Jump to content

Pet Peeve - Check Your Coord on a New Hide


deb3day
Followers 5

Recommended Posts

Ok this one gets to me. What about you? New cache is posted and I always look at the map to get an idea of where it is. I like to take a look at the sat map too because sometimes you can see exactly where it is. Well two new caches came up a few days ago. One shows up on the map in the back yard of a big home in a housing development. Not likely these are correct coords since cache description says you have to go thru a dry creek bed and there is no mention it's in someone's backyard. Second cache shows up out in the water of a river. Cache mention thorns and hills but no mention that you'll be taking a swim. Both caches listed by someone with one find. I am glad I looked at the maps before driving out there because these both HAVE to be bad coords. Logs to this effect have gone unanswered from more than one cacher.

 

So don't people look at the map on their own cache page before submitting it for review??

Link to comment

Apparently some don't back-check what it is that they do. Is a common human trait, not specific to geocaching.

Don't think though that it is something to get too bent over, it happens -- just like the bumper sticker to that effect.

 

Sure, we would like all that enter a new endeavor to know all before they proceed, but that isn't likely to happen in your lifetime. Some are just in too much of a hurry!

 

Those who are perfect may cast the first stone, eh? :rolleyes:

Link to comment

I suspect that most folks don't look at the map before submitting. We occassionaly get similar Listings in area.

 

If the cache owner doesn't respond to constructive comments from the Community, I would more than likely follow up with an NA Log to get the attention of the Local Reviewer, so that it either gets fixed or removed from the active Listings.

 

My 0.02 :rolleyes:

Link to comment

I suspect that most folks don't look at the map before submitting. We occassionaly get similar Listings in area.

 

If the cache owner doesn't respond to constructive comments from the Community, I would more than likely follow up with an NA Log to get the attention of the Local Reviewer, so that it either gets fixed or removed from the active Listings.

 

My 0.02 :rolleyes:

 

I actually posted NM on both caches indicating that the coords are in impossible places and they should be checked. I know the local reviewer and I'm sure if nothing is changed he will contact CO for some action. My biggest concern is that someone will get into trouble by trying these hides. Oh well that is not my problem.

Link to comment

I got an email back from the reviewer that my first hide was in the middle of the Pacific Ocean :rolleyes:. Oops little typo. I'm a bit dysgraphic (dyslexia for numbers) so it could happen at any time. I've also given coords that were about 50 ft off, collected under tree and cloud cover. It was only recently that I noticed the option to see your cache on a map on the submission page, but even so it doesn't always work (maybe not until you submit?). Have to remember to go check it out. Anyway mistakes happen, ESP the first few times one does something. Rather than rolling your eyes, help the new person in a friendly way via a direct message, remembering you were once new too, and with gratitude that they are selflessly taking their time to hide caches for you.

Link to comment

It depends on what you look at. I have had several emails telling me my caches are not right, but everyone who complained used google earth. My cords were right on, but on google earth almost every cache I have is off by 50 to 60 feet or MORE. It is not always the hider....it is sometimes the maps. I have a book I write every cord in I use for a cache, and I usually check them two or 3 times before I come up with the final, it all depends on the software and the unit. I borrowed an Etrex legend for a month or so and it was 100 feet off from my 60cx. There are many variables out there.

Link to comment

I probably would've attempted to find the caches before posting a NM. You never really know what something looks like until you physically approach GZ. I have a cache that shows up on the map as being in the middle of a rather large lake, but what you don't see (until you get there) is the wooden foot bridge that traverses the lake. Yes, bad coordinates make me very, very angry, but I usually give the benefit of the doubt until I'm sure the coordinates are bad.

