How Close To Your Cache Do You Mark Coordinates?

[+yooper1019]

I was curious as to how close people like to mark the coordinates to the caches they hide. I'm sure people have many different approaches and preferences to this. Next to physical placement coordinates are the difference bewtween making an easy cahce or a hard one. I personally don't want to be on top of a cache when looking for it. What do you all thing??

[+webscouter.]

I try to make my coordinates within a gnats a** of the cache.

[+denali7]

You are supposed to mark the coord's right at the cache. Marking coord's near the cache to make the hide more difficult is bad form, and will give a hider the reputation of being sloppy.

[+Team JSAM]

I find some that are right on top and some that are 50ft off the easier ones are allot more entertaining if they are a little off I like to hunt for the cache rather then just walk right up to it. I personally see nothing wrong with putting the coords off on harder caches and putting dead on with kid or easy rated caches, if you do put the cords off on purpose you might want to include that as a hint. Also be aware that some GPSr are not as accurate as others and might give the user a reading that is off anyway.

Edited March 28, 2006 by jsamfam

[+StarBrand]

I don't know......seems pretty obvious to me that it should ALWAYS be right at the cache....... General GPS error is in the 30 foot range already - no need to add to that.

 

[Pto]

I try to take a minimum of 4.

I plot the first one from as close to "above" the hide as possible. Walk away, come back from another direction - mark & repeat- Basically, one mark for each side, minimum of 4 but usually 8-20.

then I average them & get a coord.

 

To test, I return to the site using the new coord. Also check it against maps, etc-

 

Ive had pretty good luck with "dead one" coords

 

But Ive also seen posted coords (to micros, no less) that werent even close to the hide.

Some hiders are also known for thier poor coordinates. Some people think that is "tricky" or makes more of a challenge- but If we are searching using coordinates - Id prefer accurate ones please!

[+StarBrand]

I find some that are right on top and some that are 50ft off the easier ones are allot more entertaining if they are a little off I like to hunt for the cache rather then just walk right up to it. I personally see nothing wrong with putting the coords off on harder caches and putting dead on with kid or easy rated caches, if you do put the cords off on purpose you might want to include that as a hint. Also be aware that some GPSr are not as accurate as others and might give the user a reading that is off anyway.

 

mental note: avoid any and all caches hidden in this manner (fun!!????!!!)

[+denali7]

EXACTLY!

Due to vagaries of the weather, different receivers, whatever, there is enough "unknown" without introducing more. I know that admitting a "loose" hide when submitting a new cache in this area will have the reviewer request that you get good numbers, and rightfully so. Bad numbers are not challenging, they are frustrating, and will cause others to talk behind your back at the geo-gatherings.

[bogleman]

Dead on the money and let it average for 15 minutes or more then back away about 100 feet and then approach the site and check. If everything looks good I'm done.

[+yooper1019]

Wow! Averaging, marking from multiple directions?? These are good stuff! I haven't exactly placed a cache yet but just wanted to see what every one else does.

 

I do see jsamfam's point though. I found two micros recently, both urban, both in parking lots, both under lamp post hoods, one was bang-on and the other was about 30 feet off. In a parking lot with nothing but lamposts at least with the one that was 30 feet off I had to check another lampost or two first and find it. I wouldn't exactly like this in the deep forest but urban I feel it may be OK as an exception. Maybe write it into the description

Edited March 28, 2006 by yooper1019

[+yooper1019]

I try to take a minimum of 4.

I plot the first one from as close to "above" the hide as possible. Walk away, come back from another direction - mark & repeat- Basically, one mark for each side, minimum of 4 but usually 8-20.

then I average them & get a coord.

 

To test, I return to the site using the new coord. Also check it against maps, etc-

 

Ive had pretty good luck with "dead one" coords

 

But Ive also seen posted coords (to micros, no less) that werent even close to the hide.

Some hiders are also known for thier poor coordinates. Some people think that is "tricky" or makes more of a challenge- but If we are searching using coordinates - Id prefer accurate ones please!

 

How do you average 4 coordinates? On paper? Or is there a nice easy way like an online calc. the later is preferred. Now i just need a website to make my bed for me!

