Non GPS users

[MidnightSun.]

Hi I am fairly new and was wondering how many people out there DON'T use a G.P.S (?). I didn't even know you were meant to use one till I found this site, being frugal though I'm not interested in a purchasing a 200$ G.P.S unit so instead I read the maps online then re-write them on a piece a paper then bike to the location. I haven't had a problem yet in finding any them. They just take a bit of searching in the general location.

 

Just wondering how many out there are doing something similar

[+Y2KOTA]

Thats how I started out. I got a used GPSr for $60 after about 30 finds they same way your doing it. Its all about having fun

[A.B.E.L.]

I started out with a Garmin eTrex Legend I got off Craiglist for $35! Search for the deals, they're out there!

[TermiteHunter]

I have always used the GPS, Granted it's an old 1999 model e-trex with missing rows of pixels, but I use it most of the time. The only time I don't is for some of those urban caches of the lamp post or similar variety. Those I often will just zoom in on the Google map in sat mode and drive right up to the location from memory, reach out and grab. (OK sometimes I actually get out but you get the idea) Few of the ammo cans in the woods or similar have distinct enough terrain or landmarks to find in the same manner.

It's about having fun no matter how you actually accomplish it.

[Neos2]

We've found a few without the gps, even though we own several now. Some caches are just that easy or we know the place that well. The online maps make it fairly simple to find urban caches, with all those good landmarks to gauge against for navigation on site. I would imagine it's not half as simple to find a cache out in the middle of a 30 acre wooded area using just the online maps.

 

Then again, at some point, you run out of those easy to find caches and you have to either step up your map reading skill a bit, or invest in the gps.

 

I've read about people who've found hundreds without a gps. Most of them say they used maps and a good compass for the more challenging ones, and many they admit they tagged along with friends who were using gps units for some of their finds as well.

 

We went caching with a guy who had the most basic gps I've ever seen-- a little yellow gecko that couldn't hook up to a computer, had no maps at all-- just a pointer -- and it fit in his shirt pocket with room to spare. If I ever see any of them for sale really cheap I may buy some just to show my kiddos at school how they work. By the way-he found most of the caches that day as fast as we did with out "fancy" gps units. He has enough finds under his belt that he just knows where to look when he gets close enough.

 

Still, there is no rush to get a gps. As long as you're still having fun without the gps, that's all that really matters. You can hold out for a great deal if you find you do want a gps.

[rogheff]

I like hunting without my 1942 Philco Problematic gpsr. It's more of a challenge. You can get the general area, but then the hunt is on.

[Skippermark]

A cacher in another state found most of his 3000 finds without a GPS. He's a surveyor, so maybe he knew how to read the topo maps and then match it to the surrounding landscape when he got there. And these are deep woods caches too! I'm not sure, but it's definitely impressive.

 

The only ones we can find w/out a GPS are parking lot caches. We like to print a closeup of the area and then figure out where it is.

 

Great job! That's cool that you can do that and are having fun.

 

If you end up wanting a GPS, you can probably pick up something on eBay for cheap.

[+trainlove]

There is someone around here who claims to have all of his thousands of finds without using a GPS. But I know someone who observed him in the woods with a GPS and when his presence was detected the GPS immediately went into his pocket.

I don't think he has ANY finds without a GPS.

 

Now, finding caches without GPS is cool, but DO NOT try to hide one without one. That's against the rules.

[+Colonial Cats]

We probably would be able to find some caches without our Lowrance GPSrs, however we like playing with them. I'm just old enough where I thought "Pong" was the neatest thing going. I used a slide rule in college. Now we can hold the world in our hand. Great stuff!

[+nekom]

I've found a few without a GPS. Depending on the type of cache you go after, it can be remarkably easy, especially if you're familiar with the area or very good at using maps. Some of the deep woods treks though would be quite the challenge.

[Skippermark]

Some of the deep woods treks though would be quite the challenge.

