Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
holograph

Statistics

Recommended Posts

In another thread, someone expressed interest in statistics by geocacher. I downloaded the monthly update files for December and January and analyzed them for statistics by recovery date. Here are the statistics for recovery dates in December:

APC 14

BB 3

BDH 5

BMC 9

CB 1

CEA 14

CZ 1

GH 1

JBC 1

JLH 3

JRI 5

MAS 1

MPR 3

P 1

PFF 12

RCF 13

Total: 87

 

Here are the statistics for January (through about January 15):

BMC 1

CAG 1

CB 4

GJA 4

JRI 6

LWB 2

MFL 21

MPR 1

RCF 3

RPM 1

WD 7

Total: 51

 

Note that this is only one form of the statistics. Unfortunately, the datasheet doesn't show the date of submission, only the date of recovery. For instance, there were 306 datasheets in the Jan05 monthly update files that were last recovered by geocachers. We might assume then there were 306 recoveries submitted by geocachers between about mid December to mid January. Of those 306 submissions, only 51 were for recovery dates in January, and 55 were for recovery dates in December. The remaining 200 updated datasheets had dates of last recovery prior to December, and some of them had dates from 2002. Either people are only now submitting really old recoveries, or the datasheets are appearing in the monthly update files for other reasons. That's why I chose to look only at the recovery date.

 

It takes a little time to download and analyze the datasheets, but if enough people are interested, I could continue to work backward through the 2004 monthly updates and post statistics for November, October, etc, as I process the files.

 

Any interest?

Share this post


Link to post

Seeing the month by month breakdown per person here might be a bit much. How about month by month totals for GEOCAC, and then a total per person? I keep a spreadsheet of exactly which ones I submit (about 132 so far found, 200 not found, a few destroyed, for the most part a mirror of geocaching), so I know what I've found/month.

 

Because of the 2 week delay to post, folks updating a backlog of finds, not putting the exact date of find...the heavy dataness might obscure things.

Share this post


Link to post

I agree that the monthly numbers are too much. Just put a date on the last list and whenever it is updated again, just fix all the count values and put a new date on the list.

 

I'd say that you've got a tiger by the tail. It's either go back to the beginning of GEOCAC (early 2003?) or not at all.

Share this post


Link to post

I've compiled a full table and posted it on my website. Click here to see it.

 

For now, monthly numbers are easier to produce, but there is a single column total and a rank for ease of reference, and you can ignore the monthly breakdowns.

 

I agree that it would be nice to go back to the beginning of time, but that would require me to download the full set of datasheets. Not impossible, but not something I want to start right now.

 

The statistics I have are the recoveries for all of 2004 and the beginning of 2005. I discovered that some files were missing from the download, so the table at the link I gave has the latest and greatest.

 

If anyone sees something questionable, let me know. It's not out of the question that my program has a bug. :ph34r:

 

I'll try to keep the cross reference of initials to geocacher up to date, as I see people identify themselves.

Share this post


Link to post

OMG! :P

 

Way to go above and beyond the call of duty man. Your site is great. Let me know if there is anything I can do to help you (like get you data or something?)

 

-Casey-

Share this post


Link to post
I've compiled a full table and posted it on my website. Click here to see it.

A very interesting compilation. I had a lot of fun going thru all the different parts.

 

I have a couple of comments/suggestions:

 

On the Extreme Benchmark Hunting page:

a. There is a link to the GC page. How about a link to the NGS page so we can easily get the latest datasheet? The format is: http://www.ngs.noaa.gov/cgi-bin/ds_mark.prl?PidBox=LE0438

b. Why does Missouri show 5 stations with no altitude. You seem to (properly) exclude stations with zero altitude in other states.

 

On the Geocaching Benchmark Hunting Statistics page:

Include the top 10 (or whatever you decide the cutoff should be) similar to the way you do it on the Extreme Benchmark Hunting page.

 

And lastly, a count of geocaching recoveries by state.

 

Just some ideas, whether you use them or not is up to you.

 

Thanks again for the great page.

Share this post


Link to post
On the Extreme Benchmark Hunting page:

a. There is a link to the GC page.  How about a link to the NGS page so we can easily get the latest datasheet?  The format is: http://www.ngs.noaa.gov/cgi-bin/ds_mark.prl?PidBox=LE0438

b. Why does Missouri show 5 stations with no altitude.  You seem to (properly) exclude stations with zero altitude in other states.

