Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1
YeOleImposter

Rain On Their Parade

Recommended Posts

Willamette Stone (Monument) was logged by a bunch of folks recently as they walked over it to get to a geocache.

 

Too bad the original 'stone' was vandalized in the 1980s and was replaced by the current stainless steel cap and brass plaque.

 

I marked this one as destroyed in GC.com. Probably should send a note to Deb?

Share this post


Link to post
GeckoGeek Posted on Jul 8 2004, 01:20 AM
(Black Dog Trackers @ Jul 7 2004, 06:35 PM)

Strange that such an important mark has no PID. 

 

Try RD3152

 

RD3152 is the PID for the stone, not that disk in the picture.

Share this post


Link to post
Send a note, yes.

 

Strange that such an important mark has no PID.

 

I tried a radial search at the NGS page and found nothing.

I am guessing it has no PID because it was probably placed as a 'tourist attraction' and not done by survey crews?

Share this post


Link to post
RD3152 is the PID for the stone, not that disk in the picture.

Ah. In that case I think it's not there for any or all of the reasons that many benchmarks aren't in the NGS database. Either the survey work wasn't up to NGS standards or the information was never submitted.

Share this post


Link to post

Got a note back from Deb that she would look into this further and make a determination what to do if anything.

 

I can tell you that I will probably never email anyone to correct their log unless I know them. You do not make friends by sending even a nice note - let alone one that is easliy misinterpreted (ask CCrew - even I jumped on his case because of how I read his remarks).

Share this post


Link to post
Got a note back from Deb that she would look into this further and make a determination what to do if anything.

 

I can tell you that I will probably never email anyone to correct their log unless I know them.  You do not make friends by sending even a nice note - let alone one that is easliy misinterpreted (ask CCrew - even I jumped on his case because of how I read his remarks).

 

I tend to agree with you about not sending notes, for the simple reason that most people who are logging a benchmark close to a cache, are probably what I think of as being 'just for fun & games' types. So, therefore, they will just think of a note as being some nosy, nitpicking, busybody & ignore it or send a nasty note in return.

 

They will never feel the 'passion' about BM hunting that John & I do, or anyone else who enjoys the tiny mystery solving that the hunt of a benchmark entails. We love having to read & follow the descriptions once the coordinates get you to the area, while cachers seem to think the coords should be all you need.

 

We know we probably have made some errors on our 'finds/not founds/destroyed/notes' (all 276), we do strive to be as accurate as we possibly can & appreciate any & all E-mails or PMs that come our way...we have not received many though. John is a stickler for measuring, reading, measuring & using any and all references still available to us, since we now enjoy going for the really old ones. Things do change greatly, including certain terminologies. This is definitely a blast!

 

If any of you find a BM after we do & have differing views, please feel free to contact us for further feedback. We will enjoy giving you our why, & wherefores as to how & why we logged as we did. :D Or, we might even admit that we made an error :D & change our post. :D

 

Here's hoping you find a really OLD one! :D

 

Shirley~

Share this post


Link to post

Same goes for me.

 

Mr. Magoo and ArtMan have each caught me with a bogus "found". Aside from some fleeting emarassment, the errors have motivated me to hold myself to higher standards. They have also been very pleasant reminders that there are others about who take the activity at least semi-seriously.

 

7

Share this post


Link to post

Yep, I'm human also :unsure: and an erroneous log of mine was reported to me the other day by a forum regular. I was not mad nor embarassed, but glad that someone took the time to help show me the error of my ways and has given me the reason to go re-check (is that a word?) the mark that I made a mistake with. I appreciate what I have learned here!

Share this post


Link to post

I would also be agreeable to receiving a note from a Benchmark regular, but less so from someone I had never seen here at all. I trust most of the folks on this board do the best they can when benchmarking, just like I do. I take great pride in my accuracy in hunting and can tell that the majority of you (who will be reading this) do also. I do this as a hobby, but I am very serious about it. So if you find that I made a mistake, it was just that--a mistake. I would never misrepresent a find intentionally. Let me know if you catch me in something! I will research it and correct it if I feel it is warranted.

 

M

Share this post


Link to post

I have made 3 mistakes in the way I represented what I had observed.

