Bad coords <> clever hide

[+AbMagFab]

I'm seeing a pattern of some people posting coords that are bad, and thinking that makes for a clever hide. I'm all for posting coords that are *near* GZ, if you just say that. I'm not for posting coords (or having puzzle coords) that claim to be at GZ but instead are 30, or even 50 feet off from GZ.

 

I get that GPSrs can all read differently, and I get that clouds and trees make it difficult, but I've found that a smidgen of patience results in very consistent coords in almost any condition.

 

It's usually easy enough to look around and find the cache, but it's really annoying to think you're within ~20 feet of the cache, only to find out it's waaaay over there. It's more of a waste of time than having fun when the coords are just bad.

[+chukar8]

I'm seeing a pattern of some people posting coords that are bad, and thinking that makes for a clever hide. I'm all for posting coords that are *near* GZ, if you just say that. I'm not for posting coords (or having puzzle coords) that claim to be at GZ but instead are 30, or even 50 feet off from GZ.

 

I get that GPSrs can all read differently, and I get that clouds and trees make it difficult, but I've found that a smidgen of patience results in very consistent coords in almost any condition.

 

It's usually easy enough to look around and find the cache, but it's really annoying to think you're within ~20 feet of the cache, only to find out it's waaaay over there. It's more of a waste of time than having fun when the coords are just bad.

agreed

[Motorcycle_Mama]

The cache coordinates submitted should be as accurate as possible.

 

The cache owner should not be deliberately post inaccurate coordinates. It's not clever is just annoying.

 

If the cache owner wishes to place an alternative type of cache, then they should do so through the appropriate means.

[+mickaxl]

As someone who has submitted inaccurate coordinates twice I can say with certainty that it is not always deliberate.

 

The first time I transposed two digits and just never spotted it in my rechecking so now I cut and paste the coordinates from the top of the cache page, before submitting for review, and check with Google maps that it is at least roughly where I thought it should be. That time I had people looking about 500 yards away from where they should have been. It was only when one person logged the fact that GZ seemed to be on private property in someone's yard that I wised up.

 

The second was a puzzle cache where my initial submission for final coordinates was rejected as being too close to another cache. When I moved the cache and changed the final coordinates I neglected to change the posted coordinates too so solving the puzzle lead to an incorrect result since the true coordinates were found by substitution into the posted coordinates.

 

Ok so now I've fessed up let's here about your newbie mistakes.

[+Arrow42]

I've seen two caches where the coords were intentionally fuzzy. They were both puzzle caches and the cache page made it very clear what the puzzle was. It worked well and they were fun.

 

If it's a traditional cache with intentionally fuzzy cords... then your going to make a lot of people mad.

[+humboldt flier]

I've seen two caches where the coords were intentionally fuzzy. They were both puzzle caches and the cache page made it very clear what the puzzle was. It worked well and they were fun.

 

If it's a traditional cache with intentionally fuzzy cords... then your going to make a lot of people mad.

 

The practice of offsetting a cache from the co-ords. drives me up a wall.

 

Those cache owners who are putting out caches that are offset could do us all a favor by stating early on in the description that the cache is offset at least we would be given advance notice that our lives would be made miserable. We could then elect to pass on the opportunity to be miserable.

 

Perhaps offset caches could be thrown into the " Puzzle Cache " category.

[+Harry Dolphin]

The practice of offsetting a cache from the co-ords. drives me up a wall.

 

Those cache owners who are putting out caches that are offset could do us all a favor by stating early on in the description that the cache is offset at least we would be given advance notice that our lives would be made miserable. We could then elect to pass on the opportunity to be miserable.

 

Perhaps offset caches could be thrown into the " Puzzle Cache " category.

 

Offset is a variant of multicache. (Check the plaque for the middle birthday, multiply by two, and those are the north coords. For example.) It has nothing to do with deliberately bad coords.

 

Deliberately bad coords are just cruel and nasty. There is no excuse for sadism. Those cache owners go on my Ignore List.

[+Knight2000]

I totally disagree. Coords should be as accurate as possible. Bad coords do not make a clever hide. Bad coords make an annoying hide. Do the math on how far things can be off with bad coords.

 

Most GPSr units are accurate to about 10'. Multiple that by both the hiders and the finders you have a 20' radius at BEST. That is 1250 sq. ft to search.

