Protocol For Logging Buried Benchmarks?

[+macdonr]

I could not find a thread on this topic ... my apologies if I have missed one.

 

I have located a handful of local benchmarks / horizontal control disks, or rather, the purported locations of these benchmarks. In the official history of most is an indication that the benchmark is buried one foot underground. Here's an example:

http://www.geocaching.com/mark/details.asp?PID=AK7031

 

What is the protocol for logging these? Should they be logged as finds, or simply noted? I have seen it done both ways, and want to log them appropriately.

 

I'm somewhat hesitant to log things I cannot visually inspect/identify, in case they have actually been removed, but I'd be pleased to log these as finds if that is appropriate.

 

Thanks!

 

macdonr.

[+seventhings]

The standard practice is to log a NOT FOUND if you search for but do not positively find the described mark. Were I to search for a sub-surface mark and could not identify it after a reasonable amount of poking and digging, I would log it as NOT FOUND. I generally save the POST A NOTE function for cases where I can't get near the mark because it's on private property or a high railroad bridge, etc.

 

I don't know what the most common practice is, but I generally don't search for marks that are described as being more than a few inches below the surface. And this varies from case to case, depending on the described environment. If a mark is described as being six inches below the surface but seems to be in an environment where I can dig a bit without getting in trouble, I'll go for it. But if a mark is described as being on someone's front lawn, I'll do no more than a visual search; no digging, etc.

 

Although I try to search for every mark in an area (on a selected Quad, for example), I usually ignore those that are described as being more than .33 feet below the surface.

 

7

Edited February 6, 2004 by seventhings

[+macdonr]

The standard practice is to log a NOT FOUND if you search for but do not positively find the described mark.  Were I to search for a sub-surface mark and could not identify it after a reasonable amount of poking and digging, I would log it as NOT FOUND.

It's not the case that I cannot find the benchmark (or its location), but that it is not possible to dig at all beneath the surface to search.

 

Here's a better example of what I have run into ... a benchmark that is marked as being under pavement along a bike trail:

http://www.geocaching.com/mark/details.asp?PID=AK7032

(See the images and description)

 

In this case, the pavement has been marked (spraypainted) with the designation number, and a witness post exists. For this benchmark, a note was added rather than logged as found. By all accounts the benchmark should be in this exact location, but there is no way to verify that it is actually there, underground beneath the patched pavement.

 

A nearby benchmark of this exact type was logged as a find.

 

I have seen these benchmark locations and others on this bike trail, and cannot figure out whether to log them as found, or log a note that the exact location has been identified. Is finding a marked subterranean benchmark under these circumstances (with witness post) sufficient evidence that the benchmark exists? Enough to warrant logging a find, making mention of the markings/pavement?

 

Thanks again,

 

macdonr.

[+seventhings]

macdonr -

 

In my opinion, a NOTE is OK for the second example you cite. Given the patched hole, the spray paint, the witness post and, probably, the support of other descriptive elements, few would find the NOTE to be wrong.

 

But here's my approach: I am a benchmark hunter, not a station location verifier, not an official description validator, and not a judge as to whether a described station is suitable for use by a professional. When I search for a mark, I search for the mark. That is, the thing described (disk, stone, metal rod, etc) at the described location and, if the coords are adjusted, really close to the listed coords as indicated by my Garmin. If I don't find the thing or if I find the thing but it's not where described, then I generally log a NOT FOUND or a DESTROYED.

 

Having stated this rule (as I apply it to myself), I admit that I don't always follow it. See JU3899 at

http://www.geocaching.com/mark/details.asp?PID-JU3899

Edited February 6, 2004 by seventhings

[+GeckoGeek]

What is the protocol for logging these?

To answer your question, one must first ask: logging here on geocaching.com or on the official NGS?

 

From here on, I'm assuming we're talking about a stamped disk. "Found" would not be a proper designation for either site if you haven't been able to read the disk. "Not found" doesn't seem appropriate. "Note" would seem to be the best choice for logging on Geocaching.

[+macdonr]

I appreciate your insights, seventhings and GeckoGeek. As mentioned initially, I am hesitant to log things (as finds) that I cannot visually inspect/identify. Your points about seeking, locating, and reading a disk/benchmark are well put and well taken.

 

For Geocaching purposes, it does seem most appropriate to log notes in situations like this. I am a fresh newbie at this, but enjoy the hunt!

 

Thanks again - macdonr.

[+GeckoGeek]

For Geocaching purposes, it does seem most appropriate to log notes in situations like this.

There are only two things that I can think of that would be inappropriate for a note:

 

1) A logging that clearly belongs in another category.

2) Comments that have nothing to do with helping anyone find it (Example: I had a coke for lunch.)

 

The exact nature of how things should be logged has been a frequent debate here. Some prefer to mirror NGS's options, others prefer a more relaxed hobbyist approach.

 

If you don't know, ask, but you may not come up with an answer that everyone agrees on.

 

I do know that some people will log notes until they give up on a mark and then change it to "not found". I don't see a problem there.

[+chaosmanor]

I am a lot more relaxed about my posts on geocaching.com than the Recovery Reports I file with NGS, and that seemes appropriate. GC is a chatty, friendly group, in general. The BM section is more technical than most geocachers want to get, but most of those who hunt for disks still enjoy hunting for treasure boxes, too, and the logs are similar in style. Certainly, though, I tend to tone down my sense of humor a bit with BMs, if barely. Still, if I have something pertinent to say, such as changes in the Description or To Reach, I say them clearly. But if I can't find it, I'll ramble a bit.

 

I've never posted a "destroyed" at GC, and very few "notes"; it's almost always "found" or "not found". I have a "found" log on a disk in Thousand Oaks that *is* destroyed, although the disk is still there. It was dug up by persons unknown and rolled about 20 feet away from where it should be. But my GC log was a "found", nonetheless, and I noted all the changes to the condition. I didn't file a Recovery Report with the NGS, however; instead, I e-mailed them, as they request on their website, describing the circumstances, giving a new To Reach (the old one is 40 years out of date), etc. And my language was as professional as I could make it.

 

Ultimately, the purposes of the two sites are different, so I think using a different style for each is reasonable. As long as the information is as accurate as you can make it, the rest is "style".