HikeArizona.COM

A big thanks to cindyl for getting the modern part of the culture section together. If you've been happy to see fire lookouts, Osborn fire finders, windmills, or some of the other more modern thing appear as a culture label, it is due to her hard work.
A big thanks in general to the culture team as well. I think that the whole culture thing rocks - it is neat seeing the distribution of different types of cultural artifacts across the US>

I ought to explore the site more, I guess. Anyone specializing in benchmarks? I photographed one on my latest epic dayhike (which no one has commented on--I guess people thought it was just another South Fork hike, but it sure as heck wasn't! Oh, well. Maybe I should have called it something else?)

PageRob wrote:A big thanks to cindyl

definitely
Hopefully I can label in many more windmills as I see them in old posted photos

You want windmills, I give you windmills... Check my Molina Springs bike ride. I don't know if I took photos of the windmills, though. They are ubiquitous around here, I rarely if ever take pics of them. There is one at G&F White Mtn. grasslands, maybe in my photosets.

Liz, I don't think we have a benchmark culture label, but we can make one!

PageRob wrote:I don't think we have a benchmark culture label, but we can make one!

I definitely second the Benchmark culture label!

PageRob wrote:I think that the whole culture thing rocks - it is neat seeing the distribution of different types of cultural artifacts across the US

I agree! Hey Rob, would you consider a culture label for Bridges (primarily history)? I could contribute a few...

I suppose we could do a bridge thing - steel/wood/etc. We've already got a Covered Bridge label...I'll see about getting a benchmark put up today.

Seems like ssk44 and mikehikes know most about this (from a previous thread) but wouldn't the culture actually be a broader USGS Markers, and then sub "species" be benchmarks, witness corners, range and township markers, etc.?

Not sure how they should be classified, but I'd definitely like to see that culture group added.

I've added a general benchmark label to star with. If we get enough input or photos, we can get a new subsection and split them up.

chumley wrote:wouldn't the culture actually be a broader USGS Markers, and then sub "species" be benchmarks, witness corners, range and township markers, etc.?

My opinion is that having a specific "Benchmark" label rather then "USGS Benchmark" would be clean and simple with minimal confusion. Benchmarks are the primary summit marker. Reference 1 & 2 markers, etc. are always secondary. I'll role with whatever everyone else agrees with... Either way will work.

ssk44 wrote:clean and simple with minimal confusion.

So much for minimal confussion. We already have numerouse non-benchmark photos associated with the new label.

Actual Summit Benchmark... http://hikearizona.com/photo.php?ZIP=116834
(Summit Benchmarks always have a triangle in the center)

It's probably my fault...I assumed that since it was a general label, it was good to go.

hippiepunkpirate wrote:It's probably my fault...I assumed that since it was a general label, it was good to go.

Sorry HPP. They are easily confussed. I only just this year figured out the differances.

ssk44 wrote:Sorry HPP. They are easily confussed. I only just this year figured out the differances.

Any labels I screwed up can be deleted.

I think associate them for now under benchmark - that'll let us know if there are enough marker pics to warrant splitting.

After some Internet research it appears the term "Benchmark" can be used as a generic. The triangular summit designation is a form a benchmark. From what I can gather, Reference 1 & 2 are also forms of benchmarks. I say keep it casual and use the label for any USGS summit, etc. designations.

http://www.geocaching.com/mark/#Whatis (USGS Marker Info)

Works for me!

The label name could be changed to "Bench and Reference Marks".

hippiepunkpirate wrote:The label name could be changed to "Bench and Reference Marks".

I second that and include a link to mikehikes forum thread (where ever it is) in the label as Discussion or such.

Could go the individual label route too. It would then need to be monitored more closely.

Believe dozens of us had an "ahh moment" when Mike enlightened us

joe bartels wrote:include a link to mikehikes forum thread

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=4545 Is this the one your thinking of??