The First was the Hadley School Dome,I should have stated that the photo presented was another Hadley dome nearby.(and there may be more)let me know if you find it.

 

sevinthings corrected one and updated the page very professionally.

I admire that.All the work he did to verify it and correct that I had posted the photo from near the Intersection looking at Other buildings in downtown Philadelphia.

 

another geo*cacher*benchmarker from Plymouth Rock area noticed I had a photo showing at the wrong School dome,This I too corrected.

 

NOTE:I have made the point to each one, 1 in the forum and 2 that personally e-mailed me(greatly appreciated)that the camera I had at the time was faulty,I posted photo's as near to the mark as had come out in photo's,It was not mandatory to have a photo but wanted to prove I was there.These Benchmarks and photo's were all done on that same vacation.600 + photo's

I have since then aquired a good camera,software for the entire U.S. Mapping out of Benchmarks,and make shure ,and have been rechecking the logs,

 

Also during one of the change-overs(Geocaching) I lost several Benchmark logs and photo's and have tried to go back and do what I could to re-update it all.

I have a hard copy of all that I did and do so I am slowly going through it and updating it.(1000 + local + 600+ NGS).

 

Like all here we have all found other's (mistakes) and are trying to get the most professionally organized list we can.We all have learned to do things as we grow and learn more of what we are (suppose to do) to gain that trust in others who are just doing the same thing we are.

 

I am probably one of the most picky perfectionists that you have seen so I really do not liken to things that are out of order or not correct.

But have accepted this is "NOT A PERFECT WORLD".

BUT I AM WORKING ON IT NOW.

 

Regards and thanks to every one who has backed me up,to those whom I have never met personally but that have the character to know when things are correct.

 

This is the most OUTSTANDING Group of people I have ever had the opportunity to (work,play,bond,geocache,benchmark hunt and be a part of).

 

Keep up the GOOD WORK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

HAPPY........................................................................GEOTRAILS

Share this post


Link to post

GEO,

That was great! Well said! I'll second the motion.

 

Actually, I'd like to meet any and all of you fine people. Spouse and I have RV and are usually on the move. We are heading from Colorado Springs to Portland via Cheyenne and Ogden next week then try a more northern route through Washington, Idaho and Montana coming back. Going to Santa Fe in September and south Texas in November. If you live along the route, let me know and we'll look you up.

Share this post


Link to post

Colorado,

If you get to PA, look me up. I am in Hershey. Lots to see and do in this area.

 

Matt

Share this post


Link to post

Yeah fellow benchmarkers or anyone -- PLEASE feel free to rain on my parade! I have caught and repaired some of my early errors as I learned more about this hobby. But who knows what boners I am committing now, either through ignorance or haste. So "Bring It On"! (That should result in a BUNCH of corrections for my benchmark logs.) :blink:

 

I have met only three other folks who take this benchmarking seriously but would enjoy meeting some more of you. So when in St. Louis, MO area, look me up. I will even try to lead you to a couple of (drive-by) benchmarks, if I can.

Share this post


Link to post

I went to see the Willamette Stone this weekend and really enjoyed adding another Intial Point to my list for this year. While visiting this monument I obviously saw that it had indeed been perpetuated by a stainless steel monument, but I also noticed that there was a stone being approximately 6"x6" in which the monument was embedded. I had a thought, so I emailed the BLM office in Portland and received the following response:

 

"The WM originally was a post set in 1851, then a stone replaced it in 1888. In 1988, just after the top 6 inches were broken off of the stone, we

cleaned the park and had Hofland Monument Company make a stainless steel

monument, the top of which you now see. It is about 4 inches thick. We

used a core drill to get into the 1888 stone for a tight fit."

 

As you can see the monument has been changed, but is in the same position, except the vertical would no doubt be unusuable.

 

I would personally put this monument as a found - in poor condition, in the geocaching data base. Even the NGS database would be accurate as to the Horizontal Position, it would need to be updated as to the description. The Oregon Land Surveyors could have done this, but probably did not due to the fact that this is not a usable position to do any geodetic positioning from. For example it is no good for GPS and there are much better Horizontal control points to use for any geodetic purposes.

