Newbie Sanity Check

[+Munin]

I'm a total newbie when it comes to benchmarking, so even though I think I know the answer based on other threads, I'd like to have a sanity-check to make sure I'm doing things properly.

 

I decided to take a look at MY4774 (BURRILL HILL 1935), since I'd be passing through this area on my way to a nearby cache. At the expected location, I found what certainly appeared to be the setting for the benchmark, but no disc. (There's a picture of what I was looking at in my log entry.) At first I'd logged this as "destroyed", because that's how it had been marked previously, and it seemed reasonable based on my initial reading of the FAQ. But after reading various threads here, I decided I was mistaken, and switched my log to "Didn't find it".

 

My current rationale is: well, I certainly didn't "Find It", since I never set eyes on a disc. And I'm thinking it's not actually "Destroyed", since its setting (the rock ledge) isn't gone. So even though it *seems* really obvious that this is the right spot and the disc has been vandalized, am I correct in thinking that "Didn't Find" is the correct description for my attempt? I.e., that it's possible - unlikely perhaps, but possible - that I was looking at some unrelated setting that just coincidentally was near the location described in the benchmark description, and the real one is still safe and sound...perhaps hidden under one of the nearby mossy areas?

 

Related question: Am I right in thinking that with a rock ledge setting like this, the only time it might be appropriate for an amateur like me to use "Destroyed" would be if I had evidence that the rock ledge itself was gone? Say, if the entire side of the hill had collapsed in a landslide, or the hill was leveled in preparation for a housing development?

 

Thanks for any feedback/suggestions/corrections!

[holograph]

In the game of Geocaching, the usual rule of thumb is that you can claim a find if you can read the disk. Since the disk looks like it is gone, you could post a note or log a not found, explaining what you did find. If you are really, really confident that you've found the stem of the original disk, or the hole that it was in, you could even log a find (in poor condition). In the game, the only one you'll embarrass is yourself if someone else finds the actual mark in good condition a hundred feet from where you thought you found its rotting remains.

 

The other aspect of benchmark hunting is deciding to report to the NGS, which is no game. Since you are unsure, you shouldn't even consider reporting this one to NGS. Bad information is worse than no information.

 

For Geocaching (as opposed to reporting to NGS), you could report a station as destroyed if you found the setting gone, for instance if a bridge has been replaced, or the rock ledge is gone, or a supermarket is now sitting in the middle of what was a pasture when the monument was set. NGS won't accept that criteria, but it will work for the game of Geocaching.

[+seventhings]

Munin -

 

holograph, above, has the correct answer, but I'll add my two cents:

 

This is one of those cases where it could be equally correct to log a "Found it", Didn't find it", or "Note". I don't think that "Destroyed" is the correct log.

 

Since the the location of station MY4774 is defined by ADJUSTED coordinates, it is more likely than not (based on my experience of reporting recoveries for several stations in similar condition) that the NGS would consider this station as "Found - POOR Condition". Apparently, (I'm not a surveyor) a surveyor could find this station to be useful even though only the stem remains.

 

So, IF your GPSr indicated that you were at or within a meter or so of the published coordinates, AND the stem/drill hole's location corresponded (pretty much exactly) to the station's location with reference to one or more local landmarks, AND the setting corresponded to that described in the datasheet, THEN I say that you would be OK to log this as "Found it" with a full description of the situation in the comments.

 

The super-orthodox view would be to log this as "Didn't find it" but, although I've been called a "purist" in these fora (not always as a compliment), I have logged a half dozen of these "Found- Destroyed"'s (out of more than 1,000 total finds).

 

A "Note" would also be appropriate. I reserve "Destroyed" for those stations (like water tanks, etc.) that I absolutely, positively, bet-my-children know for certain to be, in fact, destroyed. I have, however, reported one recovery of a missing disk on a badly damaged and unstable concrete monument that the NGS reclassified as "destroyed" in the NGS database (so I changed my log to "Destroyed").

