Lostoutdoors.com

[+Iowa Tom]

I’m curious about what people think about using

LostOutdoors.com Aerial Photos to help locate geocaches or at least using it to check the coordinates that you think are correct before going out after solving a puzzle cache. I find that it easily gets me to within 10 feet of every waypoint that's accurate to begin with. To me it's quite enjoyable to use the pictures. Many times, in my area anyway, one can go out without a GPSr and find caches as easily as with a GPSr if not easier! That is as long as they are in an area that has distinctive features and has not changed since the photo was taken.

 

If I use B&W printing I prefer to choose the small orange dot cuz it shows up better.

 

As a person who loves to work with images, I really like messing around with it. I let my students know about it. Few of them can afford a GPSr right now so it is a salvation to them.

 

-it

[+BBWolf+3Pigs]

That is how WaldenRun does all of his caching.

[+Quoddy]

I've started doing the same with Google Earth Plus. Nice to zoom in and see exactly what's in store. Yesterday's first cache below.

 

Edited November 29, 2005 by Quoddy

[+wandererrob]

>cough!< Google Earth >cough!<

 

[Dinoprophet]

I've found a couple easy ones that way. I like it for the topos -- I find those more useful than the aerial photos, usually.

[+Quoddy]

>cough!< Google Earth >cough!<

 

OK, OK...I didn't proof read what I wrote.

[+CacheMoneyPugLife]

those things help but for caches that are in an area where things look the same and you cant tell which set of identicle things you are by

[+CYBret]

On this mystery cache of mine I suggest people go to LostOutdoors to figure out the proper coordinates.

 

Bret

[MapheadMike]

I use lostoutdoors to do all my caching. It doesn't have the bells and whistles of other map and photo sites, but it's deadly accurate.

[+DocDiTTo]

I’m curious about what people think about using

LostOutdoors.com Aerial Photos to help locate geocaches or at least using it to check the coordinates that you think are correct before going out after solving a puzzle cache.

 

You might also want to check out USAPhotoMaps from Jdmcox.com, as it allows you to download topo maps and aerial photos and take them with you on a laptop. I find it's a great tool to have available, and it's free. I think the lostoutdoors maps can be a little more detailed though, depending on which options you select.

Edited November 29, 2005 by DocDiTTo

[+edscott]

I’m curious about what people think about using

LostOutdoors.com Aerial Photos to help locate geocaches or at least using it to check the coordinates that you think are correct before going out after solving a puzzle cache. I find that it easily gets me to within 10 feet of every waypoint that's accurate to begin with. To me it's quite enjoyable to use the pictures. Many times, in my area anyway, one can go out without a GPSr and find caches as easily as with a GPSr if not easier!  That is as long as they are in an area that has distinctive features and has not changed since the photo was taken.

 

If I use B&W printing I prefer to choose the small orange dot cuz it shows up better.

 

As a person who loves to work with images, I really like messing around with it. I let my students know about it. Few of them can afford a GPSr right now so it is a salvation to them. 

 

-it

That's how I've done most of mine. The first hundred or so were using topozone, but lostoutdoors works better for me. I really think the maps are more accurate than the GPS readings. If a cache is misplaced by 10 feet I can usually tell unless it is in an area with no visible detail or an area that has been recently distrubed. My toughest caches are often lamp post micros where my photo shows the cornfield that was there two years ago. Maybe if I owned a GPS...

[rocketmann]

Usually I use combonations of terraserver, topo zone, and google earth to help me figure out the general area of the cache. This way when you take the GPS out you can atlest know if you're in the right area or not.

[rocketmann]

Actually, now that I actually loked at lostoutdoors, it is the exact same image on terraserver. I guess the lostoutdoors puts a marker where the cache is so that makes it easier. What I've been doing for a while is lining up topozone and the terraserver maps to get a mark on the terraserver. Well now I know better...

Edited November 29, 2005 by rocketmann

[+Iowa Tom]

Using lostoutdoors.com is a lot easier than using terraserver by itself, at least in my experience. Lostoutdoors is awesome!

 

-it

[+DeViDe]

does lostoutdoors.com work with FireFox browser? It didn't seem to wrk for me.

[+Klatch]

The site seems to have a problem. I can't get an image in Firefox or IE. I like this site, also:

Terraserver Viewer.

Edited November 30, 2005 by Klatch

[+Jeonlyep]

does lostoutdoors.com work with FireFox browser? It didn't seem to wrk for me.

It just worked for me (firefox version 1.0.7)

 

DAryl

Cimarron, KS

[MapheadMike]

Be careful with the Terraserver Viewer. I've tested it with some familiar caches and everything comes up in NAD-27. You have to use the jeeep.com utility to convert the WGS-84 cache coords to NAD-27 to get an accurate mark on the Terraserver Viewer. Once given converted coords, it seems to work decently.

 

Since lostoutdoors works with WGS-84 coords in the first place, it's easier to stick with them and not mess with the conversions.

[+edscott]

Be careful with the Terraserver Viewer. I've tested it with some familiar caches and everything comes up in NAD-27. You have to use the jeeep.com utility to convert the WGS-84 cache coords to NAD-27 to get an accurate mark on the Terraserver Viewer. Once given converted coords, it seems to work decently.

