_Shaddow_

I'm probably being way over careful

Thanks, it was a fun and exciting adventure. I have to say that geocaching helped a lot. No cache hide and probably won't divulge the exact location to anyone, I see no value in it. And probably not the general location until the undergrowth fills back in. The value would be to satisfy our curiosity. But what would be the harm in it? I agree.... Do dish! Well, for one, since it wasn't fully destroyed, there's the issue of someone fixing up the bunker for future use. Not you guys of course but the internet is forever and this forum topic won't be hard to find with a search engine. Could just be kids too which won't perhaps do it safe enough to prevent collapse. Then there's how it reflects on me and my fellow search and rescuers which includes relationships with law enforcement. I will run it by some people and get some feedback on that part. I will say this, the map that was posted before and that I defended is not nearly as accurate as I thought. Live and learn. Also, the photographs weren't much help either. It was of course on the northeast facing side. Also, there was no danger of the general public happening across it. [edited for spelling as usual]

Because of error in the system it can never determine the exact spot you are located and therefore, if you were to view them (your tracks) in map view, it will produce a bunch of relatively close grouping of data points as reading are taken. If you are close to the center of this grouping, the direction arrow, if your using it, and distance away to the targeted coordinates will seemingly jump around. All around you in fact, if you are very near. Geocachers have developed ways to deal with that issue, including walking a distance away then looking at the distance and direction stats to the target to better estimate its location. Most do what JesandTodd do, they just start looking when they are that close.

Thanks, it was a fun and exciting adventure. I have to say that geocaching helped a lot. No cache hide and probably won't divulge the exact location to anyone, I see no value in it. And probably not the general location until the undergrowth fills back in.

Yesterday, Monday the 15th. It looks like they cleaned nothing up; lots of trash including full rolls of roofing paper. Inside in the back you could still see the PVC plumbing and red valve handles that were shown in the newspaper pictures. Also there were at least ten one gallon sized zip lock bags full of some gray powder, my first thought was flour or pancake mix but of course then the animals would have already gotten to it so maybe concrete mix? Yes, it was very, very well hidden. He picked a good spot. If not for the picture they discovered taken from the site it would have been much harder and likely maybe not found at all. If not for the smoke from the fire he lit, even with the picture it would have been very time consuming to locate it. To locate it, myself and a buddy used only the information we discussed here and saw on the news but of course it didn't go very far. A combination of clues progressively lead us to it and even when we obviously got very close due to the recent activity very near the site, it took some work to actually locate it, partly because of tracks probably due to the SWAT teams searching and covering the area and detectives afterwards. It looks like the majority of people were flewn in and out as the trails fade significantly out as you get further away. We were also believe that we were able to determine the helicopter lift area which was maybe 150-200 yards from the bunker (fort). Once within say 150' from one direction, it's get much more obvious that we were in the right location. He had a work area near the bunker for cutting this timbers along with a stack of maybe eight ready to go. There was very recent sawdust so we guessed that he was probably working on it right up to the time it he went into hiding. He had a small dam at the stream which I assume he used for washing. I found the work area first and a few moments later my friend who was maybe 50' below me in elevation spotted the bunker opening from a distance. But only because to top is now cut open. Back when it was intact it would not be easy to find unless very close to it. Even so, I am now more convinced that this was a fort done by a poorly thinking man and not a well thought out bunker done by a military thinking man. This for a few reasons. A big one is failure to cover up his work near the site and that the openings were square rather than more natural. He relied more on covering evidence of making his way to and from the site rather than the site itself. If his opening was more concealed and the cut logs not left out then someone accidentally finding the area, however unlikely, would have thought it strange but could still have written it off to hunters, foresters, kids etc. These are just my opinions though. I think that's about it. I'll post some more pictures later.

I hope no one places a cache there, unless it's a CITO. The sooner he is forgotten, the better. They'd have to find the location first. And they won't

Anyone home?

I don't feel as if I've been bashing you. If that's the case, then I apologize. That's certainly not what I wanted. Perhaps its time I go back and re-read the thread. You are right, it is of troll quality in that it gets people 'in the ring', and it's tough to back down from a fight. But, in those threads, both sides never come to any agreement or conclusion. I feel this thread is different. Well, I did. No not you at all. Also bashing is too strong of a word but it's along those lines I would have to agree with that, overall this did turn out fairly well.

