Benchmark cache type

About the Opencaching Site

Re: Benchmark cache type

Postby Bon Echo » Fri Nov 04, 2016 3:54 pm

Mr.Yuck wrote:
They're lining up in droves to post them! They're just not people who post to internet forums. :o

Our free lancer has been delayed, so it's actually good we bought some time here. I hope to go over this thread with a fine toothed comb later today or over the weekend, and post a synopsis of what we're looking at so far.


I have at least 50 lined up to post. It's a start.
I also have a few more recommendation for things to consider - I had planned to post that a wile back but started with the whole "OCNA as owner" post and that really generated a lot of "excitement" shall we say. I didn't want to stir in anything else until that soup cooled down.
I'll try to post again before the end of the day. no time just now....
Bon Echo
 
Posts: 183
Joined: Mon Feb 11, 2013 7:39 pm

Re: Benchmark cache type

Postby KnowsOpie » Fri Nov 04, 2016 9:04 pm

Bon Echo wrote:
Mr.Yuck wrote:
They're lining up in droves to post them! They're just not people who post to internet forums. :o

Our free lancer has been delayed, so it's actually good we bought some time here. I hope to go over this thread with a fine toothed comb later today or over the weekend, and post a synopsis of what we're looking at so far.


I have at least 50 lined up to post. It's a start.
I also have a few more recommendation for things to consider - I had planned to post that a wile back but started with the whole "OCNA as owner" post and that really generated a lot of "excitement" shall we say. I didn't want to stir in anything else until that soup cooled down.
I'll try to post again before the end of the day. no time just now....


Well, no I did not like the idea of not owning my listings here, but I'm interested in hearing your input. ;) I have about six nice BM's that I have found that I would like to list here, I don't think I have even visited 50 BM's, or is actually visiting a BM part of the requirement to list them here?
Nutty as a Squirrel Turd
User avatar
KnowsOpie
 
Posts: 243
Joined: Sat Dec 11, 2010 8:39 pm

Re: Benchmark cache type

Postby Bon Echo » Fri Nov 04, 2016 9:12 pm

Manville Possum Hunters wrote:... or is actually visiting a BM part of the requirement to list them here?


See post #1:
Mr.Yuck wrote:This is coming!! Hopefully before the 1st of the year, we hope to have them fully implemented.

Background: The Groundspeak site used(s) only NGS Benchmarks (National Geodetic Survey), which of course are U.S. only. The rest of the world was left out. Not to mention in the U.S. there are State and local benchmarks, as well as Army Corps of Engineers benchmarks. Maybe more? I was never a benchmark expert.

The benchmark cache type was first proposed by former admin NativTxn probably in 2010 or 2011. The original chief site admin actually didn't like the idea at the time. However, he's long since retired, and the 3 current admins are totally on board with this idea.

Rules? Of course there will be rules. OK, guidelines.

The first (and we hope most obvious one) will be no armchair cache creations. You must have visited yourself. No copying Benchmarks off of Waymarking.com.

Comments? This is the place.


I have suggestions, they can be used or ignored, but this one is a must so I was happy to see that in the first post. I once went hunting for a number of benchmarks listed on Waymarking and all the coordinates took me to pointless locations - I suspect those benchmarks were posted using database data only, which for most horizontal control benchmarks the posted coordinates are "scaled from maps" and might be off by a few hundred meters.

Okay, a little strapped for time tonight so I will try to quickly list my other suggestions. Just thoughts / ideas.

1) no proximity limits for clearly different benchmarks. Usually they are miles apart, but occasionally they are a few feet apart or even less. If it has a unique number / name, let it stand on it's own. This will include reset disks and azimuth marks.
Example showing two unique benchmarks (one is a plate and one is a bolt) side-by-side)
https://s3.amazonaws.com/gs-waymarking-images/46069115-d078-4510-98f2-b558219ccdfe.JPG

2) Any benchmark currently listed as a virtual should not also be listed as a benchmark. It's one or the other.

