Coords and Hides

[+Zeke's Uncle]

Look folks. There is not one single GPSr manufacturer who can guarantee accuracy of their devices to less than 6 meters (not feet). And each device is going to be different from another; even if they're the same model. And geological and geophysical conditions are different for every cache. And satellite reception is different at each location. Like someone said, I'd rather have 10 - 15 foot accuracy from 15 feet away than 50 foot accuracy from GZ. There are just too many factors. The point is, if you've been doing this awhile, and you can't find a cache once you get to within 20 feet of GZ and have to have "spot-on", "exact", "accurate", etc. coords, than maybe you need to find another hobby cause you ain't that good. Besides, having "exact" coords and walking right up to the cache almost blindfolded seems to make the find kind-of lame. I thought there was supposed to be some challenge to this game.

[+Avernar]

Like someone said, I'd rather have 10 - 15 foot accuracy from 15 feet away than 50 foot accuracy from GZ.

If I did that I'd mention it in the description. Or better yet, for those who don't read the description, I'd leave the posted at the GZ reading and add a reference point for the more accurate one with it's note saying it's 15 feet away.

 

What we're complaining (rightfully) about is people who intentionally post coordinates that are out to supposedly increase the difficulty rating of their cache.

[knowschad]

Look folks. There is not one single GPSr manufacturer who can guarantee accuracy of their devices to less than 6 meters (not feet). And each device is going to be different from another; even if they're the same model. And geological and geophysical conditions are different for every cache. And satellite reception is different at each location. Like someone said, I'd rather have 10 - 15 foot accuracy from 15 feet away than 50 foot accuracy from GZ. There are just too many factors. The point is, if you've been doing this awhile, and you can't find a cache once you get to within 20 feet of GZ and have to have "spot-on", "exact", "accurate", etc. coords, than maybe you need to find another hobby cause you ain't that good. Besides, having "exact" coords and walking right up to the cache almost blindfolded seems to make the find kind-of lame. I thought there was supposed to be some challenge to this game.

 

True enough, but the discussiion here is about deliberately misrepresented coordinates, as I understand it, not the accuracy of any particular GPSr.

[+Wooden Cyclist]

Without it, you may as well just have a cache page that says, "Down two blocks, turn right, it somewhere along the fence..."

There is. It's called a "letterbox hybrid"

 

Actually that would be a Letterbox. See www.letterboxing.org

 

A letterbox hybrid has coordinates associated with it.

[+Wooden Cyclist]

Look folks. There is not one single GPSr manufacturer who can guarantee accuracy of their devices to less than 6 meters (not feet). And each device is going to be different from another; even if they're the same model. And geological and geophysical conditions are different for every cache. And satellite reception is different at each location. Like someone said, I'd rather have 10 - 15 foot accuracy from 15 feet away than 50 foot accuracy from GZ. There are just too many factors. The point is, if you've been doing this awhile, and you can't find a cache once you get to within 20 feet of GZ and have to have "spot-on", "exact", "accurate", etc. coords, than maybe you need to find another hobby cause you ain't that good. Besides, having "exact" coords and walking right up to the cache almost blindfolded seems to make the find kind-of lame. I thought there was supposed to be some challenge to this game.

 

Gotta agree with Zeke. There is some uncertainty associated with Geocaching without purposely making the coordinates inaccurate. If you want to to make the cache challenging use better camo or a better hiding spot. Be creative not dishonest .

[+Roland_oso]

Look folks. There is not one single GPSr manufacturer who can guarantee accuracy of their devices to less than 6 meters (not feet). And each device is going to be different from another; even if they're the same model. And geological and geophysical conditions are different for every cache. And satellite reception is different at each location. Like someone said, I'd rather have 10 - 15 foot accuracy from 15 feet away than 50 foot accuracy from GZ. There are just too many factors. The point is, if you've been doing this awhile, and you can't find a cache once you get to within 20 feet of GZ and have to have "spot-on", "exact", "accurate", etc. coords, than maybe you need to find another hobby cause you ain't that good. Besides, having "exact" coords and walking right up to the cache almost blindfolded seems to make the find kind-of lame. I thought there was supposed to be some challenge to this game.

