Jump to content

I Am Here To Crow (again)

Followers 2

Recommended Posts

A long story, but by shear luck, I met the Airport Commisioner for Eastern Slopes Regional Airport in Fryeburg, Maine. He was a Professional Surveyor for 23 years and was excited to think I knew of 5 BM's on the Airport. He was aware of one and readily got me out there today to search for them. (Pouring rain and low clouds, so the Airport did not have to be shutdown for me.) (There is also a 6th BM....the airport beacon which I have already documented a few months ago.)


The main Station, AIR (OC2770) had not been reported since 1986. We found it in GOOD condition at the described location.


The only RM for AIR has its own PID, OC2769, AIR RM 1, but is stamped AIR No.1 and was logged as recovered in 1995. We found it in GOOD condition at the described location. Interesting. Why a 10 year difference when only feet away from the Main Station?


The Azimuth mark, OC2767, AIR AZ MK, is stamped only as AIR. We found it in GOOD condition at the described location.It was last reported in 1996. Another interesting anomoly.


At the South-east end of the Runway is posted AB2652, a metal rod. (Note the Alpha pre-fix of AB in an area of OC's). We determined that if this rod exists, it is now buried under several feet of landfill brought in during Runway renovations in 1997-1998. It was last reported in 1995.


At the Nothern end of the Runway is posted AB2653, another metal post (and another AB prefix.) Listed as 95 feet off the end of the runway, the runway was extended by 700 feet in this direction in 1997-1998. It either exists beneath the runway or was out right destroyed during the extension. It was last reported in 1996.


I find the 10 year span in reporting dates to be interesting, and can anyone explain to me the prefix designation of AB ?

Link to comment

There is another thread that discusses the coordinate map for the prefixes, which were originally a lat-long checkerboard. It appears that the NGS has dropped the idea of confining the prefixes to a given location and is just using them in sequence regardless of where they are. I have, for instance AA3904 documented 1975 and AE9196 documented 1998 in Iowa in areas where the old ones are MG and MH.

Link to comment
The only RM for AIR has its own PID, OC2769, AIR RM 1, but is stamped AIR No.1 and was logged as recovered in 1995. We found it in GOOD condition at the described location. Interesting. Why a 10 year difference when only feet away from the Main Station?

Probably because the person that logged the main station in 1986 did not realize the RM had it's own PID.

Link to comment
A long story, but by shear luck, I met the Airport Commisioner for Eastern Slopes Regional Airport in Fryeburg, Maine. He was a Professional Surveyor for 23 years and was excited to think I knew of 5 BM's on the Airport. He was aware of one and readily got me out there today to search for them. (Pouring rain and low clouds, so the Airport did not have to be shutdown for me.)

Great luck meeting the airport guy! I wondered if any BM hunters had ever organized a group visit to an airport by cold-calling some airport muckymuck, explaining the hobby, etc.? Presumably it'd help to have a pilot or other trusty person in the group who could speak the airport admin's lingo. But there are several marks, never found by Geocachers, at Love Field here in Dallas that would be fun to grab. On the other hand, Love Field is a very active airport and probably doesn't shut down except in 12 inches of snow, which is (1) not very likely in Dallas and (2) not good BM hunting weather....

Link to comment

OK, now I'll do a little crowing. Saturday, drove from Alamosa, CO along US 285 to Santa Fe. Stopped along the way and recovered 24 marks, two of which had not been found by NGS, one since 1940, the other since 1963 (compare given coordinates with picture).

GM0517* NAD 83(1986)- 36 57 04. (N) 105 59 23. (W) SCALED




The designation of this mark (A 32) is the same as GM0567 located at the stateline. Also found a mark, HL0084, that was off by 55 miles (description vs coordinates). Did not find two marks. Would have liked to found couple more but lightning and rain made me call it a day.


Was excited abot my 200th find, but I have a controversy about it. Read the descriptions of the following two marks that I found about twenty feet apart. Then compare the second and third entries and tell me what mark I found?


























Also, the ticket agent at the Alamosa Airport was nice enough to take me out onto the field where I recovered one mark and DNF another.

