Jump to content

Logging Of Benchmarks


w1qa

Recommended Posts

There's been a lot of discussion on the forums regarding the logging of benchmarks. This post may be a bit lengthy - but I feel its worthy of discussion.

 

The Geocaching web site provides the following types of logs:

  • found it
  • couldn't find it
  • destroyed
  • post a note

Whereas NOAA's NGS mark recovery form provides for these conditions:

  • good
  • not recovered, not found
  • poor, disturbed, mutilated, requires maintenance
  • destroyed

The discussion:

 

SYNC TERMS BETWEEN GEOCACHING AND NGS

 

I would like to lobby for the synchronization of the terms between the Geocaching site and the NGS mark recovery entry form. Not only would this allow for easier posting of mark recovery and information between the two sites but would help with the interpretation of what log/condition should be selected.

 

My recommendation would be to change the Geocaching log types as follows:

  • found it ==> good
  • couldn't find it ==> not recovered, not found
  • N/A ==> poor, disturbed, mutilated, requires maintenance
  • destroyed ==> destroyed
  • post a note ==> N/A

DEFINITION OF LOG / CONDITIONS

 

I will list these out of the aforementioned order as it may make more sense to present it this way.

 

POST A NOTE

 

Only applies to the Geocaching web site. Useful for notes, an entry to log photographs with, etc.

 

FOUND IT or GOOD

 

The status when one has successfully recovered a station.

 

One of my pet peeves is that I find a lot of geocachers are logging benchmarks found when they really are not finding them! In many cases, I see found logs for station reference mark disks when the geocacher has NOT found the actual station. I believe this is due, in part, to the fact that many people don't understand the concept of a station and reference marks! Even the default Geocaching benchmark page notes that one must find the station and not its reference marks.

 

Worse yet - many people are logging found on station's geocaching page when they should really be logging not found, not recovered. This seems to be especially true for landmark stations.

 

If counts are going to be at all meaningful we all have to have the same denotation as to what these status mean. A better definition of what to call each status would go a long way in accomplishing this!

 

DESTROYED

 

The NGS is pretty specific in the handling of the destroyed status. For NGS submissions, they suggest you either post a not recovered, not found condition with text comments indicating evidence of the mark's possible destruction. Alternatively, if you actually find a marker separated from its setting you can report it as destroyed - but can only do so by reporting this (via email) to Deb Brown at the National Geodetic Survey in Silver Spring, Maryland. (There is NO way to submit a destroyed status on the NGS site.)

 

Deb and I have exchanged a number of emails on this and related subjects. Here is an excerpt of her guidelines from 24 July 2003:

 

For disks:  I need a photo of the remnants of the setting or the actual disk as well as the PID and designation. 

 

For landmark stations that are no longer there:  please submit to me via email, a photo of the area and include the PID and designation. 

 

If no photos are available for either of the above then I cannot submit a destroyed report for you so please use the online form to submit a NOT FOUND report and in the text portion of the form indicate your suspicions of the destruction.

 

In subsequent correspondence from Deb on 27 Oct 2003 it was clarified that for stations that should have discs, that unless there is a photo of the actual disk available (to prove that the setting wasn't misidentified) the mark should be submitted as NOT FOUND or POOR with an appropriate note in the text portion of the form to indicate our findings.

 

To summarize: for stations involving benchmark disks, etc. the destroyed status should only be used when recovery attempts results in finding the disc but separated from its setting. Otherwise it should be logged as not found or poor, which will help the responsible organisation in possibly resetting the station in the future.

 

For landmark stations (like churches, towers, buildings, etc.) if they are not found or have had changes that effects the accuracy of their use (like a church tower burns down and is rebuilt but is not exactly the same) a station can be logged as destroyed, but only with photo evidence that it is either no longer there or has materially changed.

 

POOR, DISTURBED, MUTILATED, REQUIRES MAINTENANCE

 

This should be the category for stations where the mark is not found as described. Examples include: disc missing but with stem or drill hole evident, concrete or stone marker damaged, bolts, pins, etc. removed and so on.

 

NOT RECOVERED, NOT FOUND

 

This should be the catch-all for logging of a station that doesn't fit into any other category.

 

In many cases I've spent an hour, two or even three looking for an old benchmark and come up empty handed. I log this as not found. In cases where I've found a station where I've recovered one or more reference marks but have not found the actual station I also log this as not found. This approach seems to follow the NGS standard - and it is also what you're instructed to do on the Geocaching default benchmark page

 

GEOCACHING STATUS

 

I would like to see the User Stats page of our Geocaching profiles updated. Currently it shows the number of NGS Benchmarks found. For those of us who put a lot of effort into benchmark hunting I believe it would be better to actually provide the rundown of each of the benchmark statuses above: if you spend the time to go to a benchmark location and search it out whatever the mark's situation it should count; there's really no guarantee whether a station exists or not, or what condition it may be in. Its not a cache...

