Mark Naming?

[+bicknell]

Finally found a mark today, two in fact. Only one had been found before, so I finally have an original find!

 

Anyway, the first disk was Q255 RESET, and the next one was P255. I notice a few others in the area are adjacent letters.

 

Is there a pattern? It kinda looks to me like N-S 255 are more or less in a line down a road, is that on purpose, or random chance?

 

The mark is JV3064 if you want to look it up.

[Bill93]

The letter-number series marks, to the best I've been able to figure out, were begun in the 1930's when there was a big push to do triangulation and leveling across the country. The letter-number ones were almost exclusively for leveling, and the triangulation stations used names taken from nearby towns, mountains, property owners, an whatever was on the crew's minds when they ran out of better ideas. There is a thread not too old on here about interesting names used for triangulation stations.

 

A crew out setting marks for elevation leveling used one numbered set at a time in alphabetical order as they traveled a good route. A good route was most often along a railroad since that was graded to minimize hills and valleys and mostly cleared of brush, and both features simplified the work of getting good sights. In some places they also used roads. When they came to a town they often set one or more at the water tank, the city hall, or other prominent building.

 

The numbers were re-used in different states, so you will find several marks in the data base having the same Designation. That makes the PID system important to keep track of who is who.

 

They continued to use this letter-number form, and I have seen some of the new rod and sleeve marks with this kind of designator, such as AE9191 designation V183 set in 1997.

[evenfall]

Bicknell,

 

Yes there is a rhyme and reason, and though i have written about this in the past, I don't recall which post I did it in, though I will attempt to locate it.

 

This Is a Bench Mark. Now Before you sat Doh! Let me elaborate a bit. Here at geocaching we tend to walk on the technical terminology of Surveying a little. A Bench Mark most specifically is a location of measured elevation. We also refer to it in a few other ways such as vertical control, Level lines, and lines of leveling.

 

Back in the day, before GPS, elevations were determined by a method called differential leveling. This method still is used.An optical device such as a level, transit or theodolite could be used to measure a number on a leveling rod, which is a form of story pole with either Metric or Feet and tenths of a foot marked on it, and 2 locations would be compared against one another to clarify the elevation as either a sum or a difference from place to place. It is found that when this process is performed the results are path dependent. What I mean by this is that if you and I were to go leveling from a similar location to another location where we would both meet and yet we both used a different path to arrive at the same place, we would have different results. The relative accuracy of your path to mine would be very close but not the same, and yet in geodesy it needs to be not only the same, but also repeatable.

 

Bench Marks when set are named to account for the Path and the order in the Path. It is called a Level Line. This Level Line is 255 which is likely only true within the State you are in, as this number will likely have been and you found stations P and Q, there are likely others in the sequence of alphabet on that line to find as well.

 

Generally speaking Leveling will use the naming convention of three numbers followed by a letter if set by the NGS or its predecessors CGS USCGS etc, and if monumented during the pre GPS area.

 

Generally speaking Triangulation Stations and other Horizontal Control will be named using Names of either what is being used, where the station is, or who owns the land it is on, but sometimes it is also named for what can be seen from there or other unconventional schemes.

 

Not all survey markers are just Horizontal control and so sometime both types of data can be present especially since GPS and so the former naming conventions will not always seem to carry over. For the most part that is the gist of naming NGS monumented stations.

 

Other agencies used various other schemes and sometimes their stations were included in NGS survey. Those stations are not usually found to follow NGS naming criteria or schemes. Nothing in surveying is meant to be a random chance, though sometimes the odd pattern may appear. The hope is Surveying helps to create order more than chaos, but then that is a story for another time! :-D

 

Enjoy!

 

Rob

[+bicknell]

On a related note. The one I found today was monumented in 1951, and that was the last log entry. What is the likehood someone has been back to it since? That is, are surveyers showing up at these marks daily and just not logging it, or is actually possible I'm the first person to go back to it (on purpose, anyway) since 1951?

[Bill93]

Very few people who use the marks outside of NGS or USGS seem to report them. I have only found a few reported by other professionals. Time is money and reporting doesn't bring in any revenue.

