Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
rogbarn

Corrections Requiring Ngs Input

Recommended Posts

Does the NGS insist that corrections can only be made if the position is ADJUSTED? When going through the extreme northern datasheets for Nevada, I discovered about 20 SCALED benchmarks that were listed in Humbolt Co. Nevada but should actually be in Oregon and Idaho. The stations look like they are a level line (or two) that were monumented by the USGS in 1973 and 1974. The "to find" descriptions all start in Nevada and follow unmarked roads, although only one of the descriptions actually mentions the station being located 0.7 miles north of the Nevada state line.

 

The line starts with that station and then proceeds northeastward through Oregon and (probably) into Idaho. Plotting the positions on the map shows clearly that they were following a path through Oregon and Idaho. Most of the scaled positions put them a couple of miles over the border. See

 

NW0403 0.7 mile north in Mahleur Co. Oregon

NW0404 1.5 miles north in Mahleur Co. Oregon

NW0405 2.5 miles north in Mahleur Co. Oregon

NW0406 3 miles north in Mahleur Co. Oregon

NW0407 3 miles north in Mahleur Co. Oregon

NW0408 3.5 miles north in Mahleur Co. Oregon

NW0409 4 miles north in Mahleur Co. Oregon

NW0410 4.5 miles north in Mahleur Co. Oregon

NW0411 4.5 miles north in Mahleur Co. Oregon

NW0412 5 miles north in Mahleur Co. Oregon

NW0413 4 miles north in Mahleur Co. Oregon

NW0414 4 miles north in Mahleur Co. Oregon

NW0415 4 miles north in Mahleur Co. Oregon

NW0416 4 miles north in Mahleur Co. Oregon

NW0417 4 miles north in Mahleur Co. Oregon

NW0418 4 miles north in Mahleur Co. Oregon

NW0419 3.5 miles north in Mahleur Co. Oregon

NW0421 1 mile north in Owyhee Co. Idaho

NW0422 2 miles north in Owyhee Co. Idaho

NW0423 2.5 miles north in Owyhee Co. Idaho

NW0424 2.5 miles north in Owyhee Co. Idaho

NW0425 3.5 miles north in Owyhee Co. Idaho

NW0426 3.5 miles north in Owyhee Co. Idaho

 

edit: added distances and actual counties.

edit: to clarify that I didn't find these by visiting, only by data mining.

Edited by holograph

Share this post


Link to post
Does the NGS insist that corrections can only be made if the position is ADJUSTED?

I've had good luck getting county corrections made even when the station is scaled. On rare occasion, they will claim it is too close to change or the description is ambigous but 99% of them are obvious and the change has been made. Send an email to Cheryl Malone and she will take care of it. I'll add the group to my list of geocacher corrections.

Share this post


Link to post

The issue that is most important is that if the entire county is pulled from the NGS website, that all the Stations in that county be searchable from that county. If they are listed in the wrong county then they can't be searched as they should. Though it is sketchy on some Scaled marks, if it looks to be that the scaled station is in the wrong county, they are more than happy to double check it and move it if they think so too.

 

It is a sort of end user orientation. The people needing the entire county could actually determine something else upon physical investigation, but it is best to give it to the county it appears to be in, data wise, if the station seems to fall within the boundary.

 

It is likely that no one has ever looked at this situation in the way we have started to, and so it is putting right a lot of borderline examples like the ones you listed. They are getting looked at for this reason alone, and it is a good thing. There are times that insisting corrections be made only on adjusted stations is wise, but this is a judgment call situation. We look and make determinations based on what we think we see, and forward it in. They look and change it if they concur or not... At least it gets several sets of eyes on it and that is a good thing.

 

Rob

Share this post


Link to post

Many marks fall exactly on a jurisdictional boundary. Possibly there are thousands that straddle state, county or city boundaries, not to mention those on international borders.

 

Is there any rule on whether a boundary mark be situated in jurisdiction A vs. juridsiction B?

 

As far as I've noticed, it seems arbitrary, but I'd be curious if there is a pattern.

 

-ArtMan-

Share this post


Link to post

Artman,

 

You are correct, they often do straddle and without physically going out to see for sure, especially the scaled marks, it is just a judgment call... It is possible with scaled marks to have them scaled and properly located in one county, yet when physically found, located in another.

 

If we find this situation I suppose we should write the NGS with our ACTUAL Waypoint of the found Scaled station and see if they would like to make a correction for the county. I suppose the user of any stations may be well advised to investigate adjacent counties for their search, or better yet, do a radial search as an alternative.

 

In the end, the best we can do is the best we can do, given what we have to sort it all out. I'd say we are doing well!

 

Rob

Edited by evenfall

Share this post


Link to post

And, here's another curious one.

KV1232

The Rockaway Borough Hall is easy to locate. (No, it is not a city.) The building is old enough to be the one mentioned, and is located 'one block north of the Central Railroad of New Jersey Station'. (CNJ now being NJ Transit, and the train station long abandoned.) We did not find a cornerstone to establish the year the original building was built. The coordinates listed are one minute south and east of the actual location. Our GPS gave us the coordinates of N 40º 53.983 w 74º 30.687. The building has had several additions on the sides and rear. The benchmark is located at the southeast corner, which is in the rear. We did not find the benchmark.

The listed coordinates are in Denville Township, along the old Erie-Lackawanna railroad line (now NJ Transit). The interesting error is that the coordinates are off by one minute in both latitude and longitude. I very much doubt that the USPSQD located this mark in 1986. I realize that this one is listed as 'scaled'. Someone's scale was off by a minute in each direction.

I have reported the station to NGS as 'did not find' with note to Deb Brown. I took no pictures, since we did not find the station.

 

It was a cold and rainy day, so we decided to look for some easy benchmarks, only to find several of them have already been logged by ArtMan. Hey, ArtMan, what are you doing in Morris County, New Jersey? And stop by to say Hi, next time! :D

Share this post


Link to post

Harry,

 

Regarding KV1232, might I humbly suggest that you may want to set your GPSr to display DDMMSS.S in the NAD 83 Datum, then go to the published coordinates from the

 

NGS Data Sheet for KV1232:

 

"NAD 83(1986)- 40 52 59. (N) 074 29 46. (W) SCALED"

 

Then look for something that could have been called a city hall in 1935 when the mark was monumented. Maybe something a block north of the station for the other railroad.

 

Of course, whatever the Power Squadron folks found in 1986 could have been torn down by now, too.

Edited by GH55

Share this post


Link to post

Harry,

 

When you scale a location so as to give it a Latitude and Longitude for future purposes it it done with a Map and a ruler. You could do this too.

 

Take out any USGS Quad map and lay it on the desk. Orient the map to the North = up position. Pretend any BM on the map it the one you want to know the coordinates for and scale it. It may be best if you know that the USGS BM on the Map actually exists today because then you can test your work. Take a ruler and see if you can determine the scale on the map for the ruler you have, If you happen to have a ruler in engineers scale, all the better. Lay your ruler out perpendicular to the grids on the map, starting with the horizontal and go over to the left edge of the map at the margin. Make a light pencil mark there and repeat this process for the vertical...

