Manual average cord. locaton

[mrbeachroach]

do any of you know how to do a waypoint averaging for starting a new cache if your gps does not do this?

[+Trucker Lee]

take 5 or more readings, write them down, and compare. You can add the seconds up and divide if you wish, easiest to just look and see what you think the middle of the range is.

[+StarBrand]

For such a short variation in distances (I hope you don't get readings more than 30 foot or so apart), simple mathamatic average works as well as anything. Not sure the result is any closer though.

[+meralgia]

After placing a cache, I do it the "hard" way:

 

A.) Walk to the left a few feet, walk to the right. Watch the numbers.

B.) Walk up a few feet, walk back a few feet. Watch the numbers.

C.) Mark your waypoint.

D.) Walk 75 feet away from your cache.

E.) Turn around, click "go to", and find your cache.

F.) If it's way off, start over at "A".

 

I've placed over 50 caches in this manner. I only had to revise coords on one of them; it was off by only 25 ft.

Edited December 1, 2007 by meralgia

[knowschad]

After placing a cache, I do it the "hard" way:

 

D.) Walk 75 feet away from your cache.

E.) Turn around, click "go to", and find your cache.

F.) If it's way off, start over at "A".

 

I've placed over 50 caches in this manner. I only had to revise coords on one of them; it was off by only 25 ft.

 

That testing phase is the essential part.

 

And sometimes it can be neccessary to deliberately have the coordinates "off" just a tad to make sure the arrow points in the right direction. There have been times when my coordinates for ground-zero were perfect, but because of geographical features and/or too many places to hunt, it would have been harder than I wanted to find. By tweaking the coords just a little, I may have moved GZ a bit, but also forced the arrow to point in the direction that I wanted the finders to look.

[+StarBrand]

....There have been times when my coordinates for ground-zero were perfect, but because of geographical features and/or too many places to hunt, it would have been harder than I wanted to find. By tweaking the coords just a little, I may have moved GZ a bit, but also forced the arrow to point in the direction that I wanted the finders to look.

Really....

 

you were using a $6000 survey grade unit that was properly calibrated??

 

I'll accept your coordinates to be as good as most - that is within 20 - 40 feet.

[Motorcycle_Mama]

What I do is mark a bunch of waypoints at the location on my GPS unit, approaching from many different locations. Then I load the waypoints into MapSource from my GPS unit, zoom all the way in on the MapSource map, and manually select a point that appears to approximate the center of the bunch.

[knowschad]

....There have been times when my coordinates for ground-zero were perfect, but because of geographical features and/or too many places to hunt, it would have been harder than I wanted to find. By tweaking the coords just a little, I may have moved GZ a bit, but also forced the arrow to point in the direction that I wanted the finders to look.

Really....

 

you were using a $6000 survey grade unit that was properly calibrated??

 

I'll accept your coordinates to be as good as most - that is within 20 - 40 feet.

 

No... they weren't perfect in that sense, and I'm sure you know what I mean. They put me, with my GPS, within a couple of feet on that day. My point is still that I adjusted those coordinates to point in the direction that I wanted it to.

[4wheelin_fool]

do any of you know how to do a waypoint averaging for starting a new cache if your gps does not do this?

 

Put on the screen that shows the satellites and try to hold the unit so that nothing blocks it.

Wait for several minutes and try to get a reading that shows 9 foot accuracy (or the best accuracy available) and a lock on 4 satellites or more.

Edited December 2, 2007 by 4wheelin_fool

[+StarBrand]

....

No... they weren't perfect in that sense, and I'm sure you know what I mean. They put me, with my GPS, within a couple of feet on that day. My point is still that I adjusted those coordinates to point in the direction that I wanted it to.

I apologize...

 

Actually, I did NOT know what you meant. I didn't want any new cachers to get the idea that there was a method of determining "perfect" coordinates. Thanks for clearing that up.

 

Also, How can you gaurantee what direction the cacher will approach your cache? If they come from the opposite direction, your method will not "point in the direction" you want. Always best to report the most correct coordinates you can.

[knowschad]

....

No... they weren't perfect in that sense, and I'm sure you know what I mean. They put me, with my GPS, within a couple of feet on that day. My point is still that I adjusted those coordinates to point in the direction that I wanted it to.

I apologize...

 

Actually, I did NOT know what you meant. I didn't want any new cachers to get the idea that there was a method of determining "perfect" coordinates. Thanks for clearing that up.

 

Also, How can you gaurantee what direction the cacher will approach your cache? If they come from the opposite direction, your method will not "point in the direction" you want. Always best to report the most correct coordinates you can.

 

It doesn't matter which direction they approach from. If my coordinates are a tad to , say, the east, the arrow is going to point toward the east. One situation that I used that idea on is a cache up on a high abandoned railroad grade. The tracks run east and west, and I wanted to help them search the northerly track (there are more than enough places to look as it is). By tweaking my coordinates a bit to the north, the arrow is more likely to point to that track as they approach GZ than to the other track. I'm not sure I'm explaining it right, but many test approaches from all directions showed this to work best in this situation.