 

Providing only the found status on the stats page may be motivation for many people to treat logging benchmarks as the do caches (you either find it or your don't) - resulting in more inaccurate benchmark "finds" when the status or condition logged would have been more appropriately something else.

 

To further the thought - I would propose changes to the User Stats page ... actually separating the benchmarks from the List of Items Found. Personally, I'd like to see this page broken in sections with totals underneath:

 

List of caches found

  • Traditional
  • Multi
  • Virtual
  • Event
  • Webcam
  • Etc
  • Total caches found

List of items found

  • Travel bug dog tags
  • USA Geocoins
  • Etc
  • Total items found

Benchmarks

  • Good
  • Not recovered, not found
  • Poor, disturbed, multilated, requires maintenance
  • Destroyed
  • Total benchmarks

List of Items Owned

  • Etc
  • Total items owned

BETTER BENCHMARK INFORMATION ON GEOCACHING

 

It took me quite some time and research to understand the whole benchmark thing on Geocaching. Most of what I've gleaned has been from other off-site resources (including the NGS) as well as in these discussion groups. But I fear that many people who have ventured into the benchmark hunting aspect have not been brought up to speed as well as they have been for the cache side of life.

 

One resource that I feel is invaluable is the "original datasheet". Each Geocaching benchmark page has a link to it - but its obscured hiding in a small font at the top of the page. Many benchmarks have simple descriptions - and as such, the Geocaching page for the PID ("Official History") is sufficient. But in many cases, the loss of formatting on Geocaching's page is a run-on mess. To wit, take a look at PID MZ1557:

 

I always print out the NGS datasheet, three hole punch it, and bring that with me. Not only is the information formatted a lot better - it contains other, valuable information that can aid in the recovery of a benchmark! But in speaking with other local Geocachers who also do benchmark hunting, none were aware of these NGS datasheets!

 

On the NGS datasheet I usually draw a layout of the station showing the physical relation of the station to any of its reference marks as well as any azimuth points. This aids in quick recovery of the station and RM's. Additionally - I'll also often draw out the instructions on finding the station, whether it be by road or other indicated references.

 

In the future, if it is at all possible, I would advocate some kind of linking of the Geocaching site to the NGS datasheets - if there's some facility that would easily allow supplying a PID to the NGS search engine and retrieving the most current datasheet for that PID.

 

And although there is a wealth of information presented on the default Geocaching benchmark page maybe we can generate some additional or rewritten information to assist in improving this part of the Geocaching site - especially along the lines of benchmark logging as noted above?!

 

What do you think?

 

Best regards,

Bob W1QA

Link to comment
In the future, if it is at all possible, I would advocate some kind of linking of the Geocaching site to the NGS datasheets - if there's some facility that would easily allow supplying a PID to the NGS search engine and retrieving the most current datasheet for that PID.

 

I think you mean something like this:

 

http://www.ngs.noaa.gov/cgi-bin/ds_mark.prl?PidBox=XXyyyy

 

(Replace XXyyyy with the PID.)

 

As others have pointed out in the past, I'm “not entirely familiar with what's involved” in running a site such as this one, but I think it should be relatively simple to provide this link, with the proper PID inserted, on each benchmark page. The current GC.com benchmark database is out of date and this would provide a simple way for those of us who are more serious about hunting benchmarks to obtain the most current NGS record for a particular mark. As it is now, I only use GC.com to obtain the PIDs of marks nearest to a particular cache, or to another benchmark; for this purpose, GC.com works great. But for the official mark data itself—which I agree is invaluable—I end up clicking over to the NGS site anyway. A direct link would be very convenient.

 

Zhanna

Link to comment
In the future, if it is at all possible, I would advocate some kind of linking of the Geocaching site to the NGS datasheets - if there's some facility that would easily allow supplying a PID to the NGS search engine and retrieving the most current datasheet for that PID.

That depends. I what I do NOT want to see happen is that uninformed geocachers suddenly try to log their finds on NGS so that they show up in the official datasheet. Given all the poor understanding, I'd rather that the logging remain hidden so that only that are serious about this will find the way to do so. The NGS doesn't need another USPS-like group running around. Let the geocachers continue to log their findings here on CG.

Link to comment

That depends.  I what I do NOT want to see happen is that uninformed geocachers suddenly try to log their finds on NGS so that they show up in the official datasheet.

I understand your point, but my point is that if Geocaching.com is going to provide a link from the benchmark page to the official datasheet anyway, as they always have, they should link to the most current version of the datasheet. Do you think that merely reading the newer recoveries by geocachers will encourage too many uninformed people to submit official recoveries? That danger may exist, but it's not a reason to make important data more difficult to find. I'm not advocating any quick and easy method of submitting official recoveries.

 

Zhanna

Link to comment

SPEED

 

Each time this discussion starts, I think there is one fact that always seems to get overlooked. People who use this web site to log benchmarks come in all different speeds:

 

Slow speed. Not really interested in looking for survey discs, but found one while looking for a cache, so logged it.

