My new pet peeve, bad Lat. / Lon. on GC's

[+Korfus & Son]

Here in New England, 15-20 are very good coords. We put the GPS away when we're 20-25 feet away and just start looking for the cache. In FL, we found on most caches that if we started looking that far away, we weren't at the cache. Generally, we found most caches within 10 feet of where our GPS wanted us to be, some were 7 to 8 feet. There were some more further away, but they weren't common. We loved it.

 

That said, different brands of GPS do different things. We have a Garmin, and when someone hides with a Garmin, our coords match pretty well, but if another brand was used, we are consistently 30-50 feet off from the posted coords. Friend who have the other brand of GPS end up being very close to the posted coords. Perhaps those placing the caches are using a different brand of GPS than you?

 

Thank you Skippermark,

You are very right! We do use more than just the rino though, They just happen to be the best / most accurate (for me, after lots of trials and testing). But of the newer types of GPS units, true, all are going to be a little different and none are truly better than others.

The only thing I was really trying to get accross in this thread can be found here at this page on geocaching.com How to hide a cache which most people seem to be ingoring these days, and as I said, many of them actually have told me in their own words "I don't have time to do that!".

 

Thanks for your post, I appreciate true constructive replies!

 

Walter

[+Korfus & Son]

Okay, just tp clarify, this is what I was trying to get across to everyone that did not use this method, please go to: How to hide a cache - on the Geocaching.com official site!

[+andy2049]

I agree with the OP. It appears that some people are not taking the time required to insure that the cords are correct. We had a case in my area where a cache went undiscovered for almost two months. We sent multiple emails to the owner asking him to confirm the location. We told him exactly where his cords were placing us but he insisted that his cords were correct. The cache was discovered 146 feet off the GZ. It doesn't really matter what equipment you are using if you know how to use it. For example, I have helped some friends plant caches using the cords displayed on a geomate jr that I own. It is not the most accurate piece of equipment but you can get good cords using the averaging method of 50 reads. When I would verify the cords with my PN-40 they were right on. Plus I think the inaccuracy of the devices adds a little to the hunt. If all devices were right on it would be like a Waldo book where someone circled him on every page.

If a cache is less than 25 feet off that's ok with me. When the distance is more than 50 then I remember the name and avoid caches by that person in the future.

[+Korfus & Son]

I know it's hard to understand, but GPS devices are only rated at around 15 feet accuracy. I know practical accuracy can sometimes be more like 10 feet, but you need to consider the fact that even with two devices functioning at the best accuracy available 20 feet (each person off by 10 feet) is entirely reasonable.

 

Accuracy, even in wide open skys, is limited by signal refraction.

 

 

Without correction, signal refraction leaves a GPS with an accuracy of 30-60 feet.

 

 

The coast guard (and other services) offer correction, but they can do only so much. 10-20 (or more) foot error rate is standard for consumer level GPSrs.

 

This is a great article:

 

http://ohioline.osu.edu/aex-fact/0560.html

 

(it's where I lifted the images)

 

Isn't that the old data, correction has not been required since "Select Availability" was turned off by the Government, Before Geocaching started. Now Commercial GPS unit are just as accurate as the units used to be with the correction devices on them. Since Select Availability was shut off and accuracy became, very accurate, that was the entire reason the birth of geocaching began, it is all right there in the story if most people took the time to read it.

I posted this thread because there was a "rash" of people not reading instructions like How to hide a cache (page is on geocaching.com - it is the part most people skip and just check off they read it)!

[+Korfus & Son]

Team KORFUS-"I don't know whose receivers are always at 15 to 20 ft, but my Garmin Rinos are ALWAYS within 6 to 8 ft?"

You obviously don't understand the technology, equipment, or scientific methodology. Even Garmin's specs state the Rhino's accuracy to be "position: < 15 meters, 95% typical." There is no way that your unit is ALWAYS within 6 to 8 feet as you falsely claim. If you make a reasonable assumption that most GPS receivers will give you an averaged reading that is within 15-20 feet most of the time then the possible accuracy you will read of a placed cache will be the combined accuracy of the hider's GPS plus the accuracy of your GPS, which could be up to 40' off. I've generally found most carefully placed caches to be within the range of 10'-25' which I consider pretty good.