 

Assume you try to get it off by 20' now add the next 20' for the inaccurate GPSr units. That is a 40' radius. That makes for 5000 sq. ft of search area. 4x more!

 

I *think* my math is right. Feel free to correct me if since I am wrong.

 

(IMO) Work on better hides, not fuzzy coords.

[GOF and Bacall]

If and when GPS accuracy is consistently within one foot then I will accept a need to "soften" the coordinates. Other than that it is just an crutch for poor hide technique.

[+ngrrfan]

Deliberately bad coords are just cruel and nasty. There is no excuse for sadism. Those cache owners go on my Ignore List.

There is someone in my area that has known bad coords almost all the time. I personally feel that when these people submit a cache for review it be turned down. Also, the reviewers should archive a hide when it starts getting a lot of DNFs. Not only would it free up some space, BUT it would also get rid of a bad hide and possibly teach the hider a lesson. Just my 2 cents worth.

[+Knight2000]

Also, the reviewers should archive a hide when it starts getting a lot of DNFs. Not only would it free up some space, BUT it would also get rid of a bad hide and possibly teach the hider a lesson. Just my 2 cents worth.

 

DNF's do not equal bad hides. In fact my goal is DNF's when I design some of my caches.

[+bittsen]

Also, the reviewers should archive a hide when it starts getting a lot of DNFs. Not only would it free up some space, BUT it would also get rid of a bad hide and possibly teach the hider a lesson. Just my 2 cents worth.

 

DNF's do not equal bad hides. In fact my goal is DNF's when I design some of my caches.

 

Note to self. If ever in NE Ohio caching, ignore K2Ks caches.

 

Whether soft coords or caches "designed" to not be found....not fun for me. Maybe some people love to look for impossible finds but I'm not one of them.

[+Knight2000]

Note to self. If ever in NE Ohio caching, ignore K2Ks caches.

 

Whether soft coords or caches "designed" to not be found....not fun for me. Maybe some people love to look for impossible finds but I'm not one of them.

My coords are accurate, you just need to find the hide. We get a lot of compliments on our caches. Just check the ratings before you search. We don't just toss a film can in a bush. We have some hides for people that enjoy the hunt!

[+Night Stalker]

It seems to me that these so called soft coordinates are just a lazy substitute for placing good caches. I have had plenty of experience trying to find truly devious caches, and once I have found them enjoy them and appreciate the work that went into hiding them.

[gudels1]

I'm seeing a pattern of some people posting coords that are bad, and thinking that makes for a clever hide. I'm all for posting coords that are *near* GZ, if you just say that. I'm not for posting coords (or having puzzle coords) that claim to be at GZ but instead are 30, or even 50 feet off from GZ.

 

I get that GPSrs can all read differently, and I get that clouds and trees make it difficult, but I've found that a smidgen of patience results in very consistent coords in almost any condition.

 

It's usually easy enough to look around and find the cache, but it's really annoying to think you're within ~20 feet of the cache, only to find out it's waaaay over there. It's more of a waste of time than having fun when the coords are just bad.

 

I second this. Here's an example where the coordinate is 25 meters off (about 82 feet) off.

 

I was quite annoyed with that. Even with the hint, we started to search some area because of the hint, but we were way off since the GZ is horrible to start with.

Edited September 16, 2009 by gudels1

[+Astro_D]

I know a cacher who creates puzzles and provides a coordinate checker. What little good it does as the caches are always 40+ feet off. Deliberately. As doing so "makes it more fun" and "not all caches are meant to be found". Many of his puzzles are quite interesting (especially the historical ones), the hides are quite clever and the containers unique. But purposely giving bad coords overshadow those facts and gives me the impression he is nothing more than a bleep. So he is now on my ignore list as to not give him the satisfaction.

[+Wadcutter]

There's a cache (micro, film can) nearby hidden in a cemetery that covers about 3 acres (about 100 yds X 100 yds). This cemetery has quite a few trees and lots of old stones. The CO says in the description the cache is not at the given coords. The cache is actually about 150 ft from the coords. The only hint is "not perimeter", no other hint in the description, but she wrote "just look around." Pretty lame but the approver approved it.

Edited September 17, 2009 by Wadcutter

[+Night Stalker]

I suspect that a note to the approver on the cemetary cache would take care of that one.