 

I know some of them do get used for non-government purposes. Rob has noted that he uses them. I've seen orange paint and flagging tape at some that had no recent recovery reports.

 

In some cases, the local users have at some time transferred elevations to other more convenient structures and re-use those more often. For instance, they are going to build a retirement complex on the empty lot at the end of my street. I chatted with a couple guys from the engineering company when they were finding property corners. They said they would base their work on two known elevations, neither of which were agency marks. One of them was "on one of those power line towers over there", which a different local company had once measured relative to an NGS mark a mile or so further away. I couldn't find any disk, nail, chiseled mark, or orange paint on either of the closest two tower bases, so I'll recheck after construction starts.

 

Don't know about your mark in question, but I suspect that a great many of them out in the boonies haven't been convenient to anybody and thus haven't been used in decades, maybe even since the great elevation measurement projects of the 1930's.

[+Kewaneh & Shark]

...are surveyers showing up at these marks daily and just not logging it...?

It is very common for local surveyors to know about marks in their local area, and for those marks to be occupied from time to time, either by them or others, without a report being made to the NGS about the marks. Many times, the description of the mark, or the area surrounding the mark hasn't changed enough to warrant a report.

 

I do quite a bit of work in a small town whose primary benchmark - the mark that controls the elevation for the whole town - is in the NGS data base as GU1673. It was monumented in 1933 and has had fairly consistent reports from the CGS, USGS, & NGS, although the last report was over 13 years ago. In the time of the mark's existence, very little has changed and the original 1958 description (there is no 1933 description) will still get you right to the mark.

 

There are other NGS marks in town. Some have been destroyed, such as the old water tower, but many of the brasscaps remain and are commonly used, but it is rare that their conditions are reported.

[+Kewaneh & Shark]

I have only found a few reported by other professionals. Time is money and reporting doesn't bring in any revenue.

This may be true in some cases, but for the most part, surveyors & engineers understand the importance of keeping an up to date report. There may not be revenue to be gained at this time, but an up to date report could save money in the future.

 

Most of what surveyors do - from finding, defining, and monumenting property, to recording Records of Survey or Corner Records with the County - is for future generations. It is important to do 'the job' now, but the resulting records will be more important later. A report to the NGS is looked at no differently.

 

For what it's worth, I have never seen a contract for survey services, that required the reporting of any NGS or any other agency monument to that agency (unless, that's what the contract was for). Nearly all reports to the NGS (if not ALL reports) made by private surveyors are done as a service to each other and the surveying community at large. Not for profit.

 

- Kewaneh

[+bicknell]

I've seen this answered in other threads, but I'll ask again.

 

So, on this one I found today. Last entry 1951, easy to find, directions basically correct (the house referenced is gone, but between the coordinates and where you end up it's trivial to find) would a professional surveyer find any use in an update to the NGS database that said "geocacher found it, and it was in good condition"? Generally I'm not all that interested in the NGS database, but when it hasn't been found for 54 years it seems to me a "yeah, it's still there" is in order. I don't see a need for an entry more than every 10 years or so for one that is stil there as described, but an occasional confirmation seems valuable.

[evenfall]

Bicknell,

 

I think your sentiment toward reporting seems a good fit. The NGS would prefer no more than one report per year, however if the reporter on the same year has a different claim, such as they reported it good the you came along and found that the area was made into a strip mall and the station was lost, then that kind of a report is in order. I would never be unhappy to see a geocacher's update in the NGS Database, and the NGS has provided an agency code for geocachers who wish to use it, the code is GEOCAC. If you file with NGS using that code, credit for the filing on that update will be given as Geocaching and you may also choose to add your initials to the filing in another box on the online form so it will show that you filed the report. 150 years from now this Data will continue to be important and your initials will be read by someone looking for a station you recovered or updated 150 years before. Again, this is of the volition of those who choose to do so, I am not advocating that anyone should or ought to.