 

If you find the technology does not meet your expectation or you can't find a cache when you get within 15'-20' of GZ, perhaps a less stressful hobby with more qualified people is in order.

 

I DO NOT FALSELY CLAIM ANYTHING, and I understand the technology quite well thank you! Why don't you come and let me show you how accurate it is??? If not, keep your trp shut! And this is not a stressful hobby, I was trying to educate people on the PROPER way to hide a cache Official Geocaching.com methods for hiding a cache since obviosly people as ignorant as you have not read or can't? Maybe YOU should find a more relaxing hobby if a thread fires your short fuse up so easily!!!

[+Korfus & Son]

I agree with the OP. It appears that some people are not taking the time required to insure that the cords are correct. We had a case in my area where a cache went undiscovered for almost two months. We sent multiple emails to the owner asking him to confirm the location. We told him exactly where his cords were placing us but he insisted that his cords were correct. The cache was discovered 146 feet off the GZ. It doesn't really matter what equipment you are using if you know how to use it. For example, I have helped some friends plant caches using the cords displayed on a geomate jr that I own. It is not the most accurate piece of equipment but you can get good cords using the averaging method of 50 reads. When I would verify the cords with my PN-40 they were right on. Plus I think the inaccuracy of the devices adds a little to the hunt. If all devices were right on it would be like a Waldo book where someone circled him on every page.

If a cache is less than 25 feet off that's ok with me. When the distance is more than 50 then I remember the name and avoid caches by that person in the future.

 

Thanks for the post andy2049,

That was a summary of what I was trying to get across to folks, you did say that well, and better than I. but the point was the same.

Thank you!

Walter of Team KORFUS

 

And for reference to all that do not know how to average, go to this link, it is directly from geocaching.com How to hide a cache, go to "how to average" waypoints.

Edited January 18, 2010 by Team KORFUS

[+Korfus & Son]

One thing I do know is that are a lot more geocachers today using cell phones and auto navigation GPS devices as their only GPS. My personal experience with my iPhone is that I haven't been able to get anywhere close to the accuracy that my Garmin 76Cx is showing.

 

Unlike the OP, if anything I've seen an improvement in the accuracy of coordinates over the years. When I started out finding caches 50 feet off was quite common and the GPS showing under 10 feet at the cache site was a rarity. Now anything above 20 feet off is fairly rare.

 

I think it has to do with better technology.

 

I agree!

 

Yes, I have even said the newer technology helps, but this thread is about people I have actually talked to that just throws down a cache and may bot even take a reading at the cache or will not even average the waypoint. Maybe you have more considerate cache hiders in your area, but here, it seems the quality of cachers are dropping.

[+Korfus & Son]

Yeesh...! I guess some folks want to be told exactly where each cache is located so they don't have to think or develop seeking skills. I have a very good GPS unit but I make it a point to post coords that are "approximate" so seekers have to expend a little effort to locate my caches. They have to think a little, look for indications that others have been there before them. Maybe someone needs to find another hobby for awhile, eh?

 

Sure, close is ok, but 35 ft ro 146 ft off, come on, that is not just a search, that is just sloppy and lazy. The point when starting was to cleverly HIDE a cache, not throw it on some straw or next to a treee and then give bad lat. / lon. , without even averaging your waypoint as geocaching.com shows you to do if you took time to read "How to hide a cache", or just give a little hint if you are going to lazily toss a cache down and not even bother taking an accurate reading. How to average a waypoint - From the official geocaching site on how to hide a cache, for those that can read!

 

What about people that give a Lat. / Lon. that falls in THE MIDDLE OF A HIGHWAY and you have over 30 ft to the sides, with no cluse on the cache hide page, which side of the road is it on? remember, permission MUST be given and if each side is PRIVATE PROPERTY owned by 2 different people / entities, what do you do trespass and hope you are in the right one, in FL YOU CAN BE SHOT on someones property!

