Do you really need a GPS?

[+<"((((<(]

Hi! My name is Warren and my Screen name is Eatsnook. I would like to see more people involved. I have 450+ finds, But at least 400 by satalite only! I less than one year. Can't afford GPS right now because of the "CHANGE"! Can we "CHANGE" to web site to say something like ( or use satalite image). My son is 12 years old and loves to look at them with me. His screen name is Sonny D. I'm a land survetor and I have a GPS at work, but I only use it on hides. Can this happen??? Just a thought! Land marks are easy in the cities, but wouldn't work well in the woods. I'm sure they can figure that out. Thanks! Warren (Eatsnook)

[GOF and Bacall]

There are lots of people who don't use a GPS to find caches. They use map and compass for the most part. If you are saying that you want to hide them with clues instead of coordinates then you should check out letterboxing.

[jholly]

I'm a land survetor and I have a GPS at work, but I only use it on hides.

 

Hope you don't get any logs complaining about bad co-ordinates

 

By the site rules you have to use a GPS to *hide* a cache, but you don't need to use one to *find* a cache. The problem with google maps are that they are not always accurately registered.

[+<"((((<(]

There are lots of people who don't use a GPS to find caches. They use map and compass for the most part. If you are saying that you want to hide them with clues instead of coordinates then you should check out letterboxing.

[+<"((((<(]

There are lots of people who don't use a GPS to find caches. They use map and compass for the most part. If you are saying that you want to hide them with clues instead of coordinates then you should check out letterboxing.

No! The web page is right on! Never had a problem!!! I'm looking for people in the city that can look for land marks! I don't live in Alaska! I live in the city and have a lot of finds with the aerials. We need more people involved! The aerials are great! It was just a thought to get more people involved. What the He-- is a letter Box???

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

What the He-- is a letter Box???

A geocache without the logbook, way cool website or GPS. Or the smilie.

 

http://letterboxing.org

[+niraD]

What the He-- is a letter Box???

A geocache without the logbook, way cool website or GPS. Or the smilie.

 

http://letterboxing.org

Actually, letterboxes do have log books. When you find one, you're supposed to stamp your personal log book with the stamp in the letterbox, and you're supposed to stamp the letterbox log book with your personal stamp.

[+Vater_Araignee]

Hi Warren, I have about about 110 finds by satellite only (my GPSR satellite info) the rest are by aerial photography. That is where the problem is when trying to hide a cache. A lot of the "satellite imagery" is actually aerial photography, old aerial photography in my area. Even more recent aerials that have been tagged with GPS datum have still proven to be off.

 

I'll give you a personal example.

There is a benchmark located at a local post office, I knew exactly where it was because I hung out with some of the personnel during their smoke breaks.

It was in the concrete patio slab behind the back door. I'm giving you that bit of infor so you know that it isn't a pylon that could have migrated.

I thought great, I'll find out how accurate my unit is, so I downloaded the coords and off I went. I went and placed my unit on it and waited for the coords to settle down, and I found out I was 9 point something feet off.

I now know from repeated trips I can be up to 20 feet off.

Then I started hearing about how inaccurate google is.

Well the benchmark was only about 2 feet away from the corner of the slab so I started google earth, found the post office zoomed in on that corner, got the coords of it and put them in my unit, then I did the same for google maps in satellite view.

I went to that corner, Google maps was 30 some odd feet off, and Google earth was 50 some odd feet off.

You may notice that even the two different Google apps cant agree.

I'll acknowledge the fact that my GPSR could have been off even with waas activated, I have been back and gotten slightly closer readings, but what do you trust?

Do you trust Google Maps that uses satellite imagery and aerial photography that even with tagged GPS data can still be a few yards off.

Or do you trust Google Maps that uses the same thing but has to fudge in order to compensate for the curvature of the earth?

 

I sooo understand the money issue and if your going to use sat & aerial photography to find caches, more power to you, even more power if ya use a map and compass, but please don't hide using those techniques. You'll likely be less accurate than we already are.

