Garmin8888 Posted March 30, 2010 Share Posted March 30, 2010 (edited) How do I convert these to OSGB data please? Or better still please convert them for me it's for Winifred Johnson's search team on the Saddleworth Moor Search. Ist I got: 53, 32" 36.01N 1, 57" 20.91W 2nd N53. 32.600 W1 57.350 Edited March 30, 2010 by Garmin8888 Link to comment
+The Blorenges Posted March 30, 2010 Share Posted March 30, 2010 There are many sites that let you do this. I've collected a few and put them on my resource website www.follow-the-arrow.co.uk - on the page GPS and Coords Please note the bit about the map datum - WGS36 and WGS84. Switching your GPS between different formats is fine but make sure you get the map datum correct otherwise you'll get an error of about 300 feet (100 meters) Chris (MrB) Link to comment
+The Patrician Posted March 30, 2010 Share Posted March 30, 2010 Your GPS unit will do the conversion for you. Enter the lat & long and then change the coordinate display to OSGB. The OS has a coordinate transformer at : http://gps.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/convert.asp GPS Utility will do the job: http://www.gpsu.co.uk/ SE 03025 05190 Regards, Neil Link to comment
Garmin8888 Posted March 30, 2010 Author Share Posted March 30, 2010 Thanks guys it's to do with some info for Winifred Johnson reguards her lad Keith Bennett Link to comment
Mutton Geoff Posted March 30, 2010 Share Posted March 30, 2010 Assuming the stated co-ords relate to WGS84, the OS grid co-ords would be: 403 024E 405 187N The nation grid reference would replace the first digits (4 in both ordinates) with SE. There is a minor error in the conversion routine in most small GPS units. For the particular application mentioned, an error of four metres could make the difference between success and failure in a forensic fingertip search. To correct for that error, simply subtract one metre from the GPS indicated Eastings and subtract three metres from the indicated Northings to obtain the more correct co-ords. Link to comment
+The Patrician Posted March 30, 2010 Share Posted March 30, 2010 According to Wikipedia the police think Bennett's body is in the Hoe Grain and Shiny Brook area, which is more like SE060070, the other side of the A635 to your coordinates. The facts may of course be different to what Wikipedia says! Regards, Neil Link to comment
Garmin8888 Posted March 30, 2010 Author Share Posted March 30, 2010 (edited) Brady was away appox 30 minutes? from the car so that could help too... but, I feel water is near too? I need to know where the Lay Bys are to work it out...as they stopped in one and not knowing the area how many are there too....? also the exact location of a RED TELEPHONE BOX to.... Also what will.... ' 21 degrees south' mean? Edited March 31, 2010 by Garmin8888 Link to comment
Garmin8888 Posted March 30, 2010 Author Share Posted March 30, 2010 (edited) Is it SE060070 as it wont set Google Earth Googling!/? Edited March 30, 2010 by Garmin8888 Link to comment
+rutson Posted March 30, 2010 Share Posted March 30, 2010 In answer to the OP, the same way as the last twice you asked... http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php...;p=3859505& http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php...;p=3858718& Link to comment
Garmin8888 Posted March 30, 2010 Author Share Posted March 30, 2010 CHEW RESERVOIR 53°30'52.80"N 1°56'36.88"W * Convert these into OSGB RUTson, there be a good BAT man! Link to comment
+rutson Posted March 30, 2010 Share Posted March 30, 2010 (edited) You're taking the pee, right? Edited March 30, 2010 by rutson Link to comment
Mutton Geoff Posted March 30, 2010 Share Posted March 30, 2010 Something is very wrong with the 30 minute story by Hindley. Take a look at the map. It's about 1400 metres from the layby to the watercourse, on the reasonable assumption that one would use the two relevant paths rather than yomping in a straight line. At 3½mph, which is about 100 metres a minute in new money, that is a round trip time of 28 minutes. I don't know, or want to know, how long it took Brady to assault and strangle the child, but I do know how long it takes to dig a hole to bury an Alsatian in soft ground. It's about twenty to thirty minutes, by the time you've done the back-filling and replaced the turves. Something's wrong with the Hindley/Brady story. My heart wishes the amateur searchers all the best, but my head tells me that they've got only the slenderest of chances of finding what the professional searchers failed to find. It's a noble and worthy endeavour, most particularly for the mother, but the challenges are formidable and would be immense even if the earth had not already been turned over by the rozzers and their JCBs. The mapping is easypeasy, but the map is not the territory. Link to comment
