Community Forums

Community Forums

BETA “Passive Mark ...
 
Share:
Notifications
Clear all

BETA “Passive Mark Page” - I like it.  

Page 1 / 2

GeeOddMike
Posts: 1137
Member
(@geeoddmike)
1,000+ posts
Joined: 10 years ago

https://beta.ngs.noaa.gov/datasheets/passive-marks/index.html

This page consolidates information from the data sheet and other sources into a more accessible format. It also includes items like the projects associated with the monument not on the current datasheets. 

I have only reviewed the data for the PID listed. 

I like the new format but wonder how easy it will be to write scripts to retrieve data from this format.

F2C337E5 CA49 4C44 8D9B 5230B0046B1C
4B2EB328 63B4 4488 A47A DC672D8EF857
E6AF758E 76B4 4C47 A708 F855AA2B08A3
10 Replies
Bill93
Posts: 6915
Member
(@bill93)
5,000+ posts
Joined: 10 years ago

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Disadvantages: It doesn't have everything that's on the traditional data sheet, such as superseded data, and the box score for triangulation stations.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.

 

Reply
Bill C
Posts: 156
Member
(@bill-c)
100+ posts
Joined: 5 years ago

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?

Reply

X-PAD Ultimate from iGage

Bill93
Posts: 6915
Member
(@bill93)
5,000+ posts
Joined: 10 years ago

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

Reply
GeeOddMike
Posts: 1137
Member
(@geeoddmike)
1,000+ posts
Joined: 10 years ago

First of all, I have no involvement in this effort and no inside knowledge about it. I assume that the comprehensive “traditional” 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 station’s datasheet.

I was amused to see that the sample form included a number of “not recovered”  notes ending with a “recovered as described.” 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.

 

 

 

Reply
Page 1 / 2
Scroll to Top