[+Knight2000]

There's a cache (micro, film can) nearby hidden in a cemetery that covers about 3 acres (about 100 yds X 100 yds). This cemetery has quite a few trees and lots of old stones. The CO says in the description the cache is not at the given coords. The cache is actually about 150 ft from the coords. The only hint is "not perimeter", no other hint in the description, but she wrote "just look around." Pretty lame but the approver approved it.

If it's a puzzle...

[+Wadcutter]

There's a cache (micro, film can) nearby hidden in a cemetery that covers about 3 acres (about 100 yds X 100 yds). This cemetery has quite a few trees and lots of old stones. The CO says in the description the cache is not at the given coords. The cache is actually about 150 ft from the coords. The only hint is "not perimeter", no other hint in the description, but she wrote "just look around." Pretty lame but the approver approved it.

If it's a puzzle...

 

Nope, no puzzle. The CO just lists the coords which take you to the middle of the cemetery. She indicates the cache is not at the posted coords and to "just look around". The hint is given "not perimeter". That's it. No puzzle, "just look around".

And it's not an off set. Nothing to project. "Just look around".

Edited September 17, 2009 by Wadcutter

[+Wild Thing 73]

Not bad......I had cache coordinates in the middle of the Pacfic ocean....I live in Tennessee. I had to rate it a "5" because a boat was required....Heck, I just wanted to see someone swim to the cache location...are we having fun...Stay safe...... Coordinates should be as accurate as possible on intent and following the Groundspeak guidlines. Other wise the cache owner would not a concerned geocacher.

[Pajaholic]

... Coordinates should be as accurate as possible on intent and following the Groundspeak guidlines. Other wise the cache owner would not a concerned geocacher.

I'm a newbie, so please go easy on me.

 

I'm a concerned geocacher - but how accurate is "accurate as possible"? I ask because my own GPSr is hideously inaccurate and, like some others I've read about in these forums, can be off by as much as 40ft. It's also next to useless in the majority of likely cache hiding places I've spotted since they're under trees. My plan is to fix the co-ords using Google Maps and verify those co-ords are roughly in the right place using GPS. I base this on GM being spot on for all three of my finds to date - and since two were under trees, I made those finds from GM and triangulation from identifiable landmarks rather than GPS.

 

Actually, the more I think about this the more the question, "How accurate?" niggles. Geocaching.com gives co-ords to six decimal places of a degree, which implies a precision that I suspect few geocachers can achieve (6 DPs implies "to the nearest 10cm or 4in"). IMO five decimal places would probably be more reasonable (i.e. to the nearest metre or yard), but I suspect even that's pushing the accuracy of most budget GPSrs. For example, I did an averaging test over two days, four visits, and sixteen fixes. For all fixes, the HDOP was between two and five and the test waypoint was the end of a park bench in the open. The averaged co-ords were nearly 3 metres (10ft) off where GM Satellite view says the waypoint actually is.

 

What I'm trying to say is that I'll be as accurate as I can when giving co-ords for any hides I make. However, the precision the cache page will imply is certain to unreasonable and I'll consider I've done a good job if the co-ords fetch up within a couple of yards of the actual cache location.

 

Geoff

[+niraD]

Welcome to geocaching, Pajaholic!

 

A consumer GPSr won't give you better than 10' accuracy, which is about 2 thousandths (.002) of a minute. Assuming 10' accuracy for the finder's GPSr, you have an ideal search radius of 20'. Keep in mind that that's the ideal, with excellent reception.

 

There are ways to get better coordinates, even if reception at the cache site is poor. For example, if there is good reception 100' in one direction, and 100' in the opposite direction, then you can take readings at those two locations and average the results to get the coordinates of the cache.

 

I confirm my coordinates by entering them into my GPSr and then approaching the cache from different directions. No matter which way I approach the cache, the arrow should point at the cache, and the distance should count down so that it hits 0 (or close to 0) at the cache.

 

But I've found caches where the reception was poor everywhere near the cache (e.g., in a redwood forest). In some cases, the CO stated in the cache description that his coordinates were accurate only to 50' (or whatever), and provided a good hint to narrow down the search area.

[+Night Stalker]

Sounds like pajaholic needs to upgrade to a newer GPS when he can afford it. Newer GPS's will display all 6 digits and most have averaging capabilities. The newer Garmins will also hold a signal pretty well under heavy tree cover.

 

That being said I always use the coordinates that I come up with to return to the cache and see how close I am. If you end up within 20' of the actual hide I would call it good. If like some I have hunted you are 40' to 120' feet off I would try to get better coordinates.

