NGS Benchmarks finds

[tubeex1995]

Why don't NGS Benchmarks count in your List of Geocaches found(s)?

[+Road Rabbit]

Why don't NGS Benchmarks count in your List of Geocaches found(s)?

 

Hmm... Maybe because they're not geocaches. Wherigos and Waymarks don't count either.

[+ecanderson]

Why don't NGS Benchmarks count in your List of Geocaches found(s)?

No way to verify the visit.

[+JJTally]

I didn't realize that Wherigos dont count. Why do they show up on the geocaching website then?

[+flask]

Why don't NGS Benchmarks count in your List of Geocaches found(s)?

No way to verify the visit.

 

that's just silly. of course you can verify the visit.

 

directly to the question, however: they don't count as cache finds because they're not caches.

 

they DO count toward your total of benchmark finds.

[+Cache O'Plenty]

Well, they aren't GeoCaches. They aren't placed or maintained by cachers.

[+Allanon]

I didn't realize that Wherigos dont count. Why do they show up on the geocaching website then?

Wherigo Caches DO count in the stats, just not plain Wherigo carts.

[+ecanderson]

 

that's just silly. of course you can verify the visit.

Silly? Nice. Moving on to establish your unnamed mechanism for verification...

 

By what means? The non-existent log? The information on the BM that is already published on the USGS page for the BM? About all you could do is require that the finder submit a photo to (someone/somewhere).

 

Think back. Virtuals were never "caches", either, but BMs were never afforded any "find" status back when virtuals were still being accepted at gc.com and logged as "finds". The difference is that while some virtuals required no confirmation information by the finder to the CO, most did, and there was no mechanism in place at ALL for similar confirmation for benchmarks.

[+flask]

the standard verification of a benchmark visit in terms of identifying its position for purposes of confirming its placement is to submit a photo of the mark and a photo of its surrounding area. this is common practice.

 

if it were required to verify one's presence at the location, one could easily submit also a photo of oneself at the mark, along with a photo of the GPS showing location and date.

 

it is possible to fake ANY log if one tries hard enough, and that includes logs for physical caches.

 

 

since the goal among most benchmarkers is the identification of the mark, the importance of proving oneself to have been there is of less importance than confirming the presence or absence of the mark.

 

so while there is in fact a mechanism for proving one's visit, a benchmark is still not a cache and should not be counted as such.

[+ecanderson]

 

so while there is in fact a mechanism for proving one's visit, a benchmark is still not a cache and should not be counted as such.

The point wasn't whether a mechanism could be instituted at gc.com to make verification possible - it was whether there was any mechanism currently in place that could be used. There isn't. With no mechanism in place, gc.com doesn't include them in the count. It's not just because they aren't "caches"... after all ... there's those pesky virtuals still in play that are counted. You haven't addressed this virtual vs. benchmark, and why one was afforded the status of "findable" and the other never was.

 

Of some interest, your definition of a "cache" makes the argument to stop counting (or in fact remove from the count) all virtuals as finds as well. Perhaps that would be a good thing, perhaps not, but the argument that "a benchmark is still not a cache" is equally applicable to virtuals, but for 'numbers' purposes, they are treated very differently at gc.com.

 

I still maintain that there is a reasonably clear distinction: With virtuals, the "cache" page owner can employ a "send me info" for verification, controls the gc.com listing, and can decide whether visit took place on that basis. Few virtuals operate on the honor system. No such mechanisms exist for benchmarks.

Edited September 23, 2009 by ecanderson

[+Harry Dolphin]

the standard verification of a benchmark visit in terms of identifying its position for purposes of confirming its placement is to submit a photo of the mark and a photo of its surrounding area. this is common practice.

 

Which would, of course, negate many 'finds'. A very large percentage of 'finds' do not contain photos. Many contain photos that are of something other than the benchmark. I've even seen a few caches that proclaim "Log the nearby benchmark while you're here." What is nearby is not the benchmark! RM 2 is not the benchmark. (The benchmark is either destroyed, or under the pavement of the parking lot.) The reset is not the benchmark (unless so specified.)

And, as is mentioned, there is no way to delete erroneous finds, or 'finds' without photos.

