The Pine Valley Deeds

[Patrick_Mucci]

Bryan, Jim, et al,

If you think you can see through 200 yards of big hardwoods, in the winter, you're out of touch with reality.
Especially at the canopy level.

[Bryan Izatt]

...................



Bryan,

Your statement completely ignores a critical factor, namely that the caption describing the view,  states that it as going across the 4th hole TO the 2nd green and 3rd tee. 

And, you completely ignore that the caption could be misstated.

 As TEPaul has stated in several emails to you and others, your lack of familiarity with Pine Valley and the terrain at Pine Valley is due to the fact that you've never set foot on the property and that lack of familiarity is causing you to draw erroneous conclusions

Jim has been there and you also accuse him of drawing erroneous conclusions.  Even if I saw it, I expect you would still say I'm wrong.  After all, your agenda appears to be to disagree with anything I say.

Is this the same TEPaul who suggests jumping on a plane and coming down and looking?  Will you bail me out after I get arrested for trespassing?

Would you also look at the huge, dense stand of pines behind the 2nd green, that block ANY view of the 2nd green from the 6th green.

Get out there now and take a picture.  Also, it's not in the line from 6 green to 3 tee.  In addition, that grove is now.  It wasn't there in 1931.  And, you have no idea what it looked like in 1912.



Also note how that stand extends to the left, into the woods near the house, and to the right to the pond, indicating that the ridge line was entirely or predominately pines, preventing any view behind them..

The trees that are there now are entirely irrelevant to what was there in 1912.
 

[Bryan Izatt]

Bryan, Jim, et al,

If you think you can see through 200 yards of big hardwoods, in the winter, you're out of touch with reality.
Especially at the canopy level.

Go out and take a picture - 6th green to 3rd tee - now or in January and post it to prove your point.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Bryan, Jim, et al,

If you think you can see through 200 yards of big hardwoods, in the winter, you're out of touch with reality.
Especially at the canopy level.

Go out and take a picture - 6th green to 3rd tee - now or in January and post it to prove your point.

OK, I'll drop everything, I'll ignore my family, business and social schedule and run right out, drive 2.5 hours each way and do that for you.

In the meantime, could you have me cleared through the gate.

Thanks

P.S.   Why don't you want a picture taken from a vantage point that would provide a sight line from the 6th fairway that crosses the 4th
         hole to the 2nd green and 3rd tee ?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Bryan,

Your statement completely ignores a critical factor, namely that the caption describing the view,  states that it as going across the 4th hole TO the 2nd green and 3rd tee.

And, you completely ignore that the caption could be misstated.

If that's your position, everything else we read could be misstated, including AWT's alleged train story.
You, despite your protests, have an agenda.
As I indicated, I've agreed to pay for the reframing costs TEPaul cited, in an effort to ascertain what inscriptions are actually on the back of the photos.  

I'll ask you again, what do you make of the shoulder that rises on the right side of the photo ?
What land mass or feature presents that shoulder if you're standing on the 6th green ?

 As TEPaul has stated in several emails to you and others, your lack of familiarity with Pine Valley and the terrain at Pine Valley is due to the fact that you've never set foot on the property and that lack of familiarity is causing you to draw erroneous conclusions

Jim has been there and you also accuse him of drawing erroneous conclusions.  Even if I saw it, I expect you would still say I'm wrong.  After all, your agenda appears to be to disagree with anything I say.

"Jim has been there" is your answer ?  ?  ?
I'm not asking Jim, I'm asking you.

And, Jim's recollections may be fuzzy since his recollections aren't based on the gathering of the information for the purpose of recalling the specifics raised on this thread.  In other words, his recall is general in nature.  When I was at PV a short time ago, I specifically looked at and photoed the views from the 6th fairway and green, and from the RR tracks.

Is this the same TEPaul who suggests jumping on a plane and coming down and looking?  Will you bail me out after I get arrested for trespassing?

Would you also look at the huge, dense stand of pines behind the 2nd green, that block ANY view of the 2nd green from the 6th green.

Get out there now and take a picture.  Also, it's not in the line from 6 green to 3 tee.  In addition, that grove is now.  It wasn't there in 1931.  And, you have no idea what it looked like in 1912.

Neither do you.
But, it wasn't apartment buildings and parking lots or polo fields, and Carr, Tillinghast and others stated that it was dense woods with thick undergrowth.

Why are you claiming that Carr and Tillinghast weren't telling the truth ?
That their independent assessments are invalid ?

For one reason and one reason only, their contemporaneous eyewitness accounts are contrary to your agenda.



Also note how that stand extends to the left, into the woods near the house, and to the right to the pond, indicating that the ridge line was entirely or predominately pines, preventing any view behind them..


In the photo you posted above, look at the trees adjacent to the 6th green.
Now look at the trees adjacent to the elbow on # 6.  Oh wait, there are none.
So, where do you think there was a better view from, for Shelly's/Brown's photo, the elbow toward the tee or the 6th green ?



The trees that are there now are entirely irrelevant to what was there in 1912.