 

On the Geocaching Benchmark Hunting Statistics page:

Include the top 10 (or whatever you decide the cutoff should be) similar to the way you do it on the Extreme Benchmark Hunting page.

 

And lastly, a count of geocaching recoveries by state.

Rogbarn,

 

Great ideas, thanks! I made the change to add the NGS datasheet link. Your other suggestions will take a little more time to implement, but I like them.

 

I didn't exclude stations with no altitude, except for the highest and lowest extremes, where altitude is a requirement. Datasheets that were missing elevation data were still included in the other extremes. It's possible that by chance most of the other states' extreme stations had elevation data.

 

I was also very impressed with the statistics. The only change I would make, if it were easy, was to state the rank as it is for most sports contests.

 

299792458,

 

I made the change you suggested, too. Of course, now a lot of people will be mad at me for lowering their ranking. :D

Share this post


Link to post

For the record, we should note that although the oldest New Jersey station, SPRINGFIELD RESET (KV4816), was nominally monumented in 1817, the original marker (an earthenware cone buried 18 inches beneath the surface) was replaced in 1934 by a conventional disk. These early marks can be pesky, no?

 

-ArtMan-

Share this post


Link to post

Holoscenes,

 

Shouldn't our Nation's Capital, the District of Columbia, be represented on your Extreme Benchmark page?

 

IMHO, it deserves inclusion. Thank you for you excellent additions to benchmarking!

 

-ArtMan-

Share this post


Link to post
Holoscenes,

 

Shouldn't our Nation's Capital, the District of Columbia, be represented on your Extreme Benchmark page?

 

IMHO, it deserves inclusion. Thank you for you excellent additions to benchmarking!

 

-ArtMan-

Of course it does! :rolleyes: Done.

Share this post


Link to post

Holograph,

 

Thanks for adding DC to your extreme page.

 

Now, a question for one for our NGS colleagues about DC's highest station, WASHINGTON MONUMENT 1913 (HV4442). About five years ago, when the Washington Monument was covered with scaffolding for a masonry touch-up, GPS measurements were taken at the capstone (made of aluminum, by the way). There are photos of the operation in the NOAA photo library.

 

Dave Doyle and company were up there at the 555-foot level with Leica, Spectra-Precision, Trimble and Javad GPS gear - excellent product placement! - in August 1999. So how come the last report for this PID was from the US Power Squadron in 1995.?

 

If I had gone through all that trouble (and you can read Dave's account in Professional Surveyor Magazine), you can bet I would have reported it to NGS. :-)

 

-ArtMan-

Share this post


Link to post
Holograph,

 

Thanks for adding DC to your extreme page.

 

Now, a question for one for our NGS colleagues about DC's highest station, WASHINGTON MONUMENT 1913 (HV4442). About five years ago, when the Washington Monument was covered with scaffolding for a masonry touch-up, GPS measurements were taken at the capstone (made of aluminum, by the way). There are photos of the operation in the NOAA photo library.

 

Dave Doyle and company were up there at the 555-foot level with Leica, Spectra-Precision, Trimble and Javad GPS gear - excellent product placement! - in August 1999. So how come the last report for this PID was from the US Power Squadron in 1995.?

 

If I had gone through all that trouble (and you can read Dave's account in Professional Surveyor Magazine), you can bet I would have reported it to NGS. :-)

 

-ArtMan-

Dave was not alone up there. I will harras... err I mean politely ask some of the other folks.

 

-Casey-

Share this post


Link to post

holograph -

 

Your site just keeps getting better and better every time I look at it!

 

See if you can find the Most Remote PID in the contiguous 48 states! <_<

(This would be the PID(s) that is farthest from its nearest neighboring PID.)

 

The PID(s) with the most recovery notes (must be very important ones, somehow).

 

The oldest disk(s) (type Dx), our favorite(?) type of marker!

Share this post


Link to post

Since I've been sick for a day and a half, I decided to submit many of my recoveries. (Mostly the ones that haven't been found in a while. When I get really bored, I'll work on the ones found since 1990.) I think I sent Deb 19 in the last two days. Poor Deb. Out of 62 found, that's not too bad. Then I'll work on the DNFs and destroyeds. There was one I submitted without GEOCAC (a ways back). BTW, I use the initials PR.

Share this post


Link to post

Thanks for the latest update.

 

I wonder how the 2004 total of 2,813 recoveries posted by Geocachers compares to that other band of devoted amateurs, the U.S. Power Squadron.