3) Benchmarks that are not "national: in origin should also be accept as long as they are permanent. Some examples:
Ontario Ministry of Transportation and Communications benchmark
https://s3.amazonaws.com/gs-waymarking-images/d7fd2013-16d9-4698-b171-8630c90dab5f.jpg
City of Hamilton benchmark:
https://s3.amazonaws.com/gs-waymarking-images/e178493c-9750-4eca-9233-6c9fb6538628.JPG

4) This is important - any benchmark can only be listed if it is safely and legally accessible! There are many that exist that are not accessible.

5) Some benchmark don;t have the identifying number stamped into them, but they are still benchmarks:
Example:
U.S. Department of the Interior Mark - Yosemite, CA
https://s3.amazonaws.com/gs-waymarking-images/002cd1f5-be89-4f91-90a1-1d188e3eae61.jpeg

6) There should be a standard way to naming the listing. Unique number if there is one maybe.

7) If there is a disk that is hard to reach, such as up high on a monument or lighthouse (see examples), you can only post the BM and/or can only log a visit if you actually get to that disk. A photo of the monument from 50 feet away is no going to cut it.
http://www.waymarking.com/waymarks/WMEZ ... k_New_York
http://www.waymarking.com/waymarks/WMBZ ... eights_Ont

I don't think the OCNA-only attribute is appropriate for any of these.

What do I think is required for a listing?:
Designation / PID
Benchmark Agency
Monumentation type
Condition
Web address of this benchmark's datasheet
A description of the location and how to reach it (I think it was MPH who made that great suggestion)

And I think a photo of the benchmark with you or GPS should be required to log a visit. Or a photo at min. I don't think the markings on the benchmark can be used as a logging password since all that info will be available online (typically). And I think most benchmark enthusiasts are already used to the photo requirement.

Thanks for listening.
Bon Echo
 
Posts: 183
Joined: Mon Feb 11, 2013 7:39 pm

Re: Benchmark cache type

Postby TermiteHunter » Sat Nov 05, 2016 12:40 am

I like all that. .
I found a site that displayed on a map every bench mark near me and included a history with detailed information. I see several around. Many lost or missing over time. I have also seen a few city created in my travels. I would like to open this up to local marks that might not make the other sites lists. Photo required for listing and finding. A common format for naming and information on the mark.
I do have issues with the Web listing element for the mark. Do they all have a web based information site? Even smaller municipal agencies? It would be nice to have this part as a reference point but i question if they all do it uniformly and available to the public.

Sent from my SM-J320P using Tapatalk
User avatar
TermiteHunter
Site Admin
 
Posts: 786
Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2010 7:12 pm

Re: Benchmark cache type

Postby Bon Echo » Sat Nov 05, 2016 8:41 am

TermiteHunter wrote:I do have issues with the Web listing element for the mark. Do they all have a web based information site? Even smaller municipal agencies? It would be nice to have this part as a reference point but i question if they all do it uniformly and available to the public.


I suspect there are some benchmarks that do not have any online database. I think those should still be accepted.
Here's one I found along a public trail: https://s3.amazonaws.com/gs-geo-images/e710f3f8-a620-470f-9d68-9fce4c8c0d81.jpg

TermiteHunter wrote:I like all that. .
I found a site that displayed on a map every bench mark near me and included a history with detailed information. I see several around. Many lost or missing over time.


Yes, many are missing. And some are buried. I don't think either should be accepted
Example of one that is buried under asphalt:
http://www.waymarking.com/waymarks/WM62DH_0011922U2550_Old_General_Store_Queenston
Bon Echo
 
Posts: 183
Joined: Mon Feb 11, 2013 7:39 pm

Re: Benchmark cache type

Postby KnowsOpie » Sat Nov 05, 2016 11:35 am

Bon Echo wrote:I don't think the OCNA-only attribute is appropriate for any of these.

What do I think is required for a listing?:
Designation / PID
Benchmark Agency
Monumentation type
Condition
Web address of this benchmark's datasheet
A description of the location and how to reach it (I think it was MPH who made that great suggestion)

And I think a photo of the benchmark with you or GPS should be required to log a visit. Or a photo at min. I don't think the markings on the benchmark can be used as a logging password since all that info will be available online (typically). And I think most benchmark enthusiasts are already used to the photo requirement.


