Can I Log This?

[+Harry Dolphin]

KU3600 A disk placed on the 81st floor balcony of the Empire State Building, covered by metal hatch (Lincoln Hat). Obviously, I can not, and would not, climb out on the balcony. From the 86th floor Observation Deck, I pointed the camera down, and photographed the hatch cover. (FTF!)

There do seem to be a number of stations located on tops of buildings, and unavailable to us benchmark hunters.

[+seventhings]

Harry -

 

Most benchmark hunters don't log a triangulation station as FOUND unless they can see the disk itself and verify the stamping, location and condition.

 

Also, KU3601 (Empire State Building, 86th Floor Observatory, triangulation station EMPIRE 1969) is described as a triangulation station disk, not the plaque. The description says the plaque is near the station, not that it is the station. I know that several people have logged this station as FOUND (because they observed the plaque) even though the disk is not there (or it's under the surface.)

 

Will

[Bill93]

A triangulation station is often a disk buried several feet below the surface of the ground, with a "surface mark" carefully set over it at the surface or maybe 18 inches down. In this case NGS and everybody else consider it adequate to find the surface mark, and don't dig a 5 foot hole unless they really need the most accurate measurements and are equipped to reset the surface mark accurately afterward.

 

The plaque in question doesn't qualify as a surface mark, since it seems to just be in the vicinity and doesn't have a positioning mark directly over the "real" mark. So it doesn't count for a find.

 

The latitude and longitude on the plaque (if I can read the pictures correctly) are the NAD27 coordinates for the mark KU3601 rounded to 3 decimals on seconds (about 1 inch). They won't be correct for the plaque's position to that precision, although it may be better than a handheld GPS unit. Using the current NAD83 datum like NGS or even WGS84 from geocaching, you will read a lat-long difference equivalent to about 120 feet.

[mrh - terre haute]

OK here I go revealing my non-surveyor benchmark hunter newbiness.

 

I've noticed when reading datasheets that sometimes survey marks are, from time to time, mounted below the surface with a surface mark mounted over it as mentioned by Bill93. What was the purpose of setting the mark in this way. How and when would a crew ever use the sub-surface mark?

 

mrh

Edited December 29, 2004 by mrh - terre haute

[2oldfarts (the rockhounders)]

Just out of curiosity, how can we claim a find for a benchmark that is buried? Just because we found a surface mark does not guarantee that it matches the buried mark. Since Harry Dolphin is referring to a restricted area and he did see the "surface" mark (in this case), would it not be acceptable to log it as a find?

 

The rules of the game also prohibit trespassing (entering restricted areas) but yet he did locate the correct spot of the benchmark (at least according to the data sheet.). Considering how paranoid people have gotten since 911 a 'little' flexibility may be needed in the game.

 

John

[+GEO*Trailblazer 1]

I feel if a (Professional)placed one mark over another,That should be the evidence at hand if it fits exactly or as close to as possible the mark,who are we(non pros) to question them.

I have for posterity and other reasons gone back and dug out many underground marks and to this day have not found the data to be wrong.It was there as described.

Now thats not saying that there is not simple errors and of course a blunder or 2.

 

I do feel it mandatory to find the other associated references to the mark for a clearer verifacation of the facts as of this date.

 

We are still the only one's even trying to find and do this as (semi-pro's)proper as can be(other that the PRO'S).

[+Harry Dolphin]

Also, KU3601 (Empire State Building, 86th Floor Observatory, triangulation station EMPIRE 1969) is described as a triangulation station disk, not the plaque. The description says the plaque is near the station, not that it is the station. I know that several people have logged this station as FOUND (because they observed the plaque) even though the disk is not there (or it's under the surface.)

Yes, I had noticed that you are the only one who did not log the plaque as the benchmark. I logged it as a find with a note. The sheet indicates the disk, probably either covered over, or removed, but mentions the plaque. The plaque touts itself as the benchmark. Technically, I suspect, you are correct on that one.

When possible, I do open the hatches to observe the actually benchmark KV5854.

Sometimes It's possible, sometimes it is not.

[evenfall]

Hey All,

 

As to the Game I would think that if the game says, (ie any data which can be ascribed to the pid in the geocaching database, which seems to be the accepted practice) that the game piece is a station disc, and the station disc is found to be inaccessible then I would say you didn't find it, even if there is a plaque. Sorry. The game does say in many cases what you are supposed to be looking for. If you are not allowed to, or are unable to safely access the station, then you didn't recover it. If we want to make up our own rules fine, then everyone can, and the statistics will mean little or nothing. If we are forward thinking as a reader of this post then I am hoping we can imagine the anarchy of a game that is played by people who make up their own rules as they each go along. If our conscience is fine with it and other people disagree, then how we sleep with that is up to us as well.