 

Of course, the numbers don't say anything about the quality of the recovery report.

 

-ArtMan-

Share this post


Link to post
I wonder how the 2004 total of 2,813 recoveries posted by Geocachers compares to that other band of devoted amateurs, the U.S. Power Squadron.

It looks like in 2004 there were 489 identified USPSQD participants, who submitted a total of 20,246 reports. 3,181 of those reports were submitted without intitials, so the number of USPSQD members who reported may be significantly higher than 489.

 

One set of initials submitted 2,592 reports, so I suspect that there may be entire teams submitting under one set of initials (or someone who has LOT of spare time). The top ten submitters were:

GWS - 2592

AAS - 805

CLB - 654

EEC - 532

SAO - 438

RLR - 429

DRB - 392

GG - 363

DH - 317

WMG - 315

 

By comparison, the most active Geocacher in 2004, mloser, made 400 recovery reports.

Share this post


Link to post

Okay. You guys talked me into it. I've been wandering about logging benchmarks, willy nilly, on geocaching.com. I've gone through my logs, and logged recoveries for 19 benchmarks, and sent photos to Deb. Several of my finds I shall not log recovery on. Mostly for ones with recent recoveries, or ones I would not swear to. She also listed me for two 'stations not found', including the WOR TV Mast. :blink: Next, I need to work on the rest of my 'stations not found'. Then I can be up to date with recoveries.

You guys have created a monster!

So, when the next update comes out, Harry Dolphin, using the initials PR, should make the list. :blink:

Share this post


Link to post

My understanding on the U.S. Power Squadron is that they're organized into groups in various cities/counties/states. So, the big contributors should be by an entire local chapter (temporarily forgetting the name).

Share this post


Link to post

The March updates were posted to the NGS site today, and I have processed them and updated the statistics page. We added 222 recoveries since the previous month.

 

It looks like the NGS may be a little behind in updating datasheets, because I know there were 8 that I submitted on Feb 20th that haven't yet appeared in the datasheets. Hopefully they weren't lost in the various outages that were occuring around that time.

 

Harry, you do indeed appear in the list now.

 

ddnutzy seems to have taken the prize for oldest and least recently recovered stations, based on the reports submitted for some recoveries last Spring.

 

PFF and BuckBrooke are rapidly gaining on the leaders, and if they keep up the pace that they've set for the year to date, they're going to leave most of us in the dust. Of course, it didn't hurt that they were able to hunt through the winter, when some of us were kept in by snow and rain. :blink:

Share this post


Link to post

Sunny and breezy (10 mph, gusting to 30 mph), in the mid 60s here in the Land of Enchantment. Pretty typical for early April. I've been ill for the last two weeks, and haven't been able to get out. But, I've built up a little lag time in my benchmarking plan, so I'm not worried. I've a couple of trips planned out now, both in my local area, hiking into Colorado and a couple of long weekend vacations into Texas and Arizona.

 

I very much appreciate the work done on the Extreme Benchmarking site. It gives me interesting goals to think about. As a note, I agree that we'll have to bear with the lag time for NGS reporting. I've NOT FOUND (or DESTROYED, depending upon Debbie) the oldest not yet found in New Mexico, and it hasn't posted yet. This site is a very nice asset to our community.

 

As to the rankings, there are a number of people who have FOUND/NOT FOUND so many stations that it would take a heck of a long time for them to enter into NGS. I suspect it will take most of a year for us to build a true picture of the community as our contributions to NGS expand. While my goal is to find 520 stations this year, putting me at about 560 found, there are people who already have a thousand or two under their belts. A friendly, competent competition in number found can only benefit NGS.

Edited by BuckBrooke

Share this post


Link to post

Thanks, holograph. :blink: I rank slightly behind 'missing'. Hmm... But the six I 'recovered' two weeks ago have not made the NGS list yet. Oh, well. Time lag waits for no benchmarker. There's my goal! To get ahead of 'missing' on the list. :blink: This weekend we hope to cache in Central Park again, and College Point, Queens. I've got eight benchmarks on the list. Even though Black Dog Trackers has found a few of them, but not logged them on NGS.

Share this post


Link to post

Holograph,

 

Your Site is Just Plain Cool. Thank you for taking time to contribute as you have, as it helps us all. It is interesting to think of the statistical influences.

