Google Maps better than GPS...

[+Taed]

I'm on my 8th or so find. I found ALL of them with the aid of only Google Maps. The location on the map seemed to be completely accurate in most cases, with a few of them being off by maybe 10 feet shifted North and West. (Though is that Google Maps that is wrong or are the published GPS coordinates wrong?)

 

I just bought a GPS unit (Garmin Geko 201 with WAAS) and went back to try to find the few that I could not find with just Google Maps. I also did not find them with the GPS. I found the GPS was not actually helpful. I'd put it in Goto mode and it would lead me to a spot, and then I'd slowly walk around a little bit and then it would lead me to another spot 40 feet away. Basically, I was not seeing decent accuracy, even though the GPS unit claimed that it was getting 11 foot accuracy or so.

 

And I also did a test of going to a landmark not near buildings and then compared it to the location given in Google Maps. My unit (which was claiming 19 foot accuracy at the time) gave coordinates that were about 25 feet North and 25 feet West of the location that Google Earth gave. So, which was wrong? Based on my experience, it seems to be the GPS unit.

 

I've never been out with another Geocacher, so maybe I'm doing something wrong, but frankly, I'm planning on returning / selling my GPS unit and just working with Google Maps.

 

Comments / suggestions / tips?

[+briansnat]

You aren't doing anything wrong. You can expect about 5-30 feet of inaccuracy with any GPS.

 

Also the Geko doesn't have an electronic compass so if you are moving too slow it won't accurately point direction becuae it doesn't know which way you are going. You need to walk fairly briskly for it to work.

 

Around tall buildings and near ravines and cliffs you will get multipathing errors that may give you weird readings.

 

My wife uses a Geko and loves it. It is as accurate as any other handhed.

 

Sure you can use Google maps to find some caches. Urban caches are easy, as are caches hidden near

features that are shown either on the sat photo or topo map. But a cache in nondescript woods, swamp or field will be very tough to find without a GPS.

 

And if you ever decide to hide one, you absolutely need a GPS.

[+Von-Horst]

I'm planning on returning / selling my GPS unit and just working with Google Maps.

 

Comments / suggestions / tips?

 

In an urban setting that will be fine (GPSrs do not work very well in built-up areas), but you will miss out on so much of the hobby (such as the joy of hunting hollow tree stumps in the woods) without a GPS.

 

Also, I do not think that you will be able to do many/any multicaches or puzzle caches using Google maps...

 

Before you return your GPSr, please, please give it a try in its natural environment - the great outdoors!

[+StarBrand]

Count yourself lucky.

 

Google maps are notoriously wrong in many cases. Scan up and down highways and roads in just about any area and you will see obvious seams between pictures where roads do not line up quite right. In some cases roads are as much as 50 - 150 feet off.

 

One local cache hidden in a tree with great coordinates shows as being about 100 feet away on some garbage bins on the google earth image. Just a mile away, it is often easy to find a cache with the google image.

 

The standards for most maps are very outdated. Not certain about Google, but many maps have a published accuracy of +/- 90 feet from well defined locations like intersections. Good enough to find a McDonalds but a poor substitute for a GPS.

 

Images are also often old and in some cases near non exsistent. Take a look at Bridgeport Nebraska with Google images. Look at the Geocaching Maps with sat view on - your not going to find a thing.

 

True enough, many areas are very close and line up very well. but I would never count on it being very accurate.

[+Miragee]

I'm on my 8th or so find. I found ALL of them with the aid of only Google Maps. The location on the map seemed to be completely accurate in most cases, with a few of them being off by maybe 10 feet shifted North and West. (Though is that Google Maps that is wrong or are the published GPS coordinates wrong?)

 

I just bought a GPS unit (Garmin Geko 201 with WAAS) and went back to try to find the few that I could not find with just Google Maps. I also did not find them with the GPS. I found the GPS was not actually helpful. I'd put it in Goto mode and it would lead me to a spot, and then I'd slowly walk around a little bit and then it would lead me to another spot 40 feet away. Basically, I was not seeing decent accuracy, even though the GPS unit claimed that it was getting 11 foot accuracy or so.

