Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 5
Jeremy

Updated Benchmark Section

Recommended Posts

Nice improvements. I especially like all the links to the maps. Apparently you liked them so much from my mapping page that you used them here too. :-)

 

Why do I think this? The sessionIDs for the MapPoint links are the same and many of other link parameters match.

 

If I did indirectly help, maybe you could return the favor by adding a link to my page as well?

 

like this:

 

http://boulter.com/gps/?c=37+15.000+121+56.000

 

I'm not making money off this or anything, but I think it's a tool people might find useful. I know I do.

 

Thanks!

 

Jeff

Share this post


Link to post

Most of the comments that I had have already been stated. Alot of the new things that I am seeing look pretty good.

 

As far as the opening page goes, the stats part is a nice addition.

 

Is there any way to put all the search options on the main benchmark page, instead of having to click to a second page to get to the Designation or Coordinate searches? Personally, I rarely use postal code or PIDs as search options, but almost always go from a set of coordinates. By the way, adding the Designation Search is a great addition!

 

As far as responses to searches, is there any way to get more than 25 responses per page? The old way of having all responses within a 10-mile radius on a continuous page worked really well, especially when following the line of benchmarks along a linear corridor such as a road. The limit of 25 responses per page really breaks this up.

 

I appreciate that work that is being done on the Benchmark pages! Thanks!! :unsure:

Share this post


Link to post

From what I can see, I like the new format. The information is easier (for me) to find. I miss the orange color... and I'd really really like GPX files instead of LOC files.. maybe even Pocket thingies...

Share this post


Link to post

First let me say that I like the changes. I think it's all headed in a better direction, (and it wasn't all that bad to start with). A few bugs are going to be inevitable but over time, they'll get worked out. Great job Jeremy et al.

 

One thing that I haven't seen mentioned here yet is a problem with the benchmark waypoint downloads. It doesn't seem to be working for me now. (And since I haven't seen it mentioned here yet, I realize that it could be just me.) Cache waypoints come through fine, but points for benchmarks do not. The .LOC files are producing an error that causes EasyGPS to shut down. This happens whether I try to download one point or groups from a list. I've tried downoads from two different computers with two different ISPs (don't know if that would make a difference or not) with the same results. Like I said though, waypoints for caches are working just fine.

 

It would be nice to be able to download waypoints in either a .LOC or .GPX format. I prefer the .LOC myself, but I can see the benefits to the other.

 

Again, Great job to all that worked on the changes. Keep up the good work.

Edited by Kewaneh & Shark

Share this post


Link to post
input than to fawn mindlessly. 

Just indicate the issues and I'll work on them. I don't need praise and I do need to know what is wrong so I can fix it. There is no need to be overly colorful.

In a thankess world, you deserve all of the praise that you get and more. The fact that you are updating the BM section is worthy of praise! You are making the redheaded stepchild of geocaching a full fledged member of the family!

 

-gt

Share this post


Link to post
Does anyone see an issue with changing "destroyed" log type to "found as destroyed" as a conditional found? If this were the case all of the old logs would just convert to this new description.

Why not change that designation as 'Possibly Destroyed', which would count as a not found? Then those that are definite that the BM has been destroyed can use a designation of 'destroyed' or 'definitely destroyed', which would count as a find. This way there would be a separated be tween 'really hard to find' and 'not there'?

 

-gt

Share this post


Link to post
I don't file reports with the NGS, just on GC. If I look for a benchmark and I am SURE it is destroyed I would use the "found but destroyed" option. I log here for the benefit of other Benchmark Hunters. I have no interest in filing an official log, but it would be nice to let other people know what I did find (destroyed). If I find that a benchmark has been destroyed, should not that count as a legitimate type of found?

 

John

As I'm not a pro (and only a interested observer at this point) the only time I would log anything with the NGS is if I was absolutely, positively sure the BM was destroyed or if the Bm had not been found in a very long time. Otherwise, I would place a found note on GC.com and let the professionals make a more accurate determination.