 

Typically, however, disks aren't "destroyed" until the original setting is destroyed (that is, your thinking on the matter is correct), although most of us "purists" log a "Didn't find it" or post a "Note" when, for example, the disk is unfindable because the school has been razed, etc.

 

Anyway, kudos to a "total newbie" for asking an excellent question.

 

Will

Edited April 27, 2005 by seventhings

[+Munin]

In the game, the only one you'll embarrass is yourself if someone else finds the actual mark in good condition a hundred feet from where you thought you found its rotting remains.

 

Well, I'm no stranger to embarrassment! But I'm sure I'll have plenty of chances to blush without taunting Mr. Murphy by claiming a find at this point!

 

The other aspect of benchmark hunting is deciding to report to the NGS, which is no game. Since you are unsure, you shouldn't even consider reporting this one to NGS. Bad information is worse than no information.

 

Makes perfect sense to me - NGS gets used for real-life, serious work. I'm definitely in the "amateur hour" (more like "Gong Show" ) category, so I'm happy just sticking with GC.com - it's fun, I'm actually managing to learn a thing or two, and nobody's going to misroute an interstate highway through my living room if I happen to goof up!

 

For Geocaching (as opposed to reporting to NGS), you could report a station as destroyed if you found the setting gone, for instance if a bridge has been replaced, or the rock ledge is gone, or a supermarket is now sitting in the middle of what was a pasture when the monument was set. NGS won't accept that criteria, but it will work for the game of Geocaching.

 

I think I understand why NGS wouldn't consider a station destroyed just because a supermarket was built over a former pasture - the station might well be perfectly happy and healthy, even if it's currently underneath a layer of asphalt.

 

I'm a little puzzled that they wouldn't necessarily consider a station destroyed if the rock ledge containing the setting was gone. Is there a simple (newbie/layman) example of how the station would still be useful? (Or is it just that NGS would want to have an honest-to-god professional look into this before they write off the station as lost for all eterinity?)

 

So, IF your GPSr indicated that you were at or within a meter or so of the published coordinates, AND the stem/drill hole's location corresponded (pretty much exactly) to the station's location with reference to one or more local landmarks, AND the setting corresponded to that described in the datasheet, THEN I say that you would be OK to log this as "Found it" with a full description of the situation in the comments.

 

I don't think this particular visit would have measured up. GPSr read 2 meters off from the published coords when I was at the setting, but that was with 6-7m EPE. So going on the GPSr alone, I think the best I can say is that I was in the right general area. Still plenty of room for reasonable doubt.

 

The landmark reference on the datasheet is an old stone firetower on the same hilltop, and it's close enough that I actually could bring a tape measure along and check the distance to the setting to see if it matches up. I'll have to try that next time I visit this park - it'd make for an interesting and fun experiment, regardless of how it turns out.

 

The super-orthodox view would be to log this as "Didn't find it" but, although I've been called a "purist" in these fora (not always as a compliment), I have logged a half dozen of these "Found- Destroyed"'s (out of more than 1,000 total finds).

 

I'm thinking that the orthodox/purist/conservative approach makes the most sense to me. If I were to draw an analogy to caching, if I'd followed my GPS to a location, found a box-shaped depression in the leaves, but never actually found the cache...well, that's a DNF, plain and simple. Here, I've basically found a benchmark-shaped depression in the rock, but didn't find the cache...errrr...disc, so "Didn't find it" seems sensible.

 

If I went back and actually got an exact match on the landmark reference, perhaps coupled with a lower EPE on the GPSr, then I might actually log a find here. If not, hey, I can always post another DNF or add a note with my observations.

 

I reserve "Destroyed" for those stations (like water tanks, etc.) that I absolutely, positively, bet-my-children know for certain to be, in fact, destroyed.

 

Typically, however, disks aren't "destroyed" until the original setting is destroyed (that is, your thinking on the matter is correct), although most of us "purists" log a "Didn't find it" or post a "Note" when, for example, the disk is unfindable because the school has been razed, etc.