[+CanUK_TeamFitz]

There's a cache (micro, film can) nearby hidden in a cemetery that covers about 3 acres (about 100 yds X 100 yds). This cemetery has quite a few trees and lots of old stones. The CO says in the description the cache is not at the given coords. The cache is actually about 150 ft from the coords. The only hint is "not perimeter", no other hint in the description, but she wrote "just look around." Pretty lame but the approver approved it.

 

I don't know, if the CO tells informs you the coords are soft and gives a tough hint then I think it's fair. It's when the coords are bad with no warning which is a problem.

 

What's the difficulty rating on that cache.. if the difficulty is too high then maybe choose a easier ones?

[Pajaholic]

Sounds like pajaholic needs to upgrade to a newer GPS when he can afford it. Newer GPS's will display all 6 digits and most have averaging capabilities. The newer Garmins will also hold a signal pretty well under heavy tree cover.

Mine will display all 6 decimal points when used with something like BeeLineGPS (I have a SiRFstar-equipped PDA), but it's making claims it can't keep and the last two or three digits have a merry dance even when the device is still. On these forums I recently saw the owner of a Garmin GPS 60 write that his GPSr was up to 40 ft off - so it seems that even some dedicated GPS devices have the same issues.

 

I understand that the newer Garmins have much more sensitive receivers. I'd love an eTrex H and guess it'd be a worthwhile investment just to be able to get a fix in woodlands. However, I suspect that it won't be more accurate than my current device in the open.

 

Geoff

[+Wadcutter]

I don't know, if the CO tells informs you the coords are soft and gives a tough hint then I think it's fair. It's when the coords are bad with no warning which is a problem.

 

What's the difficulty rating on that cache.. if the difficulty is too high then maybe choose a easier ones?

It's a D2.5/T1.5.

Do you realize how many places you can hide a film can in an area 100 yds by 100 yds? That's over 2 football fields side by side full of grave stones, trees, and fences. Might as well take a film can and throw it into a forest and expect people to hunt for it.

We found it only because of sheer persistence.

[+niraD]

We found it only because of sheer persistence.

Did you include more accurate coordinates in your log?

[+CanUK_TeamFitz]

We found it only because of sheer persistence.

Did you include more accurate coordinates in your log?

 

Why would you want to do that..? isn't it obvious that's part of the challenge?

 

No-one forces you to hunt for a cache, if you don't like the challenge - which Wadcutter was clearly warned about then don't attempt it.

 

As an aside maybe suggest the CO raise the difficulty level, but I don't see how this is bad coords as the warnings are there.

 

May as well class all multi's and puzzle caches as bad coords if that is the case.

[+niraD]

Why would you want to do that..?

Maybe to help the CO comply with the guidelines?

 

The coordinates listed on the traditional cache page are the exact location of the cache.

Therefore,[...] the option of using accurate GPS coordinates as an integral part of the cache hunt must be demonstrated for all physical cache submissions.

[+CanUK_TeamFitz]

Why would you want to do that..?

Maybe to help the CO comply with the guidelines?

 

The coordinates listed on the traditional cache page are the exact location of the cache.

Therefore,[...] the option of using accurate GPS coordinates as an integral part of the cache hunt must be demonstrated for all physical cache submissions.

 

But I don't understand - the reviewer published it so it must comply with the guidelines.

 

Was this a traditional cache or a multi/puzzle?

[+Wadcutter]

We found it only because of sheer persistence.

Did you include more accurate coordinates in your log?

It's her cache and she listed it specifically saying the cache was not at the listed coords.

As a warning to others I posted "This one isn't an off-set. Not really a mystery either. Not sure what it is. Don't really agree with the concept of the way this one was identified and then hidden. The possible hiding places for a micro are endless in such an environment. But we found it. "

[+edscott]

Interesting... someone sets a cache using a GPS and intentionally lists bad coordinates a hundred feet or more off and the cache is published and it's "legal". If I place one accurate to a foot using a satellite image it is "illegal". Seems like the rules should address accuracy rather than method.

[+fegan]

The cache coordinates submitted should be as accurate as possible.

 

The cache owner should not be deliberately post inaccurate coordinates. It's not clever is just annoying.

Amen.

 

Did one of these yesterday and it really annoyed me. To the point was ready to report it to a reviewer.

