Trig points - a general discussion

[Tankengine]

I would like to know what is required for a “trig” to be published as a trig? Some say that a trig is whatever you want it to be… ie, if you think that it is a trig, then it is a trig… Well, I am not entirely comfortable with that definition. For example, if someone grabs a gnome, and places it on a hill, and then calls it a trig – would that be a trig? Surely most cachers, especially the ones enjoying trigs, would disagree… I would expect they may even complain about it… OK that is silly - but what this suggests, is that there are SOME RULES as to what is a trig! So what are they?

My thoughts on the matter, is that there should be a largish visible object at the trig site. Be it a conventional quad trig with circle plate on top, or a pile of rocks with a stick in the middle, or even just a pile of rocks… Possibly a church steeple or large painted vertical stick? Anything that can be seen from a distance.

Sure, there are plenty of bronze plugs in the ground (or bolts) that represent survey markers, where surveyors put their equipment to make measurements. (Some of these even appear as trigs on old maps or government web sites). But are they trigs? There are 1000’s of those markers! In fact very many streets have one at the end of them… (A bronze plug). If they are all legitimate trigs, then there will be 1000’s of drive-by trigs, and I believe the value of a “trig” will be lost! What would be the point of climbing up a wonderful hills, sometimes taking a couple of hours to find a trig – if you could claim a survery mark at the end of the street, or on a hill where a trig may have been in the past?

Anyways, I have found and enjoyed, many trigs, and published about 20 (all with largish physical markers). Whilst searching I have climbed almost as many hills where there was nothing, or simply a bolt in the ground – but I did not publish those as trigs… I didn’t consider them as trigs. I would be disappointed if all of a sudden survey marks (or simply bolts) can count as trigs. There will no longer be the challenge, and the satisfaction. (It would be like universities giving out degrees for passing a primary school test - meaningless).– Any suggestions on where to draw the line?

[pjw]

I disagree with the focus on the marker. In my opinion a trig is recorded/defined as such by the individual/authority that assigned that specific point on the earths surface as a trig point/station. We all know that there are numeorus trigs that don't have any visible evidence on the ground as they've been removed, destroyed, defaced, whatever but somewhere, in some document, record, official instrument, etc that specific point on the ground is defined as a trig point. Suggesting that the marker is too small, or not the correct shape based on nothing other than one's own opinion doesn't change that points designation by an appropriate body as a trig point. One trig point I have listed today (Neighbour trig) is a perfect example. It is listed by the ACT Planning Authority as a trig point and it is also repeatedly referred to in the ACT District Ordinance 1967 (see the link on the cache page) as being a specific point that was used to define ACT district boundaries. Therefore it is futile to suggest that the specific position on the earths surface (Neighbour Trig Point) is not recognised as an official trig station. At that specific point on the earths surface I have located and photographed a bolt in the concrete (nothing more, nothing less) for which I can conceive no other logical explanation than being the remnants of that trig station. To me that confirms that what I am looking at on the ground positively identifies that position on the surface of the earth as a trig point.
Your suggestion that we use the size and type of marker to classify whether or not its a trig is totally unworkable. I believe your own cache logs include the Mt Ainslie trig and the Black Mtn trig which certainly don't meet your suggested big marker criteria. They're both small metal survey plates on the ground. Any amount of research will quickly prove that there is no one, two or even three acceptable definitions of a trig marker.
I think the debate on what is or isn't a trig is a moot point. I don't have the authority to classify a position as a trig point or not a trig point and thats why I don't do so. Every trig point I log has been already assigned as a trig point by the land manager/surveyor/mapping authority/geodetic survey, etc. I consult credible records to locate a trig then I go and see if evidence exists of a trig existing at that location. If so, then the trig point has been found. If there is no evidence at the location then its DNF. There is no debate whether or not it's a trig point. The only possible debate is whether what I have found is evidence of it or not.

[mtbikeroz]

I disagree with the focus on the marker. In my opinion a trig is recorded/defined as such by the individual/authority that assigned that specific point on the earths surface as a trig point/station. We all know that there are numeorus trigs that don't have any visible evidence on the ground as they've been removed, destroyed, defaced, whatever but somewhere, in some document, record, official instrument, etc that specific point on the ground is defined as a trig point. Suggesting that the marker is too small, or not the correct shape based on nothing other than one's own opinion doesn't change that points designation by an appropriate body as a trig point. One trig point I have listed today (Neighbour trig) is a perfect example. It is listed by the ACT Planning Authority as a trig point and it is also repeatedly referred to in the ACT District Ordinance 1967 (see the link on the cache page) as being a specific point that was used to define ACT district boundaries. Therefore it is futile to suggest that the specific position on the earths surface (Neighbour Trig Point) is not recognised as an official trig station. At that specific point on the earths surface I have located and photographed a bolt in the concrete (nothing more, nothing less) for which I can conceive no other logical explanation than being the remnants of that trig station. To me that confirms that what I am looking at on the ground positively identifies that position on the surface of the earth as a trig point.Your suggestion that we use the size and type of marker to classify whether or not its a trig is totally unworkable. I believe your own cache logs include the Mt Ainslie trig and the Black Mtn trig which certainly don't meet your suggested big marker criteria. They're both small metal survey plates on the ground. Any amount of research will quickly prove that there is no one, two or even three acceptable definitions of a trig marker.
I think the debate on what is or isn't a trig is a moot point. I don't have the authority to classify a position as a trig point or not a trig point and thats why I don't do so. Every trig point I log has been already assigned as a trig point by the land manager/surveyor/mapping authority/geodetic survey, etc. I consult credible records to locate a trig then I go and see if evidence exists of a trig existing at that location. If so, then the trig point has been found. If there is no evidence at the location then its DNF. There is no debate whether or not it's a trig point. The only possible debate is whether what I have found is evidence of it or not.