 

Gotta agree with Zeke. There is some uncertainty associated with Geocaching without purposely making the coordinates inaccurate. If you want to to make the cache challenging use better camo or a better hiding spot. Be creative not dishonest .

 

I think you missed Zeke's point.

 

"Besides, having "exact" coords and walking right up to the cache almost blindfolded seems to make the find kind-of lame. I thought there was supposed to be some challenge to this game."

 

Especially when it involves an "In Plain Sight" meaning not hidden or camouflaged container.

[Motorcycle_Mama]

Intentionally posting incorrect or "soft" coordinates is still wrong for a Traditional Cache type.

 

If you have listed a cache on Geocaching.com, then you have checked the box indicating that you have read the Cache Listing Requirements / Guidelines.

 

Here's the pertinent section.

 

http://www.geocaching.com/about/guidelines.aspx#traditional

Traditional Caches

 

This is the original cache type consisting of (at a bare minimum) a container and a logbook. The cache may be filled with objects for trade. Normally you'll find a Tupperware-style container, ammo box, or bucket filled with goodies, or smaller container too small to contain items except for a logbook. The coordinates listed on the traditional cache page are the exact location of the cache. A container with no logbook and just an object or codeword for verification generally does not qualify as a traditional cache.

 

Caches listed with intentionally incorrect coordinates are not in compliance with this part of the guidelines.

[+niraD]

I think you missed Zeke's point.

 

"Besides, having "exact" coords and walking right up to the cache almost blindfolded seems to make the find kind-of lame. I thought there was supposed to be some challenge to this game."

I enjoy caches with 4-star difficulty too. But posting deliberately inaccurate coordinates is the wrong way to increase a cache's difficulty.

[GOF and Bacall]

Look folks. There is not one single GPSr manufacturer who can guarantee accuracy of their devices to less than 6 meters (not feet). And each device is going to be different from another; even if they're the same model. And geological and geophysical conditions are different for every cache. And satellite reception is different at each location. Like someone said, I'd rather have 10 - 15 foot accuracy from 15 feet away than 50 foot accuracy from GZ. There are just too many factors. The point is, if you've been doing this awhile, and you can't find a cache once you get to within 20 feet of GZ and have to have "spot-on", "exact", "accurate", etc. coords, than maybe you need to find another hobby cause you ain't that good. Besides, having "exact" coords and walking right up to the cache almost blindfolded seems to make the find kind-of lame. I thought there was supposed to be some challenge to this game.

 

Gotta agree with Zeke. There is some uncertainty associated with Geocaching without purposely making the coordinates inaccurate. If you want to to make the cache challenging use better camo or a better hiding spot. Be creative not dishonest .

 

I think you missed Zeke's point.

 

"Besides, having "exact" coords and walking right up to the cache almost blindfolded seems to make the find kind-of lame. I thought there was supposed to be some challenge to this game."

 

Especially when it involves an "In Plain Sight" meaning not hidden or camouflaged container.

And the point you missed is that there is enough error in the units we use that there is no need to add anymore.

[+Roland_oso]

Here is a purely hypothetical scenario.

 

Small cluster of trees say 45' in diameter in an otherwise open field.

 

Soft coordinates in the center of said cluster, and when a cacher gets there they find 50 35mm film cans zip tied to branches of several of the trees. Only one contains the log book the rest contain various statements like try again, not yet, getting closer, etc..............

 

I stand by my statement that soft coordinates can be used depending on the hide and especially if it is a “IN PLAIN SIGHT” hide. Specifically the large homemade ammo can in the picture of one of my previous post. Come to think of it I would not only post soft coords for a hide like that, but I would make sure it was a very accurate reading for the closest Lamp Post in the parking lot, providing it was within 50’ or so of the GIANT AMMO CAN.

