Help finding a site via coordinates?

[FF7_Yuffie]

Hello,

 

I have found a fossil site referenced not too far from my home. The paper even gives the map coordinates. Trouble is, pasting the coordinates I have into Google Maps brings up zero results. So, I realised google maps replaces the degrees sign with a period. But inputting it in that way brings up a location around 80 miles south of where it is meant to be.

 

If anyone can help me know where I am going wrong, or have a look at the coordinates and pop a pic of its location on a map, I would really appreciate it.

 

Here are the coordinates given:   24°57’32.82’’N, 121°22’50.75’’E

 

Site is meant to be in Shulin. If anyone can help, that would be awesome.

 

 

Edit: There are also these coordinates of a site very close--unfossilferous, but it was studied. So if this one is of help, it is only about 30 meters awya from the one with fossils:     24°57’37.27’’N, 121°23’00.75’’E

 

 

Nothing is showing up on Google maps, so I wonder if the coordinates are a different format?

Edited September 17, 2021 by FF7_Yuffie

[FF7_Yuffie]

I think I've actually managed to pinpoint it---I did it manually, clicking through the aproximate area until I hit very close coordinates. Though, if anyone who knows coordinates and mapreading can double check to make sure I am right, that would be super. I believe it is this little island circled. 

 

The fossil bearing layer here is very small apparently. The paper I read only found fossils really in a narrow strip--fish teeth, sharks teeth, echinoids and in a higher layer, plant matter.

 

 

Edited September 17, 2021 by FF7_Yuffie

[Mainefossils]

@FF7_Yuffie, would you mind sharing the paper you are using? It is very unusual for them not to provide or reference a geologic map of the area. If a geologic map is shown, it is usually not hard to use landmarks (peninsulas, islands, small deformities of the land, etc) shown in that map to find the locality. This is the technique I use to find the localities I visit, and plan to visit. 

[pachy-pleuro-whatnot-odon]

Hi Jack,

 

It's not just the period that changes in "Google's" notation of coordinates. The coordinates are, in fact, in an entirely different format, with those from the article being in degrees, minutes and fractional seconds, whereas Google uses a decimal format. In order to use the coordinates from the article, you'll need to convert them, using a tool such as this. Try that and see where you get...

[FranzBernhard]

1 hour ago, FF7_Yuffie said:

24°57’32.82’’N, 121°22’50.75’’E

 

1 hour ago, FF7_Yuffie said:

So if this one is of help, it is only about 30 meters away from the one with fossils:     24°57’37.27’’N, 121°23’00.75’’E

 

These are much more than 30 m apart. One second is about 30 m. These should be several 100 meters apart.

 

Franz Bernhard

[FF7_Yuffie]

1 hour ago, Mainefossils said:

@FF7_Yuffie, would you mind sharing the paper you are using? It is very unusual for them not to provide or reference a geologic map of the area. If a geologic map is shown, it is usually not hard to use landmarks (peninsulas, islands, small deformities of the land, etc) shown in that map to find the locality. This is the technique I use to find the localities I visit, and plan to visit. 

 

This is the article: 

 

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/08912963.2021.1916012?scroll=top&needAccess=true

 

There's a small, localised map--handdrawn. And sets of coordinates for each site--a few were empty, one has since washed away. I have narrowed it down to a specific area--I have narrowed it down using the small map to a certain area which I think is correct. I have found what I beleive the be the ruined dam on Google Maps. But the coordinates would help narrow down the exact spot---the fossil bearing area is very small. It isn't a wide area. 

Edited September 17, 2021 by FF7_Yuffie

[FF7_Yuffie]

28 minutes ago, FranzBernhard said:

 

 

These are much more than 30 m apart. One second is about 30 m. These should be several 100 meters apart.

 

Franz Bernhard

 

Thanks. Hope this clarifies it.  Picture D, Site SL-4 is the site with the fossils and the the coordinates I gave. SL-3 also has fossils.

 

Maybe I misread the coordinates or the photo is wrong, but on the photo, SL-4 looks very close to SL-1/SL-2  -- SL-1 has coordinates of:  24°57’37.27’’N, 121°23’00.75’’E

SL-4 on the paper is given coordinates 24°57’32.82’’N, 121°22’50.75’’E

 

SL-3 is given: 24°57’40.25’’N, 121°23’05.18’’E

 

 

Edited September 17, 2021 by FF7_Yuffie

[FF7_Yuffie]

43 minutes ago, pachy-pleuro-whatnot-odon said:

Hi Jack,

 

It's not just the period that changes in "Google's" notation of coordinates. The coordinates are, in fact, in an entirely different format, with those from the article being in degrees, minutes and fractional seconds, whereas Google uses a decimal format. In order to use the coordinates from the article, you'll need to convert them, using a tool such as this. Try that and see where you get...

 

 

Awesome! That's cracked it!

 

Thanks very much. I can now get the exact locations.

[Mainefossils]

So, I think I have found the site(s) you are looking for. Below is the map you were talking about from your paper, Lin, C. H., Chien, C. W. (2021) Late Miocene otoliths from northern Taiwan: insights into the rarely known Neogene coastal fish community of the subtropical northwest Pacific. Historical Biology. The next picture shows the area from Google Maps. As you can see, it shows the same roads, and the area where the dam used to stand. I don't know which site you are looking for, but I hope this helps! 

