Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1
CCrew

Bogus Logs?

Recommended Posts

You sure? I did a quick google search and turned up this news atricle.

 

Here's the BM log pic:

56946_100.jpg

 

and here's the pic from the local newspaper (the BM is in the background):

scrape2.jpg

 

Looks the same to me.

Share this post


Link to post

Perhaps he just saw that dome and figured it was the benchmark. A simple e-mail asking if he posted the wrong picture by mistake might help them out without appearing to accuse them of cheating.

 

Sometimes people get excited about finding a benchmark and don't realize they are logging the wrong one.

 

John

Share this post


Link to post

That's the Handley Library. The Benchmark is at Handley High School. They're a mile apart. Ya can't swing a dead cat around here without hitting something named Handley :-) Kinda like not being able to find something named Peachtree in GA :-)

 

Here's the school:

 

http://www.wps.k12.va.us/jhhs/jhhshome.html

 

You can't see by the pic, but you can see by the drawing below it what the dome is that's being referred to. Can't confuse that with the pic in the log IMHO...

 

-R

Edited by CCrew

Share this post


Link to post
Ok, I know this is a "game", but what about BM's that the logs are definitely bogus? Case in point: http://www.geocaching.com/mark/details.aspx?PID=JW1434

 

Trust me, that HS where this BM is located is right down the street, and those pics aren't it! Nothing like that here..

 

Just curious.

 

-R

Yes, what do you mean by 'obviously bogus'? If one was trying to run up the numbers it is easier to not put up any photos.

 

Is the 'green dome' in the picture not in the same town? I can see scanning through photos and accidentally picking the wrong photo. You are right - the description does not match the photo..

 

Obviously Bogus implies the guy was trying to cheat - not that it was a mistake.

 

Check out the logs for "Monument' (Willamette Stone) in a recent topic - 50 geocachers logged this one - some with text "as described' yet the text says it is a stone marker and everyone found a stainless steel cap! Obviously Bogus? No. Careless Mistake? Yes. Not understanding what constitutes a Find? Definately.

 

If you meant 'obviously mistaken' then ok, but in the world of typing I am afraid your 'obviously bogus' will be understood as chalenging the integrity of the finder. Probably not what you meant to do?

Share this post


Link to post

I mean "bogus" as in dead wrong for whatever reason.. nomenclature only. Reality is though that the posted co-ordinates for the BM wouldn't have been the dome, and it was not close, so there was no way in my book to confuse..

-R

Share this post


Link to post
will be understood as chalenging the integrity of the finder

 

I don't know Geo although I have interacted here with him for a couple of years. From his posts and his logs and pictures, I feel pretty confident that he would never purposely log a BM he didn't find. Mistaken, possibly. The bogus logging of BMs, doubtful.

 

We're all human and can all make mistakes. I have seen tons of 'mistaken' logs by NGS members and paid surveyors on datasheets. No one can be perfect 100% of the time.

Share this post


Link to post
Reality is though that the posted co-ordinates for the BM wouldn't have been the dome

 

Hmmm.... the CGS didn't have GPS back in 1957. BMs are often nowhere near the listed coordinates.

 

You have only logged two BMs. Finding and logging BMs is often more of an art than a science.

Share this post


Link to post

Obviously you're there and I'm not, but the BM describes a green dome. Since the guy also logged the stack .1 mile away with a pic that matches the HS's webpage, it seems obvious the guy was there. Possible he just mixed up pics?

Share this post


Link to post

Also, CCrew I have noticed that you haven't posted any pictures on your BM logs. Granted I don't always post them on mine, but by not posting any pictures you have opened yourself up to the same amount of scrutiny that you are subjecting Geo to in regards to his logs.

 

I'm not trying to be mean, but rather reinforce the fact that in the game of benchmarking there are no winners and losers. Well, the NGS is a winner by having us help verify and log BMs since economics don't allow them to actively verify their existence, but I'm sure you know what I mean.

Share this post


Link to post
Hmmm.... the CGS didn't have GPS back in 1957. BMs are often nowhere near the listed coordinates.

A mile away? 4 wooden posts in the description versus marble columns on the library? Weathervane on the HS dome that doesn't exist on the library? Come on, you want to bust on me for 2 BM finds, but I didn't just get my eyes and common sense yesterday.. With 100 or so cache finds I'm obviusly new to hunting things, spare me here...

 

-R

Share this post


Link to post
A mile away?

 

Yes sir. Often many miles away. I will be happy to Markwell you some examples but if you do a search here on the forums you can find them for yourself.

