Bm's Missing From Gc Database

[+geojeeper74]

In my area there are several BM's that were monumented in 2002. They are listed in the NGS database but are not currently in GC's database. Does a certain amount of time have to pass before they will be entered into the GC database? Thanks

[+California Bear]

The GC.com database has not been updated for many years. They stopped updating it when the NGS stopped issuing updates on CD.

 

The best way to find the latest info is from the NGS website.

[+Desert_Warrior]

Hmmmm is there something we can do to get GC.com updated? If it is a matter of $$$$, I am sure we can all send a few to cover it.

 

Anyone got an answer???

[+raouljan]

Hmmmm is there something we can do to get GC.com updated? If it is a matter of $$$$, I am sure we can all send a few to cover it.

I agree ... I am dying to log "VORTEX"...

Perhaps a "Premium Bench Mark" membership to cover the cost of the CD?

[+California Bear]

Per the NGS website:

 

What is CD-ROM Data :

In the past The National Geodetic Survey sold several states

of datasheets on CD-ROM.

 

Due to a change in policy

NGS no longer sells datasheets on CD-ROM.

 

The CD-ROM data is now provided for free on the Web

 

It may be downloaded via 'ARCHIVED DATASHEETS' button

found on the datasheet main page.

 

The only way to update the site would be to download the datasheets. I think it is a time issue that pervents GC.com from updating the database. It takes time to download them all then upload them in the GC.com site.

 

I wonder if someone was to download all of the info and burn them onto CDs if the GC.com staff would be able to update the database?

[+geojeeper74]

Ouch, that would take a while. Looks like you can only download all datasheets in a given county. If they would open it up to allow us to download all sheets in a state, I would be glad to do it.

[ArtMan]

I'm sure we could rustle up 51 volunteers, each one doing a single state or DC. Or possibly NGS could be persuaded to make it a bit easier for us in view of our significant contribution to maintaining the database. But I think the obstacle is more with geocaching.com, which has generally treated benchmarks as a secondary part of the enterprise, which is principally devoted to caching.

 

~ArtMan

[+Colorado Papa]

But I think the obstacle is more with geocaching.com, which has generally treated benchmarks as a secondary part of the enterprise, which is principally devoted to caching.

Speaking of which, when was the last time Jeremy checked the pinned subjects where we listed problems and suggested improvements for this section?

[2oldfarts (the rockhounders)]

I have 4 of the Arizona counties downloaded now as notepad documents. If TPTB are interested I will do the rest of AZ and put it on a CD and sent it to them. Just let me know where to send it.

 

Perhaps they could update each state as it is received.

 

John

 

adjusted my spacing.

Edited September 1, 2004 by 2oldfarts (the rockhounders)

[+geojeeper74]

I'd be happy to do the Illinois counties but with all the problems their having with the website, I doubt they have anytime to mess with it.

[+Black Dog Trackers]

Colorado Papa Posted on Aug 31 2004, 06:19 PM

 

Speaking of which, when was the last time Jeremy checked the pinned subjects where we listed problems and suggested improvements for this section?

 

Colorado - I don't know, but....

 

Here is his most recent post in the pinned benchmark topic.

 

Jeremy Posted: Oct 10 2003, 11:27 AM

We've been working on new code to import the latest benchmark files. I think we just have a couple of issues with it before we can publish it to the site.

 

I'll look into the problems listed above. Fortunately we'll be moving to the new log a cache code for benchmarks, and plan to add additional fields that are recognized by the NGS. I have to add some additional code to bring a popup list of definitions for each log type.

 

I'll pin a topic to the forums when I'm ready to tweak the benchmark code.

 

and here is his most recent post anywhere in the benchmarking section:

 

Jeremy Posted: Feb 24 2004, 01:17 PM

I'll see what I can do with the additional requests. Right now I've moved on to the "my cache page," which, priority wise, needs a lot more TLC. Once it is done I'll get to the image galleries to make them better as well.

 

I bet he checks it every day, though.

[+Colorado Papa]

Per the NGS website:

 

What is CD-ROM Data :

In the past The National Geodetic Survey sold several states

of datasheets on CD-ROM.

 

Due to a change in policy

NGS no longer sells datasheets on CD-ROM.

 

The CD-ROM data is now provided for free on the Web

 

It may be downloaded via 'ARCHIVED DATASHEETS' button

found on the datasheet main page.

 

The only way to update the site would be to download the datasheets. I think it is a time issue that pervents GC.com from updating the database. It takes time to download them all then upload them in the GC.com site.

 

I wonder if someone was to download all of the info and burn them onto CDs if the GC.com staff would be able to update the database?

Off hand, an update would be ideal. I got to thinking about an update and decided it would not be an easy task for GC even if a disk was available. How would it affect PIDs that have since been declared destroyed by NGS? Would the log entries in GC be lost? What about the pictures for those points?

