Brown Dwarf

My mistake. Thought you were hiding the cache, not searching for it. So let's try again. 1) Set your GPS to diplay coordinates in UTM format. 2) Mark a piece of graph paper with a UTM grid appropriate to the coordinates of the three points. 3) Use a protractor to draw the bearing lines from each point. 4) The intersection points of the lines will form a triangle. With luck it will be quite small. 5) Read off the coordinates of the center of the little triangle formed by the three bearing lines. 6) Search at the point indicated by the coordinates

Let the GPS do the work. 1) Use the GPS to make a waypoint at the cache site. 2) Go to each of the three points and shoot a range/bearing to the cache waypoint. Be sure to note whether your GPS is giving you a True or Magnetic bearing. Should be accurate enough for caching purposes.

One of our caches is in a decon container that's been lying on the ground under some weeds for the past four months. Checked it yesterday, and it is still dry. Wouldn't want it to be submerged, but we've had no problems from heavy rains. (The notebook is Rite-in-the-Rain, and in a plastic bag. We use a golf pencil, rather than a pen.)

The coordinates are [almost] always of the cache location itself -- or at least the first cache if you are dealing with a multi-cache. The pushpin on the map is, I believe, derived from the posted coordinates, and hence at the site of the cache itself. Sometimes the site description will include helpful notes about the approach, including the coordinates of a suggested place to park. Other times it's all up to you. Geocaching is refreshingly non-standardized. As we say in computer circles, "That's not a bug; it's a feature." Enjoy.

1) yes, use the keyword search feature, with one word from the name of the cache. 2) yes, use latitude and longitude (pulled from any source) to search on. You can also start with one cache at a known location in a new area, and use the "nearby caches" search feature -- along with the direction from your chosen base cache -- to work your way in one direction, along a road, for example. Slow, perhaps, but it works. When you're on the road, the 1/1.5 caches along the way [we call them "smash and grab"] make good rest stops

That gives me hope. Garmin's base charge for servicing is not cheap. Thanks.

Any idea what would cause a Garmin 12XL to shut down a few seconds after I turn it on? Yes, the batteries are new -- but it's been giving me a message about a memory battery being low for some time now. No mention of a system memory battery in the manual, so that may not be one mere mortals can change. Thanks.

I've been happy with surplus decontamination kit containers. They are olive drab and about the size of a very large wallet -- room enough for a Rite-in-the-Rain pocket notebook and pencil. With the colour, they just about vanish with almost no cover. Any surplus site ought to carry them.

1) Theoretically they all have equal accuracy -- and more accuracy than your GPS. Practically, cache locations are given in DDD MM.MMM, so that's the way to go. 2) The Ds mean degrees of latitude or longitude; the Ms mean minutes; and the Ss mean seconds. Therefore DDD MM.MMM is a latitude or longitude given in degrees, minutes, and parts of a minute. DDD MM SS.SSS is a latitude or longitude given in degrees, minutes, and seconds. 3) What is really important is to make sure your GPS is using the same map datum as the cache location (WGS 84). If it isn't, you could be off up to several hundred feet. The manual will tell you how to check and adjust it

Oops, forgot to suggest that you look at Table 7. It answers a common geocaching question. Lots of marine stuff that you may not want -- but everything you need for maps, charts, and navigation is there. Good luck.

Top of the line, although perhaps more than you want at first: The American Practical Navigator, by Bowditch. It's online at: http://pollux.nss.nima.mil/pubs/pubs_j_apn_sections.html?rid=187 Also available at Amazon, and through any good boating supply store for about $27.50.

I go by where the cache is, rather than what's in it. And if I weren't having one of my increasingly frequent senior moments, I'd remember to bring a book along. Otherwise it would be another TNLN log. We have at least two book theme caches in the area, although the names are not explicit. When I found them, they seemed to be doing well. In short, go for it.

One of the best-designed websites I've seen.

There are a number of different ways of showing coordinates. Geocaching generally uses degrees and minutes, so the coordinates look like DD MM.MMMM. The MapQuest coordinates look like degrees only, so they are DD.DDDD. You can probably set your GPS to accept either -- but you must enter coordinates in the format it's expecting. As for EasyGPS, it's worth it -- at least to me. I've used it to download the 200 nearest caches -- and then upload them to my GPS. The only cost is a cable to hook your GPS to your computer. Saves a lot of time -- and means I don't make typos that I would if I entered the coordinates by hand

Carry a compass -- and use it when you are within about .03 mile of the cache. Reasons: a) some of the posted coordinates are off; and the satellite signal can jump around a lot. This is the voice of experience speaking; I missed my first cache because I wasn't carrying a compass. Remember that the GPS will give you the straight-line distance/direction to the cache. Often it's better to follow existing trails than to bust through the brush. Around here, it's rare to have to go more than a hundred feet or so off-trail.

Either True or Magnetic will work just fine. I use True, for the reasons noted above. If you use True, make sure your compass can be -- and is -- corrected for the local declination. Only possible with the better compasses. [And depending on where you are, the difference may be too small to worry about.] Advantages for using Magnetic: 1) works with any compass, and; 2) can be used anywhere without changing the declination correction. Pilots and sailors tend to use use magnetic headings. Occasionally a cache description will specify True as part of a range and bearing -- so you should learn how to change Magnetic headings to True, and conversely. Just another part of the lore for geocaching

I've found that sulfur dust works much better than DEET in keeping them away. Easy to find at a garden center -- and mix with some hand lotion. Somebody sells "Chiggaway", which seems to be this mixture. After the fact, something called "New Skin" -- pretty much the same thing as nail polish -- kills the itch. Still takes a long time for the bites to heal. Bonus: For me, permethrin does a better job than DEET when it comes to keeping ticks away. Just remember to put it on your clothes the day before you go out. Now, how about deer/black/horse flies?