 

~~~word inversions~~~

Edited March 18, 2010 by Vater_Araignee

[+Leleboo_05]

I signed up a few months ago, and don't have a gps. I've only found 7 so far, but I've gotten pretty good at knowing what i'm looking for by reading logs, hints, and knowing the area. I call it skill caching haha. My first thought upon signing up was i'll do what i can without one, then if i'm still into it in a few months, I'll make the investment.

 

The only thing is, when a muggle comes up and asks what i'm doing, i say geocaching... Their response is "that gps thing? where's your gps??"

[+edscott]

Warren.... You're a surveyor so you can obviously read maps and satellite images. Geocaching in urban and deep woods should be relatively easy without a GPS. Loads of my finds are well off established trails in heavily wooded and rocky terrain. All that is necessary is to locate a point on the satellite image that is close to the cache, go find it, calculate a distance and bearing from there to the cache, and pace to the box. For the most part the satellite images available today are far better than people think. Things to look for on the satellite photos are trail junctions and bends, distinct trees like large evergreens in a deciduous forest, down trees, large boulders, edges of mountain laurel or rhododendron thickets.. all this stuff can be identified and give you a picture of the land so you can walk through it to the cache as easily as walking through a maze of buildings in a city. Of course being observant once you get there is probably more important than when using a GPS. There are loads of tricks to use once you get there since humans tend to leave lots of obvious signs when they hide or search for a cache. In a way urban caches can be tougher than deep woods caches because so much of the human signs in urban areas are from muggles.

 

one caution.. I don't depend on the google map overlay on the satellite image (hybrid) as the registration of that layer is sometimes off. Go with the pure satellite version.

Edited March 18, 2010 by edscott

[+<"((((<(]

I signed up a few months ago, and don't have a gps. I've only found 7 so far, but I've gotten pretty good at knowing what i'm looking for by reading logs, hints, and knowing the area. I call it skill caching haha. My first thought upon signing up was i'll do what i can without one, then if i'm still into it in a few months, I'll make the investment.

 

The only thing is, when a muggle comes up and asks what i'm doing, i say geocaching... Their response is "that gps thing? where's your gps??"

That's OK! I found many w/o GPS! It's more of a challenge for us! You don't have to listen to others, It's all about hides! Get them involved! That's why I want to get more people involved. Do you really need one???? look at the satalite? it helps!!! That's what I tell them. They say. "Where's your GPS." I say go to Geocaching . com and see!. Hope to make easier on the newbies!!!

[+<"((((<(]

Warren.... You're a surveyor so you can obviously read maps and satellite images. Geocaching in urban and deep woods should be relatively easy without a GPS. Loads of my finds are well off established trails in heavily wooded and rocky terrain. All that is necessary is to locate a point on the satellite image that is close to the cache, go find it, calculate a distance and bearing from there to the cache, and pace to the box. For the most part the satellite images available today are far better than people think. Things to look for on the satellite photos are trail junctions and bends, distinct trees like large evergreens in a deciduous forest, down trees, large boulders, edges of mountain laurel or rhododendron thickets.. all this stuff can be identified and give you a picture of the land so you can walk through it to the cache as easily as walking through a maze of buildings in a city. Of course being observant once you get there is probably more important than when using a GPS. There are loads of tricks to use once you get there since humans tend to leave lots of obvious signs when they hide or search for a cache. In a way urban caches can be tougher than deep woods caches because so much of the human signs in urban areas are from muggles.

 

one caution.. I don't depend on the google map overlay on the satellite image (hybrid) as the registration of that layer is sometimes off. Go with the pure satellite version.

[+<"((((<(]