[+denali7]

I don't know what kind of gps you're using, but many newer ones have an averaging feature. You hit the button and let it sit on the cache spot for a couple minutes. I usually do this a couple of times, or at least until it shows under 5 feet of accuracy.

Edited March 28, 2006 by denali7

[+yooper1019]

I don't know what kind of gps you're using, but many newer ones have an averaging feature. You hit the button and let it sit on the cache spot for a couple minutes. I usually do this a couple of times, or at least until it shows under 5 feet of accuracy.

 

I have a Garmin Forerunner 201 I bought for running and just happened to stumble on to geocaching at the same time. I'm gonna use the Forerunner (works fine so far) untill I feel I "into" geocaching enough to buy one more tailored to it.

[+Team Neos]

My husband and I were out with another cacher a while back. We were having a great day, until we ran into this one cache. We found the first stage of a multi he had done by sheer luck, 40 feet away from where the coords pointed, but try as we might, we couldn't find the second stage. We search about a 40 foot radius (80 feet diameter) around the cords.

 

Later that night, as I was logging my DNF, I read through the old logs and found where he had boasted about his "soft cords" on ALL of his caches. Oh yeah? Hmmm, I have enough fun trying to find caches with good coords, and don't need the extra excitement, thanks anyway.

 

I immediately put all his caches on my ignore list.

[+robert]

I mark my coords as close to the cache as possible.

 

I like when people find the cache.

 

[+yooper1019]

My husband and I were out with another cacher a while back. We were having a great day, until we ran into this one cache. We found the first stage of a multi he had done by sheer luck, 40 feet away from where the coords pointed, but try as we might, we couldn't find the second stage. We search about a 40 foot radius (80 feet diameter) around the cords.

 

Later that night, as I was logging my DNF, I read through the old logs and found where he had boasted about his "soft cords" on ALL of his caches. Oh yeah? Hmmm, I have enough fun trying to find caches with good coords, and don't need the extra excitement, thanks anyway.

 

I immediately put all his caches on my ignore list.

 

Good point! I am sure you are an excellant cacher and should have found that cache. I will definitly mark my caches correctly after hearing this.

Edited March 29, 2006 by yooper1019

[+Team JSAM]

I find some that are right on top and some that are 50ft off the easier ones are allot more entertaining if they are a little off I like to hunt for the cache rather then just walk right up to it. I personally see nothing wrong with putting the coords off on harder caches and putting dead on with kid or easy rated caches, if you do put the cords off on purpose you might want to include that as a hint. Also be aware that some GPSr are not as accurate as others and might give the user a reading that is off anyway.

 

mental note: avoid any and all caches hidden in this manner (fun!!????!!!)

 

Where is your sense of adventure?????

[+edscott]

Since I came to geocaching by way of Orienteering it has never crossed my mind to intentionally give bad data on the location of a cache. If you do that even by accident in orienteering, the course (like a series of caches) gets thrown out of the competition so no one's time counts and the course setter will probably be discussed afterward for awhile. My opinion is that if your cache needs to be "wrong" to be interesting, challanging or whatever it is probably a lame cache to start with and should not exist. I am really pretty mellow tonight or I would really say what I think

[+Segerguy]

I like to do averaging to get the best possible coordinates for my hides. I feel like if somebody is going to take the time out to search for my hides, I owe them the best coordinates I can get. I usually avg about 250 times, then walk away at least 300 ft and check them. If they get me to where I think I should be to begin the search I'm good to go.

 

Different GPSr 's will give different results, but I try to give the best that I can. I'd rather put my effort into a good hide or the camo then to give lousy coordinates purposely.

 

Cache on........

[+yooper1019]

I find some that are right on top and some that are 50ft off the easier ones are allot more entertaining if they are a little off I like to hunt for the cache rather then just walk right up to it. I personally see nothing wrong with putting the coords off on harder caches and putting dead on with kid or easy rated caches, if you do put the cords off on purpose you might want to include that as a hint. Also be aware that some GPSr are not as accurate as others and might give the user a reading that is off anyway.

 

mental note: avoid any and all caches hidden in this manner (fun!!????!!!)