Link to comment

I got an email back from the reviewer that my first hide was in the middle of the Pacific Ocean :rolleyes:. Oops little typo. I'm a bit dysgraphic (dyslexia for numbers) so it could happen at any time. I've also given coords that were about 50 ft off, collected under tree and cloud cover. It was only recently that I noticed the option to see your cache on a map on the submission page, but even so it doesn't always work (maybe not until you submit?). Have to remember to go check it out. Anyway mistakes happen, ESP the first few times one does something. Rather than rolling your eyes, help the new person in a friendly way via a direct message, remembering you were once new too, and with gratitude that they are selflessly taking their time to hide caches for you.

 

This year I've seen about 3 caches in my area posted by newbies who posted bad coordinates (one set of coords was obtained by the CO using Google Maps, one set of coords were centered in the center of a busy 4 lane road, one set sent finders into someone's backyard), finders who managed to find the cache posted new coordinates but each time the new COs did not update their cache page. 2 of the COs never responded at all - probably a hider that

didn't have any interest in maintaining the cache or didn't realize that hiders have a responsibility to maintain both the physical cache and the online posting.

 

I appreciate new COs that watch new logs intently and immediately fix problems then post an online note apologizing for any convenience that may have occurred.

Link to comment

Incorrect coordinates aside... Many people take a while to realize that many of the 'fancier' cache types use a set of DUMMY COORDINATES for the cache to start... They may or may not indicate a starting point, parking or other useful information for the hunt, but do not indicate the location of the cache. Puzzles, Offsets, Multis do this... I am in the throws of starting to process a crop of not so local ''mystery" caches for finding next Spring. Almost all I've selected are at different coordinates... OK. Some are just remnants of various ALR caches, and some the coordinates are good but are really sneaky/hard to find.

 

That's exactly why I'm doing the research now. To have lists of possibles at hand then. Occasionaly I come across 'errors', and have no problems sending a note to the owner with my concerns, observations and suggestions, but seldom complaints. Some answer, some don't. IF nothing happens I can post a note on the logs with the same thing to alert others... but not spoilers.

 

IF I can I will try the cache to try and validate it. But that can lead to 'help' overload... Too much time looking out for other peoples caches... I only do it now as a courtesy for those that answer my queries.

 

Sometimes it's more fun than caching, but I'd rather cache and help out.

 

Best error to date... transposed digits took one cache from Alberta to Pacific Ocean off of Baja.

Never did get response on that note... or check to see if it got fixed. Obvious though, the cache was fine, the error was parking location. Certainly had lots of space available, if very WET.

 

Doug

Link to comment

Like others have mentioned, there could be different reasons for what you are seeing.

 

Yes, it could be that the coordinates are off. But unless the reviewer was having a busy day and the cache slipped through their care, they would usually catch a cache that looked like it was placed in a person's backyard. I would think that they most likely had a discussion with the hider.

 

Sometimes maps (especially google maps) are off. A little, or a lot. As mentioned earlier, it would be best to try and find the cache before posting a needs maintenance, as you cannot be sure if the coords are off by just looking at a map.

 

There are perils in being some of the first finders on a cache, you could come up empty because of bad coords or other issues with a new cache. But people who like to be FTF have to be willing to go through that every once in a while. Hopefully, the cache owner is watching and will be quick to respond to any problems that can crop up. If they don't, then that's where the needs maintenance or even needs archived should come in - by someone who has searched for the cache and can see the issues first hand. :anibad:

Link to comment

Intentionally wrong soft coordinates to increase the evilness of the hide?

 

That's what came to my mind.

 

I love it when COs do that.

 

Another possibility is weather. I have noticed that on cloudy/stormy days when I really shouldn't be geocaching my readings can err a bit.

 

I have also been guilty of fat fingers a couple of times, and have tried to be more carefully in plugging numbers from the GPS to gc.com. Maybe an upload from the GPS to the website? Nah that you just be to complicated.

Link to comment

I actually posted NM on both caches indicating that the coords are in impossible places and they should be checked. I know the local reviewer and I'm sure if nothing is changed he will contact CO for some action. My biggest concern is that someone will get into trouble by trying these hides. Oh well that is not my problem.

 

As someone said, you don't know that until you go there. Maps and satellite views do not show everything.