 

Medium speed. Interested in looking for benchmarks, but not really interested in all the technical aspects or reporting things to the NGS.

 

Fast speed. Interested in duplicating NGS standards, and very interested in the technical aspects of survey markers.

 

Not to mention a whole bunch of speeds in between.

 

Which is as it should be, I think. People attack any tasks at different speeds. You are correct in stating that the 'basic' information here is very basic. I had the same problem, but I managed to get to the speed that I was interested in on my own, as the information is readily available elsewhere, and there are people who participate in the forums here who are very willing to answer questions. So any speed can be reached, it's just a matter of how much effort one wants to make to reach it.

 

It seems to me, after reading these forums for a while, that the people who are interested in fast speed are a very small minority of the overall group who has logged benchmark finds here. Maybe that's my imagination, but that's the feeling I get.

 

Benchmark hunting is, as far as this web site is concerned, is an off spin of geocaching. I don't geocache, but I would imagine that most people who do look at it as a casual hobby. That's the way I look at benchmark hunting. A hobby. I want to understand the basics of the NGS system, so I got myself up to (my) speed.

 

I don't want to submit pictures or reports to the NGS and I feel it's a very bad idea to encourage everyone here to do that, so I feel the current level of separation between Geocaching.Com's benchmark hunting pages and the NGS is as it should be.

 

We have some people who submit extremely professional reports here. But we also have people who submit reports that would be a total waste of the NGS's time if they were submitted for review. NGS is probably like any other government agency - they probably have limited funding and not enough people, so burying them in useless amateur benchmark reports probably wouldn't make them happy.

 

In a nutshell, I think it's good that anybody who wants to move to the 'professional' level has to do some homework on their own to get there, because I think it will result in a much higher level of quality of information that is submitted to NGS.

 

So as far as your idea of making this site compatible to NGS, I vote no, I don't think it's necessary or a good idea.

 

COUNTING

 

I'm personally not interested in bean counting (or logging stuff I don't find here) so I abstain on the vote for changing what gets counted. I don't care either way.....

 

LINK TO CURRENT NGS DATASHEETS

 

From a technical standpoint, very easy to do. Would take less than five minutes. Has been suggested before. Long time ago. Still hasn't been done. I'm not privy to any inside information, so I don't know why not. But I can speculate on why not.......

 

The owners of this web site don't seem to place a very high priority on benchmark hunting. Which is probably as it should be, because there are probably a lot more people interested in geocaching than benchmark hunting. Designing, coding, and maintaining a web site of this quality is not a spare time job.

 

It would be very easy to link to the off site information in the NGS database. But doing so has some inherent problems. The people who code Geocaching.Com are obviously interested in providing a quality site that doesn't 'break'. When you depend on off site links to external data, you assume the risk of 'breaking' your site when the site with the external data breaks. And you have no control of the external site, so you can't fix it if it does break. That may be one of the factors explaining why it hasn't been implemented here.

 

The NGS server is SLOW. I'm aware of that as I use links to the NGS database from my web site. A page with an NGS datasheet on it takes about four to five times as long to serve as a page from my site (from my server) does. Any web designer who is interested in capturing and keeping an audience is critically aware of the speed factor. I'm not, as my personal web sites are just hobbies, but that's not the case here. That may be another one of the factors explaining why it hasn't been implemented here.

 

So the answer to current NGS datasheets is that yes, it's easy to do, but there very well may be some good reasons not to do it. It's also very easy to go get the information from the NGS site yourself - anyone who realizes that the data here is dated (and since we've had this discussion before I'm sure most of us do) can simply go get it directly from NGS. I haven't done much benchmark hunting lately because it's fishing season, but when I was doing it every day I found the info on the NGS site much more useful for assembling neccessary data prior to hunting, so I got it there instead of here. Replace the zip code search here with a county search at NGS, grab all the datasheets, and away you go....

 

Another key factor that seems to get overlooked every time this discussion rolls around is that of the interest level in benchmark hunting by the owners of Geocaching.Com. If they aren't interested, we can discuss changes until we turn blue, and they won't happen. On the other hand, they may have some big plans for the future that we aren't aware of. I think it would be nice if the Admin Guy could drop by and let us know which is which.

 

But when you think about it, it's a no win situation for them to even comment - if they tell us "What you have is all you are going to get" we get mad and go away. If they tell us "We have big plans for the future" we'll bug them to death until they happen.....

Link to comment

We have found about 140 benchmarks. We have found several that have been destroyed. That said, we have no interest in logging on the NGS site with any reports. For us this is just a hobby and nothing more. We enjoy finding the older benchmarks -- pre 1900.

 

The biggest problem with a direct link to the NGS is the lack knowledge on what is expected from those that use the site. Most benchmark hunters just will not take the time to learn the proper way to log a report.