LOL -pjw - by your OWN rules as above and from your previous trigs (Sparrow & Reedy), the Gungahlin trig you "found" - FAILS. You found neither old evidence of the trig nor evidence of a "Trig Plate". LOL, ROFL.

I DID, and I photographed such. The Gungahlin one - you need to take a photo as appropriate, and not one of a pretty survey pole!

[pjmpjm]

I would like to know what is required for a “trig” to be published as a trig? Some say that a trig is whatever you want it to be

I think the easiest answer is that a true trig must have a TS number published by the NSW Department of Lands (or the equivalent in other states). Other kinds of markers, such as numbered State Survey Markers, are not trigs.

[pjw]

LOL -pjw - by your OWN rules as above and from your previous trigs (Sparrow & Reedy), the Gungahlin trig you "found" - FAILS. You found neither old evidence of the trig nor evidence of a "Trig Plate". LOL, ROFL.

I DID, and I photographed such. The Gungahlin one - you need to take a photo as appropriate, and not one of a pretty survey pole!

You're obviously not getting my point and now fantasising about what you believe my view to be. NEVER have I said a trig point must have a trig plate or any other form or appendage! My whole point is that this does not define a trig! You've obviously failed to note that on each of those trigs I don't argue its a trig because of a plate or what I'm looking at, I argue it's a trig because a topographic map and/or the ACT Survey Control Marks database says IT IS A TRIG!!!!
My position as previously stated (now ad nauseum) is that my primary evidence suggesting a trig is a trig comes from official or what I believe to be reasonably credible records FOLLOWED BY some FORM of evidence at ground zero that is consistent with a trig point being there. In my opinion that evidence may or may not include a trig plate, bolt in the concrete, concrete post bearing the trig name, stone cairn, quadriped, remnants of metal discs, etc, etc. YOU have logged trigs of various shapes, forms and conditions yet are attempting to produce a one size fits all template with which a trig point must comply. Your template is based on nothing credible - there is no one and only trig form marker and they all exist in various states of disrepair.

The most logical suggestion thus far is Tank Engines suggestion re using TS numbers because this agrees 100% with my view that to be a trig a trig must have been defined as such by someone with the authority to do so and in my view, having a TS number meets that criteria. HOWEVER, the flaws with this system maybe: do you have a TS number for all the trigs you've logged; and if NSW data is good enough to define a trig then so is ACT data. To date it has been argued that the ACT data, which confirms the existence of all the trigs which you've debated, should also be accepted. I've requested confirmation from ACTPLA that the Gungahlin trig is a trig and if they respond I'll post their official findings here.

I've made it known clearly what my view of a valid trig find is. Perhaps rather than debating others finds you could offer us a clear indication of what YOU believe a valid find consists of because nothing you've offered thus far explains the diveristy of your trig finds?

[Tuena]

I would like to know what is required for a “trig” to be published as a trig?

When the decision was made to add Trig Points to the site the data was obtained from GeoScience Australia. GeoScience Australia could therefore be seen as the bench mark for deciding whether an object is a trig. I have searched Neighbour & Gungahlin & neither is listed as a Trig.

We need to have some guidance as to what is & what is not a Trig & GeoScience Australia being the original source should be the final determinative.

Plugs cemented into the ground or coloured posts to my mind are not Trigs & I'll just add any such entries to my ignore list.

I find it amusing that those who say such & such is not a trig then go & find it. If you disagree select ignore.

I'd much prefer to go & find TP5440 & hopefully will.

[pjw]

I would like to know what is required for a “trig” to be published as a trig?

When the decision was made to add Trig Points to the site the data was obtained from GeoScience Australia. GeoScience Australia could therefore be seen as the bench mark for deciding whether an object is a trig. I have searched Neighbour & Gungahlin & neither is listed as a Trig.

We need to have some guidance as to what is & what is not a Trig & GeoScience Australia being the original source should be the final determinative.

Plugs cemented into the ground or coloured posts to my mind are not Trigs & I'll just add any such entries to my ignore list.

I find it amusing that those who say such & such is not a trig then go & find it. If you disagree select ignore.

I'd much prefer to go & find TP5440 & hopefully will.

Tuena, when you say you searched Geoscience are you doing a place name search or some other search?