 

Now using those two light marks you made, do your best to ascertain the Latitude and Longitude of the BM you are scaling on the map. Take your time and squint hard, because at best this will be a guestimation. At these scales, even a pencil line's thickness can resemble many, many feet of difference.

 

Now you have scaled the BM as best you could and recorded your findings. You have just done what all the leveling crews did to horizontally locate their stations after setting them in place. what's more they are scaling a station that is not already located on a map, they are trying to project it's position onto the map from nothing other than a best guess of where they are.

 

Now if you like, hop in the car and drive out to where it is with your GPS and find it. Compare the difference between your scaled location and what the GPSr actually gives for coordinates... You may do better or worse depending on how many minute quad you have and how well you can guess these things between tick marks on the map, but this is the very thing we are up against on a scaled location, and now you know how the data was determined.

 

Good luck and enjoy,

 

Rob

Share this post


Link to post

evenfall -

 

The map scaling concept you're talking about is around +- 6 seconds. The discrepancy that Harry Dolphin observed is a whole minute in both coordinates! Perhaps they were using a gas station map for the scaling :D .

 

Perhaps it's really a totally different building somehow, as GH55 suggests.

Share this post


Link to post

Perhaps, But it is how the scaling takes place for those who may wonder what the process entails, and the accuracy can be affected by the scale of the Map. It is hard to say what they had for a map to scale from in 1930 something, or how much detail that map may have had back then, Eh? We can know that a lot of Mapping and Topo work has been aided greatly by the use of Aerial Photography so pardon me while I go take some large format photos in my old Ford Tri Motor...

 

I cannot do much beyond correct the errors I find. I never really know what caused them, as it can be so many things. Some times I learn what happened as I correct them, Other times... well I just take it on faith and correct them anyway.

 

I think +/- six seconds is a give or take of about 300 feet on either side and that would be a total of 600 feet of possible error, but these things are never that mathematically clean as a rule. We just have to take them as we find them. In nearly every case, I think a GPSr Waypoint can help that out a lot. The running of numbers in a calculator and then giving those numbers too much credence can cut us off from a lot of reality. It is like the weatherman saying it will rain tomorrow, and yet when tomorrow comes. It never does. We have just got to go on what we have.

 

It could be a different Building, it could be a lot of things. In Harry's defense, he did say he found the Building and that it was easy to find. He knew that Rockaway is not a City but was once a Borough with a city hall, but probably not anymore. It may have been lost due to building remodeling. The Minute error could be from any number of reasons. People can and do make judgment errors all the time. Ultimately it will not matter if it is not found. If so, then well it is not found. Simple and tidy.

 

Beyond that, I too have found errors I could not explain and further more, because of the nature of the error, I could not correct the data sheet either. Station Mark still lost. Oh well. Come see, Come saw. Que Sera, Sera.

 

Rob

Share this post


Link to post

Maptech has beautiful scanned copies of older UGSG topo maps for several northeastern states. A quick sampling finds dates from the 1890s to the 1940s, with both 7.5 and 15 minute maps represented. In some instances consulting these old maps may be helpful.

 

-ArtMan-

Share this post


Link to post

Harry, I tend to agree with you that the NGS datasheet's scaled position doesn't match the description. This is what should have been known as the "town hall" in 1935 (from this site)

 

In 1897, when the township still included Rockaway Borough, the 'flat iron' building located at the junction of Church and Wall Street was deeded to Rockaway Township. The building known as the Towns Hall was used for public meetings. An amicable agreement was reached in 1947 whereby the Township and Borough would operate the building jointly as a jail and police headquarters.

 

That location would be approximately N 40°54'08.9" W 74°30'49.4" I'm not sure if that was what you visited. It's about a half hour from my home, so I may check it out myself some day when I'm not supposed to be working.

 

edit: I went out at lunch to see what might be there, and found the Flatiron building, but no benchmark disks. I logged a note for KV1232.

Edited by holograph

Share this post


Link to post

I downloaded the info for Jackson County, OR and found PC0728 and PC1123 listed when I loaded the file in GSAK. When I scanned it by distance, I knew something was wrong and checked the maps. (PC1128 is not listed on gc.com.) These are actually located in Douglas County.

 

I sent an email to Cheryl, but thought you might want to add these to your list.

 

Ernie

Share this post


Link to post
Harry, I tend to agree with you that the NGS datasheet's scaled position doesn't match the description. This is what should have been known as the "town hall" in 1935 (from this site)

 

Holograph,

I'm sure that we've confused the others with the peculiarities of New Jersey Municipalities. :( New Jersey has five possible types of municipalities. City, town, township, borough and village. (I think I got that right.) Rockaway Borough seceded from Rockaway Township in 1897. The fact that the benchmark is listed as being a 'city hall' is irrelevant. The building that I located is this one: Rockaway Borough Hall. I have not had the opportunity to check to see whether it has always been the Rockaway Borough Hall. It is located at 1 West Main Street. It appears to date from the secession in 1897. I shall have to check out the flat iron building (especially if you have not logged it as a Locationless Cache <Flat Irons>!)

The coordinates listed at NGFS are obviously wrong. That is located at Lake Estling in Denville Township. Rockaway Borough and Denville Township were never part of the same municipality. I shall have to go there to take pictures too. What struck my curiosity is that the coordinates listed are exactly 1 minute off in latitude, and almost exactly one minute off in longitude. I do remember when the new Rockaway Township Municipal Building was built.

 

Quoteing Evenfall: "It could be a different Building, it could be a lot of things. In Harry's defense, he did say he found the Building and that it was easy to find. He knew that Rockaway is not a City but was once a Borough with a city hall, but probably not anymore. It may have been lost due to building remodeling. The Minute error could be from any number of reasons. People can and do make judgment errors all the time. Ultimately it will not matter if it is not found. If so, then well it is not found. Simple and tidy."

Sometimes it helps to know the territory. We have strange political jurisdictions in New Jersey. Rockaway Borough was incorporated in 1897, and remains Rockaway Borough to this day. If I have found the right building, then, yes, the benchmark is somewhere hidden by the new construction. The one minute error is what I found so intriguing! It being a 'scaled' measurement might explain that. I shall investigate some more. But, as I said, the coordinates listed are very wrong.

Share this post


Link to post

I have just started looking for benchmarks and I enjoy this aspect of searching. I found a benchmark which is problematic (for me) and I am hoping that someone can tell me where I went wrong here.

Everything about this one appears to be wrong !

I have checked my track and the maps and the description and something is off. If anyone can shed a little light on this I would really appreciate it.

Thanks

 

Here is the benchmark

 

TK0496

Share this post


Link to post

You don't say if you used the DGPSr to get to the location?

 

1959 was the last report, many things will change 46 yrs. I would use the GPSr to find the site. Thats about all I can help with from afar. When the descriptions appear to be outdated, I rely on the GPS to get me there.