 

It may not be popular to say so, but I wonder what integrity there is in being too flexible. If we do not keep the standards reasonably high then statistics mean little, because what good are statistics if they can only be applied to a particular player? If we are so flexible, then what would be the standard to which we are to compare ourselves? How can we have a statistical breakdown for a game if we hold ourselves to different standards? Certainly flexibility is a good thing, and we should hold it high as an ideal when establishing a best practice, but once we have a best, established practice it is best that we go with the practice. What then would be the reference standard? Is it ok to bend rules just so we can turn a probable into a found? It seems to complicate matters more than it does for keeping it simple. To summarize this, how will we accommodate statistics for people who wish to claim a landmark find from the freeway at 60 mph vs the person who did bring a shovel and dig through a foot of topsoil to photograph a station disc. As a casual observer of relaxed rule making, who am I to believe went to the most effort to be correct in their reporting? Who's method of statistical reporting is the best so they can all be compared as apples with apples instead of apples with oranges? Even though we don't have to, many choose to claim only what they can photograph as proof rather than face the potential scrutiny. That really seems a simple solution to use as a guide. Can we show the actual object asked for by the data?

 

As for the 911 Paranoia, I personally choose not to pull on superman's cape. Your milage may vary. I would rather have my initials in the NGS Database than become a recipient of a darwin award.

 

Just food for thought is all. I am not making the rules, Nor am I trying to big deal it, I am just begging the obvious questions. When do we say when?

 

Beyond this, I want to point out one little fly in the ointment. Geocaching benchmark recovery rules are WAY different than NGS recovery rules. NGS rules are what they are and are not flexible, as they own the database, most of the markers, and the way they want recovery done on their database, so there is no negotiating that. It is a system which is simple enough and it works well for them. Geocaching has established different rules for their game than those for NGS recovery, and they are not set in stone, so if you refer to this be sure to be clear in the communication that you are talking one or the other. (the two styles are different and can be comparatively confusing) TPTB has never really come down one way or the other, and Jeremy can be read many times over as being very open minded about rule making so the onus may be upon us as a group, after all, we here in the Benchmark forum are our own powers that be. We have already established some unwritten practices and follow them.

 

In the forum, I have seen the different understandings become intermixed in a thread and cause tension over what is what. I would like to see others finding this hobby as fun as I have, and so simple, clear, and uncomplicated rules seem to work well. I know that not all people who ask a question about benchmark hunting have even heard of the NGS, nor do they really care. I try to see it as they may be seeing it and try to answer the question I think they are asking, but I have to be careful as I am as guilty as the rest for liking what I like. So try and be sure to differentiate which set of rules you are quoting your statistics for, as they are completely different animals.

 

My personal conduct toward this situation is first, I recover for NGS recovery rules. (my choice) I try to establish recovery for them, then second, I decipher it to however the best fit for geocaching is or so seems to be. I have reported a lot more to NGS than to geocaching, but again I am only speaking for myself here and I am not advocating that anyone should follow in my footsteps. But if it makes a difference, NGS standards are High and My personal goal is to meet that first then see how it lays with the different options at geocaching. This will establish how I see things if it isn't obvious. Some may not care to do it this way and this is fine with me, as not all want to do NGS recovery, and that is cool. But you can be sure if I found it, I found the real object, I did not assume it should be there, because in my world as a Surveyor, I can't do that. (industry rules) It goes then that I personally choose not to on my own time. When it comes to the Benchmark on the ledge with a plaque, My sense is that many people will feel that the plaque is not the object and as such is not a recovery. We can think of them as purists, but they are within their right. Besides, what challenge is it to have everything be easy or so flexible as to be handed to us as a given?

 

Seventhings has still made the best argument I have yet read for Landmark recovery. I will grant you that Landmarks like the Bunker Hill Monument, Space Needle, Washington Monument, and the Statue of Liberty are the real deal No brainer recoveries, and not worth nit picking, so whatever, I hope folks keep the integrity high when they log them. It would not hurt my feelings to think that you actually stopped by and paid the landmark a visit. Not a visit to the top, just the compound proper. Just a show of faith in the process of actually having been there, done that. On the Empire State Building, This is not taking the building as a landmark but rather as a station established upon the landmark. Assuming that we as a public are caged off from the actual location of this monumented disc triangulation station, then we cannot physically go to it and recover the disc itself can we? I am as sure it is probably there as anyone but I can't even get close to the top hat can I? I cant even photograph the top hat with my GPS in the pic, and it would not likely be ok to remove the top hat if I can't replace it as it was, If not then how can we recover the station by any other means other than by assumption, and if we allow this assumption as adequate recovery then what? We have to face the fact that some stations may in fact be there, recoverable under the right circumstances, but sometimes we are not the person who will be able to establish the right circumstances. As for all the other landmarks that are still seemingly there, and I am talking church steeples, stacks and water towers, etc, the integrity needs to be higher because if it does not have national or famous landmark status, nothing is forever. Seventhings recognized this and provided a very good method for recovery if someone wants to be that sure.

 

Edited to add, the topic is; Can I log this? To which I ask, given the information on geocaching .com about this station, should you?