 

.gt

Share this post


Link to post

...<snip>...

 

2.  Someone finds that the location of the benchmark (a bridge or building) is gone, or the actual cement mounting where the disk obviously had been is found, but the disk itself wasn't found.  The benchmarker logs as 'destroyed'.

 

...<snip>...

 

I assume that changing 'destroyed' to a type of 'found' would increase the find counts of persons doing #1 and #3 appropriately and increase the find counts of persons logging as #2 inappropriately.

 

How people log on GC.com is going to depend on how much they are willing to understand about NGS benchmarks in general, and their own reasons for hunting them. This site is indeed about Find Counts. It is about rewarding people for their efforts and their successes. I agree that not everyone is interested in reporting to NGS, but we already have people logging inappropriate finds based on locating a single reference mark, for example. I feel that this sort of thing is a matter of education on the part of the benchmarking community and sincerity on the part of the benchmark hunter. Many Geocachers log finds inappropriately as well. There's not much anyone can do about this when all is said and done, but fortunately it's not a terribly common occurrence.

 

As for #2 above, NGS will not declare a station destroyed in this situation. There is simply not enough evidence for them to do so, and I make this statement from experience. I myself do not log it as a "find." It is reported to NGS and they, in turn, update their datasheet with a "Mark Not Found."

 

NGS standards for "destroyed" are fairly easy to interpret and follow. The serious benchmark hunter will attempt to maintain a high level of standards and integrity in his activities; the "hobbyist" will usually prefer to take the easier way and log whatever he feels like. Or so it seems to me.

 

Cheers ...

Share this post


Link to post
As far as responses to searches, is there any way to get more than 25 responses per page? The old way of having all responses within a 10-mile radius on a continuous page worked really well, especially when following the line of benchmarks along a linear corridor such as a road. The limit of 25 responses per page really breaks this up.

To start with, some mindless fawning: Thanks for updating the section! I am really happy to have the updated map links!

 

Now to the suggestions:

 

I agree with Me and Bucky (that almost sounds like I have a multiple personality disorder), I liked the 10 mile radius on the results page.

 

I download all the PIDs for an area I am going to be in and dump them into Map Source so I can get a visual of where they are all are in relation to where I am going to be. Doing this 25 at a time would be very time consuming.

 

Keep up the great work!!!

Share this post


Link to post

I agree, Rich.

 

I should've summed up my too-lengthy earlier post, so here it is:

I think the #2 scenario is rather rare, so globally changing the present 'destroyed' logs to a type of found like 'Found as Destroyed' would be good.

 

The resulting increase in found counts is appropriate.

 

I like the 'confirmed destroyed' terminology except that it tends to cut out those of us who don't report to the NGS for whatever reason. So, I favor Jeremy's 'Found as Destroyed' terminology.

 

The scenario #1 and #3 details could be explained in the benchmark page's FAQ.

Share this post


Link to post
One thing that I haven't seen mentioned here yet is a problem with the benchmark waypoint downloads. It doesn't seem to be working for me now. (And since I haven't seen it mentioned here yet, I realize that it could be just me.)

It might be just you, K&S. I can download waypoints fine (into ExpertGPS).

 

I like and appreciate the changes. Drab olive works fine for me; all of you who miss the orange will come to love drab olive after sufficient conditioning sessions.

Share this post


Link to post
I download all the PIDs for an area I am going to be in and dump them into Map Source so I can get a visual of where they are all are in relation to where I am going to be. Doing this 25 at a time would be very time consuming.

 

I can understand why folks get the PIDs from gc.com but I have found it a lot easier just to download an entire county directly from the NGS. You may want to investigate that route when you are planning your searches.

Share this post


Link to post

Stats man here.

 

The front page now includes this:

 

In the last 7 days, 600 benchmarks have been logged by 190 users.

Overall, 39657 benchmarks have been recovered in 52792 logs.

There are 736425 total benchmarks in the database.

