Clearly Destroyed... Or Is It?

[+kc8hnz]

I came across this station today

http://www.geocaching.com/mark/details.asp?PID=MB2938

Clearly, the surface disk has been destroyed. But, in the data sheet, it mentions a sub-surface disk. Most likely the sub-surface disk is still there, but with out digging it up there would be no way to know for sure. How would this one be marked up as? I marked it as destroyed, but I am rethinking it. Your thoughts?

 

*edited typo

Edited December 18, 2003 by kc8hnz

[+Camper1]

Having found, not found similar station disks, my advise in logging would be "not found". I've asked this forum for similar advice in appropriate logging and have received comments from those much more informed and experienced than I. Some will suggest it is a ligit station even with the disk missing. Without first hand observations or knowledge of it's destruction and due to it's absence, you should not log it as destroyed. To me it's still a valued discovery within the GS database and someone might even brave excavating for futher documentation detail. Aside from that, you've submitted great pictures and your entry as it stands is informative for GS BM hobbyist's endeavors and should it be reviewed by professionals, it remains informative and acuratley documented. Nice job.

[+GeckoGeek]

I'm guessing here (not that it's stopped me before) but I think I'd log it in "poor" condition. Between the subsurface mark and the two surviving RM's this station can be reset exactly. In fact it may take nothing more then simply putting a new disk in the existing hole. I'm not sure just how marks are redone.

 

Now for CG purposes, I'm not sure how you would log it. It is findable, so maybe a "found" is not inappropriate. It will encourage others to look if they wish rather then telling them there's nothing left.

[+seventhings]

I would log it as a not found. If I search for a benchmark and can't find it, I log it as not found. This is because I'm a benchmark hunter and not a surveyed position verifier or estimator of the usefulness of undeground marks that I haven't seen. Professional surveyors may or may not be able to use a station, even when the disk has been removed. But, as a benchmark hunter, I'm after the disk (which has to be at the station). No disk (or whatever the described mark is), no find.

 

I may log a mark as destroyed if, in addition to not finding the mark itself, I come across some evidence of its destruction (like a concrete mass with the impression of a disk but no disk, or the complete absence of a water tank where the mark was the light on top).

 

That's just my opinion. Whether you log it as found, not found, destroyed, found but poor, etc etc, is less important than the fact that you looked for it and acquired some relevant information about its status.

 

7

[Kerry.]

"Not found" unless one can "prove" beyond all reasonable doubt that it is actually has been in fact destroyed.

 

Cheers, Kerry.

[Wild T2]

This diagram indicates that the subsurface mark should be four feet below the surface.

 

http://img.Groundspeak.com/user/88694_600.jpg

 

I have found only about four or five subsurface marks while surveying. All of them were only about 2.5 feet below the surface. Thats about the length of an adult mans arm.

Edited December 18, 2003 by Wild T2

[+GEO*Trailblazer 1]

Neat diagram.

The underground one's that I have found were about 12-14 inches deep.

I guess the rocks around here are hard to dig in.

The ones out in sandy areas are probably a little deeper.

The ones in hard rock are probably a little less deep.