+jeremyp Posted October 27, 2002 Share Posted October 27, 2002 There is a beta version of the trigpoint logging database at http://jeremyp.net/trigpoint/index.php The word "beta" is highly appropriate at the moment so please be gentle with it. To avoid logging test logs against real trigpoints, there is a test trigpoint in grid square ZZ which you can use to practice logging (note that one of the missing features is the ability to edit or delete logs). Please send suggestions and bug reports to tp-featureATjeremyp.net ------- jeremyp The second ten million caches were the worst too. http://www.jeremyp.net/geocaching Quote Link to comment
+Walker Dan Posted October 27, 2002 Share Posted October 27, 2002 I've been gentle so don't think I've wrecked anything unless you know different. Thought I knew where most of the trig points were around here, this tells me I don't I think it is definitely on the right track. Keep up the good work. Quote Link to comment
+jeremyp Posted October 27, 2002 Author Share Posted October 27, 2002 Just to make it clear, the database is the live one so people can log "finds" if they like. ------- jeremyp The second ten million caches were the worst too. http://www.jeremyp.net/geocaching Quote Link to comment
+The Northumbrian Posted October 27, 2002 Share Posted October 27, 2002 Hello Jeremy, I like your site and I also never knew that there were as many up and around the Tyne valley. when I logged one today, It didn't ask for the number on the plate , is this ok that I didn't put a number on, or should I go back and get the number?( but not tonight) Nige Quote Link to comment
adrianjohn Posted October 27, 2002 Share Posted October 27, 2002 Hi Jeremy jusy had a poke around on your site, at first I thought logging trigpoints might be a bit boring but on second thoughts I will give some of them a go. I already know of a few in TA and TF squares so I will go check them out and give things a test. Quote Link to comment
+paul.blitz Posted October 27, 2002 Share Posted October 27, 2002 "Hmmm, interesting idea" I thought... Then I thought to myself "I could use these figures as calibration points for my OziExplorer". The first 2 trig points were fine, but the third one (I forget which) seems to screw up the calibration. I'll try & dig out the "offender" and maybe we can check back & see what was giving me the problem. Hopefully you saw the feedback about the fact that you can set silly dates (eg well into the future, and well in the past). But I too didn't realise there were quite THAT many around..... Paul Team Blitz No, I gave YOU the car keys.... Quote Link to comment
+jeremyp Posted October 28, 2002 Author Share Posted October 28, 2002 quote:Originally posted by The Northumbrian:Hello Jeremy, I like your site and I also never knew that there were as many up and around the Tyne valley. when I logged one today, It didn't ask for the number on the plate , is this ok that I didn't put a number on, or should I go back and get the number?( but not tonight) Nige It didn't occur to me to ask people to collect the numbers on them. I might add a field so you can record it. ------- jeremyp The second ten million caches were the worst too. http://www.jeremyp.net/geocaching Quote Link to comment
+jeremyp Posted October 28, 2002 Author Share Posted October 28, 2002 quote:Then I thought to myself "I could use these figures as calibration points for my OziExplorer". The first 2 trig points were fine, but the third one (I forget which) seems to screw up the calibration. Be careful about using the published coordinates. The algorithm I used to convert the WGS84 coordinates to grid refs can introduce errors of up to about 5 metres. The WGS84 coordinates come from a speardsheet that was posted on this site. If the same algorithm was used to generate them from OSGB36 coords originally, then there could be an error of up to 10 metres in the grid refs. ------- jeremyp The second ten million caches were the worst too. http://www.jeremyp.net/geocaching Quote Link to comment
+The Gecko's Posted October 28, 2002 Share Posted October 28, 2002 Be careful about using the published coordinates. The algorithm I used to convert the WGS84 coordinates to grid refs can introduce errors of up to about 5 metres. The WGS84 coordinates come from a speardsheet that was posted on this site. If the same algorithm was used to generate them from OSGB36 coords originally, then there could be an error of up to 10 metres in the grid refs. ------- jeremyp The second ten million caches were the worst too. ]http://www.jeremyp.net/geocaching Just found my first trig point http://jeremyp.net/trigpoint/trigpoint.php?Trigpoint=UKTP2292 As Jeremy says they are no good for calibration. The one I found was 175ft which is about 56 metres from where it should have been. Dave Quote Link to comment