My favorite example of this is: LY2611. This one has 87 "finds". Thirteen of which contain photos. This appears last to have been found in 1991, before the parking lot was paved over. None of the 87 finds is valid. None of the photos show the benchmark. And, this despite several notes explaining the reason that the benchmark cannot be found. The "finds" are for either of the reference marks. (One of which has its own PID.)

Part of the fault is due to the nearby geocache Tri-State Cache which proclaims that this benchmark can be found nearby.

There are benchmrks that have far more erroneous 'finds' by geocachers than that!

There is no way to eliminate these wrong finds. If you send a note to the erroneous loggers, you will find that they do not care.

This is not to downplay the important contributions that geocachers/benchmarkers have made to NGS. And NGS is very grateful for the assistance that we provide.

It is also noted that OP did not supply any photos for the benchmarks that he found. Thus no one can verify them, if there were someone who controlled benchmark finds.

Benchmarking, as I see it, is a pubic service to NGS, and shows geocachers other fun things to do with your GPS. (I've had a lot of fun with the 700, or so, that I've logged!)

But they are not caches.

[+Astro_D]

While I am an avid benchmark hunter, I do not want to see them count in the finds. Simply because most of the benchmarks are logged found when in fact they are not. Most common logging error: loogging a mark because one happens to be at or very near the coordinates. While that may be, the stamping could be different, the agency that placed it could be different, or its a reset etc etc etc. My experience, most cachers find them to add the icon to their stats and could care less if it's the correct mark or not. I would not to see this become even more widespread should they be counted in the find totals.

[+flask]

 

so while there is in fact a mechanism for proving one's visit, a benchmark is still not a cache and should not be counted as such.

The point wasn't whether a mechanism could be instituted at gc.com to make verification possible - it was whether there was any mechanism currently in place that could be used. There isn't. With no mechanism in place, gc.com doesn't include them in the count. It's not just because they aren't "caches"... after all ... there's those pesky virtuals still in play that are counted. You haven't addressed this virtual vs. benchmark, and why one was afforded the status of "findable" and the other never was.

 

Of some interest, your definition of a "cache" makes the argument to stop counting (or in fact remove from the count) all virtuals as finds as well. Perhaps that would be a good thing, perhaps not, but the argument that "a benchmark is still not a cache" is equally applicable to virtuals, but for 'numbers' purposes, they are treated very differently at gc.com.

 

I still maintain that there is a reasonably clear distinction: With virtuals, the "cache" page owner can employ a "send me info" for verification, controls the gc.com listing, and can decide whether visit took place on that basis. Few virtuals operate on the honor system. No such mechanisms exist for benchmarks.

 

the truth is that there's no specific mechanism INSTITUTED here to prove cache finds, either.

 

it is up to the cache owner to determine the legitimacy of your find, which is every bit as liquid as posting photos of recovered benchmarks.

 

i do not believe that i have anywhere defined a cache, but rather simply said that a benchmark isn't one. for me to tell you that an elephant is not a sandwich does not define sandwich.

 

is there a particular reason you need to argue the point that benchmark recovery can't be proved and therefore benchmarks shouldn't be included in the find count as opposed to the point that bechmarks aren't caches and therefore shouldn't be included in the find count?

 

what's your point? bench marks aren't caches, or benchmark recovery can't be proved?

 

do you have a point? or are you eraser at both ends?

[+ecanderson]

 

so while there is in fact a mechanism for proving one's visit, a benchmark is still not a cache and should not be counted as such.

The point wasn't whether a mechanism could be instituted at gc.com to make verification possible - it was whether there was any mechanism currently in place that could be used. There isn't. With no mechanism in place, gc.com doesn't include them in the count. It's not just because they aren't "caches"... after all ... there's those pesky virtuals still in play that are counted. You haven't addressed this virtual vs. benchmark, and why one was afforded the status of "findable" and the other never was.

 

Of some interest, your definition of a "cache" makes the argument to stop counting (or in fact remove from the count) all virtuals as finds as well. Perhaps that would be a good thing, perhaps not, but the argument that "a benchmark is still not a cache" is equally applicable to virtuals, but for 'numbers' purposes, they are treated very differently at gc.com.

 

I still maintain that there is a reasonably clear distinction: With virtuals, the "cache" page owner can employ a "send me info" for verification, controls the gc.com listing, and can decide whether visit took place on that basis. Few virtuals operate on the honor system. No such mechanisms exist for benchmarks.

