Corrections Requiring Ngs Input

September 17, 2004

Back when Dave Doyle and Deb Brown first joined our discussion and offered to help correct datasheets that had incorrect information on them, I started a list of PIDs that we mentioned here that they helped to fix. I have a list of almost 200 that have been corrected with some more that are pending. Most of them are county errors (marker is in a different county than the one listed) which affects the county download files. Other problems have been PIDs that get part of another PID copied into it, coordinates that are off by a degree and other esoteric problems that they can help resolve. Some examples that have been corrected are (and taking advantage of the out-of-date GC database):

JC1817-GC vs JC1817-NGS - coordinates were copied from the previous PID, JC1816

AA7385-GC vs AA7385-NGS - North coordinate was off by 1 degree

JV4061 vs JV4061-NGS - coordinates mixed up with another PID

Problems of this sort can be resolved by the NGS. I've been communicating with both Dave Doyle and Deb Brown. If anyone sends in (or has previously sent in) corrections to the NGS, I invite them to also list it here so we can see it and I can list it in my little database of geocacher benchmark hunter corrections.

Thanks.

edit-fixed a bad URL tag

Edited September 17, 2004 by rogbarn

1.6k · September 18, 2004

I have a set of 3 marks with listed LatLong coordinates and elevations of similarly named marks 30 or more miles away. When I get my next roll of film finished I will have everything I need to contact Deb. My findings are posted to Groundspeak.

AA3903 '8 RESET' found in Keokuk county versus MG0512 (NGS) '8' marked Destroyed but found in Johnson county.

AA3904 '12 RESET' found in Keokuk county versus MG0518 '12' location identified but not found in Johnson county.

AA3905 '5 RESET' found in Keokuk county versus MG0461 '5' found in Washington county.

The frustrating part is that I can't find any entries for similarly named marks in Keokuk county that these would have replaced. That may be the reason for the mixup in the first place. I used the archive files which another discussion thread has indicated are the most complete source for destroyed marks.

Edited September 18, 2004 by Bill93

September 24, 2004

mountains in Kansas??? :mad:

Take a look at

They are all in Cheyenne County, Kansas (NW corner of KS) and all have elevations from 11,000 to 11,850 feet. Now, I know Kansas tilts a bit from west to east but 11,000 foot mountains in Kansas???

I sent these to Dave Doyle at the NGS (along with some other problems I found in Kansas) and he found out that the elevation in feet was entered as the elevation in meters. He sent in a change so if you look at these on the NGS now, you will see the corrected elevations. So, no more mountains in Kansas according to the NGS! :lol:

September 28, 2004

I just finished reviewing benchmarks in Pennsylvania and have come up with the following corrections that I will be forwarding to Dave Doyle at the NGS.

The first five are just listed in the wrong county. This has implications if you are downloading by county.

PID - Designation - listed county - actaul county

KV5963 - KATHYPORT - Berks - Burks

JU4044 - GARDPORT AZ MK - Delaware - Chester

JU4043 - GARDPORT - Delaware - Chester

JV3247 - 570 USGS - Washington - PA,Franklin or MD,Washington

LY1047 - Y 52 - Wayne - Susquehanna

The next two are a bit difficult to determine. They are listed as being in Carbon County. The coordinates place them in Luzerne Co. It is difficult to determine their position from their description. I hope Dave has additional resources to help out in this case.

KV2692 - Y 48 - Carbon - Luzerne?

KV2693 - Z 48 - Carbon - Luzerne?

The next three have a variety of problems.

MA1751 - SHOWERS RM 3

The north coordinate is listed as N 41 40 55 but it appears it should be N 41 10 55 to place it in the same area as the other SHOWER stations.

LY1580 - BM

The listed coordinates are the same as LY0333 (R 43) in Orange Co, NY. The description puts it within a few feet of LY1578 (R 4 USGS RESET 1961). This is another one for Dave to figure out.

LZ0472 - BM

It is listed in Sullivan Co. The listed coordinates put it in Lycoming Co. The closest station to the listed coordinates is LZ0366 (US ENGINEERS) which is diff by 1 second in both latitude and longitude. The description places it at roughly 41° 29' 18"N, 76° 37' 22"W, elev roughly 1000 ft. The listed elev is 565 ft. Another one for Dave.

If anyone can shed any light on these, I can include it in my notes to Dave (with proper credit of course!)

September 28, 2004

LY1580 - BM
The listed coordinates are the same as LY0333 (R 43) in Orange Co, NY. The description puts it within a few feet of LY1578 (R 4 USGS RESET 1961). This is another one for Dave to figure out.

This one's right in my neck of the woods (according to the description)! I didn't see a chiseled square nearby when I found LY1578, but then I wasn't really looking. I know the headwall was replaced sometime between 1927 and 1961, but I have no idea if the original or the replacement was there in 1956.

I'd be willing to check it out and send a report. Someone at NGS will have to deal with the mistake in coordinates, which was probably just a simple data-entry error.

Zhanna

September 28, 2004

HL0084 is off by 55 miles. The west coordinate has a typo reading 106 degrees and should be 105 degrees. I had entered many marks into the GPSr that I had planned to find along the way. Found this one by following the description but when I checked the GPSr for closest marks, it didn't appear. Did a MOB and tried to enter the PID but GPSr said it already existed. Thought I had put in the wrong coordinate but when checking datasheet, AH-AH!!!