 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

As to marks with an underground mark. I have used a number of these stations professionally over the years. Generally this was a practice used in the 1960's and 70's most often, and usually only when a first order horizontal (triangulation) station was being established. The station is completely adequate for use as the surface mark. It is the upper mark that was used to establish the station.

 

Here was the order of construction: First the hole, Fairly deep to accomodate stacked stations. Then the underground mark was set, then some backfill and compaction, then the upper surface mark was centered over the underground station then more backfill and compaction, the reference marks and azimuth marks were established for use with the station. Once all the station pieces were set in the ground, A bilby tower was erected over a first order station and the instrument was properly centered to survey it in. Surveying in a first order station means long lines of survey to other previously established first order stations. During this era, the preferred Theodolite of CGS surveyors was the Wild T-3 Theodolite. Then no less than 12, and preferably 16 separate triangulations were generally observed complete with least squares adjustments to establish the geodetic location to very high accuracy, meaning accuracy to less than a half inch.

 

The reason these stations were built this way was not just stability, because First order stations had to be established on ground with stability in the first place, but in that day, First order was the highest order, and it was Hierarchical. It takes first order stations to establish second and third order stations, these had to last and have high reliability. The primary reason for the subsurface station was not as much for stability because geologically if an area moves, more than just the top 3 feet are going to move. This will be based on the soil classes you are dealing with on an A, B, or C class. Class C is the most unstable and the most common. Generally, if you are having a soil problem at the surface, you likely have a soil problem with the entire section of soil strata at that location. There are many geological reasons for this. The Underground mark was established to save the station from ruin, or complete and total loss if the upper station were to be lost. These stations were the highest cost to CGS (NGS) to establish and the hope was this method will save the location if something happens to the upper mark, via construction or other man made situation. It happens.

 

So yes, the surface mark is the station, the sub surface mark is the station too, and it is assumed that the sub surface station is there if the surface station is found to be undisturbed. Nobody digs them up to check. The underground station is for use if the upper station is lost only. I have put many $7-10,000 Trimble and Leica GPS and total station systems over these stations for many years and found them to be dead money accurate with the datasheet. GPS can reveal accuracy higher than many of these stations were surveyed to in their day and they are good. Very good. NGS overall does a very painstaking job. We all find little errors but a very good bit of that is data entry, not how well the calculus came out. In other words, more than anywhere else on the earth, when you are standing over one of these. You are Here. A and B order stations are GPS accurized and have higher order accuracy than optics could do. Those are the best out there.

 

Enjoy,

 

Rob

Edited December 30, 2004 by evenfall

[2oldfarts (the rockhounders)]

Quote "So try and be sure to differentiate which set of rules you are quoting your statistics for, as they are completely different animals."

 

Since this is Geocaching.com (Groundspeak) and Not the NGS it would be wise to think the logs here are for Geocaching.

 

John

[evenfall]

Hi John,

 

I suspected you would feel that way, and expected you to weigh in on this as you have been more than clear about your feelings regarding rules and NGS recovery on several different occasions the past. So I made myself very clear. I feel that being very clear in our communication will suffice, as it is the best way to resolve all the grey areas we often find in this hobby. Surveying is full of gray areas and we prove this over and over here in the forum. I am sorry to hear that you are still disgruntled about the various types of recovery going on.

 

The NGS is very happy that this recovery is happening by those who choose to submit their recoveries to them. It is making a difference in the quality of the data they can provide, as Geocachers are not only finding stations that have not been recovered in ages, but finding previously not found stations, notifying users of the database that land marks have changed or are now destroyed, finding errors, improving locational data on horizontally scaled locations, and finding minor errors in the datasheets that are being corrected. NGS has not only had Deb Brown very busy with Geocacher recoveries, but all the corrections to data Geocachers were finding caused them to assign Cheryl Malone to working on geocacher submitted data questions and error finds as well. Shortly after that the NGS assigned Casey Brennan, as a liaison between NGS and Geocachers. Dave Doyle, of the NGS has been helping Geocachers understand these monuments better for a few years here as well. So you see, it is just people choosing to make a difference while doing something they like. The NGS is acknowledging this and they know these monuments are not always simple or cut and dried. Since these geocaching, Groundspeak game pieces are NGS Monuments and NGS Data is used to play this geocaching game, I feel it is fair use of the forum on the part of both parties. Seems like a nice symbiotic relationship, not different than say the USGS National Map, the GPS and Amateur Radio forum, Cache in Trash out, etc.

