Signals actually TOO! Good!

[GPS-Hermit]

I have one cache that is doing well and enjoyed mostly because of its great location - however because it is on a Ridge on TOP-Of-The-World with no obsticles I find that the logs reflect a really easy find. There are lots of places to look but the SIGNAL nails it right on the head. One person reported 6 foot accuracy.

 

Looking for suggestions to increase the hunt. I thought of making the Co-ordinates away from the cache and Point to something that is out there that is not the cache. Then say start looking from a fixed point so everyone starts looking at the same place. I also thought of putting false Mini caches with bearings / distance to the real one.

 

Help me out - I want the cachers to have fun finding the cache. Right now it is too easy! One guy and his wife found it in 18 inches of snow and probably appreciated the accuracy. Elevation is high and it is often windy - so cold weather cachers are not going to want it really tuff.

 

I am undecided about this one.!!! Anyone else have this problem - the cache is on West Virginia/Virginia Border Area.

 

Previous logs I've seen say that just offseting the Co-ordinates is a bad idea.

Edited April 15, 2008 by GPS-Hermit

[+Miragee]

Why would you want to make the search more difficult? I want people to find my cache easily so they have more time to just enjoy the location.

 

That said, there is a cache on a peak here where there are a couple of "Decoy" caches. One is a pill bottle with "Oxygen" in it.

[+KJcachers]

leave it alone. the hike is the allure not the cache, that's just an excuse to get up there!

 

BTW, what's the GC#?

[Mr.Yuck]

Why would you want to make the search more difficult? I want people to find my cache easily so they have more time to just enjoy the location.

 

That said, there is a cache on a peak here where there are a couple of "Decoy" caches. One is a pill bottle with "Oxygen" in it.

 

I did once hear someone say (who owned a long multi), that they wanted to make the next one harder by using "soft coords". I'd tend to disagree with this. You could always do the decoy thing, as suggested. Generally, decoys annoy me personally. The handful of mountain top caches I've found all had dead nuts on coords, one I definitely remember when I was a newbie, and using a super cheapie Garmin Gecko.

[+Kealia]

Agreed. It sounds like the location and hike are the real fun here, why make the cache harder to find? Let people get it and spend some time writing in the log book versus wandering around trying to find it.

[GPS-Hermit]

leave it alone. the hike is the allure not the cache, that's just an excuse to get up there!

 

BTW, what's the GC#?

 

Here it is! GCE75F go get it!

 

And you are right about the lure - you get the hike and the view! Guess I want to complete the package. No one is complaining I don't think. It's just me wanting to offer as much as I can on this particular one. It's great as is. Rather than hide more caches I am interested in improving the ones I have.

Edited April 15, 2008 by GPS-Hermit

[+Kealia]

<forum hiccup>

Edited April 15, 2008 by kealia

[+DanOCan]

There are lots of places to look but the SIGNAL nails it right on the head. One person reported 6 foot accuracy.

 

If there are a lot of places to look then having accurate coordinates is a good thing.

 

I thought of making the Co-ordinates away from the cache and Point to something that is out there that is not the cache. Then say start looking from a fixed point so everyone starts looking at the same place.

 

Argh, no! You've already said there are lots of places to look so having intentionally incorrect coordinates is a really bad idea.

 

Help me out - I want the cachers to have fun finding the cache. Right now it is too easy!

 

You say the cache has a nice hike, a great view and solid coordinates. Those three things almost guarantee the cachers are enjoying the experience. The last thing I want after going through the effort of hiking somewhere is a "needle in the haystack" type hunt with mushy coordinates.

 

My philosophy is that caches should be hidden from muggles, not other cachers. When I place a cache I want it to be found and I'll do whatever I can to help other cachers find it. Please don't think that because the cache is "too easy" it isn't enjoyable.

[+TeamGumbo]

enjoyed mostly because of its great location

 

What they said. If it ain't broke, etc.

 

[+4props]

I read a few of the logs on this one and it sounds like a great cache to go find the way it is. The only improvement I saw would be to spell check your cache description.

[+briansnat]

I say leave it. Why increase the impact on the area by making it harder to find. Nice walk, nice view, that's plenty.

[+Team Cotati]

This post seems to indicate that the more satellite signals that you are recieving, the more precision you get.

 

I admit that on the surface, this does seem logical. However, is that really true? Does recieving eight satellite signals give you better accuracy than 5 or 6?

 

And then don't we get right back to our favorite topic wrt WAAS being used by the searcher and perhaps not by the hider and vice versa? Here, the hider getting more or less satellite locks than the finder?

 

I have yet to see an indication that for the purposes of geocaching, that any of this stuff makes much difference.

Edited April 15, 2008 by Team Cotati

[+StarBrand]

The point is to find it. Isn't it?

 

To me it has always been much more about location than a hide-n-seek match.

[crawil]

If you are really set on making an offset or multi or whatever, leave this one alone and move up or down the trail and create another that matches your vision!