 

<RANT

 

Location layout...guardrails on both sides of a street, one side having a raised boardwalk/sidewalk with a bench about halfway up the street.

 

Somebody put a g'rail cache on the side w/o the boardwalk. Somebody else desided they want to hide one at the bench; however, it's too close to the other cache (472 feet). So, they post a cache .13 mi up the street with a BIG HINT leading you back to the bench. GZ is over 190 feet from the actual cache location, just so they can get around the 528 foot saturation guideline. Of course, we walked right past the bench when our GPS still read 190 feet, and then spent a good 5-10 minutes scratching our heads at GZ climbing all over the boardwalk and standing on our heads trying to figure out where the cache was. Re-read the description and hint...only to walk back to the bench and quickly find the cache.

 

Argh!

 

Now I go back and look at the publish dates only to see the one on the bench was there first! So, did the owner turn it into this insane offset to allow the other cache to be hidden...or was it this way all along?

 

If I didn't have a paperless GPS, I never would have expanded my search 190 feet to find the cache.

 

Argh!

 

If the bench cache gets fixed, either to be a proper Traditional, or a Multi/Mystery with some kind of offset...then the g'rail cache will be in violation and need to be archived (since the bench cache was there first). Or, the reviewer could take issue with the clear violation of Traditional caches guidelines and archive the bench cache for the violation...leaving the g'rail cache alone (since they didn't violate any guidelines when placing their cache).

 

I'm amazed no one else has complained about these two caches.

 

</RANT

[Knight-Errant]

... Coordinates should be as accurate as possible on intent and following the Groundspeak guidlines. Other wise the cache owner would not a concerned geocacher.

I'm a newbie, so please go easy on me.

 

I'm a concerned geocacher - but how accurate is "accurate as possible"? I ask because my own GPSr is hideously inaccurate and, like some others I've read about in these forums, can be off by as much as 40ft. It's also next to useless in the majority of likely cache hiding places I've spotted since they're under trees. My plan is to fix the co-ords using Google Maps and verify those co-ords are roughly in the right place using GPS. I base this on GM being spot on for all three of my finds to date - and since two were under trees, I made those finds from GM and triangulation from identifiable landmarks rather than GPS.

 

Actually, the more I think about this the more the question, "How accurate?" niggles. Geocaching.com gives co-ords to six decimal places of a degree, which implies a precision that I suspect few geocachers can achieve (6 DPs implies "to the nearest 10cm or 4in"). IMO five decimal places would probably be more reasonable (i.e. to the nearest metre or yard), but I suspect even that's pushing the accuracy of most budget GPSrs. For example, I did an averaging test over two days, four visits, and sixteen fixes. For all fixes, the HDOP was between two and five and the test waypoint was the end of a park bench in the open. The averaged co-ords were nearly 3 metres (10ft) off where GM Satellite view says the waypoint actually is.

 

What I'm trying to say is that I'll be as accurate as I can when giving co-ords for any hides I make. However, the precision the cache page will imply is certain to unreasonable and I'll consider I've done a good job if the co-ords fetch up within a couple of yards of the actual cache location.

 

Geoff

 

Welcome to the obsession sport!

 

While Google Maps can be very helpful in many cases, be careful using them to hide caches. In some areas (particularly urban) they may be even more accurate than many GPSr's, but in other cases they can be off by quite a bit. Whenever possible it is best to have final verification for hides by GPSr.

We do agree that Google Maps can be very helpful in finding caches.

[4x4van]

One thing that hasn't been mentioned is the fact that a GPSr's reported accuracy is nothing more than the actual unit's "guess". While it may report an accuracy of 10 feet, it only arrives at that number by taking into consideration signal strength, satelite spread, etc., and then using it's built in software to estimate the likely accuracy. Every model uses slightly different calculations to arrive at that number, and since consumers want to see good numbers, my opinion is that every unit's guess probably errs on the positive rather than negative. Kinda like a Chevy telling you how good a Chevy is. Would you consider that an objective rating?

 

Realistically, today's consumer GPSr's are probably accurate within 10-15 feet under normal conditions. Sightly better under ideal conditions, and worse under less than ideal. So even if we assume both the hider and the seeker are operating under normal conditions, it still leaves a legitimate search area of between 1250-2800 sq. ft. (20-30' radiius)!! And that is using every intention of an accurate listing. Even if the hider's GPS reported 5' accuracy and the seeker's GPS reports likewise, can you really believe those numbers? I'm generally happy if I find the cache within 20' of what I think to be GZ.