Have you read the whole thread ? refer First, don't even get me started on the 'official' app. Second, I think the price of an iPhone is much higher than even the 'high end' GPSrs so it seems odd to me to hear that the game was exclusive to you in $. But I can understand the higher cost of buying both. Besides, when I first cached I didn't have a GPSr and instead used maps, so it can be done even without a unit for lots of caches. Personally, I've supported smartphone use throughout this discussion except for the very specific cases of extended hiking in areas without service or in areas with lots of longer trails where trail information is important in both picking a better route and getting out safely (the latter only because NW Trails is not yet available on smartphones). I personally am not on the anti-smartphone bandwagon and don't understand it, as my experience with one is that they not only work well in most cases, even better due to the increase in available info (via data download) My part here has been twofold: 1) the iPhone isn't necessarily better than any other smartphone for caching; 2) a dedicated GPSr with NW Trails, or similar, loaded is a better choice for very specific conditions. If anyone has been taking a bashing here, it's been me.

I'm reminded what I said when I first joined this topic. If you can ignore my failed attempt at humor, I meant that it's a passionate topic formed in a way to be unanswerable and will generate strong and likely heated discussion. I'm not at all surprised that this topic generated endless discussion then degraded. I think the answer to the OPs question is: it's a matter of opinion. There, done If we want to discuss differences in devices, a new topic should be started.

You should try being an iPhone user. It's brutal. I activate Siri and I'm an Ahole. I get onto iTunes and I'm being a snob. Unfortunately for you, many are. Or at least ones that want to be noticed, and therefore are I speak positvely about the iPhone in the forums and I'm a fool, inexperienced, not serious, and a liar. I haven't seen or heard that myself, actually my experience has been just the opposite. In this forum topic for example. From what I've seen from friends using it, it's a great device. There are other smartphones that are very good too.

I'm not sure if this is directed at me. I'm being terse because there are many people around me at work... Bruce, you and I know a GPS is more consistant than the iphone. The iphone is a bit wildly and takes patience, which is why we say that the user makes a big difference in the perfomance and outcome. You and I know how to use it I'm sure that was directed at me; I've been in his sights since my iPhone comment (joke).

Sigh... I know that if I respond positively to the iphone in the forums that plenty of people, with little or no experience with the iphone, will gang up on me and do their best to tear me down. You can see evidence of it in this thread. I'm a big girl so I can take it. However, there are plenty of times when I let comments/threads slide because I just don't feel like telling people, over and over again how wrong they are...it gets old and tiring. But if I or Bruce don't weigh in, then the thread disintegrates into a din of misinformation. I know that if I was a newbie to these forums, I wouldn't dare weigh in. I do my best to let other iphone users out there know that is can be done. Somebody has to say it....frequently. But, there IS a difference in how one uses the iphone. It really makes a difference. I would read your quote better as. "the iphone is just fine if you're a good enough user" (like I am) Lets leave the "like I am" as a mental thought that I say to myself. That's an interesting perspective that I hadn't considered. From the outside, it generally looks like iPhone users place themselves and their phones above all others and can do no wrong. It's a generalization of course, and I won't say I get that vibe from you. Maybe the more vocal of those that fit that generalization skew the perspective for the rest. Though I'm not sure why the iPhone is singled out over other smartphones, which seems to add to the generalization. If anything, it's about the app, not the device. Most new smartphones have touch screens, a decent processor, the same or comparable GPSr chip, fast enough data network for the task, etc. It seems that we should be discussing smartphone apps vs dedicated unit not iPhone vs. everything else

I think that one will go to the debated side; personally, I agree with you

Yes, anyway, please Seems to read: the iPhone is the best if you're a good enough user (like I am) Perhaps there can be a discussion without you weighing in frequently and substantially with this shtick?