[+Korfus & Son]

but from the view if you were cache seeking and come up on 8 of 10 caches more than 35ft off, how do YOU react?

 

Your original post was complaining about 15 to 20 feet.

 

Actually, if yo bothered to read it rather tha hurry through (exactly what I am taking about with new / younger cachers), it says, verbatim "and many times if it is near where you park, they take the reading right there, even if the cache is 15 to 20 ft away!". That means, much less taking the average of at least 3 waypints, there are 2 cachers I HAVE SEEN, take 1 (ONE) reading at their car 15 to 20 ft FROM THE CACHE, NOT THE CACHE BEING 15 FT OFF!

See that is the problem, none of the newer cachers bother to read anymore! The Official Geocaching.com Site, on How To Average A Waypoint!

And your name fits you! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narcissistic_...nality_disorder

[+narcissa]

 

Actually, if yo bothered to read it rather tha hurry through (exactly what I am taking about with new / younger cachers), it says, verbatim "and many times if it is near where you park, they take the reading right there, even if the cache is 15 to 20 ft away!". That means, much less taking the average of at least 3 waypints, there are 2 cachers I HAVE SEEN, take 1 (ONE) reading at their car 15 to 20 ft FROM THE CACHE, NOT THE CACHE BEING 15 FT OFF!

See that is the problem, none of the newer cachers bother to read anymore! The Official Geocaching.com Site, on How To Average A Waypoint!

And your name fits you! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narcissistic_...nality_disorder

 

If they're taking the reading from the wrong location entirely, then averaging the waypoint isn't going to help. The people who use the forums probably aren't the ones causing these problems, so picking fights here isn't going to result in better caches.

 

Then again, neither is insulting people.

 

I'll say it again: you can't control other people's behaviour, but you can control how you react to it.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narcissus_%28plant%29

 

As for "newer" cachers - I joined the game 6 months after you did. Perhaps if your post was better written and less accusatory, it would have been received with less resistance. Storming into the forum and accusing everyone of putting out lousy caches isn't really conducive to a good discussion.

Edited January 18, 2010 by narcissa

[Motorcycle_Mama]

Ok. This is a warning to cease the personal attacks.

 

If you can't post without the insults, do not post. Thanks.

[+briansnat]

Yes, I have even said the newer technology helps, but this thread is about people I have actually talked to that just throws down a cache and may bot even take a reading at the cache or will not even average the waypoint.

 

I rarely average and my coordinates are just fine thank you. In fact I often receive compliments about their accuracy.

 

The dozen or so caches I've placed where I consistently get complaints are largely those where I averaged.

 

"Impossible!" you will probably say. Not at all. When I have a good signal and good sat alignment there is no need to average. In those cases, which are the majority of the time, I let the unit settle for about 2 minutes, mark a waypoint and I'm done. I don't think I've ever received realistic complaints about a cache where I did that (other than a newbie complaining that they were 15 feet off).

 

When I see a poor sat alignment, and/or I'm in an area where I can tell that multi pathing errors will be a problem, I average - often using two units. The problem is that I'm just averaging bad data, hence the coordinates tend to be off.

 

It happened to me yesterday during a hide. The cache was in a mine trench where it was obvious that I would have multi pathing issues. I put both units on auto average and let them sit 5 minutes.

Then I walked away and hit Go To and they were both 50 to 60 feet off. So I repeated this 4 more times, auto averaging 5 minutes. Once or twice I would be standing at the cache and I'd see single digits on a unit and think I finally got it, then I'd watch the numbers climb while I was standing still. Never could I get them under 40 feet.

 

So when I got home I had 10 sets of coords from two units (my trusty "Magellan MAP GPS 60 CSx"

and my DeLorme PN40) that had been averaged 5 minutes each. I then averaged those coordinates manually and published them.

 

Guess what, coords were off and the FTF needed the hint. When you average bad data you get bad coordinates regardless.