 

I love the new stats quoted above. Showing how many users have logged benchmarks in the past week is a great way to show how active the benchmarking section is.

 

When it says 39657 benchmarks have been recovered, does this mean:

 

a) 39,657 different benchmarks have at least one "found" log posted on GC. Logs of other types (including "not found" or even "destroyed") might also be posted to these benchmarks. This is how I interpret it and this is OK.

 

b ) 39,657 different benchmarks have at least one log of any type posted on GC.

 

c) Something else which I could guess at but it just gets uglier.

Edited by rogbarn

Share this post


Link to post

File caption field when uploading pictures is now limited to 50 characters which, if you want to include much meaningful location and designation information, has proved to be too restrictive IMHO based on some images I've been uploading yesterday and today.

 

-ArtMan-

Share this post


Link to post

I was curious as to what the search distance is now? It used to be a 10 mile radius from a spot. I just did a search from my home coordinates and it's showing 57 benchmarks and the furtherest one away is 6.1 miles away.

 

A search from my local zipcode brings up 77, the furtherest being 8.9 miles.

 

southdeltan

Share this post


Link to post

On the benchmark images:

 

1. I suggest that the benchmark gallery Automatically gets the PID, Designation, County, State, Benchmarker name. I imagine that these could be attached to the picture file at picture upload time.

 

Some of us put this information in anyway to improve the Gallery and continue to encourage others to do so, but it really could be done automatically, I think. For those of us who take time to put this information in, this automatic fill would be a huge timesaver in uploading pics.

 

2. In the image uploading process, since most of us upload more than one picture per mark, it would be nice to have the clickable item "[upload another image]" on the top right of the "Updating for Log" view to not have to scroll down to the bottom of the screen for it.

 

3. I agree with ArtMan favoring the old size (no limit?) of the Caption text box.

 

4. On clicking an image in the Gallery, some of the text isn't staying in the proper area. Sometimes some of it is too far to the left and even above the picture.

 

5. The clickable <prev image> item is sometimes left-truncated by being outside the picture box. A reset of the browser fixes this.

 

6. The building picture in my yesterday log of CW0761 seems fine when I get it from a PID search, but when I click on it in the Gallery, the picture is so huge that either only the right half of the picture shows up or the window gets so wide that some of the picture and the File Description is off the browser's right side, requiring a sideways scroll. (I know I took that picture too big!)

 

7. I made a File error when uploading images and had to delete and re-load a picture when logging CW0594 yesterday and now that image has the wrong date (it's the upload date, not find date) and now I cannot edit the date that shows in the Gallery. The whole log does have the correct find date, however.

 

8. It seems a bit odd that:

a. In looking from the Gallery and then clicking on "Click image to view original", the picture gets smaller, instead of what one might expect - larger or just as large.

b. In looking at a PID from the PID search, the pictures are always small and there is no "Click image to view original" option to see the full-size view (which should possibly be the default).

Share this post


Link to post

I think it would be good to just go ahead and put in a search limit box in miles radius for all benchmark searches (with a reasonable limit like 50 miles or 2,000 PIDs, whichever comes first).

 

Bigger search radius needed sometimes:

Yesterday I was trying to find whether a mark I had a picture of was in the database and was frustrated by not being able to have a larger mile radius from the nearest small town (I was using coordinates based on its zipcode) in a rather remote area. I had to try several coordinate increments to satisfy my search.

 

Smaller search radius needed rather often:

Often, when organizing a search afternoon, I will begin with one PID I decide to look for and then get a proximity to that PID with a second search. I don't want to get all 2,000 PIDs that I get in this scenario - I only want a radius of a couple miles. In such cases, I could pick 2 miles and save some CPU time at the servier I think.

Share this post


Link to post

The log page features a checkbox to "Add a waypoint to the log." Checking that box displays a new log page which includes boxes to enter latitude and longitude. I don't know this two-step process is necessary. To my mind, it just seems to require an extra step, and an extra page download (annoying for us dial-up users). Why not keep the lat and long boxes on the basic log page, and you can plainly label them as OPTIONAL if that has something to do with the change.