 

Where is your sense of adventure?????

jsamfam,

 

I think you should read team neos's post above. People sepnding hours hunting for a cache should expect to find it. Your method may work in some cases but as for the standard I think the majority of chachers believe accuracy is betteracy. Walking right up to a cache a finding it can sometimes be a letdown but for some people to drive hours away on weekends and then hike another couple hours and not find the cache b/c of bad coords would be a bigger letdown. A wanna rip your own hair out letdown!

[+wiseye]

Lame coords = lame cache = lame cacher hiding a lame cache.

[+BadAndy]

Good coords are a good thing.

 

Bad coords are a bad thing.

[+Team Cotati]

I usually carry a 50' tape measure with me and mark a spot about 37.5' from the cache location and then get that spot's coords. Those are the coords that I post for the cache. I have found that most cache hunters like the added challenge of trying to find caches with inaccurate coords. I think that it really adds a lot to the fun of caching.

[+yooper1019]

Lame coords = lame cache = lame cacher hiding a lame cache.

 

Why do people want to turn a civilized dicussion thread into something hostile? Are you trying to provoke somebody with a statement that makes them think you're calling them lame? If so please take your hosility elsewhere.

[+yooper1019]

I usually carry a 50' tape measure with me and mark a spot about 37.5' from the cache location and then get that spot's coords. Those are the coords that I post for the cache. I have found that most cache hunters like the added challenge of trying to find caches with inaccurate coords. I think that it really adds a lot to the fun of caching.

Boo for politics in the forum. (In your signature)

[+Woodbutcher68]

On the three caches I placed, I used two GPSrs and took readings on two different days. I also approached the caches from a couple of different directions. I used the average and try to hide them well.

[+woody_k]

If you do not take the coords from the top of the cache then it is either a puzzle or multi-cache. The only other way around it would be like I just did. Got the coords 6 feet away to get under a bush/tree but then say so on the cache page how far off you took the coords. Don't put that info in the hint. Some cachers don't use the hints (I do). And please don't do that on a micro...that's just plain wrong! LOL!

[+cache_test_dummies]

On my to-do list is a traditional cache whose coordinates are deliberately off:

 

Selective Availability ON

[+Renegade Knight]

I try to make my coordinates within a gnats a** of the cache.

 

Ditto.

[+headybrew]

Lame coords = lame cache = lame cacher hiding a lame cache.

 

Why do people want to turn a civilized dicussion thread into something hostile? Are you trying to provoke somebody with a statement that makes them think you're calling them lame? If so please take your hosility elsewhere.

 

I'm not sure he meant that as a personal attack on anyone. I (not meant as personal attack either) agree with him completely.

 

I usually look at the sattelite's screen and do my dangdest to get the best signal and get the WAAS to kick in. I take a bunch of readings. at least 8 or 10. I walk away and come back. Sometimes I turn the GPSr off and turn it back on and let it re-acquire it's signal.

 

Then I average them all. I do that just by downloading all the waypoints into a map and picking the center point.

 

I have found coords before that were 110 feet off, according to my gps. It was an easy-walk-up-and-spot-it cache. So I'm assuming the coords were intentionally incorrect. I don't object to a hider doing that *IF* they make it clear on the cache page that they did it that way. Then I know what I'm in for and it's my choice if I want to hunt it or not.

[k1w1t1m]

My wife and I didn't spend $500+ to be somewhere near a cache. We bought the GPSrs to get to the co-ordinates that are posted. (Of course +/- the combined errors of the hiders and the seekers GPSrs).

 

That said, on our caches the GPSr was held directly above the cache with several readings taken from several different approaches. Admitedly our caches are not hard ones, but they're meant for almost anyone. I feel the difficulty should reflect the level of camoflage and quality of the hide.

 

My $0.02

 

Tim

[+briansnat]

I will mark right at the cache, unless the signal is poor. If I can get a good signal 20-30 feet away and a lousy signal at the cache site, I'll move to where I get the good signal. I've actually encountered this a few times, usually next to a cliff, or very large bounder.

[+Cracker in the Hat]

Simply put, please use accurate coordinates. The vast majority of GPSr's will leave you a short distance away no matter what. The point of geocaching is actually _______________(fill in the blak with whatever trips your trigger). It isn't, at least in my opinion to 'trick' a cacher by providing false information. Take some time and put some thought into a clever hide, and not a hide whose difficulty level is artificially raised by lack of spot on coordinates.