 

From the following info, I would say you have a hard one to find if you cannot fint the Reference Mark. It may be covered over with earth today. Do you have a DGPS receiver? If you had WAAS ready GPS, you should be able to get within 3 meters (10ft) and start probing the ground hoping to find the rock. If you don't ahve WAAS then its going to be a bigger area to search BUT go by the lat and lon. Thats what I would do.

 

TK0496''STATION MARK - STANDARD USGS TABLET STAMPED ---CORNER, 1957 VABM

TK0496''2790--- CEMENTED IN BURIED BOULDER FLUSH WITH THE GROUND.

TK0496''

TK0496''REFERENCE MARK - STANDARD BLM REFERENCE TABLET STAMPED ---52 RM 1945

TK0496''37 --- ON IRON PIPE 16.1 FT. FROM STATION, S 01 DEG 41 MIN E.

Edited by Z15

Share this post


Link to post

I really wasn't sure what to expect when I went benchmark hunting so I actually printed off a few pages I thought were interesting and took them along on the trip. When the kids went to the pool in the morning I took a few of the pages and plugged in the co-ords on my GPSr.

I looked at the county maps on my laptop and got an idea of where to turn right off of Highway 87 to get in the general vicinity of the benchmark. Then I just used my GPS to drive to the co-ordinates listed as being for the benchmark. I intersected the road in question just north of the eight mile point and tried to go one mile further west, no road going north. I turned around, drove back east and north until my GPS said the benchmark was left and there was an east west road. When I arrived at the co-ords I had many sats, and a WAAS lock. I use an antennae on my GPSMap 60C when driving. The location was farmed to withing a few feet of the narrow N-S track and had been recently harrowed. How big a boulder did they usually use ?

When I went to log this one I started to doubt I was in the right position and really thought I just messed up. I went and reviewed everything again and became more certain something else was wrong. I know the roads have changed a lot and the power poles have been moved. What really threw me off was the 11 miles mentioned in the description correlates to the right piece of land, the NE 35. The 12 miles due north of Box Elder also correlates to the NE 35. I found an older statewide map that shows roads where today there are tracks and at one time the road in question did go due north for 11 miles and then did meet a crossroad at the NE 35. I don't think the legal description has changed since 1959 but it may have. The co-ordinates took me to a crossroads location, except it isn't 11 miles from the highway it is 10, and it is 11 miles due north of Box Elder, not 12, and the MDOT map shows it is the NE 2 not the NE 35. The hash mark that can be seen in the PDF snippet right above the NE 35 is actually the hash mark for 48 30.000 and 110 00.000, I don't know if rough co-ordinates could be scaled from that or not.

I actually thought the 48 28 might be a typo and it should be 48 29.

I was thinking of looking in the boulder piles the next time I was down there for a large boulder with a disk in it.

This benchmarking stuff could get addictive.

I feel like saying "Good hide."

Thanks for the advice. I actually picked this one out because it was the only CORNER mark in the Havre list.

Share this post


Link to post

I used USAPhotoMaps (availabe for free at www.jdmcox.com) to upload a topo map and aerial photo of the mark location to the mark site on Geocaching.

 

As you can see it is on what looks like a dirt road between fields and may have been removed since 1959 when it was last located. Your GPSr should get you VERY close to it as it is a horizontal station and the coordinates are adjusted and very accurate. As Z15 mentioned finding the reference mark should be helpful, if you can.

Make sure you have a strong signal on your GPSr and walk around the mark area, watching the arrow point to the location. As the GPSr averages your location it will help you narrow down the search. The mark could be underground by now, so a probe or metal detector might be helpful.

Also, check the boulders you said were piled up to see if the mark is on one of them.

Edited by mloser

Share this post


Link to post
How big a boulder did they usually use ?

 

Likely they found it in place and used it without really knowing how big it was.

 

This one stands a good chance of being in that rock pile. Farmers will remove every rock the see.

Share this post


Link to post

Thank you.

That is awesome, excellent resources to be able to figure things out. The aerial looks like the spot for sure. Nothing there at all except plow marks. The topo fragment is also excellent, it shows the section numbers and confirms the co-ords are for the NE corner of section 2, which is the location I was at according to the MDOT maps and my GPSr.

It would appear that the description does contain innaccuracies that would preclude those with local knowledge from finding the benchmark ie. If you didn't pay attention to your odometer but used the legal description NE 35 you would end up one mile away from the co-ords. If you used the driving directions you would end up at the correct legal description but you would still be a mile away from the mark. Geocachers have a distinct advantage on this benchmark, I often have no idea where I am going and rely on my GPS to get me to a point. I looked in the right place despite the description.

Thanks for your help.

So, anyone know how big this boulder would have been ? Would they try and choose large boulders ? Really large boulders would usually be buried if they interfered with equipment, smaller boulders would just be removed.

Re :The reference mark - says it is

ON IRON PIPE 16.1 FT. FROM STATION, S 01 DEG 41 MIN E.

Does this mean that the pipe is slightly east and south of the station itself ?

If I find the boulder with the mark what do I do then ?

I am pretty sure this boulder is going to be close by or buried.

Is there any point in looking for the mark using the description knowing that the description is incorrect.

Thanks

Share this post


Link to post

The boulder would be big enough that they would think it wouldn't be be moved accidentally. Of course they might have THOUGHT it was a bigger boulder as it was underground and chosen a smaller one. If it is in the rockpile Murphy's Law says it is on the bottom of the pile or the benchmark is facing down so you can't find it.

A metal detector would work wonders here.

The reference mark is basically south, or 1 degree 41 minutes east of south. At 16 feet you can just head south. Use your GPSr for TRUE south or correct your magnetic compass based on your current declination, which is 14 degrees to the east of north (subtract 14 degrees from your magnetic reading).

 

BTW, I was looking at your logs and have a tip for TK0250, which you couldn't find. I looked at it with USAPhotoMaps and it would appear to be between the road and tracks, although there IS a margin of error in an aerial photo that might mean I am wrong. Make sure you measure EAST of the tracks, and not perpendicular to them--the tracks run at about a 45 degree angle from SW to NW, so a 57 foot measurement directly east would be a lot farther from the road than one measured SE. This mark might be difficult to locate because there are only references that are parallel to the tracks and road and none that show where it lies ALONG the track--the milepost marker being across the tracks is a bit vague, as that measurement seems a bit subjective and not a specific distance. Also, is there ANY remnant of the fence? A post or two? A change in ground cover? Looking at the aerial photo shows some sort of delineation but it is very difficult to see what it is. And trust your GPSr on this one too--it is adjusted and should be exactly where your GPSr says it should be, within the accuracy of the unit.

Share this post


Link to post

Now that I visiualize what you mean, I have to go back. :rolleyes:

You are right, I can see what I did, measuring out perpendicular to the tracks, that would put me right out to lunch for the general area. There may have been evidence of the mark if I looked in exactly the right place. The area around Havre is great for satellite reception, there are no trees at all and the horizon is entirely open, looking for geocaches is not the best way to get started benchmarking maybe.