 

the truth is that there's no specific mechanism INSTITUTED here to prove cache finds, either.

 

it is up to the cache owner to determine the legitimacy of your find, which is every bit as liquid as posting photos of recovered benchmarks.

 

i do not believe that i have anywhere defined a cache, but rather simply said that a benchmark isn't one. for me to tell you that an elephant is not a sandwich does not define sandwich.

 

is there a particular reason you need to argue the point that benchmark recovery can't be proved and therefore benchmarks shouldn't be included in the find count as opposed to the point that bechmarks aren't caches and therefore shouldn't be included in the find count?

 

what's your point? bench marks aren't caches, or benchmark recovery can't be proved?

 

do you have a point? or are you eraser at both ends?

 

Yes, there's a point. I suspect others may have noted it.

 

Your argument that benchmarks don't count solely because they are not caches is flawed as is evidenced by the fact that gc.com, for better or worse, continues to count virtuals in the total "finds" - virtuals which are no more "caches" than benchmarks. The logic of the situation therefore requires that some additional criterion applies.

 

Clearly, the presence of a physical cache was not and does not remain the final arbiter of a "countworthiness". There were other considerations when gc.com chose at one time to include virtuals in the count, but never chose to include benchmarks - even while new virtuals were still being admitted to the database.

 

Given this, I felt (and feel) free to posit an alternate explanation for the original adoption and current retention of virtuals as "countable finds" based upon certain obvious differences between them.

 

the truth is that there's no specific mechanism INSTITUTED here to prove cache finds, either.

 

Of course there is, within reason, of course. The requirement exists to sign a physical log that can later be physically reviewed by the owner if desired. It is commonly understood that in the event an owner cannot find a corresponding signature to an online log for a physical cache, the deletion of the online log is permitted. The physical logging requirement isn't in the least bit vague. In the case of virtuals, an owner may request sufficient information by email to demonstrate (again, within reason) that the finder actually visited the site, else a log may be deleted. I say "within reason", since it is obvious that cache signatures can be forged, and the requisite information for a virtual obtained from some other source that requires no visit. And neither really require the cache owner to do anything at all.

 

I didn't suggest that the mechanisms were bulletproof -- only that they exist, even if for the sake of appearances (!)

 

By contrast, for benchmarks, there is simply no responsible individual to manage those tasks, hence no 3rd party to manage verification to keep everyone honest. There, I've said it. There's something lurking underneath all of this...

 

Why would any verification would ever be considered useful or necessary in the first place? [and that is perhaps the real underlying point the whole discussion] I'm sure that gc.com understood full well that by publishing "numbers" as they do, it helped to increase and to maintain their customer base. It doesn't matter to many of us what sort of visits they count or don't count, but it does matter to a lot of other folks, and gc.com plays that card very well. In order for that concept to play well to the counting masses, at least some means was necessary to present at least an appearance of a level playing field. Without that, the "competition" would fall into total disarray, and a fair bit of the business model right along with it.

 

Benchmark finds just don't (presently) fit into that business model. Too difficult to control - or at least appear to control.

Edited September 24, 2009 by ecanderson

[AZcachemeister]

A benchmark is an unmonitored virtual, therefore it doesn't count as a cache find.

 

As the finned one points out, it would take a large team many days to delete all the bogus benchmark finds on Geocaching.com, if there were a provision for such a process.

I would like to be the fist to volunteer for that job, nonetheless!

 

As flask says, cachers can certainly verify the proper findature of a particular benchmark with documentary photographs.

 

Virtual caches DO count because there is (supposedly) a human owner (behind the curtain) checking the logs...someone who can (and hopefully will) delete those that do not qualify.

[+ecanderson]

A benchmark is an unmonitored virtual, therefore it doesn't count as a cache find.

There you go, AZ, simplifying my diatribe! The operative word is indeed "unmonitored". Thanks for getting to the meat of it.

 

I think the fact that the whole armchair virtual thing got out of control as it did probably put the nail in the coffin (R.I.P. 2005) of new virtual placements, too - for the same reason. You can bet that the grandfathering process was only to avoid the howling that would have resulted otherwise. Consistency of approach was less important.