Garmin8888 Posted March 31, 2010 Author Share Posted March 31, 2010 GOOD MUTTON I want good thinking people! Link to comment
Garmin8888 Posted March 31, 2010 Author Share Posted March 31, 2010 At the moment they got a team of searchers with their trained Cadaver Dogs so here's hoping..... but later on when they finish, and if they are not successful? Why don't Geocachers take up the search themselves....that would be the greatest catch ever ( than some junk filled Tuppaware )you agree m8? * I shall pass any HELPFUL info to Winifred Johnson herself........ Link to comment
Garmin8888 Posted April 1, 2010 Author Share Posted April 1, 2010 (edited) This Coordinate converter seems so easy so it a good un! http://www.nearby.org.uk/coord.cgi Top O! Edited April 1, 2010 by Garmin8888 Link to comment
+rob.marsh Posted April 1, 2010 Share Posted April 1, 2010 Why don't Geocachers take up the search themselves....that would be the greatest catch ever ( than some junk filled Tuppaware )you agree m8? Not everyone has the strength of mind/stomach to cope with finding what your looking for. & no, considering the subject, i don't think that finding what's being looking for would be "the greatest catch ever". I find that comment is somewhat distasteful. A little advice too mate, if you come on here asking for help, i'd avoid belittling our sport, "some junk filled tuppaware" happends to give us quite a lot of pleasure and fun. You'll find you get a lot more help that way, there are a whole host of people on here who are more than willing to help out where possible, with a whole manner of things. Link to comment
+drdick&vick Posted April 1, 2010 Share Posted April 1, 2010 Being somewhat of a sceptic, I would possible more helpful if you were actually going out to search 'physically' but I quote from your earlier post <but, I feel water is near too? I need to know where the Lay Bys are to work it out> and from your profile <Spiritualism & Spiritual Healing> So I presume that you are going to sit at home and 'sense' where the remains are but then you suggest that we cachers go out and look instead of hunting our junk filled plastic boxes. There have been more qualified searchers than us, searching for years and if they can't find the remains of the poor lad then what chance do we have. Link to comment
Mutton Geoff Posted April 1, 2010 Share Posted April 1, 2010 The published rules of the geocaching game make it explicitly and abundantly clear that hiding and seeking a geocache must never ever involve burying or digging up anything. That would rule out geocache people as being suitable searchers for the grisly target which is the subject of this discussion. Furthermore, the same rules also make it clear that the WGS84 co-ordinates must be measured and submitted to the operating company for every cache that is published, even the mystery caches. As the murderer has been in a maximum security mental hospital for the criminally insane for the thick end of half a century, there is exactly zero chance that he has ever known the WGS84 (or WGS72) co-ords of the target. There's a really good clue as to when those geodetic systems were devised, in their names, just like there's a clue to OSGB36 in that name. So, that's two ways in which geocachers are disqualified from using their tupperware-hunting skills to find a buried item of unknown position. I rather wish I hadn't bothered to offer technical advice on co-ords in this discussion. Goodbye. Link to comment
+The Patrician Posted April 1, 2010 Share Posted April 1, 2010 As well as being rapists and murderers the perpetrators of these crimes appear to have been accomplished liars, so where either of them said the body is located is probably wrong anyway. I rather wish I hadn't bothered to offer technical advice on co-ords in this discussion. Goodbye. Ditto from me. Regards, Neil Link to comment