NO, they're not, they're relevant.
Forests don't just transition from one species to another at your convenience.
What was there in 1931, 1925, 1922 and 1918 are highly indicative and highly reprsentative of what was there in 1912.
You'd have to be blind to deny that... or, alternatively.......... someone with an agenda.
And, you have an agenda.

Look at the 1925, 1922 and 1918 photos.  That's 6 years, 10 years and 13 years removed from 1912.
In those intervening years, not much changes in a forest.  Do you agree or disagree with that statement ?
  

[DMoriarty]

Well I am glad that after all of this, that at least you have finally acknowledged that the 1913 Topo seems to be consistently "off" by 10 feet or so as compared to the modern topo(s.)  Thanks for that.  

And, I thought I was nuts doing all this contour mapping.  But, the analysis below takes the cake.  You win the nut award.  

I am sure you mean this in the best possible sense.  But my analysis was rather simple; just a matter of capturing the 23 data points and letting the spreadsheet create a graph.  Your contours dwarf that effort, so I'll have to let you keep your award.  

The shadow viewer in the seamless map is not very useful on a micro scale, although it strikes me that where the data is good, it looks somewhat like the CBM plasticine models, only in two dimensions with shadowing simulating the third dimension.

It is quite useful for identifying individual data points, which is what I was using it for. We he hadn't been able to accomplish otherwise.  We certainly cannot with that old Topo. As for your observation about the plasticine models, I made the same observation a few pages back.   I think you missed a page of my earlier posts on these issues.

I don't think that the Viewer rendering and LIDAR data is going to replace hand surveys and contour maps in the near future for golf course designing.  Like all technology it has some maturing to do and it needs to be customized for particular applications like golf course design.

I think you may be misunderstanding my efforts.  I never claimed that the Viewer would replace contouring.  It isn't set up of that.  I just used it to isolate the data because you said you couldn't extract individual data points on Mapper.   As for creating contours, I think you need to distinguish between the data and the application.

Here is a link to a good overview of LIDAR technology by NOAA.   It addresses a number of your concerns, including issues with contouring.  I won't try to paraphrase it, but it is done and quite accurately.
http://www.csc.noaa.gov/digitalcoast/data/coastallidar/_pdf/What_is_Lidar.pdf  
The NOAA has LIDAR data for Pine Valley.  Not sure if it is the same as USGS or a different set.  If the latter it may be cleaner.   (I can't access it and read it with my mac.)

Based on three locations I've looked at at PV, I'd draw the conclusion that the data there doesn't support the level of elevation precision that we're looking for.  I think it is older, non LIDAR, data in some areas.  I don't think it is an interpolation of missing data. There is obviously interpolation to get elevations at every clickable point, but the interpolation is probably from the best available data at whatever horizontal resolution was available.

Your efforts at PV with the small sample sizes point to errors in the sample, not the technology.   I disagree with you about the alternate data source, but it would be easy enough for you to check by downloading 1/3 NED against the a missing sample of 1/9 NED.  (Again, I cannot do it myself or I would.)

In any event, I remain skeptical about the absolute precision of the USGS data around the PV site.  I think it is fallacious logic to suggest that the data represents a certain benchmark against which the 1913 data can be compared.  The datums are undoubtedly different and the measurements in each method are probably somewhat off, by amounts we don't know.  Trying to say that the 1913 is wrong on the basis of current data that has some issues is, well, just wrong.

This is where you lose me every time.   According to NOAA, LIDAR readings are accurate to within a dozen inches.  From the NOAA document linked above:  "Typically, lidar elevations are accurate to about 6 to 12 inches (15 to 30 centimeters) but have relative accuracies (e.g., heights of hills, banks, dunes) that can be better than that."   From the same publication in the discussion of Vertical Accuracy:  "Lidar data, even the older data sets, typically have RMSE values of less than 20 centimeters (8 inches)."   Definitely there are collection issues and filtering issues (as their are with any form of data collection)  but the accuracy of the data, when collectable is incredible.   Yet you don't think that this data can be used as a benchmark to determine whether the absolute data on the 1913 contour map is wrong??    If a group of LIDAR determined data points on bare ground say 160 ft for the same spots as the 1913 Contour Map says 170+ feet, you are not willing to admit that the 1913 Contour Map is wrong?   Why not?   If LIDAR data is accurate to within a foot, then what is the problem?

What's important in the contour map is the contours.  They are relatively close in shape to the Quad contours.  I'd still put my money on the 1913 topo as being a better representation of what was there then.  It was a purpose specific survey conducted at a finer resolution.