 

I'm not going to take someone on a scenic 10 mile trek to frustrate them, but in urban settings, why is it not acceptable to be less rigid about the GUIDELINES?

Edited October 17, 2009 by Roland_oso

[+bittsen]

I would not begrudge anyone who muggled a cache that was deliberatly placed with off coords if it was listed as a traditional.

 

If I see a cache that says it has soft coords, I won't even look. There are lots of vernacular I could use to describe that sort of activity and suffice to say most would get me in trouble here.

[+mrbort]

I would not begrudge anyone who muggled a cache that was deliberatly placed with off coords if it was listed as a traditional.

 

If I see a cache that says it has soft coords, I won't even look. There are lots of vernacular I could use to describe that sort of activity and suffice to say most would get me in trouble here.

 

I would begrudge anyone who muggles a cache intentionally for whatever reason. Soft coordinates seem to be at the exceedingly benign end of a rationale spectrum for any muggling. To suggest that it's okay to muggle a cache for any reason is irresponsible and supersedes in level of disrespect, intentional posting of bad coordinates. I would never condone posting soft coordinates; posting good coordinates are a cornerstone of the game. However, I would be even more loath to suggest vigilantism against caches that are posted with this technique. Better ignore than cause harm.

[GOF and Bacall]

Here is a purely hypothetical scenario.

 

Small cluster of trees say 45' in diameter in an otherwise open field.

 

Soft coordinates in the center of said cluster, and when a cacher gets there they find 50 35mm film cans zip tied to branches of several of the trees. Only one contains the log book the rest contain various statements like try again, not yet, getting closer, etc..............

 

I stand by my statement that soft coordinates can be used depending on the hide and especially if it is a “IN PLAIN SIGHT” hide. Specifically the large homemade ammo can in the picture of one of my previous post. Come to think of it I would not only post soft coords for a hide like that, but I would make sure it was a very accurate reading for the closest Lamp Post in the parking lot, providing it was within 50’ or so of the GIANT AMMO CAN.

 

I'm not going to take someone on a scenic 10 mile trek to frustrate them, but in urban settings, why is it not acceptable to be less rigid about the GUIDELINES?

 

Because that is the path to anarchy. If we start being "less rigid" here and letting it slide there why have guidelines at all?

 

Your cluster of micro caches could be listed as a puzzle.

[+bittsen]

I would not begrudge anyone who muggled a cache that was deliberatly placed with off coords if it was listed as a traditional.

 

If I see a cache that says it has soft coords, I won't even look. There are lots of vernacular I could use to describe that sort of activity and suffice to say most would get me in trouble here.

 

I would begrudge anyone who muggles a cache intentionally for whatever reason. Soft coordinates seem to be at the exceedingly benign end of a rationale spectrum for any muggling. To suggest that it's okay to muggle a cache for any reason is irresponsible and supersedes in level of disrespect, intentional posting of bad coordinates. I would never condone posting soft coordinates; posting good coordinates are a cornerstone of the game. However, I would be even more loath to suggest vigilantism against caches that are posted with this technique. Better ignore than cause harm.

 

As I said, I would ignore it.

[GOF and Bacall]

I would not begrudge anyone who muggled a cache that was deliberatly placed with off coords if it was listed as a traditional.

 

If I see a cache that says it has soft coords, I won't even look. There are lots of vernacular I could use to describe that sort of activity and suffice to say most would get me in trouble here.

 

Seems like the cure is worse than the ill.

[+mrbort]

I would not begrudge anyone who muggled a cache that was deliberatly placed with off coords if it was listed as a traditional.

 

If I see a cache that says it has soft coords, I won't even look. There are lots of vernacular I could use to describe that sort of activity and suffice to say most would get me in trouble here.