Link to comment

Colorado Papa:


CONGRATS on the 200th find and especially for 24 in one day !! (my best to date is 9 in one day and I still have not reached 100)


By reading only, not having been there, it sounds like you found the first two descriptions. Surely the third mark would have been stamped differently as stated? And claims to have been 0.2 miles distant?


Please let us know if you ever get it untangled.

Link to comment

Haaaaa Papa! Good on you for 200!


You know those three descriptions in my thinking are all the same Station. I see the two tenth of a mile error there but new mile marker signs can do that and Vehicle odometers are not all that precise anyhow, I think I would just write Deb Brown to help get the designation typos sorted out. I really do believe you found the right Station with the PID you pulled. It will be fine!


In the third decription something piqued my curiosity. Did you look for this?






I realize it is not what you were looking for, but I have never seen one of these, In fact I was not aware of this type of station at all. I have never come across any here in Washington, The subject has never came up with coworkers down through the years. I have seen a lot of different types of State and Federal Markers, but never one of those, I even Googled for it and found nothing. Imagine a Supreme Court Certified Mile. I wonder if it was for the Road or the Railroad... Hmmmm If you didn't but you happen to be near there again, see if it is there, I would love to have a look at it.


Congrats again for a helluva good day! I am sure Spoo is raising that Mug in his picture to you. So am I. I will leave you to edit all that paperwork!



Link to comment

I hope it's not too presumptious of me to jump into the middle of this

thread, but I have some personal knowledge of those particular benchmarks.


A boundary dispute between New Mexico and Colorado had to be settled by a

Supreme Court decision, sometime in the 1920s. The final location of the boundary was marked by serious monuments, looking very similar to NGS benchmarks, placed every mile starting in the east and going west to the Four Corners Monument. You were looking for the 163rd one from the Oklahoma, or

Texas (I don't have my atlas handy) line.


I've seen the one you were looking for, it's very distinctive. It's about a hundred feet east of the old railroad bed. Its stamped "U.S. Supreme Court" Date of the court decision. "New Mexico" "Colorado" Mile Marker

Number. It's coincidence that NGS has included this one in their database. There

are three hundred or more of them along the boundary. Looking for them is fairly simple, follow the fence east or west.


Interestingly enough, the boundary does not perfectly follow the latitude assigned, but west of Chama, near Monero, it takes a jog to the north for about three hundred yards, then continues west.

Link to comment



Not presumptuous at all, in fact thank you. For a lot of us the background info is as cool as the hunt. By All means, please do so anytime. There are a lot of great contributors and fun people in this forum.


I pulled the datasheet from NGS, GM0519 and it looks like they leveled the Supreme Court Mile Marker in 1933, It is now a VERT ORDER - FIRST CLASS II Station.


I am curious to the stamping however and you may know how it reads on these. BOUNDARY MI COR 163+22 CHS CO NM. In a Standard Stationing schema I would assume this Station is located 16,322 feet from the POB. In this instance assuming Mile Markers you say 163rd So are we talking 163.22 miles west of the Oklahoma State Line, assuming the Oklahoma Line is the POB? I scale this to be near San Antonio Colorado. This makes sense as the Descriptions start from the Antonito Post office. I am curious as to what the +22 part of the stamping means. The 1933 description speaks of a dismantled Railroad, I am wondering if this was some of the D&RGW Narrow Gauge which was abandoned pretty early on, that would be cool to know. In the 1984 description they claim the stamping says 163+22 CHS 1868 1925. I did a little looking and found this link: http://usgenmap.rootsweb.com/us1860.htm It details that the 1860's was when the beginning of these State Border disputes may have started. There is some info on the net about these border disputes.


Papa or JB, If either of you do get back to that neck of the woods, I would love to see what that Supreme Court Mile Marker looks like. Looks like you can claim it as a find if you do too!

It sounds like a Boundary Monument with engraving, and a Disc in the top of it stamped as such. I wonder if all the monuments had discs in the top of them, and was one set every mile?

This has been a fun find Papa, I am glad you Crowed! and all because of a screwed up datasheet. JB, thanks again for the info.



Link to comment



The process of determining the elevation of points at short intervals along a fixed line..

Ordinarily the intervals between stakes is 100 ft.,50 ft. or 25 ft.