 

If you have good data then averaging isn't worth the extra trouble.

[+GeoGeeBee]

Yeesh...! I guess some folks want to be told exactly where each cache is located so they don't have to think or develop seeking skills. I have a very good GPS unit but I make it a point to post coords that are "approximate" so seekers have to expend a little effort to locate my caches. They have to think a little, look for indications that others have been there before them. Maybe someone needs to find another hobby for awhile, eh?

 

See that part of your post that I bolded? Don't do that!

 

There are plenty of ways to make a clever hide that will force the finders to "think or develop seeking skills." Deliberately posting soft coordinates is not one of them. It's lazy. It's just plain wrong.

[+briansnat]

Yeesh...! I guess some folks want to be told exactly where each cache is located so they don't have to think or develop seeking skills. I have a very good GPS unit but I make it a point to post coords that are "approximate" so seekers have to expend a little effort to locate my caches. They have to think a little, look for indications that others have been there before them. Maybe someone needs to find another hobby for awhile, eh?

 

You realize that you are violating the guidelines when you do that. There is enough built in error with consumer grade hand helds to make the hunt challenging without purposefully posting bad coordinates.

 

If you want to make your hides challenging think a little.

[4wheelin_fool]

Just wondering if there was a bookmark list of caches somewhere titled "50 feet off"...

[+fizzymagic]

Yeesh...! I guess some folks want to be told exactly where each cache is located so they don't have to think or develop seeking skills. I have a very good GPS unit but I make it a point to post coords that are "approximate" so seekers have to expend a little effort to locate my caches.

I rest my case.

 

As Briansnat pointed out, your method is in violation of the guidelines. If you want to make your caches more challenging, you might take your own advice and "think a bit."

[cezanne]

Sure, close is ok, but 35 ft ro 146 ft off, come on, that is not just a search, that is just sloppy and lazy.

 

I do not know your area. Maybe 35 ft is indeed a lot there - an inaccuracy of 35 feet is something quite normal in my favourite areas of caching. For my own caches I am always taking several measurements and do some averaging and I also check my coordinates when approaching the hideout from various directions. In any case, however EPE values of 10m are something normal for my GPS-r and often I am already glad to obtain values around 15m or even worse - when searching for caches of others I have already experiences situations where the GPS-r is jumping around wildly by more than 40m without any movement of myself. Of course, with Sirf III, the situation is a bit better, but still it plays a role how the area looks like where the coordinates are to be measured, how many satellites are visible and how their configuration looks like.

 

In areas with difficult reception (e.g. deep canyons, cave areas etc), reasonable hints are much more important than putting too much importance in things like averaging. Of course, the hiders should try to measure the coordinates with care, but there are limits to this approach. Moreover, cachers with old GPS-devices profit more from reasonable hints.

 

In case 8-10 ft is a realistic deviation for the type of caches in your area you are hunting for, then one of the reasons for the disagreement of several cachers in this thread with what you wrote might come from different experiences due to different caching environments.

 

Cezanne

Edited January 18, 2010 by cezanne

[+rjb43nh]

Team KORFUS-“I DO NOT FALSELY CLAIM ANYTHING, and I understand the technology quite well thank you! Why don't you come and let me show you how accurate it is??? If not, keep your trp shut! And this is not a stressful hobby, I was trying to educate people on the PROPER way to hide a cache Official Geocaching.com methods for hiding a cache since obviosly people as ignorant as you have not read or can't?.....”etc.

 

Thanks for explaining your position so logically and succinctly.

 

First, I don’t need to go to FL to find that no Rhino is “ALWAYS within 6 to 8 feet.” Garmin says it isn’t so and from my experience I agree with their specs that state the Rhino’s accuracy is: "position: < 15 meters, 95% typical." Either their published specs are wrong or your statement that you own a super-accurate Rhino that is never off is false. The smart money is on Garmin on this point.