 

I would begrudge anyone who muggles a cache intentionally for whatever reason. Soft coordinates seem to be at the exceedingly benign end of a rationale spectrum for any muggling. To suggest that it's okay to muggle a cache for any reason is irresponsible and supersedes in level of disrespect, intentional posting of bad coordinates. I would never condone posting soft coordinates; posting good coordinates are a cornerstone of the game. However, I would be even more loath to suggest vigilantism against caches that are posted with this technique. Better ignore than cause harm.

 

As I said, I would ignore it.

 

But what you also said (the part to which I take exception) is that you would be there with a tacit thumbs up for anyone who removed a cache intentionally based on the fact that the cache was placed with soft coordinates. That's not okay either and is tantamount to being an accessory to the action.

[+Roland_oso]

Man, I should have put this at the bottom of my first post to this topic.

 

[+Roland_oso]

Your cluster of micro caches could be listed as a puzzle.

 

Yeah, and then the 10 or so people who look for puzzles in my area would find it and that would be it.

 

List it as a traditional, and everyone that comes thru the area will find it.

Edited October 17, 2009 by Roland_oso

[+bittsen]

But what you also said (the part to which I take exception) is that you would be there with a tacit thumbs up for anyone who removed a cache intentionally based on the fact that the cache was placed with soft coordinates. That's not okay either and is tantamount to being an accessory to the action.

 

No, don't twist my words or the meaning behind them, please.

I did not say I would champion someone who muggled a cache with deliberately misleading information, I said I would not begrudge them. In other words, I would empathize with them. I would see why they did it and, though not forgive them, I would not begrudge them.

 

I meant what I said and I said what I meant. ~(in my best Horton voice)~

[+Chrysalides]

I stand by my statement that soft coordinates can be used depending on the hide and especially if it is a “IN PLAIN SIGHT” hide.

Soft coordinates suggests a number of things to me about the hider:

 

1. He can't be bothered.

 

2. He does not know how to use his equipment. For someone caching since 2003, not very likely.

 

3. He's contemptuous of the guidelines.

 

If the soft coordinates are the best you can do, that is one thing. Getting good coordinates, then delibrately softening them up, that just boggles my mind. By now it is fairly obvious there's nothing I can say that's going to change your mind, and I'm OK with that. I'm merely presenting my side of the argument for any newcomer to the hobby who happens to be reading, so that they can make up their own mind.

[+mrbort]

But what you also said (the part to which I take exception) is that you would be there with a tacit thumbs up for anyone who removed a cache intentionally based on the fact that the cache was placed with soft coordinates. That's not okay either and is tantamount to being an accessory to the action.

 

No, don't twist my words or the meaning behind them, please.

I did not say I would champion someone who muggled a cache with deliberately misleading information, I said I would not begrudge them. In other words, I would empathize with them. I would see why they did it and, though not forgive them, I would not begrudge them.

 

I meant what I said and I said what I meant. ~(in my best Horton voice)~

 

Okay so empathy does not equal approval. That's fine with me. If I misinterpreted or even misunderstood your statement please don't mis-characterize it as twisting.

[GOF and Bacall]

Your cluster of micro caches could be listed as a puzzle.

 

Yeah, and then the 10 or so people who look for puzzles in my area would find it and that would be it.

 

List it as a traditional, and everyone that comes thru the area will find it.

 

So now you want to post bad coordinates and use the wrong hide type. I guess the guidelines are for everyone but you.

[+Minimike2]

If it was completely apparent the coordinates were purposefully posted as "soft." I would log my find and post the better coordinates.

 

If the CO deleted my log then I would move the cache to the soft coordinates and leave. Hopefully, there would be a good location at the soft coordinates - but the lack of such wouldn't prevent me from my action.

[+Chrysalides]

Your cluster of micro caches could be listed as a puzzle.

 

Yeah, and then the 10 or so people who look for puzzles in my area would find it and that would be it.

 

List it as a traditional, and everyone that comes thru the area will find it.