Again, this is a different discussion.  It isn't really the issue I raised with the 1913 USGS.  I think you know this. I agree that the 1913 contour would be a better indicator when it comes to things that were then then but are not there now.  Other than that, I think you still overestimate the accuracy of the old map.  Or at the very least you you have no factual basis for claiming it is more accurate.  
--  For example you claim it was conducted at a "finer resolution."   How can you say this?   Do you really believe that the surveyor was working with the equivalent of a grid smaller than 3x3 meters?  On what basis do you claim this?  
--  How can you begin to speak of the resolution or relative accuracy of the 1913 map when you have NONE OF THE DATA!
-- The collection of the data points was probably accurate IF DONE CORRECTLY, and depending on their methodology, but then this is the case with LIDAR as well.   But in between data points, it is extrapolation, and before aerial came into wide use this consisted of sketching.  Regardless of what Brauer tells you, that is the way it was done.  Books were written on the subject trying to teach the surveyors how to sketch accurately to capture the contours, between data points, but it was done by sketching nonetheless.  

All that said,  I am fine using the 1913 contours as a point of comparison to what is on the ground now.  They are all we have.  But lets not overstate their accuracy -- because we couldn't possibly know their accuracy.  And please let's quit pretending that the elevations have as much chance of being absolutely accurate as LIDAR data readings.

[JESII]

Pat,

From the beginning of this conversation you said the picture was taken from the 6th tee with the 2nd green and 3rd tee in line in the center of the picture BECAUSE that's what the caption means when it says "from the high ridge of the 6th looking across the 4th fairway to the 2nd green and 3rd tee". This is not debateable, even Macwood will come out of his stupor to confirm that you did. At some point you realized how ridiculous that position was (I would love to take credit for your change of heart but can't seem to remember who or what you credited with the shift) so you you moved your camera position to "somewhere near the tee end of the 6th" which was great because you were at least moving in the right direction because it's quite clear to anyone who's ever been there that this was not a picture from the 6th tee pointing anywhere.

Now you're out to the elbow. Which is GREAT! We agree on that.

Where do you think the center of the picture is? What do you think the white path is? What do you think of David and Bryan's elevation analysis about a lack of hills beyond the 3rd tee that would be visible from this area?


Also of supreme importance...how much of a drop in elevation do you think it is from the 6th fairway (say 125 yards from the green ) to the house at the end of the lake just below there?

[Bryan Izatt]

Bryan, Jim, et al,

If you think you can see through 200 yards of big hardwoods, in the winter, you're out of touch with reality.
Especially at the canopy level.

Go out and take a picture - 6th green to 3rd tee - now or in January and post it to prove your point.

OK, I'll drop everything, I'll ignore my family, business and social schedule and run right out, drive 2.5 hours each way and do that for you.  No need to drop everything.  Anytime between now and the trees budding in spring would be fine.

In the meantime, could you have me cleared through the gate.  Sorry, I can't help there.  I was under the mistaken impression that you had access to Pine Valley.

Thanks

P.S.   Why don't you want a picture taken from a vantage point that would provide a sight line from the 6th fairway that crosses the 4th
         hole to the 2nd green and 3rd tee ?  Because it's not physically possible to see over the ridge from that angle, but knock yourself out; you could take pictures from the many locations debated on these threads.  You could even take one from the water tower for David.   

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat,

From the beginning of this conversation you said the picture was taken from the 6th tee with the 2nd green and 3rd tee in line in the center of the picture BECAUSE that's what the caption means when it says "from the high ridge of the 6th looking across the 4th fairway to the 2nd green and 3rd tee".

Jim, you're wrong, I've maintained from early on that the photo was taken from a point somewhere between the elbow of the 6th fairway and the begining of the 6th fairway.  Please go back and reread my posts.

This is not debateable, even Macwood will come out of his stupor to confirm that you did. At some point you realized how ridiculous that position was (I would love to take credit for your change of heart but can't seem to remember who or what you credited with the shift) so you you moved your camera position to "somewhere near the tee end of the 6th" which was great because you were at least moving in the right direction because it's quite clear to anyone who's ever been there that this was not a picture from the 6th tee pointing anywhere.

Go back and reread my posts

Now you're out to the elbow. Which is GREAT! We agree on that.

You're a little late in discovering this, I've been stating this for some time.

Where do you think the center of the picture is?

Midway between the borders of the picture.

What do you think the white path is?

A white path/road.
I've stated that since the begining.

What do you think of David and Bryan's elevation analysis about a lack of hills beyond the 3rd tee that would be visible from this area?
I really haven't read all of those posts because the were posted when I was out of town and when I was pre-occupied with other pursuits.
Perhaps, over X-mas/New Year's vacation, I'll be able to go back and read them.

What do you think of them

Also of supreme importance...how much of a drop in elevation do you think it is from the 6th fairway (say 125 yards from the green ) to the house at the end of the lake just below there?

Which part of the house, the roof, the foundation ?
Wouldn't a better measurement be the lake, understanding that it can only rise to a fixed height.
I'd say the distance, from the surface of the lake to the 6th fairway is about 70 feet.

Supreme question to you.
Does the land from the lake rise up, immediately from a height of 84 feet to a height of 149 feet in a single foot, a single yard, or over the course of 100 yards or more ?

[Bryan Izatt]

Bryan,

Your statement completely ignores a critical factor, namely that the caption describing the view,  states that it as going across the 4th hole TO the 2nd green and 3rd tee.