 

And I also did a test of going to a landmark not near buildings and then compared it to the location given in Google Maps. My unit (which was claiming 19 foot accuracy at the time) gave coordinates that were about 25 feet North and 25 feet West of the location that Google Earth gave. So, which was wrong? Based on my experience, it seems to be the GPS unit.

 

I've never been out with another Geocacher, so maybe I'm doing something wrong, but frankly, I'm planning on returning / selling my GPS unit and just working with Google Maps.

 

Comments / suggestions / tips?

Welcome to the Forums!

 

I find it interesting to read this and think about how this activity started. Caches were located on hiking trails well away from urban settings . . . Those are the kinds of caches I enjoy . . . the urban caches, findable by using Google maps, I can pass on . . .

 

Check the locations of these "Historic Caches." There is no way you could find them without a GPS unit. So . . . if you return your GPSr, you will be missing out on the most fun this activity offers, the hike in the hills, up in the mountains, or out in the desert.

[+StarBrand]

...Also, there is a flaw in your fundamental argument. You are asking which is right and which is wrong. Assuming that must be a fact. You did not include the 3rd argument.

 

The fact is that both are probably wrong. The GPS fluctuates 40 foot this way and then 40 foot that way giving the impression that it is the one that is more wrong. The maps wrong coordinates are just fixed in place and do not move. Let me assure you they have just as much error.

 

You are looking to find the cache at some exact point. Most of us expect our units to be off in general around 20 feet. Add that to the 20 feet that the hider had and you can easily need to search a 40 foot area.

[+MaplessInSeattle]

Well, you could always come up and try to find my caches with google maps. After you swim out of the lake, that's not on the map, tell me how that worked out for you.

[+trainlove]

Here are my $0.02 on maps.

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php...p;#entry3204349

being in the web forums though means that you have to be logged in to read that.

 

Here is $0.10 about Google that has a really cool link for flashearth.com. One of the links there can show you a birds eye view of the spot from any of 4 directions, not just an angels eye view straight down.

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php...=176049&hl=

 

Edited to say, oops, not in the web forums but in the GPS forums.

Edited December 17, 2007 by trainlove

[+edscott]

I'm planning on returning / selling my GPS unit and just working with Google Maps.

 

Comments / suggestions / tips?

 

In an urban setting that will be fine (GPSrs do not work very well in built-up areas), but you will miss out on so much of the hobby (such as the joy of hunting hollow tree stumps in the woods) without a GPS.

 

Also, I do not think that you will be able to do many/any multicaches or puzzle caches using Google maps...

 

Before you return your GPSr, please, please give it a try in its natural environment - the great outdoors!

 

Yes.. multis are tough without a GPS, but with a simple calculator you can do them as long as the cache doesn't lead you off the edge of the photo. I usually do them in separate trips, but have done a few the harder way. I disagree with idea of missing out on doing woodland caches. Aerial photos are equally accurate in the woods.. as long as you can read them.

[+edscott]

I'm on my 8th or so find. I found ALL of them with the aid of only Google Maps. The location on the map seemed to be completely accurate in most cases, with a few of them being off by maybe 10 feet shifted North and West. (Though is that Google Maps that is wrong or are the published GPS coordinates wrong?)

 

I just bought a GPS unit (Garmin Geko 201 with WAAS) and went back to try to find the few that I could not find with just Google Maps. I also did not find them with the GPS. I found the GPS was not actually helpful. I'd put it in Goto mode and it would lead me to a spot, and then I'd slowly walk around a little bit and then it would lead me to another spot 40 feet away. Basically, I was not seeing decent accuracy, even though the GPS unit claimed that it was getting 11 foot accuracy or so.