 

So now you want to post bad coordinates and use the wrong hide type. I guess the guidelines are for everyone but you.

Oh, heck, why stop there? List it as a large so that those who filter out micros will still see it. After all, if you add up the volume of 50 film cans, it's a large, right?

 

/sarcasm

[+Dread_Pirate_Bruce]

Except on puzzles, I use the best coords I can come up with. I even check them with FlashEarth. If it does not put the crosshairs on the hide, I re-check my coords.

 

As far as "soft" or "bad" coords: I would not object for something like the giant ammo can. However, just because a cache is in plain sight, that does not necessarily mean someone will spot it. I can think of many fake switch plate covers, junction boxes, sprinkler heads, lost pet posters, etc. that are in plain sight, but would be very hard to find as a cache without good coords. Remember that once you know what you are looking for it is easy to find it when it is in plain sight, but until you do, it is not easily found. (Note: often cryptic hints make sense only after you actually find the cache.)

 

Bad coords can lead to damage to surrounding areas as a cacher works harder and harder to find a cache that isn't there. They can also lead a cacher to explore things he or she should not be exploring. He or she might figure that the cache is that very real looking junction box, because there is nowhere else it can be at the posted coords.

 

The bottom line is to consider what exactly is our game? I've always believed it is to hide as large and easily found a cache as one can without it getting muggled. If you need to make it hard to find to protect it, fine. If you need to make it small to protect it (and can't find a better spot), fine. If you need to make it small because you are hiding a series of caches while on a long hike, fine. But, don't make it harder than it needs to be.

[+Growf]

I'm not going to take someone on a scenic 10 mile trek to frustrate them, but in urban settings, why is it not acceptable to be less rigid about the GUIDELINES?

I would suggest that in an urban setting, we already have enough crap to deal with which screws up the signal -- power lines, building reflection, etc. -- that we don't need the further reduction of accuracy by soft coords.

 

Try GCGV88 some time -- multi-level concrete walkway over a major thoroughfare, steel grillwork on the walkway itself, with power lines running overhead. Why would I think to look there, if the coords are pointing toward a light pole 50+ feet away from this???

[+CoalBranchKid]

Soft coords in an urban setting could inadvertently put the geocacher at risk not to mention raising the suspicion of muggles with unnecessary searching in the wrong places. For trads, my vote is for getting the coordinates as close as possible please.

[+simpjkee]

I get my coords as close as I possibly can. Is there any other way?

[+power69]

If the hide is about the hide/container of an “In Plain Sight” cache or stage, I see nothing wrong with taking a waypoint 10 or 15 feet away from the cache/stage.

Pretty much everyone else does.

 

It's weird; until the last few months, this topic never came up on the forums. The answer is so obvious that nobody questioned it. But suddenly a substantial number of of people think it's OK to post intentionally bad coords for hides. What's up with that?

turn a lame hide into something harder.

eventually people catch on and put that hiders caches on ignore.

[+HouseOfDragons]

 

turn a lame hide into something harder.

eventually people catch on and put that hiders caches on ignore.

 

Except all it really turns it into is a lame hide with useless coordinates.

[+briansnat]

Check out this cache owner's log... http://www.geocaching.com/seek/log.aspx?LU...82-a31a5707ae61

 

I know one cacher who actually had his log deleted on this cache because he posted better coordinates on his log!

I don't have a problem with the first one. If that's the best coordinates you can get in that area because of environmental factors (signal reflections, atmospheric conditions, heavy cover) then what's there to complain about? I actually think that's a part of the game. Some places you get good GPS accuracy, some you don't. The fact that the owner likes to place caches in those area is irrelevant.

 

The second one I'd contact a reviewer about.

 

I'd complain about the difficulty level of the first one. A cache that has 11 logged DNFs out of 53 logged hunts is not a 1.5 difficulty.