Will email DaveD about this one.

September 28, 2004

Colorado Papa. I checked this one and the published value is correct.

September 28, 2004

The next two are a bit difficult to determine. They are listed as being in Carbon County. The coordinates place them in Luzerne Co. It is difficult to determine their position from their description. I hope Dave has additional resources to help out in this case.

KV2692 - Y 48 - Carbon - Luzerne?

KV2693 - Z 48 - Carbon - Luzerne?

According to my topo map, KV2692 is in Luzerne County, though it's less than a mile north of the Carbon County border.

I can't find KV2693 on the map. The map does show an elevation of 1746' at approximately the location indicated by the description (in Carbon County), but it doesn't indicate that this is a monumented point. I also don't see a "highway" anywhere near it. The datasheet coordinates place this one in Luzerne County, too. I hope this helps a little ...

~Zhanna

September 28, 2004

Colorado Papa. I checked this one and the published value is correct.

Dang, just noticed my error! Sorry, Dave.

September 29, 2004

Hey Tennessee,

This Thread may be worth Pinning... Ya think? Just a thought. I am not sure what criteria you use.

Rob

4.4k · October 7, 2004

GF0491 ???? MOUNTIAN PEAK.

I know there are some high mountians in Arkansas but look at the one I was on top of today.

I submitted it to Cheryl at NGS.

October 7, 2004

Geo,

I'll bite that the elevation is off, typo wise as that is somewhat rocky mountain high, but it is a Bench Mark and therefore is horizontally scaled. It was never surveyed to be horizontally accurate, so your GPSR reading in the recovery notes should suffice to help future searchers find that. Congrats on finding it. It appears you once visited and did not find.

Just as a note to others who hunt that may not realize. Feel free to pull the original datasheet from the link on the GC page or the NGS, it will tell you a lot about the Station. Generally speaking, if the NAD 83 Coordinate is scaled, then it is a Bench Mark, a Station for elevation. If the NAVD 88 coordinate is Scaled then it is a Triangulation Station. The Triangulation Station's Coordinates should walk you and your GPS right to it, whereas the Bench Mark is likely off by a bit. Sometimes trying to find a Bench when the locale around it has changed is like winning a Yo bet on a craps table. Sometimes it is seven out, line away.

The truest test is to use the description, and verify it as a guide to find the Station, and see if it passes the test. Then update that if need be.

Again, Cool Beans on the find Geo!

Rob

October 7, 2004

I look at this one and GPSed position matches the scaled value at 1second in both laitutde and longitude so there's no need to change it. The elevation of 5330.5 obviously came from some error in converting the elevation on the NGS data sheet, which is 1625.1 ft. If this value is accepted as meters and converted to feet you get 5331.7

4.4k · October 7, 2004

Thanks DaveD,

I did not even think of that,your experience shines,and is a great help to us all.

My inexperience shows at times as well,but am learning everyday.

I (we)really appreciate all that you do and your expertise.

1.3k · November 21, 2004

I've been playing around with Doug Cox's USAPhotoMaps program, which allows you to overlay .GPX or .XML data on topo maps or aerial photos that the program fetches from TerraServer USA.

Pulling in the benchmarks from one county at a time, it's a pretty simple matter to flag benchmarks which may fall outside the county under review. Looking at some Maryland counties, for instance, I found a benchmark which was well into Prince Georges County incorrectly listed as being in Montgomery County. In another instance, an azimuth mark set by Harford County and listed as being located there was actually across the Susquehanna river in Cecil County.

In an hour or so I came up with a half-dozen or so irregularities which, if confirmed as apparent errors, I plan on reporting to the NGS.

-ArtMan-

December 3, 2004

In an hour or so I came up with a half-dozen or so irregularities which, if confirmed as apparent errors, I plan on reporting to the NGS.

Artman,

Can you also list any corrections here. It helps anyone who might be interested plus I have a list of corrections that have been sent to the NGS that I like to keep track of. So far, I have 229 stations that have been corrected due to input from people on this forum with over 100 more pending. In fact, if anyone has previously sent in corrections that have been made, please post them here also so I can include them in the total.

Thanks!

4.4k · January 30, 2005

GF0603 CIX CHISELED SQUARE

AND

DISC B 4

Have the same coordinates.

I made a mistake in logging this one B 4 instead of B 4 reset,in the beggining and was updating my programs for ease,and noticed it the 3rd time around.

I guess I need too e-mail Deb Brown again.

January 31, 2005

Are you collecting PID Names that have the wrong town or city listed? I have a few way. For instance, one says something like "Waltham WHDH TV Tower Mast" when it is actually in Needham, about two towns south of Waltham. It is listed in the right county and it has the right lat/long. Most of these stations with wrong municipalities listed (in this area, there is no real county territory) have a comment in the description, but, after several years, nothing has changed. Is it worth listing these items, or are you more interested in more serious errors about the actual plotted location?

Edited January 31, 2005 by NorStar

January 31, 2005

Are you collecting PID Names that have the wrong town or city listed?

Because the town name is part of the designation, it can not be changed. For better or worse, it is the official name of the station. I found two stations starting with "WALTHAM" in Massachusetts that stick out from the rest (there are 19 stations starting with WALTHAM) because their latitude is at least 4 minutes less than all the others. In both cases (MY3322 and MY3324), the US Power Squadron has done a good job of submitting recovery descriptions that explain and correct the situation as best as can be done. There is not anything further that can be done that I know of.

