Rating Benchmark Difficulty

[+YeOleImposter]

Was just explaining to someone the 'easiest' benchmarks to find - and thought would post it here to get some comments from others.

 

Seems there are 3 factors in finding a Benchmark:

1) Shows on a Topo Map

2) Adjusted Coordinates

3) Not Found by someone other than USPS

 

I have had very few benchmarks that show up on a Topo map end up being a nofind.

Interactive Topo map makes it easy to 'adjust' my own coordinates. I have been using LostOutdoors.com - but since they will be gone at the end of July I have been getting used to using USAPhotoMaps. With this software I can get better coordinates of where the X really is.

 

Adjusted Coordinates will usually put you right on the spot (that is if the spot still exists). Noobies have to be careful of finding a Reference Mark and mistaking it for a the actual mark which may be missing. Only experience will make them realize that the station mark never has an Arrow pointing somewhere else and lettering such as 'No. 1' under the station name.

 

And of course if the description says that the concrete cylinders with the station mark and reference marks were found lying next to a plowed field back in 1960 then you probably do not need to go look - unless you too want to see what concrete cylinders look like.

 

So, as a noobie myself I am trying to find:

1) all the Adjusted benchmarks that show up on my Topo Map

2) all the Scaled benchmarks that show up on my Topo Map

3) all the other marks will be looked for when

A) they are real close to 1s or 2s

I run out of 1s and 2s to look for

 

I figure by the time I have found all the 1s and 2s in a 20 mile radius of my home I will have enough experience to say that a 3 is a true DidNotFind rather than a inexperience DNF.

 

All of this is to encourage those who are just starting out to read the descriptions in the NGS datasheet. Compare that description to what is showing on the Topo Map. Compare that description with what you actually find on site. If you just use your GPSr to get close - spot the benchmark - check it off your list - go look for the next one - you will not learn how to find the hard ones. So, go look for the easy ones but use the GPSr just to get you to a good parking spot.

 

PS. I do not include in 1s or 2s benchmarks that are tall structures - ie water towers and steeples. Those are too easy and are just fun quick finds, and should probably be labeled 0s. I found all those in my neck of the woods right away - but I am talking about hunting actual disks here.

Edited July 16, 2004 by YeOleImposter

[+Black Dog Trackers]

Here's my take on this:

 

Difficulty levels (highly correlated with probability of finding):

(high number is more difficult / lower probability of finding)

 

0: Intersection stations (towers, etc.)

3: Adjusted stations

5: Scaled stations

 

Add:

 

-1 if the station was last reported 1980 or after

+1 if the station was last reported before 1965

+2 if the station was last reported before 1940

 

-1 if the station has a landmark within 5 feet

+1 if the station has no landmark within 50 feet

 

-2 if the station is by itself on top of a mountain

+2 if the station is on private property

 

-2 if the station has already been found by another geocacher

+2 if the station was not found by a geocacher

+1 if the station was not found by the USPSQD

+3 if the station was not found by the NGS or monumenting agency

 

+3 in the case of an intersection station over 100 years old

+3 if the station's description is rural and the area is suburbs

+3 if the station is near a road that has been widened since it was set

 

+0 if the station is indicated on a topo map

 

-1 if the station has existing reference marks

-2 if the station's to-reach has a distance to a witness post

 

+3 if the station is described as being a few inches under the surface

+1 if the station is on a post projecting a few inches above the surface

-2 if the station is mounted on top of a rock

-2 if the station is mounted vertically on a building

-1 if the station is mounted on any manmade object

 

Comments:

 

Yeah, I know, some could be negative after the adding of more than 1 negative number. (Don't let anyone catch you not finding them! )

 

I don't see that being marked on a topo map is any help at all. I think it's about the same amount of help as a landmark 200 feet away in a to-reach description.

[+Colorado Papa]

How about negatives for reference and azimuth marks near stations that have there own PIDs and pluses for stations which include reference and azimuth marks in one PID.

 

Brings up the question as to why these are inconsistent?

[+seventhings]

I agree that whether or not a benchmark is depicted on a toposheet is not significantly important as to how reliably it can be found. Most of the benchmarks I've seen depicted on toposheets are old USGS marks, many of which are not in the NGS or Geocaching databases. I plot benchmarks on toposheets when I go out hunting. It doesn't help me find the mark, it only helps me find a place to park near the mark.

 

BDT - your scheme for rating the degree of difficulty for marks is interesting and, largely, consistent with my experience. I must quibble, however, with one of your metrics - that of rating intersection stations as 0. An intersection station should, subject to additional adjustment, start out as a 1. Here's why:

 

a. They are points in the National Spatial Reference System and have value as such.

b. While many intersection stations are slam dunk finds, not all are. It has been my observation that intersection stations are erroneously posted as "found" much more often than are disks or rods or chiseled squares. This is because most hunters find, for example, the ultra-modern Bitskoville watersphere and blindly assume that it is the same "municipal water tank" first observed in 1934.

 

See KV4832 for an example.

 

To log a valid "found" for an intersection station, it must be absolutely positively identified by description and/or its position must be ascertained by several (at least three, I think) GPS GOTO fixes. Hunters should also exert some effort by applying the old BDT standard for intersection stations: touch the station or touch the builking from which the station rises or touch the fence that encloses the station.