 

I know that there is great discussion and difference in this forum as to found and not found; even I sway on my finds. The Boise Meridian which is the Initial Point for Idaho is a good example. I reported it as not found due to the fact that vandals have torn that monument out of the concrete setting, but the true position is still very evident in the drill holef, and perpetuated by one remaining Reference Monument. Found? Not found? If I had a Land Survey to perform in that area I would except that position, but if I were performing a control survey and needed a centimeter or two in accuracy I probably would not use that position.

 

CallawayMT

Share this post


Link to post
"The WM originally was a post set in 1851, then a stone replaced it in 1888. In 1988, just after the top 6 inches were broken off of the stone, we cleaned the park and had Hofland Monument Company make a stainless steel monument, the top of which you now see. It is about 4 inches thick. We used a core drill to get into the 1888 stone for a tight fit."

 

CallawayMT, I think it is very cool that you went to the trouble to write the BLM. To be certain, this monument's location serves as the Initial Point for millions and millions of legal property descriptions all over the Pacific North West. It is a very, very important location.

This is a great example of the kind of footwork that sometimes needs done to sort out and get at the truth.

 

You also learned what was needed to be known. This "Specially Manufactured Monument Disc" is NOT the original Benchmark, as well as the history of the current station.

 

That said, here is the deal.

 

For Geocaching purposes, we must take a little pause. There is more than one force at work here. Many of us love hunting Bench Marks and we take it seriously. We know that the original was Vandalized in the 1980's and this NON NGS Benchmark Disc was put in it's place. So we think those who recover it are recovering nothing, and we are technically correct. But there are people who could care less or they are looking for a Cache near this loaction. Some may find it with the family and it is fun for the kids, do not know the lowdown and are not all that interested in this sort of thing but what the heck, log it anyway. Maybe it is important to show the kids how to log the cool find too. We will never change their minds, and one look at the Ceocaching Log on this PID will bear this out. There is a long list of people who both do and don't know the difference. What is the harm, geocache-wise in letting them think what they want? It is meant to be fun in the first place. For us true Bench Mark enthusiasts, We hunt the hard ones anyway, not the ones with their own custom walkway leading right to them. Since we are not perfect ourselves and trying to do our best, we can't really drum too loud, we all had to start sometime. I work in both Surveying and Heavy Construction, and I still learn something every day. Nobody starts out a Pro so there is no need to be too hard on ourselves. Officially, and for those of us who take it serious, AND FUN, I too would log this Destroyed on Geocaching because in truth, and by definition. it is, and that is the description that is the best fit on geocaching.com

 

For NGS Purposes. this Monument is no longer in the state it was when the C&GS originally made their Monumenting Log entry in 1903. It is now a completely different style of monument. It is therefore Not Found. Unlike the one you mentioned in Boise Idaho where the monument's brass disc was gone, but the drill hole or concrete post was found. A new brass disc can easily cemented back in and the station rechecked, but the station is still there. I would report that Poor, Needs Maintainence and state why in the description. On the Willamette Stone, In it's original form, the Bench Mark was " MARKED BY BRASS SCREW SET IN CENTER OF TOP OF CUT STONE POST" which at one time projected 1-1/2 feet above the ground. This also means that the elevation for this PID is wrong, no matter how much care was taken to replace the brass disc in the right place. I am sure it was professionally surveyed in, and is fine for the other purpose it serves but it is Lost for Geodetic purposes. The current Monument does not match the description at all and I could not use NGS data for accurate survey from this location. The NGS Monument as described is NOT RECOVERED, NOT FOUND. If the NGS were to re-evaluate this station, due to the many changes it would likely be a reset, and likely would be assigned a brand new PID. It could be renamed MONUMENT RESET or MONUMENT 2. Most likely it will be reported not found and left in the database as such as the location is not all that survey friendly.

 

We could call it Poor, disturbed, mutilated, requires maintenance, because that is partly true. It could be resurveyed and it's position corrected as it now exists, But the original monument is gone as far as the description is concerned. so in the most true sense, as described it is not recovered not found. Though it is not likely going to be used for modern geodetic work, there is no point in leavng the database as is. The information in the Database is not correct at this time.

 

In closing, Remember to check the NGS website and run each PID as you go. the latest info is there. This PID will give us all a laugh and maybe we learn a lesson here too. Ok, we all know it is important to read ALL of the the details in their entirety so we know what the Bench Mark really is. If it does not match the description anymore, then it is not the Bench Mark. So how does this happen?

