply because it was evident you missed the obvious. So here is a second chance to get the joke and enjoy a self-reflective smile.

[foxtrot_xray]

40 minutes ago, Michaelcycle said:

elrojo14:

 

Since you are revising this topic I must point this out from the "to err is human" department. Please go back and re-read the first sentence of your opening post. Then re-read my reply. I never responded to your reply because it was evident you missed the obvious. So here is a second chance to get the joke and enjoy a self-reflective smile.

Regardless of the joke or not, his main point is still valid.

A landmark station, if moved, is technically destroyed. And people logging it as 'good' are 'in err'.

[+elrojo14]

6 hours ago, Michaelcycle said:

elrojo14:

 

Since you are revising this topic I must point this out from the "to err is human" department. Please go back and re-read the first sentence of your opening post. Then re-read my reply. I never responded to your reply because it was evident you missed the obvious. So here is a second chance to get the joke and enjoy a self-reflective smile.

Yeah sorry, I still am not fully understanding your humor. What is the error? 

[kayakbird]

All,

 

The original post should have use 'benchmark' instead of' landmark'.

 

A landmark may be, or have an official NOAA benchmark (sometimes two words) associated with it.  Please save the snide comments for other social media.  MEL

 

From the 'net':  "

Semantics! "bench mark" associated with surveying can be referred to a permanent mark created at a recognized height which is used as the basis for measuring different altitude of topographical point.

 

 

2 : general semantics

3a : the meaning or relationship of meanings of a sign or set of signs especially : connotative meaning

b : the language used (as in advertising or political propaganda) to achieve a desired effect on an audience especially through the use of words with novel or dual meanings

 

 

noun

noun: landmark; plural noun: landmarks

1.

an object or feature of a landscape or town that is easily seen and recognized from a distance, especially one that enables someone to establish their location.

"the spire was once a landmark for ships sailing up the river"

"

[+elrojo14]

11 hours ago, kayakbird said:

All,

 

The original post should have use 'benchmark' instead of' landmark'.

 

A landmark may be, or have an official NOAA benchmark (sometimes two words) associated with it.  Please save the snide comments for other social media.  MEL

 

From the 'net':  "

Semantics! "bench mark" associated with surveying can be referred to a permanent mark created at a recognized height which is used as the basis for measuring different altitude of topographical point.

 

 

2 : general semantics

3a : the meaning or relationship of meanings of a sign or set of signs especially : connotative meaning

b : the language used (as in advertising or political propaganda) to achieve a desired effect on an audience especially through the use of words with novel or dual meanings

 

 

noun

noun: landmark; plural noun: landmarks

1.

an object or feature of a landscape or town that is easily seen and recognized from a distance, especially one that enables someone to establish their location.

"the spire was once a landmark for ships sailing up the river"

"

I thought that might be what this was in reference to, but that would actually be wrong. This challenge calls them benchmark landmarks and I was being specific about these landmarks being missing. I suppose if you wanted to be a little more technical you would actually call them intersection stations. I purposely called them landmarks hence me not understanding the attempt at a joke. 

 

Benchmark is actually incorrect all the way around. Here is an explanation of that. 

[+elrojo14]

Look at this one! It was gone and now it is back! I have heard you are not supposed to mark them as found when they are removed and put back, but then again, how would you know?

https://www.geocaching.com/mark/details.aspx?PID=MD1749

[kayakbird]

Oops! All,  I woke up in the middle of the night knowing that I had used the wrong term.  And I still Geocache PV05235 every chance I get, but do not recover to NOAA this best ever intersection station.  kayakbird

[kayakbird]

to edit above PID typo:  PV0523.  MEL

[foxtrot_xray]

The term 'landmark' was not entirely wrong to use, as per several NGS documents, this one, from the bluebook (https://www.ngs.noaa.gov/FGCS/BlueBook/pdf/horizontal.pdf) spells it out nicely:

Quote

Control Points:  A control point is a survey point whose geodetic position
is to be determined by the survey project, or whose position has been determined
in a previous survey.  Examples of a control point are (1) a monumented (or
otherwise permanently marked) triangulation, trilateration, traverse, or GPS
station; (2) a recoverable landmark (usually an intersection station) such as a
flagpole or church spire; [...]

Note (2) there.