The delineation you see is a powerline that runs along the east side of the track. There is no remnant of the fence at all and the rust on the rail was well developed. There was no mention of the power pole located very close to the mile twelve signpost so I guessed that the powerline did not exist at that time. It is very possible that the powerline construction was the reason for the removal of the fence. Looking north and south I couldn't see any sign of the fenceline, just the undifferentiated verge of the highway. I looked for the mile twelve marker as you surmised and then walked a pattern along the edge of the rail, but not very wide, back towards the highway, it was perpendicular for sure. The highway verge extends quite close to the tracks today and the only thing I saw was the mile 12 signpost which appeared unchanged.

I am going to go back and look at TK0496 again, it has definitely piqued my interest. One reason is that the NE corner of 35 under the Third Sytem would correlate to the location I was taken to by my GPS. I am not sure if the legal description has any relevance but the distances in the description do not match and I am pretty sure the town of Box Elder hasn't moved. TK0250 was in the same general vicinity as TK0496 for driving purposes though it has no relation. I will go and revisit this one as well. Frankly, I am afraid to propose a metal detector right now, my wife really could get mad. Many of the benchmarks around Havre are on prominent points like Saddle Butte and Square Butte so they offer great views and nice walks, maybe the family will also like benchmarking.

Thanks for pointing that information out, unlike geocaching or letterboxing, descriptions really matter here and even simple phrases contain a wealth of info. I will be more careful.

Share this post


Link to post

On TK0250 I agree that the GPS is your best resource to start out. The location is adjusted, not scaled, so it is very accurate. Do everything you can to squeeze accuracy out of the handheld. Make sure it has been tracking its location for a while so that it is sure of its time. Use fresh batteries. Hold it in the best position for its antenna. Use WAAS. Let the unit average for a minute or two. Go back on several days and put a stick in the ground where it says the position is on each day, then take the center of those points.

 

Once you are confident of your readings within a few feet, measure from the center of the RR. You should be able to figure out whether the distance matches better measured perpendicular or straight east, and then use that direction to pin it down a little tighter. Be aware that railroads do sometimes move a foot or two as they are maintained over the decades. My first guess would be east, but I've seen quite a few marks that were described assuming the railroad always went in its predominant direction and never curved, regardless what a compass would say at the benchmark location.

Share this post


Link to post

This is an interesting Station... A BLM cadastral location, Leveled and Triangulated by the USGS and Submitted to the USCGS, now known as NGS. It does not appear the NGS did anything to this other than add it to the database. It was a Station Submitted to the NGS By the USGS... It is a VABM which leads me to believe that the USGS first thought of it as a BM (Vertical work) and then later Triangulation... Ahhh Maybe... The stamping is just CORNER, 1957 VABM 2790. I mean by this is that they first located this station using PLSS Cadastral Survey Based on the Montana Principle Meridian... I am wondering if they removed the section corner to place this monument. Probably not. This, by the way, is CallawayMT territory.

 

Ok, they leveled 2790 ft at the N.E. corner of SEC.35 T.32 N., R. 13 E. It is interesting that they borrowed Cadastral info for the name, and place the station in a Cadastral Location. Also interesting that the stamping does not match NGVD29 Values. An unusual convention for the USGS to do both ways. In this case you should be able to use either Latitude and Longitude, or the BLM Cadastral PLSS Info to get to this Station as they would both seem to describe the location. Also different is the name, "Corner" because the USGS did a lot of traverse work and often named the stations as such... For instance TT1234 or ET5678.

 

Let's make note that a PLSS Cadastral section is roughly one square mile in size. I say roughly because they are supposed to be, but are not always. So the N.E. Corner will be one mile from any other section corner as the theory holds... If we look at this on a Map, this corner should be the Section's upper right hand corner.

 

Was there any sign of the mentioned Reference marker: STANDARD BLM REFERENCE TABLET STAMPED ---52 RM 1945 as well? You didn't say so I am assuming you found Zero anything. If you were in the right place, and since you followed third order Triangulation to go there, I am thinking you were in the right place as far as the NGS datasheet was concerned, and I would agree that a Farmer could have utterly removed everything as Mike mentioned earlier, as boulders are hard on farm implements. From looking at the ariel photos on the BLM website, this looks like tidy farming perfection, but... We have seen things get curiouser and curiouser before...

 

For NGS Purposes this is NAVD 88 at Vertcon Quality which is low quality for leveling but is adjusted third order horizontal soooooo... Lets look at the Superseded Data for this Station:

 

TK0496 SUPERSEDED SURVEY CONTROL

TK0496

TK0496 NAD 83(1986)- 48 28 47.83477(N) 109 59 51.93819(W) AD( ) 3

TK0496 NAD 27 - 48 28 47.86020(N) 109 59 49.13662(W) AD( ) 3

TK0496 NGVD 29 - 850.2 (m) 2789. (f) VERT ANG

 

NGVD 29 control is 1 foot different from the stamping on the station Mark... Ok... Odd Again... It will usually match NGVD29 Values...

 

Now here is the curiouser... When I compare USGS Topo data on Topozone.com with BLM Photogrammic images, my headache starts to throb...

 

http://www.topozone.com/map.asp?z=12&n=537...d83&layer=DRG25

 

Topozone calls this section corner at roughly 48° 29' 40"N, 109° 59' 52"W (WGS84/NAD83)

(WGS84/NAD83) USGS Laredo Quad It concurs with the BLM Info for the section corner, as based on internet mapping comparisons. NOT the NAD 83 Data for the section corner at BLM's site which I did not chase down.

 

But and a BIG But! Compare this with the Current Control:

 

NAD 83(1992)- 48 28 47.83468(N) 109 59 51.95116(W) ADJUSTED

 

See the Road? I have placed the red "+" at the the intersection where the USGS is saying 2769 feet... This is 20 feet less than the Superseded NGVD 29 elevation, Yes? 21 feet less than the supposed stamping Yes? And it is the same spot that the BLM Photos show the N.E. corner of section 35. Yet, this geodetic location does not concur with the datasheet. I have a sense you followed the datasheet for a waypoint and may have been looking 52-53 seconds away to the South of this T intersection. I hate to say this but that is about a mile south of this intersection. But Go to 48° 29' 40"N, 109° 59' 52"W as a waypoint and you should find the intersection shown on topozone. Topozone will also show that intersection as the section corner for T32N R13E section 35. The Topozone matches BLM Photogrammic imagery for the corner. Then look 49 feet Southwest of the approximated centerline of the T intersection where where the TOPO is putting the section corner? The section corner according to the BLM Photo is at the T intersection on that road, along where the Topo Shows the Elevation on that road. I would pull a tape out 49-50 feet and use it as a swing line to probe for a boulder if any... That RM should be in an a 16 foot circle around that place 49 feet southwest of the intersection as well.