 

Buck,

 

I was thinking about how in a year we may know how this Fleshes out, But Hunters keep hunting and sending their status to NGS, and it is conceivable the workload at NGS could increase in this area. Will we every really know? It would hard to know beyond the time it takes to make the filing final in the Database. But it is nice to think of it this way.

 

Interesting.

 

Rob

Share this post


Link to post

Oh, well, Black Dog Trackers. Those three are on my list. I shan't log them with NGS then. A carved 'double y' sounded interesting.

Share this post


Link to post

One question I still have: Will the NGS number include reports Deb Brown accepts for "Destroyed" marks?

 

I have one entered, one accepted but not yet entered, and two pending. I am also investigating another intersection station that may have been destroyed.

 

I guess five marks is not a big thing in the grand scheme. :-)

Share this post


Link to post

I only reported one mark to NGS as destroyed. The station was the dome of a county courthouse that burned, UPPER MARLBORO CO CTHSE SPIRE (HV7518). It seems I won't get "credit" for this in holograph's tally since Deb Brown entered the report under her own initials after I emailed her photos and other supporting documents. This was my only destroyed report to NGS, so I don't know if this is the usual procedure.

 

-ArtMan-

Share this post


Link to post

Since I can only retrieve the publishable datasheets, once one is destroyed, it falls out of the statistics derived from the publisable le sheets. The statistics only show the found and not found recovery reports.

Share this post


Link to post
Harry Dolphin -

 

I logged KU1415, KU1416, KU1441 on the NGS site on March 13. They haven't shown up yet. My favorite of them is KU1441.

 

Happy hunting!

We looked darn hard for KU1416, the Double Y, and could not find it. Found something that looked like Ys on the other side of the street. Oh, well.

We liked KU1441, even if we had to climb over a fence to get it. :D

Share this post


Link to post
I only reported one mark to NGS as destroyed. The station was the dome of a county courthouse that burned, UPPER MARLBORO CO CTHSE SPIRE (HV7518).  It seems I won't get "credit" for this in holograph's tally since Deb Brown entered the report under her own initials after I emailed her photos and other supporting documents. This was my only destroyed report to NGS, so I don't know if this is the usual procedure.

 

-ArtMan-

Yes. It seems the normal procedure. KV4066], The WOR TV Mast is now officially 'destroyed'.

Edited by Harry Dolphin

Share this post


Link to post

I found, and submitted to Deb Brown, 4destroyeds in the last 3 days: KW3065, KW3068, KW0450 andKW3071. I have marked a total of 28 stations as destroyed on Geocaching, but have submitted less than that to NGS because of lack of proof.

 

Edited to change the number to 4.

Edited by mloser

Share this post


Link to post

I've submitted to NGS around 24 finds, emailed 1 destroyed, and emailed info about 1 mark that was listed in the destroyed database that I found apparently intact, while looking for a neighboring mark.

 

GC i've listed around 25 more DNFs, a good portion of those are likely destroyed but am lacking solid evidence.

Share this post


Link to post

There must really be some lag time. I've submitted a couple dozen finds since last feburary to the NGS, and I'm still showing only 4 marks. Has anyone tried to measure the average lag time?

Share this post


Link to post

Bicknell,

 

There is one human being responsible for you getting your data loaded. She is a very busy Lady. There have also been a few NGS Server outages in the past few months.

 

Lag time is not on nor part of her agenda, Just managing her varied workload is. It is probably not in our best interests to think of her workload as our lag time. That seems to bring connotations of something like a poor performance report, and that isn't really the impression we want to leave, is it? The NGS is not trying to appease any of us in particular, Just fulfilling the Mission is the way they think of it.

 

If you are concerned about your submissions, just an email asking if your PID updates and such have made it safely to her desk will work. It may not have given their server problems, and she will likely be happy to check and see if they made it, or if you may have to re-submit them.

 

Deb.Brown@noaa.gov

 

Remember, she handles a lot of input and other duties, They all do at NGS, and after all, this is a big Country.

 

Rob

Share this post


Link to post

Harry Dolphin -

 

Harry Dolphin Posted on Apr 12 2005, 04:20 PM

We looked darn hard for KU1416, the Double Y, and could not find it. Found something that looked like Ys on the other side of the street. Oh, well.