Here is the USPS recoveries listed for MY3324:

MY3324 STATION RECOVERY (1983)

MY3324

MY3324'RECOVERY NOTE BY US POWER SQUADRON 1983 (JS)

MY3324'STATION NAME AND TEXT OF HORIZONTAL CONTROL DATA SHEET ARE

MY3324'MISLEADING, IN THAT STATION 1583 IS NOT IN OR NEAR THE CITY OF

MY3324'WALTHAM, BUT IS IN THE NEWTON UPPER FALLS SECTION OF THE CITY OF

MY3324'NEWTON, MIDDLESEX COUNTY, MASS.

MY3324'

MY3324'AS OF FEBRUARY, 1983 THERE ARE FOUR LARGE TV ANTENNAS IN THE

MY3324'VICINITY. STATION CAN BE FUTHER IDENTIFIED BY ITS LOCATION, ON

MY3324'THE EAST BANK OF THE CHARLES RIVER, JUST SOUTH OF THE RAILROAD

MY3324'BRIDGE AT NEWTON UPPER FALLS.

MY3324

MY3324 STATION RECOVERY (1984)

MY3324

MY3324'RECOVERY NOTE BY US POWER SQUADRON 1984 (HGR)

MY3324'CHANGE WALTHAM TO NEEDHAM HEIGHTS - CITY LOCATION WAS IN ERROR.

MY3324'

MY3324'CHANGE CALL LETTERS TO WCVB.

MY3324'

MY3324'TOWER PHYSICALLY THE SAME AS IN ORIGINAL DESCRIPTION.

MY3324

For the record and to answer your question directly, I am not looking for problems that can be corrected by simply submitting an updated description. However, I am collecting PIDs if it requires changes to be made manually by contacting someone at the NGS.

p.s. in looking these over again, I see that MY3322 is incorrectly located in Norfolk County. This is the type of problem (and most common) that I have been collecting. I suggest that you send an email to Cheryl Malone at the NGS (Cheryl.Malone at noaa.gov) providing the PID and station name and explaining that it is located in Middlesex County. It may take a while to get corrected, but it will eventually.

And, as an aside, this makes the 400th entry that I have, showing how geocaching is helping to improve the quality of the data in the NGS database.

1.3k · February 1, 2005

Artman,
Can you also list any corrections here. It helps anyone who might be interested plus I have a list of corrections that have been sent to the NGS that I like to keep track of.

Roger,

Last fall I reported to Cheryl Malone station EASTON (KV5842), which was incorrectly listed in Somerset (?) County, NJ. It is actually in Middlesex County, which she confirmed by email.

On Nov. 26, 2004, I sent Cheryl another email, quoted here in part:

HV1788 (NW 21 PBPP) - Listed in Montgomery Co., MD, but coordinates and description clearly place this well inside Washington, D.C.

JV0993 (E 28 RESET 1968 MDSRC0) - Listed in Montgomery Co., MD, but description and coordinates place this at intersection of Riggs Rd. (Rt. 212) and Muskogee Rd. in Prince Georges Co., MD.

JV0578 (857 4680 TIDAL BASIC) - Listed in Baltimore Co., MD, but actually located in Baltimore City, MD, at Ft. McHenry.

JV0579 (857 4680 TIDAL 27) - Listed in Baltimore Co., MD, but actually located in Baltimore City, MD, at Ft. McHenry

JV5252 - (CRAIGHILL CHAN REAR RNG LT) - Listed in Baltimore City Co., MD, but description and coordinates place this a considerable distance from the city limits in Baltimore Co., MD.

JV6793 (LAPIDUM AZ MK) - Listed in Harford Co., MD, but description states this mark in Port Deposit, across the Susquehanna River in Cecil Co. (Disk is, however, a Harford Co. disk.

JV6356 (WINGO) - Listed in Harford, MD, but description places this on Cecil Co. (northeast) side of Susquehanna River.

JV6873 (VERDANT AZ MK) - Listed in Harford Co., MD, but description and coordinates place this on Baltimore Co. side of Little Gunpowder Falls (river). (Note: JV6872 (VERDANT) *is* in Harford County.)

A substantial number of stations listed in Fairfax County, VA, appear to actually be located inside the corporate boundaries of Fairfax City. (In Virginia, several cities, including Fairfax, are separate jurisdictions that are not in a county. In other words, Fairfax City, though surrounded by Fairfax County, is not actually part of Fairfax County.) The following stations appear to be located in Fairfax City, although they are currently listed as Fairfax County marks:

HV8623 (RANDOM AZ MK 2)

HV2677 (KAMP)

HV2679 (KAMP RM 1)

KV2678 (KAMP RM 2)

HV2731 (M 230 RESET 1941)

HV8668 (TOYS)

HV8363 (CARPET)

HV2675 (S 383)

HV9111 (GPS 113)

HV9112 (GPS 114)

HV9113 (GPS 115)

HV2735 (Y 230 RESET)

HV2667 (CIRCLE RESET)

HV2670 (CIRCLE RM 4)

HV2671 (CIRCLE AZ MK)

HV2673 (STAFFORD RM 2)

HV8376 (COMSTOCK)

HV2674 (STAFFORD)

HV8054 (V 230 RESET 1957)

HV2711 (V 230)

I received an note from Cheryl on Dec. 30 acknowledging my email and mentioning a backlog, etc. I don't know if there was further action on these marks.