Warren.... You're a surveyor so you can obviously read maps and satellite images. Geocaching in urban and deep woods should be relatively easy without a GPS. Loads of my finds are well off established trails in heavily wooded and rocky terrain. All that is necessary is to locate a point on the satellite image that is close to the cache, go find it, calculate a distance and bearing from there to the cache, and pace to the box. For the most part the satellite images available today are far better than people think. Things to look for on the satellite photos are trail junctions and bends, distinct trees like large evergreens in a deciduous forest, down trees, large boulders, edges of mountain laurel or rhododendron thickets.. all this stuff can be identified and give you a picture of the land so you can walk through it to the cache as easily as walking through a maze of buildings in a city. Of course being observant once you get there is probably more important than when using a GPS. There are loads of tricks to use once you get there since humans tend to leave lots of obvious signs when they hide or search for a cache. In a way urban caches can be tougher than deep woods caches because so much of the human signs in urban areas are from muggles.

 

one caution.. I don't depend on the google map overlay on the satellite image (hybrid) as the registration of that layer is sometimes off. Go with the pure satellite version.

[GOF and Bacall]

I guess I am not understanding what you are asking. There is nothing that states you have to use a GPS to find a cache. Lots of folks do it that way. There is, however, a rule that says you have to use one to get the coordinates when hiding a cache. The experience repeatedly shows that caches hidden without a GPS tend to have inaccurate coordinates. Inaccurate beyond the normal margin of error in a consumer GPS. Personally I don't care how you get the coordinates as long as they are fairly accurate.

[+Scubasonic]

Hi! My name is Warren and my Screen name is Eatsnook. I would like to see more people involved. I have 450+ finds, But at least 400 by satalite only! I less than one year. Can't afford GPS right now because of the "CHANGE"! Can we "CHANGE" to web site to say something like ( or use satalite image). My son is 12 years old and loves to look at them with me. His screen name is Sonny D. I'm a land survetor and I have a GPS at work, but I only use it on hides. Can this happen??? Just a thought! Land marks are easy in the cities, but wouldn't work well in the woods. I'm sure they can figure that out. Thanks! Warren (Eatsnook)

 

WOW just think how many finds you would have if you did use a GPS.

 

Scubasonic

[+Scubasonic]

That's OK! I found many w/o GPS! It's more of a challenge for us! You don't have to listen to others, It's all about hides! Get them involved! That's why I want to get more people involved. Do you really need one???? look at the satalite? it helps!!! That's what I tell them. They say. "Where's your GPS." I say go to Geocaching . com and see!. Hope to make easier on the newbies!!!

 

Going out and finding say 3 or maybe 5 without a GPS is OK but tell me how you would find say 50 in a day by just looking at the Satellite view, my memory isn't that good to remember all the landmarks, well you can count me out on not using a GPS I like the technology.

 

Scubasonic

[+<"((((<(]

Hi Warren, I have about about 110 finds by satellite only (my GPSR satellite info) the rest are by aerial photography. That is where the problem is when trying to hide a cache. A lot of the "satellite imagery" is actually aerial photography, old aerial photography in my area. Even more recent aerials that have been tagged with GPS datum have still proven to be off.

 

I'll give you a personal example.

There is a benchmark located at a local post office, I knew exactly where it was because I hung out with some of the personnel during their smoke breaks.

It was in the concrete patio slab behind the back door. I'm giving you that bit of infor so you know that it isn't a pylon that could have migrated.

I thought great, I'll find out how accurate my unit is, so I downloaded the coords and off I went. I went and placed my unit on it and waited for the coords to settle down, and I found out I was 9 point something feet off.

I now know from repeated trips I can be up to 20 feet off.

Then I started hearing about how inaccurate google is.

Well the benchmark was only about 2 feet away from the corner of the slab so I started google earth, found the post office zoomed in on that corner, got the coords of it and put them in my unit, then I did the same for google maps in satellite view.

I went to that corner, Google maps was 30 some odd feet off, and Google earth was 50 some odd feet off.

You may notice that even the two different Google apps cant agree.

I'll acknowledge the fact that my GPSR could have been off even with waas activated, I have been back and gotten slightly closer readings, but what do you trust?

Do you trust Google Maps that uses satellite imagery and aerial photography that even with tagged GPS data can still be a few yards off.

Or do you trust Google Maps that uses the same thing but has to fudge in order to compensate for the curvature of the earth?

 

I sooo understand the money issue and if your going to use sat & aerial photography to find caches, more power to you, even more power if ya use a map and compass, but please don't hide using those techniques. You'll likely be less accurate than we already are.

 