Share this post


Link to post

The real question is - Is the dome in the picture actually a benchmark itself? with a different PID? I was in Portland 2 weeks ago on a caching expedition - 103 caches in 2 days - plus 10 benchmarks that were close by. The only way I have of matching photos with my logs is that CacheMate timestamps my log and my camera timestamps the photo.

 

I have had problems with water towers in a town when I am logging them a week after I took the pictures - usually one is taller than the other and so I can 'remember' which is which.

 

Would be funny if Geo* has a picture of the HighSchool Dome on the GC.com page for the Library Dome.

Share this post


Link to post

Ok, show me the 4 wooden columns and the weathervane on the pics above and 'll buy your argument ! :( Oh, and if you want pic of the whopping two BM's that you're chastising me for, let me know. # 2 from today is still on my phone..... :wacko:

 

YeOldImposter, the Library isn't a BM, and the rest of Geo's in the area indeed appear correct to his/her credit

 

-R

Edited by CCrew

Share this post


Link to post

Oh yeah, FWIW I wasn't "busting" you for two BM finds, simply stating that BM hunting is a LOT different than hunting a geocache.

 

There are things like adjusted vs. scaled coordinates among with a myriad of things. Geo is a seasoned BM hunter. I am an amateur compared to many people that post here, but I have taken the time to educated myself in finding BMs and have been lucky enough to find and log many of the oldest BMs here in the state. This often involved using triagulation stations and reference markers, as well as, taking measurements and a bit of luck. Just a couple of weeks ago I logged a BM that was almost 120 years old and was buried 12" below the surface of the earth. Guess what, the posted coordinates were nowhere near correct. Anyways, happy geo-stuff i.e. geocaching, benchmark hunting.

Share this post


Link to post
Oh, and if you want pic of the whopping two BM's that you're chastising me

 

I'm not chastising you only pointing out that's you can offer no proof that you found the ones that you logged. I'm simply stating that you are accussing someone with 650+ BM finds that normally takes pictures of his find of posting a bogus log. Cut him some slack. Like I said, I don't always agree with everything Geo has to say, but he is always willing to offer and help and suggestions to others that enjoy this hobby and due to this he is worthy of at least being treated with a fair amount of respect rather than being accused of posting 'bogus logs'.

Share this post


Link to post
Hmmm.... the CGS didn't have GPS back in 1957. BMs are often nowhere near the listed coordinates.

A mile away? 4 wooden posts in the description versus marble columns on the library? Weathervane on the HS dome that doesn't exist on the library? Come on, you want to bust on me for 2 BM finds, but I didn't just get my eyes and common sense yesterday.. With 100 or so cache finds I'm obviusly new to hunting things, spare me here...

 

-R

I think we need to watch ourselves here... CCrew used the term "obviously bogus' and has already said he meant 'obviously wrong' not 'obviously cheating'.

 

Lets not escalate this to a flame war. CCrew asked a question - and it was misinterpreted - lets not let our answers be misinterpreted - and have CCrew think we are all a bunch of harda**es jumping his case for a simple question.

 

His question: What should be done when you find a log that is obviously wrong?

 

Answer: Email the logger if it bothers you. (or if you are not interested in sending out 50 emails to the 'supposed finders' of Willamette Stone (Monument) )

Share this post


Link to post

Jeff,

Nomenclature of "bogus" I thought I clarified. To Geo's credit, 650 finds is a nice thing, but numbers sometimes make one sloppy also. I can think of a few cachers in the area that also applies to. "Fast" or "Proficient" doesn't mean correct all the time..

 

-R

Share this post


Link to post
Obviously you're there and I'm not, but the BM describes a green dome. Since the guy also logged the stack .1 mile away with a pic that matches the HS's webpage, it seems obvious the guy was there. Possible he just mixed up pics?

LOL.. Have to laugh The dome is the high dome to the right of the stack !

 

http://www.geocaching.com/mark/details.aspx?PID=JW1435

 

-R

Share this post


Link to post
doesn't mean correct all the time..

 

That's exactly correct. As I stated the CGS, USGS, NGS and many professional surveyors also make mistakes.

 

I'm not a harda** but the tone of the original post just 'rubbed' me the wrong way. I apologize if I have crossed any boundaries of etiquette.

 

CCrew as you enter the exciting world of BM hunting, just remember not to rely on the listed coordinates as the often are not correct depending on if the mark is scaled or adjusted.

 

Happy geo-stuff!

Share this post


Link to post

Be Nice, a little respect goes a long way when posting or I will close this topic

 

Tennessee Geocacher

Share this post


Link to post

Well I do have a picture of both buildings you refer to.

I have not logged any benchmark I have not seen.

If you want me to delete the photo I will.