 

Second, although I’ve only found 5000 caches, that is a large enough sample to allow me to gauge how accurate various GPS receivers are and how carefully most cachers take their readings when placing a cache. With close to 350 FTFs I have, in a sense, beta-tested many caches. I stand by my statement that “I've generally found most carefully placed caches to be within the range of 10'-25' which I consider pretty good.“ I also fully understanding how to hide a cache and take reasonable readings.

 

The precision timing fixed GPS receivers I use at home uses the timing encoded on the 1575.42Mhz L1 frequency of the GPS system to correct and calibrate my atomic clocks to parts in 10E-12. To get the necessary positional accuracy these receivers average thousands of readings (although I don’t take that many when placing a cache). I do know a little bit about the technology involved.

[GOF and Bacall]

If I had a couple of cachers who had a demonstrated issue with poting accurate coordinates I would offer to help them improve their technique. If they refused that offer I'd just not look for their caches. None of it is worth getting your blood pressure up.

[+Scubasonic]

Me thinks "Team KORFUS" needs a little more then 55 finds before he is so brisk in his opinion......JMO

 

Scubasonic

Edited January 20, 2010 by Scubasonic

[+WRITE SHOP ROBERT]

I used to take several readings, or do the "Walk away and back" method. Each time I arrived back at GZ, I'd write down the decimal. The first number that came up three times was the one I used. Now what I do is Mark the spot, and then act like I'm looking for it, and see if the GPS directs me close enough to be happy with the reading. I do this approaching several times from each direction. I guess my old method was more accurate, maybe I'll switch back.

[+WRITE SHOP ROBERT]

Me thinks "Team KORFUS" needs a little more then 55 finds before he is so brisk in his opinion......JMO

 

Scubasonic

Yeah, if you only have 55 finds, what do you know?? You need 1000 finds for your opinion or experience to matter.

[+narcissa]

Me thinks "Team KORFUS" needs a little more then 55 finds before he is so brisk in his opinion......JMO

 

 

Especially if he's going to wax poetic about "new cachers."

 

---

 

Dude, you can learn all the intricacies of GPS, buy all sorts of different GPSrs and obsess about their accuracy, but when it comes right down to it, for those last few feet you have no choice but to rely on your eyes and your hands to get the cache.

 

In geocaching, we have to rely on the goodness of other people - without it, the game wouldn't exist.

 

We also need to be forgiving at times, or else we'll be endlessly frustrated with other people's mistakes and oversights.

 

Geocaching is supposed to be fun. If you're in the forum typing 3000 word rants with your caps lock on, you might be missing the point.

[+GeoGeeBee]

Geocaching is supposed to be fun. If you're in the forum typing 3000 word rants with your caps lock on, you might be missing the point.

 

Thanks for the new sig!

[+narcissa]

Geocaching is supposed to be fun. If you're in the forum typing 3000 word rants with your caps lock on, you might be missing the point.

 

Thanks for the new sig!

 

[Skippermark]

I've noticed that a lot of people, especially newer cachers are using Tom Toms and Nuvis to hide caches. That could be a possible reason why coords are off. They're great for routing to a cache to park, but I don't think they're high enough accuracy for hiding caches.

[+Castle Mischief]

I've noticed that a lot of people, especially newer cachers are using Tom Toms and Nuvis to hide caches. That could be a possible reason why coords are off. They're great for routing to a cache to park, but I don't think they're high enough accuracy for hiding caches.

 

I would dare say, assuming I have it set to "off road", that my Nuvi 205W is every bit as accurate as my eXplorist 210, if not more-so. I would also dare say that me taking my time, averaging and using the Nuvi is more accurate than somebody grabbing coords on the fly with most handhelds.

[+sseegars]

I've noticed that a lot of people, especially newer cachers are using Tom Toms and Nuvis to hide caches. That could be a possible reason why coords are off. They're great for routing to a cache to park, but I don't think they're high enough accuracy for hiding caches.

 

I would dare say, assuming I have it set to "off road", that my Nuvi 205W is every bit as accurate as my eXplorist 210, if not more-so. I would also dare say that me taking my time, averaging and using the Nuvi is more accurate than somebody grabbing coords on the fly with most handhelds.