~~~word inversions~~~

[+<"((((<(]

Hi Warren, I have about about 110 finds by satellite only (my GPSR satellite info) the rest are by aerial photography. That is where the problem is when trying to hide a cache. A lot of the "satellite imagery" is actually aerial photography, old aerial photography in my area. Even more recent aerials that have been tagged with GPS datum have still proven to be off.

 

I'll give you a personal example.

There is a benchmark located at a local post office, I knew exactly where it was because I hung out with some of the personnel during their smoke breaks.

It was in the concrete patio slab behind the back door. I'm giving you that bit of infor so you know that it isn't a pylon that could have migrated.

I thought great, I'll find out how accurate my unit is, so I downloaded the coords and off I went. I went and placed my unit on it and waited for the coords to settle down, and I found out I was 9 point something feet off.

I now know from repeated trips I can be up to 20 feet off.

Then I started hearing about how inaccurate google is.

Well the benchmark was only about 2 feet away from the corner of the slab so I started google earth, found the post office zoomed in on that corner, got the coords of it and put them in my unit, then I did the same for google maps in satellite view.

I went to that corner, Google maps was 30 some odd feet off, and Google earth was 50 some odd feet off.

You may notice that even the two different Google apps cant agree.

I'll acknowledge the fact that my GPSR could have been off even with waas activated, I have been back and gotten slightly closer readings, but what do you trust?

Do you trust Google Maps that uses satellite imagery and aerial photography that even with tagged GPS data can still be a few yards off.

Or do you trust Google Maps that uses the same thing but has to fudge in order to compensate for the curvature of the earth?

 

I sooo understand the money issue and if your going to use sat & aerial photography to find caches, more power to you, even more power if ya use a map and compass, but please don't hide using those techniques. You'll likely be less accurate than we already are.