The 100 ft. points,reckoned from the beginning of the line,are called full stations,and all other points are called plus stations.


Each stake is marked with its station and plus.

The stake set at 1600 ft. from the point of beginning is numbered "16" or

"16 + 00",and one et at 1,625 ft, from the point of beginning (POB) is numbered "16 + 25."

Elevations by means of which the profile may be constructed are obtained by taking level-rod readings on the ground at each stake and at intermediate points where marked changes in slope occurs.


There fore:Station 163 is 16,300 ft. plus 22 ft = 16,322 ft.

Link to comment

Hey Geo, that is correct, That is a form of leveling we can use, and that is how Stationing is done, and read. But these markers do not conform to the standard Stationing I would use everyday in the field for locating things, this is written in the same format but according to JB, the 163 means miles, not hundreds of feet, This checks out nicely after scaling the Colorado State line along New Mexico west beginning at the Oklahoma line. It comes out right where it said it would, so I am thinking the + 22 could mean something other than what we are accustomed to.


Part of the work we do in the field of surveying is question descriptions and instructions, until we are sure we understand them, as well as confirm they are correct. You would be surprised how many things are drawn on plans that cannot be built as indicated, or look wrong until the order of construction is sorted out... Sometimes we in the Survey field have to beg an engineer to leave the office to see what they really are working with. Often times the design meets a spec but has not been the best design for the situation, like a bridge not lining up for a road it was designed for. (it happens, Really) About the time I take something for granted, I am in error, and that is never a good thing! :-) Often, we are the last ones to catch the errors, so we develop a nose for looking for what is odd right out. This use of a given and otherwise usual nomenclature is being used, or rather written in a usual way, but for and unusual length. Knowing why and how is important in this instance. It as a marker is just an interesting artifact is all.



Link to comment
You know those three descriptions in my thinking are all the same Station. 




GM0837 HISTORY - 19910602 GOOD NGS







OK, I agree with you that 0837 and 0519 are one and the same but GM0567 is another one. Why would USSC mount two of the same markers at the same location in 1925? Another thing is I located GM0837 RM2 in the proper relationship to the mark. I'll be driving back that way Wednesday and will stop off and actually measure the distance. Unfortunately, RM1 appears to have been destroyed- looks like New Mexico got carried away with grading on their side of the state line. Apparently, somehow the 1933 and 1935 logs were entered as two different marks.


Take a look at these pics:





Also if you look at the history of GM0567, it was mounted in 1935 and recovered in 1933??? Another time warp???



Link to comment

163+22 CHS


would mean 163 miles plus 22 chains at 66 feet per chain. There are 80 chains per mile. That's the traditional land surveyor's way of "stationing".


If you feel like a hike, try walking the border 0.275 mile east and look for milepost 163.

Edited by Bill93
Link to comment

more two cents worth


The dismantled railroad is that of the Santa Fe branch of the Denver and Rio Grande Western narrow gauge, known as the Chile Line. It was dismantled in

1941. In 1933 it appears Hwy 285 did not exist yet and the railroad was the transportation corridor in this neck of the woods. NGS (USCGS?) placed benchmarks every two miles along the old railroad bed. A lot of these are still in place. I have a feeling that the Supreme Court monument was placed out of the normal mile interval to place it close to the old right-of-way, for a reason. Maybe to be useable in the chain of vertical control points NGS was placing. (purely speculation on my part)


For those benchmark hunters who are not too turned off by standard geocaches

check out




I integrated benchmark hunting into a geocache. As well as railroad history.


Link to comment

Some observations on a real cross-filing nighmare:


1. Regarding A 32 vs A 32, they are entered as being in different states, even though one is on the boundary, and thus the designations are unique when you search by state. The same letter-number series were used in many states, and there are numerous examples of re-used Designation numbers of other forms within a state.


It is somewhat remarkable that with a whole state to pick locations for each one, they ended up so close (the coordinates put them about 3 miles apart).


That area has a surprising number of benchmarks for the low population and development indicated by the map. The density for this piece of open space is similar to that around the small city I live in with many rail lines intersecting here.