[+flask]

the reason virtuals (grandfathered) count is that back inna olden days TPTB were on record as encouraging people to be creative about what constituted a cache.

 

that didn't work so well in the long run and the terms were narrowed.

 

keeping existing virtuals was kind of a compromise measure.

 

you make it sound like benchmarks not being caches is some kind of weird argument i dreamed up to counter virtuals.

 

while the mechanisms in place to verify cache finds exists, photographic proof of benchmark recovery is just as reliable and is in common practice by serious benchmark hunters. i'll venture a guess that for every poorly documented benchmark find, there's a cache out there whose owner does not verify logs.

 

so, eraser-on-both-ends, can you explain why you're still harping on benchmarks being unverifiable, or is this whole thread a "bring back virts"/ "eliminate grandfathered virts" misdirection?

 

benchmarks are not caches. nobody really cares that they aren't except you. fire hydrants are not caches, either, and yet you can document that you were at one.

 

would you like those listed on the site too so you can complain pointlessly about them being counted/unverifiable/proof that virts are not caches?

 

what exactly are you trying to say, eraser-at-both-ends? your circular argument seems to go nowhere and your desired result is so far lost down the spiraling vortex of your "reasoning" that while i understand that you're saying

 

1 ) virts aren't caches

2) benchmarks are unverifiable

3 ) caches are verifiable

 

i can't sort out what possible point you're trying to make. perhaps if you were broken in two the loose ends might be sharpened and there might be a point.

 

benchmarks are not caches. they are not intended to be caches, and therefore are not administered like caches.

 

would you like them to be administered?

 

virts were intended as a cache type and are administered as such.

 

are you trying to get them to go away?

 

it is possible to falsify cache logs and in fact this is done all the time.

 

are you trying to get cache owners to be more diligent?

 

eraser-at-both-ends? what's your point?

[+fegan]

Why don't NGS Benchmarks count in your List of Geocaches found(s)?

Because they aren't geocaches.

[+ecanderson]

the reason virtuals (grandfathered) count is that back inna olden days TPTB were on record as encouraging people to be creative about what constituted a cache.

 

that didn't work so well in the long run and the terms were narrowed.

 

keeping existing virtuals was kind of a compromise measure.

I'll buy the "that didn't work so well" part.

 

you make it sound like benchmarks not being caches is some kind of weird argument i dreamed up to counter virtuals.

Not at all. I've done nothing more than point out that if lack of a proper cache were the problem, as you have maintained, gc.com would likely have permitted "owners"/logs/pages/finds of benchmarks as well. The gc.com numbers game isn't appropriate for "unsupervised" caches, and as a result, the counts are not included. That's my only argument with you. We do not agree on why one is counted and the other is not. Remember, your original statement was to the effect that "no cache = no count". Again, were that true, virtuals would never had been counted, either. There's a bit more to the equation, that's all.

 

while the mechanisms in place to verify cache finds exists, photographic proof of benchmark recovery is just as reliable and is in common practice by serious benchmark hunters.

No doubt. And if gc.com was interested in implementing such a system (remember, I didn't say they couldn't, just that they did NOT do so), benchmarks would be just as countable as any virtual by your logic -- or should I say, uncountable in either case? Neither is a cache. Just pointing out the inconsistency of both the your argument and the logic at gc.com that continues to count virts.

 

so, eraser-on-both-ends, can you explain why you're still harping on benchmarks being unverifiable, or is this whole thread a "bring back virts"/ "eliminate grandfathered virts" misdirection?

Are you always such an insulting dolt? Geez. Give the eraser a break, will you? That's more than once.

 

Quite the contrary. No, I'm not interested in "bring back virts". That virts were and continue to be counted does demonstrate that lack of the physical existence of a "cache" isn't why a benchmark isn't counted now. Personally, I think gc.com goofed with virts, and continues to do so.

 

benchmarks are not caches. nobody really cares that they aren't except you.

Quite to the contrary, I DO care that they aren't caches. I also care that your original statement about benchmarks was incorrect. Sorry, but you're arguing a point I'm not even making.

 

1 ) virts aren't caches

2) benchmarks are unverifiable

3 ) caches are verifiable

 

Nope. Not even close. Try this instead - MY ORIGINAL POINT (from the beginning) HAS BEEN:

 

1) You claim that benchmarks can't be counted specifically because they are not caches.

