Jump to content

Raising difficulty, softening coords


DaveandDeb

Recommended Posts

Is it common practice to raise the difficulty rating by softening the coords of the cache? I was under the impression that the cache should be rated on its own merrit, not by posting the coords off.

 

It's considered very bad form. In these forums that is, the majority of registered Geocachers have never even looked at these forums. There is a way you can tell this, believe it or not. :) So yeah, lots of people do it. I think generally they just come up with the idea on their own. And you nailed the term. "softening coords".

Link to comment

Is it common practice to raise the difficulty rating by softening the coords of the cache? I was under the impression that the cache should be rated on its own merrit, not by posting the coords off.

If you find a cache with "soft" coords, just post the real coords in your log. Cachers that come after you will be thankful :) I like to believe that CO's don't do it on purpose, but rather just have really lame GPS's, but anyway... yeah, it's pretty much unacceptable.

Link to comment

Is it common practice to raise the difficulty rating by softening the coords of the cache? I was under the impression that the cache should be rated on its own merrit, not by posting the coords off.

 

Thank you both for you replies. It is being done here while believing that if the posted coords are within 60', it is acceptable. I'm not sure where they came up with this figure.

Link to comment

Is it common practice to raise the difficulty rating by softening the coords of the cache? I was under the impression that the cache should be rated on its own merrit, not by posting the coords off.

 

Thank you both for you replies. It is being done here while believing that if the posted coords are within 60', it is acceptable. I'm not sure where they came up with this figure.

 

Civilian GPSr units, by nature of the beast, already have error margins within them (depending upon weather, cover, signal acquisition, etc.). To intentionally go beyond that and use "soft" (that is, softer than what you already have) coords, is bad no matter how you look at it. :)

Link to comment

Plus, if a lazy or careless geocacher places a geocache, they may walk to the location and push "mark waypoint" just once instead of averaging multiple waypoints over time and from several directions. :) Due to fluctuations in GPS reception, this will cause the coordinates to be off.

Edited by heyjonathan101
Link to comment

There is always a certain degree of error... But can not think of any reason that itwould be acceptable to intentionally post any coordinates that were less than the best that the hider could get.

If you want to make your cache harder try adding some sort of camouflage so that the hide does not stick out or if it is in plain view it looks like it belongs there. Those are my favorites

 

Keep in mind that there is always a certain degree of error when using GPS units. Especially when using the civilian units that we use for geocaching. Add in tree cover and or lack of experience on the cache hider’s part and it is not unheard of for a cache to be 60ft from where my GPS is pointing. So be careful before you accuse someone of softening their coordinates….

IMPORTANT NOTE: Do not forget that there are also some poor cachers out there using Magellan GPS units and no matter how hard they try to get good coordinates the odds are stacked against them :)

 

By the way I also like the term you chose to desribe the the act of intenitionally post less accurate coords than a hider has availible them.... "Soften coords"

 

So I guess the harder coordinates the better

Link to comment

There is always a certain degree of error... But can not think of any reason that itwould be acceptable to intentionally post any coordinates that were less than the best that the hider could get.

If you want to make your cache harder try adding some sort of camouflage so that the hide does not stick out or if it is in plain view it looks like it belongs there. Those are my favorites

 

Keep in mind that there is always a certain degree of error when using GPS units. Especially when using the civilian units that we use for geocaching. Add in tree cover and or lack of experience on the cache hider’s part and it is not unheard of for a cache to be 60ft from where my GPS is pointing. So be careful before you accuse someone of softening their coordinates….

IMPORTANT NOTE: Do not forget that there are also some poor cachers out there using Magellan GPS units and no matter how hard they try to get good coordinates the odds are stacked against them :)

 

By the way I also like the term you chose to desribe the the act of intenitionally post less accurate coords than a hider has availible them.... "Soften coords"

 

So I guess the harder coordinates the better

Once again, thanks all for your replies. When I asked about the coords being off, the reply was "that's why it is a 4 star rating". So, him being a friend, I'll just let it drop. Ty.

Link to comment

60 feet off is way off with today's technology, but I must qualify that with... in most situations. Tall buildings in a city, for example, can make it almost impossible to get closer than 60 feet. Some ravines or canyons can have similar problems with signal bounce.