 

There is a local cacher who placed a cache with erroneous coordinates (albeit by accident) that fall under the descriptions listed in the replies above, Check out the log to it. It's clear how people react to incorrect coordinates. Little Kahuna

The owner was really upset as well, as he wanted his cache to be fun for all, not a royal pain in the asparagus.

 

If you are going to use incorrect coordinates...Have the decency to let people know it BEFORE they hike into the brush to find your cache.

Just my $.02

-Cracker

 

Edited because I suck.

Edited March 29, 2006 by Cracker in the Hat

[+Vinny & Sue Team]

I was curious as to how close people like to mark the coordinates to the caches they hide. I'm sure people have many different approaches and preferences to this. Next to physical placement coordinates are the difference bewtween making an easy cahce or a hard one. I personally don't want to be on top of a cache when looking for it. What do you all thing??

 

We try to be as exacting and as accurate as possible, and we employ long settling and averaging times with our SporTrak Pro to try to get waypoints within a few feet or closer, if possible. Apparently some other hiders do the same and do it well: While I was in Houston recently, at every cache by Snoogans which I found, my GPSr (again, the same SporTrak Pro) displayed 0 or 3 feet to cache waypoint while I was standing at the cache site. Not bad at all!

 

On the other hand, we have one local cache hider who is famous across the state for their horribly inaccurate coordinates. One of their caches has a waypoint which is over 120 feet off, and despite frequent feedback about this, they have never fixed the published waypoint coordinates. Whenever we cache with other goecachers, we hear funny stories about this person's inaccurate waypoints!

Edited March 29, 2006 by Vinny & Sue Team

[+Stonebreaker73]

Really you should get your GPS as close to the top of the cache location as possible. Sometimes you cannot get right on top of it because of the way you hid it. I don't see any reason for taking a reading anywhere else.

Some people who hide a cache and cannot get great accuracy because of tree cover may take a step back to get a clearer reading. In this case you are probably doing future seekers a favor while not being right on top of it you reading will still be closer.

[+JMBella]

Right on top of the cache. Can't really come up with a good enough reason to intentionally take an inaccurate reading. There's plenty of creative ways to make a cache challenging without taking bogus coords. The only time I'll take a WP away from the cache is if I get better accuracy with the GPS a few feet away. In that case I'll stand where I have the strongest signal, 10 - 20 feet or whatever, then manually make adjustments to the coords until they are spot on. Then I'll walk about 50 feet away and approach the cache from a few different angles. When the gizmo consistently reads single digits at the cache I'm done. People appreciate accurate coords.

[gerboa]

At GZ as close as possible, but can sometimes get better readings further away, say 10 metres when there is a lot of tree cover, or in one case a large old steam loco, when even averaging won't give a "good" reading. I'm usually happy with 8 metres. The hints can always make up shortcomings.

For clues I always say "in the vicinity" so that people really have to LOOK.

[+Arrow One]

GPS' have a margin of 20 or so feet from the cords programed, so I don't see the need to make it any more. I get the cords as dead on as possible.

[+tozainamboku]

Lame coords = lame cache = lame cacher hiding a lame cache.

 

There are several reason why coords may be off. I might agree that intentionally reporting coordinates that are off is just mean (if not wrong). However sometimes caches are hidden in areas where you just can't get accurate coordinates - in a cave, at the base of cliff, under a picnic shelter, etc. In some cases, the cache is given as a offset with a hint or a bearing and distance given to cache from the point of the coordinates. These should be listed as multi-caches, but often get listed a traditional or some other type. You have to read the cache page. (Puritans sometimes get upset if they have to read the cache page on a traditional cache ) If you can't get accurate readings at the cache and don't make it a multi/offset, you should at least say something on the cache page - and give a good hint.

[+fox-and-the-hound]

Generally you will always try to be as close as possible, but lately we've seen a few reasons not to be including locating a cache near a cliff, near water, underground, etc. Anytime you find yourself in this situation you should find your best coords (repeatedly) and explain why they're off in the description. Every cache is unique, but in the end you want it to be found!