 

Back to the OP, however, there is no excuse for intentionally inaccurate coordinates, IMO.

Edited September 20, 2009 by 4x4van

[+edscott]

 

I'm a newbie, so please go easy on me.

 

I'm a concerned geocacher - but how accurate is "accurate as possible"? I ask because my own GPSr is hideously inaccurate and, like some others I've read about in these forums, can be off by as much as 40ft. It's also next to useless in the majority of likely cache hiding places I've spotted since they're under trees. My plan is to fix the co-ords using Google Maps and verify those co-ords are roughly in the right place using GPS. I base this on GM being spot on for all three of my finds to date - and since two were under trees, I made those finds from GM and triangulation from identifiable landmarks rather than GPS.

 

Actually, the more I think about this the more the question, "How accurate?" niggles. Geocaching.com gives co-ords to six decimal places of a degree, which implies a precision that I suspect few geocachers can achieve (6 DPs implies "to the nearest 10cm or 4in"). IMO five decimal places would probably be more reasonable (i.e. to the nearest metre or yard), but I suspect even that's pushing the accuracy of most budget GPSrs. For example, I did an averaging test over two days, four visits, and sixteen fixes. For all fixes, the HDOP was between two and five and the test waypoint was the end of a park bench in the open. The averaged co-ords were nearly 3 metres (10ft) off where GM Satellite view says the waypoint actually is.

 

What I'm trying to say is that I'll be as accurate as I can when giving co-ords for any hides I make. However, the precision the cache page will imply is certain to unreasonable and I'll consider I've done a good job if the co-ords fetch up within a couple of yards of the actual cache location.

 

Geoff

 

You are totally correct, but not many here will agree. The problem is that most people can't read the map to the degree of accuracy that is needed to hide caches so a blanket policy banning that method is in place. However, it seems to be totally acceptable to tweak the coordinates a bit to add some difficulty to the cache. So if in the process of tweaking the coordinates for that purpose they happen to align properly with the satellite image I guess that's totally OK.

[+humboldt flier]

 

I'm a newbie, so please go easy on me.

 

I'm a concerned geocacher - but how accurate is "accurate as possible"? I ask because my own GPSr is hideously inaccurate and, like some others I've read about in these forums, can be off by as much as 40ft. It's also next to useless in the majority of likely cache hiding places I've spotted since they're under trees. My plan is to fix the co-ords using Google Maps and verify those co-ords are roughly in the right place using GPS. I base this on GM being spot on for all three of my finds to date - and since two were under trees, I made those finds from GM and triangulation from identifiable landmarks rather than GPS.

 

Actually, the more I think about this the more the question, "How accurate?" niggles. Geocaching.com gives co-ords to six decimal places of a degree, which implies a precision that I suspect few geocachers can achieve (6 DPs implies "to the nearest 10cm or 4in"). IMO five decimal places would probably be more reasonable (i.e. to the nearest metre or yard), but I suspect even that's pushing the accuracy of most budget GPSrs. For example, I did an averaging test over two days, four visits, and sixteen fixes. For all fixes, the HDOP was between two and five and the test waypoint was the end of a park bench in the open. The averaged co-ords were nearly 3 metres (10ft) off where GM Satellite view says the waypoint actually is.

 

What I'm trying to say is that I'll be as accurate as I can when giving co-ords for any hides I make. However, the precision the cache page will imply is certain to unreasonable and I'll consider I've done a good job if the co-ords fetch up within a couple of yards of the actual cache location.

 

Geoff

 

You are totally correct, but not many here will agree. The problem is that most people can't read the map to the degree of accuracy that is needed to hide caches so a blanket policy banning that method is in place. However, it seems to be totally acceptable to tweak the coordinates a bit to add some difficulty to the cache. So if in the process of tweaking the coordinates for that purpose they happen to align properly with the satellite image I guess that's totally OK.

Fuzzy Co-ords >>>>>> Pthooooooooey

[+fizzymagic]

However, it seems to be totally acceptable to tweak the coordinates a bit to add some difficulty to the cache. So if in the process of tweaking the coordinates for that purpose they happen to align properly with the satellite image I guess that's totally OK.

Um, haven't you read the rest of this thread?????

 

Tweaking coordinates to "add difficulty" to a cache is NOT ACCEPTABLE. It's a sure sign of a lame cache.