 

Here's a relevant excerpt from the Cache Notes document:

 

The game basically involves a GPS user hiding "treasure" (this container and its contents), and publishing the exact coordinates so other GPS users can come on a "treasure hunt" to find it.

 

(bolding is my own)

Edited by knowschad
Link to comment
Once again, thanks all for your replies. When I asked about the coords being off, the reply was "that's why it is a 4 star rating". So, him being a friend, I'll just let it drop. Ty.

 

I would think that friends could share with one another that this isn't really a very good idea for many reasons*. And the recipient should be able to accept the enlightened opinion of the friend.

And you are doing a service to all of the other members of the caching community who will be able to enjoy finding these caches the way they should be able to.

 

*Some Reasons*

1. It states that accurate coords should be used in the guidelines.

"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."

2. The potential for unnecessary terrain disturbance is spread over a much wider radius if soft coords are posted. While I firmly believe that we are all responsible for our own actions, there is no reason to encourage this behavior by posting poor/soft coords.

3. It doesn't make the search more FUN. And FUN is why we are all out here doing this.

Link to comment

Once again, thanks all for your replies. When I asked about the coords being off, the reply was "that's why it is a 4 star rating". So, him being a friend, I'll just let it drop. Ty.

 

I would re-think the "let it drop" if it is a friend.

 

While extending a search 50+ feet is not unheard of, we as CO's should be doing our best to provide accurate coords, especially depending on size. While a ammo box can generally be spotted from many yards away, the smaller sizes can present their own challenges without adding bad coords to the mix.

 

We have a cacher around our parts that rarely has decent coords and while there are other factors also, wind up on a lot of ignore lists. I am sure you don't want that happening to a friend without them realizing it.

Link to comment

Once again, thanks all for your replies. When I asked about the coords being off, the reply was "that's why it is a 4 star rating". So, him being a friend, I'll just let it drop. Ty.

 

What's the GC code of his cache with the soft coords?

 

I'm sure a LOT of people would like to take a look at his cache. ~~Wink wink~~

 

Personally, I think this type of cache hider is the bane of the game.

Link to comment
When I asked about the coords being off, the reply was "that's why it is a 4 star rating".

If the increased difficulty bad coords were the result of the environment, I'd agree with your "Let it drop" choice. There's a park near me with heavy foliage and overhead high power lines. No matter how hard you try, you will not get solid coords there with a civilian grade, handheld GPSr. I found another place in the Apalachicola National Forest that is the same way. You could try your best, but in the end, any hunt that occurs there will be much more difficult than usual. If I hid a cache at either site, I would up the D/T a bit to reflect the fact that the seeker is gonna have a tough time. Naturally, I would explain my reasons for doing so on the cache page.

 

If the bad coords were deliberate, I would ignore every cache that hider placed, and invite him to this forum thread.

Link to comment
When I asked about the coords being off, the reply was "that's why it is a 4 star rating".

If the increased difficulty bad coords were the result of the environment, I'd agree with your "Let it drop" choice. There's a park near me with heavy foliage and overhead high power lines. No matter how hard you try, you will not get solid coords there with a civilian grade, handheld GPSr. I found another place in the Apalachicola National Forest that is the same way. You could try your best, but in the end, any hunt that occurs there will be much more difficult than usual. If I hid a cache at either site, I would up the D/T a bit to reflect the fact that the seeker is gonna have a tough time. Naturally, I would explain my reasons for doing so on the cache page.

 

If the bad coords were deliberate, I would ignore every cache that hider placed, and invite him to this forum thread.

 

If the coordinates are soft due to environmental factors it is one thing. If they are off due to some yahoo who thinks bad coordinates somehow make their hide more clever it is not acceptable. Intentionally bad coordinates don't make you clever they make you rude.

Link to comment

Friends don't let friends post soft coordinates.

 

If you are really his friend you will explain to him the rules of the game.

If you can't talk to him, perhaps he's really not your friend.

 

These types of cache hiders really are the bane of the game.

 

It is in the rules to post correct coordinates. That is how this game is played,

so what he is doing is cheating to aggravate cache hunters.

 

Maybe you should re-evaluate your friendship.

Link to comment

My old Garmin 45 softens things up considerably in the first place, making the hunt of even the most accurate placements quite interesting... but that is what I like to live with... not to mention have to right now. It's not that bad, even the newer units I've borrowed don't get much better accuracy around here in the mountains of BC... Thats life. So far I've found what I've looked for, not always first try, but mostly.

