First To Find Benchmarks

[mloser]

My son and I went out hunting today, with a special twist. We looked primarily for marks not reported in a long time. I am happy to say we located three that had not been reported to NGS since 1936, two since 1942 and once since 1944. Our success rate was not too great though--out of 21 marks searched for only 9 were found. and we marked a number here as destroyed and sent evidence to Deb of most of them. Usually I get a failure rate of about 40 percent, not 50!

[+rogbarn]

Usually I get a failure rate of about 40 percent, not 50!

Considering the group you were looking for, I don't think a 10 percent increase in your failure rate is all that bad. Those 9 finds are pretty awesome and well worth the effort put in to find them. Congratulations!

[mloser]

Rog,

I wasn't complaining about the failure rate, especially since most of the marks we looked for were fairly old and in an area with huge growth recently. In fact, since we targeted mostly railroad ones we probably had a lower failure rate than when we go back to do the rest of the quadrangle. About half the marks in that quadrangle are along interstate highways that have been widened, so marks reported to NGS as 'good' in 2001 are very likely gone today. And to add to it, that sort of mark is no fun to find--parking on the shoulder of a busy interstate while I lean over a bridge is not my idea of a fun recovery!

The marks we searched for are about the oldest in my area from 1935. There are a few from 1929 floating around, and a boatload from 1942, but this string of 1935s is a rarity. As for our '1935/1936' day, the enjoyment came partly from being the first to report, to NGS especially, the station status since the mid-1930s.

 

Matt

[+Black Dog Trackers]

mloser -

 

Cool; 388 points.

[+rogbarn]

I wasn't complaining about the failure rate,

I kinda figured you weren't but I just wanted to emphasize the point. Actually, BDT did a much better job of it with his point system. It's a pretty interesting way of looking at it. Now you can look at the effort in two different but eqaully cool ways:

9 awesome old finds!

388 points!

 

Which one sounds better?

[mloser]

I got a kick out of BDT's rating system, and it might be a little responsible for my concern for older marks. Maybe I should total all my finds up and see where I stand?! If that thread had stuck around a little longer I might have been tempted to keep a running total.

[+chaosmanor]

Now you can look at the effort in two different but eqaully cool ways:

9 awesome old finds!

388 points!

 

Which one sounds better?

Oh, I vote for "9 awesome old finds", but I'd take the 388 points, too You know how it is; why settle for two points if you can get three?! {angelic but guilty smile}