 

 

 

 

 

[FF7_Yuffie]

Thanks for the help, everyone. I have pinpointed site SL-4 and SL-3 which is where the fossils are found.

 

The paper is about otoliths, but it mentions that lots of other fossils were found in the area. I plan to go tomorrow, so now I have the locations pinpointed I am hopeful to find something.

 

Thanks again for the help.

[FF7_Yuffie]

2 minutes ago, Mainefossils said:

So, I think I have found the site(s) you are looking for. Below is the map you were talking about from your paper, Lin, C. H., Chien, C. W. (2021) Late Miocene otoliths from northern Taiwan: insights into the rarely known Neogene coastal fish community of the subtropical northwest Pacific. Historical Biology. The next picture shows the area from Google Maps. As you can see, it shows the same roads, and the area where the dam used to stand. I don't know which site you are looking for, but I hope this helps! 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Cheers, much appreciated.

 

It is SL-3 and SL-4 where the fossils are found. SL-0 was apparently a great spot but the paper says it was washed away. 

 

Hopefully I find some nice fossils tomorrow.

[FranzBernhard]

22 minutes ago, FF7_Yuffie said:

but on the photo, SL-4 looks very close to SL-1/SL-2

It it seems that SL means "Sedimentary Layer". The map @Mainefossils provided makes it clear, that the actual sites SL-1 and SL-4 are about 300 m apart, which fits with the coordinates.

 

7 minutes ago, FF7_Yuffie said:

Hopefully I find some nice fossils tomorrow.

Good luck .

 

Franz Bernhard

Edited September 17, 2021 by FranzBernhard

[FF7_Yuffie]

9 minutes ago, FranzBernhard said:

It it seems that SL means "Sedimentary Layer". The map @Mainefossils provided makes it clear, that the actual sites SL-1 and SL-4 are about 300 m apart, which fits with the coordinates.

 

Good luck .

 

Franz Bernhard

 

Thanks, was wondering of the meaning of SL.

 

I'll post some photos of my hopefully successful hunt.

[pachy-pleuro-whatnot-odon]

1 hour ago, FF7_Yuffie said:

It is SL-3 and SL-4 where the fossils are found. SL-0 was apparently a great spot but the paper says it was washed away.

 

With that in mind, the other fossil hunting spots may also have changed due to the river currents. So, if you don't immediately succeed, search around the area a bit for a new exposure.

 

1 hour ago, FF7_Yuffie said:

Hopefully I find some nice fossils tomorrow.

 

1 hour ago, FF7_Yuffie said:

I'll post some photos of my hopefully successful hunt.

 

Good luck tomorrow! I'm looking forward to seeing all the great fossils you'll find

[FF7_Yuffie]

Unfortnately, it was a dud.

 

First, Mordor is easier to get into. The place is nestled in a web of alleys and industrial sites and dead ends. Eventually I found it. Site 4 is inaccessible, the trail washed away.

 

I found one of the othet sites, it was the side of a cliff but safe to dig since it wasnt steep and was kind of layered. 

 

The fossil layer had bits of tiny coral and shells in and was very crumbly. Easy to break away. Looked for an hour with only finding tiny shell and coral fragments. Moved down a layer. This was harder material, but more of the same--just very fragmenty, tiny bits.

 

Then a storm started, so I abandoned it. Much too dsngerous there in the rain sincd you need to climb down.

 

All in all, a bit of a wash out. Still, it was a nice place. But all I have to show for it is a small half shell, the biggest I found and its still pretty small.

 

Oh well, hope tomorrows trip is better

Edited September 18, 2021 by FF7_Yuffie

[FranzBernhard]

Thanks for keeping us informed!

Area looks really good, quite many outcrops to explore. Good luck again!
Franz Bernhard

[FF7_Yuffie]

8 minutes ago, FranzBernhard said:

Thanks for keeping us informed!

Area looks really good, quite many outcrops to explore. Good luck again!
Franz Bernhard

 

Thanks. Yeah, I didnt get the chance to check the other two sites, so will head there again when its drier. Also want more of a look at the second place I went, since I.didnt have long before abandoning it because of the storm.

 

Tomorrow a friend is taking me to another area. Hope will have better luck

[pachy-pleuro-whatnot-odon]

Pity about the lack of fossils, but thanks for the site report all the same. Don't give up on the site just yet, though, as it may take some time to discover the right exposures, layers, and possibly even lenses... I remember having gone to many a site without much luck, until either I understood the nature of the site better, or a friend would tell me how to look... But as you've already decided to go back, I think you're already aware of that

 

Good luck on your hunt tomorrow! May it be more fruitful than the one today!

[FF7_Yuffie]

7 minutes ago, pachy-pleuro-whatnot-odon said:

Pity about the lack of fossils, but thanks for the site report all the same. Don't give up on the site just yet, though, as it may take some time to discover the right exposures, layers, and possibly even lenses... I remember having gone to many a site without much luck, until either I understood the nature of the site better, or a friend would tell me how to look... But as you've already decided to go back, I think you're already aware of that

 

Good luck on your hunt tomorrow! May it be more fruitful than the one today!

 

 

Yeah, I am hopeful about the 2nd place I looked. It was harder matrix, which I hope would mean fossils preserve better. Shame the rain meant I had to cut it short. I'll give it another shot one day.