[+Growf]

While Google Maps can be very helpful in many cases, be careful using them to hide caches. In some areas (particularly urban) they may be even more accurate than many GPSr's, but in other cases they can be off by quite a bit. Whenever possible it is best to have final verification for hides by GPSr.

After reading an interesting bit of history on the Prime Meridian, I would likely never use Google Maps (nor any of the other map sites) again for caching coordinates, as it appears all will be consistently off by 5+ seconds of longitude (unless I'm totally misinterpreting the referenced article) when compared to your GPSr's coords.

Edited September 22, 2009 by Growf

[+ventura_kids]

What is a geocache? Someone hides something AT the coordinates and posts THE coordinates on the internet.

Someone else seeks the cache AT the posted coordinates.

 

Unless it's some sort of offset cache with instructions, I'd be looking for the cache AT the coordinates.

 

I hate when I get home after spending the entire 7 minutes searching for a cache , only to read the page and see that the owner knows his coords are 30 feet off.

I don't use the page when I'm out caching. I do read it after I dnf a cache.

[+Chrysalides]

After reading an interesting bit of history on the Prime Meridian, I would likely never use Google Maps (nor any of the other map sites) again for caching coordinates, as it appears all will be consistently off by 5+ minutes of longitude (unless I'm totally misinterpreting the referenced article) when compared to your GPSr's coords.

Erm, 5+ seconds. Or 0.09 minutes. And I think Google agrees with the GPS more than the actual line. At least, I haven't found it to be anywhere near 0.1 minutes off.

[Pajaholic]

While Google Maps can be very helpful in many cases, be careful using them to hide caches. In some areas (particularly urban) they may be even more accurate than many GPSr's, but in other cases they can be off by quite a bit. Whenever possible it is best to have final verification for hides by GPSr.

After reading an interesting bit of history on the Prime Meridian, I would likely never use Google Maps (nor any of the other map sites) again for caching coordinates, as it appears all will be consistently off by 5+ minutes of longitude (unless I'm totally misinterpreting the referenced article) when compared to your GPSr's coords.

It depends on which datum co-ords are based upon to what accuracy AFAICT. Again AFAICT, both Google Maps and geocaching co-ordinates are (or should be) based on WGS84 whereas the 0° longitude Greenwich prime meridian (GPM) is the basis of another system. IMO it's not surprising that two systems that are derived differently are not exactly aligned even if they do use the same units of measure.

 

FWIW, Google Maps (GM) has consistently been spot on for all of the eight caches I've found to date whereas my GPSr has not. From this (albeit sparse) evidence I suggested that using GM in my area to fix the co-ords for any hide I might make would be more accurate than relying on my GPSr. Now edscott wrote that there is a blanket ban on using GM this way, but since there seems to be an acceptable practice of tweaking co-ordinates I infer from edscott's post that should the tweak align the co-ords with GM that would be "happy coincidence". IOW, the tweak would be to improve accuracy, not to add difficulty.

Edited September 21, 2009 by Pajaholic

[+edscott]

While Google Maps can be very helpful in many cases, be careful using them to hide caches. In some areas (particularly urban) they may be even more accurate than many GPSr's, but in other cases they can be off by quite a bit. Whenever possible it is best to have final verification for hides by GPSr.

After reading an interesting bit of history on the Prime Meridian, I would likely never use Google Maps (nor any of the other map sites) again for caching coordinates, as it appears all will be consistently off by 5+ minutes of longitude (unless I'm totally misinterpreting the referenced article) when compared to your GPSr's coords.

 

Don't know where this data is coming from, but if it were true I think I'd have a few less finds.

[+edscott]

However, it seems to be totally acceptable to tweak the coordinates a bit to add some difficulty to the cache. So if in the process of tweaking the coordinates for that purpose they happen to align properly with the satellite image I guess that's totally OK.

Um, haven't you read the rest of this thread?????

 

Tweaking coordinates to "add difficulty" to a cache is NOT ACCEPTABLE. It's a sure sign of a lame cache.

 

You've missed my point but that's OK. so much to read... so little time.

[+Growf]

Don't know where this data is coming from, but if it were true I think I'd have a few less finds.

Well, I did mean seconds when I said minutes, so my bad there... But if you're using GPS to record the coordinates, and GPS to find the coordinates, then it wouldn't be an issue with finding something -- that problem should only arise if you're posting coords from Google Maps and trying to find with your GPSr, or vice versa.

