ecanderson

We have to do that frequently here for certain CO's caches. One of our locals who is great at being VERY persistent for an FTF has provided us coordinates in his logs as much as 100' from GZ (yes, GZ is where something blows up, not where it's aimed), and for that, we are always very appreciative. That said, it would nice for our FTF hounds if they weren't searching half a planet for certain CO's caches all the time. Until someone does post alternates, everyone is being treated to the un-fun. Somewhere over in the "irks" thread, I know we've had people talk about COs who don't take a hint from the logs and recheck and update coordinates when they see this sort of thing. I was surprised when GCHQ removed the tick box and input field to readily note alternate coordinates, the location in the log entry was always up top and predictable that way -- but most of us are still pretty diligent about noting them somewhere in our log entries if they're far enough out, or the site requires it to avoid needle/haystack situations.

Yes, because of course, NOBODY ever fat fingers a set of coordinates. I always compare what I'm entering into a new cache page with a GE just to be sure I didn't do anything stupid. If for no other reason at all, it's a good double check.

Oh, 100% agreed, but there doesn't seem to be much interest in new input regarding an algorithm we can't even truly assess. I was only referencing the current situation as it is.

Perhaps because it's been explained SO many times before? This isn't a new topic. And if your "If what the heck" implies a big IF. If you get lucky, then yes, you get lucky. If not, you may annoy a lot of future finders.

Not following you. If the CO knows it's a false positive, what other point would there be to the Owner Maintenance Log apart from avoiding having a reviewer have to manually check the conditions that triggered it? Many times, the log history isn't such that even finders would be put off by what they see in those logs. The health-o-meter can be pretty twitchy at times.

@kunarion The amount of effort required to get a good coordinate depends upon a lot of factors, including the physical location being checked. Standing out in the middle of an open field in the middle of Kansas when the DOP is good really isn't much of a challenge. There are, however, LOTS of more difficult areas than that, and to get really good coordinates, it takes a bit more effort. Note what the OP actually said in the original post: "I downloaded a gps coordinate app for cache placement and did the averaging trick... popped the resulting coord into Google maps and was off by probably 30 feet. Another coord from the same method was almost spot on." What we don't know is what phone app was being used, nor the quality of the algorithm being used by that app. But then Garmin doesn't suggest that taking an average ONCE is a good idea, either. The OP made a discovery in that regard. Why should that be a surprise? There's "best practice" and "what the heck, close enough". You can choose. Meanwhile, in many areas, certainly in mine, (back to the original thread), GE is a good 2nd check.

Figured I might as well bring this one up for review. I see it from time to time. May be related to email replies to MC messages - not sure. Actual message followed by two messages with odd graphics, always the double bar on the first one and the square on the second one. Anyone else seeing stuff like this in their MC thread? Always correspond to an actual answer (matching time stamp). For those at GCHC, you can access the thread in question here >> https://www.geocaching.com/account/messagecenter/?conversationId=04b9ae03-b868-433a-a0e3-d69bf11bebf9

Of course, one shouldn't just perform even THIS function just once. DOP being what it is, even Garmin recommends repeating the procedure 4 to 8 times, "waiting at least 90 minutes between samples."

No, but it seems to be the only way a CO can 'clear the flag' for a false positive.

Wise guy, eh? Would be fun to know exactly, but there is definitely some handling of outlier data, accounting for drift, and smoothing going on. If you observe in the field how Garmin devices respond with their % confidence number during 'Waypoint Averaging", there's some clear indication, especially as regards any drift in the instantaneous computed location. One interesting test is to set up a track and then (to make it easier) take a video of the % confidence and current estimate being reported during the averaging, and then compare it on a timeline to the track that was built. No way to exactly reverse engineer the algorithm, but you do see some interesting correlations.

If we are led to understand this correctly by Keystone, the "Owner Maintenance" log is actually the only option for dealing with false positives that trigger a CHS email.

Again, we may be talking at crossed purposes here. My observation of how waypoint 'averaging' works in Garmin and phone app code isn't so simplistic. There's a good reason why the device's estimation of the quality of the fix can go DOWN during measurement in addition to going up. It's not just a simple average collected over time.