[+briansnat]

Look folks. There is not one single GPSr manufacturer who can guarantee accuracy of their devices to less than 6 meters (not feet). And each device is going to be different from another; even if they're the same model. And geological and geophysical conditions are different for every cache. And satellite reception is different at each location. Like someone said, I'd rather have 10 - 15 foot accuracy from 15 feet away than 50 foot accuracy from GZ. There are just too many factors. The point is, if you've been doing this awhile, and you can't find a cache once you get to within 20 feet of GZ and have to have "spot-on", "exact", "accurate", etc. coords, than maybe you need to find another hobby cause you ain't that good. Besides, having "exact" coords and walking right up to the cache almost blindfolded seems to make the find kind-of lame. I thought there was supposed to be some challenge to this game.

 

Your post proves the point that there is no need to intentionally provide wrong coordinates to add to the challenge. With the inherent inaccuracy of consumer grade units, the coordinates are often soft enough to make things challenging even when hiders attempt to post accurate ones.

[+L0ne.R]

Recently, in our area, a new cacher planted his first cache. DNFs were posted. The CO posted a note saying he had used google maps for the coordinates.

[knowschad]

Check out this cache owner's log... http://www.geocaching.com/seek/log.aspx?LU...82-a31a5707ae61

 

I know one cacher who actually had his log deleted on this cache because he posted better coordinates on his log!

I don't have a problem with the first one. If that's the best coordinates you can get in that area because of environmental factors (signal reflections, atmospheric conditions, heavy cover) then what's there to complain about? I actually think that's a part of the game. Some places you get good GPS accuracy, some you don't. The fact that the owner likes to place caches in those area is irrelevant.

 

The second one I'd contact a reviewer about.

 

I'd complain about the difficulty level of the first one. A cache that has 11 logged DNFs out of 53 logged hunts is not a 1.5 difficulty.

 

It would be, if it had good coordinates. Just a jar tossed in a shrub. Coords point out into an alley, and the nearest shrub is the wrong one.

[+Roland_oso]

I came across a soft coord hide today. It was a 2 stage multi that takes you between a grocery store and a self storage facility. After finding a fun accurately marked first stage, I find the 2 stage coords takes me a few hundred feet down the ally that is created by the store and storage facility. I zeroed out exactly in the middle of the ally-way equal distance between the two walls. No issues with signal, as I had multiple sats locked in and showing 8ft accuracy. There are features on both walls that would allow for a hide. Really quite simple check both walls. Of course I checked the wrong one first, but hey, that's my luck. The funny thing is that the hint for stage 2 could apply to both walls, but the features were not the same.

 

Another perfect example for a soft coordinate hide.

[GOF and Bacall]

I came across a soft coord hide today. It was a 2 stage multi that takes you between a grocery store and a self storage facility. After finding a fun accurately marked first stage, I find the 2 stage coords takes me a few hundred feet down the ally that is created by the store and storage facility. I zeroed out exactly in the middle of the ally-way equal distance between the two walls. No issues with signal, as I had multiple sats locked in and showing 8ft accuracy. There are features on both walls that would allow for a hide. Really quite simple check both walls. Of course I checked the wrong one first, but hey, that's my luck. The funny thing is that the hint for stage 2 could apply to both walls, but the features were not the same.

 

Another perfect example for a soft coordinate hide.

 

Or just the normal error that we all deal with. There is a difference between intentionally bad coordinates and the fact that our receivers are in no way pinpoint accurate devices.

[+Roland_oso]

I'm not going to take someone on a scenic 10 mile trek to frustrate them, but in urban settings, why is it not acceptable to be less rigid about the GUIDELINES?

 

I would suggest that in an urban setting, we already have enough crap to deal with which screws up the signal -- power lines, building reflection, etc. -- that we don't need the further reduction of accuracy by soft coords.

 

Try GCGV88 some time -- multi-level concrete walkway over a major thoroughfare, steel grillwork on the walkway itself, with power lines running overhead. Why would I think to look there, if the coords are pointing toward a light pole 50+ feet away from this???