 

We have already found logs on the Geocaching site that were in error by either logging the wrong disk or claiming a find for a destroyed disk and one claimed a disk destroyed that was in good condition.

 

We don't feel as though we have the qualifications to be logging every find on the NGS site and know for sure there are a great many who should not have access to that site.

 

The Geocaching benchmark site isn't broken as far as us 'amatuers' are concerned, so don't try to fix it!

 

John of the 2oldfarts

Link to comment
but my point is that if Geocaching.com is going to provide a link from the benchmark page to the official datasheet anyway, as they always have, they should link to the most current version of the datasheet.

I agree there should be an update mechanism. Currently there is none. I know one can get updates for each county on a monthly basis. If that could somehow be extended to update the database in CG that would be adequate.

Link to comment

My recommendation would be to change the Geocaching log types as follows:

[*] destroyed ==> destroyed

 

I'm not sure as I agree. As mentioned the NGS standards for logging a disk as destroyed is nearly impossibly high. If the disk is gone, it can't be logged as destroyed, but in most cases of destruction the disk is no where to be found.

 

As a hobbyist site, I think we can work with a more relaxed standard.

Edited by GeckoGeek
Link to comment

 

The NGS standards are far from "impossibly high." They are very plain and simple. The answer is that (for the casual benchmark hunter) the station should be logged as Not Found. Those who are more serious and wish to expend more time and effort will attempt to provide the necessary proof and can (and deserve!) to log it as Found, in Destroyed condition. No need to "relax" any standards.

 

It's my opinion and experience that the only changes needed on the GC.com benchmarking site to better suit this activity (other than getting the most up-to-date NGS data, which appears to have its own problems and issues at the moment) is to remove the Destroyed logging option entirely, and install a picklist of "conditions" in the Found logging option. This means that when logging a benchmark there are only three choices: Found, Not Found, and Note. In the Found submission form there would be three additional choices to pick from: Good, Poor (including Disturbed/Mutilated), and Destroyed. The criteria for Destroyed would be very similar to (if not the same as!) the guidelines that NGS requires: positive identification of the station. One additional point is that Found in the case of benchmarking does not necessarily mean actually finding a disk or a landmark (as opposed to the "rules" for signing a logbook in Geocaching), it means positively identifying the station, since it is the station that is of primary concern, and the mark is merely a means of representing it physically. (NGS data refers to all points in the National Spatial Reference System as "stations" and not "marks" per se.) So, for Found/Good and Found/Poor the marks themselves will most likely always exist. For Found/Destroyed it will be necessary to find adequate proof (using the NGS guideline), otherwise a Not Found should be logged. None of these changes would affect in any way whatsoever those people who pursue benchmark hunting as a very casual pastime, or at any other level of interest.

 

Cheers ...

Edited by Rich in NEPA
Link to comment

One additional point is that Found in the case of benchmarking does not necessarily mean actually finding a disk or a landmark (as opposed to the "rules" for signing a logbook in Geocaching), it means positively identifying the station, since it is the station that is of primary concern, and the mark is merely a means of representing it physically.

 

Rich, I read your theory of station vs. mark the first time you posted it, but I guess I'm dense because it still doesn't sink in, even after reading the short version.

 

If I recall correctly, the station, in your first post, is an imaginary point?

 

Let me use an example, I think it will be easier for me to explain why I'm confused.

 

I went looking for a benchmark that was in a sidewalk. Description said it was "x inches from the north edge of the sidewalk" and "xxx feet in yyy direction from the base of a statue". The sidewalk had recently been replaced. The disc was gone. The coordinates were "scaled" (useless). Statue is still there, but how close can I get with a measurement to a point over 100 feet away when I don't know the exact direction of the measurement (NNE isn't very exact), I don't know the exact point on the statue from which the measurement was taken, and I don't know if the new edge of the sidewalk is in the same place as the old edge of the sidewalk.

 

Since it seems to me that the disc was the only representation of exactly where the "station" was, and now it's gone, I can't figure out how the "station" could still be there, or how it could be of any use to a surveyor because I can't find it without the disc.

 

I can understand your theory of station vs. mark as it may apply today - if a mark was set with today's extremely accurate GPS surveying equipment, I would venture to guess that another surveyor could find the "station" using the same type of equipment even if the disc was gone, but I what I can't understand is how we can apply it to a mark set in 1903.

 

Maybe you could point me to some reading material on the NGS web site that would help me to understand your theory. Thanks.