 

Seems like the update would have to be programmed so it would append any new data and flag CG files for destroyed PIDs while revising descriptions for others. I'm not a programmer but seems like a monumental task.

[+gnbrotz]

Although the CDs are no longer produced, I wonder if the set purchased by GC.com was the 'final' set, or if more recently updated data was released via CD before the program was discontinued altogether?

 

It still wouldn't be the most current updates available, but would be a step forward that wouldn't require a monemental organized effort on the part of the benchmarking community.

 

Also, Colorado Papa make some good points as to problems that might arise even if 'fresher' data were available. Perhaps someone in the know could speak briefly to this. Any PTB listening?

Edited September 2, 2004 by gnbrotz

[evenfall]

Ted, I have been thinking about this a Bit...

 

Off hand, an update would be ideal. I got to thinking about an update and decided it would not be an easy task for GC even if a disk was available. How would it affect PIDs that have since been declared destroyed by NGS? Would the log entries in GC be lost? What about the pictures for those points?

 

Seems like the update would have to be programmed so it would append any new data and flag CG files for destroyed PIDs while revising descriptions for others. I'm not a programmer but seems like a monumental task.

 

The NGS list is the ruling list so geocaching would have to takes its lumps on the downside, but it would add the listings not currently in the GC database on the upside. To be sure, basing on the stringent rules for destroyed marks at NGS we would likely lose little. When you consider hypothetically, If I found something in 2002 in geocaching that was destroyed after I found it, Reported by a diferent party to NGS as destroyed with proof and it was removed from the database, There would be no record of my one time find, but it would be the truest representation of the world of NGS Markers on the ground, Today. Besides, Nobody can find it anymore if it is truly no longer there eh? No one else can make a recovery on the mark ever again, and to be honest, the NGS does not mind a new recovery of a Station every year to two years. If geocaching loses log entries due to an uncontrolable reality, it would because it is the reality that is most true. The destroyed PID has no further need to be.

 

So the DBA has the old Geocache Logs line up with PID's that are still there and adds the new ones... A good dba could handle it No Prob, and as for the data that is no longer relevant... well, it is no longer relevent... Just like the NGS. Fixing it to be so this way would make all the future update more stream lined anyway and we chalk our losses up to a learning curve.

 

Getting the NGS database might not be too hard, I mean, if you believe in getting what you negotiate.

 

We really do need to play by NGS rules. That makes it more accurate. It can still be a game too, it just makes the game become more truthful and less open to interpretation.

 

It would be cool to change the javascripting on this site to mirrior NGS reporting rules too.

 

For instance:

 

Good

Not recovered, not found

Poor, disturbed, mutilated, requires maintenance

 

     For Destroyed condition Make note of your reason to believe it is destroyed under the Poor listing.

 

And why not give credit for the different types of Loggings? 17 goods 6 not recovered 4 poor... It could work... And an over all total... The pay off in Bench Marks is more at finding the Current status of the Station than that of finding the station itself. This makes all the attempts count for something and there is a better payoff for the game players too, the geocachers who are concerned about the sheer numbers, and the casual finders of Bench Marks. Finally, We would have an accurate credit for all the true hunting we really did.

 

However, What we often read however is something like this...

 

Found it is Um.... Heheheh Yeah. There is a water tower here so this must be it right eh? This one looks a bit different but it is a water tower....

 

Didn't find it... Hehehehe Hmmm It says there is supposed to be a water tower here... There was in 1920... (No credit for this log.)

 

Make a Note? Heheheh ( don't see many notes...) Has anyone seen My water tower? (No credit but then, why do we need this?)

 

Destroyed... I drove out there but there was just a field full of blackberries so this is surely destroyed... ( No credit)

 

I mean, it would clear up the confusion over criteria and it would remove all the marks assumed destroyd just because someone didn't try too hard to find it and log it as such. It just gives clearer guidance as to how to file the report, and is great training for how to really do it on the NGS site if those who may wish to submit their info over there.

 

I am just thinking out loud, But it could improve the integrity of everything...

 

Perhaps we could all talk this over a bit and maybe submit to Jeremy that adopting the NGS Logging / posting standards for logging Bench Marks from a point in time going forward, yet leaving what has been posted as it is would be a good idea. Maybe some of these other ideas have some merit too... If it looks good, I may think of starting a thread about it. Once we refine it a bit, Perhaps then we can start posting a solid request to the Pinned Hey Jeremy and Elias thread.

 

Does anyone have any input on this? Lets hash this out, pros and cons and see how it all lays out. once we weigh it all out, perhaps we can work to make this better.

 

Thanks all,

 

Rob

[+Black Dog Trackers]

evenfall -

 

I'll try to remark in order of your post.

 

I'm also hoping that a new dataset from NGS would not mean that the current dataset from them would be totally scrapped.

