DisQuoi

quote:Assuming 1 out of 10 geocachers can solve it, would that influence your decision to hide it? I'm definately going ahead to place it ... All that's left is the placement of the micro-caches. However, I agree that in reality, less than 9 out of 10 typical people can do it. I may decide to offer an description of how to calculate this or even provide a spreadsheet wherein persons who are not interested in the challenge of the geometry can still follow the intended cache description. In my first cache I decided to provide solutions for anyone who wants to find the cache but not accept the challenge (so far 2/2 have located the cache without my help).

Trogonometry is the math you learned that involved cosine, sine, tangent, etc. The intersection of arcs (i.e., the distances from the reference points to the cache) can be described by a series of triangles on a plane. Once you describe the triangles, you would simply use algebra to calculate the lengths of the sides of the triangles ... then you have the location of the cache. You can do it graphically with a compass and pencil (not a magnetic compass but a v-shaped tool used to draw circles) but this won't get you as close to the cache as the method described above.

Yes ... I plan to use "x.xxx miles". This will result in an accuracy of 1.6 meters. If solved mathematically, there should be no question. I chose miles so people will be forced to convert to meters. After 16 votes, I'm guessing that only people with math backgounds are responding (surveyors, engineers, math majors or degres requiring tons of math). ... because frankly, it's not a simple calculation.

Yes ... I plan to use "x.xxx miles". This will result in an accuracy of 1.6 meters. If solved mathematically, there should be no question. I chose miles so people will be forced to convert to meters. After 16 votes, I'm guessing that only people with math backgounds are responding (surveyors, engineers, math majors or degres requiring tons of math). ... because frankly, it's not a simple calculation.

quote:AquaDyne wrote: Why not give three reference points with bearings? Or two with bearings and one with distances? (deleted) There are many combinations or reference points, bearings, and distances that could be used. One could be given three arcs (two arcs would result in two possible solutions), two lines (only one solution), an arc and a line (two solutions but you could provide a N/S clue), etc. I chose three arcs but calculating the location would require about the same effort for all of these.

I will provide UTM coordinates. The distances will be in the range of 1-10 miles. Since I'm providing the three reference points to 1 meter and the distances to 1/1000th of a mile, the finder should be able to use basic trigonometry to solve. As for paper ... if the distances are small, this will work but as the distances become larger, the scale of a map will make an accurate determination difficult.

I can't find an explanation for these ... Replies ... obvious, never mind Views ... the number of people that viewed the page but includes people who didn't respond? Rating ... out of five stars ... how is this calculated?

Let me clarify ... Three coordinates will be given. At each of the three locations, a microcache will contain a single number x.xxx miles (no bearings). Therefore, you will need to locate each of the three (two minimum) microcaches to get the distances. In one of my caches, I did the reverse ... I gave the distances in the cache description but forced the finder to locate the coordinates (of the reference points). The real difference is that in the second example, the finder could use a pencil and compass to draw the arcs on a map. He only had to locate a bridge (at which the exact coordinates are found). However, in this case, he will need to calculate the location (or accept a fairly large search area). quote: I just wish somebody would post a cache like this for me to find. My brother (Rodness) is currently building a twin cache in and around Boise, ID.

I'm preparing a cache that requires the finder to mathematically triangulate the location of the main cache from three reference points. It would help me to know if a typical finder can do this. This new poll option is perfect for this. Given three reference points with distances ...

quote:Originally posted by GammaBoo: They hold up a LOT better than plastic containers, and the contents are safe from the elements and critters. I put stickers over all of the printing on the can. The stickers include the notice "GEOCACHE SITE---DO NOT VANDALIZE". I then put the can in a sturdy dark plastic bag along with the official geocaching notice, laminated, OUTSIDE the ammo can. Then I wrap the whole thing in a piece of camouflage burlap. Finally I hide the cache so it can't be seen from the nearest trail or path. Even this can probably be improved on. Any suggestions? I have placed three ammo cans. They are all painted canary yellow with the geocaching handpainted on the front. I also painted the name of the cache and WWW.GEOCACHING.COM. I may even paint a peace sign on the next one.

quote:Originally posted by GammaBoo: They hold up a LOT better than plastic containers, and the contents are safe from the elements and critters. I put stickers over all of the printing on the can. The stickers include the notice "GEOCACHE SITE---DO NOT VANDALIZE". I then put the can in a sturdy dark plastic bag along with the official geocaching notice, laminated, OUTSIDE the ammo can. Then I wrap the whole thing in a piece of camouflage burlap. Finally I hide the cache so it can't be seen from the nearest trail or path. Even this can probably be improved on. Any suggestions? I have placed three ammo cans. They are all painted canary yellow with the geocaching handpainted on the front. I also painted the name of the cache and WWW.GEOCACHING.COM. I may even paint a peace sign on the next one.

Took a civil war bullet and left some sharks teeth from Hawaii.