 

Very useful explanation on "Destroyed", and I like the "bet-my-children" test for when this is appropriate to use.

 

Thanks for the feedback, holograph and seventhings! I'm very comfortable now with logging a "Didn't Find It" on this benchmark. I've even got a potentially fun challenge with going back and trying this one again!

 

Cheers!

[+BuckBrooke]

I'm a little puzzled that they wouldn't necessarily consider a station destroyed if the rock ledge containing the setting was gone. Is there a simple (newbie/layman) example of how the station would still be useful? (Or is it just that NGS would want to have an honest-to-god professional look into this before they write off the station as lost for all eterinity?)

 

From the picture, the stem is still there. If it's a horizontal control station, my understanding from others in the forum is that you can reconstitute the station by replacing the benchmark disk on the stem and still have the same accuracy.

 

This wouldn't be the case for a vertical control station I saw that was a disk in the side of one of the columns of a railroad bridge; someone had chipped out the disk. The stem was still there, but I gather that you couldn't replace the disk with sufficient vertical accuracy to renew the station.

 

The NGS has ruled a PID I reported as destroyed where the actual concrete monument in which the disk was imbedded was disturbed (hit by a road grader, and the monument is tilted 20 degrees out of true). In that case you wouldn't be able to fix it.

 

It's all case by case, and the other fellows/gals here build a feel for it by exposure. Hopefully the rest of the marks you go after will be in good shape.

 

Don't feel put off from reporting to the NGS. You could at least log those marks that you FIND.

[caseyb]

From the standpoint of the NGS, *IF* you really found this station and wanted to repot it to us, it would be found in poor condition. The fact that the station has not been reported to us in over 50 years makes it a great candidate for reporting.

The reason it would be "poor" and not "destroyed" is that it appears the stem is still intact and that can be used.

 

Of course, I can't tell for sure if you found it or not, and from your photos it is hard to tell how close you may have been. The position on the datasheet is listed in DD MM SS.SSSS and your photos shows your GPSr in DD MM.MMMM mode.

 

Good luck with future hunts.

 

 

-Casey-

[+PFF]

As Casey pointed out, it's too close to call without a measurement from the tower. A previous GEOCAC recovery estimated the drill hole to be 150 feet from the tower. What we don't know is whether it was paced off, or just guessed at with a visual observation.

 

From your photo, I'd say it is closer to 85 feet that 150, which would make it correct. There is a slight difference in the coordinates, which is normal with a consumer-grade GPS receiver. I converted your GPS reading to DD MM SS:

 

DATA SHEET VS GPS

N42 29 24.33 vs N42 29 24.36

W70 59 07.74 vs W70 59 7.74

 

My vote is that you found it. What I found interesting was the number of observation towers that have come and gone since the 1930's. Must be a popular spot to visit!

 

-Paul-

[+Munin]

Thanks to all for your answers and encouragement! If the rain holds off long enough tomorrow, I'll be swinging back over with a measuring tape - it'd be fun to try and nail this puppy down more precisely!

[+Munin]

The fact that the station has not been reported to us in over 50 years makes it a great candidate for reporting.

 

For what it's worth - the day after I was looking at the BURRILL HILL (stone tower) location, I returned to another section of this park to do a cache and look for other benchmarks. I went to three of them on that trip - all three were present, and none have been reported to NGS since 1934-35. If it'd actually be useful for NGS to have an update on these old stations, I'd be willing to give it a shot. PIDs for this second trip:

 

MY4780 - Disc present and easily readable. Last NGS report 1935.

MY2601 - Disc present, scarred and partially painted, but readable. Last NGS report 1935.

MY2599 - 1934 NGS data says drillhole with triangle. But according to 1935 MY2601 data, MY2599 was filled with a lead plug with copper tack - this revised info corresponds to what I saw.