-ArtMan-

10.1k · February 1, 2005

And sometimes, when the weather out is ugly, I have a set of benchmarks to go hunting for.

Yesterday, I went looking for KV4106. The description is fairly precise. We went hunting by the coordinates. After not finding it (and many in this area are no long there), I checked the maps. Note that USPSQD found it in 1989. There is a school at that description. It is not in Union City, but rather in Weehawken. It is Daniel WWebster School, not Public School Number 2. From Topozone, the coordinates should be N 40º 46.1 W 74º 01.72, rather than N 40º 46.469 W 74º 01.763. That's .40 mile off! That's quite a difference in an urban area! Usually, my geocaching partner is the one to follow the GPS, and I to search around. This time, we played opposite roles. We'll go back in two weeks to log the spire atop the school. And we will report the very bad coordinates to NGS, with picture.

February 1, 2005

And sometimes, when the weather out is ugly, I have a set of benchmarks to go hunting for.
Yesterday, I went looking for KV4106. The description is fairly precise. We went hunting by the coordinates. After not finding it (and many in this area are no long there), I checked the maps. Note that USPSQD found it in 1989. There is a school at that description. It is not in Union City, but rather in Weehawken. It is Daniel WWebster School, not Public School Number 2. From Topozone, the coordinates should be N 40º 46.1 W 74º 01.72, rather than N 40º 46.469 W 74º 01.763. That's .40 mile off! That's quite a difference in an urban area! Usually, my geocaching partner is the one to follow the GPS, and I to search around. This time, we played opposite roles. We'll go back in two weeks to log the spire atop the school. And we will report the very bad coordinates to NGS, with picture.

I would be very careful here. The coordinates for KV4106 are adjusted which means that it should be where your GPS says it is. That said, if you found the correct school (on Rand McNally, it shows "Daniel Webster Elementary School 2") and the spire you found looks like the one described in the description then perhaps you have a situation similar to the one I found in Paris, TN. GD1486 is described as "PARIS EPISCOPAL CHURCH SPIRE" but the coordinates point to the county court house, a couple of hundred feet away. In your case, my suspicion is that they described the wrong spire, the one at the coordinates is gone and therefore, the station should be listed as destroyed or least not found. Email Cheryl Malone with your findings (including that the school is described as School 2 on Rand Mcnally will help). But they still haven't decided what to do about the one in TN, so don't expect a quick answer.

edit: change text GD1486 to a URL link to the geocaching benchmark page

Edited February 1, 2005 by rogbarn

February 1, 2005

And, as an aside, this makes the 400th entry that I have, showing how geocaching is helping to improve the quality of the data in the NGS database.

Artman - thanks for your list. That makes 429 stations in my list.

plus I'll add the one from Harry to make 430.

I should point out a few stats from this list:

430 stations listed

291 have been corrected

40 were left as is after research

4 were changed to destroyed

95 are pending

316 have county errors, sometimes across state borders

4 had obvious coordinate typos

53 were described as destroyed but were still listed as active

23 had bad elevations

34 had other miscelleous problems that require research

10.1k · February 1, 2005

And sometimes, when the weather out is ugly, I have a set of benchmarks to go hunting for.
Yesterday, I went looking for KV4106. The description is fairly precise. We went hunting by the coordinates. After not finding it (and many in this area are no long there), I checked the maps. Note that USPSQD found it in 1989. There is a school at that description. It is not in Union City, but rather in Weehawken. It is Daniel WWebster School, not Public School Number 2. From Topozone, the coordinates should be N 40º 46.1 W 74º 01.72, rather than N 40º 46.469 W 74º 01.763. That's .40 mile off! That's quite a difference in an urban area! Usually, my geocaching partner is the one to follow the GPS, and I to search around. This time, we played opposite roles. We'll go back in two weeks to log the spire atop the school. And we will report the very bad coordinates to NGS, with picture.

I would be very careful here. The coordinates for KV4106 are adjusted which means that it should be where your GPS says it is. That said, if you found the correct school (on Rand McNally, it shows "Daniel Webster Elementary School 2") and the spire you found looks like the one described in the description then perhaps you have a situation similar to the one I found in Paris, TN. GD1486 is described as "PARIS EPISCOPAL CHURCH SPIRE" but the coordinates point to the county court house, a couple of hundred feet away. In your case, my suspicion is that they described the wrong spire, the one at the coordinates is gone and therefore, the station should be listed as destroyed or least not found. Email Cheryl Malone with your findings (including that the school is described as School 2 on Rand Mcnally will help). But they still haven't decided what to do about the one in TN, so don't expect a quick answer.

edit: change text GD1486 to a URL link to the geocaching benchmark page

As is frequently the case on older benchmarks, the description is frequently more useful than the cooridinates. In addition, Palisades Avenue is more a north/south street. The description describes the school as being on the south side of Palisades, between Maple and Angelique. That's where the Daniel Webster School is. The coordinates point .40 mile north, two blocks west of Palisades. There is a school on Palisades near there, but it is not red brick, nor does it have a spire, nor it it between Maple and Angelique. Other than that.

We will check out the Daniel Webster School in two weeks, and see what it looks like, and whether it has a spire. And we'll take lots of pictures!