 

-ArtMan-

Share this post


Link to post

Sorry to be entering these navigation-related suggestions piecemeal, but that's the way my mind works. :-(

 

I've just entered a log and added a picture. The page they displays my uploaded image - full-size; is that really needed? why not just a clickable thumbnail? - and gives me several options: [visit log] [upload another image] [Edit this image].

 

I would like another option: log another benchmark, with a space to enter the PID for the next benchmark. I believe this would save lots of time and electrons!

 

I know this is a complex web site. I think providing maximum navigation choices would help simplify the user experience.

 

Just my 1c worth (prev. 2c, before inflation).

 

-ArtMan-

Share this post


Link to post

If I might add my two cents to the "destroyed" discussion, NOAA (the oversight agency, now) requests that we not post any Recovery Reports directly on "destroyed" marks, but send them an e-mail instead, giving our reasons for considering the thing destroyed. From there, Deb Brown will file whatever Report she feels is best. I've got two marks to report this way; one is a water tower that is definitely not there, the other is a triangulation disk that has been dug up and rolled )concrete post and all) some 20 feet or so from the station. I think that I know where the station was, but the Reference Mark that I could find, out of two listed, does not point to that spot, so I may be wrong.

 

Thus, I am not certain that the BM part of GC.com should even have a "Destroyed" option. But I see Jeremy's point about past usage. Calling these "reported Destroyed" is a good way out. Just because the thing is *reported* destroyed does not mean that it actually *is* destroyed. A local surveyor in Siskiyou County found a number of controls near Tulekake NWR that an NGS team couldn't, and I and another geocacher found a disk here in Ventura County that a surveyor couldn't. I think that if we, here, on this site, remember the fact that we are mostly amateurs, playing around but also trying to be useful, then if there are slight differences in usage, things won't be too out-of-kilter with The Real World. The fact that the NGS has deemed our efforts worthy of use in their databank says something for the positive effect that we are having. As long as we are careful in our Reports to them, we should be OK.

 

As for the site changes, after a little time spent getting used to them, I have to say that I like them. The change of dating to full mm/dd/yyyy is good, as the NGS has gone to that, and I like the old-to-new, from top to bottom, organization. The background color is fine; the orange was OK, the olive is OK. Next time, maybe you should try chartreuse or aquamarine :unsure: Finally, I really like the fact that we can now see the marks that we have found. The comments about the dating of those are valid; if I update a log, that shouldn't affect the date that I first filed my report. Other than that, though, this looks like some good work, over-all.

Share this post


Link to post

I like the 'confirmed destroyed' terminology except that it tends to cut out those of us who don't report to the NGS for whatever reason.  So, I favor Jeremy's 'Found as Destroyed' terminology.

Just to clarify, how does "Confirmed Destroyed" cut out those who don't report to NGS? The confirmation doesn't have to be Deb Brown's affirmation. I have a couple of marks (BM0988 and BM0068) that I have confirmed as destroyed that I haven't reported. Sometimes it's because I haven't taken time to compile all the evidence in a form to be presentable, others I will probably submit a "not found" report to NGS after double checking the area once again. The marks are no less "confirmed" as being destroyed as long as the hunter takes the time to do some research.

 

I think "Found as Destroyed" is more confusing, simply from the seemingly contradictory terms in that description. We (those that frequent the forums) understand what it means, but first-time hunters would be more likely to understand "confirmed" instead of "found" when it comes to something that simply is no longer there.

Share this post


Link to post

Quoting RACooper

that I have confirmed as destroyed

 

Well, I was figuring that confirmed meant agreed to by the NGS, which is what I figure that Rich in NEPA meant too.

 

If I make a statement like "The sky is white.", what more does it mean if I say "I confirm that the sky is white."? I could be just as wrong either way whether I use the word confirmed or not. If NOAA, for instance, agrees that it is white, it's confirmed.