 

I've noticed that my Nuvis have been extremely accurate as well. Just as accurate as my handheld if not better. You can actually see that the Nuvi gets a better lock than the handheld if you know the Easter egg to get to that screen on your particular model.

[+L0ne.R]

I've noticed that a lot of people, especially newer cachers are using Tom Toms and Nuvis to hide caches. That could be a possible reason why coords are off. They're great for routing to a cache to park, but I don't think they're high enough accuracy for hiding caches.

 

In our area, last year, a newbie hid a cache and used Google Maps for the coordinates. He mentioned the use of GM when the first finders could not find the cache based on the coords he had posted.

[+Scubasonic]

Me thinks "Team KORFUS" needs a little more then 55 finds before he is so brisk in his opinion......JMO

 

Scubasonic

Yeah, if you only have 55 finds, what do you know?? You need 1000 finds for your opinion or experience to matter.

 

That's right so why are you posting your just under 1000

 

Scubasonic

[Skippermark]

I would dare say, assuming I have it set to "off road", that my Nuvi 205W is every bit as accurate as my eXplorist 210, if not more-so. I would also dare say that me taking my time, averaging and using the Nuvi is more accurate than somebody grabbing coords on the fly with most handhelds.

There's a cacher who started out using a car GPS, and his coords were pretty good. Another cacher used a car GPS and hers weren't so good. We met up with her once to show her our GPS and see how she was taking her readings. Her coordinates never got better than 75 feet away. Maybe a different in brands or something.

 

In our area, last year, a newbie hid a cache and used Google Maps for the coordinates. He mentioned the use of GM when the first finders could not find the cache based on the coords he had posted.

I've heard about people doing that too. Sometimes Google can be accurate, and other times not so much.

[Skippermark]

And for reference to all that do not know how to average, go to this link, it is directly from geocaching.com How to hide a cache, go to "how to average" waypoints.

I'm not a fan of using a GPS unit's averaging feature because it doesn't really do much. If you start off with bad coords, all you end is end up with an average of bad coords.

 

I usually don't average and people say my coords are good. If the area is real bouncy, and I'm not sure if the coords are good, I'll walk away, come back and see how they are.

[Skippermark]

I make it a point to post coords that are "approximate" so seekers have to expend a little effort to locate my caches. They have to think a little, look for indications that others have been there before them.

Bad coords don't make a cache difficult. They just make people look in the wrong spot. They also contribute to the destruction of surroundings by people looking in the wrong spot.

 

The trick is to make a challenging hide that's so good that even with perfect coords, it's hard to find.

[+Jumpin' Jack Cache]

I make it a point to post coords that are "approximate" so seekers have to expend a little effort to locate my caches. They have to think a little, look for indications that others have been there before them.

Bad coords don't make a cache difficult. They just make people look in the wrong spot. They also contribute to the destruction of surroundings by people looking in the wrong spot.

 

The trick is to make a challenging hide that's so good that even with perfect coords, it's hard to find.

 

You have to think a little to do that, though

[+dab1950]

I've noticed that a lot of people, especially newer cachers are using Tom Toms and Nuvis to hide caches. That could be a possible reason why coords are off. They're great for routing to a cache to park, but I don't think they're high enough accuracy for hiding caches.

 

I would dare say, assuming I have it set to "off road", that my Nuvi 205W is every bit as accurate as my eXplorist 210, if not more-so. I would also dare say that me taking my time, averaging and using the Nuvi is more accurate than somebody grabbing coords on the fly with most handhelds.

 

I've noticed that my Nuvis have been extremely accurate as well. Just as accurate as my handheld if not better. You can actually see that the Nuvi gets a better lock than the handheld if you know the Easter egg to get to that screen on your particular model.

 

This is a problem that has hit me personally lately. My GPSr is not very accurate. I don't have the budget to buy a new GPSr. I've enjoyed the hobby to date but I am having second thoughts. And now after reading this thread, I'm convinced I shouldn't try to hide a cache until I do upgrade my GPSr.