For sure, interesting cache Over to how it applies to the topic at hand: note that weather and atmospheric conditions and weather are not necessarily the same thing, in only one of several reason a GPSr reading can be off. To have any kind of scientific results you'd have to test all of them at the same time therefore under the same conditions. But I don't think accuracy is a hotly debated issue here. It's more about the other features, performances and physical characteristics of a given device. A few of the biggest and agreed upon differences seem to be satellite photos and internet access for the smartphones, and durability and battery life for a dedicated unit. Anyone care to list others, perhaps separated by agreed upon or debated? It'd be fun to focus on and discuss each of them individually.

Regarding accuracy, there are errors in the GPS itself, such as satellite availability and geometry, multipath, and atmospheric conditions, so any device will vary day to day or even moment to moment. Even the location of your body in relation to the unit affects transmission of the signal since it's basically a big bag of water. Therefore taking different devices to benchmarks at different times and noting the error in location unfortunately isn't going to give comparable results.

It's ok, it was expected

Good to hear

Pretty much what it's like here, we do have temperate rain forest. But the desert-ish-ly type is in the eastern part of the state Are you still feeling the need to continue this off-topic discussion? I'm hoping that you've gotten what you need out of it so we can, as you have said, get past it and move on.

I wouldn't do that. In fact, I grow up around the upper midwest, including Michigan with time in the UP so know what it's like there. I have also traveled to all 50 states so have a general feeling for areas. Have sailed the Northern Channel of your lovely province. Looks like your south of that area though. Things don't change much around those parts and looking at the pictures on the caches and satellite photos it looks about the same, though a little wetter during the summer. Generally rolling hills and generally open deciduous forest. More conifer as you go north, but still open down low. I can see a smartphone working well there, basically need to know where you are and the direction to go to your target. The geocaching map is a great way to find caches in our parks. You could also take a look at jcacher15's caches, he likes to place terrain caches; most are relatively very short but it gets the idea across. To get a full taste of our terrain, take a look up the I90 corridor, Snoqualmie River Middle Fork and pretty much anywhere on the western side of the Cascades. If anyone in or visiting the Seattle area and wants an adventure to test a GPSr vs a smartphone, feel free to contact me.

Ah, so it was my iPhone comment I'm thinking the difference in our local terrain is part of it. Looking through the pictures, we find harder stuff within our city parks. Seriously. I also noticed that it's basically flat therefore no real need for topos. In one of our parks you can get 1,200 feet elevation. 30 minutes from Seattle and there's a very popular hike that's 3,600 feet. So once again, all the experienced hikers I've known, talked with, or observed go with a dedicated unit. To the OP, if hiking is in your plans, and you live near to mountains in the west or similar terrain, I would suggest going that way. Still looking for an mapping expert, and one very familiar with smartphone mapping apps, to help get mapsets to smartphone users. Feel free to post here or IM or email me directly.

Adding something that I said before and has since been lost and perhaps it will help us move on: I first came to the conclusion that dedicated units are the better choice from my own experiences. I tried using mine for about a year and a half in between owning an eTrex and a 60CSx. The result is that a dedicated unit is hands down better for the reasons I have previous given. The rest of my statements, those which you are focusing on, are about my observations that others have come to the same conclusion on their own.

You really read what you want to read into my posts and your interpretation obviously pricks you somehow. Either that or you have more interest in debating than actually helping people learn about the topic. In either case, your posts are focused more on you rather than the subject. My level of hiking experience, and how I define hiking experience, is something that you explicitly asked for, I guess because you wanted to judge how valuable my opinions were. Maybe you didn't like what you found because now your trying to use my statements against me. Fine, if that's what you need. This tangent seems to center around my statement that the more experienced hikers I see and know on the trail use a GPSr instead of a smartphone. And we're not talking about people unskilled with smartphones, as you tried to imply earlier, many are 'softies and other techies, including a few that actually design the phones and apps. Of course, many don't use either but instead map and compass. In any case, I stick to my statement 100%: once to a certain point (not using the word experience here since it's touchy) then hikers will naturally give up their smartphone for a dedicated unit. I'll now add that those that don't have some other agenda. Like proving a smartphone can be used. Enjoy your smartphone (iPhone yes?), it seems to work for you at this point, and you clearly are attached to it. This whole issue about hiking experience is but a small part of my comments blown out of proportion and as I've said, the smartphone certainly has it's place for urban caching. My previous posts go into much more detail, no need to repeat them again.