[pjw]

I think we can scrap the 'if it aint on Geoscience it aint a trig' theory. I've just looked at their MapConnect web page which shows trig stations. According to Geoscience, many of what I think we would all agree (according to us) were definitely trig stations (big white quadriped with black discs on top) are not trig stations because they don't appear on their map!!! Trigs such as Stranger, Oakey (Isaacs Ridge), Mike (Jerrabomberra grasslands), Goodwin Hill, Roger Hill, just to name a few, all of which are unanimously agreed trig markers are not shown! The Geoscience map shows only a small portion of what I think we all agree are trig points. The trig names don't show in their place name search for trig stations either. Either their list is not complete or we've all listed a heap of trig points that aren't trig points!!!!!!!! (According to Geoscience)

Next theory??????

[pjw]

I would like to know what is required for a “trig” to be published as a trig?

I'd much prefer to go & find TP5440 & hopefully will.

Tuena, I just realised your TP5440 is the Mt Palerang trig?

Awesome!!! Did that one. The view from there is endless!!!
While you're in the neighbourhood don't forget the Sth Black Range Trig which I see you have planned. That one is double awesome in terms of design.

[Tankengine]

So given that the Geoscience site seems to have ommissions, and other sites are not perfect either (they have too many ex trigs listed), maybe we can decide on what a trig can look like (or constitutes a trig), and use that! - Hey, GCA could end up with the most accurate real/existing trig database in Australia!

[pjmpjm]

I think we can scrap the 'if it aint on Geoscience it aint a trig' theory.The Geoscience map shows only a small portion of what I think we all agree are trig points. The trig names don't show in their place name search for trig stations either. Either their list is not complete or we've all listed a heap of trig points that aren't trig points! Next theory??????

The Geoscience listing isn't complete. Only the NSW Department of Lands (or other state equivalents) has a complete listing.

I'm familiar with three kinds of survey markers, all compiled somewhere in the overall NSW DOL database.

TS means 'Trig Station.'

PM means 'State Survey Permanent Marker.'

SS means 'State Survey Marker.'

Each of these has been allocated a unique number recorded with the NSW DOL. (Presumably other states and territories do the same.)

My understanding is that we here in GCA are all looking to find and log only those trig sites (of whatever physical construction) which have a TS number.

(PMs and SSs -- still in active usage -- are logged under the relevant GCA 'locationless' category. But each has a unique number stamped on the actual plate or label, with or without an accompanying location pin, marking the exact spot.)

TSs are now obsolete, as far as I can ascertain, and have been replaced by the GPS system. They aren't kept up any longer and are gradually being vandalised and/or destroyed. TS trigs take various forms -- some common, that we all know and love -- and others quite strange. Sometimes the NSW DOL has allocated a TS number to a church steeple or radio mast for their own purposes. Of course, only a few TSs are church steeples, radio masts, etc. Some NSW TSs now exist only as a bare 'rock cairn' with the official 'location pin' hidden underneath. I've never looked for trigs interstate so can only speak for the Sydney area of NSW.

I might leave it to rogerw3 to write more, if he wants. He has understood all these details for a long time.

Our GCA trig hunting problem is two-fold -- track down the listing number and location of the TS, and then go out find some kind of convincing physical remnant.

[Tuena]

To PJW (haven't worked out how to include the authors name in the quote)

when you say you searched Geoscience are you doing a place name search or some other search?

Place names search. I've used this to verify the names (bar one that I couldn't reach) of trigs I've added. Haven't come across the situation mentioned by PJM.

I'll stick with GeoScience Australia as being the definitive source given this is where the original list was obtained. They do state that if you identify errors or omissions then let them know. There's an opening for you. I like my trigs to look like TP5440 so will look for this variety although what you find when you get there may be totally different to what you expected.

[pjmpjm]

GCA could end up with the most accurate real/existing trig database in Australia!

In a modest sort of way, this is exactly what rogerw3, Yurt and I and others are attempting in the general Sydney area.

Because of the use of GPSr units, government agencies no longer have any interest in maintaining the TS system (trigs).

On the other hand, PMs and SSs are in active use and more are being put out all the time.

[Tuena]

To pjw

Tuena, I just realised your TP5440 is the Mt Palerang trig

Added this & south black range to my planned list after reading your logs & looking at the pictures. Added another trig in that area after someone hid a cache near a trig. Great bushwalk & a trig - perfect combination.

[Richary]

Because of the use of GPSr units, government agencies no longer have any interest in maintaining the TS system (trigs).

That is a bit of a shame, given that the system is already in place and maintaining it would come at a very low cost. However in metro areas I guess it is limited in use as things get built out and you lose line of sign to the nearest hill/water tank etc.

There has also been discussion about what stops working if for some reason the GPS system becomes unusable, either due to solar flares knocking out the satellites or local interference - there was a case where a US Navy Ship in port was testing some gear and took out the local GPS receivers. This led to a shutdown of things like mobile networks and ATMs that rely on the exact timing received from GPS satellites. Does it also mean surveyors nowadays would be unable to work properly as they have lost the skills of doing it the old way?