 

I must agree that the building no longer existing scenario is pretty obvious. I guess it is a sort of confirmation by corroboration to say the mark doesn't exist because the building it was on is gone.

Share this post


Link to post

I can appreciate Jeremy's predicament regarding the transition of the existing logs to the new site, but I will continute to maintain that the confusion would be mostly eliminated if the benchmark logging options were simply changed to:

 

1. Found, with accompanying check boxes for the ConditionGood, Poor/Disturbed, and Destroyed (station was positively identified but mark/landmark no longer exists).

 

2. Not Found.

 

3. Post A Note.

 

The condition "Destroyed" can be checked by anyone who feels they have sufficient evidence to prove that the station itself has been positively identified, but it would be better used if NGS confirms it by declaring the station destroyed on their datasheet. A brief explanation about the various logging options ought to be added to the log entry page. The key difference between Found and Not Found with regard to missing and presumed destroyed marks will always be positive identification of the station, as required by NGS.

 

It's a shame that this sort of system can't be easily utilized on the new site.

 

Cheers ...

Share this post


Link to post

Looking good, one and all. Keep up the good comments, and THANKS Jeremy! From my standpoint, I like all the changes, and have no particular comments / problems, yet. I'm easy to please. Oh - PQ's or downloadable GPX files would be really nice! I guess that's a lot of work to set up, but we can hope!

Share this post


Link to post

So far so good - thanks.

 

Color does not matter much.... BUT..... I spent 20+ years wearing OD-green in the army. I REALLY LIKED THE ORANGE!

Share this post


Link to post

ACK!! I just realized that a url I had included on BM0988 is gone! it's the "proof" for the destruction of the mark! Please tell me that posted URLs can be returned to the mark pages...?!?!

Share this post


Link to post

Just to let you know that I am still working on many of the changes (and bug reports) listed above, including the waypoints missing. They will be back up by monday, and they're still in the database so they haven't been lost.

Share this post


Link to post

I'm just glad the benchmarking section is getting attention, and that ugly orange is gone!

 

Keep up the great work! Thanks!

Share this post


Link to post

<_<

 

Jeremy --

 

The gallery page is a step backwards. Many of us had asked for more info on

the picture labels such as county and state automatically added.

 

Here is what I'd like to see (in order of 'usefulness'/priority)

- PID, County, State (highest)

- found by whoever

- date (lowest)

 

Thanks!

 

WhistlingWind

Share this post


Link to post

I would love a feature that lets you search for benchmarks by date. Not sure if it's possible, but it would still be cool.

 

Also, there seems to be a Y2K-type issue. Some have dates listed as 1/1/0001. (Like this one JS4809)

 

Keep up the good work!

Share this post


Link to post

I have a bookmark (favorites) called "Benchmarks nearest to home". It no longer works and the benchmark search page has no provision for this any more.

 

It might be good to put it back. The My Cache page still has the "from your home coordinates" for searching geocaches, but not benchmarks. I'm not suggesting that the My Cache page should have this home coordinate benchark search, but at least the benchmark search page (or the "other search options" subpage) should have it.

 

I was able to recreate it by remembering that benchmark pages still have a "nearest benchmarks" target. (The target was in DegDec form so I put my home coords. in the "other search options" subpage, and then used that page to convert them to DegDec form.) I altered the http address of a "nearest benchmarks" target with my home coordinates, and then saved the resulting http address.

 

The search by designation is really fun!

Share this post


Link to post

The 'nearest benchmark' results page has generic navigation links -

 

Prev. << <[1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10]> >> Next

 

- even if all the results can be displayed on a single page.

Share this post


Link to post
It might be good to put it back. The My Cache page still has the "from your home coordinates" for searching geocaches, but not benchmarks. I'm not suggesting that the My Cache page should have this home coordinate benchark search, but at least the benchmark search page (or the "other search options" subpage) should have it.