+Walker Dan Posted October 28, 2002 Share Posted October 28, 2002 Agree with the Northumbrian that the number on the trig point needs to be added to verify a log, however this would need to be sent somewhere and not shown on the log as then everyone would see it. A photo would then be the best confirmation of the log - show trig point and GPS and GPS and trig number. Quote Link to comment
+jeremyp Posted October 28, 2002 Author Share Posted October 28, 2002 quote: Just found my first trig point http://jeremyp.net/trigpoint/trigpoint.php?Trigpoint=UKTP2292 As Jeremy says they are no good for calibration. The one I found was 175ft which is about 56 metres from where it should have been. Dave Hmmm, I think an "actual location" field in the log would be useful too. ------- jeremyp The second ten million caches were the worst too. http://www.jeremyp.net/geocaching Quote Link to comment
+jeremyp Posted October 28, 2002 Author Share Posted October 28, 2002 quote:Originally posted by Walker Dan:Agree with the Northumbrian that the number on the trig point needs to be added to verify a log, however this would need to be sent somewhere and not shown on the log as then everyone would see it. A photo would then be the best confirmation of the log - show trig point and GPS and GPS and trig number. Good idea. Only one flaw: I don't actually have that information for any of the trigpoints except the one I visited to get the photograph. ------- jeremyp The second ten million caches were the worst too. http://www.jeremyp.net/geocaching Quote Link to comment
Moss Trooper Posted October 28, 2002 Share Posted October 28, 2002 Thing is.. who is the most accurate. he/she with the GPS or OS. I did do a cache an hight accordin to GPS was a meter out.. but as a GPS is only good fer 30 feet or so.. do we take the map as gospel or the gps.. Now as a 50,000 map is usually in 10 meter contours.. wots right.. 30 feet up down or 30 feet on de horizontal.. Dont worry bout moi.. just trying to confuse matters.. Keeps those south of the border on there toes Moss de Boss... Sorta Quote Link to comment
+Chris n Maria Posted October 29, 2002 Share Posted October 29, 2002 Looks like you have done a really nice job there Jeremy. The only thing I would like to add, so far ,is that on the list of Nearest Trigpoints a hyperlink to Streetmap would be handy so that we can quickly see where it is. Chris "We're not lost - we just don't know where we are" London & UK Geocaching Resources: http://www.sheps.clara.net Quote Link to comment
+jeremyp Posted October 29, 2002 Author Share Posted October 29, 2002 quote:Originally posted by Moss Trooper:Thing is.. who is the most accurate. he/she with the GPS or OS. Obviously the OS is more accurate, but I can't vouch for the positions on my page as being exactly where the OS says they are. Errors of up to 10 metres would not be at all surprising to me. However, this is only just within the limits of accuracy of many consumer GPS units, so I'm not worried. ------- jeremyp The second ten million caches were the worst too. http://www.jeremyp.net/geocaching Quote Link to comment
+Slytherin Posted October 29, 2002 Share Posted October 29, 2002 quote:Originally posted by jeremyp: However, this is only just within the limits of accuracy of many consumer GPS units, so I'm not worried. And well within the Hornet Error Circle. Seriously, if anyone can find a trig point because the co-ords are 10 metres off, then it's time for a trip to the opticians. Alex. Quote Link to comment
adrianjohn Posted October 29, 2002 Share Posted October 29, 2002 Just entered a few logs to the trigpoints site, my results seem to compare fairly well with the data on the site. How about others do yours fit well? Quote Link to comment
+jeremyp Posted October 29, 2002 Author Share Posted October 29, 2002 I've fixed a couple of fairly important bugs and tweaked the formatting of some elements. Details of what I did are in release 0.4. A question: Each trigpoint has a metal plate on the side with a number on it. Can anybody explain the significance of these numbers? Are they just a unique serial number or do they represent the position in some way? Can anybody point me towards a database of the said numbers? This is all preliminary to me adding them to the database. I'd like to know what I am doing ------- jeremyp The second ten million caches were the worst too. http://www.jeremyp.net/geocaching Quote Link to comment