 

And I also did a test of going to a landmark not near buildings and then compared it to the location given in Google Maps. My unit (which was claiming 19 foot accuracy at the time) gave coordinates that were about 25 feet North and 25 feet West of the location that Google Earth gave. So, which was wrong? Based on my experience, it seems to be the GPS unit.

 

I've never been out with another Geocacher, so maybe I'm doing something wrong, but frankly, I'm planning on returning / selling my GPS unit and just working with Google Maps.

 

Comments / suggestions / tips?

 

I'm assuming you really mean the Google Aerial Photos. The maps can be awful and that's probably what most of the negative comments above are really about. I prefer another source over Google. They load faster and they give a better point indicator that does not obscure the northern approaches to the cache. I've never bought a GPS, but if I had one I probably would go ahead and keep it. You could still use it to place caches and thus build in that 20-40 foot inaccuracy that most Geocachers expect.

[+edscott]

Well, you could always come up and try to find my caches with google maps. After you swim out of the lake, that's not on the map, tell me how that worked out for you.

 

No waypoint? Give us map readers a chance at it... in the meantime here are the directions to your archived one.... so I'm not giving away any deep secrets. Sometimes things look different once I get there, and I'm forced to change my attack method but here is how I would expect this one to go.

 

Go to the SW corner of the parking lot. (BTW my photo shows the lines so I could pick my parking spot ahead of time) Take the short pathway west.. looks like it is probably paved, about 50 feet or so to a corner and turn south on that pathway.. probably also paved. Don't go SW as that curves around to a large circular field divided into quarters.. three for baseball and the other is just grass. .. or maybe it is an old missile site The fields were mowed just before the photo was taken. Baseball fields were mowed from SW to NE but the other one was mowed SE to NW. Cross a narrow trail and continue to a wider dirt trail heading west. You will have passed 4 larger trees and other brush along the way. Take that trail west about 90 meters to a faint trace heading SE and follow it 30 meters to something small and white. Could be a rock or a chunk of concrete.. whatever, I'll recognize it when I get there. It's not more than a couple feet across. The cache is about 15 steps to the NE of that spot near the second big tree as you come southeast from the E to W trail... I'll grant this one is basically urban rather than woodland, but the natural features are clearly visible and the trails would not be necessary for finding the cache. Wouldn't expect many muggles since the photo was taken about 4PM and the lot is empty.

Edited December 18, 2007 by edscott

[+edscott]

 

...... There is no way you could find them without a GPS unit. .....

 

Care to make a wager?

[+Wazat]

I would love to try find them with Google Earth but carrying my PC up a mountain or down a ravine is just not gonna do it for me. Then the star ratings need to be doubled.

 

Actually my son hid his first cache and logged it using Google Earth for the co-ords. I did it as my 49th find as I was going to do a mountain cache as my 50th the next day and I was out of caches. So with Google zooming by default on my home he panned around the corner to wher he had put the micro cache grabbed the co-ords and listed the cache on geocaching.com and it was published. His first hide and that without a GPS. I have an Etrex Vista HCx and the co-ords are about 2 meters from the cache. So depending on the accuracy of the picures in Google Earth some could be almost spot on.

 

I always use Google Earth as a reference for when I go looking for the cache. It helps to get some idea of the place where you might have to look. But to find the cache then the GPS is king. Also out in the open fields and away from man made objects that can be referenced on Google Earth there is no beating the GPS.

[+edscott]

I would love to try find them with Google Earth but carrying my PC up a mountain or down a ravine is just not gonna do it for me. Then the star ratings need to be doubled.

 

Actually my son hid his first cache and logged it using Google Earth for the co-ords. I did it as my 49th find as I was going to do a mountain cache as my 50th the next day and I was out of caches. So with Google zooming by default on my home he panned around the corner to wher he had put the micro cache grabbed the co-ords and listed the cache on geocaching.com and it was published. His first hide and that without a GPS. I have an Etrex Vista HCx and the co-ords are about 2 meters from the cache. So depending on the accuracy of the picures in Google Earth some could be almost spot on.

