Is This Corect

[StripeMark]

Check my log of this water tank marker:

http://www.geocaching.com/mark/details.aspx?PID=JF1576

 

Am I correct to log this as being destroyed since it's not the same water tank?

 

Just curious.

 

Big thanks!

 

-Scott

[+Black Dog Trackers]

StripeMark -

 

Bingo! You are correct!

 

The leg number on these is often the very telling fact.

[+seventhings]

StripeMark -

 

I disagree, at least for the moment.

 

While Black Dog Trackers is correct (that the number of legs is very important in positively identifying a water tank), I think it possible that what we have here is an error by the person who wrote the tank's original descrption. If the description said "four legs" and the tank had ten or was a modern watersphere, I would say that the tank you observed was not the tank that was observed in 1972.

 

But the tank in your photo looks like a 1970's era tank, and it would be an easy error for the person who wrote the original description to state that there were eight legs when, in fact, there were ten. (Also, I give no credibility to the described color of the tank - these things are repainted all the time.)

 

Here's what I would do (an I'm mildly fanatical about water tanks and other intersection stations):

First, I would load the station's adjusted coordinates into my GPS, re-check that my handheld was working in NAD83, and then check to see if the GOTO points right at the tank from all four sides (and that the distance to the center of the tank looks reasonable from all points around the tank).

Second, if I could get close to the tank, I would look for the manufacturer's plaque - it will usually include the date that the tank was erected.

Finally, I would try to check with a few local folks (perhaps the city engineer or head of the water department. Most local folks (of at least a certain age) will know if the tank you saw has been standing since 1972 or before.

 

If the GPS GOTO exercise suggested that the current tank is at the exact same spot as the described tank and either the manufacturer's plaque or testimony of a reliable local suggested that the tank you saw has been there since 1972 or before, then I would tend to conclude that the description is incorrect (and that the described station is NOT destroyed). If I could find the city engineer or chief of the water utility and he/she confirmed that the tank you saw is the same tank that was there in 1972, I would consider submitting a recovery report to NGS with comments that corrected the number of legs.

 

Will

[StripeMark]

But, if you can't trust the desciption text of the NGS, who can you trust......

 

anyway...... the coordinates given on the datasheet fell about in the middle of South Adams Street due east of the tower (maybe 60 feet east) (at least that's what my handheld GPS showed (+/- 17 feet)). And I figured that since the street intersection was given, it would be pretty hard to miss a 164 foot high water tank.

 

And yes, I also thought that it looked like the described 1,000,000 gallon tank of the 1970's timeframe.

 

It's just that the number of legs is what got me thinking..........

[+Black Dog Trackers]

StripeMark -

 

I believe that I was a bit fast on the draw there. Seventhings is quite correct in that the tank pictured may very well be the one that was there in 1972. I have often seen people mis-count 6 vs. 8, and 8 vs. 10 is an even easier error. I doubt you'll learn much with your GPS, but finding out when the current tank was built is key. At this point, I'd give 75% probability that the tank you pictured was there in 1972 and that the count of legs is was incorrect. If you find this to be true, be sure to add the correction to the number of legs!

[StripeMark]

OK, I've changed my log entry, and added one. I hope to get out there again later this Summer.

 

Thanks!

[+bicknell]

I called the hutchinson municipal department water maintenance line, Water Maintenance (620) 694-1900. Gotta love the web. Spoke to "Reg" who didn't know the exact date it was built because it was before the town took over the water system, but knew it was late 50's early 60's, and is 100% positive it was there in 1972 right where it stands today.

 

Yes, I'm bored today.

[StripeMark]

You must have nothign better to do....... sheeeesh!

 

Could I quote you on a log?

 

Thanks "bicknell"!

[StripeMark]

The web is so COOL!

 

I just talked to Reg and got some other info as well.

 

Thanks everyone!

[GH55]

I would hold off on declaring this "Found." There are several things to check.

 

1. The DD MM.MMM in the Geocaching database is slightly off from the DD MM SS.SSSSS of the NGS Datasheet. It appears the tank should be slightly north of the coordinates listed in GC.

 

2. Your handheld GPSr says the tank should be 60 feet east of its indicated location. In NAD83 and with 17 feet indicated accuracy, that is over 3 times the indicated error, much too far for adjucted coordinates. Has the street been reconstructed or moved since 1972? Maybe there was a tank beside the location of the one you observed.

 

3. Is the capacity the same. I would look on the plaque, if there is one.

 

4. Construction date. Reg may not have thought to tell you that the new tank was built right next to the old one. Some folks just don't get into the picky little details,

 

5. Is is 164 feet high, more or less believable? That information was probably taken from the manufacturer's plaque, also.