2) Virts aren't caches either (hence the key word "virtual"). They have always been counted and continue to be counted.

 

3) By a simple and very short non-leap of logic, your claim 1) is put to rest by fact 2). I don't know how else to say it. Note that I never said that #2 made any sense to me. It just is what it is.

 

All of my later thoughts about why gc.com managed these things the way they did (e.g., allowing virtuals in find counts, but never adopting any 3rd party monitoring mechanism of a similar sort for benchmarks) over the years are just that -- my thoughts and nothing more. Unlike the simple two step IF THEN logic above, those thoughts are certainly subject to debate since I infer a great deal about gc.com's motivations for a number of things.

 

eraser-at-both-ends? what's your point?

If I were an admin, you'd have the PM by now. Different point, different subject.

 

As I review the virtual business, I guess I'm almost surprised that the benchmark reporting portion of gc.com didn't get migrated over to Waymarking.com as well as its own category. They're a lot more interesting to many of us than a list of every McDonald's in the universe (they have 2100+ McDonald's noted there to date). I used to look for benchmarks with compass and USGS topo maps "back in the day".

 

Benchmarks are, as you say, NOT caches. They're kind of a square peg in gc.com's round hole, but would be "ownable" and "countable" at Waymarking.com with that site's unique set of rules.

 

Notes to all: Benchmark logs at gc.com don't add to the existing body of knowledge at the NGS. To provide the information to those that actually use it, reporting must also be done directly to NGS at http://www.ngs.noaa.gov/ngs-cgi-bin/recvy_entry_www.prl Note in Q2 of that form a set of radio buttons the agency code GEOCAC. Select that one if submitting a report. Note also that if the status of the benchmark has not changed and has been noted as found (recovered, as they call it) at any time within the last 12 months, you should not add yet another report to the collection. This keeps them from getting swamped.

[+Astro_D]

.

 

As I review the virtual business, I guess I'm almost surprised that the benchmark reporting portion of gc.com didn't get migrated over to Waymarking.com as well as its own category. They're a lot more interesting to many of us than a list of every McDonald's in the universe (they have 2100+ McDonald's noted there to date). I used to look for benchmarks with compass and USGS topo maps "back in the day".

 

Benchmarks are, as you say, NOT caches. They're kind of a square peg in gc.com's round hole, but would be "ownable" and "countable" at Waymarking.com with that site's unique set of rules.

 

Notes to all: Benchmark logs at gc.com don't add to the existing body of knowledge at the NGS. To provide the information to those that actually use it, reporting must also be done directly to NGS at http://www.ngs.noaa.gov/ngs-cgi-bin/recvy_entry_www.prl Note in Q2 of that form a set of radio buttons the agency code GEOCAC. Select that one if submitting a report. Note also that if the status of the benchmark has not changed and has been noted as found (recovered, as they call it) at any time within the last 12 months, you should not add yet another report to the collection. This keeps them from getting swamped.

 

 

I would definitely quit looking for benchmarks if they ever go to the Waymarking site.

 

I also think some other things to consider is that the Benchmark database on GC.com is static. It has not not been updated since it was pulled and that was back in 2000 I think. As far as I know, there are no plans for ever doing an update. The GC.com benchmark database does not contain all the benchmarks out there to find. (Quite a common question on the benchmark forum). And well, the only benchmarks I've seen listed on GC.com are those located in the U.S. So how would that affect a good chunk of the world's geocachers if only a certain country would have benchmarks included in their find count? Add to it there is no way to 'police' the logs as the benchmarks do not and cannot be owned by any one cacher(s). Although, like AZ, I would volunteer to police!! To me that's the crux of why they are not counted.

Edited September 24, 2009 by AstroD-Team

[+ecanderson]

I also think some other things to consider is that the Benchmark database on GC.com is static. It has not not been updated since it was pulled and that was back in 2000 I think. As far as I know, there are no plans for ever doing an update. The GC.com benchmark database does not contain all the benchmarks out there to find.

True enough. They got what NGS had, but that left out a TON of the sort of benchmarks I used to find on USGS topo maps as a kid since those weren't part of the NGS database to begin with. And as you say, no updates. Still, it makes for a pretty large list to find!