And, you completely ignore that the caption could be misstated.

If that's your position, everything else we read could be misstated, including AWT's alleged train story.  Conversely, then does that mean that if the caption is literally true then everything else we read must be true - the Sumner Ireland story , for instance?  I expected better logic from you then that, Pat.

You, despite your protests, have an agenda.  Remind me what it is. I wouldn't want to get off message.

As I indicated, I've agreed to pay for the reframing costs TEPaul cited, in an effort to ascertain what inscriptions are actually on the back of the photos.  Does Tom have some controlling position over the photos and their purported frames?

I'll ask you again, what do you make of the shoulder that rises on the right side of the photo ?
What land mass or feature presents that shoulder if you're standing on the 6th green ?  Which shoulder?  I don't know what you're referring to as a shoulder in the following picture.  Could you circle it so I know what you're talking about.



 As TEPaul has stated in several emails to you and others, your lack of familiarity with Pine Valley and the terrain at Pine Valley is due to the fact that you've never set foot on the property and that lack of familiarity is causing you to draw erroneous conclusions  Are you now reduced to using Tom to support your position?  Last I recall he didn't agree with where you thought the photo was taken from.

Jim has been there and you also accuse him of drawing erroneous conclusions.  Even if I saw it, I expect you would still say I'm wrong.  After all, your agenda appears to be to disagree with anything I say.

"Jim has been there" is your answer ?  ?  ?
I'm not asking Jim, I'm asking you.

And, Jim's recollections may be fuzzy since his recollections aren't based on the gathering of the information for the purpose of recalling the specifics raised on this thread.  In other words, his recall is general in nature.  When I was at PV a short time ago, I specifically looked at and photoed the views from the 6th fairway and green, and from the RR tracks.  So, you already have the pictures we're talking about, albeit not in the winter?  Why don't you post them?  As best I recall the ones you posted were from 6 tee looking up the 6th fairway.  Do you wonder why I thought you had access?

Is this the same TEPaul who suggests jumping on a plane and coming down and looking?  Will you bail me out after I get arrested for trespassing?

Would you also look at the huge, dense stand of pines behind the 2nd green, that block ANY view of the 2nd green from the 6th green.

Get out there now and take a picture.  Also, it's not in the line from 6 green to 3 tee.  In addition, that grove is now.  It wasn't there in 1931.  And, you have no idea what it looked like in 1912.

Neither do you.  I think it looked like the 6th fairway picture we've been debating.
But, it wasn't apartment buildings and parking lots or polo fields, and Carr, Tillinghast and others stated that it was dense woods with thick undergrowth.

Why are you claiming that Carr and Tillinghast weren't telling the truth ?
That their independent assessments are invalid ?

For one reason and one reason only, their contemporaneous eyewitness accounts are contrary to your agenda.  What are you talking about?  I'm talking about what's in the 1912 picture we've been debating.



Also note how that stand extends to the left, into the woods near the house, and to the right to the pond, indicating that the ridge line was entirely or predominately pines, preventing any view behind them..


In the photo you posted above, look at the trees adjacent to the 6th green.
Now look at the trees adjacent to the elbow on # 6.  Oh wait, there are none.
So, where do you think there was a better view from, for Shelly's/Brown's photo, the elbow toward the tee or the 6th green ?



The trees that are there now are entirely irrelevant to what was there in 1912.

NO, they're not, they're relevant.
Forests don't just transition from one species to another at your convenience.
What was there in 1931, 1925, 1922 and 1918 are highly indicative and highly reprsentative of what was there in 1912.

Reread my statement.  I was talking about now being irrelevant compared to 1912.  You don't like that, so you change to debating 1931, 1922 etc compared to 1912.  Debate away.  That wasn't my point.

You'd have to be blind to deny that... or, alternatively.......... someone with an agenda.
And, you have an agenda.

Look at the 1925, 1922 and 1918 photos.  That's 6 years, 10 years and 13 years removed from 1912.
In those intervening years, not much changes in a forest.  Do you agree or disagree with that statement ?

The 1931 picture looks different to me than the 1912 6th fairway picture. The 1931 aerial looks dramatically different than what's there today between the 2nd and 3rd greens. Do you agree that a forest changes in a hundred years?  Are any of the current pines as old as 100 years?  What is the lifespan of a pine tree?
 

[Patrick_Mucci]

Bryan,

Your statement completely ignores a critical factor, namely that the caption describing the view,  states that it as going across the 4th hole TO the 2nd green and 3rd tee.

And, you completely ignore that the caption could be misstated.

If that's your position, everything else we read could be misstated, including AWT's alleged train story.  Conversely, then does that mean that if the caption is literally true then everything else we read must be true - the Sumner Ireland story , for instance?  I expected better logic from you then that, Pat.

Your allegation that the caption is misstated is a wild stretch.
While the possibility always exists, the probability is low.

You, despite your protests, have an agenda.  Remind me what it is. I wouldn't want to get off message.

