Placing caches, with your cell phone!

[+Keruso]

has anyone ever tired placing caches with their phone GPS, if you even have one. I've tried it already, in a place i shouldn't have, but wanted to see if it would work. I had to archive the cache 20 days later after setting it, as my coords were at least a mile off, literally, and there were some certain trash items that should not have been there that some cachers were finding

[+briansnat]

Most of the GPS enabled cell phones have issues with reception. I wouldn't use one to place a cache.

Edited September 28, 2007 by briansnat

[+Renegade Knight]

I've yet to own a phone with GPS that was useful. Someday...maybe.

 

Right now I hear they are pretty spotty and slow.

[+stepshep]

My dad's phone has GPS and is usually right on with my GPS. Maybe that's saying something about my GPS instead of the Verizon phone....

[+Team Cotati]

I have a very difficult time believing that an error of one mile or anything near that magnititude is the norm.

 

There must be other factors that account for this event here.

 

However, I wouldn't use one to place or hunt a cache if the accuracy were 3 ft.

Edited September 28, 2007 by Team Cotati

[+Prime Suspect]

Most cell phones only have a GPS chip in order to meet the e911 requirements. The e911 specs don't require the type of accuracy any geocacher would expect. It's been a while since I've looked at them, but I seem to remember that an error of up to 400ft was acceptable.

[+KD5XB]

I have a very difficult time believing that an error of one mile or anything near that magnititude is the norm.

 

There must be other factors that account for this event here.

 

However, I wouldn't use one to place or hunt a cache if the accuracy were 3 ft.

 

I'm wondering about the phone -- some cell phones claim to have GPS when they are really triangulating a position from cell sites. That isn't too accurate!

 

7 3

Earl

[+Team Cotati]

I have a very difficult time believing that an error of one mile or anything near that magnititude is the norm.

 

There must be other factors that account for this event here.

 

However, I wouldn't use one to place or hunt a cache if the accuracy were 3 ft.

 

I'm wondering about the phone -- some cell phones claim to have GPS when they are really triangulating a position from cell sites. That isn't too accurate!

 

7 3

Earl

 

Where is there info regarding the accuracy of triangulating cell sites to derrive pretend GPS coordinates? I find this concept to be fascinating and would really like to read some about it. Thank you.

 

As far as triangulating cell sites, what is it about them that makes this such an inaccurate method?

[+Team Cotati]

Most cell phones only have a GPS chip in order to meet the e911 requirements. The e911 specs don't require the type of accuracy any geocacher would expect. It's been a while since I've looked at them, but I seem to remember that an error of up to 400ft was acceptable.

 

Now THAT makes sense. Thanks.

[+Team Cotati]

The Commission has divided its wireless E911 program into two parts - Phase I and Phase II. Under Phase I, the Commission requires carriers, within six months of a valid request by a local Public Safety Answering Point (PSAP), to provide the PSAP with the telephone number of the originator of a wireless 911 call and the location of the cell site or base station transmitting the call.

 

Under Phase II, the Commission requires wireless carriers, within six months of a valid request by a PSAP, to begin providing information that is more precise to PSAPs, specifically, the latitude and longitude of the caller. This information must meet FCC accuracy standards, generally to within 50 to 300 meters, depending on the type of technology used. The deployment of E911 requires the development of new technologies and upgrades to local 911 PSAPs, as well as coordination among public safety agencies, wireless carriers, technology vendors, equipment manufacturers, and local wireline carriers.