+FantasyRaider Posted April 2, 2010 Share Posted April 2, 2010 Why don't Geocachers take up the search themselves....that would be the greatest catch ever ( than some junk filled Tuppaware )you agree m8? Not everyone has the strength of mind/stomach to cope with finding what your looking for. & no, considering the subject, i don't think that finding what's being looking for would be "the greatest catch ever". I find that comment is somewhat distasteful. A little advice too mate, if you come on here asking for help, i'd avoid belittling our sport, "some junk filled tuppaware" happends to give us quite a lot of pleasure and fun. You'll find you get a lot more help that way, there are a whole host of people on here who are more than willing to help out where possible, with a whole manner of things. Took the words right out of my mouth! ...look: Link to comment
Garmin8888 Posted April 3, 2010 Author Share Posted April 3, 2010 http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/new...oors_grave.html Any clues there by anyone who as an heart to help poor Winifred Johnson message me '' To every negative -ve there is a POSiTIVE +VE reply ....'' Link to comment
team tisri Posted April 4, 2010 Share Posted April 4, 2010 http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/new...oors_grave.html Any clues there by anyone who as an heart to help poor Winifred Johnson message me '' To every negative -ve there is a POSiTIVE +VE reply ....'' Unfortunately the maps on the site are so small they could be showing the street where I live and I wouldn't recognise it. Link to comment
Garmin8888 Posted April 5, 2010 Author Share Posted April 5, 2010 TT If you put these Coordinates into Google Earth you get a Car Park Lay By opposite the Squiggles shown on the Drawing Map do you agree? N53 33.077 W1 56.350 Link to comment
+MartyBartfast Posted April 5, 2010 Share Posted April 5, 2010 TT If you put these Coordinates into Google Earth you get a Car Park Lay By opposite the Squiggles shown on the Drawing Map do you agree? N53 33.077 W1 56.350 Those co-ords to point at a track entrance on the Holmfirth Road, which could be described as a LayBy (although I wouldn't describe it as such myself), it is opposite what seems to be a stream on the North of the road, and the track on the South of the road, both of which look like "squiggles". As TT said the picture of the hand drawn map on the newspaper website is so small that it's impossible to make out any detail, so it's not possible to say whether the squiggles on that drawing bear much similarity to the squiggles on the maps. I may be being dim here, but I don't see how this is of any use to the search. The authorities know the precise location of whichever relevant places that they're aware of, and those places are also well known to locals, the media, and anyone interested in the cases, so how is pinpointing some co-ords on a map helping? (genuine question) Link to comment
norsch Posted April 5, 2010 Share Posted April 5, 2010 http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/new...oors_grave.html Any clues there by anyone who as an heart to help poor Winifred Johnson message me '' To every negative -ve there is a POSiTIVE +VE reply ....'' Unfortunately the maps on the site are so small they could be showing the street where I live and I wouldn't recognise it. For a better picture of the map try: http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/1650000/imag...3451_map300.jpg Link to comment
+MartyBartfast Posted April 5, 2010 Share Posted April 5, 2010 For a better picture of the map try: http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/1650000/imag...3451_map300.jpg Well that map shows the squiggle leading from the layby is called "Hoe Grain", but the co-ords posted above are NOT a layby at the end of Hoe Grain, the co-ords are another layby about 1KM West of Hoe Grain, at the end of a track leading to "Rimmon Pit Clough". It has been suggested that Hindley got the name wrong on the map and that what she called Hoe Grain was in fact Rimmon Pit Clough. I still don't see how this is helping though. Link to comment
Garmin8888 Posted April 5, 2010 Author Share Posted April 5, 2010 (edited) I tried it in Photoshop turned it 90 degrees and I think it says 'Shiney Brook' at the end? Edited April 5, 2010 by Garmin8888 Link to comment
+mtn-man Posted April 6, 2010 Share Posted April 6, 2010 Why don't Geocachers take up the search themselves....that would be the greatest catch ever ( than some junk filled Tuppaware )you agree m8? I fail to see how this relates to geocaching, and frankly this is a rather morbid comment. I don't see how this could be even remotely considered "the greatest cache ever". Good luck with this and all, but this isn't the forum to discuss this. Since you are not a premium member I will not move this topic to the Off Topic forums and will choose to simply close it. Link to comment
Recommended Posts