 

Hmmm, now you've got me wondering if there's double-Ys on both sides of the street. I hope not! My log of KU1416 shows the picture of the Ys. They are only about an inch tall each, and rather vague. I found the mark at night, and perhaps it's only visible at night! The odd thing was that the description wasn't totally clear to me as to which side of the street the Ys were on, and it turned out that both KU1416 (the 2 chiseled Ys) and KU1415 (a chiseled square) were on the same bridge pedestal at different levels (as indicated in my picture).

 

If it somehow turns out that there's Ys on both sides of the street, you may yet be an NGS logger on KU1416! You should definitely check out the bridge pedestal where KU1415 is first, to see the Ys that are there as per the picture I posted.

 

==================================

 

bicknell -

 

at least one of my logs (KU1416) that I sent in on March 13 have now (April 13) appeared on the NGS site. I had checked a few days ago, and they were not there, so it must've been in the last couple of days.

 

Nothing on holograph's site yet on those logs, but he has his own schedule and the numbers will show up there soon, I have no doubt. :rolleyes:

 

==================================

 

holograph -

 

holograph Posted on Apr 12 2005, 03:36 AM

The statistics only show the found and not found recovery reports. 

I like the way this works out. It provides a leeetle bit of incentive not to report a Destroyed to the NGS.

 

(If I was 100% convinced that a station was destroyed, I would report it as such via email to Deb, whether or not my doing so would be picked up in your numbers.)

Share this post


Link to post

Since we can only reliably destroy landmark stations in the first place, as we otherwise need to furnish physical proof of the actual disc in it's destroyed state, this should not be too hard.

 

Since we are talking NGS recovery in the NGS forum, We can either unequivocally prove station destruction or simply "not find" the station. The "incentive" to Voluntarily help out was affected how? :-D

 

That sounded like Game strategy to me.

 

Holograph did mention that he felt statistical info on NGS recovery could have affect on peoples Greed, Maybe a few others did too. let's not rush out and prove that theory correct. If that is the case, I fear that our heads and hearts are not in the right place for this volunteer activity.

 

Maybe?

 

Rob

Edited by evenfall

Share this post


Link to post
There must really be some lag time.  I've submitted a couple dozen finds since last feburary to the NGS, and I'm still showing only 4 marks.  Has anyone tried to measure the average lag time?

I filed some report in mid-March and they have just shown up in the NGS database in the past few days. Patience, dude.... :-)

 

Let's think the best of our overworked civil servants.

 

-ArtMan-

(Yes, an overworked civil servant, too!)

Share this post


Link to post
Harry Dolphin Posted on Apr 12 2005, 04:20 PM

We looked darn hard for KU1416, the Double Y, and could not find it. Found something that looked like Ys on the other side of the street. Oh, well.

 

Hmmm, now you've got me wondering if there's double-Ys on both sides of the street. I hope not! My log of KU1416 shows the picture of the Ys. They are only about an inch tall each, and rather vague. I found the mark at night, and perhaps it's only visible at night! The odd thing was that the description wasn't totally clear to me as to which side of the street the Ys were on, and it turned out that both KU1416 (the 2 chiseled Ys) and KU1415 (a chiseled square) were on the same bridge pedestal at different levels (as indicated in my picture).

I reviewed your pictures, and I would say that you definitely found a set of Double Y's! What I found were more haphazard, and probably not the benchmark. I did not find what you saw. :rolleyes: Oh, well.

Here's what I found: Other nearby marks. If we ever get back in that neighborhood, we will double check. But, I'd say that you found it.

Share this post


Link to post
There must really be some lag time.  I've submitted a couple dozen finds since last feburary to the NGS, and I'm still showing only 4 marks.  Has anyone tried to measure the average lag time?

I filed some report in mid-March and they have just shown up in the NGS database in the past few days. Patience, dude.... :-)

 

Let's think the best of our overworked civil servants.

Yes. I've noticed that this is not an Instant Gratification sport. I posted a bunch three weeks ago. And five more a few days ago. All in due time.

Holograph updates onece a month, which is fine with me. I appreciate the effort that he is putting into this for us!

Share this post


Link to post
Since we can only reliably destroy landmark stations in the first place, as we otherwise need to furnish physical proof of the actual disc in it's destroyed state, this should not be too hard.

 

Since we are talking NGS recovery in the NGS forum, We can either unequivocally prove station destruction or simply "not find" the station. The "incentive" to Voluntarily help out was affected how? :-D

 

That sounded like Game strategy to me.

 

Holograph did mention that he felt statistical info on NGS recovery could have affect on peoples Greed, Maybe a few others did too. let's not rush out and prove that theory correct. If that is the case, I fear that our heads and hearts are not in the right place for this volunteer activity.