 

The idea of using the same wording that the NGS uses is good. I have never liked the phrase "Didn't find it" much, and the addition of a choice of 2 conditions (both being Finds) would also give the hobby more interest and allow better input.

 

On the other hand, I have been frustrated by the lack of precise logging instructions on the NGS site. What does "poor" vs. "good" mean in terms of: 1) the readability of the Designation, 2) the findability of the disk's center point? What about a shank-and-no-disk - is that Not found, Found Poor, or Destroyed, and does it matter what class the horizontal and vertical are?

 

On this site, we can't use the 2-pass system here of sending geocaching or some gatekeeper a "reason to believe it is destroyed" and have that person classify the PID as destroyed or not.

 

And why not give credit for the different types of Loggings?

We've made that request innumerable times here in the forum and have never heard anything from GC.com on the concept. I know I have ranted on at length about it several times, and we even had a poll that showed a significant majority of benchmark hunters wanted it. On a profile, there are loads of different classifications of counts for geocaching, not all of which are "Finds". There is only ONE item for benchmarking - Found count. Perhaps if Jeremy would go looking for about 25 or 30 benchmarks, he'd see........

 

As to your characterizations of logs on intersection stations (I still don't understand why all the hoopla about them in particular), I realize they are a bit overblown, but I know it's frustrating. What we have is probably a 20-to-1 ratio or much more of geocachers to benchmarkers here on gc.com. The geocachers like finding things like we do, but they probably are not dwelling in this forum, reading the FAQ dilligently, and their finds are often in passing to or from a geocache. I can't blame them for not being interested in every nuance of benchmark hunting - it isn't their main interest here. So, we have two rather different groups of people logging here, and nothing should be done about that. We can't be labeling each person (and their logs) as a geocacher or benchmarker (or both).

 

I think we can send an email now and then (I've sent a couple myself) to loggers, attempting to get them to return and do more accurate finding or change their logs, but I think we can't really push this too far, because this is, after all, a site for fun.

[evenfall]

Hi Black Dog, Thanks for your thoughts... I Like them.

 

Now Lemeesee....

 

The NGS Does not pick too many nits as to categorization, nor should we. I think when should have credit for not founds as I said but the deal is If it is Poor, as in I cannot see the center point of the disc due to damage, that is what the Poor designation is for and what the narrative entry is used to explain. I mean If I were employed at NGS and I were to go in the database for a particular city and call up only marks reported poor, I could. Then after looking at the narratives I could see what I may have to do to improve the marks in the field, as in re stamp the names or what have you. In other words a good report of the Bench Marks current status is there. As for the disc having a legible center point? Well, I know the center is the center even with no mark and so do most people in the field who are likely to use it, but if the notes in the last recovery say that a disc has some damage, I will keep that in mind.

 

As for a shank and no disc, It would be filed under the NGS criteria for Poor, disturbed, mutilated, requires maintenance, as that is true. A new disc could be installed in this monument and a surveyor could technically use this location if necessary. Now if you can physically find the Bench Mark disc which was separated from the monument and hold it in your hand, then you can do this: 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:

 

See, the burden of proof is on the finder of the Destroyed Mark. The finder has to report this to Deb Brown and She will decide as an NGS representative if it is a legitimate Destroyed classification.

 

It is a system that works because it is simple and requires little overseeing. If the GC.com site were to do the same it would not need overseen either. There is no money in it anyway. And it would not be different that the NGS system and therefore not as confusing when the comparisons are made. In the GC.com scheme however, I would just remove the ability to report a destroyed. Nothing is destroyed, if it ain’t there then it ain't… Not found is heheh Not found... I mean, this way there needs be no overview of a destroyed mark on GC.com and NGS will take care of itself.

 

As far as landmark intersection stations, well they were always a convenient part of the landscape anyway. There is no and can be no fine to a private property owner for altering their property if they want and so landmark stations are a rather transitory object. Oh well. I am not too worried about them. I mean hey, The Space needle is an intersection station.... Now where did they hide that darn thing??? Tons of people log it… And how about the smoke stack of the sawmill in 1905. Think it is still there? Neither do I. Go look and see what is. Report on that. Log it Not found. Real simple.

 

In truth there are hard core Bench Mark Hunters and casual ones but the NGS logging system will work for both, and on GC.com, as many people can log a find as they want, and we can always go in and update the info too, so that should not be a problem... It is all up front to see and easy to see when we just read through the finds.

 

I just think it could work, and after all, a lot of what we discuss in this forum seems to be based on sorting out what is what. When we can log new NGS Stations and so on, so if we can talk, sort out what is what, and what we feel would work best, perhaps do a thread or two, perhaps we can sound like we have a few unified ideas for Jeremy and Elias instead of a bunch of different and confusing ones.