 

Since lostoutdoors works with WGS-84 coords in the first place, it's easier to stick with them and not mess with the conversions.

Mike has it right here. Lostoutdoors will give a perfect map regardless of whether the local USGS is in 27 or 84 data. I had a major problem in the early going with a few maps in Delaware that were done in 84 data and I assumed like all the surrounding maps they were done in 27 so I converted using Jeeep.com when I didn't need to. Those maps were off by 500 or more meters. Made for a couple frustrating trips before someone in the forums guided me to lostoutdoors.

[OGBO]

does lostoutdoors.com work with FireFox browser? It didn't seem to wrk for me.

I am currently using Firefox 1.0.7. It works just fine. However, the usefulness of the images is very dependent on the location. For example, in our local Santa Cruz Mountains, in areas with heavy redwood growth, it isn't very useful, in large part because you can't see the roads and trails (hidden under the trees, since most of the photos are oblique, not directly vertical). In open areas, it is a lot more useful (example being the ridge-top areas along Skyline in the mid and south SF Peninsula area). In those places you can often pick out the trace of long-abandoned roads and trails that shorten hikes considerably.

 

What I am waiting for is web access to the 3D images used for stereographic mapping. Then the terrain structure will be readily visible. That won't help with the groves of 200-300 foot tall redwoods, though.

[+Iowa Tom]

What I am waiting for is web access to the 3D images used for stereographic mapping.

The images (stereo pairs) used for the production of topographic maps have a large vertical exaggeration. That is something a person could get used however. In fact, that feature could be a blessing if a person is looking for small differences in the vertical dimension.

 

Taking and viewing stereo images is my passion. Many of my vacation pictures are stereo pairs. I exaggerate the depth in them so they look surreal! You should see Mt. Rushmore presented that way. I have a travel bug that is SUPPOSED TO BE on its way to the Grand Canyon area. Once it gets there I plan to ask the person that has it to take a stereo pair of the canyon so I can make the pair of images into an anaglyph (red/green) image. Then anybody with those glasses can see it as though they are really there!

 

-it

[granola dude]

My friend and I tried an interesting method of taking a map of the local park where the caches were and inputting the coordinates into Google Earth. So it came up with the location of the coordinate, and then we used the measuring tool and got an approximation and applied that to the map of the park and its scale. So we got down about 5 of them and got all the clues that they had. So off we went into the woods without a GPSr, but a little map with lots of dots. To make a long story short, we came up with nothing but still had a good time. I like the idea of using satellite imaging stuff for geocaching, but I'm kind of wary of how accurately the coordinates from the cache transfer to Google Earth.

 

peace!

[+Iowa Tom]

Anybody else have this sort of mapping info for their county? The one I linked here provides aerial images that are really sharp in most places.

 

-it

[MapheadMike]

but I'm kind of wary of how accurately the coordinates from the cache transfer to Google Earth.

My experience is that Google Earth (and Google Maps) is that it's very inconsistent. Some regions are presented in WGS-84, others in NAD-27, and some parts are "fudged" somewhere in between. The road maps seem OK and consistent in WGS-84 and I've had a little bit of success looking at a hybrid image (road map overlayed onto the aerial photo), seeing the potential error (if the road overlays are off by 30 meters to the east, then the cache location mark may also be off 30 meters to the east), and estimating the true cache position from there.

 

It's a good product for a general overview, but it won't be all that helpful for finding caches until the inconsistencies are fixed.

[+Iowa Tom]

I really wish that geocaching.com had a service like Lostoutdoors.com. When I click on terraserver linked from the geocache webpage I get an image that I'm lost in. In my experience it definitely does not lead to the cache location by zooming in either.

 

[+edscott]

I really wish that geocaching.com had a service like Lostoutdoors.com. When I click on terraserver linked from the geocache webpage I get an image that I'm lost in. In my experience it definitely does not lead to the cache location by zooming in either.

 

I wouldn't expect geocaching.com to do anything to promote gps-less caching. We are tolerated, but not embraced...

[granola dude]

The man, the legend, EdScott!! You sir, are my hero when it comes to geocaching. I'm really interested in getting started on Orienteering, do you have any tips on where to begin, good places to get maps, etc?

 

Sorry if this is a bit of a hijack of the thread!

 

peace

[+Jeonlyep]

I really wish that geocaching.com had a service like Lostoutdoors.com. When I click on terraserver linked from the geocache webpage I get an image that I'm lost in. In my experience it definitely does not lead to the cache location by zooming in either.

 

Doesn't the "Google Maps" link on each cache page basically do that? Especially if you use the "Hybrid" feature? It looks like most of mine could be found using only "Google Maps" and the clues.

 

DAryl

[+edscott]

..... I'm really interested in getting started on Orienteering, do you have any tips on where to begin, good places to get maps, etc?

 

Sorry if this is a bit of a hijack of the thread! 

 

peace

Go to http://www.us.orienteering.org/ and find a local club. They probably have a web site with a schedule and a list of maps they have produced. Many clubs will sell their maps to the general public and of course if you attend an event, the map you use is yours to keep. Not much happening in the NE until march or so.. but there is always Georgia, Texas, Florida....