Only once have I done the typo thing... no problem when that was corrected... I do use compass triangulation if needed... and possible.

 

HOWEVER, I do like the placement to be as accurate as possible. So yes, do use newer units to place, or have them checked by someone who does use one ASAP. Better yet have a good cacher vet the placement as hunter, don't just do it yourself.

 

Any softening should be the choice of the hunter, not the placer.

 

Doug

Link to comment

I found a cache (GC1DYKX) recently where 2 previous finders had posted that the coordinates were off by 60 feet. I also found it at about 60 feet from where the GPSr said it would be. In my log I posted that I found it at such&such and got an email from the CO asking me to remove that information, saying something about a "puzzle." But the cache was listed as a traditional rated as D=4, when with good coordinates it would be 1.5 or possibly 2.

Link to comment

I found a cache (GC1DYKX) recently where 2 previous finders had posted that the coordinates were off by 60 feet. I also found it at about 60 feet from where the GPSr said it would be. In my log I posted that I found it at such&such and got an email from the CO asking me to remove that information, saying something about a "puzzle." But the cache was listed as a traditional rated as D=4, when with good coordinates it would be 1.5 or possibly 2.

 

Please tell me you left the log stand with the note about bad coords.

 

Whenever I find a cache off coords (by more than 30 feet) I make a note. I won't ever change the note on a traditional.

Link to comment

I found a cache (GC1DYKX) recently where 2 previous finders had posted that the coordinates were off by 60 feet. I also found it at about 60 feet from where the GPSr said it would be. In my log I posted that I found it at such&such and got an email from the CO asking me to remove that information, saying something about a "puzzle." But the cache was listed as a traditional rated as D=4, when with good coordinates it would be 1.5 or possibly 2.

Please tell me you left the log stand with the note about bad coords.

Whenever I find a cache off coords (by more than 30 feet) I make a note. I won't ever change the note on a traditional.

Yup. That cache owner is wrong, and it isn't just our opinion, but Groundspeak's. Feel free to point the cache owner to this thread.
Link to comment

I found a cache (GC1DYKX) recently where 2 previous finders had posted that the coordinates were off by 60 feet. I also found it at about 60 feet from where the GPSr said it would be. In my log I posted that I found it at such&such and got an email from the CO asking me to remove that information, saying something about a "puzzle." But the cache was listed as a traditional rated as D=4, when with good coordinates it would be 1.5 or possibly 2.

Intentionally bad coords in the interest of making a traditional into a "puzzle" deserve the attention of a reviewer if the cache owner isn't interested in fixing them.

 

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

 

This game works by peer review and peer pressure. Unless you want to see your area spiral into a race of "his cache was 60 feet off, so I made my cache supa-awesome by making my 120 feet off!" I encourage you to be honest in your logs and notify the local reviewer about the situation if the placer is unwilling to accept the sentence above from http://www.geocaching.com/about/cache_types.aspx

Link to comment

Our reviewer just disabled one like this. The cache description said it was "within 150' of the posted coords". To top it off, it's in a place where prolonged searching would draw all kinds of unwanted attention.

Good job by the reviewer.

 

What I haven't seen posted here yet (apologies if it's posted later in the thread) is that in addition to this being a stupid way to increase the difficulty artificially (if you can't make the cache the difficulty you want it to be, hide it elsewhere or get better at crafting well-camoed containers), it makes placing other caches in the area harder.

 

If I'm a hider and want to be a good citizen by not placing a cache less than 0.1 miles from one of theses caches, what do I do? Do I base my placement on the posted coordinates? Do I find that other cache & place mine 600 feet away from it, knowing that the coordinates of the existing cache mark it less than 500 feet away, then try to explain to the reviewer? Or do I just avoid the area altogether?

 

I've only found 2 caches where the posted coordinates were significantly far from the actual cache. In one case, the CO wrote in the description that he could only get within 50' because his Nuvi couldn't do much better than that. For the other, my father's GPS zeroed out over 50' away on his first visit, and when we returned we both showed a significant discrepancy from the posted coordinates (our units pretty much agreed). In both cases, I averaged my own waypoint for the location & sent a nice email to the owners; both updated their caches with my coordinates.

