Martha & Calico

[BEHR655]

Check this out. Go to http://www.mytopo.com and get to the 'Build Your Own' map page.Choose the Lat/Long option for searching. Enter these coordinates:
N39 40 99, W74 29 18 These are coords I found for Calico.
When you are taken to the topo map, on the left select 'aerial photo'.

The coords should be centered on the photo. Note that the center is a road just above Martha. Now, opt to view the large photo and look at the faint roads to the lower and upper left leading to the stream or river. Between those two roads, where they meet the water, is an odd looking area. Could that be Calico?
Now look to the developed area to the bottom left in the photo. That is Martha. From Martha look to the right. It appears to be a dug out area. Has anyone ever seen that? What's that dark triangle further up the road and what's the white patch even further up?

Steve

 

[Ben Ruset]

Here is a link to a Topozone.com map. The "target" is the ruins of the Ellis Adams farmhouse "near" calico.

My best guess is that Calico is near the farmhouse or is near Calico-Warren Grove road. One of our other members, BarryC, claims that he found the ruins of a house on Calico-Warren Grove Road, but on 3 trips there, I never found it.

 

[Teegate]

Check this out. Go to http://www.mytopo.com and get to the 'Build Your Own' map page.Choose the Lat/Long option for searching. Enter these coordinates:
N39 40 99, W74 29 18 These are coords I found for Calico.
When you are taken to the topo map, on the left select 'aerial photo'.

Steve,

Unfortunately, there is a slight problem with your coordinates. I am not saying they are wrong, just the wrong format. Let me explain.

For some reason the makers of GPS units, and Geocaching.com, have decided to use the hddd.mm.mmm format when all of the map services including the one you have mentioned and topozone.com, use the hddd.mm.ss.s format. Why they have decided to use an incompatible format is a complete mystery. All it causes is confusion. Because all of the map services use the ss.s format, that is what I exclusively use.

So if you notice your readings are:

39.40.99
74.29.18

And if you notice where you are told to input the Lat and Long it says specifically "Seconds (0-60)" and you have a 99 reading for the seconds. (39.40.99) This tells you that your readings are in the .mmm format. So to convert them to ss.s you use the magic number of 1.666.

So 99 divided by 1.666 is rounded to 59.4. And since obviously you had to convert that reading, you must also convert the 18 ( 74.29.18 ) So 18 divided by 1.666 is rounded to 10.8.

So the actual readings on that map should be:

39.40.59.4
74.29.10.8

Input that info and you will have the proper location of the information you have.

So obviously if you get a reading on any map and want to input it into your GPS unit that is set to the .mmm format, you would multiply the seconds by 1.666 instead of dividing.


Here is a tip. Go to the below link. Notice at the bottom of the map where it says D/M/S. Make sure that is checked and slide you mouse around the map. Look at the bottom of your browser window and you will see the coordinates as you move the mouse. Use this to find any place you have coordinates of. The link is your coordinates of Calico.

http://topozone.com/map.asp?z=18&n=4392478&e=544048&s=25&u=2

Guy

 

[Ben Ruset]

His coordinates worked on that mytopo.com site. You just have to type the 74 as a -74.

 

[Teegate]

His coordinates worked on that mytopo.com site. You just have to type the 74 as a -74.

His coordinates will work fine, they just will not show on the map in the proper spot. The differences in the formats will cause the coordinates to be off by at least 400 or more feet in any direction, and probably more. That is a huge difference when you are looking for something or plotting intersections on topozone.com. I have not found a place on the web yet that does not use the ss.s format, so I can't understand why GPS units come preset to the .mmm format.

Geocaching.com makes it worse by using the wrong format. I monitor their benchmarks boards and I constantly see people saying that their GPS readings do not match the datasheet, even when the readings are GPS observed. They should be within feet of the proper location but they just don't know to use 1.666 to calculate the difference.

Guy

 

[Ben Ruset]

I stand corrected!

:beer:

 

[BEHR655]

Steve,

Unfortunately, there is a slight problem with your coordinates. I am not saying they are wrong, just the wrong format. Let me explain.



Guy

Thanks Guy, that is great information. That's what makes forums like this so valuable.

Steve