 

I would certainly check all this out before being certain of the find.

[evenfall]

Stripemark,

 

You said, "But, if you can't trust the desciption text of the NGS, who can you trust......"

 

I know, It would be nice to think we can trust them, as an official authority, but NGS is an organization which down through the years has been comprised of many people. This could have been one of those people who were like many humans did not get up and look from a different angle to see, for some of the legs were perhaps hidden by others on the tank, and just wrote what they saw. maybe they were Tired or it was almost quitting time, Maybe it was a rainy day and they wrote it in the truck from what they could see at the time...

 

Humans can make errors, and lucky for us, you are a Human who caught the error and could perhaps help make an appropriate correction. If civil authorities have confirmed to you that this is the only tank that has been at the site since well before the 70's, you can use that information to submit an update to the NGS if you like. Be careful of calling a Geodetic position questionable with Handheld GPS.

 

Seventhings has what I feel is the best method to use to become as absolutely sure of what a Handheld is telling us when used with hunting Landmark stations, and I would use his method to double check myself before I over think this much further.

 

Just a few thoughts.

 

Rob

Edited May 3, 2005 by evenfall

[+seventhings]

StripeMark -

 

You thought you had a simple, straight-forward question, didn't you?

 

As this thread has demonstrated, intersection stations pose special problems, especially if they have fences around them (it's a lot easier to get close up and personal with a church than to a water tank or radio mast).

 

While disks occasionally pose problems, nine times out of ten you can be sure that you found or failed to find the one you were searching for. With intersection stations, half the time you walk away with a lingering doubt.

 

Black Dog Trackers once said that you have to be a historian to recover an intersection station reliably. He's right, of course. It also helps to be a structural engineer, investigative reporter, architect and cultural anthropologist, as well.

 

Here's a related hint: never log a church steeple without inspecting the cornerstone.

 

Regards,

Will

 

p.s. - if the datasheet descriptions were always accurate, this wouldn't be half the fun!!

Edited May 3, 2005 by seventhings

[+Harry Dolphin]

While disks occasionally pose problems, nine times out of ten you can be sure that you found or failed to find the one you were searching for. With intersection stations, half the time you walk away with a lingering doubt.

 

Here's a related hint: never log a church steeple without inspecting the cornerstone.

 

p.s. - if the datasheet descriptions were always accurate, this wouldn't be half the fun!!

As I've noted elsewhere, I've gone looking for a few stations where the coordinates were off by a half mile or so. Most are not that bad. Sometimes, I feel part detective, part local historian.

Find a disk, usually you know that you've found it. Don't find a disk, you might not even be close to it.

As Will said, that's half the fun, isn't it?

[Bill93]

I'll bet nearly all of Harry's "off by half a mile" stations had SCALED coordinates. It is rare to find ADJUSTED coordinates off. They are usually much more accurate than your handheld, unless there was a mixup with which station was which. I have found a case of that.

 

I'd take all of the suggestions given by everybody, and additionally if this was a place I went by often I'd try to check the GOTO on several different days to see if there was a consensus reading that helped decide if this tower is at the location from the data sheet.

[StripeMark]

OK....... now this one can't be right......

 

http://www.geocaching.com/mark/details.aspx?PID=JE1877

 

The text says it's a 4 legged structure. Look at the pics by the loggers listed there.

 

So if the corrdinates match and this new tank is in the same location as the old, it should be logged as destroyed, right?

[kc2ixe]

OK....... now this one can't be right......

 

http://www.geocaching.com/mark/details.aspx?PID=JE1877

 

The text says it's a 4 legged structure. Look at the pics by the loggers listed there.

 

So if the corrdinates match and this new tank is in the same location as the old, it should be logged as destroyed, right?

also says it has a conical roof - that roof is ROUND -Not the same tank

[ArtMan]

I took the liberty of posting a NOTE on that PID just to set the record straight and inform and, hopefully, educate any casual benchmarkers who want to log that tank.

 

-ArtMan-

[StripeMark]

Thanks ArtMan!

[+seventhings]

... and the pictures at JE1877 show what is commonly referred to as a "standpipe", not a tank. Unfortunately, there are many such intersection stations. I have seen dozens that were "found" even though two seconds' analysis should have convinced the observer that the described station is not there anymore.

 

I have seen such stations "found" even after I've gotten the NGS to recalssify them as DESTROYED and posted a note to that effect on the Geocaching datasheet.

 

W

[+Red_Cedars]

Here's a water tower I marked as destroyed only because I spoke with water district personell that could attest to the fact that the tower as described was indeed destroyed, along with any markers that were at its base.

 

SY4875

 

R_C