 

"STATION RECOVERY (2004)

 

RECOVERY NOTE BY US POWER SQUADRON 2004 (RHC)

RECOVERED IN GOOD CONDITION."

 

Yes this is the latest recovery for the Willamette Stone, and yes it is incorrect.

 

Nope. It is lost, even though there is a monument there. Did USPSQD do the research that they should have to keep the NGS Database accurate, _before_ they logged this incorrectly?

 

The Integrity of the NGS database, and Quality Assurance that goes into that is largely up to those who submit data. This is why the public cannot simply submit data for destroyed marks.

 

If I were recovering this station as a geocacher, the recovery would read as follows:

 

"STATION RECOVERY (2004)

 

RECOVERY NOTE BY GEOCAC 2004 (YOU)

NOT RECOVERED, NOT FOUND.

 

The ORIGINAL 1903 STATION WAS VANDALIZED AND SEVERLY DAMAGED.

IT WAS REPLACED IN 1988 BY A CUSTOM MADE COMMEMORATIVE

BENCH MARK DISC MOUNTED FLUSH WITH THE GROUND

IN THE BASE SECTION OF THE ORIGINAL STONE MONUMENT.

THIS STATION IS NOT SUITABLE FOR GPS OBSERVATIONS.

ORIGINAL STATION IS NOT RECOVERED AND REPLACEMENT

STATION WILL REQUIRE MAINTAINENCE FOR ACCURACY AND

GEODETIC PURPOSES.

 

This has been a fun thread! Thanks!

 

Rob

Share this post


Link to post

We can't take hunting benchmarks by geocachers too seriously. With the exception of few of us, most geocachers really don't care about finding benchmarks. If they use Find... all nearby benchmarks on a cache page just for the fun of it, they may want to see if they can find the mark and log it.

But then the log maybe entered in total error. Case of point is this log for RD3792 where it was logged with a :mad: smiley face (FOUND) but described as not found. :D

Share this post


Link to post
We can't take hunting benchmarks by geocachers too seriously. With the exception of few of us, most geocachers really don't care about finding benchmarks. If they use Find... all nearby benchmarks on a cache page just for the fun of it, they may want to see if they can find the mark and log it.

But then the log maybe entered in total error. Case of point is this log for RD3792 where it was logged with a :mad: smiley face (FOUND) but described as not found. :D

I sent a note to a cacher that I know about a found - not found log. They stated that when the benchmark section was first set up, the only way to post a log was with a found note. They posted a found note and then described it as not found (just like this case) so that others knew it wasn't there.

 

Dave

Share this post


Link to post

I must agree with the opinions of YeOleImposter and evenfall that RD3152 is a Not Found. More specifically, I believe that all the Found-It logs there are in error, including the 2004 log in the NGS database.

 

Perhaps the current monument is in the exact position and perhaps it isn't. It seems to me that, without a log in the NGS database by the BLM or its contractor indicating that the NGS level of calculations are assured for the new mark, the new mark's position can't automatically be assumed to be up to NGS spec., and Almost doesn't count for PIDs like it does in the game of Horseshoes.

 

It would be interesting to see what Deb Brown at the NGS would say about this PID's current state.

Share this post


Link to post

This topic has made for interesting reading. You see, I've found maybe 20 benchmarks in four or five different states, but a check of my profile will show zero logs. I will be honest and admit that the reason for this is primarily due to fear that I will be criticized for "doing it all wrong."

 

With geocaches, it's pretty easy. My name is in the logbook for all but two of the physical caches that I've found, and the other two were logged as finds with permission of the owner after I explained why I could not open the cache container without damaging it. I've verified every virtual cache find with the owner, I've actually attended every event cache, and so forth. With 1,082 finds I have never had my ethics questioned.

 

But from reading this forum from time to time, I am downright frightened of logging a benchmark find.

Share this post


Link to post

Leps,

Don't be afraid. The vast majority of your benchmarks will be posted as either found or not found, with very few in question (in your mind at least). Posting pictures, even of the not found ones (I admit I don't do this often) helps others who are looking at your log determine if they want to go looking or not. I personally look for every mark I am near, whether it was not found by a Geocache member or not.