 

I always use Google Earth as a reference for when I go looking for the cache. It helps to get some idea of the place where you might have to look. But to find the cache then the GPS is king. Also out in the open fields and away from man made objects that can be referenced on Google Earth there is no beating the GPS.

 

But the natural features are there too. I just carry an ink jet printout of the aerial photo.

[+Wazat]

Problem is we are not always hovering a mile above the cache site. But yeah it can help a bit.

[+edscott]

Problem is we are not always hovering a mile above the cache site. But yeah it can help a bit.

 

I use 1:10000 scale which puts me a lot closer.

[+TrailGators]

 

...... There is no way you could find them without a GPS unit. .....

 

Care to make a wager?

I know that could find them without using a GPS! I would just tag along with someone else that had a GPS!

[+MaplessInSeattle]

Well, you could always come up and try to find my caches with google maps. After you swim out of the lake, that's not on the map, tell me how that worked out for you.

 

No waypoint? Give us map readers a chance at it... in the meantime here are the directions to your archived one.... so I'm not giving away any deep secrets. Sometimes things look different once I get there, and I'm forced to change my attack method but here is how I would expect this one to go.

 

Go to the SW corner of the parking lot. (BTW my photo shows the lines so I could pick my parking spot ahead of time) Take the short pathway west.. looks like it is probably paved, about 50 feet or so to a corner and turn south on that pathway.. probably also paved. Don't go SW as that curves around to a large circular field divided into quarters.. three for baseball and the other is just grass. .. or maybe it is an old missile site The fields were mowed just before the photo was taken. Baseball fields were mowed from SW to NE but the other one was mowed SE to NW. Cross a narrow trail and continue to a wider dirt trail heading west. You will have passed 4 larger trees and other brush along the way. Take that trail west about 90 meters to a faint trace heading SE and follow it 30 meters to something small and white. Could be a rock or a chunk of concrete.. whatever, I'll recognize it when I get there. It's not more than a couple feet across. The cache is about 15 steps to the NE of that spot near the second big tree as you come southeast from the E to W trail... I'll grant this one is basically urban rather than woodland, but the natural features are clearly visible and the trails would not be necessary for finding the cache. Wouldn't expect many muggles since the photo was taken about 4PM and the lot is empty.

LOL wow, I just noticed this. Uhm, I'd love to have you give a local geocacher nothing but an aerial photo, and those directions. BTW this cache was definitely not urban. The park is extremely overgrown, almost all photos are pretty useless in NSP. I would love to see someone trying though. If you find someone willing to, let me know. I'll meet up with them. I can even place a cache at that old cache site.

[+edscott]

LOL wow, I just noticed this. Uhm, I'd love to have you give a local geocacher nothing but an aerial photo, and those directions. BTW this cache was definitely not urban. The park is extremely overgrown, almost all photos are pretty useless in NSP. I would love to see someone trying though. If you find someone willing to, let me know. I'll meet up with them. I can even place a cache at that old cache site.

 

Urban was a poor word choice... "lots of man made stuff to key on" is more accurate but more words to type. I just added a note with the map to the page. The marker doesn't copy over but it's on my screen. Remember this is for part one of the multi, not the final since all I have are the coordinates to the first stage. I know lots Orienteers in Washington that can read this photo, but as far as I know they are not geocachers.

Edited December 24, 2007 by edscott

[+welch]

 

...... There is no way you could find them without a GPS unit. .....

 

Care to make a wager?

Ha No.

 

I think the thing about using a gps or not is that when using a gps you plug in a coord and let it lead to an area, then you start searching. When using maps you seem to need first to figure out where the coordinate is in relation to identifiable objects before going, basically making every cache hunt into a mini orienteering course. Same goal, just different ways of getting there.

[+MaplessInSeattle]

LOL wow, I just noticed this. Uhm, I'd love to have you give a local geocacher nothing but an aerial photo, and those directions. BTW this cache was definitely not urban. The park is extremely overgrown, almost all photos are pretty useless in NSP. I would love to see someone trying though. If you find someone willing to, let me know. I'll meet up with them. I can even place a cache at that old cache site.

 

Urban was a poor word choice... "lots of man made stuff to key on" is more accurate but more words to type. I just added a note with the map to the page. The marker doesn't copy over but it's on my screen. Remember this is for part one of the multi, not the final since all I have are the coordinates to the first stage. I know lots Orienteers in Washington that can read this photo, but as far as I know they are not geocachers.

cascade orienteering club has a course set up throughout NSP

[+edscott]

 

...... There is no way you could find them without a GPS unit. .....

 

Care to make a wager?

Ha No.

 

I think the thing about using a gps or not is that when using a gps you plug in a coord and let it lead to an area, then you start searching. When using maps you seem to need first to figure out where the coordinate is in relation to identifiable objects before going, basically making every cache hunt into a mini orienteering course. Same goal, just different ways of getting there.

Exactly ..

[+StarBrand]

 

...... There is no way you could find them without a GPS unit. .....

 

Care to make a wager?

Ha No.

 

I think the thing about using a gps or not is that when using a gps you plug in a coord and let it lead to an area, then you start searching. When using maps you seem to need first to figure out where the coordinate is in relation to identifiable objects before going, basically making every cache hunt into a mini orienteering course. Same goal, just different ways of getting there.

Exactly ..

.......and just to get it all back on topic.....

 

The google maps are less accurate (in many cases) then a good handheld GPSr with a decent number of sats and a good signal.

[+Miragee]

I'm on my 8th or so find. I found ALL of them with the aid of only Google Maps. The location on the map seemed to be completely accurate in most cases, with a few of them being off by maybe 10 feet shifted North and West. (Though is that Google Maps that is wrong or are the published GPS coordinates wrong?)

 

<snip>

 

I've never been out with another Geocacher, so maybe I'm doing something wrong, but frankly, I'm planning on returning / selling my GPS unit and just working with Google Maps.

 

Comments / suggestions / tips?

Do you think you could find this cache, one on one of my "Historic Cache" lists, with this Google Map?

 

 

Perhaps with a very good Topo Map, and a printout from Google Earth, and knowledge of the area you could find the cache without a GPS unit, but I think having one would make the search much, much easier than following this Google Map . . .

[+edscott]

 

Do you think you could find this cache, one on one of my "Historic Cache" lists, with this Google Map?

 

 

Perhaps with a very good Topo Map, and a printout from Google Earth, and knowledge of the area you could find the cache without a GPS unit, but I think having one would make the search much, much easier than following this Google Map . . .

 

No... Aerial photos are vastly different from maps regardless of their source... and I said in another post in this thread that Google maps are often suspect. My original point was that a good aerial photo is as good as, and usually better than a GPS for locating a cache. The Google maps supplied on the cache page are often useless even in getting you to the parking area. I have added disclaimers on many of my cache pages apologizing for the maps that GC.Com attaches to my page. But I'll bet I could find your cache without a GPS.. look for an update here in a few minutes

 

Few minutes.... OK. The good news is that the area has very little vegetation to cover the other features. Bad news is that the jeep trails in the photo and the USGS do not line up properly.. but neither do the mountains and the USGS contours, so I am prepared to scrap the USGS and go with the photos. In this area the infrared photo is better than the Black and White aerial so that would be my primary data source. I didn't zoom out enough to find the best way in so I'll just assume from the Google map that I'd walk over from the road and pick up a jeep trail about 900 to 1000 feet SW of the cache. I'll follow that as it goes a bit further NW then swings around to almost due north and comes to a junction with another E-W track. Go east about 150 feet on that track and look off the edge to the south (right) for the cache. If I get to the "Y" I'll backtrack about 25 feet. To confirm my spot there is a steep bank with a distinct reentrant (cove, hollow whatever you call them) due north of the cache that has a black spot on it.. possibly a plant or maybe the shadow of a cliff.. (afternoon photo) What I do on the east coast is try stuff like this under a canopy of leaves. Those are the tough ones.

Edited December 24, 2007 by edscott

[+TrailGators]

I'm on my 8th or so find. I found ALL of them with the aid of only Google Maps. The location on the map seemed to be completely accurate in most cases, with a few of them being off by maybe 10 feet shifted North and West. (Though is that Google Maps that is wrong or are the published GPS coordinates wrong?)

 

<snip>

 

I've never been out with another Geocacher, so maybe I'm doing something wrong, but frankly, I'm planning on returning / selling my GPS unit and just working with Google Maps.

 

Comments / suggestions / tips?

Do you think you could find this cache, one on one of my "Historic Cache" lists, with this Google Map?

 

 

Perhaps with a very good Topo Map, and a printout from Google Earth, and knowledge of the area you could find the cache without a GPS unit, but I think having one would make the search much, much easier than following this Google Map . . .

Try showing that view after clicking on the "Satellite" button and then zoom in.....

[Mag Magician]

I have a challenge for you. Try to do this one with the aid of Google Earth, and see just how close you can come.

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...f4-f23e92475c0e

 

You will notice that the arial photos are not clear, and they were shot a few years ago.

[+edscott]

I have a challenge for you. Try to do this one with the aid of Google Earth, and see just how close you can come.

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...f4-f23e92475c0e

 

You will notice that the arial photos are not clear, and they were shot a few years ago.

 

Yes... If you are in Canada get a GPS.

[+MaplessInSeattle]

I have a challenge for you. Try to do this one with the aid of Google Earth, and see just how close you can come.

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...f4-f23e92475c0e

 

You will notice that the arial photos are not clear, and they were shot a few years ago.

 

Yes... If you are in Canada get a GPS.

LOL

[+Texsox]

To each his own, but I enjoy entering a random cache about 1-2 miles from my house into my GPSr and start walking. I have no idea if I will wind up in yet another WalMart parking lot, a neighborhood park, or in front of a Church. Sometimes the walk is so nice I don't bother searching, sometimes I won't even open the cache, and until yesterday, I have not signed or logged a find in over a year. I guess my will power ran out. Funny I found that one not with a GPS or a map, but from a clue I remembered from long ago, the barking of a dog

 

I hear some people hollering Blasphemy!

 

The wonderful thing is each of us can enjoy finding a spot that someone else selected. We can use different technology. I'll bet there are even some people that would have fun hiring neighborhood kids to go find and sign log books

[+momelaine]

I don't have a GPS yet but hope to get one this weekend. I have been using Google maps for most of my finds. But I live in an area that I can get a more detailed aerial view. I have used a borrowed GPS a couple of times and one of those times I would never have found the cache without it because Google had the map wrong. Just like Google puts my home address more than a mile north of where I actually live. But without Google maps I wouldn't have been having the fun that I have been having since I started this. And I have done multiples with Google, it just takes me a few trips back and forth.

[+edscott]

Agree that Google makes lots of mistakes. Yesterday we were using a google map as a detailed road map between caches in an area with lots of small villages. Some fine cartographer had picked the wrong intersection for one of them then named the rest by counting road junctions based on that mistake. We knew where we were, but a stranger would have been thoroughly confused.

 

I'm currently planning to find a few caches in New Zealand and see GC-Google problems there as well. On one obvious one I can tell exactly where it is from the description, but GC-Google puts it a couple hundred feet away on (or under?) a lake. The problem seems to be that the little box marking the cache location is tied to the road map version. If you click on the hybrid version the problem becomes obvious as the drawn roads do not always match up with the road on the satellite image. They are usually OK E-W or N-S but not always both, so the satellite image road and the drawn road follow parallel paths. Since the cache is keyed on the drawn version it does not match up with the satellite image, which is the real key to finding it. I'm guessing this is a problem that really falls with GC.com to fix rather than Google, but I'm certainly no programming expert.