I remember when you started the thread on not turning OCNA into Waymarking. :lol: That is exactly what you are describing. Without the use of a logging pass code they are just Benchmarks and Waymarks and OCNA has nothing different to offer to these old hobbys. :oops:

The use of a fill in the blanks forms will help keep Benchmarking here formal, and that is good. And just like Waymarking, there needs to be a photo requirement from the BM submitter before it is accepted. I have never encountered armchair WM's, but it could happen with BM's.

As for the photo requirement of the finder or their GPS unit as proof? That's so like 2002, who even uses a GPS unit anymore? I don't think the "email me for the pass code" would work either. Remember how Garmin had finds vs verified finds? ;)

Waymarking has category managers that are active Benchmarkers,........ and OCNA has TermiteHunter. :P
Nutty as a Squirrel Turd
User avatar
KnowsOpie
 
Posts: 243
Joined: Sat Dec 11, 2010 8:39 pm

Re: Benchmark cache type

Postby TermiteHunter » Sun Nov 06, 2016 6:54 pm

Bon Echo wrote:<br /><br />I don't think the OCNA-only attribute is appropriate for any of these.<br /><br />What do I think is required for a listing?:<br />Designation / PID<br />Benchmark Agency<br />Monumentation type<br />Condition<br />Web address of this benchmark's datasheet <br />A description of the location and how to reach it (I think it was MPH who made that great suggestion)<br /><br />And I think a photo of the benchmark with you or GPS should be required to log a visit. Or a photo at min. I don't think the markings on the benchmark can be used as a logging password since all that info will be available online (typically). And I think most benchmark enthusiasts are already used to the photo requirement.<br />
<br /><br />I remember when you started the thread on not turning OCNA into Waymarking. :lol: That is exactly what you are describing. Without the use of a logging pass code they are just Benchmarks and Waymarks and OCNA has nothing different to offer to these old hobbys. :


Ok so we would want a password but where do you suggest that this password come from? It needs to be easy to determine when on site but not in the photos of the BM or in its data information.

What do you recommend we include (aside from opening up whole new catagories of BM's by adding more local versions) that will make it different, interesting, enticing and a reason to use over the other options?

Could still use that definition of BM vs WM.

Sent from my SM-J320P using Tapatalk
User avatar
TermiteHunter
Site Admin
 
Posts: 786
Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2010 7:12 pm

Re: Benchmark cache type

Postby KnowsOpie » Mon Nov 07, 2016 2:15 pm

I would like to have the option for a logging code, and no, not anything that you could easily find online. One idea I have is a date on a building that you can see from the BM.
The logging code would be just like any other virtual listing here, and would be optional. Any good virtual has more than just take a picture requirements.

There is not much difference between Benchmarking and Waymarking when it comes to Waymarking US and Canadian Benchmarks or playing the Benchmarking game. :lol:

With OCNA's limited resources, having an optional logging code would make BM's here different in that way only. :)
Nutty as a Squirrel Turd
User avatar
KnowsOpie
 
Posts: 243
Joined: Sat Dec 11, 2010 8:39 pm

Re: Benchmark cache type

Postby Mr.Yuck » Wed Nov 09, 2016 9:32 pm

Bon Echo wrote:
Manville Possum Hunters wrote:... or is actually visiting a BM part of the requirement to list them here?


See post #1:
Mr.Yuck wrote:This is coming!! Hopefully before the 1st of the year, we hope to have them fully implemented.

Background: The Groundspeak site used(s) only NGS Benchmarks (National Geodetic Survey), which of course are U.S. only. The rest of the world was left out. Not to mention in the U.S. there are State and local benchmarks, as well as Army Corps of Engineers benchmarks. Maybe more? I was never a benchmark expert.

The benchmark cache type was first proposed by former admin NativTxn probably in 2010 or 2011. The original chief site admin actually didn't like the idea at the time. However, he's long since retired, and the 3 current admins are totally on board with this idea.