As I indicated, I've agreed to pay for the reframing costs TEPaul cited, in an effort to ascertain what inscriptions are actually on the back of the photos.  Does Tom have some controlling position over the photos and their purported frames?

Didn't you read his emails to me on the subject ?

I'll ask you again, what do you make of the shoulder that rises on the right side of the photo ?
What land mass or feature presents that shoulder if you're standing on the 6th green ?  Which shoulder?  I don't know what you're referring to as a shoulder in the following picture.  Could you circle it so I know what you're talking about.
You're kidding.
You don't see the rise in the land, starting in the lower right, up to the upper right ?



 As TEPaul has stated in several emails to you and others, your lack of familiarity with Pine Valley and the terrain at Pine Valley is due to the fact that you've never set foot on the property and that lack of familiarity is causing you to draw erroneous conclusions[/color]  Are you now reduced to using Tom to support your position?  Last I recall he didn't agree with where you thought the photo was taken from.
I'm stating what Tom Paul wrote to you and others, that your total lack of familiarity with the terrain is leading you to draw flawed conclusions.
On that issue, TEPaul and I agree.
As to the vantage point from where the photo is taken, I'm fairly sure that an on site visit with TE would result in agreement between us. [/color]

Jim has been there and you also accuse him of drawing erroneous conclusions.  Even if I saw it, I expect you would still say I'm wrong.  After all, your agenda appears to be to disagree with anything I say.

"Jim has been there" is your answer ?  ?  ?
I'm not asking Jim, I'm asking you.

And, Jim's recollections may be fuzzy since his recollections aren't based on the gathering of the information for the purpose of recalling the specifics raised on this thread.  In other words, his recall is general in nature.  When I was at PV a short time ago, I specifically looked at and photoed the views from the 6th fairway and green, and from the RR tracks.  So, you already have the pictures we're talking about, albeit not in the winter?  Why don't you post them?  As best I recall the ones you posted were from 6 tee looking up the 6th fairway.  Do you wonder why I thought you had access?

They were already posted, your recall is flawed

Is this the same TEPaul who suggests jumping on a plane and coming down and looking?  Will you bail me out after I get arrested for trespassing?[/size][/color]

Would you also look at the huge, dense stand of pines behind the 2nd green, that block ANY view of the 2nd green from the 6th green.

Get out there now and take a picture.  Also, it's not in the line from 6 green to 3 tee.  In addition, that grove is now.  It wasn't there in 1931.  And, you have no idea what it looked like in 1912.

Neither do you.  I think it looked like the 6th fairway picture we've been debating.

You can't be that obtuse.
For you to claim, that the area looked, prior to clearing, the same as it did after clearing is............. absurd

But, it wasn't apartment buildings and parking lots or polo fields, and Carr, Tillinghast and others stated that it was dense woods with thick undergrowth.

Why are you claiming that Carr and Tillinghast weren't telling the truth ?
That their independent assessments are invalid ?

For one reason and one reason only, their contemporaneous eyewitness accounts are contrary to your agenda.[/b][/size][/color]  What are you talking about?  I'm talking about what's in the 1912 picture we've been debating.

I'm talking about how the site, including the 6th hole vantage point, looked before any trees were cleared.[/color]



Also note how that stand extends to the left, into the woods near the house, and to the right to the pond, indicating that the ridge line was entirely or predominately pines, preventing any view behind them..


In the photo you posted above, look at the trees adjacent to the 6th green.
Now look at the trees adjacent to the elbow on # 6.  Oh wait, there are none.
So, where do you think there was a better view from, for Shelly's/Brown's photo, the elbow toward the tee or the 6th green ?



The trees that are there now are entirely irrelevant to what was there in 1912.

NO, they're not, they're relevant.
Forests don't just transition from one species to another at your convenience.
What was there in 1931, 1925, 1922 and 1918 are highly indicative and highly reprsentative of what was there in 1912.

Reread my statement.  I was talking about now being irrelevant compared to 1912.  You don't like that, so you change to debating 1931, 1922 etc compared to 1912.  Debate away.  That wasn't my point.

What you don't understand is that forests regenerate themselves, each and every year.  As old trees die, new ones spring up.
There's a continuum that preserves the forest.
It is today, as it was a century ago.   While the individual trees change, the overall forest doesn't.

You'd have to be blind to deny that... or, alternatively.......... someone with an agenda.
And, you have an agenda.

Look at the 1925, 1922 and 1918 photos.  That's 6 years, 10 years and 13 years removed from 1912.
In those intervening years, not much changes in a forest.  Do you agree or disagree with that statement ?[/b][/size][/color]

The 1931 picture looks different to me than the 1912 6th fairway picture. The 1931 aerial looks dramatically different than what's there today between the 2nd and 3rd greens. Do you agree that a forest changes in a hundred years?  Are any of the current pines as old as 100 years?  What is the lifespan of a pine tree?

Have someone explain regeneration to you.
While individual trees come and go, the overall forest remains fairly static.

You have an agenda and can't be counted on to be objective.