 

In the link I posted, take a look at the pic of the GPSr in the 'IERS Reference Meridian' section, and you'll see that it's off by a little over 5". Try going to http://maps.google.com and enter "N 51.477222 E 0"; you'll see it places the marker somewhere along a row of parking spaces. Now try entering "N 51.477875 W 0.001490", and you'll see the marker moves a bit north and to the west to where the Prime Meridian is marked at the Royal Observatory. *That's* the discrepancy to which I was referring...

[+fizzymagic]

Tweaking coordinates to "add difficulty" to a cache is NOT ACCEPTABLE. It's a sure sign of a lame cache.

You've missed my point but that's OK. so much to read... so little time.

Oh, noes! My sarcasm detector was on the fritz!

 

Never mind.

Edited September 22, 2009 by fizzymagic

[Pajaholic]

Don't know where this data is coming from, but if it were true I think I'd have a few less finds.

Well, I did mean seconds when I said minutes, so my bad there... But if you're using GPS to record the coordinates, and GPS to find the coordinates, then it wouldn't be an issue with finding something -- that problem should only arise if you're posting coords from Google Maps and trying to find with your GPSr, or vice versa.

The problem shouldn't arise since (AFAICT) both GPS and Google Maps use the WGS84 standard and hence both are "off" the "official" prime meridian by about 5 seconds, which is about a hundred metres at London. Provided the means of hiding and finding use the same standard (i.e. WGS84), there should be no problem. Issues should only arise if the methods of hiding and finding didn't use the same standard or if the satellite/aerial imagery isn't precisely overlaid. However, both do use the same standard and if you have good evidence that alignment is good in the area you're looking at, the chances are that Google Maps can give as good (if not more accurate) WGS84 co-ordinates than a typical geocaching GPSr.

 

Geoff

[Motorcycle_Mama]

The aerial images in Google Maps are usually great, However, the images in Google Maps can be notoriously off in some places. The registration of the images is not always exact to the actual coordinates.

 

"Tweaking" the coordinates to "match" the Google Maps images in not a good idea as it can produce bad coordinates. In addition, the cache listing requirements/guidelines require that the cache hider use a GPS unit to obtain the coordinates for hiding a cache.

Edited September 22, 2009 by Motorcycle_Mama

[Pajaholic]

The aerial images in Google Maps are usually great, However, the images in Google Maps can be notoriously off in some places. The registration of the images is not always exact to the actual coordinates.

In my area, the registration seems to be very good. However, I've limited experience so it's too soon yet to say with surety that GM is spot on across the areas where I'm likely to hide caches - but then I intend waiting until I've got a few more finds before making my first hide.

 

"Tweaking" the coordinates to "match" the Google Maps images in not a good idea as it can produce bad coordinates. In addition, the cache listing requirements/guidelines require that the cache hider use a GPS unit to obtain the coordinates for hiding a cache.

I guess that it's a matter of interpretation. The requirements actually state:

You as the owner of the cache must visit the site and obtain the coordinates with a GPS. GPS usage is an essential element of geocaching. Therefore, although it is possible to find a cache without a GPS, the option of using accurate GPS coordinates as an integral part of the cache hunt must be demonstrated for all physical cache submissions.

To me, this imposes two requirements:

1. You (personally) must visit the site; and
   
2. You must use a GPS to at least verify the co-ordinates.
   

Note that the requirements don't call for you to obtain the co-ordinates using GPS alone and, pragmatically, I suspect that the requirement is there to ensure that the cache can be found by GPS so, for example, it would rule out placing a cache deep within a cave system where there's no GPS signal.

 

In my case, I'm suggesting that I go out to the site on more than one visit and use my (known to be inaccurate) GPSr to obtain several fixes per visit. I'll then plot those on Google Maps. If they surround the co-ords obtained from GM then I'll consider the GM co-ords to be the best estimate even if it doesn't coincide with the average from my GPS fixes. IMO I'll have followed both the letter and the spirit of this requirement because I'll have used a GPS during the process of obtaining the co-ordinates and I'll have demonstrated that it is possible to navigate to the cache using GPS alone.

 

The alternative IMO is that I don't make any hides until I've obtained a better GPSr, which might not be for a year or two (if ever), and somehow it feels wrong not to give something back for the wonderful places other cachers have taken me.

 

Geoff