The consensus of opinion here is that if we spot an error we either just post our own opinion in our log, or contact the poster we feel is in error, nicely, and tell them why we think we think.

Bear in mind that posting on this site means NOTHING to the people who actually USE benchmarks--surveyors do NOT look here, just at the NGS site for their information (although Evenfall might be a current exception). I urge you to consider posting at the NGS site also, because your posts might be helpful to a surveyor (see Evenfall's great post about how benchmarks are used). But posting a recovery on the NGS site should not be done lightly--your recovery will help someone decide whether the benchmark is worth looking for and/or using.

 

Matt

Share this post


Link to post

The Leprechauns -

 

Actually it's not so difficult at all. The PID tells exactly what you should find, such as a marker that says "A 122" on it.

 

If you only find a disk that says "A 122 REFERENCE 3", then you log Didn't find it.

 

If you only find a disk that says "A 122 RESET 1978", then you log Didn't find it.

 

If you only find a disk that says "YMS7229", then you log Didn't find it.

 

If you only find a hole in the ground, then you log Didn't find it.

 

If you find a disk that says "A 122" then you log Found it.

 

What could be easier? :)

 

The case of RD3152 is even more extreme. It is described as "a stone post projecting 1-1/2 feet above ground". You find no stone post, and a disk flat on the ground instead. You log Didn't find it.

Share this post


Link to post
... The PID tells exactly what you should find, such as a marker that says "A 122" on it.

 

If you only find a disk that says "A 122 REFERENCE 3", then you log Didn't find it.

 

If you only find a disk that says "A 122 RESET 1978", then you log Didn't find it.

 

If you only find a disk that says "YMS7229", then you log Didn't find it.

 

If you only find a hole in the ground, then you log Didn't find it.

 

If you find a disk that says "A 122" then you log Found it.

Well said. That should be added to the FAQs

- Kewaneh

Share this post


Link to post

Continuing on this train of thought;

 

Note:  For destroyed marks do one of the following:

 

1) If you have found the actual marker separated from its setting, you can report the point as destroyed. To do so please send the report on the destroyed mark as an email to Deb Brown (Deb.Brown@noaa.gov). If you send this email, please do not submit the current form, Deb Brown will submit the report for you. In addition, please submit proof of the mark's destruction via actual disk, rubbing, photo, or digital picture (preferred) to Deb Brown:

 

                     Deb Brown, N/NGS143

                     National Geodetic Survey, NOAA

                     1315 East West Highway

                     Silver Spring, MD  20910

 

2) If you did not find the actual marker, then you should enter notes concerning evidence of its possible destruction as text records and select "Not recovered, not found" as the condition of mark.

 

Ok so there you have the criteria.

 

It is clear to us that many Bench Marks truely are destroyed, but unless we can provide physical proof of the Actual Marker to the NGS as such, they will only allow them to be not found. This safe guards against the practice of Not Founds being logged as Destroyeds and truly screwing up the database. I have found Not Founds. So have many others. It is easy enough to note in the Text Record that a structure was deystroyed or the brass disc has been removed from the setting it was in. This will explain to the next person looking what the latest info is. If the NGS feels in their determination that a reset and recalibration or a new PID with monument needs to be replaced in that location, they will send a crew to replace it.

 

In the case of the Willamaette Stone, well here's the deal. NGS, and C&GS as it was known back in the day will "commandeer" different things they find to hopefully be stable and lasting in the environment to use as locations that they could affix Reference Data to. Sadly however, Nothing is forever. This Monument never belonged to the NGS so it cannot be returned to them as proof of destruction. in fact, a portion of the broken original monument's base was used as a drill hole for the current monument. You could try to make a case for the destruction of it, but it is an NGS judgement call.

 

This Monument, over 50 years ago was reported to only have a view to the southwest. That limits its use greatly. and it is not suitable for GPS. it really is of little value for NGS purposes, keeping in mind what the NGS mission is.

 

In my experience when Bench Marks have been this altered, then NGS either performs a reset with a new PID, or a new name and a new PID. In either case, this Bench Mark is now just a record of the past, and no good for Geodetic service.