 

Let's not focus on brand name of the GPS or the model or the designed purpose. The real factor here is

does the GPSr have WAAS enabled for corrections by land based transmitter stations? Mine does not.

Almost everytime I go on a cache hunt, when my GPSr says I'm on gz, but I'm no where near the cache.

I have compared the specs of the hiders GPSr with mine and invariably, theirs is WAAS enabled and mine is not.

My daughter has tried geocaching with me using her new smartphone with GPS integrated but not WAAS

enabled. Again, she's 15-20 feet off. It's a matter of whether the GPSr is WAAS enabled.

 

So, this brings me to a question to pose to my fellow players. Should players that don't have or can't

afford a WAAS enabled GPSr not be allowed to hide a cache? It's not possible for a non-WAAS enabled

GPSr to get accurate coordinates, I don't care how many readings and average calculations are done.

So should the rules be rewritten to ban the use of non-WAAS enabled GPSr for hiding a cache?

 

I have 46 finds so far. And that's with a GPS that is always 20 ft or more off! You guys with your WAAS

enabled got it easy.

[+narcissa]

 

This is a problem that has hit me personally lately. My GPSr is not very accurate. I don't have the budget to buy a new GPSr. I've enjoyed the hobby to date but I am having second thoughts. And now after reading this thread, I'm convinced I shouldn't try to hide a cache until I do upgrade my GPSr.

 

Let's not focus on brand name of the GPS or the model or the designed purpose. The real factor here is

does the GPSr have WAAS enabled for corrections by land based transmitter stations? Mine does not.

Almost everytime I go on a cache hunt, when my GPSr says I'm on gz, but I'm no where near the cache.

I have compared the specs of the hiders GPSr with mine and invariably, theirs is WAAS enabled and mine is not.

My daughter has tried geocaching with me using her new smartphone with GPS integrated but not WAAS

enabled. Again, she's 15-20 feet off. It's a matter of whether the GPSr is WAAS enabled.

 

So, this brings me to a question to pose to my fellow players. Should players that don't have or can't

afford a WAAS enabled GPSr not be allowed to hide a cache? It's not possible for a non-WAAS enabled

GPSr to get accurate coordinates, I don't care how many readings and average calculations are done.

So should the rules be rewritten to ban the use of non-WAAS enabled GPSr for hiding a cache?

 

I have 46 finds so far. And that's with a GPS that is always 20 ft or more off! You guys with your WAAS

enabled got it easy.

 

I don't think people should get left out because they can't afford the newest toy on the market. If you want to hide a cache, make sure you have a good hint, and check the coordinates two or three times under different conditions. Make a note on the cache page that the coordinates were taken with an old GPSr, and you'd appreciate it if the first people to find it would post better coordinates if they can.

 

Some of the best caches around Ottawa are older caches that were hidden with old GPSrs that aren't anywhere near as good as the new ones are. Some of them are a little harder to find because of it, but it's not that big a deal. I am frequently amazed at some of the cool, challenging puzzles that the early geocachers created without all the technology we have now.

[+bittsen]

I don't think people should get left out because they can't afford the newest toy on the market. If you want to hide a cache, make sure you have a good hint, and check the coordinates two or three times under different conditions. Make a note on the cache page that the coordinates were taken with an old GPSr, and you'd appreciate it if the first people to find it would post better coordinates if they can.

 

 

I second that. (I was preparing to say something similar)

[+Setan Meyacha]

Um...At the risk of having you think I'm one of "those" responders I gotta ask. You do realize that 15-20 feet is well within the margin of error of consumer grade GPS receivers, right?

 

I don't know whose receivers are always at 15 to 20 ft, but my Garmin Rinos are ALWAYS within 6 to 8 ft?