2. GM0837 and GM0567 have Adjusted coordinates, so you should be able to confirm their identity from your GPS readings. GM0519 is Scaled, so no help there in resolving things. I think your photos indicate that the Supreme Court disk '163+22CH' is the one closer to the road, which the coordinates indicate is GM0837.


4. GM0567 description of 1935 was misfiled. It is a partial duplication of the record for GM0837. It starts out describing the disk closer to the road, which is GM0837 the Supreme Court disk, and then gives a tie with extensive description to the one east, which is GM0567 'A 32' (CO). This reference has led to the filing error. Remember that this information was sent in from the field to an office where the notes were put in file folders or on cards by people who did not actually use the information. It was later entered in a data base, not necessarily in perfect chronological order.


5. GM0567 description labelled 1933 was written much later and titled 1933 because that was the date of monumentation. Notice the railroad is dismantled and it uses the modern highway number US 285. It would be interesting to find when that number changed from Colorado 163.


6. GM0567 description of 1984, the 1 foot tall monument should read somewhat taller?


7. GM0837 description of 1991: The distance implies that the road was moved and/or widened since the earlier descriptions.


8. GM0519 description titled 1933 was written after the railroad was dismantled and the highway number change, probably later than 1933.


9. I concur that GM0519 and GM0837 are describing the same disk. Separate PIDs were assigned because the description titled 1933 included the "+22CH" and the 1935 description omitted it and so the Designations were entered differently. The distances from the (modern) road and other ties match well enough. GM0519 appears to have less data associated with it, since it is only Scaled, so perhaps NGS will decide to mark it as the duplicate.

Edited by Bill93
Link to comment



Thanks for bringing up the old Chaining method... I had to laugh, we don't even use them any more... All Laser range find, Total Station or GPS... Do the division to calc the chains on the calculator. It is still a valid unit of measure too, But I don't see a lot of it in my line of Surveying. All the DOT County City and so on requires Stationing at the hundred foot as all the detail is related for building to that. Everything from the tangent to the vertical curve is placed by plan to this kind of Stationing these days. I wondered about Chaining but it didn't seem conclusive. When I think of the era and see those pictures of Papa's it makes perfect sense. Change has been slow.... Anyway, it seemed odd for a Mile Marker to be within some increment of a mile.


Very cool on the Railroad Information JB, I like that. Keep the .02's coming. This has been a fun adventure. I had a feeling there was something Narrow Gauge in that area... Mining and logging was big there until the early 1900's... There was pressure from the FRA, Federal Railroad Administration to go to standard gauge rails, and as revenue slipped away the D&RGW let a lot go. Onward... In Washington, Most of the Stations along Railroad Right of Ways are Bench Marks. Railroads were always concerned with gradient, as the heavy trains needed to climb hills as efficiently as possible. Steam was a different beast than diesel, and the way Horse Power and Torque was measured and developed in the power curve was different between the types. It was costly to have to double head and the lengths of trains had to be shorter, meaning less pay tonnage. The whole of logistics in steam was way different. The ruling grade on a slope was the king. The relationship of Bench Marks and a Railroad Grade was a Natural. The railroad needed the grade elevations and the ROW made the procedure of leveling much easier and convenient to get Lines of Leveling from place to place. A Triangulation Base Line would not be particularly interested in a railroad as the site selection for those was often based on the planned Station accuracy and the specific geometry of Triangulation Scheme being used in that area. The interesting thing is that for either type of Station, the where of it's location has a Rhyme and a Reason.


I found the Supreme Court Case on why these markers came to be. The 1868 is the year the Survey that was used as the line was filed, and 1925 of the Court decision to use that particular Survey. You might think it a boring read but it really isn't, it was very well written, cited and bibliographied and if you like you can read the Court decision Here.


I found a Map that showed some general description of the various land purchases of the west as the United States expanded, a sliver of southern Colorado was not part of the purchase most of Colorado was part of, and it took land from the purchase that New Mexico was part of to square up the borders. This is the area in dispute. New Mexico also had disputes with Texas over the State line there as well. In fact down that bunny trail I think I read while scanning through that the Texas line may not all be resolved to New Mexico's satisfaction even now.