Link to comment
Please tell me you left the log stand with the note about bad coords.

No, I complied with the CO's request. (Didn't want my log deleted.)

I emailed the following message to the CO, but didn't get a reply:

 

I did as you asked but I don't understand. If this is a traditional cache, the coordinates should be as accurate as possible. If this is a puzzle cache it should be identified as such. I found it as a traditional, using the log comments that the coordinates were off by 60 feet or more and expanding my search area accordingly.

 

Today the CO posted the following note on the cache page:

 

Imagine my disbelief when I opened my email this morning and recieved an email saying that my cache (Lookout) was a "soft cache," and violated groundspeaks guidelines (after reviewing the Groundspeak's cache hiding guidelines page twice, and seeing no mention of "soft caches" there). Please feel free to Google "soft cache" and review all material that applies to Geocaching in your search-Good Luck.

This is not a soft cache-this is a cache that involves a very specific clue in its title, and if you have any idea how perception works it is actually within arms reach of its coordinates. Also, many caches that I have found in the last seven plus years have clues listen in their descriptions. Good reading comprehension is also a must for some caches to be found by other cachers. Good luck with your search.

 

I would have no complaints about the coordinates if the cache were classified as a Puzzle/Unknown instead of a Traditional. (I also wouldn't have looked for it.)

Link to comment
Please tell me you left the log stand with the note about bad coords.

No, I complied with the CO's request. (Didn't want my log deleted.)

I emailed the following message to the CO, but didn't get a reply:

 

I did as you asked but I don't understand. If this is a traditional cache, the coordinates should be as accurate as possible. If this is a puzzle cache it should be identified as such. I found it as a traditional, using the log comments that the coordinates were off by 60 feet or more and expanding my search area accordingly.

 

Today the CO posted the following note on the cache page:

 

Imagine my disbelief when I opened my email this morning and recieved an email saying that my cache (Lookout) was a "soft cache," and violated groundspeaks guidelines (after reviewing the Groundspeak's cache hiding guidelines page twice, and seeing no mention of "soft caches" there). Please feel free to Google "soft cache" and review all material that applies to Geocaching in your search-Good Luck.

This is not a soft cache-this is a cache that involves a very specific clue in its title, and if you have any idea how perception works it is actually within arms reach of its coordinates. Also, many caches that I have found in the last seven plus years have clues listen in their descriptions. Good reading comprehension is also a must for some caches to be found by other cachers. Good luck with your search.

 

I would have no complaints about the coordinates if the cache were classified as a Puzzle/Unknown instead of a Traditional. (I also wouldn't have looked for it.)

 

If you feel that the cache violates some part of the guidelines and are uncomfortable posting a needs maintenance or needs archive the write an email to the reviewer for the area and explain the problem as you see it. They will take the appropriate action from there.

 

If you find that there is one cacher who you, lets say, don't see eye to eye with ignore their caches. It would be nice if you could just select an option on a users profile to ignore all cache by but you can't. Do it one at a time as they come out.

Link to comment
Please tell me you left the log stand with the note about bad coords.

No, I complied with the CO's request. (Didn't want my log deleted.)

I emailed the following message to the CO, but didn't get a reply:

 

I did as you asked but I don't understand. If this is a traditional cache, the coordinates should be as accurate as possible. If this is a puzzle cache it should be identified as such. I found it as a traditional, using the log comments that the coordinates were off by 60 feet or more and expanding my search area accordingly.

 

Today the CO posted the following note on the cache page:

 

Imagine my disbelief when I opened my email this morning and recieved an email saying that my cache (Lookout) was a "soft cache," and violated groundspeaks guidelines (after reviewing the Groundspeak's cache hiding guidelines page twice, and seeing no mention of "soft caches" there). Please feel free to Google "soft cache" and review all material that applies to Geocaching in your search-Good Luck.

This is not a soft cache-this is a cache that involves a very specific clue in its title, and if you have any idea how perception works it is actually within arms reach of its coordinates. Also, many caches that I have found in the last seven plus years have clues listen in their descriptions. Good reading comprehension is also a must for some caches to be found by other cachers. Good luck with your search.

 

I would have no complaints about the coordinates if the cache were classified as a Puzzle/Unknown instead of a Traditional. (I also wouldn't have looked for it.)