Do you think, that one day, perhaps 4 years from now, that all the trees are going to die together, on one finite date ?
Is that how a forest works ?
I know that theory would fit your agenda, but Bryan, you can't be that obtuse that you don't understand the regeneration process and the rather constant nature of a forest.
  

[JESII]

Pat,

You're acting like a clown. It's foolish to participate in this conversation with you. I think the rest of us can handle it from here.

[Bryan Izatt]

David,

Well I am glad that after all of this, that at least you have finally acknowledged that the 1913 Topo seems to be consistently "off" by 10 feet or so as compared to the modern topo(s.)  Thanks for that.

I'd say they are inconsistently "different" by 10 feet or so.  I have no problem accepting a result, when that's where the analysis goes.  I was unconvinced by your spot analysis and by the vagaries of the PV specific data.  The contours I mapped are more convincing to me of the differences.  I do object to calling the 1913 "wrong" or "off" (which, to me, is a code word for wrong).    If your only point is that the two are "different", then no problem. 

I think you may be misunderstanding my efforts.

Most likely so.

If your efforts are to show that:

the two sources are "different" in absolute elevation  -  then no worries;

LIDAR technology is accurate to within their stated margin of error  -  then no problem.

This is where you lose me every time.   According to NOAA, LIDAR readings are accurate to within a dozen inches.  From the NOAA document linked above:  "Typically, lidar elevations are accurate to about 6 to 12 inches (15 to 30 centimeters) but have relative accuracies (e.g., heights of hills, banks, dunes) that can be better than that."   From the same publication in the discussion of Vertical Accuracy:  "Lidar data, even the older data sets, typically have RMSE values of less than 20 centimeters (8 inches)."   Definitely there are collection issues and filtering issues (as their are with any form of data collection)  but the accuracy of the data, when collectable is incredible.   Yet you don't think that this data can be used as a benchmark to determine whether the absolute data on the 1913 contour map is wrong??    If a group of LIDAR determined data points on bare ground say 160 ft for the same spots as the 1913 Contour Map says 170+ feet, you are not willing to admit that the 1913 Contour Map is wrong?   Why not?   If LIDAR data is accurate to within a foot, then what is the problem?

My point is that the 1/9 NED data for three areas at Pine Valley that I tested failed a rudimentary test of elevation resolution.  To me, that makes the 1/9 NED data at PV suspect as a base point.  LIDAR data may well be accurate to inches elsewhere.  I'm not disputing the accuracy of the technology in general.  There are a couple of big "If"s in your last statements.  I think the data at PV is suspect, so I can't reach the conclusion that the 1913 map is wrong about absolute elevation.  It may turn out to be if and when we get better USGS data, but how does knowing that there is a difference in absolute elevation advance our analysis and discussion about the architecture and development of PV?

All that said,  I am fine using the 1913 contours as a point of comparison to what is on the ground now.  They are all we have.  But lets not overstate their accuracy -- because we couldn't possibly know their accuracy.  And please let's quit pretending that the elevations have as much chance of being absolutely accurate as LIDAR data readings.

Agreed on using the 1913 contours.  I'm not arguing that one or the other is absolutely accurate as to the absolute elevation, as you call it.  I still think that the 1913 topo contouring and relative elevations are likely a better representation of the land in 1913.  If you disagree, that's fine.  Maybe some day we'll know for sure who's right.  But, not likely today.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat,

You're acting like a clown. It's foolish to participate in this conversation with you. I think the rest of us can handle it from here.

Jim,

For a guy who asked me how I knew Crump was traveling east when he made his alleged "chance, first glimpse" of the property. I'd be careful about the use of words like "clown" and "foolish"

[DMoriarty]

Bryan,  You are misconstruing the nature of the 1/9 NED data.  We don't need perfect resolution to test the absolute numbers.   All we need are a few 1/9 data points to compare to the topo at some locations around the course.  I trust you agree that whatever 1/9 data we have conflicts with the 1913 contour?  So there is your answer.  The 1913 is wrong.   You aren't actually contending that it is possible that whatever 1/9 NED we have is off by 10 feet or so, are you?  

As for where it gets us, I am not sure.  Call it just one more piece of information if you like.   All I know is that when I first indicated the absolute numbers on the 1913 topo were very likely wrong it seemed a pretty important issue to those disagreeing with me, so we might as well follow it through to the end.

[Bryan Izatt]

Pat,

You're acting like a clown. It's foolish to participate in this conversation with you. I think the rest of us can handle it from here.

Well said Jim. 

I guess the civil discourse Pat has been espousing is not the same as thing as intelligent and honest discourse.