1.6k · February 2, 2005

It is interesting that KV4107 the flagpole at Union City's City Hall has coordinates about 180 feet away from those of KV4106. How does that compare to what you see?

1.6k · February 2, 2005

Another one for Roger's list: MH0702 has adjusted coordinates listed, but my handheld and a topo map both put those about 0.6 mile from where I found the disk. It isn't a slipped digit because the coordinates are southwesterly of the mark. I think it is likely those are the coordinates of another point in the same traverse, and therefore would have the wrong elevation also. I've submitted this information and pictures to Cheryl.

There is also the discrepancy of changing distance between two nearby marks that we noted in a discussion of MZ1556 Peaked Mountain and MZ1557 Peaked MT 2. This was acknowledged by DaveD near the bottom of the thread.

I've got some routine destroyed intersection stations reported and pending also, but I don't think Roger is counting those.

Edited February 2, 2005 by Bill93

10.1k · February 2, 2005

It is interesting that KV4107 the flagpole at Union City's City Hall has coordinates about 180 feet away from those of KV4106. How does that compare to what you see?

Hmm. Didn't bring that page with me that day. :unsure: That would be about the right coordinates for the Union City Hall. In fact, we drove by it looking for the school. I'll have to look for their flagpole next time we're there.

February 2, 2005

Los Alamos county in New Mexico was created in 1949, and there's a number of benchmarks that lie within its borders that were monumented prior to its creation, and thus are listed as the previous county. I've sent these changes to Deb. The marks are:

Stations in Los Alamos county, listed as Sandoval county:

FO0105 V197

FO0104 E 81

FO1678 GUAJE

FO0103 W197

FO0091 Y 80

FO0092 A 198

FO0093 Z 80

FO0094 Z 197

FO0095 A 81

FO0096 Y 197

FO0097 M 207

FO0098 A 81

FO0099 X 197

FO0100 C 81

FO0101 L 207

FO0102 D 81

February 3, 2005

rogbarn - here are some stations from the Pope County, Ark. file that need to be changed...

PID Correct County

FG1119 Yell County

FG1121 Yell County

FG1750 Conway County

FG1751 Conway County

FG1746 Conway County

FG1747 Conway County

FG0671 Van Buren County

FG0672 Van Buren County

I will send these to Cheryl Malone as well.

February 3, 2005

Wow, between Artman, BuckBrooke and 5Wishes, I've added over 50 stations to my list of geocaching assisted corrections. As usual, I have a couple of nitpiks:

BuckBrooke -

FO1678 (GUAJE) is already listed as NM, Los Alamos.

FO0098 is B 81, FO0095 is A 81

I'm still wondering about KV4107. It will make for an interesting report from Harry when he gets back there.

I'm also wondering about Peaked Mt. The amazing part is the I used to live in the same town, Monson, Mass. (it was 25+ years ago. where does the time go?) I never visited Peaked Mt. though.

Also, Bill93 said:

> I've got some routine destroyed intersection stations reported and pending also, but I don't think Roger is counting those.

Actually, I found a group in Missouri that were officially listed as "not found" but the description clearly indicated that they were destroyed. I sent them to Deb and she accepted them as destroyed. The interpertation is fairly strict, I sent a larger group and in some cases the description only implied that they were destroyed, or would be a some future point, or something like that. Deb left all of those as is. It had to say specifically that the station was destroyed. But, since it is helping to clean up the database, I did include those in my list. If Bill93 wants to post or send me his list, I will include those also.

Thanks to everyone for their contributions. It's interesting to see how much we are helping.

February 3, 2005

You people are amazing. Thanks for the help, and keep it up.

-Casey-

1.3k · February 3, 2005

You people are amazing.

From the Latin meaning, "get a life!" :rolleyes:

February 4, 2005

Here's ~163 PIDs that I emailed to Deb that have the wrong county listing in central and western New Mexico. I think most of these stem from Cibola county being created from Valencia and McKinley counties in 1981, though there are a few that are just plain wrong. There are ~420 PIDs listed for Cibola county; after the changes, there should be more like 320. The list follows:

These are listed as other counties, should be Cibola.

EQ1001

EQ1006

EQ1007

EQ1013

EQ1016

EQ1017

EQ1054

EQ1055

EQ1057

EQ1073

EQ1074

EQ1075

EQ1077

EQ1078

EQ1082

EQ1087

EQ1089

EQ1094

ER0674

ER0675

FO0689

FO1597

FO1716 (listed as Grant county; there never was a Grant County. It's near Grants, NM, in Cibola County. It refers to Grants as being in Valencia County. Very confusing, if you don't know what's real)