 

Interestingly, It is notable that we have also discussed PLSS BLM property line surveying here, Construction Surveying here, The Non Geocaching USGS stations, as well as the many kind of stations surveyors place which people commonly ask about, as to why they cannot find these in the Geocaching database. Then we discuss optional Mapping software, How datums differ, Benchmarks in other countries, and so on. Generally we have a great time doing so. I have never seen you or anyone else oppose those geocaching spinoffs, nor has any moderator closed any of these topics so why the rub with this? As an aside, Tennessee has been very forthcoming on several occasions, as to how much he enjoys this group and has been very hands off with us, so I am not seeing the problem. Geocaching and geocachers have found quite a number of ways to make a difference. Geocachers, of their own choice and volition have chosen to take all these things upon themselves. In this case they recover these monuments and do so because they want to. No one holds a gun to anyones head. I have always advocated that all are welcome and all are equally deserving of a good clear explanation of what these things are. I should think sharing, and the spirit of both types of recovery is a more than adequately fair use of the forum. Sure it has growing pains, but not any we have not handled well by being clear in our communications. In the most basic of ways, I have seen nothing short of benevolence here from all parties involved.

 

Feel free to log here if you want John, and when people have questions, feel free to answer the way you think. You have shared some great insight and knowledge here in the forum and I hope you continue to. I share the same freedom as well as the enjoyment that you do. We are a part of this together. I said several months back when you made similar feelings evident with us at that time that I felt there is room to include everyone here and I still feel this way. If the way you feel is other, since your feelings as such always seem to occur in close proximity to mine, and you perhaps have feelings that are of a more personal and uncomfortable nature towards me and the way I choose to enjoy Benchmark Hunting and the forum, I invite you or anyone to contact me directly. If you don't, then I will presume you are ok with this evolution of the benchmark hunting process, as we take a positive view of it all while proposing options, and decide upon what seemingly may become commonly accepted practices. It seems like a democracy to me, and a very well mannered one at that. I hope you will continue to participate in it and continue the positive impact that you have already made. I like the feel of this myself and so I choose to lift it up and promote it. Beyond our differences, if any, which really aren't important to the forum on the whole, there are Benchmark hunters in the middle ground who have questions. They will hopefully read through all these answers to derive an answer that is a best fit for their question and make the choice they feel best for them in their hunting situation. It isn't about me, and not about you. I am just another point of view and I offer one from a Surveyors standpoint. Not the "be all or end all", just more information. In the end, I hope I am helping others access information that enables the best choice for them whether they are new at the game or a seasoned NGS recoverer. I hope they feel the answer is somewhere between all the various points of view. My intention is to try and answer their question, no matter what type of recovery they are trying to achieve. There is no stupid question, I like them all, it is all good to me.

 

As always, Rob

[2oldfarts (the rockhounders)]

My response was very simple and to the point. If you read a log on geocaching it is intended to be for the 'sport' of caching and not the 'NGS recovery submission'.

 

The only problem I've seen is a decrease in the number of casual benchmark hunters who now post to the forums. There are very few threads lately with pictures and descriptions of old or unusual benchmarks. And most of the ones that have been started end up about how the finder should log with the NGS to help update their database. Look back through the old threads and you can see how these forums have changed from "congrats on a great find and check out my find here!" to "when are you going to notify the NGS, talk to Deb and she can help you."

 

The forums have now changed to a place where every find is scrutinized for accuracy and potential for NGS logging. Perhaps this is why a good many of the older (former) posters no longer get on these forums. Is that why we see fewer Newbies coming to these forums?

 

By pressing the NGS logging so much the fun has been diminished and there is less incentive to post here. We (the 2oldfarts) have found 14 marks that were shown as not found on the NGS and 10 marks that we found destroyed. In the past we would have posted here to the forums to discuss it with other benchmark hunters, but now It gets so repetitious about the NGS, it's just not worth the time or effort to bother.

 

Not making any accusations here, just stating what I see happening to these forums.

 

Just try to remember this is Geocaching and not the "NGS's site".

 

John & Shirley

[ArtMan]

I don't understand why accuracy is considered irrelevant and incompatible with the game of benchmark hunting on geocaching.com.

 

Certainly, if I were looking for a geocache and I found another Tupperware container nearby, it would not be right for me to claim that I had found it. Why is it any different with benchmarks. If you found FOOBAR RESET, you should claim that as "found," not some other nearby station, like FOOBAR or FOOBAR AZ MK or FOOBAR RM1.

 

I read these forums regularly, and I don't recall any great number of posts urging people to report their finds to the NGS. If there are such posts, I don't see anything particularly wrong with it. NGS reports are a public service. But I don't think anyone is being scared away from benchmarking (the game) because there is an opportunity to report to the NGS.

 

I'm probably wrong, but the casual benchmarkers who post to the forum seem overwhelmingly to be asking about marks found that aren't in the database. Those threads, which start because someone hasn't read the FAQ, don't really add much to our discussions here IMHO. In any event, I don't recall any newbie getting anything other than a polite and respectful reply, and often much constructive additional comment.

 

-ArtMan-

[+BilboB]

"Cant we all just get along?"

[2oldfarts (the rockhounders)]

I don't understand why accuracy is considered irrelevant and incompatible with the game of benchmark hunting on geocaching.com.

 

Certainly, if I were looking for a geocache and I found another Tupperware container nearby, it would not be right for me to claim that I had found it. Why is it any different with benchmarks. If you found FOOBAR RESET, you should claim that as "found," not some other nearby station, like FOOBAR or FOOBAR AZ MK or FOOBAR RM1.