 

I went hunting a cache. The page description and the location of the coordinates have nothing in common! Several cachers searched the coordinates, and did not find the purple ammo can. I searched by the description, and found nothing. I posted an NM. I got an e-mail a month later suggesting that I should take classes to learn to use a GPS. That the coordinates had been checked several times, and were very accurate. Not to cast aspersions upon a CO who had one hide, no finds, only had logged on twice, but the nearest boathouse is 1.5 miles through the state forest from the coords. (Also noted that the CO lives about a hundred miles away.) I followed his suggestion, and searched the original coords. Very nice spot. Might hide a cache there myself! I searched a one-hundred-fifty foot circle for the purple ammo can next to the log, and was unable to locate. When I returned from that hunt, I noticed that he had changed the description to mention that the boathouse was at the 4-H camp. This is not generally open to the public. Only then, did I point this out to the reviewer. The cache has since been archived - when CO did nothing to correct the problem.

Link to comment

Intentionally wrong soft coordinates to increase the evilness of the hide?

 

That's what came to my mind.

consistantly soft coords get their caches put in peoples ignore lists.

soft coords on a LPC doesn't make it any better, its just a lame hide

 

Consistantly soft/wrong make some say "Why Bother" at all.

Link to comment

I'll echo the comments of others -- don't trust Google Maps as your definitive source.

 

For my Priddis Pub Night Event the Google Map clearly showed the pub located on the wrong side of the street, which in this town means it was on the wrong end of town. :anibad: The Google Map also shows the entire Priddis townsite in the wrong location too!

 

I also agree that you shouldn't have posted a NM log unless you actually went out and looked for the cache yourself. After all, keep in mind that the reviewer had access to the exact same map you did and he/she still published the cache. (Not saying that mistakes don't happen, but...)

Link to comment

I suspect that most folks don't look at the map before submitting. We occassionaly get similar Listings in area.

 

If the cache owner doesn't respond to constructive comments from the Community, I would more than likely follow up with an NA Log to get the attention of the Local Reviewer, so that it either gets fixed or removed from the active Listings.

 

My 0.02 :anibad:

 

I actually posted NM on both caches indicating that the coords are in impossible places and they should be checked. I know the local reviewer and I'm sure if nothing is changed he will contact CO for some action. My biggest concern is that someone will get into trouble by trying these hides. Oh well that is not my problem.

The Reviewer does not see NM logs. The proper course of action here is a NA log that will alert the Reviewer, who can then work with the CO to get it fixed (or archived).

Link to comment

I do not agree with the comments that the maps on the geocaching website are faulty. I have found that they are accurate enough to find a cache without GPS.

 

To follow up on my original post, I did send an email to the CO, to which I've received no reply. A few folks have actually tried to find the caches and have posted logs to that effect. Still no comments from CO.

 

As for experiences with other bad coords, I went out late one night on a newly posted cache. The maps showed this off in the woods, but the area has a lot of new shopping centers, so I thought perhaps it might be something not on the current satellite map. When I got there, it was deep dark woods and my GPS showed it was 300 yards off the road. I wasn't about to try that in the dark. The next day, there was a note from the CO that they had messed up the coords. The cache was actually 40 MILES away!!! Now that is a case that checking out the map after setting up their cache would certainly have helped. I just don't understand why people don't use the tools available to them.

Link to comment

So you advocate entering a backyard in a high $ housing development looking for a cache that probably is no where near this site and when the description doesn't even match the area?

 

No, not at all. I advocate before sitting in a chair looking at a map that is using data that is 3 to 4 years old and that is known to be off often, an individual actually gets up and goes look for it before making inappropriate comments. If someone is not willing to do that, they should let those who actually go look for the cache deal with it.

 

At the very most, send a note to the CO explaining what it looks like on the map and drop it.

 

Of course, this may all be a hypothetical conversation anyway since none of these caches with "incorrect coordinates" mentioned in the OP have been indentified.