 

If these would be useful to get formal reports on, I'm willing to give 'em a go - I think it could be fun and interesting to do this. From what I've read, the pictures I took on that trip probably aren't done correctly for submitting to NGS. But this is a park I enjoy hiking in, so I wouldn't mind doing a return trip to get better ones. (I'm sure I can learn how to do those properly within the forums here on GC.com.)

 

But if doing a proper NGS report honestly needs more accuracy than my poor little Foretrex 201 GPSr can provide, feel free to tell me so - what holograph said earlier about bad info being worse than no info makes a whole lot of sense to me. I promise I won't go cry in my beer if that's the case!

[+BuckBrooke]

Many of the harder core benchmarkers don't use GPS units at all. It's not required that you measure exactly where it it; you just need to be positively, near-aboslutely sure that the mark you found corresponds to the one you're going to report as recovered.

 

Some of us send all of our recoveries to the NGS, and they encourage the report of older marks that haven't been recovered in a while. Please do so.

[+Munin]

BuckBrooke: I'll read up on NGS reporting, and will submit the ones that I definitely located. I think I'll do a return trip for better photos first, particularly for MY2601 - I want to try one of the tips I read about using chalk/flour/corn starch with damaged/painted discs and see if I can bring out the markings more clearly.

[+Munin]

Okay, I'm back from my jaunt - I think I'm comfortable logging this as a "Found It" (ipoor condition) at this point, at least as far as GC.com gameplay goes. Let's see what people think:

 

Hiked on over to the area with my handy-dandy 100' tape measure. The datasheet says the 81.9 foot distance to the station was measured from the center of the tower. (Links for quick-ref: MY4774 GC.com page, MY4774 datasheet) Minor inconvenience there, since the interior of the tower isn't accessible by the general public. Fortunately the base of the tower is square, so...

 

Measured distance from stone tower to station, which was 74.25 ft from the base of the tower to the center of the stem.

Measured width of stone tower along side, which was 15.25 ft from front to back at the base. So center of tower should be 7.625 ft from the front.

 

Putting that together (74.25' + 7.625') gives me 81.875 ft from center of station to center of tower, so I think that compares favorably to the 81.9 ft on the datasheet.

 

Followed up with another check of the GPSr at the station:

GPSr -vs- Datasheet

N42 29 24.2 -vs- N42 29 24.32527

W70 59 07.7 -vs- W70 59 07.74443

 

So, I think that's enough to claim a "Found - poor condition" here on GC.com.

 

Given that the disc is missing, opinions on whether this is sufficient for an NGS update?

 

Cheers - this was fun!

[+seventhings]

Munin -

 

Very good job on MY4774. Marks that demand a little detective work and analysis are the most fun. Many benchmark hunters are not nearly as concerned as you are about getting the recovery right. (But, as it is primarily a leisure activity/hobby/game, that's OK too.)

 

If you contemplate reporting MY4774 to the NGS (certainly not mandatory, although some of us do it regularly), but are not certain as to whether the mark is "Destroyed", "Not found" or "Found in poor condition", you can always send an e-mail to Deb Brown first (see Deb's pinned thread on NGS reporting criteria). Deb lives to update the NGS database, and I have solicited her advice in advance for several marks. Depending on her workload, she may take a few days to get back to you, but she'll eventually advise you as to how she would prefer you to report it.

 

Again, good job. It looks like you've got the anal-retentive/obsessive-compulsive, Sherlock Holmes/Indiana Jones wannabe personality that is so common in the benchmark hunting community.

 

Will

[caseyb]

Given that the disc is missing, opinions on whether this is sufficient for an NGS update?

 

Cheers - this was fun!

Based on what you have posted here, I feel you are certainly qualified to report this mark to NGS. If you are interested in reading a bit on reporting the NGS, check out this link...

 

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=95774

 

If you have any specific questions on it, feel free to ask in the NGS forum.

 

From your description and photos, the disc is in poor condition. In the notes are of the report, you should say "only the stem of the disc remains." FYI, photos are optional for NGS reports. We are still working on setting up a good system to include photos in the database.