 

~~~word inversions~~~

[GOF and Bacall]

You really need to type something before you hit "add reply".

[+<"((((<(]

I'm sorry I sturred up a ruckus! Just wanted to get more prople involved! I DON'T USE GPS ON FINDS!!!!! ONLY on hides!!! Lets get more peolpe involved in hides and finds! THAT'S ALL!!!!!!!!!

[+<"((((<(]

You really need to type something before you hit "add reply".

OK! Do I really have to simplify?? Let them try to get it w/o GPS??? Thats all!!! Come on new bees! Lets try??

[+Vater_Araignee]

I'm sorry I sturred up a ruckus! Just wanted to get more prople involved! I DON'T USE GPS ON FINDS!!!!! ONLY on hides!!! Lets get more peolpe involved in hides and finds! THAT'S ALL!!!!!!!!!

That is fine it happens

That is all we have been saying to you.

That is great to get more involved, as long as they don't mistakenly believe that they can use GE and it's brethren to hide a cache.

To the original point you have made a bit more clear.

If you mention any tools other than a GPSR for finding on GC.com then people will just assume that they are legit for the hide.

They assume that, they will start posting soft coords

Eventually the more experienced cachers will get sick of them and start ignoring all of their hides.

They will drive new cachers away because (just one example) an upskirts coords will lead them to the wrong lamp post. Then LPCs get banned.

 

what am I saying? Hide ALL LPCs with Google Earth! Do it! Do it fast! Get out there and correct your coords with GE if ya have them out already everyone hurry

Edited March 19, 2010 by Vater_Araignee

[+edscott]

[.......

what am I saying? Hide ALL LPCs with Google Earth! Do it! Do it fast! Get out there and correct your coords with GE if ya have them out already everyone hurry

 

Actually hiding LPCs with satellite images wouldn't have much of an impact. The lamp posts show up on the image so it's tough to get them wrong. (note you sometimes can't see the post but you can usually see the shadow and of course the shadow ends at the post)

[+Vater_Araignee]

[.......

what am I saying? Hide ALL LPCs with Google Earth! Do it! Do it fast! Get out there and correct your coords with GE if ya have them out already everyone hurry

 

Actually hiding LPCs with satellite images wouldn't have much of an impact. The lamp posts show up on the image so it's tough to get them wrong. (note you sometimes can't see the post but you can usually see the shadow and of course the shadow ends at the post)

I was talking about distance off. A lone post maybe but a parking lot full...

[+edscott]

[.......

what am I saying? Hide ALL LPCs with Google Earth! Do it! Do it fast! Get out there and correct your coords with GE if ya have them out already everyone hurry

 

Actually hiding LPCs with satellite images wouldn't have much of an impact. The lamp posts show up on the image so it's tough to get them wrong. (note you sometimes can't see the post but you can usually see the shadow and of course the shadow ends at the post)

I was talking about distance off. A lone post maybe but a parking lot full...

 

So am I.. at the right scale on a good image each post is visible. If you can't see the posts just count the lines between the spaces.

Edited March 19, 2010 by edscott

[+Vater_Araignee]

[.......

what am I saying? Hide ALL LPCs with Google Earth! Do it! Do it fast! Get out there and correct your coords with GE if ya have them out already everyone hurry

 

Actually hiding LPCs with satellite images wouldn't have much of an impact. The lamp posts show up on the image so it's tough to get them wrong. (note you sometimes can't see the post but you can usually see the shadow and of course the shadow ends at the post)

I was talking about distance off. A lone post maybe but a parking lot full...

 

So am I.. at the right scale on a good image each post is visible. If you can't see the posts just count the lines between the spaces.

I'm talking about the inaccuracy of google earths coords use for hiding the cache can produce soft enough coords to place a person at the wrong lamp post. I said nothing about being able too see said lamp post with google earth, I am well versed in what you can and can not see in different areas. I have seen lone bushes that are smaller around than most lamp post pylons.

 

Let me make it very simple.

ARRRG Google earth have bad coords AHOOOAAARRRRG

[GOF and Bacall]

You really need to type something before you hit "add reply".

OK! Do I really have to simplify?? Let them try to get it w/o GPS??? Thats all!!! Come on new bees! Lets try??

 

Go for it. I've been saying all along that it is common for people to search sans GPS. But that has nothing to do with you posting replys sans words. To the best of my knowledge Miss Cleo doesn't frequent these forums.

[+edscott]

[.......

what am I saying? Hide ALL LPCs with Google Earth! Do it! Do it fast! Get out there and correct your coords with GE if ya have them out already everyone hurry

 

Actually hiding LPCs with satellite images wouldn't have much of an impact. The lamp posts show up on the image so it's tough to get them wrong. (note you sometimes can't see the post but you can usually see the shadow and of course the shadow ends at the post)

I was talking about distance off. A lone post maybe but a parking lot full...

 

So am I.. at the right scale on a good image each post is visible. If you can't see the posts just count the lines between the spaces.