Link to comment

I would add this, and keep in mind I have worked in the surveying profession since 1972 and the first bench mark I ever saw was in 1972. So I have extensive experience in searching them out and using them. That said, I would be very careful of reporting marks not found or destroyed to NGS. I myself have done this many times and there also have been times when I was 100% sure the mark was lost only to find it 5 yrs later right where it was supposed to be, buried or inadequately described. I have one right now that I reported as not found in 2001 and I was sure it was not there, everything seemed different today. We looked for over 4 hrs on 2 different days and did not find it as we wanted to use it for a GPS control point for a survey project. Got a Garmin GPS V (differential WAAS capable) this summer and tried to locate this mark (horizontal point) and found it in 10 minutes about 2-inch below the ground, GPS V put me within 8 ft of the location. The description was almost 70 yrs old and vague, regular GPS was not close enough and put me about 100 ft away. So, think long and hard before reporting them as not found or destroyed, someone may come along and prove you wrong.

 

We would always see reports by the USPS as mark not found, also many by USGS too. Almost everytime, we were able to find the marks, they had no idea the roads has been relocated, where the old RR grades were etc. Having lived in the area, and having access to all road plans, RR ROW maps and local maps, we could go back in time.

Edited by elcamino
Link to comment
The NGS standards are far from "impossibly high." They are very plain and simple. The answer is that (for the casual benchmark hunter) the station should be logged as Not Found. Those who are more serious and wish to expend more time and effort will attempt to provide the necessary proof and can (and deserve!) to log it as Found, in Destroyed condition. No need to "relax" any standards.

First of all, just so we are all on the same page, NGS is NGS and this discussion has nothing to do with changing them. We're talking about Geocaching.com. GC is a hobbyist site. We do not have to play by the same levels as NGS.

 

As for my "nearly impossibly high" comment, consider this scenario: A disk is located on a bridge. That bridge has been removed. You have proof of that. There is no doubt the mark/station is gone. But since you didn't find the disk, you can't log a "destroyed" with NGS. My point is that in many cases the odds of your finding the disk of a destroyed station is very slim.

 

Now what requirements should we have for a destroyed on GC? I don't have a ready answer for that. There should be actual evidence that it is gone and not just because the searcher concluded that since he couldn't find it it must be gone. There is a significant difference between "not found" in a field and "not found - there is now a skyscraper on that site. Mark appears to be under the building."

 

Anyone wishing to play by NGS standards is free to do so with NGS. But again, this is a hobbyist site. And I don't see a major problem with false destroyed on GC. A "destroyed" on GC does not remove the mark from the world of surveying. If someone can find a mark after another has declared it destroyed, more power to them!

 

On CG a "not found" should mean just that and someone else is welcome to try. If someone really wants to challenge themselves on a "destroyed" then they can do so but let's not clutter up the database with them and frustrate people. I guess at this point what I'm saying is that a "destroyed" on CG should be like the skull icons are now. You can see them if you want to, but by default they are removed from consideration for most.

Link to comment

As has already been said, this topic (or similar) has been discussed before. While the intent of the topic and the proposed results are of a positive note it should be said (again) that there could be disasterous results. The NGS database is a real-life database in daily use by professionals. It is not something to be toyed with. I'm sure that the professional communities (which I am a part of) that rely on the data in the NGS accept and appreciate the comments made by amature benchmark hunters. It can help us do our job. It can also impeed us if the comments are incorrect or improper.

 

W1qa has gone to great lengths to establish a correlation between the terms on Geocaching.com and the NGS data. I have no doubt that it was done with a bit of blood, sweat, and tears on his part. I particularly appreciate the info about the term 'destroyed' being passed along. The term 'destroyed' as it is being used on the Geocaching website DOES NOT correlate to 'destroyed' as used by the NGS or the surveying community. I've seen many benchmarks logged as destroyed here that are still useable to a surveyor. Many amature benchmark hunters (not only those who hunt through Geocaching.com) find a location - with no readily available benchmark - and assume it to be destroyed. Some find a hole in a rock, or concrete and make the assumption that because the brasscap is no longer there, it is destroyed. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. Sometimes it takes a professional to make that determination. In the case of a water tower or church steeple that has been torn down, it's a no-brainer. But many times, the true condition is not black and white.

 

A similar discussion took place in April of this year in a thread titled 'It's a Goner...'.

Link to comment

 

Since it seems to me that the disc was the only representation of exactly where the "station" was, and now it's gone, I can't figure out how the "station" could still be there, or how it could be of any use to a surveyor because I can't find it without the disc.

 

First of all it's not a theory, let alone "my" theory. It's basic high school geometry. Survey points can be calculated to an extremely high precision and in many cases the figures can be exact. But they are still imaginary points that are referenced to an imaginary representation of the earth. Those points exist whether or not a disk or landmark is there to embody them.