[Bryan Izatt]

Bryan,  You are misconstruing the nature of the 1/9 NED data.  We don't need perfect resolution to test the absolute numbers.   All we need are a few 1/9 data points to compare to the topo at some locations around the course.  I trust you agree that whatever 1/9 data we have conflicts with the 1913 contour?   I agree that the 1/9 elevations are different from the 1913 elevations.   So there is your answer.  It's not my answer, it seems to be yours. The 1913 is wrong.  I've said this multiple times before. The datums are most likely different by 3 feet.  We can't precisely match points between the 1913 topo and the 1/9 data and slight shifts could create a difference of a few feet. The 1/9 elevation data is possibly wrong by 3.3 feet.  There are locations where there is a large enough difference in elevation that it should be reflected in the 1/9 data and isn't.  The latter two persuade me that the 1/9 data , where it exists is not perfectly accurate.  The first and second points could account for some of the difference.  If you don't accept it and think that makes the absolute elevations on the 1913 topo "wrong", then feel free to think it is wrong.  I don't agree.  I'll agree that they are different. You aren't actually contending that it is possible that whatever 1/9 NED we have is off by 10 feet or so, are you?  See above.  Let's agree to disagree about the words "wrong" and "different".

As for where it gets us, I am not sure.  Call it just one more piece of information if you like.   All I know is that when I first indicated the absolute numbers on the 1913 topo were very likely wrong it seemed a pretty important issue to those disagreeing with me, so we might as well follow it through to the end.

It is one more piece of information.  It doesn't really get us anywhere in my opinion.  Seems silly to me to continue to pursue it.  If you are referring to me as the person who thought it was a "pretty important issue", then let's let it go.  I wanted to undrstand why there might be differences and what the usability of the 1/9 data at PV was.  I answered that enough to my own satisfaction.  If we don't agree on the four points above, that's OK.  It seems like nobody around here ever absolutely "wins" a debate. When you find that PV has a complete 1/9 data set with a margin of error less than +/- 1 meter, then we could agree that the numbers are different and analyze where they are different and why they are different.  But, in the end it doesn't really get us anywhere, other than possibly that the 1913 surveyor started off wrong by a few feet.  Doesn't seem like a really useful point.

All things considered, it has stlill been an interesting and good learning exercise.

If you want to continue to understand the 1/9 data, try doing your pixel analysis of the 3rd green.  Go side to side across the front third.  Jim could confirm how deep those bunkers are.  They look like they should show up if the elevation data is accurate to +/- 1 meter. 

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat,

You're acting like a clown. It's foolish to participate in this conversation with you. I think the rest of us can handle it from here.

Well said Jim. 

I guess the civil discourse Pat has been espousing is not the same as thing as intelligent and honest discourse.

Bryan,

I've been intelligent and honest.

Just because you don't understand the principle of regeneration/reforestation is no reason to get defensive.

I answer all of your questions, when will you answer all of mine ?
And please don't ask which ones, just reread my posts

[JESII]

Pat,

Was it honesty or intelligence at play when you presented and April aerial photograph as being from the winter?

Was it honesty or intelligence that had you demanding that the Brown and Shelly captions are identical?

Is it honesty or intelligence behind your continual declarations that the entire property from corner to corner was covered by impenetrable jungle-like forests and underbrush while at the same time telling us Crump knew the land from having hunted through these same impenetrable jungles for years? Why hunt through the impenetrable forest when so much more manageable land is right nearby?

Why do you think Bryan's picture reveals a much greater percentage of deciduous trees than yours?


As far as my asking you about Crump being on an Eastbound train...keep in mind that I was laughing at it possibly being another of your ridiculous qualifiers to questions you want to discuss inside a very confined context. The AWT article hadn't been posted in months and I refreshed my memory soon after...is that the best you got? It makes no difference which direction the train was headed.

[DMoriarty]

Bryan, one of the things I have always found frustrating about these discussions are the sliding standards of proof.   On the one hand, you are willing to presume the 1913 topo is accurate and trust it implicitly, even though (or perhaps because) there is no way to test it.  On other other, you are requiring not only perfect data, but a perfect data set to disprove it.  Doesn't this incongruent methodology bother you?  

Regardless, will have a better complete set of 1/9 data at some point, but we both know it will very likely tell us what we already know; that the 1913 absolute elevations were wrong.
_______________________________________________________________

As far as the hostility toward Patrick, I am not sure I quite understand it.   Have you guys asked Patrick how he came up with the April date for that aerial? Did he get the date from somewhere, or did it look like April to him?

[Bryan Izatt]

Pat,

Why bother answering.  You can't accept views on anything that lie outside of your I'm-always-right-dogma.

[Bryan Izatt]

Bryan, one of the things I have always found frustrating about these discussions are the sliding standards of proof.   On the one hand, you are willing to presume the 1913 topo is accurate and trust it implicitly, even though (or perhaps because) there is no way to test it.  On other other, you are requiring not only perfect data, but a perfect data set to disprove it.  Doesn't this incongruent methodology bother you?  

I find a lot of your positions frustrating as well.  You seem to doubt everything or assume everything is wrong except those things that you want to believe.  But, that's the way you are, and this is the way I am.  We can still have discussions.  Perhaps they will rarely lead to agreement or a clear-cut "winner" in either of our minds, but at least we'll fully air our views.

Regardless, will have a better complete set of 1/9 data at some point, but we both know it will very likely tell us what we already know; that the 1913 absolute elevations were wrong.