 

-Casey-

[evenfall]

Munin,

 

This is a Horizontal, second order station. Since it is horizontal, we can place our instrument over the stem and optically use it's center of the remaining stem for survey purposes. If it were vertical control, we would physically rest something on the station to take our measurements.

 

So, that said as a future reference, Horizontal Stations like this would be considered Found Poor, but usable, and if vertical control, then Not Found or destroyed, though the burden for proof of destruction at NGS may be difficult to achieve so a not found would have to be used to place mark the station as not usable for vertical work.

 

Your work and your journal here of how you approached this station was a wonderful essay on the critical thinking behind hunting the details down. I really enjoyed it.

 

Good luck with the other stations,

 

Rob

[Z15]

Here is an example....

 

RL1664'THE STATION WAS RECOVERED WITH THE DISK REMOVED, BUT THE STEM IN PLACE

RL1664'AND THE MONUMENT STILL INTACT. THIS POINT WAS HELD FIXED AND A DISK

RL1664'WAS SET INTO A DRILL HOLE IN THE EXISTING MONUMENT.

RL1664'THE MARK IS SET FLUSH WITH THE GROUND. IT IS LOCATED ABOUT 12.5 M

RL1664'(41.0 FT) SOUTH-SOUTHWEST FROM THE SOUTHEAST LEG AND 12.2 M

RL1664'(40.0 FT) SOUTH FROM THE SOUTHWEST LEG OF THE LOOKOUT TOWER.

RL1664'RECOVERY BY RONALD L. RAMSEY, NGS GEODETIC ADVISOR - MICHIGAN.

[+Munin]

Marks that demand a little detective work and analysis are the most fun. Many benchmark hunters are not nearly as concerned as you are about getting the recovery right. (But, as it is primarily a leisure activity/hobby/game, that's OK too.)

 

I quite agree - for me, the extra little challenge of heading back and trying to verify this one as precisely as I could just made it more enjoyable. It's still a kind of game - but this time I was "scoring" myself based on accuracy. Anal-retentivity and fun aren't necessarily mutually exclusive!

[+Munin]

Based on what you have posted here, I feel you are certainly qualified to report this mark to NGS. If you are interested in reading a bit on reporting the NGS, check out this link...

 

Thanks for the markwell, Casey! I'll open a thread in the NGS section if (if - who am I kidding - when! ) I have a question about submitting reports.

 

FYI, photos are optional for NGS reports. We are still working on setting up a good system to include photos in the database.

 

Oh, I don't mind going back for more/better photos - particularly for the dinged-up MY2601 disc I think it'd be fun/educational to try and bring out the markings more clearly. It'll also be good practice for other benchmark hunts - I've been looking back through some of my caching photos (I always have a camera with me when I'm caching!), and I've definitely run across other stations that haven't been updated in decades. At the time, I just thought it was neat to come across these little discs that'd survived the elements for 60-70 years, so I actually started informally searching for them whenever I found myself on a rock outcrop with a good view. Wasn't particularly thinking about logging them, I just liked finding them. But since it'd actually be useful for NGS to get updates on these old stations, I might start checking the GC and NGS databases before heading out on caching trips and see if I can pick up more of these while I'm hiking o'er hill and dale.

[+Munin]

This is a Horizontal, second order station. Since it is horizontal, we can place our instrument over the stem and optically use it's center of the remaining stem for survey purposes. If it were vertical control, we would physically rest something on the station to take our measurements.

 

Out of curiosity, how does someone tell how far the instrument is above the station? Is it something physical, like a measuring rod that's extended down so it rests on the disc? I was wondering if that's what the...ummm..."dimple" (?) in the middle of the disc is for. (I'm sure "dimple" isn't the right word - terminology corrections always welcome! ) Or is the height measured electronically these days?

[+Munin]

Here is an example....

 

Thanks Z15!