 

On the Job there are many times I could or could have submitted a report to NGS for a station I used, but again in many of those cases, there is nothing I could say that would improve the datasheet, other than to freshen the latest date seen. So Like Kenewah said, many of us in the industry use these frequently enough so as to know the location. I am saying I personally know where the ones I use frequently are, (and I have reported many) but I cannot have familiarity with the stations another Surveyor or Engineering firm uses in their area so what we have is a sort of Local Knowledge thing going. We have been to them many times but what someone else is doing is not known to us. If I wind up needing to survey out of an area I usually am not so familiar with, then the onus is on me to brush up on the area and wish that another surveyor had submitted a fresh update for me. Further, a GIS may already include the data for the station which was previously added to the GIS which is controlling the Job I am to survey, so I should be seeing design results which match. In addition to the NGS Control, Many Municipalities and State DOT put in a lot of their own stations, which are not NGS, but are based on NGS control, and this is a matter of convenience to the surveyor, so as to have more control and in handier locations. Since these are calibrated to NGS geodetic control, the need is not always there to chase an NGS mark unless we specifically need to tie directly in. Of course in areas of no other control, the NGS control is all there is and it is likely reported on more frequently as well.

 

As an aside to this, the NGS database has not always been available on line. It was a bit more of an undertaking to file these reports in the old days, and it was also a good bit of paperwork to deal with just keeping up with all the control. To add each surveyors office had to maintain their filing cabinets of control... As you can see, Geodetic Control is but one aspect of survey, and it is quite huge unto itself. Add all the other types and you can see that there is a good bit of paperwork going on, and this is just the aspect of maintaining data, I am not touching on the various engineering, property and title, court and treasurer filings that are Legal derivatives of survey information.

 

Yes, Surveyors could be better than they are at reporting these, and it is for our own good to do so, but I would imagine geocachers really would have more time to flesh out a tough one, whereas a Surveyor would need to keep moving to find one they can use. As a so called Professional, I know I can always improve things for myself and everyone, yet human nature tells me that the job at hand is about finding rather than not finding because Once I find a station I can use, my Survey becomes about the project I have to focus on and it is just a part of what needs done, so the ones not found are likely forgotten or back burnered and not returned to. My Bad? Sure it is, but it happens.

 

As Hunters here at Geocaching, our prime concern is to really try hard to find something and time is not a factor so we can quickly see the value in the difference. We can keep trying Taking as long as we want or need until we are sure it is found or not, and this time factor in some cases would weaken the report a Pro on the clock could file. Pro's simply don't have time to be that involved on the difficult ones and has limited time to hunt till they really must move on. Either way an occasional bump up in current condition for any station in the database is very useful and valuable.

 

Rob

Edited January 9, 2005 by evenfall

[+BuckBrooke]

Reps from the NGS have commented that they really don't want reports less than 1 year separated. I benchmark in Albuquerque, NM, and the rate of growth is such that 10 years between reports might be significant in the description of what was then an outlying benchmark, but is now in a housing development. Although not a professional, I would make a report for anything prior to 2001. This lets the professionals know it's still there. Something to the effect of "Benchmark was recovered in good condition" is reasonable.

 

If the description to get to the benchmark needs updating, the NGS would like an update.

 

Another consideration is the advent of the GPS satellite network. One of the questions asked when you Report the finding of a benchmark is whether or not it's suitable for satellite triangulation. This network is a recent advent (<15ish years for surveying, I would guess), and updates for benchmarks are probably encouraged.

 

My $0.02.

[evenfall]

Regarding reporting for satellites...

 

This is a very useful update. I may leave the Office with a GPS Set-Up and if I can't see the birds on a specific station, that ain't working. It is good to know in advance that I should take optical equipment rather than GPS to work a certain area, or not.

 

I recently reported a Triangulation Station as Not good for GPS, But in the narrative I added that during the winter the Station will work for GPS. The Station has many Deciduous Trees that would obscure and hinder the use in Summer when it would more likely be used. I felt it better to say it 'is not usable' but, with a note as to what the deal is rather than an 'Is usable' and have someone find it was a waste of time to try during the wrong time of year. I also made mention of what areas could likely be surveyed from this position, and which directions could not due to optical obstructions.