Listed as Cibola county, should be Valencia county

EQ0146

EQ0147

EQ0148

EQ0149

EQ0150

EQ0151

EQ0152

EQ0153

EQ0154

EQ0155

EQ0156

EQ0240

EQ0241

EQ0242

EQ0245

EQ0246

EQ0247

EQ0248

EQ0249

EQ0250

EQ0251

EQ0252

EQ0253

EQ0258

EQ0259

EQ0260

EQ0261

EQ0262

EQ0263

EQ0264

EQ0265

EQ0266

EQ0267

EQ0270

EQ0271

EQ0272

EQ0273

EQ0275

EQ0276

EQ0277

EQ0279

EQ0280

EQ0281

EQ0282

EQ0283

EQ0284

EQ0285

EQ0286

EQ0305

EQ0306

EQ0307

EQ0308

EQ0309

EQ0310

EQ0311

EQ0312

EQ0315

EQ0316

EQ0317

EQ0318

EQ0319

EQ0320

EQ0321

EQ0322

EQ0323

EQ0325

EQ0326

EQ0327

EQ0328

EQ0329

EQ0330

EQ0331

EQ0332

EQ0334

EQ0336

EQ0337

EQ0338

EQ0339

EQ0340

EQ0341

EQ0342

EQ0343

EQ0344

EQ0350

EQ0352

EQ0353

EQ0354

EQ0355

EQ0635

EQ0636

EQ0637

EQ0638

EQ0639

EQ0640

EQ0641

EQ0642

EQ0643

EQ0644

EQ0645

EQ0650

EQ0651

EQ0652

EQ0653

EQ0654

EQ0655

EQ0656

EQ0657

EQ0658

EQ0659

EQ0661

EQ0662

EQ0664

EQ0665

Listed as Cibola county, might be Cibola county due to SCALED

ER0116

Listed as Cibola county, should be Catron county

ER0148

ER0149

ER0150

ER0151

Listed as Cibola county, should be McKinley county

FO0759

FO0760

FO0761

FO0762

FO0763

FO0764

FO0766

FO0767

FO0778

FO0779

FO0780

FO0781

FO0782

FO0783

FO0784

FO0785

FO0787

FO0788

FO0789

FO0790

Edited February 4, 2005 by BuckBrooke

February 4, 2005

Wow, that's quite a list! I'm now up to 616 entries in my table. Keep 'em coming.

> FO1716 (listed as Grant county; there never was a Grant County. It's near Grants, NM, in Cibola County. It refers to Grants as being in Valencia County. Very confusing, if you don't know what's real)

Well, there is a Grant County in New Mexico, it just not there. It's further south, I-10 runs thru it. Of course, it's still a problem since, as you mention, it's really in Cibola County.

> Listed as Cibola county, might be Cibola county due to SCALED

> ER0116

They might not accept this change, but you never know. The description doesn't help resolve any. But I think it is firmly enough in McKinley County that it should be changed.

1.2k · February 5, 2005

Not quite sure if these fall into your category of needing to be fixed, however, for consideration.. Marks DG1142 && DG1143. Snippets from the two marks are as follows:

 DG1142  DESIGNATION -  U 56
DG1142  PID         -  DG1142
DG1142  STATE/COUNTY-  GA/COBB
DG1142  USGS QUAD   -  MARIETTA (1992)
DG1142  ___________________________________________________________________
DG1142* NAD 83(1986)-  33 58 30.     (N)    084 33 05.     (W)     SCALED    
DG1142* NAVD 88     -       361.734  (meters)    1186.79   (feet)  ADJUSTED  
DG1142  ___________________________________________________________________
DG1142  GEOID HEIGHT-         -29.40  (meters)                     GEOID03
DG1142  DYNAMIC HT  -         361.340 (meters)    1185.50  (feet)  COMP
DG1142  MODELED GRAV-     979,536.4   (mgal)                       NAVD 88
DG1142
DG1142  VERT ORDER  -  SECOND    CLASS 0
DG1142'DESCRIBED BY COAST AND GEODETIC SURVEY 1933
DG1142'1.6 MI N FROM MARIETTA.
DG1142'IN SOUTHEAST FACE OF ELIZABETH SCHOOL BUILDING, 390 FEET NORTH
DG1142'OF CENTER OF TRACK, 1540 FEET EAST OF MILE POST NO. 476, AND 3
DG1142'FEET ABOVE GROUND.

 DG1143  DESIGNATION -  U 56 RESET 1953
DG1143  PID         -  DG1143
DG1143  STATE/COUNTY-  GA/COBB
DG1143  USGS QUAD   -  MARIETTA (1992)
DG1143  ___________________________________________________________________
DG1143* NAD 83(1986)-  33 59 32.     (N)    084 31 43.     (W)     SCALED    
DG1143* NAVD 88     -       345.494  (meters)    1133.51   (feet)  ADJUSTED  
DG1143  ___________________________________________________________________
DG1143  GEOID HEIGHT-         -29.42  (meters)                     GEOID03
DG1143  DYNAMIC HT  -         345.119 (meters)    1132.28  (feet)  COMP
DG1143  MODELED GRAV-     979,538.5   (mgal)                       NAVD 88
DG1143
DG1143  VERT ORDER  -  SECOND    CLASS 0
DG1143'DESCRIBED BY COAST AND GEODETIC SURVEY 1953
DG1143'2.2 MI N FROM MARIETTA.
DG1143'LOCATED ABOUT 2.2 MILES NORTH ALONG THE LOUISVILLE AND NASHVILLE
DG1143'RAIL ROAD FROM THE STATION IN MARIETTA, GA. ABOUT 0.3 MILE EAST OF
DG1143'MILEPOST 476 AND ABOUT 380 FEET NORTH OF THE CENTER OF THE TRACKS,
DG1143'IN THE WEST ENTRANCE OF THE NEW ADDITION TO THE ELIZABETH SCHOOL
DG1143'BUILDING, 1.5 FEET SOUTH OF THE NORTH EDGE OF THE TOP STEP.  IT
DG1143'IS A STANDARD DISK.