 

dooh! he beat me to it!

Edited March 29, 2006 by fox-and-the-hound

[+sbell111]

In my opinion, the coords should be as accurate as possible. If I knew that someone was intentionally posting bad coords for their caches, I would likely ignore them. Intentionally sending everyone to the wrong spot doesn't sound like fun to me.

 

Finding caches = fun

Not finding caches ≠ fun

[+nfa]

I zero out my GPS standing over, or as close as is possible, to the new cache...given the built-in error of my machine and the built-in error of the seekers' machines, if people end up right on top of my cache, it's a happy accident. I would likely ignore the hides of someone I knew to be placing caches with intentionally bad coordinates.

 

Jamie

[CacheNCarryMA]

I usually do a ten minute average right on top of the container.

 

For my Selective Availability ON cache I marked a spot 75 yards away.

Edited March 29, 2006 by CacheNCarryMA

[+Miragee]

In my opinion, the coords should be as accurate as possible. If I knew that someone was intentionally posting bad coords for their caches, I would likely ignore them. Intentionally sending everyone to the wrong spot doesn't sound like fun to me.

 

Finding caches = fun

Not finding caches ≠ fun

I agree. When I place my caches, I get the coords from directly above the cache. If obstacles make accurate coords difficult, I include a detailed hint, or offset coords.

 

Finding caches = fun

Not finding caches ≠ fun

 

Getting DNF notices in my InBox for my own caches ≠ fun

[+Clothahump]

I'll mark within arm's reach of the cache whenever possible. I let the GPSr stabilize for a few moments, then mark the location. I'll then do two or three repositionings on that waypoint. At that time, I feel like I've gotten about as accurate as I can, given that there is an inherent 20 foot error anyway.

[+tozainamboku]

Finding caches = fun

Not finding caches ≠ fun

 

While not on topic (How close to your cache should the coordinates be), I can't let this go unanswered. Are you saying

Not finding the cache at the end of long hike in a beautiful canyon an a warm spring day ≠ fun

but

Finding a micro near a dumpster behind a strip mall where a homeless person uses the bushes as his restroom = fun

[+headybrew]

Finding caches = fun

Not finding caches ≠ fun

 

While not on topic (How close to your cache should the coordinates be), I can't let this go unanswered. Are you saying

Not finding the cache at the end of long hike in a beautiful canyon an a warm spring day ≠ fun

but

Finding a micro near a dumpster behind a strip mall where a homeless person uses the bushes as his restroom = fun

 

Well you're really stretching this one... But while the hike would be fun, it is a bit annoying to not find it after so much effort.

 

So to stay on topic, if I hiked 5 miles to find a cache, no matter how much fun the hike was, I'd be annoyed if I found out later that the reason for my DNF was bad coords.

 

I'd be more anoyed if I found a dumpster with homeless urine, no matter how accurate the coords were.

[+Mudfrog]

I don't know......seems pretty obvious to me that it should ALWAYS be right at the cache....... General GPS error is in the 30 foot range already - no need to add to that.

 

 

Yep!

[+Harry Dolphin]

In my opinion, the coords should be as accurate as possible. If I knew that someone was intentionally posting bad coords for their caches, I would likely ignore them. Intentionally sending everyone to the wrong spot doesn't sound like fun to me.

 

Finding caches = fun

Not finding caches ≠ fun

 

I agree! I can think of a few cachers whose coordinates always seem to be 50-60' off. When all of the finders comment that the coordinates are in the middle of the road, which is 70' off, something is wrong, and a correction should be made.

If some of these caches were not on our ten-mile lists, we would ignore all of them!

 

Our QC department demands that we keep trying until we get coordinates that will lead us back to the cache. I found what I thought was a great spot, but QC said that the signal bounce was too bad. It was unacceptable.

[+Sagefox]

I usually carry a 50' tape measure with me and mark a spot about 37.5' from the cache location and then get that spot's coords. Those are the coords that I post for the cache. I have found that most cache hunters like the added challenge of trying to find caches with inaccurate coords. I think that it really adds a lot to the fun of caching.

 

! You are kidding, right? Fairfield is now on my ignore list.