[Motorcycle_Mama]

I hope you aren't saying that you purposely change the coordinates to be less accurate so that people would be directed to a slightly different area than where the "perfect" coordinates are.

[knowschad]

I hope you aren't saying that you purposely change the coordinates to be less accurate so that people would be directed to a slightly different area than where the "perfect" coordinates are.

 

Yes, that is exactly what I'm saying, but it only works in the right situations. To use a more extreme (but imaginary) example than my previous real life example, let's say you have a cache on the east railing of a north/south pier. If your GZ is pretty much at the center of the pier, it could have them looking at both the east and the west railings. If you "tweak" the coordinates a bit to bias them toward the east, as they approach GZ, their needle will tend to swing toward the east, giving a very strong hint of where to look.

[Motorcycle_Mama]

Ok, first of all, it's not a good idea to intentionally post inaccurate coordinates.

 

Secondly, if the the cache is on the east railing, then why isn't that spot your GZ? Especially if you are saying that you obtained "perfect" coordinates.

[knowschad]

Ok, first of all, it's not a good idea to intentionally post inaccurate coordinates.

 

Helpful coordinates are better that "accurate" coordinates that are not helpful. When you're approaching GZ with "perfect" coordinates, your arrow may point in any direction. There is no "bias" to direct your pointer in any particular direction. It is in equilibrium. Whatever direction the sunspots or what have you want to bias you in is where it will point. Simply having the distance say that you're at or near GZ may not be sufficient if the pointer is directing the finders to look in the wrong direction.

 

Please note that I have plenty of finds, plenty of hides, and a good local reputation for "spot-on" coordinates. Please don't simply discount what I'm saying because it may not fit what you already know. This can work in the right situations.

Edited December 2, 2007 by knowschad

[knowschad]

Secondly, if the the cache is on the east railing, then why isn't that spot your GZ? Especially if you are saying that you obtained "perfect" coordinates.

 

Because, as Starbrand already pointed out, there are no "perfect" coordinates. If your radius of accuraccy is, say, 20' and the center of that circle is right smack-dab in the center of our imaginary pier, then your arrow could point east, west, north, or south, depending on the vagaries of the sunspots, the stock market, and the direction of the wind. If on the other hand, the center of that circle is off to the east, where do you think the arrow is most likely going to point, even with a 20' radius of accuracy? It is most likely going to direct you toward the east.

Edited December 2, 2007 by knowschad

[+KBI]

I hope you aren't saying that you purposely change the coordinates to be less accurate so that people would be directed to a slightly different area than where the "perfect" coordinates are.

Yes, that is exactly what I'm saying, but it only works in the right situations. To use a more extreme (but imaginary) example than my previous real life example, let's say you have a cache on the east railing of a north/south pier. If your GZ is pretty much at the center of the pier, it could have them looking at both the east and the west railings. If you "tweak" the coordinates a bit to bias them toward the east, as they approach GZ, their needle will tend to swing toward the east, giving a very strong hint of where to look.

I know exactly what you're talking about!

 

I recently got stumped by a cache hidden on an old bridge over a river. The reason I failed is because the coords kept pointing off one side of the bridge by about 20 feet. I assumed the "hint" was intentional; it made sense to me at the time that the idea you describe was what the owner intended.

 

As it turned out I should have questioned that assumption. I went back a few weeks later and found the cache on the other side of the bridge; the inaccuracy was apparently unintended. The hide isn't all that hard to detect if you inspect BOTH sides of the bridge, but the long history of DNFs on the page told me I wasn't the first one to assume I understood the meaning of the unintentional and misleading "hint."

 

The cache is near the east railing and the bridge extends north/south, just like in your example. Had the posted coords been offset to the east instead of the west I believe there would not have been such an extended history of DNFs.

 

I think your idea is a good one. When used in the right circumstance a "tweaked" waypoint just might encourage folks to hunt on the correct side of a fence, creek, bridge or other linear feature, whereas a "perfect" waypoint might actually generate more ambiguity.

[knowschad]

I know exactly what you're talking about!

 

I recently got stumped by a cache hidden on an old bridge over a river. The reason I failed is because the coords kept pointing off one side of the bridge by about 20 feet. I assumed the "hint" was intentional; it made sense to me at the time that the idea you describe was what the owner intended.

 

I think your idea is a good one. When used in the right circumstance a "tweaked" waypoint just might encourage folks to hunt on the correct side of a fence, creek, bridge or other linear feature, whereas a "perfect" waypoint might actually generate more ambiguity.

 

***EXACTLY!*** Thanks very much for the validation. That is exactly the sort of situation I was referring to, except that it is not neccessarily limited to bridged, piers, and railroad grades. Sometimes the concept is even useful to determine which side of a large geobeacon (or which of two geobeacons). But it does need to be used with care, and most importantly, by testing. If it works, its good. If not, its bad.

Edited December 2, 2007 by knowschad