I'm talking about the inaccuracy of google earths coords use for hiding the cache can produce soft enough coords to place a person at the wrong lamp post. I said nothing about being able too see said lamp post with google earth, I am well versed in what you can and can not see in different areas. I have seen lone bushes that are smaller around than most lamp post pylons.

 

Let me make it very simple.

ARRRG Google earth have bad coords AHOOOAAARRRRG

 

Whatever.. my experience says otherwise. Maybe I'll find problems during the next thousand...

[+Endorfun]

I am sorry to jump in here with this, but I wish to say something about this subject.

Over the last 15 years I have seen all sorts of things GPS recievers have been used in and for. And before the GPS reciever there was a great deal of things that related to the map and compass. And before that I am sure there was something else like the sextant perhaps.

But, in those 15 years surrounding GPS and geocaching or stashing the whole idea of it all is focused around the GPs reciever, the reciever and the related systems is what geocaching is at the core. When people strike up the issue of compass, maps, and sat images as an alternative in however they might like it to be, the idea that it is still really geocaching is at question.

There are groups out there that have activities that are meant to be map and compass focused and not "GPS", these groups do very similar types of things like geocaching but in a way that is dedicated to the compass and map.

If there is not one in your area that you know of, if you go to most any outdoor supply house that deals with mountainering gear you might find such a group, or you can start one of your own.

I myself belong to a small gathering of 7 friends that twice a year take to some remote area of Queensland, bringing only my suunto compass with map scales built into the plexi, and my US Military issued compass, full set of topo maps of at least three scales from 1/25000 to 1/250000 of the area and leave any battery driven device in the vehical for the day or the week.

BUT, COME ON!!! This thing about the using sat images, maps, and maybe a compass to find caches while geocaching...............I have yet to meet one person (personally) that is claiming to not use a GPS for caching that is also trying to come off as some sort of purist that believes that they are trying to move to a higher plane of exsistance because they need not use a GPS.

And, if all the times I heard the someone claim that they do not have a GPS because they cannot afford it, well as we type, the Pawn shop in my town, the local "Wow", eBay, and me, all have a GPS available for less than 65 dollars AUD except Wow (about 150), and 65 dollars will NOT get you a compass, three current maps, and a scale.

[+Vater_Araignee]

[.......

what am I saying? Hide ALL LPCs with Google Earth! Do it! Do it fast! Get out there and correct your coords with GE if ya have them out already everyone hurry

 

Actually hiding LPCs with satellite images wouldn't have much of an impact. The lamp posts show up on the image so it's tough to get them wrong. (note you sometimes can't see the post but you can usually see the shadow and of course the shadow ends at the post)

I was talking about distance off. A lone post maybe but a parking lot full...

 

So am I.. at the right scale on a good image each post is visible. If you can't see the posts just count the lines between the spaces.

I'm talking about the inaccuracy of google earths coords use for hiding the cache can produce soft enough coords to place a person at the wrong lamp post. I said nothing about being able too see said lamp post with google earth, I am well versed in what you can and can not see in different areas. I have seen lone bushes that are smaller around than most lamp post pylons.

 

Let me make it very simple.

ARRRG Google earth have bad coords AHOOOAAARRRRG

 

Whatever.. my experience says otherwise. Maybe I'll find problems during the next thousand...

do you understand what you are alluding to?

[+edscott]

[.......

what am I saying? Hide ALL LPCs with Google Earth! Do it! Do it fast! Get out there and correct your coords with GE if ya have them out already everyone hurry

 

Actually hiding LPCs with satellite images wouldn't have much of an impact. The lamp posts show up on the image so it's tough to get them wrong. (note you sometimes can't see the post but you can usually see the shadow and of course the shadow ends at the post)

I was talking about distance off. A lone post maybe but a parking lot full...

 

So am I.. at the right scale on a good image each post is visible. If you can't see the posts just count the lines between the spaces.

I'm talking about the inaccuracy of google earths coords use for hiding the cache can produce soft enough coords to place a person at the wrong lamp post. I said nothing about being able too see said lamp post with google earth, I am well versed in what you can and can not see in different areas. I have seen lone bushes that are smaller around than most lamp post pylons.

 

Let me make it very simple.

ARRRG Google earth have bad coords AHOOOAAARRRRG

 

Whatever.. my experience says otherwise. Maybe I'll find problems during the next thousand...

do you understand what you are alluding to?

 

Yes, I'm saying that I can not attribute any of my DNF's to satellite images that are inaccurate. Sometimes the photos that are displayed were taken in less than optimum conditions i.e. seasons, lighting, angle of the sun... That has an effect on the readability of the photo, but not its accuracy. I find that I know my position as derived from being able to navigate with these images at least well as someone using a GPS. I've been caching for awhile.. do your research.