 

Add to it there is no way to 'police' the logs as the benchmarks do not and cannot be owned by any one cacher(s). Although, like AZ, I would volunteer to police!! To me that's the crux of why they are not counted.

I'd have to go along with that, although it would be difficult to do without taking a different approach than that to which we've become accustomed for caches. There are so many photos of various benchmarks out there that it would be pretty well impossible to use any of the readable information from them that isn't in their individual sheets (posted by NGS) to use as a point of confirmation. An on-site photo of the finder along with another clear photo of the marker is about all you could use.

[+Sagefox]

Why don't NGS Benchmarks count in your List of Geocaches found(s)?

Because they aren't geocaches.

 

Exactly. They are benchmarks.

 

Why would anyone think a benchmark should count as a geocache find?

[+Sagefox]

A benchmark is an unmonitored virtual, therefore it doesn't count as a cache find.

 

A benchmark is a benchmark, therefore it doesn't count as a cache find.

[+agentmancuso]

Why would anyone think a benchmark should count as a geocache find?

 

A good question. It's like asking "Why aren't fridges included in geocaching totals?" Very bizarre.

 

A much better question would be "Why are some benchmarks from just one single country listed here at all?"

I know there's history behind it. But as already stated, the logical step would have been to move the whole set to 'Waymarking'.

 

(Not that I have much time for 'Waymarking' either - it's an utter shambles. Just my personal opinion )

[Wintertime]

Notes to all: Benchmark logs at gc.com don't add to the existing body of knowledge at the NGS. To provide the information to those that actually use it, reporting must also be done directly to NGS at http://www.ngs.noaa.gov/ngs-cgi-bin/recvy_entry_www.prl Note in Q2 of that form a set of radio buttons the agency code GEOCAC. Select that one if submitting a report. Note also that if the status of the benchmark has not changed and has been noted as found (recovered, as they call it) at any time within the last 12 months, you should not add yet another report to the collection. This keeps them from getting swamped.

In addition to the above advice, I would strongly recommend that anyone considering filing reports with NGS first read the FAQs on the Geocaching.com Benchmarks page, and maybe also run your first couple of reports past the folks on the Benchmark Hunting forum. There are a lot of "gotchas" in submitting reports that are not immediately obvious to those just starting out. Or even sometimes, to those who've been at it for years!

 

Patty

[+Stargazer22]

Why don't NGS Benchmarks count in your List of Geocaches found(s)?

Because they aren't geocaches.

 

Exactly. They are benchmarks.

 

Why would anyone think a benchmark should count as a geocache find?

 

They aren't counted because they aren't geocaches.

Is there an echo in here??

[+Road Rabbit]

Why don't NGS Benchmarks count in your List of Geocaches found(s)?

Because they aren't geocaches.

 

Exactly. They are benchmarks.

 

Why would anyone think a benchmark should count as a geocache find?

 

They aren't counted because they aren't geocaches.

Is there an echo in here??

Gee. Wish I'd said that!

[AZcachemeister]

... Benchmark logs at gc.com don't add to the existing body of knowledge at the NGS.

 

But, there are many professionals who DO know about the benchmark hunting side of Geocaching, who DO look at our reports for information, and (most importantly) properly done photos. You can bet they know a bogus benchmark report when they see one, too.

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think any 'items' (virtuals or reverse locationless) were actually moved to Waymarking. We were just told that there was the palace to do those kinds of things, no more virtuals were approved and the locationless were shut down and locked.

 

I believe all Waymarks have an 'owner' (someone who developed the Waymark, and is responsible for the logs posted on it). Who would be the owner of the benchmark database, if it were somehow moved to Waymarking?

[+agentmancuso]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think any 'items' (virtuals or reverse locationless) were actually moved to Waymarking. We were just told that there was the palace to do those kinds of things, no more virtuals were approved and the locationless were shut down and locked.

 

I believe all Waymarks have an 'owner' (someone who developed the Waymark, and is responsible for the logs posted on it). Who would be the owner of the benchmark database, if it were somehow moved to Waymarking?

 

You're quite right about Waymarking - existing stuff wasn't moved.

 

I guess whoever manually entered each benchmark would be the 'owner' of that Waymark, though the group's management structure can retain a tight control over format etc. All very time consuming and, in the end, rather pointless in my own experience.