 

If you feel that the cache violates some part of the guidelines and are uncomfortable posting a needs maintenance or needs archive the write an email to the reviewer for the area and explain the problem as you see it. They will take the appropriate action from there.

 

If you find that there is one cacher who you, lets say, don't see eye to eye with ignore their caches. It would be nice if you could just select an option on a users profile to ignore all cache by but you can't. Do it one at a time as they come out.

 

I agree.

Link to comment
Please tell me you left the log stand with the note about bad coords.

No, I complied with the CO's request. (Didn't want my log deleted.)

I emailed the following message to the CO, but didn't get a reply:

 

I did as you asked but I don't understand. If this is a traditional cache, the coordinates should be as accurate as possible. If this is a puzzle cache it should be identified as such. I found it as a traditional, using the log comments that the coordinates were off by 60 feet or more and expanding my search area accordingly.

 

Today the CO posted the following note on the cache page:

 

Imagine my disbelief when I opened my email this morning and recieved an email saying that my cache (Lookout) was a "soft cache," and violated groundspeaks guidelines (after reviewing the Groundspeak's cache hiding guidelines page twice, and seeing no mention of "soft caches" there). Please feel free to Google "soft cache" and review all material that applies to Geocaching in your search-Good Luck.

This is not a soft cache-this is a cache that involves a very specific clue in its title, and if you have any idea how perception works it is actually within arms reach of its coordinates. Also, many caches that I have found in the last seven plus years have clues listen in their descriptions. Good reading comprehension is also a must for some caches to be found by other cachers. Good luck with your search.

 

I would have no complaints about the coordinates if the cache were classified as a Puzzle/Unknown instead of a Traditional. (I also wouldn't have looked for it.)

 

If you feel that the cache violates some part of the guidelines and are uncomfortable posting a needs maintenance or needs archive the write an email to the reviewer for the area and explain the problem as you see it. They will take the appropriate action from there.

 

If you find that there is one cacher who you, lets say, don't see eye to eye with ignore their caches. It would be nice if you could just select an option on a users profile to ignore all cache by but you can't. Do it one at a time as they come out.

 

I agree.

Oh crud! Now I am going to have to rethink my whole perspective on the universe! :lol:

 

(See? I even remembered the dang laughing frog thingy)

Link to comment
Please tell me you left the log stand with the note about bad coords.

No, I complied with the CO's request. (Didn't want my log deleted.)

I emailed the following message to the CO, but didn't get a reply:

 

I did as you asked but I don't understand. If this is a traditional cache, the coordinates should be as accurate as possible. If this is a puzzle cache it should be identified as such. I found it as a traditional, using the log comments that the coordinates were off by 60 feet or more and expanding my search area accordingly.

 

Today the CO posted the following note on the cache page:

 

Imagine my disbelief when I opened my email this morning and recieved an email saying that my cache (Lookout) was a "soft cache," and violated groundspeaks guidelines (after reviewing the Groundspeak's cache hiding guidelines page twice, and seeing no mention of "soft caches" there). Please feel free to Google "soft cache" and review all material that applies to Geocaching in your search-Good Luck.

This is not a soft cache-this is a cache that involves a very specific clue in its title, and if you have any idea how perception works it is actually within arms reach of its coordinates. Also, many caches that I have found in the last seven plus years have clues listen in their descriptions. Good reading comprehension is also a must for some caches to be found by other cachers. Good luck with your search.

 

I would have no complaints about the coordinates if the cache were classified as a Puzzle/Unknown instead of a Traditional. (I also wouldn't have looked for it.)

 

If you feel that the cache violates some part of the guidelines and are uncomfortable posting a needs maintenance or needs archive the write an email to the reviewer for the area and explain the problem as you see it. They will take the appropriate action from there.

 

If you find that there is one cacher who you, lets say, don't see eye to eye with ignore their caches. It would be nice if you could just select an option on a users profile to ignore all cache by but you can't. Do it one at a time as they come out.

 

I agree.

Oh crud! Now I am going to have to rethink my whole perspective on the universe! :lol:

 

(See? I even remembered the dang laughing frog thingy)

 

You think YOU have problems?! Bittsen agrees, now you need to rethink the whole thing? Where does that leave me and my opinion? :)

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...