+Chris n Maria Posted October 30, 2002 Share Posted October 30, 2002 quote:Originally posted by jeremyp:A question: Each trigpoint has a metal plate on the side with a number on it. Can anybody explain the significance of these numbers? Are they just a unique serial number or do they represent the position in some way? Can anybody point me towards a database of the said numbers? This is all preliminary to me adding them to the database. I'd like to know what I am doing have you taken a look at this page - some of the descriptions refer to a Number - not sure if they relate to the number on the side or not. Perhaps someone can see if they relate to one they know. It might be worth a chat with OutForTheHunt who seems to know lots of stuff about trig points even though they seem to be based in Alberta. Chris "We're not lost - we just don't know where we are" London & UK Geocaching Resources: http://www.sheps.clara.net Quote Link to comment
+The Northumbrian Posted October 30, 2002 Share Posted October 30, 2002 All the trig points that I have come acrossseem to have the letters S U on them , after registering last year with the Ordinance survey site and looking at the I.d. numbers on that site they are not the same, so I am a little confused with them. the latest trig point on the cache site for Long Horsley does not seem to exist I went over there yesterday and the co-ordinates I found were in someones lounge in the Village and the nearest one I could find was 3.5 miles to the south west in a field 400 meters north of Coat yards farm, the trig point Coat yards is mentioned on the OS site, But the way the rain came down , I thought I would leave it for better type of Rainy day Nige Quote Link to comment
+brandwood Posted October 30, 2002 Share Posted October 30, 2002 This trig point site looks good- well done. If all the suggested features are added it will be the bees knees. Take a look at The Angry Corrie, http://bubl.ac.uk/org/tacit/tac/ Scotlands Hillwalking Fanzine for some fascinating insights to trig bagging. The fanzine carries a regular feature on progress of baggers to trig-bag complete OS maps, for example. Not sure how the trig point plate reference number works, but would seem to be the best bet for proof of visit. (has a trig point been bagged if the number is not recorded?, maybe not according to TAC. Note that some trig points have disappeared under concrete, motorways and such like!, others are only accessible by boat and overnight stops. This will be an interesting game !!! One trig plate not on the list, sits in my study. It is a reproduction plate, made from an orgininal mould, presented to me by the Benchmarking Institute for services to benchmarking. Now theres another story and angle to benchmarking ! Brandwood The first was the easiest Quote Link to comment
+Chris n Maria Posted October 31, 2002 Share Posted October 31, 2002 Just a reminder, If you are looking for files containing all the UKTrig points you can find them here. Chris "We're not lost - we just don't know where we are" London & UK Geocaching Resources: http://www.sheps.clara.net Quote Link to comment
+The Gecko's Posted October 31, 2002 Share Posted October 31, 2002 quote:Just found my first trig point http://jeremyp.net/trigpoint/trigpoint.php?Trigpoint=UKTP2292 As Jeremy says they are no good for calibration. The one I found was 175ft which is about 56 metres from where it should have been. Dave This is really spooky, must be `cause it's Halloween. As I said above I was looking for this trig point and found it 56 metres away. However I have just download Chris n Marias csv file for Autoroute (thanks Chris and Maria, very, very useful) and I find that there is a trig point 51.5 meters away from the one I found, so I have several questions. 1. Why would we have two trig points so close together *possible answer below* 2. How can we tell if we are logging the correct trig point if they can be so close and errors are known to be "built in" 3. Is it possible to edit/delete a log of a trig point as I now need to edit my entry? The first trig point the one I was looking for is http://jeremyp.net/trigpoint/trigpoint.php?Trigpoint=UKTP2292 and the second which I actually found is http://jeremyp.net/trigpoint/trigpoint.php?Trigpoint=UKTP5823 Any comments anyone? Dave *A housing estate was built in this area approx 35 yrs ago UKTP2292 would now be in someones garden and would not have line of sight of more than 10 metres, therefore perhaps a new point was established UKTP5823?* Quote Link to comment