 

Ok. Lots of changes to the area... Roads no longer cross though the BLM Data suggests that they do T last time they mapped it. So does the Topo and there may have been a dirt road connecting to the east, but not lately. This was a Graded Dirt Road and any farmer around routinely changes their dirt road set up to meet their farming need, and they are easy to plow away. No telephone poles or lines in the Ariel Photos and none in the Visit, Boulders gone maybe, possibly buried under plowed soils, Reference Marks all gone, well maybe. 45 years later... Hmmm... Did you see any Crop Circles?

 

Nope, I am not done having fun yet.... Looky here. One mile south on this same road, I am at the S.E section Corner for SEC.35 T.32 N., R. 13 E.

 

48° 28' 48"N, 109° 59' 51"W (WGS84/NAD83)

USGS Laredo Quad

 

http://www.topozone.com/map.asp?z=12&n=537...d83&layer=DRG25

 

Look at the elevation... It is one foot off current control NAVD88 and it is also comparatively closer to Current NGS Horizontal control, in fact if you do a little rounding, it is arguably the same location as the datasheet. Oh and it seems to be a crossroad too...

 

My Guess? The USGS blew the survey by about a Mile South here both times when they said N.E and Meant Maybe S.E. Very Scary when you have third order geodetic triangulation that does not match the BLM section corner it is supposed to be at at all when it is said to be 49 feet apart. Scarier when you looked at the Geodetic location and found nothing but you may actually find the station one mile north at the N.E corner 49 feet would be about 1 second, not 52-53... which is closer to a miles worth of feet. If you do find it in the Northerly location they turned angles on both and submitted the Data to the station a mile south for the one in the North, or something like that! :-D Sorry, but the numbers are WAY off. It would be very cool to sort it out. I can tell you that the BLM data for that corner does NOT jibe with the Geodetic location on the Datasheet, and you found nothing at the Geodetic Location... My Bet is that the USGS BM is at the real section corner like their data on the topo map shows it is, and we need to figure out which corner, and see if we also have a Typo or something going on here with the datasheet. We may find information intermixed for S.E section corner (which appears to be leveled and has a closer elevation) on the datasheet for a station we may actually find at the N.E corner of the section.

 

I think we may want to ask Cheryl at NGS to Compare the NGS Datasheet with the USGS Data since the Topo Map concurs with the BLM Section Corner.

 

This will be a fun little adventure, Eh? Maybe CallawayMT will chime in with a little local Knowledge too...

 

Fun Stuff! Nothing like catching a Big Bust on 3 federal agencies by a mile if We are right eh? The only thing looking right here at the Moment is the BLM. It is a data bust right now for sure, Be nice to find this one... That will clear up the physical part of the bust. I'd check both those intersections with every tool in the box!

 

Curiouser and curiouser... Yup, Sure enough. Who says Armchair Bench Mark Hunting isn't fun? :-D

 

Rob

Edited by evenfall

Share this post


Link to post

I was contemplating this one and would tend to agree with Evenfall, in part. My best guess is that the triangulation was performed correctly which would be the determining factor for this mark. The mark was in place for control of the USGS quads and was placed on the quad at the correct coordinate. I believe that they would have blown their description before their angles. It is easy for me to believe that this corner falls at the SE corner of section 35 and that the trigonometric elevation is a good indicator that this is also the correct location.

 

My guess is that there is a corner buried in the old road intersection, if it has not been graded out. The USGS mark named "Corner" had been set in a convenient boulder which may be buried in the farmers field or knocked out, depending upon how big it was. The BLM RM pipe marker which was 16.1 feet to the south was probably why this mark received it's name of Corner. The RM distance should be 52' to the true cadastral corner which would have put it back into the road intersection.

 

I have a trip planned for this area in June and may give it a try with a treasure style metal detector, my survey detector will not find this mark due to the fact that these old USGS marks generally have no iron in them.

 

Just my nickel's worth,

CallawayMT

Share this post


Link to post

Thanks Callaway,

 

Yes I agree. I am sure the angles were turned for the station that may have been for the S.E section corner. The likelyhood of NGS accepting the position would have never happened if they checked and the survey didn't close. And they do check. The Station in the N.E Corner is The one described in the description and by using the description, it would lead you to the N.E. corner where both the horizontal and vertical info does not Jibe. It is likely that they meant to denote the S.E. Corner of the section, But the NGS may find triangulation data submitted for the N.E corner and not used... Hard telling until they look their files over.

 

Based on the topo however, it appears the USGS worked both eastern corners of the section and may have errantly provided the wrong data for the intended submission. Or the right data and then mistakenly called this a N.E corner on 2 visits to the Station. Since there was nothing found (so far) at the southern location based on hunting with a GPS waypoint, I wonder what might be found a mile North, if anything. In either case the data is currently not accurate as compared to the current description so I will be interested in what might be what.

 

Good times!

 

Rob

Share this post


Link to post

Now that the snow has finally melted away (after about 5 weeks of snow on the ground replenished every few days), and since I was in the area for another event, I decided that I would tackle a series of benchmarks along Route 9, many of which are designated in the wrong county. Two of them were less than 100 feet of the county line, so I wanted to make sure with actual observations.

 

Here is what I reported to the NGS:

 

MY2085, G37, was Suffolk County, should be Middlesex County (the line is about 50 ft east and south of the mark).

 

MY2086, H37, was Suffolk County, should be Middlesex County

 

MY2087, J37, was Suffolk County, should be Middlesex County

 

MY2088, K37, was Suffolk County, should be Norfolk County

 

In addition, MY2083, D37, listed in Suffolk County, is nearly on the line. It lies on the northeast end of the bridge, which is on the Suffolk side of the brook (called the Muddy River), which from the maps I see is the line (I wouldn't be surprised if that was how Brookline was named). Thus, I have determined that it should be left as Suffolk.

 

The actual locations plotted are all good to within 100 feet, so changes aren't needed there.

 

That's four to the count of marks submitted. I sent these on to NGS, along with topographical map images showing each bm plotted as a waypoint.

Edited by NorStar

Share this post


Link to post

I think that the westernmost one for NM, CY 1131 DOUBTFUL, listed on the extreme benchmark site, should be Cochise County, Arizona. I've emailed Cheryl.

 

As a note, the extreme benchmarking page is a great way to search for benchmarks which may be wrongly listed across state boundaries. You could check the 4 stations for your state, and the state boundary should show up in the geocaching mini-map.

Share this post


Link to post

I've just finished updating Alaska's borough listings for benchmarks. Alaska has 25,000 PIDs, or so, but as of the end of February most had no county listing, because Alaska didn't have the current borough setup until 1981 or so. The majority were just listed AK/ . A number had the wrong borough listing, because of some of the boroughs being subdivided. Thus, about 22,000 needed to be labelled/fixed. That's now done, and the spreadsheets submitted to Cheryl. The changes should appear soon.

 

As a note, I love the map and rectangular grid searching techniques available on the national site.

Edited by BuckBrooke

Share this post


Link to post

BuckBrooke,

 

How did you handle that?

 

I'm not a programmer, but I am interested in how large amounts of data get crunched.