Papa, I have not pulled all the Datasheets to have a hard look at them yet, but I may. It is sort of hard to do arm chair. I have not been to the territory to sort it through, but I would be happy to help if I can. It looks to me that Bill93 has a pretty good handle on it though. I would agree with his findings from what I read. I will say it seems out of whack as you have presented it so I would say you found something here! I often chalk a lot of these typos and such to when all the old data was entered to Computer. The NGS utilized Prison Labor to do a lot of this but it really is just Human error, It was a huge undertaking. It just got a little mixed up. This one looks more like the computer did a wild thing really. In a lot of cases some of these Datasheets have never been given a good scrutinization since then. The NGS has access to data about each Station that is not included on the datasheet. They can sort things out with information we do not have here at this level. It may be good to sit down and compare all the datasheets to see what is what. Your plan to go back and make some physical measurements is exactly the best thing to do to verify these things. It will be good to verify which data belongs to what.


Thanks to all, This can of historical worms has been a Kick!


Edited fer typolegraffikal hairors.



Edited by evenfall
Link to comment

Here is the part about the mile markers.


The case has been heard on evidence taken by examiners, supplemented by a stipulation of the parties. The material facts are these: The Territory of New Mexico was established in 1850,2 and the Territory of Colorado in 1861.3 Under the Acts of Congress their common boundary was the 37th parallel, between the 103d and 109th meridians.


In 1867 Congress made an appropriation for the 'survey of the thirty- seventh parallel of north latitude, so far as it constitutes the northern boundary of the Territory of New Mexico.'4 The Commissioner of the General Land Office employed Ehud N. Darling, a surveyor and astronomer, to make this survey. He made the survey in 1868, and filed his field notes in the Land Office. In accordance with his instructions, he adopted as the northeast corner of New Mexico a stone monument that had been established by Capt. J. N. Macomb, an Army Engineer, in 1859, to mark the intersection of the 37th parallel with the 103d meridian, and, taking this as his beginning point, surveyed and marked the line of the parallel, as determined by astronomical observations and calculations for latitude, westwardly to the 109th meridian, a distance of over 331 miles.


As shown by the field notes he established on this line eleven 'astronomical monuments,' with 'mile corners,' usually marked [267 U.S. 30, 35] stones, at the end of each mile where the nature of the ground made this possible, otherwise locating the mile corners by triangulation. In 1869 the Commissioner of the General Land Office approved these field notes, and published an official 'Map of the Boundary Line between Colorado & New Mexico an the 37th Parallel North Latitude,' made in conformity to them.


The rest of the Story...............

268 U.S. 108

Edited by GEO*Trailblazer 1
Link to comment

I emailed Deb yesterday with pictures.


Boy, this has been a kick! Have really enjoyed the inputs about the history. Now I wish I had started this subject as a new string.


The narrow gauge still exists between Antonito, CO and Chama, NM as a tourist train. Really a worthwhile fun trip for those who ever get out west. But it's miles from I-25 and any large city.


The two BMs I found that NGS had as NF are along the dim railroad bed. Hard to identify where the bed was in many places. They have many more NFs along the old ROW so may just go see if I can locate a couple more.


Here is a rare picture of the railroad water tank still standing at Tres Piedras, NM. The rail bed is hard to identify where it came north across where the bridge used to be. Yes, that was a thunderstorm coming my way which made me quit searching for more marks shortly after.


Link to comment



The name of this state is New Mexico, and its boundaries are as follows:


Beginning at the point where the thirty-seventh parallel of north latitude in- tersects the one hundred and third meridian west from Greenwich; thence along said one hundred and third meridian to the thirty-second parallel of north latitude; thence along said thirty-second parallel to the Rio Grande, aIso known as the Rio Bravo del Norte, as it existed on the ninth day of Sep- tember, one thousand eight hundred and fifty; thence, following the main channel of said river, as it existed on the ninth day of September, one thou- sand eight hundred and fifty, to the parallel of thirty-one degrees forty-seven minutes north latitude; thence west one hundred miles to a point; thence south to the parallel of thirty-one degrees twenty minutes north latitude; thence along said parallel of thirty-one degrees twenty minutes, to the thirty- second meridian of longitude west from Washington;




thence along said thirty-second meridian to the thirty-seventh parallel of north latitude; thence along said thirty-seventh parallel to the point of beginning.


