many thanxxx mike
glad you liked it
& am encouraged by your interesting convergence of
dates there too
i guess the whole neighborhood got a burst of
development during this period
also
after posting the full color google satpic
i recalled the black & white terraserver images are
actually much better
http://terraserver-usa.com/image.aspx?T=1&S=12&Z=18&X=779&Y=5784&W=1&qs=%7ckent%7cct%7c
& this one clearly indicates the tripoint location
some 50 yards east of the pipeline trail rather than
in the middle of the imaginary clearcut
& a similarly short distance south of a distinctive
sharp bend in the trail
so with these improved data i ought to be able to zero
in better
even without necessarily resorting to gps
& will retry both markers 32 & 24 & report back soon
---
spookymike@... wrote:
> Mike: Nice writeup. I entered the coords of the
> marker you were seeking
> on the USGS benchmark site
> (http://www.ngs.noaa.gov/cgi-bin/ds_radius.prl)
> using a radius of 2.0 miles and found writeups for
> several markers, some of 1860s
> vintage. Unfortunately, there was no listing at
> the coords of your marker.
> Three markers, namely Clarks, Hitchcock, and Lambert
> all date to the 1860s,
> and from the descriptions, may be recoverable even
> today. Good hunting.
>
> Mike Schwartz
>
>
> In a message dated 5/15/06 12:22:09 PM,
> BoundaryPoint@yahoogroups.com writes:
>
>
> > Message 1
> > From: "aletheia kallos" aletheiak@...
> > Date: Sun May 14, 2006 7:15pm(PDT)
> > Subject: Re: out looking for us2ctny3duli4amkesh
> >
> > in a nutshell
> > the prize was elusive & i am still recuperating a
> day
> > later
> >
> > but the full report & retry plan may be of some
> > interest
> > so i will proceed with that or them below also
> >
> >
> > the only thing is
> > having multiplied myself in earnest by at least
> 2006
> > as you may already know
> > i find i am enjoying simultaneous enthusiasms at
> the
> > moment for several other things as well
> > so i will give only a foreshortened complete
> report
> > for now
> >
> > but will of course add more detail if it is indeed
> of
> > any interest to anyone but me
> >
> >
> >
> > tho my approach to the jumpoff point less than a
> dozen
> > miles from home was complicated by getting lost on
> > back roads en route to it
> > as well as by my decision to make the try without
> any
> > navigation aids
> > i did finally reach & recognize the preselected
> > parking place
> > where clark hill road crosses the state line
> > as shown on the topo that may still be linked to
> the
> > original post here near the bottom
> >
> > the large clearing depicted was in reality fenced
> &
> > posted but deserted
> >
> > & the underground gas pipeline was indicated &
> signed
> > with additional warnings
> >
> > i parked on the road just east of the standard
> 1909
> > ctny roadstone that i was not at all surprised to
> find
> > there protruding about 4 feet above the ground as
> is
> > typical
> >
> > the driveway that is depicted heading southeast
> from
> > clark hill road alongside the pipeline was gated &
> > locked
> >
> > but thru an unexpected break in the barbed wire &
> > bushes
> > i managed to pick my way into the broad clearing
> > which i took to be or to include the pipeline
> clearcut
> > & which led me easily southward just inside
> > connecticut toward where the topo shows the
> clearcut
> > narrowing & starting its descent & zigzag course
> > across the state line
> >
> > but in fact the clearing doesnt narrow there into
> > anything remotely like the deforested cut depicted
> on
> > the topo
> >
> > for the topo is flat wrong about that
> > as a later peek i got at the google satpic also
> > confirmed
> >
>
http://maps.google.com/?ll=41.799343,-73.498278&spn=0.031417,0.058537&t=h&
> > om=1
> >
> > but instead of leading to any such narrow clearcut
> > the cleared area simply ends at about that point &
> > feeds there into a woodland trail that does
> however
> > pretty much follow the depicted pipeline route
> >
> > & tho it zigzags a good deal more than the
> pipeline
> > depiction does
> > i could follow it without difficulty across both
> of
> > the brooks shown
> > exactly as i had expected to be able to follow the
> > clearcut across them
> > & so wasnt much put off by the discrepancy all
> along
> > the way
> > for the better part of a mile
> >
> > that is
> > not until i reached & began beating the bushes
> thruout
> > what i took to be the correct target area
> >
> > for there i found no boundary mark or sign or
> trace of
> > any kind
> >
> >
> > at first i supposed i just may have lost my
> bearings &
> > my way
> >
> > for i know this can so easily happen on such an
> > overcast day as it was
> >
> > but a subsequent study of the topo has convinced
> me
> > all the topography was exactly as i had expected &
> > indeed correctly found it to be
> >
> >
> > so my puzzlement at not finding a marker where
> > expected
> > even if diminished by the crudity & dubiousness of
> my
> > technique
> > was & remains great
> >
> > in fairly open woods with visibility of 100 or
> perhaps
> > even 200 feet
> > i am fairly confident there was at least no
> standard
> > chest high footsquare concrete 1909 marker
> anywhere in
> > sight
> > tho it is true i could have missed a lower & less
> > massive 1860 model
> >
> > indeed that is what i am hoping was in fact the
> case
> > & so am preparing to revisit at the next
> opportunity
> > with topo & gps in hand
> >
> >
> > but in the meantime i should probably also add
> before
> > signing off for a while on this entire topic & try
> > that i was also diligent enough while still en
> route
> > there to drive past & check out the only other
> known
> > location on ctny where the usgs indicates a
> numbered
> > marker
> >
>
http://topozone.com/map.asp?z=18&n=4635761&e=624341&s=25&size=l&datum=nad83&
> > layer=DRG25
> > & found it similarly elusive at nearly as close
> range
> > in an open meadow
> >
> > this suggests further that both of these numbered
> > markers are at least not of the highly visible
> 1909
> > persuasion
> > & to that extent they are the more likely to
> actually
> > be 1860 jobbies
>
=== message truncated ===
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com