 

Could you post at least an outline of how you assigned all those PIDs to their respective boroughs?

 

Thanks

-ArtMan-

Share this post


Link to post

ArtMan,

 

This started from the prior discussions in this topic. I thought about where county mislabelled PIDs would be, if there were any, and realized that the problem is caused by counties being created/borders changed. Thus, counties that were most recently created (after a fair number of PIDs were monumented) would have the most wrong county PIDs, and I could get the most bang for my time. That led me to Los Alamos county NM, and another NM county, that had a few wrong PIDs. That took care of NM.

 

I then thought, where else could I look? Where were new counties created, most recently? After looking around a few states that had counties changed in the 1950s, data from the National Association of Counties (www.naco.org), I realized Alaska was a goldmine ready to be worked on.

 

As for the actual work, it was brute force. If you look at the Yearly Archived Alaska county listings, you'll see that the listed counties/boroughs are the old ones. Dutch Harbor, Dawson, Cold Bay, McGrath, Point Barrow, Prudhoe Bay, Seward and Whitehorse are no longer Boroughs.

 

I downloaded each old list and did the transformation via DSWIN (thanks, whomever explained that!) to an Excel spreadsheet and only kept the PID and name columns. I alphabetized by PID and eyeballed what area they roughly covered on the map.

 

I then started with the outlying lists, which shouldn't have too much confusion. I looked up the current borough listing of the area I was looking at and labelled those PIDs that were marked correctly for the current borough they should be.

 

A handy website was Alaska Borough outlines, which let me work in the hard areas like the Inner Passage in the SE of Alaska.

 

I then brought up the Map from the NGS site, which has the current Borough/county borders labelled, and started working through each area, displaying the PIDs on the map and then recording which borough they were in. Where there was a large area that only was 1 current borough, like the North Slope (not many PIDs there, but with square borders and a large seacoast I could really work 2 degree by 2 degree boxes across it), or where I could fit a decent sized box inside of a borough, I used the Rectangular Search function to speed things up.

 

When I was working where a rectangular search overlapped two of the old boroughs , I would look at both spreadsheets and label accordingly.

 

The county lists ranged from Whitehorse (3 PIDs, just an odd one), Seward (490) to Juneau (4100) and Anchorage (4800). There were about 60 marks in the Inner Passage that I couldn't positively identify and left unlabelled.

 

I typically kept 3 tabs in Mozilla (NGS Map site, for when I would need to reload the map, Groundspeak to look up individual PIDs, and the borough outline site) and 3 windows open (NGS Map, its PID list result table and the Borough spreadsheet) and worked between them.

 

A typical result is the top of the final Coldbay spreadsheet, what I submitted to Cheryl:

 

PID DESIGNATION Should Be

AD9762 COLD USCG A Aleutians East

AD9763 COLD USCG B Aleutians East

AD9764 CDB S1 Aleutians East

AD9765 CDB T4A Aleutians East

AD9766 CDB X Aleutians East

AF9547 COLD BAY 1 CORS ARP Correct Should be listed under the Aleutians East Download

AF9584 COLD BAY 2 CORS ARP Correct Should be listed under the Aleutians East Download

Edited by BuckBrooke

Share this post


Link to post
I've just finished updating Alaska's borough listings for benchmarks. Alaska has 25,000 PIDs, or so, but as of the end of February most had no county listing, because Alaska didn't have the current borough setup until 1981 or so. The majority were just listed AK/ . A number had the wrong borough listing, because of some of the boroughs being subdivided. Thus, about 22,000 needed to be labelled/fixed. That's now done, and the spreadsheets submitted to Cheryl. The changes should appear soon.

 

As a note, I love the map and rectangular grid searching techniques available on the national site.

BuckBrooke, that is awesome work. I think my spreadsheet will break if I try to load 22,000 benchmarks corrected by geocachers.

 

By the way, the census bureau has boundary information if you can decipher it. I'm using it to determine the minimum and maximum lat & long by county. It's a fair amount of work but the results will be helpful to me.

Share this post


Link to post

The Inner Passage gave me trouble because it's a series of island archipelagos, and the borough boundaries are not at all square, unlike other boroughs or the vast majority of lower 48 counties.

Share this post


Link to post

Well, I got bored and checked the western U.S. Extreme North/South/East/West PIDs to make sure of their state/county. I think the following should be changed, and emailed them to Cheryl.

 

OX0677 19 F 830 is in Lincoln county Wyoming (WY), not incorrectly Idaho (ID)

OT0725 STORY should be Falls River county, SD

LF1499 8 D is should be in Holt county, IL

PZ0682 BOUNDARY POST 603.061 ID MT is it over the border into Clark county, ID?

TH0870 BOUNDARY MON 585 CD US should be Divide county, ND

HO0678 108 DOR should be Beaver county, UT

MW0077 D 49 should be Modoc county, CA (it's SCALED, but Really west of the states' border)

MP0323 N 131 is in Carbon county, WY

LQ0204 B 77 should be Elko county, NV

PY0950 WE 2 I'm not sure what's going on here, as there's a wierd double border on the map on the GPS online search site. I think it should be Gallatin county, MT

 

So, some of the boundary extreme PIDs should change in the western states. I've done everything west of, and including, the ND/SD/NE/KS/OK/TX line. Anyone care to take the eastern states?

 

Oh, a quick peek indicates that:

JV6737 DELP (the north Maryland extreme) indeed should be York county, PA as indicated by seventhings in his Geocaching find.

JU1543 44 PRR (the south Pennsylvania extreme) should be Cecil County, MD.

Edited by BuckBrooke

Share this post


Link to post

Just remember that if you are working from SCALED coordinates, the mark might be on the other side of a state or county line from where the coordinates say.

 

BH

Share this post


Link to post

Bill,

 

You make a conscientious observation and great point. It could be in a place we do not think it is, especially around county lines, but until someone goes out there to confirm anything, it seems fine to correct these for where they are thought to be for the sake of having an appropriate county download.

 

Scaled marks, even if we cannot be sure where they may really be, seem most appropriate to be in the county it "seems" they are a part of. If after someone confirms this and finds it to be in the wrong county in actuality, then we can correct it.

 

It is a good thing to have the Lat/Lon be listed in the correct county, as this makes the Data correct based on what we now know. Well, what we think we know anyway. If the case later turns out to be wrong when the mark is found and an on location waypoint is taken, then we can correct that too.

 

No Harm, No Foul.

 

Rob

Share this post


Link to post
OX0677  19 F 830 is in Lincoln county Wyoming (WY), not incorrectly Idaho (ID)

OT0725  STORY should be Falls River county, SD

LF1499  8 D is should be in Holt county, IL

PZ0682  BOUNDARY POST 603.061 ID MT is it over the border into Clark county, ID?