 

Just food for thought on how an update could be made.

 

Rob

[+Kewaneh & Shark]

Bicknell -

 

Simply put, yes, a surveyor would most likely find a report by a non-professional helpful. Just a report saying 'it's still here' can be very valuable. On the other hand, a report about the condition and usability of the mark by a non-professional would be viewed with some degree of skepticism. Good/fair/poor condition, damaged, destroyed, etc., have been discussed (in great length at times) in many threads in this forum. What is damaged or destroyed to a benchmark hunter may still be usable to a surveyor. The best thing for a reporting non-professional to do is make a clear report of the conditions of the mark and let the professional decide what to do with the information.

 

BuckBrooke -

 

GPS suitability is one of the reporting questions that is asked, and the information provided is helpful, however it should be noted, by the person making the report, that the intent of these reports is/was to be by and for professionals, which generally means a survey grade GPS system. Not a handheld, recreational unit. When planning a GPS control network, and reconning possible site locations, the surveyor often has to look at the ground as well as the sky. A survey-grade, static base station on a tripod can have a 6'-8' footprint. There may be wide open sky, but if the ground is steep or undulating, it may not be suitable for GPS observations. (RTK GPS systems can use a roving rangepole to occupy a point on terain like this, but that's for another disscussion.)

 

I've found more than one mark with conditions like this. Take a look at GU1475 & GU1476. They are both on the headwalls of a railroad bridge which crosses the concrete lined California Aquaduct. Both marks are quite stable. There is plenty of sky to see satellites as the tallest thing around for miles is sage brush and scrub oaks. But setting a tripod up could be difficult. (Not impossible - I actually DID set up a static system on GU1475 - but difficult.) One side of the headwall drops down to the gravel aquaduct bank while the other side drops into the water. There's no real place to set the tripod feet.

 

Other nearby marks, GU1474 & GU1478, are similar with the added feature of a guardrail adjacent to, or just above the mark. Nearly impossible even with a rangepole. These are the marks that are shot in using the optical equipment that Evenfall mentioned.

 

So, again, the best thing for a reporting non-professional to do is make a clear report of the conditions of the mark and let the professional decide what to do with the information. Too much information is not always a bad thing.

 

- Kewaneh

[+bicknell]

Well, I reported my 1951 find to the NGS, we'll see if they accept my first report. I marked it as "don't know" for GPS. In winter it was clear, but there was a tree line along the road that concerned me, and I also worred about the tripod thing since it was on the wall of a culvert. Put both factors together and it wasn't a clear yes, so I decided on the don't know option.

 

This is where the NGS having pictures online like geocaching.com would help a lot. With an area shot you could judge for yourself if you want to try and deal with the obstructions in that area. Maybe the NGS should outsource their database to geocaching.com.

[Bill93]

NGS is collecting pictures, as discussed in the pinned thread at the top of the forum page. Cheryl Malone has replied to some of my submissions thanking me for them. They don't have many on line yet, mainly ones associated with particular projects.

 

For an example see the NGS data sheet for GA2360. The third picture illustrates a GPS setup in a difficult position like Kewaneh was talking about.

Edited January 9, 2005 by Bill93

[+bicknell]

Could you guys take a look at HV3506? I reported it to the NGS before I caught up on the thread. I did another don't know for GPS.

 

In winter a great 360 view. In summer I think the trees to the north (right in the general picture) may be a minor issue. However, it is on top of a culvert, so you're not going to just set up a tripod over it, and it's also very close to the road which also makes it less than ideal.

 

Also, are the two pictures (ignore the one with a person in it for geocaching.com viewers) appropriate for submission to the NGS? If so I'll rename them and send them off.