 

I read these forums regularly, and I don't recall any great number of posts urging people to report their finds to the NGS. If there are such posts, I don't see anything particularly wrong with it. NGS reports are a public service. But I don't think anyone is being scared away from benchmarking (the game) because there is an opportunity to report to the NGS.

 

I'm probably wrong, but the casual benchmarkers who post to the forum seem overwhelmingly to be asking about marks found that aren't in the database. Those threads, which start because someone hasn't read the FAQ, don't really add much to our discussions here IMHO. In any event, I don't recall any newbie getting anything other than a polite and respectful reply, and often much constructive additional comment.

 

-ArtMan-

 

You are correct in that Harry Dolphin did not actually see the disk. To log a note would be the "correct way" to log it, but the point I was making is simple. Since he was prohibited from entering the area and the cover was there and he posted the picture showing the area matched the description, there is no great damage to the game if he logs it as a found. I know this does Not match NGS standards......

 

As to logging with the NGS being a "public service" the real question becomes "Why do I find benchmarks that are in use and have not been logged with the NGS since they were monumented". Case in point is a benchmark we found "Kanab South Cairn" that was monumented in 1871 and NOT recovered by any Surveyor since? They even monumented more disks right next to the cairn. Why should we do their job for them? If updating the database is so important I think the surveyors would log the benchmark every time the benchmark was used. They excuse that they don't have the time and don't get budgeted for that is rather weak.

 

I have no problem if people choose to log with the NGS, but the Fun aspect of benchmark hunting is being drowned out by the benchmarkers who insist we should use NGS standards here at Geocaching.

 

We still find great old benchmarks, but don't bother to post here anymore. We posted about finding one benchmark the was a DNF by the NGS and got criticized for describing it as good (Using NGS directions). It just isn't worth it to try and share the excitement of a great find.

 

John

[Bill93]

The FAQ for the game says:

You can log "Found it!" if you see the marker and know that it is the correct marker. If the marker is a survey disk, you must read the disk. The designation (its name) stamped on it must match the Designation in the description. Reading the disk is necessary because another disk could have been set within a few feet of the one you're looking for. If the station has reference marker disks, they don't count as the find; you must find the station disk itself.

 

I have taken license with this, such as logging Found on LE0221 where I found a US CGS disk that had the stamping scraped off but otherwise matched the description well and was unlikely to be near other US CGS disks.

 

But I wouldn't log either the plaque, or the top hat as Found on Groundspeak because the game piece is the position of the disk. I'd just log the information to let others know what could be determined.

 

And although I'm very interested in logging to NGS, I hope I don't come across as twisting anyone's arm to do it.

[evenfall]

John and Shirley,

 

I understand your observations, but I also understand other peoples observations. I will come down as Artman did on accuracy. In caching there are a great deal of flame wars that go on about cache approval and statistics. Here there are no cache approval like situations. there is no log book to find and sign, no owner to disapprove our find. We photograph and document as we do to police ourselves and since most people bother to do so, I assume that they feel that it absolves them of having to explain if they were really there. We have what we have, and yet though there are 736425 benchmarks in the database, and only 56240 uniquely found. We are often asked why we can't add others. There is no treasure here other than the find and the hunt itself.

 

Many times there is nothing more than good hunt and no find. The challenges here in benchmark hunting are different yet there are many ways we can test to see if we are correct, and hey, some of us like being correct if we can. The gist of what I read here in this forum is that many feel that way as well and seem to encourage others on a not found, in fact when I see anyone post asking a question about how to find a problem benchmark, I see no less than 10 benchmark hunters crawl out of the woodwork trying to help with information from every kind of map on earth, satellite photos, older datasheets, hours of study. Sometimes mistakes are made but for be biggest part of all benchmark finds that is an honest find.

 

We have learned about many different kinds of survey, not because I or another surveyor in the forum took it upon ourselves to subject anyone to anything, but rather because somebody, generally a non surveyor, asked. Please note that it is not often a surveyor who starts a topic in the forum, but we don't mind cheerfully helping. I have never seen any one in this forum who works in the survey field pat themselves on the back for being here either. They all try to give the best, most complete answer they can, each in their own way. Others who are not surveyors contribute just as much and my hat is always off to all of them, including you. There are so many people willing to help without asking for anything in return here, and I think it is just plain cool.

 

My Responses may not seem simple and to the point by your measure but that is your way of measuring me. I have accepted that rebuke from others in the past as well, but generally I overlook peoples innuendoes and sharp elbows, yet I do make note of them. In otherwords, your subtle comments have been noted from time to time and they really don't change things do they? :-) Please keep in mind that I generally praise you for the cool things you do. Looking back I realize I write verbosely but I am on topic, and what I share is as complete a picture as I can. Most surveyors know that there are few simple answers to anything and most are never short ones either. The subject of surveying is a different subject than any other. It is one of the worlds oldest professions and has seen more evolution than most. When the uninitiated asks to be initiated, they want to know. Sometime knowing more is better than knowing less. I never know who they are or what they know. I keep in my mind that other people read this forum even though they do not post here, and so it goes without saying that they may benefit too.