I agree. I don't know how someone could use a map or something and be able to walk 1/2 mile into the woods, bushwhack 200 feet and then find the exact rock pile or whatever where the cache is hidden?

[+tands]

Hi all,

 

We usually cache with a GPS, but we've got several finds using maps and compass. I participate in adventure races. In these 10 to 50 mile races you have to find a couple of dozen very small checkpoint markers, usually well hidden (sometimes in a drainage pipe), using only a compass, a topo map, and a list of the coordinates. You have to plot the checkpoints yourself!

 

You have to practice your map reading, point plotting, compass reading, and pace counting, but when you finally get the hang of it you do not need a GPS to get within 50 or so feet of any marker you're seeking. And that's about as close as you can guarantee a GPS is gonna get you to a cache for any given cache.

 

It's truly cake to cache this way. The major PITA is plotting the points. Once you have that you're good to go. It's quite fun to identify landmarks and plot heading and distance to a cache and then actually find it.

 

Of course you'd have map costs as well as the cost of a map case. Add in a cheap Mega-Mart compass (they work fine) and you're in for about half the cost of a new low-end GPS or a nice used GPS. For what it's worth, you should never trek too deep into the wilderness without a real map and a compass no matter how many spare batteries you're carrying.

 

- T of TandS&W

Edited October 28, 2008 by tands

[+Web-ling]

I've done the majority of my finds without the GPS. I use Google Earth, USGS maps, and Terraserver aerials.

 

I came to geocaching from an orienteering background, so not using a GPS comes very naturally to me.

 

I use a GPS when I hide caches (ALWAYS), when I cache in a group, when I don't have time to download aerials or maps, or after I've searched without the GPS and struck out.

 

GPS-less caching adds an additional challenge that I really enjoy, especially on those caches that are actually hidden in the woods.

[Mag Magician]

Some of the deep woods treks though would be quite the challenge.

I agree. I don't know how someone could use a map or something and be able to walk 1/2 mile into the woods, bushwhack 200 feet and then find the exact rock pile or whatever where the cache is hidden?

 

Back in my military days, we were given 16 digit co-ordinates, and told to park the radio van in a particular bush. Using topo maps and a compass became second nature. Yes, it is possible! It may be far beyond the technically refined students of bushwhacking of today, but still possible.

Edited October 29, 2008 by Mag Magician

[+TotemLake]

Is it just me or did the OP's title seem like an oxymoron question? I may be wrong, but my perception is you can't be a non gps user AND use a gps.

[+markandsandy]

Is it just me or did the OP's title seem like an oxymoron question? I may be wrong, but my perception is you can't be a non gps user AND use a gps.

Either a split personality, or a case of the left hand not knowing what the right hand is doing.

[+ironman114]

Is it just me or did the OP's title seem like an oxymoron question? I may be wrong, but my perception is you can't be a non gps user AND use a gps.

 

Some days I am a non GPS user and some days I use one.

 

I found my first GPS laying on a highway two states away from where I live.It wasn't registered so I couldn't return it.

 

I have found a few without a GPs. One by looking at the map and the other the only info I had was the title and name of the placer, it was a premium member only cache and I found it anyway.

[Mr.Yuck]

Some of the deep woods treks though would be quite the challenge.

I agree. I don't know how someone could use a map or something and be able to walk 1/2 mile into the woods, bushwhack 200 feet and then find the exact rock pile or whatever where the cache is hidden?

 

Back in my military days, we were given 16 digit co-ordinates, and told to park the radio van in a particular bush. Using topo maps and a compass became second nature. Yes, it is possible! It may be far beyond the technically refined students of bushwhacking of today, but still possible.

 

Yeah, we had 8 digit coordinates in the U.S. military, which supposedly got you within 10 Meters. I can't speak for the Canadian Military, of course. Although I did visit Camp Borden on several occasions.

 

There's a guy from back in the olden days (2002-2004) in my area who had about 50 finds in the woods without a gps, but every time this question comes up, and I try to look up his finds, I swear the guy went and deleted his logs. I can't be imagining this. EDIT: More likely, he finally bought a GPS, and changed his username, which suggested he cached without a GPS.