Now, as to why they're strange. The first one, which I feel is CORRECT, is listed as being on the school building. The second one is on the "new addition" to the school building. However, the second one is 2 miles north! That's one BIG addition!

My old USGS Topo map of the area actually HAS a benchmark listed where DG1143's corrdniates are, however, there was never a school building there. (I grew up in the area, I'm sure of it.)

So, this brings up an interesting situation - When U56 got RESET, did the wrong entry get updated with the information? There's very little chance that the coord's for the RESET could have been entered in incorrectly to happen to have fallen onto an existing benchmark. Or, was the map printed from data from the Benchmark, and the coord's just HAPPEN to have been entered in next to the SAME railroad line, just farther north than was supposed to? Or, did all the data, save for the coord's happen to overwrite a different existing benchmark? (If so, is that benchmark lost forever?)

It's been bugging me ever since I dug up all the marks along this rail line (I work for them) and noticed that. (Uhm.. I didn't actually dug them up. I meant that as in researched them.)

Anyways, to make things even MORE difficult, there is no more school, where the school stood is now a 4-lane highway, and the second one has a Chemical Plant, so they're both gone, regardless. <_<

Cheers,

Fox.

February 7, 2005

For the record, MY3322 is located in Needham, which is part of Norfolk County, which is the right county for that station. MY3324 is located just across the river, in Newton, which is in Middlesex County, the same county as Waltham. So, no change is needed. But, going back to my original question, its now a shame that the title can't be changed, because it leads to the very confusion that we just encountered (there is currently a listing that has a city referenced that is in another county). My word of caution to anyone doing this kind of reporting is to check where the county borders are and make sure that the station is in the county you claim it to be in. It is especially challenging in these northeastern parts where the county borders rarely have square corners or lines that are e-w or n-s.

I think, though, that this is a worthwhile effort, though, and have looked into other possible errors. I just reloaded all the points into Map Point for Massachusetts directly from the NGS files, which are created by county. Each county set is colored differently. And, behold, there are a lot of stations, especially designated in Suffolk County (essentially Boston) that are in other counties. I even see a string of datapoints from Bristol County that are well into Rhode Island. So, I'll explore these, and give you a list from time to time of those that I have found.

February 10, 2005

This might be one of the "I'm not quite sure it's destroyed" PIDs. See the second log entry. Note to self. In the future, don't go through all this hassle to get rid of a benchmark. CW0919

Edited February 10, 2005 by BuckBrooke

10.1k · February 16, 2005

And sometimes, when the weather out is ugly, I have a set of benchmarks to go hunting for.
Yesterday, I went looking for KV4106. The description is fairly precise. We went hunting by the coordinates. After not finding it (and many in this area are no long there), I checked the maps. Note that USPSQD found it in 1989. There is a school at that description. It is not in Union City, but rather in Weehawken. It is Daniel Webster School, not Public School Number 2. From Topozone, the coordinates should be N 40º 46.1 W 74º 01.72, rather than N 40º 46.469 W 74º 01.763. That's .40 mile off! That's quite a difference in an urban area! Usually, my geocaching partner is the one to follow the GPS, and I to search around. This time, we played opposite roles. We'll go back in two weeks to log the spire atop the school. And we will report the very bad coordinates to NGS, with picture.

I would be very careful here. The coordinates for KV4106 are adjusted which means that it should be where your GPS says it is. That said, if you found the correct school (on Rand McNally, it shows "Daniel Webster Elementary School 2") and the spire you found looks like the one described in the description then perhaps you have a situation similar to the one I found in Paris, TN.

We gave this problem considerable effort last weekend (after visiting Christo's The Gates in Central Park).

The description for KV4106 is very expilcit: 'On the south side of Palisade Avenue between Angelique and Maple Streets'. The coordinates are .40 mile off, and lead to a former Catholic School associated with Holy family Church on 35th, between Bergeline and JFK West. The school between Angelique and Maple, on Palisades, was built in 1939. This lcation is in the Township of Weehawken, not Union City. I have no idea what is going on with the coordinates being so far off, but USPSQD could not possibly have observed a spire on the school in 1989. Palisades between Angelique and Maple, Weehawken, NJ.

Another benchmarker asked about the 'nearby' Benchmark KV4107: Union City City Hall Pole. The coordinates point to the Holy Family Rectory on 35th, between Bergenline and JFK West. .25 mile off. The description is very clear. On the west side (sic) of Palisade, between 37th and 38th Streets. There is no mistaking this building! '5-story castle-like building of red brick trimmed with rough stone.'

I don't know what to say, other than the coordinates are very far off in both cases, but the descriptions are very clear.

February 16, 2005

We gave this problem considerable effort last weekend
<much snipping>

I don't know what to say, other than the coordinates are very far off in both cases, but the descriptions are very clear.

It is certainly a confusing situation. I'll admit that I've had fun examining various maps, plotting various coordinates, trying to interpret various clues. The only thing that I can think of is that two different datasheets got crossed and the coordinates for one got listed with the description of the other. In two different cases. At this point, my suggestion is to email Deb and/or Cheryl with all your findings and wait. Since it is not an easy fix and research will have to be done, don't expect a quick response (but you never know!)