I personally think the "My cache Page" should have a nearest benchmark link - but that's another topic. As soon as the majority of the bugs in the "new" benchmark section are ironed out I beleive "My Cache Page" is next... I may be wrong.

 

Of course - I'm sure Jeremy is already busy enough - or will be come Monday....

 

southdeltan

Share this post


Link to post

After logging several benchmarks from this past weekend, here are a couple thoughts:

 

I know that everyone doesn't log coordinates when they log a benchmark, but it would help to be able to log coordinates without having to click for the extra page. Maybe its just not being used to it yet, but several times I have had to go back and get the extra page to put in coordinates.

 

I like that you are asked to confirm the logging of a destroyed benchmark. This may or may not get people to think about it before hitting <enter>, but it shouldn't be taken lightly. (PID FS 0249 was the mark that I logged, and it really was a no-brainer).

 

Again, thanks for the work on the Benchmark page!

Share this post


Link to post
I have a bookmark (favorites) called "Benchmarks nearest to home". It no longer works and the benchmark search page has no provision for this any more.

Try lat=(latitude)&lon=(longitude) as your query string. Make sure it is in decimal degrees, and for the US, longitude is negative

Share this post


Link to post
I would love a feature that lets you search for benchmarks by date. Not sure if it's possible, but it would still be cool.

 

Also, there seems to be a Y2K-type issue. Some have dates listed as 1/1/0001. (Like this one JS4809)

If you check the datasheet, that is an UNK date, so the page doesn't know what to do with it. I'll see if I can have it say unknown instead of putting it around the birth of Christ.

Share this post


Link to post
I would love a feature that lets you search for benchmarks by date. Not sure if it's possible, but it would still be cool.

 

Also, there seems to be a Y2K-type issue. Some have dates listed as 1/1/0001. (Like this one JS4809)

If you check the datasheet, that is an UNK date, so the page doesn't know what to do with it. I'll see if I can have it say unknown instead of putting it around the birth of Christ.

This may just prove that surveying IS the oldest profession. :D

Share this post


Link to post

I re-added waypoints for images. You can now apply lat/lon coordinates to any image on the web site, not just benchmark logs.

Share this post


Link to post

Added:

 

1. You can now download all the benchmark results in one click, if you search by zipcode, coordinate, or designation.

 

2. Added filter by state for Designation lookups.

 

3. Unknown dates now show up as "unknown" and not 1/1/0001

 

4. Benchmark images now can have coordinates assigned to them, or allow you to edit pre-existing coordinates.

Share this post


Link to post

Jeremy,

 

Whatever you did today has broken the ability to search by user on benchmarks.

 

JeremyA

Share this post


Link to post
Whatever you did today has broken the ability to search by user on benchmarks.

Just a brief hiccup. It is working now.

Share this post


Link to post

Perhaps it's just a bit off topic in this thread, but I suggest that when the datasheets are updated with the new data from NGS, the reference object information from the NGS datasheets be parsed in to the geocaching datasheets.

 

This reference object information is easy to spot in a NGS datasheet because it has a vertical bar character in the beginning of each line, after the repeating PID. I call it the reference box. Many PIDs have no reference box, but the ones that do have the information about bearing and distance to the reference marks and azimuth mark that can sometimes make or break a find effort.

 

The reference box information is the one essential piece of information currently missing from the geocaching datasheets.

 

There is sometimes some reference box information that is useless to us benchmark hunters and probably doesn't need to be parsed in. This is the distance and bearing to other stations miles away. Of course, they can be distinguished by their large distances. The ones most critical are only a few feet.

 

A case in point is my recent experience with station VIEW in Arizona. I went on a vacation there and packed along a bunch of geocaching datasheets for a few benchmarks that I thought I'd make a try for during the vacation. I spent about an hour an a half looking for station View and never found it. I easily found the two reference disks and they pointed at the main station. There were 3 unfortunate things: 1) the reference marks were exactly in line with the station, not at some angle, 2) much of the area between the reference marks was covered in about an inch of mud and gravel 3) I only had the geocaching datasheet, which didn't have the reference box information.