 

As an example a thread may begin with a question, and this is obvious. By the time the 5th post is there, other questions have been raised while taking a stab at it, and the topic is turning both left and right, I figure what the hey, I'll try to cover as much of all of it as I can. Why? Because this forum has proven over and over again that there is just not a simple answer, and even the surveyors will agree where several of us have weighed in on a topic that we didn't tell all of the story so another helps out with more story. We get regional points of view, we get the benefit of a lot of experience. Perhaps people are posting less because their questions have already answered in many ways and so now they know, they don't need to ask.

 

While we are in Perhaps mode I'll explore another perhaps or two. I have read where some people burn out from geocaching in other forums John, Shirley. Could it be that a benchmark hunter gets burnout too? I haven't asked and I am not asking now. I just figure most people do what they want. Perhaps we are in December now and in fall season for three months where kids are in school and vacations are over, the weather isn't as nice and many people have throttled back on the hobby for the year... Again, I haven't asked but it seems reasonable to me. People lead busy lives, but I am sure that most people out there are actually curtailing their benchmark hunting activities as a silent protest to me and my verbosity! Yeah, that must be it... Thanks for pointing that out to me :-) I don't see the decrease as a problem, people come and go in any forum, any hobby... In fact, what about the people posting here all the time who are new? I see new all the time, and enjoy it all.

 

I have noticed for quite some time that the NGS sticks in Both of your craw... That is fine. I Don't press NGS recovery, But I do delineate both ways because many of the questions asked here in this forum are based on the confusion caused by the different ways of reporting a find. Regardless of how you personally feel, I write to help people understand the difference. Something that often happens is a new hunter will ask a question. This is common. By the time 4 people answer that person they have 4 different answers, and often the answer is based on the question, but only in part, the rest is skewed towards the kind of recovery the answerer likes to do.

 

You may not like it that the NGS gets brought up, but many other people do and this forum is for them too. Sometimes people answer a Geocaching question with an NGS reporting answer. The differences are often confusing to the uninitiated. They are often just confusing period. Many people answer out of zeal for the hobby and the way they see it. I will never stand in their way, and I enjoy their zeal, but I will post my own thoughts and let them stand as mine with respect to everyone else's. I try to explain the differences because they are there. I want to help get them all an answer, no matter what it may be. I figure they read it all and take what they need. Leave the rest. I always attempt to explain the differences if I see them and though I do report to NGS myself, and enjoy my hobby that way, I never have advocated that anyone else should do as I do unless they want. I have been very up front about that all along. John, Shirley, These are NGS Monuments, NGS Data, People at the NGS help out here in this forum, and are not paid extra. There are 2 kinds of recovery and the FAQ itself explains this as such, and even specifically says that you can report to NGS yet are not under any obligation to do so.

 

As for the not founds you find that were on the NGS, well good on you. NGS Surveyors traveled all of the US as crews, and rarely have a great deal of local knowledge about many of the places they work, crews were all temporary help in many cases, Seasonal or otherwise. They often worked northern states in summer and southern in the winter. Surveyors and other techs came and left so it is easy to me to see why sometimes they don't find something. Surveyors are not poindexter like robots, rather, many of them are going to be drinking beer on Friday after being handed their paycheck just like a lot of other people. If we cut them, they too will need a bandage. They will be the first to own up to the mistakes they make and the NGS does so for them all the time. They correct the errors graciously and go on. Maybe the not founds are something they did on a Monday or a Friday eh? Maybe when they were there things were different than now, and the station was somehow obscure? Maybe they cannot be any more sure of a find than we can, and so it goes. Beyond that there are over 1.5 million things NGS keeps Data on, where it be active or archived, and a lot had to be brought forth into the Data Age from paper and pencil. It was, and still is a human system and when they find the errors they correct them, further when other people find them they are gracious and correct them.

 

The USPSQD is otherwise known as the United States Power Squadron. They are not a government agency. They are a non profit, club oriented organization that is basically centered around boats and boating safety. They elect people to run the club from their membership and they often volunteer to help in their communities nationally. One of their volunteer activities is to help recover survey markers and water boueys to the NGS and NOS. This is a 100% volunteer effort on their part by people who are not survey professionals. When they do not find something that you did, you are reading about a not find by someone giving up a Saturday or Sunday to community service, who often does not have a GPS, who is not getting credit or a score, and does not consider this their hobby. In fact, if I were to venture a guess, their hobby includes a Boat and on any given Saturday they would rather be on it. Can you blame them?