Huuum? I have a Garmin GPSmap 60C and do most of my caching in the deserts of Idaho. Even on a good day it is not unusual to get a reading that is only 15' accuracy; that, btw, on caches I'm looking for. When I place a cache I'll take as many as 5 or 6 readings if they aren't consistent, due to rock formations, large bodies of water, trees, etc. If I have clear skies and unobstructed views, my unit rarely shows a difference of more than .001 between all the readings I take. That doesn't mean the person looking for my cache is going to have the same degree of accuracy. I think the "ALWAYS within 6 to 8 ft" might be just a little bit of a stretch.

[oakenwood]

While posting in another thread about keeping an up-to-date alamanac, I remembered this thread.

 

Having an out-of-date almanac can throw off your coordinates. It takes the satellites 12.5 minutes to transmit the complete almanac, which goes out of date every 180 days. If you turn on your GPSr for just a few minutes at a time and never have it on long enough to download the full almanac, your unit will eventually lose accuracy until it receives an updated almanac.

 

To be safe, leave your unit on for at least a half hour every couple of months. This assumes you can get a good lock on one satellite long enough to receive the almanac. If you're getting bad reception, it could take longer. If your unit travels hundreds of miles while it's turned off, you should update the almanac as well.

 

WAAS corrections are transmitted every two minutes and are considered valid for up to six minutes.

Edited January 28, 2010 by oakenwood

[+briansnat]

 

This is a problem that has hit me personally lately. My GPSr is not very accurate. I don't have the budget to buy a new GPSr. I've enjoyed the hobby to date but I am having second thoughts. And now after reading this thread, I'm convinced I shouldn't try to hide a cache until I do upgrade my GPSr.

 

Let's not focus on brand name of the GPS or the model or the designed purpose. The real factor here is

does the GPSr have WAAS enabled for corrections by land based transmitter stations? Mine does not.

Almost everytime I go on a cache hunt, when my GPSr says I'm on gz, but I'm no where near the cache.

I have compared the specs of the hiders GPSr with mine and invariably, theirs is WAAS enabled and mine is not.

My daughter has tried geocaching with me using her new smartphone with GPS integrated but not WAAS

enabled. Again, she's 15-20 feet off. It's a matter of whether the GPSr is WAAS enabled.

 

So, this brings me to a question to pose to my fellow players. Should players that don't have or can't

afford a WAAS enabled GPSr not be allowed to hide a cache? It's not possible for a non-WAAS enabled

GPSr to get accurate coordinates, I don't care how many readings and average calculations are done.

So should the rules be rewritten to ban the use of non-WAAS enabled GPSr for hiding a cache?

 

I have 46 finds so far. And that's with a GPS that is always 20 ft or more off! You guys with your WAAS

enabled got it easy.

 

I don't think people should get left out because they can't afford the newest toy on the market. If you want to hide a cache, make sure you have a good hint, and check the coordinates two or three times under different conditions. Make a note on the cache page that the coordinates were taken with an old GPSr, and you'd appreciate it if the first people to find it would post better coordinates if they can.

 

Some of the best caches around Ottawa are older caches that were hidden with old GPSrs that aren't anywhere near as good as the new ones are. Some of them are a little harder to find because of it, but it's not that big a deal. I am frequently amazed at some of the cool, challenging puzzles that the early geocachers created without all the technology we have now.

 

There is no reason to hide not to hide caches with an older, not WAAS unit. I've personally seen little difference in my units with WAAS on and off. Maybe +5 -10 ft EPE which is usually insignificant in the geocaching world.

 

Some smartphone GPSs on the other hand are wildly inaccurate. I would avoid using those to hide caches.

 

If in doubt have a friend with a newer GPS beta test your hide before you submit it.

[oakenwood]

If in doubt have a friend with a newer GPS beta test your hide before you submit it.

You can also check your accuracy against an adjusted benchmark. Find them here.

[+bishoptakesqueen]

When I find a hider that is consistently off, I just don't go to his caches, one of my caching buddies says he thinks the guy drives by, tosses them from the window and looks at his gps for the coordinates at that moment.

 

if you use the area of a circle in your calculations (pi r squared) then 30 feet off you get 2826 feet as the area to search, a little tough