 

Maybe?

 

Rob

There is, of course, considerably more effort involved in proving that a benchmark has been destroyed, than in proving that it exists. The incentive is in trying to help the NGS by removing destroyed benchmarks from their database.

Disks are harder to prove destroyed than towers, stacks, water tanks, and grain elevators. I don't know that I could prove that a disk has been destroyed unless I find it in the bushes. Even then, the stem left in the rock qualifies it as 'poor', but still usable.

There's a grain elevator calling me. There are condos on the spot now.

 

Greed? Where does that enter into this. Sure I like to see my numbers posted. I list my finds. I play by the rules. I won't log a find that's been found recently. I won't log anything found in the last five to ten years. You'll see that I have 117 finds, DNFs, logged as destroyed, or notes on geocaching, and 20 recoveries (and 1 destroyed) on NGS. Not counting the eleven that I've listed in the last three weeks. My photos of benchmarks are relatively clear, in most cases. Here's a picture of KU1441. But Black Dog Trackers has logged that one, so I shan't. Won't stop me from logging it on geocaching, though.

 

Paul

Share this post


Link to post

Harry,

 

NGS has established rules that they strictly adhere to regarding the removal of a PID from their Database.

 

As a for instance, If the Station is a Disc Type monument, or for instance a Monumentation that could be occupied by different types of survey instrument, they will refuse to destroy the data in the database to such a mark unless you can send them either the actual object that is destroyed or a photo of the disc, Legibly readable, in the state of being actually removed from it's monumentation or position.

 

What I mean is actually removed in the empirical sense, whereas, you too are seeing the actual object in question as removed or displaced. If you find a location where the Station is surely gone but you cannot empirically see and touch the Destroyed Mark, you can not ask that it be destroyed, you can only be allowed to report it as a not found, no matter if even it really is truly gone forever. The NGS is not very flexible about this rule for good reason. It is not a safe thing to allow arbitrary reports of destruction that cannot be confirmed. Not Founds to not disrupt any data, and if a lost mark turns up later, then all is well. If not, then the positional data is at least still in tact.

 

Landmarks are an exception to the destruction rule. You still need to provide photographic proof for the position to prove it's demise, but they are all most usually locations which cannot be occupied by a survey instrument and were never the Property of the NGS. So the standards for removal are less strict.

 

Regarding Greed. Yes Ah, I did say Greed. But I was just repeating someone else. and I think I see where their thinking was headed... If you scroll up this thread you will read discussion that included the worries of making people angry over their scores and I could go on... Some people know that this can have undesirable side effects if we are not careful. No one is naming names. Since I am responding to you Paul, I want you to know that I am not naming any names nor singling anyone including you out.

 

The Game at Geocaching for Benchmark hunting is a game, Games are where statistics which denote successful competition between players belong. While in NGS work I can see the value of keeping track of the work we accomplish, I can also see where the statistics can spur Competitive thinking and strategies which are not a Best fit for NGS recovery, even though they are fully fitting to the Game. These can be equated to greed.

 

The Focus of NGS recovery is Fun, but first and foremost it is not a game. Not an exhibition or a competition. We already have a game running in parallel to the Volunteer work we do. This is the National Spatial Reference System and if we are sending information to NGS, we are updating the informations that is ascribed to it. It is about locating Stations as a Volunteer effort for NGS.

 

Yes they are keeping track and are very thankful, Yes they have mentioned that they hope to be able to offer rewards for the work Geocachers do in the future. That is their benevolence towards us and our work. But the statistics for that are up to them. While it is fine if people want to keep track of the work they accomplish, you can do that on your personal tally sheet without it needing to be a public article of pride or Badge of Honor. When we decide to Not report something to NGS, It is arguably a Personal Choice, and who can argue a personal choice right? but it can show it's horns.

 

If one is looking to look like a Finder and not a Not finder because of the hopes of an attractive statistical score on as based on NGS recovery Statistics, and so others can see this as a standing in a said community as a form of implied status in that community, you can do that but I feel, (Please note this is my opinion and you are welcome to not like how I feel about it) the ethics of playing a game is best kept in the Game, because there is no harm in a Game. Since we are so fortunate so as to have such a fun game going in a similar way, then I see no harm, in having all the statistical competition stay in the confines of the game. In NGS recovery we are not playing a Game, and our efforts deserve to be treated both a bit more benevolently and carefully than an obsession with statistics and a friendly competition would imply.