 

And of course, we haven't heard from EdScott yet, but hopefully we will.

Edited October 29, 2008 by TheWhiteUrkel

[+TotemLake]

Is it just me or did the OP's title seem like an oxymoron question? I may be wrong, but my perception is you can't be a non gps user AND use a gps.

 

Some days I am a non GPS user and some days I use one.

 

I found my first GPS laying on a highway two states away from where I live.It wasn't registered so I couldn't return it.

 

I have found a few without a GPs. One by looking at the map and the other the only info I had was the title and name of the placer, it was a premium member only cache and I found it anyway.

Currently, that makes you a GPS user that sometimes chooses not to use a GPS. Not the otherway around.

[+niraD]

I read the maps online then re-write them on a piece a paper then bike to the location. I haven't had a problem yet in finding any them. They just take a bit of searching in the general location.

That sounds very familiar, including the part about cycling to the cache location. I usually commute by bike, and do most of my caching in the morning before work or in the evening "on the way home" after work.

 

My first four were found with a group, sharing a GPSr owned by SkaterUncle, who was leading the group. Most of us were newbies.

 

After that, I found more than 300 on my own, without a GPSr. That included a lot of suburban hides, but a few were in less developed parks. I used the satellite view of Google Maps. I usually didn't print maps or write any notes though. I'd just look at the satellite view before setting out, and find the cache based on what I remembered from the satellite photo. At first, I'd make two (or more) trips for multi-caches, but eventually I started pacing off the distance from one stage to the next, to find all the stages in one trip.

 

Eventually, I bought an inexpensive GPSr, but I still find a lot of local caches without it.

[+vw_k]

Hi I am fairly new and was wondering how many people out there DON'T use a G.P.S (?). I didn't even know you were meant to use one till I found this site, being frugal though I'm not interested in a purchasing a 200$ G.P.S unit so instead I read the maps online then re-write them on a piece a paper then bike to the location. I haven't had a problem yet in finding any them. They just take a bit of searching in the general location.

 

Just wondering how many out there are doing something similar

 

I stared off doing the same thing, I'd print off the google maps image and look at the aerial photo. In urban areas this will get you as close as a GPSr would anyway, I still use this method for some caches as it saves me having to enter co-ordinates into my GPSr.

[Skippermark]

Some of the deep woods treks though would be quite the challenge.

I agree. I don't know how someone could use a map or something and be able to walk 1/2 mile into the woods, bushwhack 200 feet and then find the exact rock pile or whatever where the cache is hidden?

 

Back in my military days, we were given 16 digit co-ordinates, and told to park the radio van in a particular bush. Using topo maps and a compass became second nature. Yes, it is possible! It may be far beyond the technically refined students of bushwhacking of today, but still possible.

Neat! Thanks for the explanation. It sounds fun. I would definitely like to try that sometime. I used to know how to use a map & compass in my backpacking days 20+ years ago, but that was more for an emergency type thing where you needed to get to down from a mountain and to the nearest road or building. I see how it could be done to find a cache, but it would take a lot of practice I'm sure. Thanks for the explanation.

[+wv-yen]

When I worked for the Forest Service we used the UTM (Universal Transverse Merctor) location system. This is a grid system like lat. - long. but a little easier to plot on a topo map. Almost all (85%) of our sites were in deep woods (The add for the job asked: "Are you able and willing to walk 10 miles a day over rough terrain?") We were looking for sample collection boxes that looked like slime-green 1/2 gallon milk cartons hanging on the side of a tree. It was kind of like geocaching, but no UPR and no log book. There are UTM coordinates on the geocache pages under the lat.-long. if anyone would like to try it that way. That job would have been so much easier with a GPS. But like learning to do math before the teacher lets you use a calculator, it makes you appreciate the technology.