 

In the case of the example you sited, the error in your logic is that you've assumed that the description is accurate. It may not be, as many of us have learned through experience. And since the coordinates are scaled, you're already missing your best means of locating the station. So, the description is basically all you have to go on. (I was just involved in the recovery of a vertical control on Sunday where the description said 6 feet from the centerline of a highway. Turns out we measured the station to be 16 feet from the centerline. A typo in the database? Probably. But it would have been easy to assume that the station was under asphalt if the mark wasn't actually located nearby.) {One other point in this regard: I think it's important to keep in mind that every situation is a little different. If the mark is buried, of course it's of no use to anyone, including a professional. But, as has been pointed out many times here, a station can still be quite useful even if it's condition would warrant its being declared destroyed by NGS.}

 

The problem with most vertical controls, it seems, is that horizontal precision is not a real concern, only the vertical distance from the geoid, but not having a reliable horizontal position can certainly make finding them a very real problem. I suppose that's the main reason why NGS will generally not declare them destroyed—lack of adequate proof that the station itself has been identified. Tri-stations, it seems also, are a whole other matter. They include reference marks to help pinpoint the horizontal location with about as much certainty as anyone could expect! If the station mark is missing there's adequate evidence that the station (that imaginary point, remember?) was positively identified. In this case NGS will almost certainly declare the station as destroyed (I have first hand experience with this in more than one instance).

 

My argument is not about destroying benchmarks per se, but simply trying to get across the concept of having adequate proof that a particular "station" was indeed located and identified. And I contend that for the purposes of GC.com benchmarking (and not NGS reporting!), if a station was adequately identified, and the mark/landmark was discovered to be missing, then you have made a "successful recovery" and it should be logged as "Found—in destroyed condition." Otherwise, as is the case with your mark (possibly being) under the sidewalk, I would simply log it as "Not Found." And the whole idea of this change in approach is to help prevent the indiscriminate reporting of destroyed marks to NGS!!!

 

Cheers ...

Link to comment

Thanks to everyone who's added to this thread - I appreciate your comments and viewpoints. What follows are a few additional posts regarding your feedback.

 

Regarding the desire to be able to call-up an NGS datasheet directly in a web brower's window:

 

 

Indeed! And that seems to work just fine.

 

In the past ... I've gone through the arduous process of navigating through a bookmarked NGS page, looking up the PID and then getting the datasheet. Gee ... this does it all in one URL. And it would be a no-brainer to have this on the Geocaching site as a link that opens a new window with the most current datasheet. As I'm new to the forums - how do we lobby or submit this request to the powers at be?

Link to comment

I fully agree with the comments regarding Geocachers and NGS logging. Maybe there was a bit of confusing in my original post:

 

I was looking for a way to easily obtain the latest NGS datasheet from the Geocaching web site. The aforementioned post/quote does just that!

 

The other aspect of my posting was to try to bring a better correlation with the condition and status descriptions that one finds on the NGS datasheets (and therefore embedded descriptions in the Geocaching site's copy of the NGS database) - and what Geocachers log - on Geocaching.com.

 

If we speak the same language and use the same terms ... :D

Link to comment

Occasionally I have been making logs on the NGS site. I usually do so in conditions such as:

  • Description to reach station has significantly changed
  • Station's location reference to local objects has significantly changed
  • Station has not been logged at NGS in a long time (like decades)
  • There's an obvious problem with the station (like building a disc was on is gone, disturbed or mutilated settings, etc.)

I have also read the materials on the NGS site, including the proper way and order to supply information (although sometimes the 15-lines that are available isn't sufficient!). An important thing to note is that all NGS destroyed reports manually go into the system.

 

I found it interesting to observe that although there may not be any recent log in the NGS database it doesn't necessarily mean that professionals are not visiting these stations. In a couple of cases I've been told (by property owners and even a surveyor) that a station has been frequently visited!

Link to comment

One thing that wasn't well addressed in replies to my post - was Geocaching benchmark logs that DON'T follow the rules as noted on the Geocaching main benchmark page. More specifically - people logging finds when they find just one of the reference marks for a station, etc.

 

That may all somehow fit into BeachBum22's comments regarding speed ... maybe I'm too much of an engineer or purist - maybe I'm just bitching too much. But it frustrates me when I visit a Geocaching benchmark page, look at a previous found log and look at the associated picture(s) - only to see it is not the station ... or even worse, in one recent situation, it was for a location mark that wasn't even the right structure! :D

 

In a couple of cases I've emailed through the Geocaching web interface to a few people noting that they've got the wrong station with suggestions that they update their entries. (I don't do this for someone logging an RM as the station - just incorrect stations, locations, etc.) Is this the right approach, or something that should be refrained from?

Link to comment

As someone else posted, I too enjoy searching for benchmarks that are old - the older the better - and especially the ones that have not been ever logged as found. These are the ones that require some research - especially updating decades or even century+ descriptions to today. In some ways, I enjoy this aspect a lot more than cache hunting 'cuz you're looking for something that maybe nobody's found in 50, 100 or more years.

 

As for the comment that the Geocaching benchmark site isn't broken as far as us 'amateurs' are concerned, so don't try to fix it! ... I have to disagree with that. That was the purpose of my original post to attempt to see what others thought or felt.

 

I think one of the best improvements could come with changing the Geocaching benchmark "condition" log status. Other replies seem to agree with this notion. Does anyone feel that these changes (fixes?!) would be breaking anything?

