I include part of an NGS data sheet showing GOOD logs by someone from a large surveying company for the wrong disk.
?ÿIf it isn??t what was described, then it isn??t ??found GOOD.? At least if they tried to use the data sheet elevation they found it to be feet off and not a small difference that would be hard to track down.
MH0035 HISTORY?ÿ?ÿ?ÿ?ÿ - 1934?ÿ?ÿ ?ÿ ?ÿ ?ÿ ?ÿ?ÿ MONUMENTED?ÿ?ÿ?ÿ?ÿ?ÿ?ÿ CGS
MH0035 HISTORY?ÿ?ÿ?ÿ?ÿ - 1982?ÿ?ÿ ?ÿ ?ÿ ?ÿ ?ÿ ?ÿ GOOD?ÿ?ÿ?ÿ?ÿ?ÿ?ÿ ?ÿ ?ÿ ?ÿ ?ÿ ?ÿ ?ÿ ?ÿ ?ÿ ?ÿ?ÿ?ÿ?ÿ NGS
MH0035 HISTORY?ÿ?ÿ?ÿ?ÿ - 20020308 GOOD?ÿ?ÿ?ÿ?ÿ?ÿ?ÿ?ÿ?ÿ ?ÿ ?ÿ ?ÿ ?ÿ ?ÿ ?ÿ ?ÿ?ÿ ?ÿ?ÿ JCLS
MH0035 HISTORY?ÿ?ÿ?ÿ?ÿ - 20020315 GOOD?ÿ?ÿ?ÿ?ÿ?ÿ?ÿ?ÿ?ÿ?ÿ ?ÿ ?ÿ ?ÿ ?ÿ ?ÿ ?ÿ ?ÿ?ÿ ?ÿ JCLS
MH0035MH0035?ÿ?ÿ?ÿ?ÿ?ÿ?ÿ?ÿ?ÿ?ÿ?ÿ?ÿ?ÿ?ÿ?ÿ?ÿ?ÿ?ÿ?ÿ?ÿ?ÿ?ÿ?ÿ?ÿ?ÿ STATION DESCRIPTION
...
MH0035'AT A 15-FOOT CONCRETE DECK HIGHWAY BRIDGE, IN THE TOP OF THE SOUTHWEST
MH0035'END OF THE NORTHEAST CONCRETE WINGWALL, AND ABOUT 1 FOOT LOWER
MH0035'THAN THE RAIL. A STANDARD DISK, STAMPED S 85 1934.
MH0035
MH0035?ÿ?ÿ?ÿ?ÿ?ÿ?ÿ?ÿ?ÿ?ÿ?ÿ?ÿ?ÿ?ÿ?ÿ?ÿ?ÿ?ÿ?ÿ?ÿ?ÿ?ÿ?ÿ?ÿ?ÿ STATION RECOVERY (1982)
MH0035'RECOVERY NOTE BY NATIONAL GEODETIC SURVEY 1982
...?ÿ?ÿ NORTH FROM THE CENTERLINEMH0035'OF THE STREET ... AT THE WEST END OF THE
MH0035'NORTHEAST WINGWALL
MH0035
MH0035?ÿ?ÿ?ÿ?ÿ?ÿ?ÿ?ÿ?ÿ?ÿ?ÿ?ÿ?ÿ?ÿ?ÿ?ÿ?ÿ?ÿ?ÿ?ÿ?ÿ?ÿ?ÿ?ÿ?ÿ STATION RECOVERY (2002)
MH0035'RECOVERY NOTE BY JOHN CHANCE LAND SURVEYS INC 2002 (MRY)
MH0035'THIS STATION HAS BEEN RESET. STAMPING ON DISK IS Z 85 RESET 1987.
MH0035
MH0035?ÿ?ÿ ?ÿ?ÿ?ÿ?ÿ?ÿ?ÿ?ÿ?ÿ?ÿ?ÿ?ÿ?ÿ?ÿ?ÿ?ÿ?ÿ?ÿ?ÿ?ÿ?ÿ?ÿSTATION RECOVERY (2002)
MH0035'RECOVERY NOTE BY JOHN CHANCE LAND SURVEYS INC 2002
MH0035'RECOVERED IN GOOD CONDITION.
My planned log may go into too much detail?
?ÿNOT FOUND
?ÿNo bridge or large old concrete found north of the projected C/L of Clark Street, and no disk found on present culvert headwall where Clark St bends to meet the highway. This lack plus presence of a RESET disk strongly suggest original was destroyed when the bypass highway was built essentially on old railroad location, and Clark Street bend added.
The 2002 logs apply to a RESET not in the data base, and a few feet lower than original. Perhaps the DOT has a good elevation.
?ÿThe newer mark is an NGS Vertical Control disk stamped Z 85 RESET 1987, found 35 ft west of the rim of a manhole beside bend of Clark St., 30 ft NW of the end of a culvert under Clark, 28 ft west of a light pole, 26 ft south of curb of Clark, and 1 ft east of a witness post, in a large concrete post projecting slightly above the surface, HH2 N 41 30 49.8 W092 04 15.1
That looks like a good non-recovery note to me. I agree they should have known better.
Would that mean that they reset it in 1987 before the old one was destroyed??ÿ Perhaps they forgot to, or didn't have the means to blue-book the reset monument in 1987??ÿ Hopefully whoever set /reset it has the data.?ÿ Was it a DOT Project??ÿ If so it might be on their construction plans from '87.
(or am I misunderstanding the post?)
Would that mean that they reset it in 1987 before the old one was destroyed??ÿ Perhaps they forgot to, or didn't have the means to blue-book the reset monument in 1987??ÿ Hopefully whoever set /reset it has the data.?ÿ Was it a DOT Project??ÿ If so it might be on their construction plans from '87.
(or am I misunderstanding the post?)
My best guess is that the DOT did the reset in 1987 before road construction and has/had the data, but never submitted it to NGS or didn't follow all the rules for NGS to use it.?ÿ I don't know exactly when the road work was done, but I'm pretty sure I used the old route through town sometime in the 1980's and the new bypass route sometime in the 1990's.
Whatever happened, the non-DOT surveyor or tech should know that the reset couldn't have the same elevation as the original, and shouldn't log it as if they were interchangeable.