Link to comment
I actually posted NM on both caches indicating that the coords are in impossible places and they should be checked. I know the local reviewer and I'm sure if nothing is changed he will contact CO for some action.

The only problem with this theory is that reviewers are not notified of Needs Maintenance logs.

 

You would need to post a Needs Archived log to get a reviewer's attention.

Link to comment

These look like the caches in question: GC2190J and GC21903. Looks like a project for a Cub Scout troop? One of the listings does mention "on the map it looks like it is in a back yard but it is not"; but it's actually the other cache that looks that way on the maps. Hmm. Maybe the troop leader hasn't checked their emails yet?

Link to comment

These look like the caches in question: GC2190J and GC21903. Looks like a project for a Cub Scout troop? One of the listings does mention "on the map it looks like it is in a back yard but it is not"; but it's actually the other cache that looks that way on the maps. Hmm. Maybe the troop leader hasn't checked their emails yet?

 

Ahh, the rest of the story.

 

If these are indeed the caches, GC21903 looks like it is on the shore in Rand McNally, Yahoo, Mapquest. The only map showing it in the water is Google and even that in satellite looks like it might be on shore so which is one to believe, their GPSr or the map. This one had one DNF that got with "50 feet" before an armchair cacher, without checking all maps, declared it is wrong.

 

GC2190J states in the description "The cach is near a house bt it is not in the back yard." then it looks like mob mentality took over after the first armchair cacher log, then another before a note is posted that they didn't see a way in and then there is 1 DNF.

 

Wish it weren't the better part of a days drive to get out there. Will be interesting to see these play out.

 

No matter which way it goes, if you don't hunt it, you shouldn't be posting NM or SBAs.

Edited by baloo&bd
Link to comment
I do not agree with the comments that the maps on the geocaching website are faulty. I have found that they are accurate enough to find a cache without GPS.
I've found hundreds of caches using the satellite view of Google Maps. I got the coordinates for my first hide using Google Maps (I am now aware that this was, and is, a violation of the guidelines), and when I later verified the coordinates with a GPSr, the two sets of coordinates were within a thousandth of a minute of each other. So the satellite view can be very accurate.

 

But that isn't the case everywhere. The local satellite images can zoom in to the 20' scale and are very well calibrated (at least as good as the 3m accuracy of a consumer-grade GPSr). But I've seen other areas where the images can zoom in only to the 200' scale, or where they are off by 100' or more.

Link to comment

So don't people look at the map on their own cache page before submitting it for review??

 

Also bear in mind that the map on the cache page before submittal is a rather new innovation. Year or two? But that is why it was added. I can think of a few where that would have given the CO a heads up as to the problem (including the one I tried to put in the ocean. I was helping my sister, and I'm used to typing in N 40 (that's my story!) Reviewer caught that quickly.) Yes. We need to keep up with the innovations. But it's like teaching an old dolphin new tricks...

Link to comment

In an area where FTF hounds trip over each other to make the find, the fact that these are still unfound is a pretty good clue that there is a problem. I've emailed the CO for some clarification of where the park is that is listed. It's pretty obvious that there is no park in the development shown on the maps, no matter what everyone says, the map is accurate in this area.

Link to comment

In an area where FTF hounds trip over each other to make the find, the fact that these are still unfound is a pretty good clue that there is a problem. I've emailed the CO for some clarification of where the park is that is listed. It's pretty obvious that there is no park in the development shown on the maps, no matter what everyone says, the map is accurate in this area.

 

How do you know the map is accurate for that area? Have you been to that spot recently and know there is no park there? :)

Link to comment

While I was out caching today, it was cold, windy, and overcast. Now, I'm not sure if one thing had anything to do with the other, but the signals coming into my GPSr had my map pointer jumping all over the screen by 20 to 30 feet. If I had been placing a cache today, there's a VERY strong possibility that the coordinates would have been WAY off. Knowing of the problem and from my experience, I would come back another day to place the cache, but newer geocachers, suffering from a lack of experience, might go ahead and place the cache, reguardless of what their GPSr was doing. Rather than get upset, I try to find the cache, and if I do, I'll get a more precise set of coordinates for the CO and send it to them in an email. :)

Edited by rocketsteve
Link to comment

deb3day,

What's the GC..? There are caches in my local area that show on the maps as in the middle of a woods but are actually in a parking lot of a recently built store. Others show up as being on a highway when in fact they are 30 meters from the shoulder. Just curious about the GC...