Link to comment
I agree there should be an update mechanism.

 

Here's what I've done using Microsoft MapPoint and Access:

  • Laid out numerous overlapping 10-mile circles covering the area within a couple hours drive
  • Determined the zip code for the centre of each circle
  • Used Geocaching benchmark searches for each zip code
  • Downloaded a waypoint file
  • Created a Microsoft Access benchmark database: PID, name, lat, lon, status, NGS flag, and URL
  • Loaded each waypoint file into Access removing dupes
  • Plotted all in MapPoint

When I recover a benchmark I then update its status, to indicate that I've either found it or didn't find it.

 

I've also gone through and changed the status of many benchmarks along interstate highways (and others I'm not interested in) to "no show" - and an Access query then removes them from my map.

 

And if I report it to NGS I set the NGS flag to indicate as such.

 

Of course, this is all keyed off the Geocaching database - and I'm assuming (possibly incorrectly) that its static and no new benchmark PID's are or have been entered (since I downloaded my waypoint files).

 

In the same Access database I also have a table for caches. This allows me to easily display a map with benchmarks and Geocaches and to make plans for my hunting activities. I weekly get additional cache waypoint files which are added to my Access database.

Link to comment

Rich in NEPA's comments I feel are along the line of what I would like to see (changed) in the Geocaching benchmark site. To summarize, maybe we should end up with just three types of benchmark logs:

  • Found
  • Not Found
  • Note

and for the Found log type, a couple of conditions, which can describe the recovery:

  • good
  • poor or mutilated (in need of maintenance)
  • destroyed

The most important aspect of this is what is "destroyed".

 

For example, I wrote Deb Brown at the NGS regarding a station that I had attempted recovery of. At the physical location indicated by the description I found a concrete post - located in the edge of a field by a railway line. The top of the post had been damaged - possibly from farm machinery, etc. I found a chunk of concrete that actually fit back in the top of the monument - but still, more of it was missing. And although there was actually a metal rod in the centre of the concrete there was no disc.

 

In this case I had NO proof that this was the station; in fact, there is a conflicting point in the description. If you look at the historic USGS map I posted with my Geocaching log, you'll see that there are/were TWO benchmarks in the area - and the description for the two may have been mixed together! Note: there is NO PID for the "other" station!

 

MZ0171 NGS datasheet

MZ0171 Geocaching benchmark page

Link to comment
Here's what I've done using Microsoft MapPoint and Access:
  • Laid out numerous overlapping 10-mile circles covering the area within a couple hours drive
  • Determined the zip code for the centre of each circle
  • Used Geocaching benchmark searches for each zip code
  • Downloaded a waypoint file
  • Created a Microsoft Access benchmark database: PID, name, lat, lon, status, NGS flag, and URL
  • Loaded each waypoint file into Access removing dupes
  • Plotted all in MapPoint

You are aware of the BMGPX program that will process Datasheets from NGS directly? That will crank out a GPX file that can then be loaded in most any "caching" program and/or your GPS.

 

While that would mean you don't get the "finds" reported only on CG, you will get the later logs on NGS. Since you do report to the NGS, that may be more important to you then the CG logs.

Link to comment
On CG a "not found" should mean just that and someone else is welcome to try. If someone really wants to challenge themselves on a "destroyed" then they can do so but let's not clutter up the database with them and frustrate people. I guess at this point what I'm saying is that a "destroyed" on CG should be like the skull icons are now. You can see them if you want to, but by default they are removed from consideration for most.

 

I disagree with this. There's plenty of PID's I've found in the NGS database (and therefore also on Geocaching) that should have the destroyed status, and do not. One example I recently encountered: an old station was destroyed by the military in the 1950's when they bulldozed the top of a hill and built an installation. The original PID notes this - but does not have the destroyed status. It shows up as any other station does - when it most certainly is NOT there! A new PID was established for a new station with the same name followed by a 2. (And in fact, each of the three new reference marks also have their own PID's for the new station.) Or location marks that are long gone, like a church that burnt down in 1911. Not much use in going out of your way looking for these.

 

But: there are other marks that have been noted as not found or destroyed - and as other responders have also noted - were/are actually still there, they just took a bit more looking and research to find!

 

Personally, I maintain my own little Microsoft Access database ... and flag stations that I don't want to search for as "no show" (so they don't show on my Microsoft MapPoint map). I make the determination to set them "no show" after reading the NGS datasheet and any Geocaching posts ... as well as removing all that are along Interstates and other high volume roadways where its not really safe to partake in this kind of thing.

 

The Geocaching destroyed and skulls feature I find more of a nuisance than a benefit ...

Link to comment
You are aware of the BMGPX program that will process Datasheets from NGS directly? That will crank out a GPX file that can then be loaded in most any "caching" program and/or your GPS.

 

While that would mean you don't get the "finds" reported only on CG, you will get the later logs on NGS. Since you do report to the NGS, that may be more important to you then the CG logs.