[+the hermit crabs]

I hope you leave it as it is.

 

If you want one that isn't quite so easy, then create a different cache, either in a place with lots of trees and poor reception, or in a place with a ton of potential hiding places, or in a really well-camouflaged container. But in all of these cases, try to make the coords as good as you possibly can, given the conditions.

 

If I knew a cacher was taking the lazy way to a "tough find" by simply lying about the coordinates, all of his caches would go straight onto my ignore list.

 

And as far as the decoy caches go... I think that that always sounds like a good idea to someone who has never had the misfortune to find a cache like that. I thought of doing that myself once, when we were still new at it, until we found some caches with deliberate decoys -- and I realized how not-fun they are. (But then again, I'm easily irritated. Crabby, even. )

Edited April 15, 2008 by the hermit crabs

[+TotemLake]

This post seems to indicate that the more satellite signals that you are recieving, the more precision you get.

 

I admit that on the surface, this does seem logical. However, is that really true? Does recieving eight satellite signals give you better accuracy than 5 or 6?

 

And then don't we get right back to our favorite topic wrt WAAS being used by the searcher and perhaps not by the hider and vice versa? Here, the hider getting more or less satellite locks than the finder?

 

I have yet to see an indication that for the purposes of geocaching, that any of this stuff makes much difference.

I would argue the more satellites you have in a wide shotgun spread, the better your average will be. If that same number of satellites are closer to the bullseye, your average will be further off.

 

That being said, this cache looks like it has a great 360 degree horizon which will give you a wonderful satellite view that stretches from horizon to horizon. So yes, you will have an increased likelihood of receiving a better average (which will give the perception of better accuracy) as an end result.

[GPS-Hermit]

This post seems to indicate that the more satellite signals that you are recieving, the more precision you get.

 

I admit that on the surface, this does seem logical. However, is that really true? Does recieving eight satellite signals give you better accuracy than 5 or 6?

 

And then don't we get right back to our favorite topic wrt WAAS being used by the searcher and perhaps not by the hider and vice versa? Here, the hider getting more or less satellite locks than the finder?

 

I have yet to see an indication that for the purposes of geocaching, that any of this stuff makes much difference.

I would argue the more satellites you have in a wide shotgun spread, the better your average will be. If that same number of satellites are closer to the bullseye, your average will be further off.

 

That being said, this cache looks like it has a great 360 degree horizon which will give you a wonderful satellite view that stretches from horizon to horizon. So yes, you will have an increased likelihood of receiving a better average (which will give the perception of better accuracy) as an end result.

It seems to be the case cause the logs say people are finding it with little difficulty and are sitting right on top of it. I thought this might be a complaint but maybe they are amazed.

[Neos2]

I think people are complimenting you on the nice coords. I don't see one log that says "This cache was too easy"

 

I'd leave this one alone if it were mine (except for the spell-check). It sounds like a great cache. There is nothing that says caches have to be difficult to find to be fun...

 

In fact, after a nice hike and a good view, scrabbling around peering under every nook and cranny for a cache is really a bit of a pain. I'd rather find the cache, trade out swag, write a nice log, and then sit a few minutes and enjoy the view before exploring the area a bit more.

 

My take is this: Every cache ought to have at least some redeeming quality. Things I value include:

1. a good view
   
2. a nice hike
   
3. a creative container
   
4. a devious hide
   
5. an ironic twist of some sort
   
6. a dry log to sign
   
7. a decent swag item to trade for
   

but I don't expect to find every one of those qualities in every cache. Why not save the creative hide techniques for places where the view or the hike is a bit less rewarding?

 

It's not like every soul that ventures out to that cache is zeroing out on top the cache, anyway. If it makes you feel better, there is one person who said their gps had 5 foot accuracy showing who didn't find the cache--to offset the person who said their unit was showing 6.1 feet to go when they were 6.1 feet from the cache.

Edited April 16, 2008 by Neos2

[+Iowa Tom]

I remember the 1st time that I read, easy find and predictable in regard to a person's finding my geocaches. That was the best geo-irritation I have received up to this point. Now I make a lot of caches that are not hard to find but that have the log hidden away in the cache itself. Some people never do find the log but claim credit anyway. That was not my intent.

 

Another thing that comment energized in me was to make lots of puzzles. Yeah it may be an easy find, once you figure out the coords.

 

I've created some containers that are very camouflaged. That helps, especially with the micros. Lastly, sometimes the caches are a challenge to reach and require a tool to make reaching it possible.

 

For the one you have now I would think that you could develop a new scheme and archive the current one then employ the better idea. The people that have already found it will find it again cuz they know where it is (assuming you use the same place), but oh well.

 

Be glad you have visitors. Mine are hard enough now that I don't have many at all in some cases; like 4 a year. Then again I live where there's not a large population of geocachers either.

 

-it

Edited April 16, 2008 by Iowa Tom