Share this post


Link to post

seventhings Posted on Aug 31 2004, 08:41 AM

  BDT -

 

Obviously, I can't speak for Deb Brown, but she reclassified JU3899

as DESTROYED under circumstances similar to those of RD3152.

Excellent point, 7.

 

In fact, my statement:

 

Black Dog Trackers Posted on Aug 31 2004, 06:52 AM

  I must agree with the opinions of YeOleImposter and evenfall that RD3152 is a Not Found.

was in error, and I should've said:

 

I must agree with the opinions of YeOleImposter and evenfall that RD3152 is Destroyed.

Share this post


Link to post

I had to waiver in the face of the masses. I changed my log to "Destroyed", using my own reasoning that the true position as defined by the NGS is gone. Even though there is some of the original stone showing, the geodetic position has been destroyed.

 

Bear in mind that posting on this site means NOTHING to the people who actually USE benchmarks--surveyors do NOT look here

mloser don't be too hasty, you might be surprised who uses these logs on the geocaching website. I always check them out before sending a crew out for control recon, it is much better to know that a benchmark has been seen recently. And even better when there is a photo of the TRUE mark and the vicinity.

 

Here is a good example of how great this can be: a49cf46b-2367-4986-848b-35e54334fe5a.jpg

 

I needed a benchmark in this vicinity and had my crew call me while I was in a grocery store, they told me that they could not find any benches in this area. I told them that I knew for a fact that there was a bench and told them it was near a tank. They could see the tank and we had our mark that we needed. I remembered seeing the tank in a geocache bench log. So the posts and photos are both used and helpful.

 

I have enjoyed hearing all of the responses on this thread.

 

CallawayMT

Share this post


Link to post

I am going to have to second the motion of looking at geocaching.com. I have been for a long time, well before I joined here. I look at it like this. I check NGS online for the latest in the database. I also look here because it gives me a little street map and a maybe if someone has recovered it. I can about drive to it with the little map. Further, if it has been recovered by a geochacher, and they uploaded a pic of the mark, I may just about be able to walk up to the mark. What a time saver!

 

Is there a down side? Well, the Geocaching Database is an older one than the NGS but has a bit different slant. Like I said, the pic is nice. Especially if there is a pic of the mark and a pic of the area the mark is in. NGS has no pics, however that may be changing... On the downside, "I found it" is not too descriptive but ahhh What the heck, they found it _recently_ and so should I. As for the NGS database. Well, it is the Reference Standard, but I have to admit, if the USPSQD reported the mark missing, I have a habit of looking anyway as I have found many of their missing marks in my career. They don't always get it wrong but they dont always get it right. Scroll up this thread, catch the PID for the Willamatte Stone and check the NGS Database. Would you agree with the 2004 recovery? But look at what we as geocachers have been able to determine. I think the Geocacher tries harder. The payoff is reporting the mark found. Geocachers seem to try pretty hard to find a mark.

 

This brings me to a point I am making here. This Hobby has the attention of both Some Surveyors and those who work in that field, as well as NGS. And as time goes by the word will continue to spread. The integrity of many of these recoveries is really in the geocacher's hands. As an added challenge to the recovery of the old data, I would like to encourage people to go look anyway, even if it has been reported lost long ago. There are changes in the environment that cover and lose marks as well as uncover and find marks. You just never know. If you find a lost one, You put a Mark back in the Database that we all can use. That is a cool thing!

 

Rob

Share this post


Link to post

Too funny - but check this out:

 

RD3152 STATION RECOVERY (2004)

RD3152

RD3152'RECOVERY NOTE BY US POWER SQUADRON 2004 (RHC)

RD3152'RECOVERED IN GOOD CONDITION.

RD3152

RD3152 STATION RECOVERY (2004)

RD3152

RD3152'RECOVERY NOTE BY NATIONAL GEODETIC SURVEY 2004 (DB)

RD3152'RESET INFORMATION NOT AVAILABLE AT NGS.

 

Our friends the USPS found this one ;)

Share this post


Link to post
There are changes in the environment that cover and lose marks as well as uncover and find marks. You just never know.

While the wildfires that we get in many parts of the country are devestating, I would imagine that they can be helpful in uncovering mark that are trapped in brush. An example is: EW7684.

 

This one would definately benefit from a good burn-off.

Share this post


Link to post

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1

×
×
  • Create New...