Meanwhile, keep up the benchmark hunting and may your next hunt yield easier findings.

p.s. Is that the entrance to the Lincoln Tunnel just to the east of the school?

10.1k · February 16, 2005

Yes. The Lincoln Tunnel is a short distance distance to the east. I'll bet your eye is on the benchmark above the tunnel entrance! I'm told that the mansion there belongs to JLo. So it may be impossible to get near. :mad:

March 3, 2005

JV0578 (857 4680 TIDAL BASIC) - Listed in Baltimore Co., MD, but actually located in Baltimore City, MD, at Ft. McHenry.

Any idea why JV0578 is now listed as Howard County? All the others have not changed.

1.3k · March 3, 2005

JV0578 (857 4680 TIDAL BASIC) - Listed in Baltimore Co., MD, but actually located in Baltimore City, MD, at Ft. McHenry.

Any idea why JV0578 is now listed as Howard County? All the others have not changed.

Aliens?

March 7, 2005

Here are several more that need to be changed. I will send these to Cheryl as well.

PID Correct County

Franklin County

FG1372 Madison County

FG0944 Crawford County

Crawford County

FH0807 Sebastian County

FH0216 Sebastian County

FG1928 Franklin County

Yell County

FG1883 Logan County

EJ1489 Montgomery County

Pope County

FG0885 Johnson County

FG0884 Johnson County

FG0883 Johnson County

FG0881 Johnson County

FG0879 Johnson County

FG0878 Johnson County

FG0876 Johnson County

FG0935 Johnson County

FG0867 Johnson County

FG0952 Johnson County

FG0950 Johnson County

FG0868 Johnson County

FG0869 Johnson County

FG0870 Johnson County

FG0871 Johnson County

FG0872 Johnson County

FG0873 Johnson County

FG0935 Johnson County

FG0933 Johnson County

FG0931 Johnson County

FG0930 Johnson County

FG0891 Johnson County

FG0892 Johnson County

FG0894 Johnson County

FG0895 Johnson County

FG0896 Johnson County

FG0897 Johnson County

FG0900 Johnson County

FG0901 Johnson County

FG0903 Johnson County

FG0905 Johnson County

FG0906 Johnson County

FG0907 Johnson County

FG1005 Johnson County

March 7, 2005

Here are several more that need to be changed. I will send these to Cheryl as well.

Thanks to 5Wishes for another group of county errors. There certainly are a lot of them out there.

Just a comment to anyone reading this that wants to send in corrections. In my experience, the NGS is pretty firm in requiring the PID and the designation when identifying stations needing corrections. Knowing what they need will help them cut down on the paper work needed to process all the corrections we're sending in. Also, in the post from 5Wishes, no state was entered. It looks like a minor omission, but it really helps. Fortunately, I had just read the post with the link to the map of PID prefixes, so I figured it out pretty quickly. Hopefully, 5Wishes has already done that. (Sorry, I'm not trying to pick on you, just wanted to point out how to make reporting easier).

Edited March 7, 2005 by rogbarn

1.3k · March 7, 2005

Yell County
FG1883 Logan County

EJ1489 Montgomery County

It's a great county. Their motto: We're Loud and We're Proud!

Which reminds me of the 1979 parody of an NBC-TV image campaign. On this page of NBC promos, scroll down to "Proud as a Peacock parody.")

-ArtMan-

March 10, 2005

In my experience, the NGS is pretty firm in requiring the PID and the designation when identifying stations needing corrections.

Actually, Cheryl didn't mention anything about requiring the designation or the state when I submitted these. Here is her response:

Thanks for your submission of county corrections to our database. I have researched all of the points that you have submitted for correction. All of the PIDs you submitted indeed had the incorrect county listed. There was one PID, FG0944, which was incorrectly listed in Franklin County but the correct county for that PID is Madison County instead of Crawford County. The location of PID FG0944 is NNE of the convergence of Franklin, Madison and Crawford Counties in or near Ozark National Forest. I will submit these corrections for updating and get back to you when they have been corrected. Thanks for your help.

Happy Hunting!!!

Cheryl

I'll try to be a little more specific with her in the future, but I don't think she had much problem without it.

It's kindof cool to know that our efforts are appreciated by NGS.

March 10, 2005

In my experience, the NGS is pretty firm in requiring the PID and the designation when identifying stations needing corrections.

Actually, Cheryl didn't mention anything about requiring the designation or the state when I submitted these.

Interesting. I've always been told to include both the PID and the designation. But I guess if she'll take them that way, it must be OK.

March 16, 2005

I got notification from Deb Brown that a bunch of changes had been made, so I checked out the situation. She made over 250 corrections based on geocaching benchmark hunter input! A couple of quesions did come up in my research:

For BuckBrooke:

You listed:

> Listed as Cibola county, might be Cibola county due to SCALED

> ER0116

All the New Mexico stations were corrected except ER0116. Did you get a email about this one?

For 5Wishes:

You listed:

> Franklin County

> FG0944 Crawford County

I think you meant FH0944. Can you confirm this?

March 17, 2005

I think you meant FH0944. Can you confirm this?

Confirmed. I guess I was a little 'FG' happy. Almost all of the PID's in my area begin with an FG prefix. My mistake.

March 17, 2005

They're leaving it as it is, I think. I've a rather large project underway fixing county designations. I'll post when I'm finished.

Corrections Requiring Ngs Input

Recommended Posts

Join the conversation