 

The incentive to do this for the right reasons and to do a good, thorough recovery is a both a challenge and a reward. If we want more than that, we have the game. The NGS has a different Criteria and we will do better if we keep that criteria separate from some aspects that the Game already offers.

 

We are doing a good deed, It is something we can feel good about, but it isn't something we should wear on our sleeve. Other wise we will be too busy "patting our own backs" with both our "Game Hand" and our "NGS hand" to do anything else.

 

I guess I would hope that the statistics will not blind us to the good we are trying to do if we are working to help the NGS. On the other hand, in regard to the Game here at Geocaching, I say, Game on!

 

Wilford Brimley would simply say, "It's the right thing to do"

 

Rob

Edited by evenfall

Share this post


Link to post

We are doing a good deed, It is something we can feel good about, but it isn't something we should wear on our sleeve. Other wise we will be too busy "patting our own backs" with both our "Game Hand" and our "NGS hand" to do anything else.

 

Personally, I don't CARE about scores, etc. I never put on the "game" hat. That's why you'll notice I have NO geocaches found. Heck I've walked right buy where a few should be while looking for benchmarks.

Share this post


Link to post

As a quick note, how often does the extreme benchmarking page get updated? I've logged the oldest not found in NM, and am curious what/where the the next one is.

 

Oh, I see that the westernmost one for NM, which was over the line into Arizona, has been fixed. Thus, the updates must be monthly, and the oldest in NM changed since the last update. Ok.

Edited by BuckBrooke

Share this post


Link to post

Each month the NGS posts a new set of "monthly update" files to their FTP site. There seems to be no fixed day of the month when that happens, so whenever I notice that the new files are there, that's when I download them and update the statistics. This month, the files were ready about April 6.

 

If someone mentions that some datasheets for extreme stations are incorrect, I have a my own way of adding a note to PIDs so that they no longer qualify as extremes. If you click the "more stations" link, you will still see the original PIDs, but the ones that have been excluded will have a red note attached. That's what I did as soon as you mentioned the problem with the Westernmost station of New Mexico, and several of the "least recently recovered" stations in New Mexico. It doesn't mean the NGS has corrected the datasheets, it just means that I manually excluded them from my list.

 

When the NGS corrects the datasheets, you will no longer see the annotated PIDs in the New Mexico lists.

 

As for when your log for the oldest station will appear, it will be no sooner than next month, but may be later if the NGS has a backlog for updating datasheets. Several of us recovered stations in February, but the datasheets have not yet been updated. Patience is a virtue. :laughing:

Edited by holograph

Share this post


Link to post

Note

 

They are constanly running updates. Several I sent where posted on 2 different days this week.

Share this post


Link to post

Yes, the online database that you access through the NGS web page is constantly being updated. Once you see your recoveries there, they will show up on the statistics page the next month.

Share this post


Link to post

An amusement on 'highest benchmarks' - last weekend I made a try for the highest benchmark (JW1297) in Maryland on the extreme stations list. The only access road is on private property, apparently, and I didn't try to ask the owners. This disk is 15" below ground surface and about 50 feet from a firetower. I doubted that I'd be digging 15" and didn't bring a shovel, so that I wouldn't be tempted to dig there. :) My other goal there was to find JW1301 which is only 5" below ground surface and a bit closer to the firetower and to at least photograph its two above-ground reference marks. Frustrated down by the road, with no good access, and lots of other PIDs on my list for the day, I shot a picture of the firetower from about as close to it as the public road got.

 

After getting home and starting on the logs, I figured well why not log the firetower (JW1300) itself since I had taken its picture. I figure that it is the same one 'monumented' in 1975, and is likely much older than that since most of the firetowers in the East have been decomissioned long ago.

 

Although you have to dig in the verbal description, and that wouldn't be feasable for the extreme stations website, the firetower itself is really the highest survey station in Maryland! It is reported as 80 feet high with the station being the apex of its roof. The nearby 'highest benchmark' in maryland is 15" below ground near the firetower's base (no data on how far above or below the benchmark's 'ground' is compared to the nearby firetower's base).

Share this post


Link to post

Does the extreme benchmark page only go with vertical control stations for the highest and lowest extremes? The firetower might be an intersection station only.

Edited by BuckBrooke

Share this post


Link to post

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.

Guest
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.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

×
×
  • Create New...