 

Next time I had internet access (a couple days and a couple hundred miles later), I read the distances from the reference disks to the main station - a 1/3, 2/3 ratio! If I'd had that information, I could've saved a bunch of time and been able to do a much better report, even if the disk really is missing.

 

I guess next time I could bring the NGS datasheets, but they have no map, and that difference makes the geocaching sheets much nicer.

 

For station View (probably like all PIDs with a reference box), the 3 reference items from the reference box are actually listed on the geocaching datasheet. However, there is no bearing or distance data by them; just the 3 station names, each alone on a line. The two reference marks have clickable identifiers that look like PIDs, but those PIDs are not in the database.

Share this post


Link to post

The boxed list of reference objects to which BDT refers is, I believe, known as the 'box score.' Little bit of geodetic whimsey, that. ;-)

 

-ArtMan-

Share this post


Link to post

I haven't read the entire thread so don't know if this has already been mentioned.

 

My comment is that I'd like to see the PID shown with every photo in the gallery as it used to be. This is very handy when looking for activity in a certain area.

If room for this is hard to find, the date field doesn't really need to show the year since it's all current data.

 

Otherwise -- WELL DONE!!

Share this post


Link to post
Added:

 

1. You can now download all the benchmark results in one click, if you search by zipcode, coordinate, or designation.

 

2. Added filter by state for Designation lookups.

 

3. Unknown dates now show up as "unknown" and not 1/1/0001

 

4. Benchmark images now can have coordinates assigned to them, or allow you to edit pre-existing coordinates.

Greatly appreciated, Thank You

 

John & Shirley

Share this post


Link to post

Missing NGS Text Descriptions

 

I am noticing occasional benchmark pages which have multiple NGS reports but no descriptive text. For example, on HV4548:

 

Documented History (by the NGS)

1/1/1928 by CGS (FIRST OBSERVED)

NO DESCRIPTIVE TEXT AVAILABLE.

1/1/1938 by CGS (GOOD)

NO DESCRIPTIVE TEXT AVAILABLE.

1/1/1946 by CGS (GOOD)

NO DESCRIPTIVE TEXT AVAILABLE.

1/1/1970 by NGS (GOOD)

NO DESCRIPTIVE TEXT AVAILABLE.

1/1/1974 by NGS (GOOD)

NO DESCRIPTIVE TEXT AVAILABLE.

9/13/1996 by USPSQD (GOOD)

NO DESCRIPTIVE TEXT AVAILABLE.

 

The NGS datasheet, when retrieved though this page, similarly lacks data:

 

HV4548 HISTORY - Date Condition Recov. By

HV4548 HISTORY - 1928 FIRST OBSERVED CGS

HV4548 HISTORY - 1938 GOOD CGS

HV4548 HISTORY - 1946 GOOD CGS

HV4548 HISTORY - 1970 GOOD NGS

HV4548 HISTORY - 1974 GOOD NGS

HV4548 HISTORY - 19960913 GOOD USPSQD

HV4548

HV4548 STATION DESCRIPTION

HV4548

HV4548''NO DESCRIPTIVE TEXT AVAILABLE.

 

Yet, when I retrieved the datasheet directly from NGS the other day, it had full details of these recoveries. I know that the datasheets on geocaching.com are 2+ years old, but it seems unlikely to me that these descriptions would have been unavailable then.

 

I'm not sure this has anything to do with the recent changes to the site - in fact, I rather doubt it - but since I don't recall seeing this phenomenon before, I thought I'd mention it here.

 

Has anyone else noticed missing descriptions?

 

-ArtMan-

Share this post


Link to post

I'm curious (and haven't checked here in several days) - have most of the bugs with the upgrade to this section been fixed?

 

I'm just wondering what the status of this upgrade is? :P

 

southdeltan

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 5

×