 

Yes, thank you - I had briefly looked at that and a few other things in the past.

 

I focus my efforts around my Microsoft MapPoint implementation, which is dynamically linked to the Access database: a table of caches and a query against a benchmark table (that filters out PID's I don't want to see).

 

I'm using an 'ole Garmin GPS II+ with an externally powered antenna (better in wooded environments). And I load waypoints using EasyGPS.

 

So a combination of low-tech and high-tech implementations. The most important part for me is the ability to just browse my Microsoft MapPoint screen ... think about an area I'd like to visit - and then click on the mapped objects to read the cache descriptions and benchmark datasheets.

 

I then come up with a travel plan - print out pages for everything I want to visit - load up the GPS - get the camers and backpack - and I'm on my way!

 

If I only had more time - and better weather!

Link to comment
There's plenty of PID's I've found in the NGS database (and therefore also on Geocaching) that should have the destroyed status, and do not.

In my experience, if you point them out to Deb, she will change their status to destroyed. That's some of the clean-up that needs to be done. If you're using it to say that we should leave them there, the logic is faulty.

 

Personally, I maintain my own little Microsoft Access database ...

 

The Geocaching destroyed and skulls feature I find more of a nuisance than a benefit ...

That's well and fine for you, but what about the majority of the other users? Shouldn't they have the option to hide some of the data points rather then mix the hard-core "gone" with the "needs to be found"?

 

Yes, I have my own database as well, but I realize that I/we are unusual users - not the vast majority of hunters this site is for.

Edited by GeckoGeek
Link to comment
In my experience, if you point them out to Deb, she will change their status to destroyed. That's some of the clean-up that needs to be done. If you're using it to say that we should leave them there, the logic is faulty.

 

OK - thanks. I will take some time in the future and drop her a line with those that I've encountered that warrant being changed and let her take it from there. (I never really considered doing that; I always thought that there was some reason or justification why these marks were still in the database as they were coded.

 

And yes, I agree with you - about my logic being faulty. My assumption is that the NGS database is as it is. But with your suggestion in suggesting NGS clean-up those that shouldn't be coded as they are - that would go a long way.

 

Of course, if Geocaching is not picking up updates from the NGS database ... that's not good, especially if a lot of the efforts of serious Geocaching benchmark hunters are helping with cleaning up the database and finding marks!

 

Re: my feeling that Geocaching coding and skulls are a nuisance ...

That's well and fine for you, but what about the majority of the other users? Shouldn't they have the option to hide some of the data points rather then mix the hard-core "gone" with the "needs to be found"?

 

Yes, I have my own database as well, but I realize that I/we are unusual users - not the vast majority of hunters this site is for.

 

Ayup. Well - I'm not sure what the majority of users are in the Geocaching benchmark section ... from other experiences, I would guess that the more serious types would be the ones participating in discussion forums like this, etc.

 

My frustration with the status / condition logging becomes more compounded with Geocaching destroyed reports. I guess it all depends on who's calling the station destroyed. For me, OK for NGS: its their database. But I think something that can cause a mark to be not listed (or give the presence of not listed) should be only done to some kind of standard. And my experience with a lot of the benchmark posts on Geocaching is that many cachers are not doing a good job in reporting their finds.

 

Thanks again for your thoughts and the recommendation!

Link to comment
My argument is not about destroying benchmarks per se, but simply trying to get across the concept of having adequate proof that a particular "station" was indeed located and identified. And I contend that for the purposes of GC.com benchmarking (and not NGS reporting!), if a station was adequately identified, and the mark/landmark was discovered to be missing, then you have made a "successful recovery" and it should be logged as "Found—in destroyed condition."

 

I log these as "Not Found". In my opinion, 'finding' just the 'station' is of no value to anyone. The only kind of "Find" that has any value is if the marker is found. Why count 'finds' that have no intrinsic value?

Edited by Black Dog Trackers
Link to comment
Why count 'finds' that have no intrinsic value?

Well, because when I can reasonably prove that I've located the station and that the mark is missing or destroyed, my "recovery" does indeed have value. The difference between Found and Not Found is the proof. It relies on the same criteria that NGS requires and therefore they can use it to officially declare the station destroyed. In many cases this does not mean that the station has no value and that it can't be used. Often there is enough left of the setting to be useful to someone! It's just that it no longer meets NGS standards to remain in their database. If the proof is inadequate NGS will record it as Mark Not Found, and so will I.

 

If you want to get right down to it, of what real value is the GC.com benchmarking Website and benchmark hunting in general?! I'm involved with this activity for the simple reason that I sincerely desire to make a significant contribution to the profession and to the maintenance of a valuable heritage and resource. For me it's certainly a lot more "meaningful" than looking for hidden Tupperware but, of course, each activity has its own merits.

 

Cheers ...

Link to comment

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...
×
×
  • Create New...