Published another NZ trig
Posted: 27 October 17 7:09 am
It's hard to know what could be considered a trig in NZ. Having a top doesn't necessary make it a trig. I've seen lowly rated ones with vanes, or beacons as they are called, and higher rated ones as just a flat metal survey mark. Yes, saying survey mark, as I've yet to actually see a mark with trig written in NZ.
So yesterday I was tossing up whether to publish a rather obvious concrete pillar up on a pile of boulders. It's not a high rated survey mark in the NZ list. Then suddenly a car with surveyor marked on it, pulled up, a surveyor jumped out rushed up to the mark/trig and used it. Of all the trigs I have photographed this is the first time I have actually seen one being used. Rather exciting
That made my mind up. Concrete pillar, being used, easy parking and a view. It's published.
http://geocaching.com.au/cache/tp7700
There are photographs, including of it being used.
What do others think? Is this a good enough reason, or should only marks high up in the ratings be published, even though they might not have a top (and be boring looking). I also have another concrete pillar I am considering, so opinions please.
So yesterday I was tossing up whether to publish a rather obvious concrete pillar up on a pile of boulders. It's not a high rated survey mark in the NZ list. Then suddenly a car with surveyor marked on it, pulled up, a surveyor jumped out rushed up to the mark/trig and used it. Of all the trigs I have photographed this is the first time I have actually seen one being used. Rather exciting
That made my mind up. Concrete pillar, being used, easy parking and a view. It's published.
http://geocaching.com.au/cache/tp7700
There are photographs, including of it being used.
What do others think? Is this a good enough reason, or should only marks high up in the ratings be published, even though they might not have a top (and be boring looking). I also have another concrete pillar I am considering, so opinions please.