Just to add some more to the plot.

Link to comment

OK.....I have to crow again........for all you RR fans, I own a portion of the old Bridgton Narrow Gauge Railroad, including the second stone bridge along the line. As a Geocacher (groan.....I know) I have a fantastic hide at the first bridge along the line. Please check out this site for a description as well as some fantastic pix of a still-standing stone-arch bridge.



Link to comment

I found it interesting that the court used the Iowa-Missouri boundary dispute as a precedent in the CO-NM case. That decision was in 1852, with another skirmish where markers had been lost in the later 1800's.


I grew up in a county that borders on this line, and was thrilled to find an original Supreme Court reporter book with the case at a book sale for $2. It includes surveyors notes which were useful for my writeup about the general history of the area, i.e., showing that a town was not established yet when the line was run.


In reading the linked court summaries of the CO-NM case so far I don't see the surveyor's notes from 1925 on line. I am wondering if they set the disks at older marks nominally a mile apart and stamped them with the 1925 measurements, or whether they set them at their own measured mile points and threw in an extra one for cases like the "163+22CH" at the railroad. An accumulated discrepancy of 22 chains in 163 mules would be 0.17 percent. Would that be considered reasonable agreement between 1868 and 1925 measurements in this terrain?

Link to comment

I found some of the other CO-NM markers in the data base and plotted stated distance versus longitude. There is a tendancy to run to larger stated distances, relative to longitude, in the middle of the line than nearer either end.


There is something strange to the tune of 2 1/2 miles somewhere in the first 19 miles of the line, that may account for most of the difference we see between stated length and length from coordinates. A closer re-reading of the history might explain that? Did they really begin at 0?


There is another pair of PIDs for the same mark, GO0467 (313 without a +CH value) and AD9253 mile 313+68CH.


I'll predict that if GM0828 is found it will be stamped with a non-zero plus chains value that is omitted from the description, somewhere around 50 to 70 chains.


Something is strange at HL0606, as if the chains value was miscopied.


GL1143 is only Scaled, but still looks like it needs a chains value of maybe 25.


If anyone visits any of the Scaled ones on this list, be sure to post your coordinates.


PID mile chains

AD9253 313 68

GO0476 313 0

HL0340 265 64.90

GN0682 250 56.10

HL0623 247 0

HL0606 230 11.50 (?)

GN0004 172 0

GM0837 163 0 (should be 22)

GM0519 163 22

GM0828 137 0 (50-70?)

GM0766 111 14

GM0759 97 0

GM0641 71 0

GL1143 45 0 (20-30?)

GL1516 41 54

GL1451 19 23.39

HJ0488 0 0 (?)


Also PIDs I didn't plot

HJ0395 Carpenter's 328

GL1431 328 ECC which are east of GL1451

JH0392 Old tri-state

Edited by Bill93
Link to comment

The Initial Point of the Cimmaron Meridian should be,

36* 30.0

103* 0.0


(it is listed as)

36* 30.083

103* 0.117







4 mi South





AND I am looking towards the West and do not find any mile posts yet but am looking into it.


fogot a 3 edit

Edited by GEO*Trailblazer 1
Link to comment

I spent over an hour at the state line yesterday with a steel tape taking measurements of GM0837/GM0519 and came to the conclusion the two PIDs are for the same mark. GM0837 posted distance is 107.63 feet to RM2. Measured distance to Reference Mark 2 was 107 feet, 6-1/2 inches (I could have had an one inch error in how I fastened the other end of the tape).



As stated earlier, RM1 was not found. I measured the distance and angle to where the mark should have been. I found a broken off concrete post. Took a picture of it with my keys for comparison.



I searched for the azimuth mark, but it is probably buried. I found several of the BMs along the old railroad R-O-W that were installed in 1933 before the railroad was dismantled. The PIDs north through New Mexico were GM0516, GM0517, and GM0518 all installed in 1933. I believe the 1933 crew that was doing the railroad BMs found GM0837 and listed it as one of the marks for the railroad, thus it also became GM0519. The 1935 crew put in the reference marks and azimuth mark. You can see evidence that there probably was a road along side the rail bed.