+The Gecko's Posted October 31, 2002 Share Posted October 31, 2002 Sorry to follow up my own post but I have just checked the OS map. This only shows one trig point, the one I have found. I therefore suspect that the point I was looking for is no more. Dave Quote Link to comment
+GAZ Posted October 31, 2002 Share Posted October 31, 2002 I did a Northumbrian cache recently, and the numbers on the trig point close-by was 4106...met a guy on the way down and he said it was 410.6m above sea level.....don't know if thats right...mind you, I didnt know the bloke either!!! GAZ ------------------------------------------------------------ I'm SURE I can get the car closer! Quote Link to comment
Fellwanderer Posted October 31, 2002 Share Posted October 31, 2002 quote:Originally posted by jeremyp:I've fixed a couple of fairly important bugs and tweaked the formatting of some elements. Details of what I did are in http://jeremyp.net/trigpoint/release0-4.php. A question: Each trigpoint has a metal plate on the side with a number on it. Can anybody explain the significance of these numbers? Are they just a unique serial number or do they represent the position in some way? Can anybody point me towards a database of the said numbers? This is all preliminary to me adding them to the database. I'd like to know what I am doing ------- jeremyp The second ten million caches were the worst too. http://www.jeremyp.net/geocaching The numbers were recorded in order as the pillars were built - so they don't neccesarily follow on in an area. There are a couple of lists which actually have a some of the Flush Bracket numbers but there is no exhaustive list - yet. Quote Link to comment
+The Northumbrian Posted November 1, 2002 Share Posted November 1, 2002 quote:Originally posted by GAZ:I did a Northumbrian cache recently, and the numbers on the trig point close-by was 4106...met a guy on the way down and he said it was 410.6m above sea level.....don't know if thats right...mind you, I didnt know the bloke either!!! GAZ That number does not fit in with the trig point altitude, as its 375m above mean sea level the letters are Su , and youl'l get talked about meeting strange men on them fells Nige ------------------------------------------------------------ I'm SURE I can get the car closer! Quote Link to comment
+jeremyp Posted November 1, 2002 Author Share Posted November 1, 2002 quote:Originally posted by Dave Schofield: *A housing estate was built in this area approx 35 yrs ago UKTP2292 would now be in someones garden and would not have line of sight of more than 10 metres, therefore perhaps a new point was established UKTP5823?* I'd put money on that being the answer. Once I put in an algoritnm to calculate distances, it'll be obvious which ones are repositioned. ------- jeremyp The second ten million caches were the worst too. http://www.jeremyp.net/geocaching Quote Link to comment
+jeremyp Posted November 5, 2002 Author Share Posted November 5, 2002 Two important features have been added a) You can delete logs. You can't edit them yet though. There is a field for the number on the side of the trigpoint. It's called "OS Number" until somebody tells me its official name. The idea is that you cannot see the number logged by other people until you have logged the same number. If you want to have a look, the following trigpoints have the OS number logged. UKTP4425 UKTP3341 UKTP2761 UKTP0336 UKTP2288 UKTP4570 UKTP2845 UKTP4921 UKTP1989 UKTP0663 UKTP0924 test0001 (by me. create a log entry with OS number S1234) to test the mechanism. BTW all the log entries with the OS number in the text have been censored slightly ------- jeremyp The second ten million caches were the worst too. http://www.jeremyp.net/geocaching Quote Link to comment
Blackaddergps Posted November 8, 2002 Share Posted November 8, 2002 The plates have OS BM Number The plates themselves (the arrow) is the OS elevation bench mark (hence the OS BM) and therefore I assume that if you enquire at an OS agent office they will be able to provide the last elevation reading for the particular benchmark reference number. If someone were to potter down to their local OS agent (eg HMSO shop) the precice details may get answered. Did I read somewhere that OS might release their benchmark database? blackaddergps With many a cunning plan. 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.