[+narcissa]

I really don't get what these Google Earth cachers do. Are you printing out the satellite images so you can look at them in the field? Plotting things on a map? Does it use a lot of paper?

[+niraD]

Going out and finding say 3 or maybe 5 without a GPS is OK but tell me how you would find say 50 in a day by just looking at the Satellite view, my memory isn't that good to remember all the landmarks, well you can count me out on not using a GPS I like the technology.

Who said anything about finding 50 caches in a day without a GPSr? The most I've found in a day without a GPSr was 8 caches. But the most I've found in a day with a GPSr was 10 caches. Not everyone is into finding dozens of caches a day.

 

I really don't get what these Google Earth cachers do. Are you printing out the satellite images so you can look at them in the field? Plotting things on a map? Does it use a lot of paper?

I don't use Google Earth. I use the satellite images from Google Maps. I've occasionally printed the satellite images, but usually I just remember where the cache is, perhaps with a few notes about where it is relative to the landmarks I saw in the satellite images. Also, my notes have usually been paperless.

 

Clearly, this approach works better when you're more familiar with the area, when there are clear landmarks visible in the satellite images, and when the satellite images are high resolution and well calibrated.

[+<"((((<(]

That's OK! I found many w/o GPS! It's more of a challenge for us! You don't have to listen to others, It's all about hides! Get them involved! That's why I want to get more people involved. Do you really need one???? look at the satalite? it helps!!! That's what I tell them. They say. "Where's your GPS." I say go to Geocaching . com and see!. Hope to make easier on the newbies!!!

 

Going out and finding say 3 or maybe 5 without a GPS is OK but tell me how you would find say 50 in a day by just looking at the Satellite view, my memory isn't that good to remember all the landmarks, well you can count me out on not using a GPS I like the technology.

 

Scubasonic

it's called a printer!!

[+Fianccetto]

That's OK! I found many w/o GPS! It's more of a challenge for us! You don't have to listen to others, It's all about hides! Get them involved! That's why I want to get more people involved. Do you really need one???? look at the satalite? it helps!!! That's what I tell them. They say. "Where's your GPS." I say go to Geocaching . com and see!. Hope to make easier on the newbies!!!

 

Going out and finding say 3 or maybe 5 without a GPS is OK but tell me how you would find say 50 in a day by just looking at the Satellite view, my memory isn't that good to remember all the landmarks, well you can count me out on not using a GPS I like the technology.

 

Scubasonic

it's called a printer!!

 

Or buy a large scale map accurate of the area and note on it where the caches are (in a way that the map can be reused.) Before we had the internet, we had vary accurate large scale maps, and we still do have. This is at least as accurate as GPSr devices were 5, 10 years ago.

 

Noone is saying stop using your GPSr.

 

There are plenty of countries where geocaching could take off a lot more with maps and occasional access to the internet through a third party. The cost of a GPSr devices are not just about affording one, you're assuming everyone has a continual electricity supply, access to batteries and constant broadband. This isn't about stopping you from what you're doing, this is about stopping millions of others from joining in because of access. Something to think about at least.

[+edscott]

I really don't get what these Google Earth cachers do. Are you printing out the satellite images so you can look at them in the field? Plotting things on a map? Does it use a lot of paper?

 

Yes I print out a satellite image with the location of the cache marked. It uses a sheet of paper for each area that I want to explore.. sometimes a few caches but often just one.. but it doesn't use any batteries..

[+edscott]

[.....I don't use Google Earth. I use the satellite images from Google Maps. ....

 

This is an important point. I believe many of the misconceptions about Google "Maps" accuracy are a result of attempting to calculate positions from a distorted Google Earth view. The "bird" needs to be looking straight down, not at an angle.

[+edscott]

 

Going out and finding say 3 or maybe 5 without a GPS is OK but tell me how you would find say 50 in a day by just looking at the Satellite view, my memory isn't that good to remember all the landmarks, well you can count me out on not using a GPS I like the technology.

 

Scubasonic

 

I seldom do caches by memorizing the map. I make a print and carry it for reference. Never attempted 50 in a day. I enjoy spending time navigating in the woods with a map so I try to do mostly off trail woodland caches. Over the past year or so I've done 17 a couple times, but one of those days was biking so that doesn't really fit my pattern. Yesterday was a more typical day with 6. Three on a nice rocky ridge and three more driving to and from.

 

But, if I wanted to make a numbers run of 50 caches I could. I'd select an area where I've not cached. Use the GC.com Google map that shows the cache icons and plan my circuit, then print out a satellite images of the area at a scale of 1:10000. I'd then need to spend an hour or so opening each cache page and marking the position of each cache on the map.

Edited March 20, 2010 by edscott