 

As for ask Deb Brown? well that is a pinned topic just like the pinned one you have. She is an NGS employee, and able to field a lot of questions as the source for information. She is also the front line person who reads all the recoveries submitted to the NGS. Taken on the whole, if you look back through my posts here, I do not think you will find me parrotting " ask Deb Brown" a lot, though I may have referred someone to her when I thought it best. I also do not think you will find me asking the question of other posters, "when are you going to inform NGS". I leave that on the table as an option if people want, but I never pressure anyone to do so. In fact I think you will find that I say that there is no obligation to do so as a way of easing the pressure that sometimes seems to be there. You have a lot of finds between the two of you, yet I have never asked you why you have only done what you did. I figure you do what you like, of what consequence is what you do or don't do to me, I have no concern one way or the other. But if you ask me for help, I will help. If I ever come behind you in the field and recover a station you have, Please do not be offended, but I may recover it to the NGS. Not out of spite, but because I enjoy it. I am sure there are some who may say this, because they think it is cool. But everyone in the world comes from the premise of what they think is cool. So do you. You make no secrets about your love of rock hounding, yet you don't tell others they should do it too. But it is in your forum name every time you post and in your signature too, so you must enjoy that. I think that is fine. Not much different than say, putting a NRA or Harley Davidson sticker in the back window of a car, or advocating that reporting to the NGS is cool. Some people actually think it is cool, just like Harleys and Guns.

 

I am terribly sorry about the NGS repetitiousness John and Shirley, But I cannot help but wonder how we could enjoy this hobby without the NGS. As it turns out, many many people here find the hobby and it's side aspects fascinating, and each in their own way. Again, I am reminded of all the Santa Fe Bench marks Colorado Papa found, along with the Supreme court and NGS state line boundary ramifications. And all the Indiana Vigo benchmarks that MRH is hunting which are not in the NGS database yet in this small world, we learn than another benchmark hunter and surveyor, Wild T2 was involved in placing some of those monuments. Wintertime has shared with us so many of the cool Disney benchmarks, even going to the trouble with friends to set up a website about them. The question was raised why these were not in the NGS database and why we cannot use them here. Zhanna was off on a hunt of 2 kinds when she and Rich found a USGS benchmark error not in the database, but pretty cool all the same, sharing pictures of the old survey documents, and DaveD who is the Chief Geodetic Surveyor of the NGS was instrumental in sorting out the situation. elcamano has brought a lot of cool pics, and info to the table and the story about the tech he knew who pulled and electronic caution sign through the the drive through at Mc Donald's. Maybe I am an industry insider and it was only funny to me! I still laugh over that. GeoTrailblazer is quick to hunt down anything that helps and came up with some great stuff on the artillery aiming thread and he helps us all a lot with may other things he finds. Oddly we find that Aiming a Howitzer at the enemy is something that was developed by the CGS and the Army. Jerry Wahl is a Surveyor who works nationally for the DNR, Here lately he has bee talking PLSS and old section work survey and how they seem to sometimes have an NGS connection and if this is regular... I could go on, and will in the form of reminding you both that you too have been great contributors here as well. Sorry, John, Shirley, The surveyors in the forum are not raising these great questions, Geocachers who benchmark hunt are and I cannot see how it is not serving us all to discuss it. It seems there is a little something here for everyone, from the Yukon Territories to the Mexican Border, to Maine and California. I learn from it too, and from looking at the numbers of readers, I have not seen any diminishment in readership based on the topic matter.

 

If you feel other geocachers are not being served then I would like to begin by inviting them to join in. Show us your pictures, ask your questions. Do not be afraid of looking like a newbie or looking uninformed. None of us were born to this information, we had to learn it too. There is nothing here to fear other than seemingly the integrity of a find. Since it is so loosely defined, the culture of benchmark hunting which is a form of TPTB seems to have frowned on lees than accurate finds and this was on before I began posting here. But I have weighed in on where I come down on that and I know that there will be people sitting both sides of that fence. I am not afraid of discussing controversial issues in the hopes of lifting things up and making it better, and if not better, at least more defined. I am sorry you are not feeling served and am happy you chose to discuss it. Things go in cycles like bell bottoms and big hair. Perhaps even shag carpet and orange paint or wall paper will return to Vogue... Hopefully after I am dead and gone. Maybe something cool will happen, you never know. Either way, just like cars trucks and motorcycles, we all have to share the road, and I think you will find I have said that with no bones about it all along.

 

Happy New Year,

 

Rob

[+Harry Dolphin]

Oh, my goodness! I'm sorry for having created such a controversy. I see that I am in error for logging those finds. That I have not actually found the stations, as described.

I have not, nor do I plan to, report finds, or obviously missing stations to the NGS. Some of the obviously missing ones are quite absurd, such at the WOR TV mast in North Bergen. Some of the ones that I've found, that haven't been documented for decades, are quite obvious.

I am not a surveyor. I am playing a game. I shall correct my reporting errors.

Next question. KU3544 Our observations of the Blackwells Island Reef Beacon are from the East River Esplanade Park, and from the Observation Deck of the Empire State Building. This I assume to be a valid find?

Less certain are the five benchmarks on Mill Rock. KU2166, KU3961, KU3952, KU3956, KU2165.