I took over 500 pictures on that vacation and had several mixed up from trouble I was having with the 1st camera I owned.I may have gotten my notes mixed up.18b6f78b-5474-4319-a4fc-82cfd5466e0e.jpg

 

is this closer

Share this post


Link to post

This is an intersection station, i.e. a point whose location was determined by taking the bearing to it from at least three different points and using surveying methods to accurately calculate it's coordinates. Since it's location is adjusted (as all intersection stations are), it's coordinates should be right on. Can either one of the people who has visited this building verify that the coordinates match the high school dome? I ran into a situation where the station was accurately described and even recovered but when I came along with my GPS I easily realized that the coordinates were off by a couple of hundred feet. It turns out that the coordinates point to the county courthouse dome, not the church steeple. See GD1486.

 

edit for spelling.

Edited by rogbarn

Share this post


Link to post

Well Rog,

I walked up to the Mark in question while there.I can not verify a precise account of the exact point(cordinate exact match) but it was less than 100 feet.

Now since I live in SW Missouri it would be hard to just walk over there and verify it again.

I will in the future when I go that way again,this is where the other party could witness the account that this point still exists within a reasonable amount of accuracy.(Got you investigating)and interested in Benchmarking.

 

I did not want to place 2 photo's of the same thing and my note reflects the School not the Library.

As stated I had trouble with that funky camera,and if you look at the more recent logs the pictures are much better(new camera),And I have learned how to make better notations.(mapping program).

 

I thought this was for fun and I stated the mark is there,they did as well...............

If I knew it was going to turn into work to try and back myself up I probably would have done it differently(PDA or Laptop, but I still can't afford),that is why TIGGR is there as well we read the descriptions and try to make sure the mark described(not Photoed) is the mark we find and do on the logs now.She is no Professional and I am not either.We are just trying to help,have fun and to verify the existance of marks.

 

As has been stated many times the coordinates are not exact and on some you have to go by the descriptions.(+ - 6 seconds or about 600' feet)

 

The GEO*Benchmarker that started this discussion has stated they live right there so it would be easy for you to go and see if the coordinates match or not.

 

By the way I have made a few mistakes in my life.But I do not think this is one, your query is with the photo and bogus log.

I would like to clear this up so please feel free to respond,I would have prefered an e-mail first but since we are here now we can get it done in the forum.

Share this post


Link to post

My two cents worth:

 

A few forums ago, we discussed 'erronious' reporting of BM's and how they should be handled. I logged on and stated that as a Newbe (lol only 3-4 months ago) I had erroniously logged three Tri-stations. I have since learned the error of my ways and have tried to go back and rectify those early "bogus" reports.

 

I also indicated that I had wished someone else was in my area and was ablr to let me know about my early errors. I would not have been insulted if there was a mistake on my part.

 

I THINK IT IS OUR DUTY TO LET 'BOGUS' REPORTERS BE NOTIFIED ON AN INDIVIDUAL BASIS. MAYBE, EVEN, THEY ARE RIGHT AND WE ARE WRONG.

 

As a side note, on a recent trip to Washington, D.C., one of my finds that I was going to log had quite a disertation left by Artman arguing that the site I was about to claim was not the valid site. In that instance, I deferred to Artman's knowledge of the area and his superior arguement. I left a logged note to this effect.

 

Maybe if there are strong feelings about 'bogus' logs, that site should contain a similar note by someone that is more knowledgable to keep us Newbe's from reporting errors.

Share this post


Link to post
I THINK IT IS OUR DUTY TO LET 'BOGUS' REPORTERS BE NOTIFIED ON AN INDIVIDUAL BASIS. MAYBE, EVEN, THEY ARE RIGHT AND WE ARE WRONG.

Hey, Spoo, you want to contact this person and have them correct their log for LL1419? Looks to me that they never found it. Interesting that this person has 166 finds / 230 logs but has dropped out of searching since October 2003.

I was just in the area and should have checked this one out, if I would have had time.

 

Saw another one last year where the cacher claimed a find for a water valve cover he thought was a BM, again, near Boulder, CO. Those kids up there just spend too much time partying! ;)

Share this post


Link to post
I ran into a situation where the station was accurately described and even recovered but when I came along with my GPS I easily realized that the coordinates were off by a couple of hundred feet. It turns out that the coordinates point to the county courthouse dome, not the church steeple. See GD1486.

Rog,

Is it possible the description is correct but the coordinates were determined in error by looking at aerial photos and picking the dome instead of the steeple? Sounds to me that is what you determined. It would be simple to prove the correct point by triangulation (measuring angles from other marks that used the steeple as a reference/azimuth mark).

