Trying to bring up NGS datasheets.?ÿ Can get to the correct PID but when I select it and hit Get Datasheets it goes bonkers.?ÿ An almost blank page appears that says datasheet retrieval has started but 15 minutes later nothing has appeared.?ÿ Have tried this for several different benchmarks in different counties.?ÿ No help at all.
What's the PID?
The usual route from the top level to search by PID worked fine for me just now.?ÿ You must have hit the special secret number.
The other route to try when you know the PID is to edit this line in the browser.?ÿ I put spaces in it to keep it from being a link
https://w?ÿ?ÿ?ÿ ww.ngs.noaa.gov/cgi-bin/ds_mark.prl?PidBox=aa3904
Tried your method.?ÿ Replaced aa3904 with CL5951.?ÿ Same results as earlier.
Try CL 4572.?ÿ Same problem.?ÿ It goes to the correct page but never delivers the info.
CL____ is usually a non-published mark such as a reference mark to a tri-station.
I didn't have any delay using the data explorer map at https://www.ngs.noaa.gov/NGSDataExplorer/
@dave-drahn
Neither of the two PID's above show up.?ÿ Perhaps they don't appear unless they have been updated to NAVD 88.
Another consultant called this morning needing a valid benchmark for elevation about three blocks from the location of CL 4572 which appears as RM 3 on older FIRM maps of the town.?ÿ I have used that benchmark probably 10 times over the past couple of decades.?ÿ Most benchmarks in that area that have been updated have a number about 0.42 feet higher than the old number.?ÿ Today, I couldn't find any of my notes in a hurry.?ÿ So headed out to NGS and came up blank.
The first is RM 1 for that town and sets adjacent to the city building.?ÿ The other is RM 3 for that different town.?ÿ Both appeared with the numbers on older FIRM's for each town.?ÿ Neither has been updated, however, I am assuming.
Both appeared with the numbers on older FIRM's for each town. Neither has been updated, however, I am assuming.
I doubt you ever had an NGS elevation for those.?ÿ It's not a matter of updates.?ÿ I think NGS still shows any data they had, with a code following it to indicate how it was obtained and thus the expected accuracy.?ÿ Some local work may have gotten numbers for the FIRM.
Went to the same town as CL 5951 to pull up what was there by way of the NGS data explorer.?ÿ The first two I clicked on have been updated, but the mark was not found in 1980 during most recent search.?ÿ Finally found one that was still found in 2007 with updated data.?ÿ New numbers versus old numbers are about 0.45 higher.
Always before when I went in search of this information there was some information provided, even if it was 60 years out of date.?ÿ This is the first time I've gone searching for datasheets that I have used in the past and they will not come up.?ÿ That's what surprised me.?ÿ Heck some of the old benchmarks were on bridges that have been torn out and replaced, so truly of no value, but they were still listed.
The current list includes the ones cited above but when you go for the data you get nothing.
Are you saying you have in the past gotten NGS data sheets with elevations for CL____ marks??ÿ I find that unusual. Those PIDs are typically used for reference marks or TBMs that do not have elevations adjusted in NGS runs.?ÿ Some tools show those and other tools don't.
By "updated" do you mean having NAVD88 elevations or something else?
A "NOT FOUND" log is not always proof the mark is gone, particularly if it was submitted by the Power Squadron.?ÿ It is rare to find one still there but having that notation by NGS or USGS, but that has happened, too.
Yes, updated to NAVD 88 elevations.
The 261 benchmarks listed in one county only has 33 that appear to be adjusted to 88 elevations.?ÿ In the past I could click on any of those 261 and information would be provided on the location, driving directions, etc. etc.?ÿ That no longer appears to be the case.
If you search in some manner to see the CL, CN, or CQ marks in the list that you can select on, you can see that they have no entries under H or V Class, nor Vertical Source.?ÿ If they once had C&GS/NGS data, and that data was no longer considered valid, there would be another code in the H and V columns (probably D, N, or X) to indicate that.
I also see BN____ entries which are Temporary Bench Marks that never got a data sheet.
I'm not used to seeing the RM and TBMs appearing in the list, so something has changed in the displaying of the list since I used it extensively.
I do see some in the selection list with regular HE____ PIDs and noted as 29 elevations, that were omitted from the NAVD88 adjustment for whatever reason. Those typically have a data sheet with a NAVD88 elevation coded as VERTCON, which means it is not a very accurate adjusted value but uses a typical offset like the 0.45 you mention.
Thanks for the explanation, Bill.?ÿ I use these several times per year but not frequently enough to have done more than just read what I find to be useful.