 

The two GC's were given above in a previous post. One of the cache descriptions was modified by the CO mentioning a park which has been debunked by two local cachers as being no where near the given coords.

 

I did remove my comments and NM posts. I figured the comments from some locals that looked and that know the park mentioned hold more weight. I did send a question to CO via email which has not been answered.

Link to comment

New cache is posted and I always look at the map to get an idea of where it is. I like to take a look at the sat map too because sometimes you can see exactly where it is.

While I'm new at geocaching I, like others, routinely encounter discrepancies between the posted coordinates, Google maps, Google Earth, and reality. As I'm an experienced aircraft and marine navigator I've wondered about the lat/lon accuracy of both Google Maps and Google Earth. Does anyone have any insight about this?

 

I've noticed with Google Earth that a single geocache will 'jump' around the map as the map is zoomed in/out. I assume this is an artifact of the software and so I don't use Google Earth much to help me find caches.

 

In Google Maps this 'jumping' does not seem to occur. Yet Google Maps reports cache locations other than where the cache, in fact, is. This could be an issue with the cache's posted coordinates OR it could be an issue with Google Maps. Does anyone have any insight into the lat/lon accuracy of Google Maps?

Link to comment
Pet Peeve - Not physically looking for a hide before posting NM or SBA.

 

My sentiments exactly. Someone who does that is classed with the armchair virtual loggers. I use GE for general info but have found many times the picutre location is off, sometimes by quite a bit.

 

If you haven't gone to the listed coordinates and down an intensive serach keep you mouse off the NM or SBA button.

Link to comment

deb3day,

What's the GC..? There are caches in my local area that show on the maps as in the middle of a woods but are actually in a parking lot of a recently built store. Others show up as being on a highway when in fact they are 30 meters from the shoulder. Just curious about the GC...

 

The two GC's were given above in a previous post. One of the cache descriptions was modified by the CO mentioning a park which has been debunked by two local cachers as being no where near the given coords.

 

I did remove my comments and NM posts. I figured the comments from some locals that looked and that know the park mentioned hold more weight. I did send a question to CO via email which has not been answered.

 

Deb, while the maps will usually give a pretty good idea of where ground zero is, they aren't perfect. Like someone else stated above,, especially when using google maps. I've brought up these maps many times and have seen the little cache icons jump around several times on them. There's no doubt that the maps can be helpful but you can't rely on them to be perfect. I have to agree with others in saying that a person should actually go look for a cache before posting a NM or NA log.

Link to comment
Pet Peeve - Not physically looking for a hide before posting NM or SBA.

 

My sentiments exactly. Someone who does that is classed with the armchair virtual loggers. I use GE for general info but have found many times the picutre location is off, sometimes by quite a bit.

 

If you haven't gone to the listed coordinates and down an intensive serach keep you mouse off the NM or SBA button.

yup

Link to comment
Pet Peeve - Not physically looking for a hide before posting NM or SBA.

 

My sentiments exactly. Someone who does that is classed with the armchair virtual loggers. I use GE for general info but have found many times the picutre location is off, sometimes by quite a bit.

 

If you haven't gone to the listed coordinates and down an intensive serach keep you mouse off the NM or SBA button.

yup

 

Yesterday I was caching in southern Mississippi (think, Katrina destruction zone). We found instances of caches which, on the map were in a residential neighborhood, but in reality were in a lamp-post skirt at the Wal-Mart that replaced the destroyed neighborhood.

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...
Followers 5
×
×
  • Create New...