BETA ƒ??Passive Mark Pageƒ? - I like it.

I'm not impressed, and hope the old format doesn't go away. I don't find this any more "accessible". There are much more important things for NGS to spend their time on that creating this format.

Advantages: it includes the map, and the level line is of minor interest.

Disadvantages: It doesn't have everything that's on the traditional data sheet, such as superseded data, and the box score for triangulation stations. The information that's there is spread out so you have to learn different places to look.

?ÿ

Speaking of how NGS is spending its time, it looks like NGS is removing some recovery histories. To try the new beta site, I looked up a station I had recovered 20 years ago. I was surprised there was no longer any info for my recovery. Not only was the note gone, but also the one-line entry in the summary of recovery history. I then looked up the traditional data sheet, and it too is now lacking my recovery info. My recovery was coincidentally within several months of one by NGS. The NGS entry is still on the data sheet. Is NGS "housecleaning" the data sheets to remove redundant recoveries? Is it really worth the effort to do that?

I see little/usually no benefit from such housecleaning. I'll have to look up some of my old recoveries to compare.

First of all, I have no involvement in this effort and no inside knowledge about it. I assume that the comprehensive ƒ??traditionalƒ? datasheet will continue to exist.

I agree that including superceded data would be a desirable addition. Box scores can also be useful.

I disagree with the view that the inclusion of information about the projects associated with the monument is of minor importance. While doing a datasheet retrieval it is possible to find this information, having it on this form is a definite plus.

When trying to understand superceded positions and heights it is useful to see what projects are associated with the point. Especially when analyzing bench mark data.

I also guess that this way of presenting data would be especially useful on cell phones and similar small format screens.

Remembering that a primary mission of the NGS is to not only establish and maintain the NSRS but also make data related to it accessible to a large range of users, the way data is presented is a legitimate concern.

As for missing recoveries, in the case described I thought the long-standing policy was not to publish redundant recoveries made during a short period of time. Prioritizing agency over external recoveries is sensible. In my opinion if a recovery contained new detailed information it should be stay on the stationƒ??s datasheet.

I was amused to see that the sample form included a number of ƒ??not recoveredƒ? ?ÿnotes ending with a ƒ??recovered as described.ƒ? All by the dreaded geocache community.

I encourage those with suggestions for improvement follow up with a note to the NGS link on the page.

?ÿ

?ÿ

?ÿ

?ÿ

I just looked up one near my house that was set in 1947 and reported "not found" by NGS in 1980.

I have located it twice and sent in a report with updated dimensions. With the GPS, I can go directly to it. It's still there, just below surface.

My report is nowhere to be found on the datasheet.

Posted by: @jaro

I have located it twice and sent in a report with updated dimensions. ... My report is nowhere to be found on the datasheet.

How did you report it??ÿ I have used the web-based recovery report form and also DSWORLD, and have nearly 450 recovery reports over the years with NONE failing to show up on the data sheets.?ÿ If you just emailed the information to someone, I can see that it might get lost in the shuffle.

@bill93

I recovered it about 1989 or 1990 the first time and sent it in. We were working on an annexation that included the property that the mark sat on. The two poles were not present then. It was on the data sheet for years after that.

I found it again in 2014 and I am pretty sure it was on the data sheet then.

@bill93

I was wrong. It's still there. I couldn't get the map page to come up this morning so I selected the point off the list and got the wrong one.

The map page is working now and I got the right one this time.

I see some room for improvement, but I like the direction it is going. I see that there is a link provided to get the traditional datasheet, so that answers that question. I like the picture and map up front.?ÿ

I'm not seeing SP coordinates or values in feet. That would be handy.?ÿ

Recoveries by the Power Squadron and/or geocachers are useful, but not as much as those by surveyors. Possibly only the most recent such recoveries should be listed. Multiple recoveries and superceded data is sometimes useful, but as long as it is on the datasheet it doesn't need to be here.

I finally got around to viewing the new format on my smartphone. On my Android phone, the new format displays splendidly. The standard datasheet not so much.

I agree that SPCs would be a reasonable additional item. I agree also that a truncated list of recoveries would be desirable.?ÿ

One last remark, I always take remarks indicating that a monument was not recovered and that it is suitable/unsuitable for GPS observations with a grain of salt. I have certainly found many ƒ??goneƒ? monuments and found monuments suitable for GPS to be monuments mounted vertically in a building or placed within .3m of a pole.

I have suggested that NGS start including visibility diagrams as links in the current datasheet or on the new format.

?ÿ