Uspsqg Bench Mark Guide

[Z15]

I stumbled on this, enjoy...

 

USPSQD Guide

Edited March 28, 2005 by Z15

[+PFF]

Pretty good guidelines. Now if they would just abide by it...... [grin]

 

I substitute a printout from TOPOZONE, instead of marking "x's" on a map. Otherwise, I agreed with just about everything.

 

Including starting with a full tank of gasoline, and avoiding rush hour.

 

-Paul-

[+Harry Dolphin]

Pretty good guidelines. Now if they would just abide by it...... [grin]

Back to bashing the USPSQD?

And, yesterday, we were on Randall's/Ward's Island, on the Harlem River/Hell's Gate in NYC, geocaching. We also went looking for six benchmarks, and found three. (See Security issue for one of them.)

We located KU2154 or was it KU3974? Power squadron claimed to have found both. There's only room on that rock for one or the other! I found that it fit the description of KU2154 better.

[+BuckBrooke]

Sorry I brought this up. Curiosity killed Schroedinger's cat.

 

Does AW1575 S1201 count as the PID with the most logs? This might be a category added to the Extreme site.

 

AW1034 P1187 runs a close second.

 

11 of the logs match initials betwen the two in 1987.

Edited December 9, 2005 by BuckBrooke

[holograph]

What the heck was going on? You have to wonder if the whole club went out and logged recovery reports for the same mark?

[+seventhings]

Bingo!

[mloser]

I am more willing to bet on some sort of computer/keying error where the mark was accidentally put in the database that many times.

 

Did anyone notice

Ensure that no mark is knowingly recovered and reported in a time period less than 5 years.

. There is one person in my area who recovers every two years or so. I took some pleasure in posting some NGS recoveries for "his" marks this year to stop him from getting credit for at least a few.

[StripeMark]

Even on the Mark Recovery Entry form it says......

 

"This form can be used to submit recovery information for survey marks to the National Geodetic Survey. If the data sheet for this mark shows a recovery within the past 12 months and the status has not changed, please do not report it."

 

How did all those ever get by.....geez!

[2oldfarts (the rockhounders)]

Are the reports Automated? Or does someone at the NGS look at how many reports are being made by this particular group on any one BM? Maybe it is OK with them (NGS), otherwise you would have thought this group (USPS) would have been reprimanded?

 

Just a thought....

 

Shirley~

[mloser]

I think that two things happened.

 

The first is that the mark was reported too often, which seems to be true.

 

The second is that something happened data processing-wise that duplicated one entry multiple times into the database. Either someone ran a batch job a bunch of times that day or there was a manual update done multiple times, perhaps by someone repeatedly submitting the entry because the computer didn't respond. Those of you who use computers at work know (or are) someone who, when the printer doesn't print, resubmit the job 4 or 5 times before calling someone to help.

 

If you have tried to submit an update less than a year after the previous one the web page stops you now. I am willing to bet that in the late 1980s it was often up to the entry person to make that sort of decision.

[+BuckBrooke]

I think it was an 80's thing. However, it's clear from the different initials that 15 different people submitted logs in that year for that PID. I haven't gone through all the states, but I haven't seen anything more recent than 1990 like that.

[itchytweed]

Since the parent was posting online dox from the USPSQ, here is one from the Army Corps of Engineers: http://crunch.tec.army.mil

 

Maybe it would be a good thing to add to the FAQ a list of websites that provide documentation involving benchmarks. We can have the USPSQ, Corps of Engineers, NGS, etc.