[Mag Magician]

Well, here's a short tutorial on map usage. If the mods have concern about this being posted here, please feel free to delete or move to a new topic.

 

It's been a while since I taught navigation, so bear with me.

 

Let's use one of my hides, Lost Roads, Unnamed #2 This cache is 1.5 kilometers back on crown land, with no roads and no structures to identify the location. Since my topo of this location is produced in Nad 27, I had to convert the co-ordinates into that. In Nad 27, we are looking for N45°45.726', W 79°34.820'.

 

 

We first determine map scale, and which type the map was produced in. Using the Nad 27 of that map, or converting the co-ordinates of the map by deviating, we select the grid we want.

 

 

Now, using a scale of some sort, graduated in 1/100ths, we can determine more closely where we want to end up. Since the scale we are using is graduated south to north, and east to west in this hemisphere, it is important to read it that way. Hopefully, this is self explanatory.

 

 

The final location can be determined by comparing the map scale to the topo features. In this case, we are approximately 20 meters from the creek, and exactly on a contour line. It's a matter of practice and more practice, and even more practice, to get it right when you have only those features to go on.

Edited October 29, 2008 by Mag Magician

[Mag Magician]

Oops! Fixing the first image now!

[JFarmer00]

I am so glad to see this post! I have wanted to start a similar thread myself. We are currently well on our way to finding 100 in less than 100 WITHOUT a GPSr! And some have been the kind where you walk a trail deep into the woods and/or bushwack; I am actually quite proud of those finds.

 

Not realizing that there were technical terms for what we were doing, I guess our method is similar to those already stated. We only use the cache listing and the map on the listing to find caches so far. I get a good sense of the area from the map and sometimes change it to satellite view to get a landmark of some sort. I grew up in this area, and know it very well. On some occasions, just by reading the listing I already know where I am headed off to. My honey served as a Marine and is my measurement system of sorts. Whatever distance I may find in a listing or get from a map - I send him off and it makes him feel good. I am an investigator by trade, and usually it's very easy to spot where cachers have been, or want to be, once you are in the right area. I pull clues from the cache listings and people's logs where they don't even realize they probably helped. It's fun to me. And honestly, with how well I know the area, I think using a GPSr would be cheating for me at this point. So each and every find of ours has had extensive research put into it. Not just punching in some numbers and heading off.

 

I am committed to finding at least 100 before ever using a GPSr, more if I can get the honey to agree!

 

I would love to talk to anyone else that hunts without coordinates! I am not often in the forums, but feel free to email me through my profile anytime.

[Skippermark]

Thanks, Mag for posting that! I'm printing it out so I can read it and study it a bit!

[Mag Magician]

I'm happy that this was so well received. Once again, if I am overstepping my bounds on this forum, the mods should let me know, ASAP

 

OK, the easy part is over. Most cache placements will use true north in any variations they apply. In other words, if there is an offset, or projection, it will be done to true north, rather than magnetic north.

 

In my example, the map I use for this area was produced in 1989. At that point, it indicated that grid north was 0°, 54' east of true north, and that magnetic north was 11°, 53' west of true north. Look at your topo to determine the print date and magnetic declination for your area.

 

 

Using the print date, we can determine how to set a compass bezel to track true north vs grid or magnetic.

 

 

Now, using the map's estimation of approximate mean declination at center of map, we can adjust the bezel to give us a fairly good estimation of where we really want to go, as opposed to where we think we want to go by just looking at the map.

 

In my case, the map indicates an approximate declination of 0°, 11' per year, which means over the time from publication in 1989 to now is 3.48°, or quite easily, 3°, 30'. That means I need to set the bezel at approximately 16°17' west of grid north. That way, I keep the needle on north, and follow the 0° mark to go in a true north direction.

 

 

Clear as mud?

[+edscott]

Some of the deep woods treks though would be quite the challenge.

I agree. I don't know how someone could use a map or something and be able to walk 1/2 mile into the woods, bushwhack 200 feet and then find the exact rock pile or whatever where the cache is hidden?