Rules? Of course there will be rules. OK, guidelines.

The first (and we hope most obvious one) will be no armchair cache creations. You must have visited yourself. No copying Benchmarks off of Waymarking.com.

Comments? This is the place.


I have suggestions, they can be used or ignored, but this one is a must so I was happy to see that in the first post. I once went hunting for a number of benchmarks listed on Waymarking and all the coordinates took me to pointless locations - I suspect those benchmarks were posted using database data only, which for most horizontal control benchmarks the posted coordinates are "scaled from maps" and might be off by a few hundred meters.

Okay, a little strapped for time tonight so I will try to quickly list my other suggestions. Just thoughts / ideas.

1) no proximity limits for clearly different benchmarks. Usually they are miles apart, but occasionally they are a few feet apart or even less. If it has a unique number / name, let it stand on it's own. This will include reset disks and azimuth marks.
Example showing two unique benchmarks (one is a plate and one is a bolt) side-by-side)
https://s3.amazonaws.com/gs-waymarking-images/46069115-d078-4510-98f2-b558219ccdfe.JPG

2) Any benchmark currently listed as a virtual should not also be listed as a benchmark. It's one or the other.

3) Benchmarks that are not "national: in origin should also be accept as long as they are permanent. Some examples:
Ontario Ministry of Transportation and Communications benchmark
https://s3.amazonaws.com/gs-waymarking-images/d7fd2013-16d9-4698-b171-8630c90dab5f.jpg
City of Hamilton benchmark:
https://s3.amazonaws.com/gs-waymarking-images/e178493c-9750-4eca-9233-6c9fb6538628.JPG

4) This is important - any benchmark can only be listed if it is safely and legally accessible! There are many that exist that are not accessible.

5) Some benchmark don;t have the identifying number stamped into them, but they are still benchmarks:
Example:
U.S. Department of the Interior Mark - Yosemite, CA
https://s3.amazonaws.com/gs-waymarking-images/002cd1f5-be89-4f91-90a1-1d188e3eae61.jpeg

6) There should be a standard way to naming the listing. Unique number if there is one maybe.

7) If there is a disk that is hard to reach, such as up high on a monument or lighthouse (see examples), you can only post the BM and/or can only log a visit if you actually get to that disk. A photo of the monument from 50 feet away is no going to cut it.
http://www.waymarking.com/waymarks/WMEZ ... k_New_York
http://www.waymarking.com/waymarks/WMBZ ... eights_Ont

I don't think the OCNA-only attribute is appropriate for any of these.

What do I think is required for a listing?:
Designation / PID
Benchmark Agency
Monumentation type
Condition
Web address of this benchmark's datasheet
A description of the location and how to reach it (I think it was MPH who made that great suggestion)

And I think a photo of the benchmark with you or GPS should be required to log a visit. Or a photo at min. I don't think the markings on the benchmark can be used as a logging password since all that info will be available online (typically). And I think most benchmark enthusiasts are already used to the photo requirement.

Thanks for listening.


Good suggestions, and we're happy to listen! Sorry things are moving slow, I've been a little busy, and the free lancer is still on a little hiatus anyways.

I really do like the idea of ownership reverting to OCNA, but it's not like I'm totally convinced either.
ImageImage
User avatar
Mr.Yuck
Site Admin
 
Posts: 2036
Joined: Wed Aug 18, 2010 2:09 pm
Location: Buffalo, N.Y.

Re: Benchmark cache type

Postby KnowsOpie » Thu Nov 10, 2016 12:35 pm

Mr.Yuck wrote:I really do like the idea of ownership reverting to OCNA, but it's not like I'm totally convinced either.


Here is where we disagree. I would not be interested in going out and gathering data, coordinates, and my photo uploads for OCNA to post as their property.
Nutty as a Squirrel Turd
User avatar
KnowsOpie
 
Posts: 243
Joined: Sat Dec 11, 2010 8:39 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Opencaching Website

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron