What's Your Approach to Recording Cache Coordinates?

[+StumpWater]

Yes, I know, with a GPSr. But, beyond that:

 

1. Simply "mark it" with GPSr directly above the cache, one time and you're done?

 

2. Average a variety of locations around the cache?

 

3. Mark it, go away, come back, mark it again, averaging?

 

4. Use more than one kind of GPSr?

 

5. Combinations of the above?

 

6. Other?

 

StumpWater

[+Bad_CRC]

3

[Mag Magician]

1, 3, and 4

[+BlueDeuce]

I'll take three or four waypoints, or maybe five if the area has bad coverage.

 

Then I'll take two or three test runs on each by walking away 100 feet or so then come back and see how well it does. Surprisingly the first reading usually does pretty good.

[O-Mega]

I usually let my Garmin 60csx do the averaging. I leave it on/over the cache for a few minutes until the estimated accuracy gets as low as possible. Then everytime I am doing maintenance, I repeat the procedure and change the coords if there is a big difference. I only had to change a couple, and they were in bad reception areas.

[+Miragee]

I have used each of the following at one time or another.

 

1 -- Simply "mark it" with the GPSr as close to the cache as possible, one time.

 

3 -- Mark it, go away, come back, mark it again, averaging the different waypoints.

 

6 -- Place the GPSr as close as possible to the cache location and set it to Average for a few minutes.

[+Harry Dolphin]

3 annotated. Take a waypoint, go away and come back. Take as many as necessary to have one that works.

[+StarBrand]

I usually let my GPSr settle for a few minutes and then average in the unit for 100 readings or so.

 

Sometimes I just let the unit settle and take a single reading.

[+Map Only]

6. If I brought a GPSr, I'll let it settle, mark and average. I check the coordinates against the map, and if they are correct, go with them. I've placed a few caches at times with an uncooperative satellite constellation, and used my usual method: I just plot the location on the map, like everyone did before electronic navigation aids.

[+benh57]

I've placed a few caches at times with an uncooperative satellite constellation, and used my usual method: I just plot the location on the map, like everyone did before electronic navigation aids.

 

That is specifically against cache placement guidelines which you agree to upon placing a cache.

[+fastforty]

I let the unit settle in while I'm hiding, then mark a waypoint. Then I walk away 60-80 feet, return & let it settle again for 10-20 seconds, marking another waypoint. Repeat from 3 directions & manually average them at home. 98% of the time, all of the marks are within .001-.002 of each other.

 

One time, I had one mark that was WAY off & tossed it out of the equation (of course, if I'd only taken one mark, it would have been the one that was several hundred feet off, LOL). Everyone says my coords are always dead-on.

[+DanOCan]

I mark the waypoint and then let the GPSr handle the averaging for me. I'll let it go for a minimum of 100 samples, longer if the estimated error in my position remains high. Never had any complaints about my coordinates...yet.

[+robert]

I usually let my GPSr settle for a few minutes and then average in the unit for 100 readings or so.

Ditto.

[+sbell111]

I make sure my unit has a fairly low epe, let the unit hang out at the location for a few minutes, and take a reading.

 

That's either 1 or 6.

[+briansnat]

When I started I would take a reading, walk away, return and take another and repeat this 15-20 times.

I realized it was a total waste of time, so I started just letting my unit settle for a minute, marked one waypoint and went with that. I found little difference in accuracy.

 

When I got my 60CSX, it has an auto averaging feature, so I just let it run for about 2-3 minutes. Figure it can't hurt, but I still don't see much of a difference between now and when I took just 1 reading. In fact one of my most recent hides has been generating complaints about being 50 feet off. That was with averaging.

 

The way I see it, if you have a lousy signal you are just averaging bad data. If you have a good signal, then there really is no need to average.

 

Can averaging give you better coordinates? Sure, you may be a few feet more accurate, but is it really worth all that effort to gain an additional 5 feet of accuracy?

Edited January 8, 2008 by briansnat

[+Renegade Knight]

Set the GPS near ground zero. Tell the GPS to average the coords. Place the cache. Take that as my waypoint.

[+Glenn]

6. If my GPS has WAAS displayed then I mark the spot. If I can't get WAAS then I set it down and let it average for a few minutes and then mark the spot.

[+Bunganator]

I will first simply stand over the cache and mark a point. Then I walk away and come back and see where it takes me. I will manually adjust the coors until I get some that from all directions gat me to the cache. Then I shut of my GPSr, turn it back on, get a new set of satellites and use the same marked coords. That way I get an idea of how far off people with other satellite configurations will be and go from there until I'm happy.

[+Harry Dolphin]

Can averaging give you better coordinates? Sure, you may be a few feet more accurate, but is it really worth all that effort to gain an additional 5 feet of accuracy?

 

I finally tried averaging, on my last hide. First I took four separate readings, then I tried averaging. My first reading seemed the most accurate. Got QC to within four feet. The averaged reading was fourteen feet off. Nope. Cannot say that I'm impressed with averaging. I'll stick with taking several readings and seeing which one leads me back to the cache the best.

[+hydnsek]

I usually let my Garmin 60csx do the averaging. I leave it on/over the cache for a few minutes until the estimated accuracy gets as low as possible. Then everytime I am doing maintenance, I repeat the procedure and change the coords if there is a big difference. I only had to change a couple, and they were in bad reception areas.

Ditto!

 

Never, ever take just one reading. Before I had a GPS with an averaging option, I took multiple readings, each time walking away in a different direction and coming back, letting it settle, then marking.

[+BlueDeuce]

Can averaging give you better coordinates? Sure, you may be a few feet more accurate, but is it really worth all that effort to gain an additional 5 feet of accuracy?

 

I finally tried averaging, on my last hide. First I took four separate readings, then I tried averaging. My first reading seemed the most accurate. Got QC to within four feet. The averaged reading was fourteen feet off. Nope. Cannot say that I'm impressed with averaging. I'll stick with taking several readings and seeing which one leads me back to the cache the best.

 

Ayep.

 

Averaging simply confirms the offset for that day.

[knowschad]

Ahhh... averaging. Great question. I tend to agree for the most part with Briansnat. If you're getting a bad signal, all averaging is doing is averaging the errors. You're not getting any closer to ground zero unless the errors are equally spread out around ground zero (GZ is the center of all of the bad data).

 

On the other hand, I DO average. My HCx does it automatically. I try to average about 200 samples (at 1 per second) but if I see no change and the estimated accuraccy is good, I may simply call it good and let it go. Does this matter? I don't know. I believe that I've been getting many more "Coordinates were right on!" messages in my logs, but that could just be my imagination.

 

And even if my coordinates are within centimeters of the cache, that doesn't mean that yours, as a finder, will be. All we can hope for it close. The rest is the brain, and that, ultimately, is why most of us do this.

[+Maingray]

3.

 

And Stumpwater, the OP, ... I did some of your new caches this afternoon and they all had great co-ordinates.

[knowschad]

I will first simply stand over the cache and mark a point. Then I walk away and come back and see where it takes me. I will manually adjust the coors until I get some that from all directions gat me to the cache. Then I shut of my GPSr, turn it back on, get a new set of satellites and use the same marked coords. That way I get an idea of how far off people with other satellite configurations will be and go from there until I'm happy.

 

That explains a lot, Bunganator!

 

(seriously, I don't believe I've gone after any of your caches.... yet!)

 

Edited to add: Oh yes, I have!! You are the Evil Owner of A Sticky Situation!!! I remember that cache! I also remember very accurate coordinates, which are essential to a hide like that.

Edited January 9, 2008 by knowschad

[+x_Marks_the_spot]

First I break out my sextant and astrological charts, then I sight an azimuth angle to the North Star, and ...

 

Actually, we usually let the GPSr settle down to a good EPE, let it average 100 points, and that's usually it. My Lowrance iFinder shows a scatter plot of where all the points it has averaged are (don't know if other units do this, but I think it's just as neat as can be), and if it's really diffuse we'll plug those coordinates into another GPSr (we have four by now) and check it that way. Rechecking with the same unit at the same time (as opposed to coming back another day) doesn't make much sense to me. Kinda like playing Battleship; if E7 is a miss, you wouldn't call E7 again until the next game. You already know where that GPSr says it is, given the satellite data it has, so the smart money says it's going to say the same thing when you walk away and come right back.

[+rhelt100]

I have a very set routine. Once I find the correct spot to hide the cache, I hit mark on my GPS and name it something like "cache1". Then, I set the GPS down as close to the hide as I can, smoke a cigarette (that's about 5 minutes) and mark it again, "cache2". Then, I pick up the GPS and walk a few hundred feet away. After walking back to the hide location, I mark it a 3rd time, "cache 3". When I get home, I average out the coordinates for these 3 marks. I've yet to get one comment about bad coords so I guess it works.