TH0870  BOUNDARY MON 585 CD US should be Divide county, ND

HO0678  108 DOR should be Beaver county, UT

MW0077  D 49 should be Modoc county, CA (it's SCALED, but Really west of the states' border)

MP0323  N 131 is in Carbon county, WY

LQ0204  B 77 should be Elko county, NV

PY0950  WE 2 I'm not sure what's going on here, as there's a wierd double border on the map on the GPS online search site.  I think it should be Gallatin county, MT

 

<snippage>

 

Oh, a quick peek indicates that:

JV6737 DELP (the north Maryland extreme) indeed should be York county, PA as indicated by seventhings in his Geocaching find.

JU1543 44 PRR (the south Pennsylvania extreme) should be Cecil County, MD.

BuckBrooke,

 

LF1499 was listed in Nebraska, but is actually in Illinois? I think Holt County is in Missouri, not Illinois.

 

The boundary posts like PZ0682 and TH0870 usually define the boundary, and they have to be listed in one state or the other. If the scaled coordinates seem to place them over the line, then that is probably just the error in the scaled coordinates.

 

The topographic map shows an "indefinite boundary" between Wyoming and Montana east of PY0950, which would place the station in Montana, but the nature of an "indefinite" boundary might mean that we should give the datasheet the benefit of the doubt.

Share this post


Link to post
BuckBrooke,

 

How did you handle that?

 

I'm not a programmer, but I am interested in how large amounts of data get crunched.

 

Could you post at least an outline of how you assigned all those PIDs to their respective boroughs?

 

Thanks

-ArtMan-

There is an algorithm that is simple in principle but slightly more complex in actual implementation. If you have a description of a boundary, and a list of points you want to test to see if they are inside the boundary, then all you have to do is project a line in any direction from each point and count the number of times it intersects a boundary edge. If the number of intersections is odd, then the point lies in the interior of the boundary, otherwise it is outside.

 

In practice, I've found it convenient to sort all the points according to their longitude, and then iterate over the boundary lines. For each line, you can quickly determine which points are within the east-west limits of the line, because you can efficiently search the sorted list of points. A quick calculation tells you whether the point lies above or below the line. If it is below the line, add 1 to the intersection count for the point. After all the lines have been processed, finish by finding all the points that have odd counts. These are the points that lie inside the boundary. In effect, you've counted the number of intersections along a line that is directed north from each point, as shown in the image below.

 

The technique is quick (for a computer). There are several sources of boundary files, but the Census bureau is especially sensitive the accuracy of political boundaries and offers a good dataset in the form of its Tiger/Line files. I've used this technique to test all 750,000 control points against county boundaries that consist of thousands of line segments.

 

The problem is that although the boundary datasets are pretty accurate according to mapping standards, they are laughable in terms of geodetic survey standards. It is easy to find points that are grossly outside an area, but the boundary datasets aren't accurate enough to determine if a point is inside or outside by a few dozen meters or less.

 

 

county_interior.gif

Share this post


Link to post

holograph wrote:

Oh, a quick peek indicates that:

JV6737 DELP (the north Maryland extreme) indeed should be York county, PA as indicated by seventhings in his Geocaching find.

 

FYI - I submitted that correction of county location to Cheryl@NGS, as well as corrections for JV6726/CARDIFF AZ and JV6728/CAREA AZ, both of which are/were listed as being in Harford Co., MD, but are actually in York Co., PA.

 

7

Edited by seventhings

Share this post


Link to post
The problem is that although the boundary datasets are pretty accurate according to mapping standards, they are laughable in terms of geodetic survey standards. It is easy to find points that are grossly outside an area, but the boundary datasets aren't accurate enough to determine if a point is inside or outside by a few dozen meters or less.

Here is a situation I've wondered about: political boundary markers are often located alongside roads. Suppose there are two markers on two different roads separating County A from County B. On either side of the boundary line, there are a bunch, say 10, property owners. None of the properties have been visited by a surveyor in 100 years. All the property owners believe their property is completely in one county or the other, and have been paying taxes accordingly. A surveyor comes along and traverses between the two political boundary markers, and finds that the private property lines wiggle back and forth across the supposed county line.

 

So, does the county line really wiggle to follow the private property lines, or do the various land owners actually own slivers of land in the adjoining county? Or maybe the private boundaries need to be changed to line up with the political boundary markers?

Share this post


Link to post

BuckBrooke,

 

LF1499 was listed in Nebraska, but is actually in Illinois?  I think Holt County is in Missouri, not Illinois.

 

The boundary posts like PZ0682 and TH0870 usually define the boundary, and they have to be listed in one state or the other.  If the scaled coordinates seem to place them over the line, then that is probably just the error in the scaled coordinates.

 

The topographic map shows an "indefinite boundary" between Wyoming and Montana east of PY0950, which would place the station in Montana, but the nature of an "indefinite" boundary might mean that we should give the datasheet the benefit of the doubt.

I followed the 'to reach' directions for LF1499 on a highway map and it dropped me right on the north edge of the Sac and Fox reservation in SE Nebraska. The plotted coords put it in Holt County, MO, approx 18 miles too far East. I think we should be careful about trusting the published coords of a scaled mark over a look at a map and following the description.

 

-Matt

Share this post


Link to post

I agree with many of the above statements, and don't claim to take credit for anyone else' work, as evidenced by seventhing's reference. As his submission to Cheryl will have already made the change, my repetition is a moot point.

 

Whether or not the above marks should be in a different county is up to the NGS. There are quite a few more that are really close to a state border and are SCALED over the line when looking at a map. I didn't include the majority of them, for the most part only reporting those that deviate far (at least on a map) from where they should be and indicate some sort of problem, that probably needs to be looked at.

Edited by BuckBrooke

Share this post


Link to post

Re: LF1499

This shows why it is necessary to research problems rather than just assuming the county is wrong and sending off a change request. When I work thru a state, I first find a group of stations in which the coordinates do not match the county. I then attempt to map the to reach to make sure it comes close to the coordinates. If the to reach does come at least somewhat close to the coordinates, I assume it is just the county that is incorrect. There are always a few where the to reach doesn't match the coordinates. For those, I do further research that might include radial searches around both my estimated to reach position and the listed coordinates and also searches for similar station names. Sometimes I can find a reason for the problem and can give some background to Cheryl when I send in my email.

 

In this particular case, I see that F 267 and F 267 RESET (LF0637 and LF1500) are mentioned in the description and they are both located at scaled coordinates 40 03 07N 095 31 12W. This maps to a spot that matches the description for D 8 pretty well. The other interesting thing to note is that the north coordinate for LF1499 matches the north coordinate for LF0637 and LF1500. The only reason I can guess at for the incorrect west coordinate (095 09 55) is that it got mis-typed when entered into the system and the degrees got typed twice, once as degrees, once as the minutes and seconds. Therefore, I would send an email to Cheryl asking that the scaled coordinates for LF1499 by updated to match the scaled coordinates for LF1500. This is a lloonngg way of saying that I agree with BDT who said "sounds like a map scaler's typo. in the coords."

 

I will also mention that I have noticed that these types of corrections take longer than the relatively straight forward county corrections. I think they have to be reviewed/researched by someone else.

