Erroneous Benchmark Logs On Gc.com

[+xmashl]

Ok, what is the consensus on the best way to handle this? I went searching for benchmark RD2022, and all that remains of the station is reference mark #1, which many gc loggers have photographed and proclaimed that they found it. Should I leave it be, or send them all a polite note that the only found the reference mark?

[+JeremyA]

I would suggest that you just log what you found and let it be.

 

I once had the opposite situation: I found a triangulation station which people had been logging as if it were the RM1 disk (this was back in the days of the confusing skulls).

 

I decided not to contact the previous 'finders', but instead to just log the triangulation station and post a not found on the reference mark. I was quite pleased later to see that one of the previous finders changed their log to agree with me, so I felt that that strategy had worked.

 

JeremyA

[a/r/sf/ret]

I did the opposite. After reading earlier discussion on a topic like this and taking notice of false entries for claims I alerted one user in a polite manner via e-mail. Told the individual that they were claiming finds with ref marks and explained the differences. Thats all....will leave it to them to correct. As the finds are on the opposite coast from me I don't see where I'll be able to correct with an entry of my own.

[mloser]

My reaction would be different depending on what I thought the intent of the finder was. Many benchmark finds are from casual hunters who are out hunting a cache and find a benchmark. 'Looking for the XYZ cache and stumbled on this...' etc. I doubt they would really care to know their find isn't correct, so I would just post the status I observed on the benchmark page. If it was one 'us', a serious hunter, I would post my interpretation and possibly email. I try to think what I would do if I got an email saying my find was incorrect, and whether I would be offended, and my reaction most likely would be to go back out to the mark and see if I agree.

Either way, I wouldn't get all worked up about the posting or the poster. After all, it is just a hobby.

[+ddnutzy]

Ok, what is the consensus on the best way to handle this? I went searching for benchmark RD2022, and all that remains of the station is reference mark #1, which many gc loggers have photographed and proclaimed that they found it. Should I leave it be, or send them all a polite note that the only found the reference mark?

When I started looking for bm's I found some rm's and thought they were the benchmarks. Walden Run picked up on my mistake and emailed me to explain about posting the benchmarks. I went back and found the the stations and uploaded the station pictures. I was glad that he let me know so I wouldn't keep doing everything wrong. Today I was checking my early finds and found a couple more that I have to go back to. If I see that someone has made the same mistake as me I would let them know by email.

[+Colorado Papa]

Ok, what is the consensus on the best way to handle this? 

We discussed this last month. Follow this string.

 

In my own particular finding, I sent the cachers polite emails. One fessed up to his error and deleted his log. BillzJeep died before he could correct his so we'll let it stay as is. Never did hear back from the other finder, weizen.

[+seventhings]

XMASHL -

 

I agree with mloser - depends on who made the error. I would certainly log the correct status and add a comment on the earlier, incorrect log (and why it was incorrect), etc. And if the error was committed by a hunter who I thought was otherwise (regarding other marks) fairly serious about accuracy, etc., I would send an e-mail.

 

I have been corrected by other hunters on a few of my finds, and I have corrected a few other hunters on theirs. I admit, however, I've sent e-mails on only about one-third of the incorrect finds that I've encountered.

 

7

[+xmashl]

Well, so far I've sent a note to the guy that declared that the intersection stations attached to the peaks around the area as "destroyed".

[+SixDogTeam]

polite note them.

[+Spoo]

When I first started this type of hunt, I logged three Triangulation Stations incorrectly. Now that I have learned the difference I have gone back, searched out, found the BM's and have corrected my logs on two of them. I will do the same with the third ASAP.

 

I would not have been offended if someone had pointed out my error, but there is also something to be said for learning on my own.

[ArtMan]

I'd send a polite note. Some logs are posted by casual hobbyists who won't care. But many others would be eager to learn of an error by a more experienced benchmarker, and it may alert them to be more careful in the future.

 

-ArtMan-

[+Web-ling]

Another factor is that the "rules" for logging benchmarks have evolved and changed over time. When benchmarks first appeared on GC.com about two years ago, the only "rules" were a few comments in the forums by Jeremy. He basically said that it was ok to log finds if you only found a RM. Since then, through user input, the "rules" changed to be more aligned with NGS standards.

 

I "found" several benchmarks when they first appeared on GC.com using the original standards. Under the current guidelines, they don't qualify. I'm keeping my finds as originally logged, because they DID meet the standards at the time they were logged. I suppose I could go back and edit those logs to indicate that the standards have changed, but I haven't yet.