 

If I ever make it to Ohio I will give it a try. But my example earlier was 50ft from a IN PLAIN SIGHT HUGE AMMO CAN. Big difference between an ammo can half the size of a small car and a micro.

 

I would like to remind you that in my first post I stated clearly that it depends on the hide.

 

I would not post soft coords for a micro, nano, or other such needle in a haystack type of hide.

[GOF and Bacall]

If you followed the guidelines you would not post soft coords for any traditional.

[+fizzymagic]

I zeroed out exactly in the middle of the ally-way equal distance between the two walls. No issues with signal, as I had multiple sats locked in and showing 8ft accuracy.

Google multipath and learn something new. Your GPS accuracy number cannot take it into account.

Another perfect example for a soft coordinate hide.

Not even close.

[+Wooden Cyclist]

Look folks. There is not one single GPSr manufacturer who can guarantee accuracy of their devices to less than 6 meters (not feet). And each device is going to be different from another; even if they're the same model. And geological and geophysical conditions are different for every cache. And satellite reception is different at each location. Like someone said, I'd rather have 10 - 15 foot accuracy from 15 feet away than 50 foot accuracy from GZ. There are just too many factors. The point is, if you've been doing this awhile, and you can't find a cache once you get to within 20 feet of GZ and have to have "spot-on", "exact", "accurate", etc. coords, than maybe you need to find another hobby cause you ain't that good. Besides, having "exact" coords and walking right up to the cache almost blindfolded seems to make the find kind-of lame. I thought there was supposed to be some challenge to this game.

 

Gotta agree with Zeke. There is some uncertainty associated with Geocaching without purposely making the coordinates inaccurate. If you want to to make the cache challenging use better camo or a better hiding spot. Be creative not dishonest .

 

I think you missed Zeke's point.

 

"Besides, having "exact" coords and walking right up to the cache almost blindfolded seems to make the find kind-of lame. I thought there was supposed to be some challenge to this game."

 

Especially when it involves an "In Plain Sight" meaning not hidden or camouflaged container.

 

 

Read a little closer. Zeke uses the bulk of his post to talk about the inaccuracy of GPS units. I was agreeing with that part of his post because that inaccuracy makes soft coords unnecessary. The last sentence is a throw away because "exact coords" aren't possible with the current technology. At no point in Zeke's post does he support the use of soft coords.

Edited October 18, 2009 by Wooden Cyclist

[+Wooden Cyclist]

I came across a soft coord hide today. It was a 2 stage multi that takes you between a grocery store and a self storage facility. After finding a fun accurately marked first stage, I find the 2 stage coords takes me a few hundred feet down the ally that is created by the store and storage facility. I zeroed out exactly in the middle of the ally-way equal distance between the two walls. No issues with signal, as I had multiple sats locked in and showing 8ft accuracy. There are features on both walls that would allow for a hide. Really quite simple check both walls. Of course I checked the wrong one first, but hey, that's my luck. The funny thing is that the hint for stage 2 could apply to both walls, but the features were not the same.

 

Another perfect example for a soft coordinate hide.

 

No need for soft coords even on this hide. Your GPSr showed 8' accuracy in a technology that is only accurate to about 30'. Your included accuracy is actually 38'. Another cacher with another GPSr might be led to either wall or farther up or down the alley. No need for soft coords.

 

The hider may want to use soft coords because they aren't confident that the cache isn't as challenging as they want it to be. If that is the case they should choose a different location or a more clever container.

[+Wooden Cyclist]

I zeroed out exactly in the middle of the ally-way equal distance between the two walls. No issues with signal, as I had multiple sats locked in and showing 8ft accuracy.

Google multipath and learn something new. Your GPS accuracy number cannot take it into account.

Another perfect example for a soft coordinate hide.

Not even close.

 

Thanks for the lesson fizzymagic. I hadn't heard of multipath before.