If no one objects, I'm going to take credit for finding both GM0519 and GM0837. :D


BTW, who was it that liked seening monument posts? This one at one time marked the NM-CO border. The top has been broken off but still stands about six feet high. Maybe one of those that was to be destoyed.


Link to comment
If no one objects, I'm going to take credit for finding both GM0519 and GM0837. 


Sounds to me like you have put in more time, effort, travel, gasoline and research then I have ever seen put into a single mark.


It is fine by me if you claim both finds. YOU DESERVE THEM!!!!

Link to comment
I found some of the other CO-NM markers in the data base and plotted stated distance versus longitude.  There is a tendancy to run to larger stated distances, relative to longitude, in the middle of the line than nearer either end.


There is something strange to the tune of 2 1/2 miles somewhere in the first 19 miles of the line, that may account for most of the difference we see between stated length and length from coordinates.  A closer re-reading of the history might explain that?  Did they really begin at 0?


I have found this same to be true on the 5th Principal Meridian Line as well a

2 Mile????? difference.


I have brought it up before but it never went anywhere.

Well kinda.


What I have dubbed it for myself is the Deflection of the Vertical from 1815 to 2004.

If really looked into I believe this is why all the lines have slowly been moving WEST.

Annual Westward Slippage


The north and south magnetic poles are believed to drift slowly westward around the geographic poles, returning to their original position after a period of a few thousand years.



3. Precession of the equinoxes


The vernal and autumnal equinoxes occur at the two points in the earth's orbit where the earth's axis forms an exact right angle with a line joining the centre of the earth and sun, as viewed from directly above or below the earth. The summer solstice occurs at the point in the earth's orbit where its north pole is tilted directly towards the sun, and the winter solstice occurs at that point where it is tilted directly away from the sun.

If the earth's axis always pointed to exactly the same point in space, the vernal equinox would occur at the same point in the earth's orbit every year, and the earth would move through a full circle of 360° between successive equinoxes. However the earth's axis gyrates very slowly clockwise (viewed from above the north pole), describing a conical movement round the vertical, rather like the axis of a spinning top, and traces a complete circle among the stars about once every 26,000 years. According to modern science, this is caused by the gravitational pull of the moon and sun and, to a lesser extent, the planets on the earth's slight equatorial bulge. The result is that the vernal equinox occurs a fraction of a degree before the earth reaches the point in its orbit where the equinox occurred the year before. This phenomenon is known as the precession of the equinoxes (though it might just as well be called the precession of the solstices). The vernal equinox precesses at an average rate of about 50 arc-seconds (1/72°) per year, and it therefore occurs about twenty minutes earlier every year. This means that the earth does not revolve through 360° between two successive vernal equinoxes but only 359 71/72 degrees (or 359 degrees, 59 minutes and 10 seconds). The actual rate of precession fluctuates around the average figure of 50". The annual rate of precession for the year 2000 (epoch J2000.0) is 50.288".


edit add


mrh - terre haute

right click the image,where hosted,click properties,cut and paste img jpg.portion,

then here add image clear the http:// and it should upload.

Edited by GEO*Trailblazer 1
Link to comment

Some people are modest and don't do crowing about themselves, so I'll do it for

him. In checking the background and finds, we have among us someone who

does a very thorough job of searching and reporting his finds here on GC. Take

a look at this picture, then read the log for BG4463.



If you look at the overall marks for this location, things don't seem quite right.

How can NICEVILLE RM3 be a triangulation station? And TWO PIDs for

NICEVILLE RM2? Read how he used these marks for a cache.


Look at this picture for GV0299 and see why USPSQD missed this one THREE times!



BOS, keep up the great work!

Link to comment

I just noticed yesterday was my third anniversary on being a GC.com member! But I didn't look for (and find) my first "official GC" benchmark until March 10, 2003. Since then, have found 228 and made 344 log entries. Not very impressive stats, but have enjoyed the discussions hereon with fellow benchers and have really enjoyed the sport. My goal, I hope before I die, is to locate at least one mark in each of the lower 48. At 75, I better hurry up and get with the program! :ph34r:

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Followers 2
  • Create New...