And, when we have a better 1/9 data set, and when we're able to accurately overlay the 1913 topo, and when we know what datums were used for each, and when we know that there was not a lot of earth movement in the last century, then I will happily agree with you that the two are different for reasons that we understand.  Perhaps it will be evident then that the 1913 surveyor was indeed just wrong with his absolute elevations.

As a tangential thought, did you know that the high-res orthoimagery on the Seamless Viewer is more oblique than the Google Earth imagery?
_______________________________________________________________

As far as the hostility toward Patrick, I am not sure I quite understand it.   Have you guys asked Patrick how he came up with the April date for that aerial? Did he get the date from somewhere, or did it look like April to him?

I can't speak to Jim's feelings.  I'm just frustrated (as you are with me) with his approach to discussion and debate.  There can be no intelligent and honest debate or discussion with someone who has never been wrong about anything and twists and diverts and avoids anything that doesn't fit with his dogmatic views.

[Bryan Izatt]

An open request for help from anyone out there who is still following this thread. 

I have spent some time finding the 8 articles that Tom MacWood says support the "hunting" story about the discovery of the Pine Valley property.  I have found the sources for all but one.  The one where I can't find the source is the Jerome Travers quote, which Tom has reported as follows:

"In his later years, when he had prospered and found his notch in the world of business as a hotel owner of wealth and affluence, his eyes and heart turned again toward the wooden spot in which he found so much joy in his youth. George Crump told me of it himself. The vision of Pine Valley transformed into a masterpiece of golf architecture came to him on one of those exhilarating expeditions he was again making over its white-grained expanses and through its quail-inhabited thickets."

Tom has steadfastly refused to post where and when Travers made this statement.  I do not doubt that Travers made it, or that Tom transcribed it properly, but for context, I would like to know when and where it was published.  I don't understand why Tom won't divulge it or why he didn't footnote this and the other seven articles in his Opinion piece. 

That said, can anyone out there help me find the source of this quote?

[DMoriarty]

I find a lot of your positions frustrating as well.  You seem to doubt everything or assume everything is wrong except those things that you want to believe.  But, that's the way you are, and this is the way I am.  We can still have discussions.  Perhaps they will rarely lead to agreement or a clear-cut "winner" in either of our minds, but at least we'll fully air our views.

My frustration isn't with you alone on the point I mentioned, although I generally do expect a bit more from you because you seem to have a much better grasp on most of the epistemological issues that pop up around here.  You are right that I do doubt everything but I don't think I make an exception as to things I "want to believe."  (For example, you may recall it was me who first pointed out that there were potential problems with the 1/9 NED dataset for the PV area.)  "Winners" aren't determined by consensus.  We've all won only when we have figured out whatever it is we are trying to figure out.

And, when we have a better 1/9 data set, and when we're able to accurately overlay the 1913 topo, and when we know what datums were used for each, and when we know that there was not a lot of earth movement in the last century, then I will happily agree with you that the two are different for reasons that we understand.  Perhaps it will be evident then that the 1913 surveyor was indeed just wrong with his absolute elevations.

This is just stubbornness on your part, but you know that.

As a tangential thought, did you know that the high-res orthoimagery on the Seamless Viewer is more oblique than the Google Earth imagery?

I noticed that the angle looked different on the Merion 12th photo, but hadn't looked into it yet. (By the way did you notice the red lines on the ground around that green.)  Are you sure that this is the case?  If so, then how do they match up with the underlying layers or with their own grid?
_______________________________________________________________

I can't speak to Jim's feelings.  I'm just frustrated (as you are with me) with his approach to discussion and debate.  There can be no intelligent and honest debate or discussion with someone who has never been wrong about anything and twists and diverts and avoids anything that doesn't fit with his dogmatic views.

I understand that arguing with Patrick can be a frustrating experience over the short haul, but overall I don't think your description is accurate, especially not over the long term.  Patrick is one of the few people on this site who I have seen take a hard line position on something, argue vehemently for his position, and then readily admit he was wrong once it finally became clear to him that he was wrong.  And I have seen him do this on more than one occasion and with more than one issue.   He is also one of the few people I have seen who has not allowed the vitriol get to him personally, and who doesn't really seem to hold a grudge about any of it.  He is also one of the few who has the guts to stand up to his pals when he knows they are wrong or out of line.  Not that he is always a pleasure over the short term, but over the long term I don't think your description fits. Just my opinion.

[JESII]

David,

What hostility towards Patrick?

I was just playing in the sandbox...


Regarding the date of the overhead...he posted it and said it was of the area in the winter. It didn't look like winter to me so I asked if he had any way to know when it was actually taken and he said "yes, in April".

I'm not sure what you think I should do to continue that line of questioning. He either said he knew how to be sure when it was taken and was wrong, or he tried to pass off April as the winter, and the first day or two of winter at that.

Personally, I don't believe it was taken that early but Bryan's quick follow up with a picture showing many less obstrucing leaves made any response from me unnecessary because Patrick had said the leaves in April are no different than December, January or February...