Incorrect Descriptions

[+Kordite]

Along a section of track here in Pittsburgh, two of the three that I've found have descriptions that are grossly innacurate.

 

The coordinates were reasonably accurate (within 50 feet, which isn't unusual for benchmarks) but the descriptions bore no resemblance to where the marks were actually found. KX1458 was off but 6/10 of a mile and KX1460 was off by a quarter mile.

 

I suppose my question is how is this possible? To make an accurate description, someone needed to be standing on site to see abutments and towers and such. They also had to be on site to get the coordinates and place the benchmark. How then could they describe a position so far away? And it's not even that there is a mark at the other location and descriptions are mixed up. I don't get it.

[+Colorado Papa]

Along a section of track here in Pittsburgh, two of the three that I've found have descriptions that are grossly innacurate.

I suppose my question is how is this possible?

It happens all the time as can be seen with another example JK0172. I suspect that original notes were handwritten and may not have been too ledgible, and/or, persons entering data into database did not pay too close attention. May have been late Friday afternoon or early Monday after a bad weekend.

[+Kordite]

I suspect that original notes were handwritten and may not have been too ledgible, and/or, persons entering data into database did not pay too close attention.

I might believe that if the descriptions were poor, but they are not. They are very precise and detailed but just in the wrong location. Someone stood at the site and was very careful about describing where he was. Except, that the benchmark he was talking about was a half a mile away.

[2oldfarts (the rockhounders)]

Sometimes data gets mixed at the NGS. Check this thread by rogbarn.

 

John

[+wolf452]

I don't know about the descriptions, but the coordinates are scaled from a quad map many years ago. +/- 6 seconds or 600 feet is the suggested tolerance. These points were set as elevation points not horizontal points.

Back to the descriptions, if they were doing a long levewl circuit, they could have shuffled their papers before the final descriptions were assigned to them. The descriptions were written in 1941. The first was not found 13 years ago, the second was not found 48 years ago. It would appear that something is not right in the descriptions, but what? You say you found these? By looking for the features or by mapping out the descriptions and then going there? I'm sure Dave would be interested in an updated description and photos.

[+Kordite]

You say you found these? By looking for the features or by mapping out the descriptions and then going there?

Neither. I went to the described coordinates and found the marks there (or, at least, near enough. One was within 50 feet, the other within 40 feet. Not an unusual deviation for benchmarks.) Following the descriptions placed me .6 and .25 miles away from the actual locations of the disks.

 

In the case of KX1458 I made a map. I have placed a dot at the North end of the tunnel which is where the description says the mark should be. The description is very precise with the exception of the part about the NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE NORTHEAST RETAINING WALL. I made the difficult climb down there and there is no such retaining wall. The coordinates place the disk at the SOUTH end of the tunner, which is where I found it, at the South end of the Southwest retaining wall.

 

I could imagine mark descriptions getting mixed up. Down at Ohiopyle I found one disk at one end of a bridge that apparently had the description of the disk at the other end of the bridge. This I can understand but, in this case, there were no disks at the described locations. It's not that paperwork simply got mixed up.

 

The first was not found 13 years ago, the second was not found 48 years ago.

Of course they couldn't find it. The description was wrong. But the coordinates were rifght. If they used a map and placed an X where the coordinates said the mark was they would have found it, just like I did with my GPS.

 

Perhaps I don't understand the process. I would assume that a description would be made when the mark was placed by someone standing at the location with a tape measure saying, "It's 15 feet from the tunnel. Forbes Ave is just over there. We turned at Negly to get here." Things like that. But apparently that didn't happen with this mark. I still can't figure out what happened. If they generated the description from the map (as I did) it wouldn't match up with the coordinates. If they were actually on site, they were standing 6/10 of a mile away from the disk when they wrote the description. There seems to be a mixup between Northeast and Southwest. Were they holding the map upside down or was their compass de-polarized?

 

I'm sure Dave would be interested in an updated description and photos.

I have already submitted corrected descriptions to Deb at NGS.

[DaveD]

Kordite, please provide me updated information on the locations for stations KX1458 and KX1460. I've plotted the descriptions against the USGS topo maps and they appear to fit just fine, but the scaled coordinates appear to be off by a significant amount. If possible, could you please provide me with the values you obtained and updates to the descriptive text.

[+Kordite]

Rather than going through it all again, you can find all of my details, including revised descriptions and photographs, at the logs for those marks:

 

KX1458

KX1460

[Z15]

Those oil time Surveyors have been known to take a drink or two.

[+GeckoGeek]

The description is very precise with the exception of the part about the NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE NORTHEAST RETAINING WALL. I made the difficult climb down there and there is no such retaining wall. The coordinates place the disk at the SOUTH end of the tunner, which is where I found it, at the South end of the Southwest retaining wall.

I think several people have reported finding descriptions that transposed directions. North for south, etc. That's not all that unusual. And perhaps yet another reason that NGS won't declare disks "destroyed" unless they can first be found.

[+Kordite]

I think several people have reported finding descriptions that transposed directions.

These guys armed with chains, levels, maps and compasses still cannot tell north from south and are relied on to define the measures of our nation? Ouch! I'm glad they are the rare exception.

[+GEO*Trailblazer 1]

You mean they got three sheets to the wind and it blew their lights out?

 

Not all of em...

 

I think I heard daved say one time about volunteers transposing,(tranfering data) but can not rember the whole story.

 

There is a lot of work for a few people.

I can understand their frustrations when things do not exactly match what is on the ground and what is on a map there are so many aspects between that no one person could even consider all the points invoved in getting it together.

 

It's an ever changing world we live in and new things are being learned every day.

New Earth Models,Geospatial Data,getting it all in one place and then without flaw back to you,Whew..........I am glad I am not one of them working on the Scientific Engineering Aspects.

 

Some marks may have been intentionally moved(God Forbid) someone do that.

but I have ?????? on a few, as well as the NGS data sheets found notes to this fact.

 

Nothing's perfect but working together we can get it near there.

 

Happy..................................................Geotrails

[ckhd]

I think several people have reported finding descriptions that transposed directions. North for south, etc. That's not all that unusual. And perhaps yet another reason that NGS won't declare disks "destroyed" unless they can first be found.

I found one like that yesterday. After trying to find it by description, I decided to look close to the coordinates. It was on the WEST side of the road, not the East as described!

[+GeckoGeek]

These guys armed with chains, levels, maps and compasses still cannot tell north from south and are relied on to define the measures of our nation? Ouch! I'm glad they are the rare exception.

You mean you've never had the experience where your brain was saying one thing and your mouth was saying another? Or that you were carefully proofreading details on something and someone looking over your shoulder pointed out a glaring error?

 

Keep in mind these records were transfered from paper to computer. Who knows what errors crept in at that time?

[Z15]

Almost always, the person(s) setting and describing the bench marks were just labors or a recon team, not the actual survey team.

[+SixDogTeam]

For some of these bad descriptions, you don't even have to be there--They contradict themselves and reverse compass points! You'd think some proofreader would have caught these. They are common....