Come to PA sometime.. I do it all the time and my teaching rates are cheap. []

[+edscott]

...and a more serious answer. I started geocaching with Topos. Found my first cache by drawing two lines across a map connecting two sets landmarks that were over a mile long and walking to the crossing. I was probably off by 100 feet but I found it after several minutes. Later I used Lostoutdoors.com, then Topozone, for my aerials. I am currently using the aerial photos from Google that are available on the cache page. My normal technique is to go to a spot on the aerial that I can identify and determine the distance and direction from that point to the cache. I use a typical base plate compass, adjust for declination by eye and head for the cache. I can estimate distance in the woods with an error of under 5%. All that mapping stuff shown above is fine, but the aerials have so much more detail that reading the photo and walking to the point is much faster. I print them out at about 1:12000. There are better aerials available for purchase, but since the caches are only hidden with GPS accuracy why overkill it. Most of the problems I have are where the landscape has changed since the photo was taken and those are most likely parking lot micros that I am glad to skip, or connect a few outlying points that still remain accurate and walk to the crossing point of the lines. I do it this way because I love maps. I've been using topographical maps since the mid '50s, mapped caves other spots that interested me when I was in grade school, been Orienteering since 1983, drawn Orienteering maps, etc.. If the reason to go GPS-Less is to save money forget it. I probably spend enough on paper and ink to buy a new GPS every year.

[Mag Magician]

^^^^Thank you, edscott. I started plotting (and creating) maps when I was 9 years old, way back in mmmmmm-m-m-m.........196* something? There is no easier way to learn than doing it yourself, and having a few failures. Book learning (or internet) can only go so far!

Edited November 1, 2008 by Mag Magician

[+emmett]

.

 

I don't know how someone could use a map or something and be able to walk 1/2 mile into the woods, bushwhack 200 feet and then find the exact rock pile or whatever where the cache is hidden?

 

My favorite find of all time was done just this way only it was a puzzle cache that I had not solved so I did not even know for sure I was in the right woods until I found the cache.

 

No coords, no map but ...

 

There was one picture posted in the gallery and it was taken near the cache and that gave me enough to recognize the spot when I arrived.

 

Nothng unusual in the picture but there were two birch trees and fortunately for me, there were not many birch trees in those woods.

 

I believe there have been one or two DNFs on that cache from people who had coordinates and a GPS.

 

Likewise I have DNF'd on otherwise easy caches with GPS and coordinates in gand.

 

Go figure.

 

.

Edited November 2, 2008 by emmett

[Mag Magician]

.

 

I don't know how someone could use a map or something and be able to walk 1/2 mile into the woods, bushwhack 200 feet and then find the exact rock pile or whatever where the cache is hidden?

 

My favorite find of all time was done just this way only it was a puzzle cache that I had not solved so I did not even know for sure I was in the right woods until I found the cache.

 

No coords, no map but ...

 

There was one picture posted in the gallery and it was taken near the cache and that gave me enough to recognize the spot when I arrived.

 

Nothng unusual in the picture but there were two birch trees and fortunately for me, there were not many birch trees in those woods.

 

I believe there have been one or two DNFs on that cache from people who had coordinates and a GPS.

 

Go figure.

 

.

 

Excellent work! Congratulations on your effort, and I really mean that.

[Mr.Yuck]

I am so glad to see this post! I have wanted to start a similar thread myself. We are currently well on our way to finding 100 in less than 100 WITHOUT a GPSr! And some have been the kind where you walk a trail deep into the woods and/or bushwack; I am actually quite proud of those finds.