 

If a righteous "found" for an intersection station requires all the above, it should be awarded at least ONE BDT degree of difficulty point.

 

Otherwise, cool paradigm.

 

7

Edited July 16, 2004 by seventhings

[+YeOleImposter]

I don't see that being marked on a topo map is any help at all. I think it's about the same amount of help as a landmark 200 feet away in a to-reach description.

I like your take on this. Was hoping to get some discussion - and maybe something we can reference to those who are just starting out.

 

I have yet to log a DNF on a NGS PID that is also on the USGS Topo map.

Notice first requirement is that they already be on NGS database, then that they are on the Topo. Maybe it is just a confidence thing for me, and that it gets me a little closer to where it is really located than I usually start out. Most of the urban landmarks around here have changed so drastically that any description from 1960 or before is almost worthless, so an X on a current map helps out alot.

[+seventhings]

Imposter -

 

I note that you work in the northwest US. Maybe your toposheets are pretty current. Most of the sheets in the mid-Atlantic area of the east coast are based on 1950's data and were last field-checked in the early 1980's. In fact, for most of the areas I've worked (northern NJ, Wash DC area, MD-DE boundary, and northern VA), I see very little correlation between the marks with PIDs in the topo's area and the BM+'s annotated on the sheets.

 

Another interesting thing I've noticed: some states (MD, for example) have incredible densities of NGS benchmarks. It's not unusual to have 100 benchmarks on a toposheet for a RURAL area, twice that for urban areas. In other states, (the southern two-thirds of DE, for example), the NGS marks are very thin on the ground. On the Delmar Quad, where the DE-MD boundary runs east-west through the quad, there are, not counting the boundary marks themselves, about one mark per square mile on the DE side and four-five marks per square mile on the MD side (not counting the 10-12 marks per square mile once you get inside the Salisbury metro area).

 

7

[+RIclimber]

Here's my take on this:

 

Difficulty levels (highly correlated with probability of finding):

(high number is more difficult / lower probability of finding)

 

0: Intersection stations (towers, etc.)

3: Adjusted stations

5: Scaled stations

 

Add:

 

-1 if the station was last reported 1980 or after

+1 if the station was last reported before 1965

+2 if the station was last reported before 1940

 

-1 if the station has a landmark within 5 feet

+1 if the station has no landmark within 50 feet

 

-2 if the station is by itself on top of a mountain

+2 if the station is on private property

 

-2 if it is a stone posts

-1 if it is a large disk (6")

+1 if it is a Bolt/ drill hole

+1 if it is a Chiseled Cross/ Square

+2 if it is a nail

+3 if it is a Pin

[+Black Dog Trackers]

7 -

 

I defer to your wisdom on the intersection stations. I haven't done any yet. I do know what you mean though - I've seen them done incorrectly as well. I wasn't really thinking of difficulty as in making an identification mistake - but the liklihood of making an identification mistake for a perticular category of mark really does apply to the concept of difficulty, especially with intersection stations.

 

I agree; the initial ranking really should be:

 

1: Intersection stations (towers, etc.)

3: Adjusted stations

5: Scaled stations

 

Downy288 -

 

Good additions.

 

You have -2 for a stone post. I'm not familiar with that one, I think. I did put +1 for "a post projecting a few inches above the surface" because so many of them have been knocked down, making them impossible to find. I figure this is the reason the later ones are made flush with the ground's surface.

 

I certainly agree with the nail and pin, and would add "railroad spike in the asphalt" to the +2 or +3 category. Every one of those I've looked for is gone. Even worse is "wood stake", which should get a +5.

[+RIclimber]

You can read about them Here.

Edited July 19, 2004 by Downy288

[+RIclimber]

I certainly agree with the nail and pin, and would add "railroad spike in the asphalt" to the +2 or +3 category. Every one of those I've looked for is gone. Even worse is "wood stake", which should get a +5.

Isn't that getting more into chance of it being there, not difficulty? shouldn't that be under it's own rating?

[+Black Dog Trackers]

Downy -

 

I was purposefully combining the concepts of: "difficulty" and "chance of it being there". The question posed was, I believe, such a combination - how to select from many nearby PIDs which would be easy for a relative beginner to find in terms of both locating effort and probability of success, i.e. "Look for XX1382 - it should be easy to find.".

 

One could say that the most difficult are the mountaintop ones with no trail, or perhaps the ones on the roof of a building that doesn't want visitors, or one in an area that a mean and vigilant watchdog considers his.

 

Instead I worked with the concept of which kind would be the easiest to find, counting both the ease in determining the actual location, and the relative liklihood of finding it there, but not counting the physical effort in getting near the site.

 

So you wouldn't suggest to a beginner to look for a scaled mark that was monumented in 1900 and hasn't had any report since 1940. Such a PID would have a relatively high + value; higher than a similar one last reported in 2001.

[+RIclimber]

Downy -

 

I was purposefully combining the concepts of: "difficulty" and "chance of it being there". The question posed was, I believe, such a combination - how to select from many nearby PIDs which would be easy for a relative beginner to find in terms of both locating effort and probability of success, i.e. "Look for XX1382 - it should be easy to find.".

 

I was thinking of probability of finding it- smaller is harder. There are many marks that people can't find because they are very well hidden with no "reference objects". I have read about wooden marks that are around 100 years old.