No one suggested "An average of a bunch of loose coordinates" as a solution. I didn't make any blanket statements of that sort. I'm sure that Garmin isn't doing that on their devices, nor phone apps that do real waypoint averaging. We're talking about 2 different averaging techniques here.

Support for cache owners If the Health Score of a cache drops below a certain point, an automatic email is sent to the cache owner. These emails alert owners that they might need to check on their cache. Here are a few options [emphasis mine] for cache owners: Maintenance: Visit the cache and make any needed repairs. Post an “Owner Maintenance” log so the community knows it’s available to find. Adjust D/T rating: If your cache turns out to be more difficult than you thought, adjust the D/T rating so that the community knows what to expect. Disable: If you cannot check on your geocache within a few days, disable your cache page. In the log, include the date on which you will do maintenance. After you maintained your cache, enable your cache page and post an “Owner Maintenance” log. Archive: If you decide that it’s time for your cache to be permanently retired, please archive the cache page and retrieve all physical stages. Just understand that the first "option" isn't really optional if you really want to avoid further interactions with the 'system', even if the cache is in good shape, or you've adjusted D/T.

You are right. The OP didn't mention how they are getting coordinates. So saying that their use of averaging "is not something to play around with" is quite premature. In fact, best practice for placing caches incorporates an averaging scheme. Lack of that sort of tool in the 'official app' is one of my bigger complaints with it. If you aren't using any kind of averaging, and repeating it multiple times, you're probably not getting the best set of coordinates for your own placements.

In particular, Keystone, who keeps things in line here, and whose 'real' job can be enough of a nightmare all on its own. How he finds time to ride herd on this group is amazing.

Weird. Wonder why they did that? How do the GE images look in the more populated areas of NSW? They're at fantastic resolution here. You can identify very small features like a telephone pedestal (the little cans in yards) and individual overhead electrical wires, and very easily follow very small dirt paths around natural areas. It makes planning access to geocaches a heck of a lot easier, especially in the mountains where trail maps aren't always as complete as we'd like. You could just about give names to most of the rocks, and this shot is randomly chosen way out in the boonies of a national forest.

That's what I thought the "lol" was intended to convey, but it evidently wasn't sufficient.

Your complaint is with the NSW maps, then? And GE demonstrated that your placement was as you had hoped? Granted, you say GE gives some problems in your area (obvious when there are clear, visual tile alignment issues), but it clearly worked well enough in this case. I certainly never see any 10m errors anywhere around here, much less 30m errors, but they have clearly made some effort at tile alignment here, too. One thing that users of GE far too often don't think to check is the imagery DATE, and perhaps their use (or disuse) of the history slider when viewing their bit of territory. More recent imagery is far more likely to be quite accurate, not to mention at a better resolution. An image that hasn't been updated for a decade or more is another story, and is more likely to contain errors. Good alignment seems to happen anywhere that one finds more developed areas - possibly DUE to requests for better imagery products in those areas, they are also more frequently updated.

Guess H&S's "lol" at the end wasn't sufficient. GCHQ: Please institute a proper set of 'sarcasm on / sarcasm off' emoticons. That's twice today this has come up.

If you try to use the QR for an AL, it would (and already does, somehow) take you to the app that's needed rather than directly to the https://labs.geocaching.com/goto/pointer in the QR - which wouldn't be of much use without the app.

From Google, their abbreviated description: How does it work? You create a Dynamic Link either by using the Firebase console, using a REST API, iOS or Android Builder API, or by forming a URL by adding Dynamic Link parameters to a domain specific to your app. These parameters specify the links you want to open, depending on the user's platform and whether your app is installed. When a user opens one of your Dynamic Links, if your app isn't yet installed, the user is sent to the Play Store or App Store to install your app (unless you specify otherwise), and your app opens. You can then retrieve the link that was passed to your app and handle the deep link as appropriate for your app.

Guess it's one way of avoiding a case of 'seed sock' in the Fall.

Yes, yes, Darin, but there's absolutely nothing wrong with using GE as a double check (particularly against fat fingering, which happens) when it is accurate in a CO's area. Especially true when in urban canyons where reception can be very sketchy to begin with. Please note that the OP said "I downloaded a gps coordinate app for cache placement and did the averaging trick..."

Just curious -- Are any of them much bigger inside than they are outside???