[evenfall]

Bicknell,

 

You probably realize this, but people in the photo is something the NGS would prefer not to see. They want a close up of the mark and an area shot with the mark in it. In your photo, It would be helpful to walk around to the other side of that road sign and take the picture while attempting to have the station actually be seen in the photo, then white out part of the lower part of of the pic with a photo editing program and say something like PID HV3506, Station K 91. Looking Southwest. This way the future user knows where to orient themselves with your photo. It could be useful to add the GPSr Coordinates to this Photo in NAD 83 D/M/S Format so as to improve the scaled location as well. Again, Please use the D/M/S format so we don't have to field convert. D/M/S is the proper convention for NGS. On a horizontal control station, putting the station coordinates on the photo would not be necessary, as NGS control on those if far more accurate than the GPS any how. If you do however find that last statement to be in error, again do not attempt to give it a number, rather, contact NGS and let them know that you may have found an error and let them do the calculations.

 

If you submit a photo they cannot use you may not see it included and they may email you and politely ask to see if you have one without a person in it. Taking this one step further, this is meant as no one should be posing for the photo. If you are shooting this photo in a public area and having people in the photo who are not posing is unavoidable then that is different, and if you make note of this to NGS when you email it in, they won't have a problem with that.

 

Being that GPS birds are not geosynchronous, they move in their orbits much in the same way we would think of the graphical representation of an Atom. A few sparse trees are not going to be much of a bother but heavy cover can slow GPS down. We do have ways to work with GPS in heavy cover as well, if we know we need to prepare in advance. But that is not important to this situation, we need to assume that a GPS instrument setup can work from the station, or not. If you are standing there and your GPS is working great the it probably will for the Surveyor, If you are losing your high accuracy, it may be a problem for the surveyor as well. In the city, amongst very tall buildings it may not seem like it but that is not a clear view of the sky. Though pro grade gear has very powerful receiving ability, it can be difficult to get a good lock, and the closer to a building, the harder it gets. Yet there are Geodetic stations in cities which have not been reported for GPS usabiliy. Your GPSr can be a good indicator for this. If you have good accuracy, it is likely good. A 50-100 foot lock may be poor, but it may also have to do with where the birds are in their orbits during that time of day. I would say that at Noon on any given day, you have a better chance of properly evaluating this than say, 5 PM. Bankers hours seem to work best here in North America. If you can't get a good lock, it is likely that Pro Gear might, but maybe not either. But that is a good baseline to make a judgment call from. There can be a lot of factors that affect it but most basically you wand a reasonably clear view of the sky.

 

The NGS Program for submitting updates will ask about any station which is submitted good or poor, it will not know if the station is a landmark. Most generally Landmark Stations were optically intersected points which were never occupied and likely cannot be, so they would fall into the category of not being usable for GPS observations.

 

For those who just want to play the game of benchmark hunting here on geocaching, None of this really applies to you, all you need to do is claim that you found it, by reading the station itself, and submit a photo if you like. You have no obligation to report your findings to anyone. Not the NGS, Not even here at Geocaching.

 

Rob

Edited January 10, 2005 by evenfall

[Bill93]

Be sure to convert to NAD83 in dd mm ss.s format for NGS submittal. Your area picture is decent. If you have a photo editing program, consider putting an arrow in there pointing at the disk. My pictures don't come out great, but here's an example of how I often do it. The arrow is really a text vertical bar that is stretched to fit. MH0702

[Z15]

fyi

 

Edited January 10, 2005 by elcamino

[caseyb]

Well, I reported my 1951 find to the NGS, we'll see if they accept my first report. I marked it as "don't know" for GPS. In winter it was clear, but there was a tree line along the road that concerned me, and I also worred about the tripod thing since it was on the wall of a culvert. Put both factors together and it wasn't a clear yes, so I decided on the don't know option.

 

This is where the NGS having pictures online like geocaching.com would help a lot. With an area shot you could judge for yourself if you want to try and deal with the obstructions in that area. Maybe the NGS should outsource their database to geocaching.com.

I am always a bit late on these posts, probably cause I am checking them from work and not from home. This is an amazingly active forum.

 

Thank you for reporting the mark. We appreciate it. And we are working on incorporating pictures into the database. But we have to create very specific specifications and guidlines (yawn) before we can do anything.

 

-Casey-