My photos are from the Bobbie Wagner Park on the Manhattan side of the East River. I did not actually go to Mill Rock. As I said, I'm not entirely crazy.

I did not observe a flag pole. I did observe what seem to be the Northerly and Southerly Lts, documented in 1986. I dod not observe the North or South Beacons, documented in 1932. Those seem to have been replaced by the Lts. Is this a valid observation? As such, I did not log DNFs for the Beacons, nor for the Flag Use. I did log finds for the Lts.

Harry

[+The Leprechauns]

My response was very simple and to the point. If you read a log on geocaching it is intended to be for the 'sport' of caching and not the 'NGS recovery submission'.

 

The only problem I've seen is a decrease in the number of casual benchmark hunters who now post to the forums. There are very few threads lately with pictures and descriptions of old or unusual benchmarks. And most of the ones that have been started end up about how the finder should log with the NGS to help update their database. Look back through the old threads and you can see how these forums have changed from "congrats on a great find and check out my find here!" to "when are you going to notify the NGS, talk to Deb and she can help you."

 

The forums have now changed to a place where every find is scrutinized for accuracy and potential for NGS logging. Perhaps this is why a good many of the older (former) posters no longer get on these forums. Is that why we see fewer Newbies coming to these forums?

 

By pressing the NGS logging so much the fun has been diminished and there is less incentive to post here. We (the 2oldfarts) have found 14 marks that were shown as not found on the NGS and 10 marks that we found destroyed. In the past we would have posted here to the forums to discuss it with other benchmark hunters, but now It gets so repetitious about the NGS, it's just not worth the time or effort to bother.

 

Not making any accusations here, just stating what I see happening to these forums.

 

Just try to remember this is Geocaching and not the "NGS's site".

 

John & Shirley

Wow, that post captured perfectly my sentiments about benchmarking and the benchmarking forum. Thank you very much for taking the time to write it. Coming as it does from an experienced benchmarker, your post has far more credibility than my occasional protests about the same subject.

 

I'll now return to lurking... and not logging benchmarks.

[evenfall]

Hi Harry,

 

Don't worry about the Bruhaha, you didn't start it and it is of little matter. it will take longer to solve than one day :-) There is a cultural divide in the benchmark forum of those who want few rules because they seem to be uncomfortable with the rules as they are, and others who feel the rules are something that bring integrity to the game. Interestingly, there are few rules and they were decided by Benchmark hunters in the first place. There are usually people who come down on either side of an issue. Either way, there is still room in here to do it all, Read just the topics you like!

 

Like I have said and will reiterate, you are under no obligation to log anything with the NGS. Nobody is. Some people just don't want to. That is ok! You may if you like. If you choose to or not, No matter. What I hope you will do is have a good time benchmark hunting, and if you have a question, I hope we can help get you an answer. Some never get the answer they want but we as a group in here hope we help most folks. Rest assured. The NGS police will not be coming to pick you up. :-)

 

KU2166 can be tested by loading the coordinates into your GPS and running a Go To, to see if it points to that location. To test further you can circle the object to see if the GPS continues to. Being first observed in 1986, I would say you may have your light, but that is how I would check, The USCG Light list is free and online so you could verify this in there as well. See what you can find. It is one of the challenges of the Hunt.

 

KU3961 is a 1932 station. It can be tested the same way as KU2166, but it is very old for a light, and was likely made from wooden pilings. I doubt it to be there, and if something is, I am in doubt that it will be this object, as many of these old lights can only do water for so long. The unlikelyhood of this being the original if at all is why we need to be careful if we care about the quality of the recovery.

 

KU3952 is a no brainer, you didn't observe a flagpole at all, but here is the trick, if you did, from that far away can you be sure that it is the original in the original location from 1932? Not unless you go to the island.

 

as for KU3956, my reservations about KU3961 would apply.

 

KU2165 I would treat it same as KU2166.

 

KU3544 is one which may be a new one erected in the place of or same location as the old one. Here in Seattle we have a ton of these Lights in the database and I generally don't fool with them, because even after asking, no one is sure they are right. I would have to survey to check them for sure and I bet it would be a waste of time after the fact. 50 years with no recovery then recovery by the power squadron means there is something there but likely not the original item. Generally something that old in the water will likely have rusted and rotted by now so go figure. Is it the original item?

 

As to the Absurdity, well yes some are, but they did exist once and were surveyed then. They, or rather the position they were once in helped develop the system that is still in use today. It is inevitable that some things come and go.

 

And finally yes it is a game. A game many feel functions best when we do scrutinize ourselves and be sure to really find the real object like the FAQ says.

 

As to the NGS recovery, it is something you can elect to do as well, says so in the FAQ. But if you want, just keep in mind that the requirements are different and sometimes confusing when we compare them to the game. Some players want to do this though and have questions, and that is why we try to answer them all as best we can here in the forum, game wise or otherwise. It is nothing anyone has made a big deal of, it is just another aspect of how the game can be played here on geocaching.com.

 

Happy New Year Harry,

 

Rob