 

Not realizing that there were technical terms for what we were doing, I guess our method is similar to those already stated. We only use the cache listing and the map on the listing to find caches so far. I get a good sense of the area from the map and sometimes change it to satellite view to get a landmark of some sort. I grew up in this area, and know it very well. On some occasions, just by reading the listing I already know where I am headed off to. My honey served as a Marine and is my measurement system of sorts. Whatever distance I may find in a listing or get from a map - I send him off and it makes him feel good. I am an investigator by trade, and usually it's very easy to spot where cachers have been, or want to be, once you are in the right area. I pull clues from the cache listings and people's logs where they don't even realize they probably helped. It's fun to me. And honestly, with how well I know the area, I think using a GPSr would be cheating for me at this point. So each and every find of ours has had extensive research put into it. Not just punching in some numbers and heading off.

 

I am committed to finding at least 100 before ever using a GPSr, more if I can get the honey to agree!

 

I would love to talk to anyone else that hunts without coordinates! I am not often in the forums, but feel free to email me through my profile anytime.

 

How'd you place those two caches then? Never mind, I don't want to know.

 

Nice work, Mag Magician. OK, I was in the U.S. Military. We used metric topo maps, but our little protractor tool was the same size as the grid squares on the map. The only thing I'm confused about is how you're making your own grid square, so to speak.

Edited November 2, 2008 by TheWhiteUrkel

[+edscott]

My favorite find of all time was done just this way only it was a puzzle cache that I had not solved so I did not even know for sure I was in the right woods until I found the cache.

 

No coords, no map but ...

 

There was one picture posted in the gallery and it was taken near the cache and that gave me enough to recognize the spot when I arrived.

 

Nothng unusual in the picture but there were two birch trees and fortunately for me, there were not many birch trees in those woods.

 

I believe there have been one or two DNFs on that cache from people who had coordinates and a GPS.

 

Likewise I have DNF'd on otherwise easy caches with GPS and coordinates in gand.

 

Go figure.

 

.

 

Yes it's great to short cut a puzzle by doing some thinking. I've done a couple puzzles by just getting longitude OR latitude, then simply walking the other axis between the logical points. Or by looking at where all the possible answers will take me and picking the one that makes the most sense. May take longer but I spend more time in the woods and less in front of the computer that way. The problem caches for GPS-less are multis. They can be done in the field but it's often much easier to return to the computer to get a new map for each stage. That's why almost all my multis are relatively close to home.

[Mag Magician]

Nice work, Mag Magician. OK, I was in the U.S. Military. We used metric topo maps, but our little protractor tool was the same size as the grid squares on the map. The only thing I'm confused about is how you're making your own grid square, so to speak.

 

First, you need access to a photo editor of some sort. I use PhotoImpact 10, which is a paid for program. Others may work for this. Grab an image of the protractor, and overlay it on your map image, then adjust the transparency so you can see the underlying map through it. Now, select the protractor layer and stretch it until it matches your map grid. Voila! You have a protractor that matches your mapping anywhere on the page.

 

(For those unfamiliar with techno geek, I apologize) White Urkel, e-mail if I confused you. From reading your posts the past bit, though, I believe you know the basics.

 

Roger

[Old_Philosopher]

First, you need access to a photo editor of some sort. I use PhotoImpact 10, which is a paid for program. Others may work for this. Grab an image of the protractor, and overlay it on your map image, then adjust the transparency so you can see the underlying map through it. Now, select the protractor layer and stretch it until it matches your map grid. Voila! You have a protractor that matches your mapping anywhere on the page.

 

(For those unfamiliar with techno geek, I apologize) White Urkel, e-mail if I confused you. From reading your posts the past bit, though, I believe you know the basics.

 

Roger

Just getting started in geocaching, and no GPS. I have a solid background in orienteering, and love maps. It's been a fun way to refresh my skills, and find a few treasures. I also have a background in imagery interpretationn and analysis. I worked with aerial photography, and now we have pubic satelite images! (Thank you Google Earth!) The most accurate locating (I believe) is done with the UTM coordinate system mentioned previously, but I've been lacking the 1m acetate grid I'm familiar with. Thanks for the obvious suggestion of creating one with a photo editor.

I think the person is correct who said they could probably buy a GPS for the cost of all the maps and scratch paper! But hey, that would make it too easy. (sic)