Share this post


Link to post

Holograph,

Another concern with the line intersection with boundary algorithm is with states with coastline, where there may be reefs/small islands/oil derricks well off the coast that wouldn't be included in the state's official boundaries. That came up very often with Alaska, but is also true of the other coastal states.

Share this post


Link to post
Holograph,

    Another concern with the line intersection with boundary algorithm is with states with coastline, where there may be reefs/small islands/oil derricks well off the coast that wouldn't be included in the state's official boundaries.  That came up very often with Alaska, but is also true of the other coastal states.

It turns out that the Census dataset is pretty good for those situations. The Tiger/Line boundaries are the legal bondaries, and they include the 3-mile offshore limit. Here's an example comparing the Tiger/Line county boundaries (red) and the shoreline (blue) of a portion of the Mississippi Delta region of Louisiana.

 

However, even with the 3-mile limits, there are still a few offshore stations that will be outside the boundaries.

 

LA_delta.gif

Share this post


Link to post

Where are those files/pics located? That's pretty nifty. And of course after those line filters, the number of unclaimed stations is fairly small.

Edited by BuckBrooke

Share this post


Link to post

The raw data files are available from the Census Bureau at their FTP site: ftp://www2.census.gov/geo/tiger/tiger2004fe. Before you start downloading the couple of gigabytes of data, you might want to read the documentation to see if you want to deal with it.

 

This discussion started with a "how is it done?" question. I tried to explain how it was conceptually simple, but never claimed that it was simple in practice. In practice, you have to deal with enormous datasets, weird file formats, datum conversions, and map projections.

 

Offhand, I don't know of any online images like the one I produced. I created that using a program I wrote several years ago, and to create it I overlayed the Tiger/Line boundaries onto a detailed shoreline file that I obtained from the Bureau of Transporation Statistics.

 

There are plenty of mapping programs that could do the same, but you'll have to Google for them.

Share this post


Link to post

Here's an email I sent to Cheryl Malone this weekend. FYI I loaded up a county's worth of marks (NGS download>BMGPX) into USAPhotoMaps and looked for dots outside the jurisdictional boundaries. Many of the Baltimore ones were well inside the city limits and probably coded incorrectly by someone who didn't realize that Baltimore City is not part of Baltimore County. In some other cases I had to study the map and description more closely.

 

-ArtMan-

 

+ + +

 

Cheryl,

 

"ArtMan" from Geocaching here.

 

The following stations appear to be listed in the wrong county:

 

HV9656 (GPS 51) is listed as VA/FAIRFAX. It is in Old Town Alexandria and should thus be VA/C OF ALEXANDRIA.

 

AA3496 (GODDARD GODE JPL 4006) is listed as MD/MONTGOMERY. The coordinates place it deep within Prince George's County, and thus it should be MD/PRINCE GEORGES.

 

HV4567 (DANGERFIELD) is listed as VA/ARLINGTON. The coordinates place it on Dangerfield Island near the Washington Sailing Marina and well south of Four Mile Run, which forms the boundary between Arlington and Alexandria. This mark should therefore be VA/C OF ALEXANDRIA.

 

HV4569 (BOUNDARY WITNESS MK 13 DC VA) is listed as VA/ARLINGTON. Although this station is apparently lost, it is on the Alexandria waterfront on the north end of Old Town and should correctly be listed as VA/C OF ALEXANDRIA.

 

Finally, a considerable number of PIDs are listed as MD/BALTIMORE, meaning Baltimore County, but appear to be actually located inside the city limits of Baltimore and should thus be MD/C OF BALTIMORE, including the following:

 

AC7688 DESIGNATION - GIS 5

AC7733 DESIGNATION - GIS 5B

JV0557 DESIGNATION - BALTIMORE

JV0558 DESIGNATION - 1288 C OF B

JV0559 DESIGNATION - C 4

JV0579 DESIGNATION - 857 4680 TIDAL 27

JV0781 DESIGNATION - D 92 RESET 1951

JV0790 DESIGNATION - W 13

JV0791 DESIGNATION - 5619 C OF B

JV0792 DESIGNATION - 4246 C OF B

JV0793 DESIGNATION - 4271 C OF B

JV0794 DESIGNATION - X 13

JV0797 DESIGNATION - 5549 C OF B

JV0798 DESIGNATION - 5520 C OF B

JV0800 DESIGNATION - Y 13

JV0801 DESIGNATION - 1294 C OF B

JV0802 DESIGNATION - 5055 C OF B

JV0803 DESIGNATION - 5037 C OF B

JV0937 DESIGNATION - T 98

JV0938 DESIGNATION - L 26

JV0939 DESIGNATION - M 26

JV0941 DESIGNATION - N 98

JV0943 DESIGNATION - M 98 RESET 1965 BORR

JV0944 DESIGNATION - L 98

JV0946 DESIGNATION - FILBERT RM 2

JV0947 DESIGNATION - FILBERT [station is apparently lost]

JV0956 DESIGNATION - W 26 RESET 1970

JV1109 DESIGNATION - W 74

JV1118 DESIGNATION - P 30

JV1123 DESIGNATION - K 30

JV1124 DESIGNATION - J 30 C OF B

JV1126 DESIGNATION - G 30 C OF B

JV1127 DESIGNATION - F 30 C OF B

JV1129 DESIGNATION - D 30 C OF B

JV1130 DESIGNATION - 21 USGS

JV1132 DESIGNATION - B 30 C OF B

JV1133 DESIGNATION - A 30

JV1193 DESIGNATION - 7 PRR

JV1203 DESIGNATION - 4408 C OF B

JV1204 DESIGNATION - 4407 C OF B

JV1205 DESIGNATION - 5571 C OF B

JV1206 DESIGNATION - Z 13

JV1207 DESIGNATION - 3 PRR

JV1208 DESIGNATION - 5539 C OF B

JV1209 DESIGNATION - 1053 C OF B

JV1210 DESIGNATION - 2 PRR

JV1211 DESIGNATION - X 537 C OF B

JV1212 DESIGNATION - 1265 C OF B

JV1213 DESIGNATION - 5211 C OF B

JV1214 DESIGNATION - 4396 C OF B

JV1217 DESIGNATION - X 579 C OF B

JV1218 DESIGNATION - 4385 C OF B

JV1219 DESIGNATION - 1269 C OF B

JV1220 DESIGNATION - 5047 C OF B

JV1221 DESIGNATION - 1272 C OF B

JV1222 DESIGNATION - 1277 C OF B

JV1223 DESIGNATION - 1160 C OF B

JV1224 DESIGNATION - X 925 C OF B

JV5704 DESIGNATION - SMITH USE 1916 [appears inside Baltimore City, but very close to or on boundary line]

JV6452 DESIGNATION - GPS LR 12

JV6538 DESIGNATION - K 98 RESET

JV6540 DESIGNATION - U 26 RESET

JV6888 DESIGNATION - N 26 RESET

JV6935 DESIGNATION - EAST PT

 

+ + +

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

×