We've placed two micros, although we're using plastic decontamination kit containers -- which are a bit large for a true micro. We like them because they are absolutely waterproof -- and it's easy to find sites that are accessible while minimizing traffic damage caused by cache hunters. Might want to use the smallest "Rite in the Rain" notebook for a log. Just had two very experienced local cachers each fail to find our last after an hour of searching, although the cache was only five feet off a solid trail. The lesson: good clues are more important with the micros.

Either will work just fine -- but your compass and your GPS have to be speaking the same language. Use Magnetic North if your compass has NOT been adjusted for local declination; use True North if it has. Other points: Cheap compasses cannot be adjusted. If you cover a wide area, you may find using Magnetic bearings easier than constantly resetting the compass. That's what pilots and sailors often do. Occasionally a cache description will give directions in range/bearing form. Important to know whether the bearing is True or Magnetic, at least in areas where there is a significant difference -- like here in the Pacific North Wet

Cheer up; it's OK to make mistakes, as long as you don't make any given mistake more than two or three times in the same month. There are still lots of mistakes ahead of you -- and bigger ones, too. I'd tell you some of mine -- but I wouldn't want to spoil your sense of awe when you realize how easily you could have done something, had you done it right. Having said that, I still often forget to mark the location of the car when I set out. Sometimes it doesn't make any difference, but in a big park with lots of unofficial trails... Forgetting the bug juice is another one high on my list. Just consider this a learning experience. BD

Cheer up; it's OK to make mistakes, as long as you don't make any given mistake more than two or three times in the same month. There are still lots of mistakes ahead of you -- and bigger ones, too. I'd tell you some of mine -- but I wouldn't want to spoil your sense of awe when you realize how easily you could have done something, had you done it right. Having said that, I still often forget to mark the location of the car when I set out. Sometimes it doesn't make any difference, but in a big park with lots of unofficial trails... Forgetting the bug juice is another one high on my list. Just consider this a learning experience. BD

True enough. Guess I leaped to a conclusion here -- that the origin of the question was another question: "how close is 'close'?" Perhaps we can both agree that my approximation is easy and fast in the critical last 0.01 mile. And I'll certainly agree that it's too rough an approximation to use for any distance greater than one or two hundredths of a mile. To recap: 0.01 mile is about 50 feet +/- 25 feet for rounding error; and each 0.001 of a degree is about 6 feet, again +/- 3 feet for rounding. Despite finds that are spot on -- and I've had my share -- this is really about all the accuracy we can coax out of a recreational handheld GPS used under trees. BD

True enough. Guess I leaped to a conclusion here -- that the origin of the question was another question: "how close is 'close'?" Perhaps we can both agree that my approximation is easy and fast in the critical last 0.01 mile. And I'll certainly agree that it's too rough an approximation to use for any distance greater than one or two hundredths of a mile. To recap: 0.01 mile is about 50 feet +/- 25 feet for rounding error; and each 0.001 of a degree is about 6 feet, again +/- 3 feet for rounding. Despite finds that are spot on -- and I've had my share -- this is really about all the accuracy we can coax out of a recreational handheld GPS used under trees. BD

Lots of very precise information on these threads -- but for cache hunting purposes in commonly hunted areas -- like the US -- all you really need is an approximation: 1 minute of angle is about 1 nautical mile is about 6000 feet. Therefore one thousandth of a minute of angle is about 6 feet. Yes, this is an approximation, and yes, the precise answer does depend on whether we're talking about latitude or longitude -- but the other sources of error in the GPS are big enough that moving from an approximation to the precise answer doesn't really buy us anything. Having said that, getting very precise really isn't that hard. Any saltwater sailor has a copy of Bowditch::The American Practical Navigator -- which includes the table Length of a Degree of Latitude and Longitude. [i think NIMA also maintains it on their website.] Easy enough to make up your own crib sheet that tells you that if your latitude is off by x thousandths of a minute, and your longitude is off by y thousandths of a minute, you are z feet from the nominal location of the cache. I've done it, just to see what would happen, but find the six foot approximation mentioned above works just fine in the field. Hope this helps, BD

Lots of very precise information on these threads -- but for cache hunting purposes in commonly hunted areas -- like the US -- all you really need is an approximation: 1 minute of angle is about 1 nautical mile is about 6000 feet. Therefore one thousandth of a minute of angle is about 6 feet. Yes, this is an approximation, and yes, the precise answer does depend on whether we're talking about latitude or longitude -- but the other sources of error in the GPS are big enough that moving from an approximation to the precise answer doesn't really buy us anything. Having said that, getting very precise really isn't that hard. Any saltwater sailor has a copy of Bowditch::The American Practical Navigator -- which includes the table Length of a Degree of Latitude and Longitude. [i think NIMA also maintains it on their website.] Easy enough to make up your own crib sheet that tells you that if your latitude is off by x thousandths of a minute, and your longitude is off by y thousandths of a minute, you are z feet from the nominal location of the cache. I've done it, just to see what would happen, but find the six foot approximation mentioned above works just fine in the field. Hope this helps, BD