Share this post


Link to post
Rog,

Is it possible the description is correct but the coordinates were determined in error by looking at aerial photos and picking the dome instead of the steeple? Sounds to me that is what you determined. It would be simple to prove the correct point by triangulation (measuring angles from other marks that used the steeple as a reference/azimuth mark).

Actually, I suspect that the coordinates are OK but they made a mistake in identifying what they were looking at from a distance. In classical surveying (if I understand it correctly), the coordinates for an intersection station like this one is computed accurately from measurements taken from other stations many miles away. That's why an intersection station always has "adjusted" coordinates. I think they just forgot or got confused or something and misidentified what they were looking at from a long distance away. I talked to Dave Doyle about it when I met him at the St. Charles Lewis & Clark marker dedication. He seems to think this might be the case and asked if I thought the two structures might be confused with each other. I don't really think so, except just by forgeting which one you were looking at, but that theory makes the most sense to me.

Share this post


Link to post

I've seen enough of Geo's posts here on GC.com to get a pretty good idea of his character, and I seriously doubt he'd intentionally cheat on a BM log. When I first read the OP's post, I was a bit turned off by it, and yes, it did sound quite accusatory. Geo has since posted the pic that was meant to be with the BM, and explained his mistake. Not a problem. I don't see why someone with such an extensive and very well documented history of finding BM's would file a bogus log, that just didn't make any sense. I've filed the wrong log on caches before, simply because I'm a bit of a dolt and don't always think straight after a day of caching. Give the guy a break, apologize for accusing him of being a letch and faking his log, and move on.

 

In the future, might I suggest that you send a kindly worded email to anyone you think has made an error (don't accuse them of faking a log, that's always a bad start) and ask them to check it out. Don't just pop a thread accusing someone with Geo's standing, or anyone for that matter, of being a cheat. Just isn't good practice, and will ultimately lead to bad feelings.

Share this post


Link to post
I THINK IT IS OUR DUTY TO LET 'BOGUS' REPORTERS BE NOTIFIED ON AN INDIVIDUAL BASIS. MAYBE, EVEN, THEY ARE RIGHT AND WE ARE WRONG.

Hey, Spoo, you want to contact this person and have them correct their log for LL1419? Looks to me that they never found it. Interesting that this person has 166 finds / 230 logs but has dropped out of searching since October 2003.

I was just in the area and should have checked this one out, if I would have had time.

 

Saw another one last year where the cacher claimed a find for a water valve cover he thought was a BM, again, near Boulder, CO. Those kids up there just spend too much time partying! ;)

OUCH !!!!

 

I guess I had that one coming. It does appear that he blatantly files claims even when he knows they are not there. I would hope anyone reading his logs would recognize the difference.

 

I guess to refine my previous statement, I thought the local guys should take care of their local problems, hence my case where I deffered a claim to Artman's superior local knowledge of the area.

Share this post


Link to post

Could you guys take a look at my log for PE0297 sorry dont know how to hyper link yet

Following this thread through you have brought uo some great points for a newbie.

regarding accuacy of coord. I think that the coordinates could be off that 600 feet some one mentioned . Cause where coor says it is in on town warf road. The next steet west is claremont. Could some one take a look a perhaps give an opionion.

 

Would apperciate it

Edited by lostinflorida

Share this post


Link to post
Could you guys take a look at my log for PE0297

From the datasheet: location is SCALED

 

Yes, this one could be off by 600 feet or so. Use the GPS to park the car, and then use the description.

 

If the datasheet said the location was Adjusted, then your GPS should take you right to the mark. (+/- normal GPS error.)

Share this post


Link to post

Well, I had to go back to one of my finds and change it to a note. Originally, I thought I had found QY0345 but in comparing markings, seems like the culvert and mark were replaced back in '49. Surprisingly, the scaled and gps coordinates were within .044 minutes of each other. The description was very close as well considering it was written in 1934.

9aa6d143-08a5-4fd8-95fd-b09ad598a956.jpg

I didn't want to post this as a NOT FOUND since there is a mark there and it appears to be in good condition. I'm sure the data for it is in someone's database and it should be usable.

 

Oh, well, I'm more interested in accuracy than numbers. OK, you smarties, when I posted the pictures in the gallery, why didn't you hit me up then that I was wrong? Next time, kick me in the ***. ;)

 

Edited for grammar! :(

Edited by Colorado Papa

Share this post


Link to post

CO Papa -

 

I've had a couple of those too. It happens to me when I start looking for a mark and see it from a fairly good distance in the exact spot where I expected it to be. I have a tendency to conclude that I found it even before I look at it. I usually don't catch my error until I start re-naming my photo files in preparation for uploading. And, on two occasions, I didn't catch 'em until ArtMan and Magoo e-mailed me. I probably still have one or two lurking about in my found it count.

 

will

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...