Micros and those who hide them without thought

[+RTExplorer]

Folks,

 

I, and what others are becoming tired of, is searching for a Micro that was hidden by a GPS owner that has no idea what error margin is. Unfortunatley there are GPS owners that have a 101 knowledge in the Geocache world but have no idea how location firm/software works. Circular Error Probable (CEP) is a formula used to do what we enjoy when we Geocache. It is so simple with pencil and paper it is scary and not necessary to discuss because the device does it for us. However, when someone hides something (Micro) the size of a Peanut M&M in a forest or bushy area, and they do not understand Error Margin of the GPS they are using, they elude people that they have hidden a cache that is worthy of search. I see an ever increasing number of people that are swearing off Micros beacause of this, "The hider was incompetent." The search for these Cache's when the area is narrowed to 3 meters is difficult naturally, and draws appreciation toward "craft of hide when found;" but when that 3 meter circle cant be determined or relied upon it brings doubt within our ranks. Yes, a Micro hider (Nano Size) can get a hide approved without knowing how to use a GPS, create error margins that make it impossible to find, snicker for their work, and continue to deter people to find them or bring respect to Micro existance. My suggestion to the validators, Groundspeak, and whoever writes the rules on "Hiding a Cache" is this: When Micros are hidden, you must publish the Error Margin information on your GPS when placing it. If the Error Margin is greater than 5 meters the following must be done for the Hide to be published: Wait until conditions improve to gain less than 5 meter Error Margin, Find a different location, Utilize a device that is capable of gaining less than 5 meters of Error Margin. Why? Because my 5 meters of error added to the Hiders 5 meters makes a 10 meter circle (30+feet) to find something the size of a Peanut M&M.

The whole idea is to find it, not to make it unfound...

RTExplorer

[+brslk]

OK

[+fizzymagic]

Because my 5 meters of error added to the Hiders 5 meters makes a 10 meter circle (30+feet)

No, it doesn't.

 

Aside from that, though, I agree that people understanding how their GPS and associated error works would really help the sport. Unfortunately, many are actively resistant to the idea. The Alabama Rambler posted an excellent experiment for people to try in this forum a few weeks ago and received an astounding number of negative and ignorant comments, some from long-time regulars.

[+RTExplorer]

Yes it does,

 

Consult Northrup Grumman and the finest Engineers in the world. They will tell you the same as it relates to civilian GPS use.

[+fizzymagic]

Yes it does,

Sorry. It does not. The GPS error circle is not a hard circle giving you the exact radius of your error; it is a probability bound within which your GPS is likely to be accurate 95% (usually) of the time.

 

These errors do not add coherently, as anybody who has done first-year statistics will know. As a result, the expected radius of error for 2 5-meter errors is about 5 * sqrt(2) = 7 meters, not 10, for a normal distribution of errors.

 

Consult Northrup Grumman and the finest Engineers in the world. They will tell you the same as it relates to civilian GPS use.

No, they won't, since they probably know how to do math. Actually, they might be very annoyed by being misquoted like this.

[+power69]

I usually get around ~9.6 feet[sorry no metric stuff here with me]

if i'm doing a bouncy hide and can't get less than 15 feet, i'll write that in the caches desc.

[+Team Gilo]

I think one answer is when you get uncertain readings and a accuracy that you are not happy with, add a good hint in the description when placing the cache. For example, when hiding a micro in a large cedar tree, at least post which side it is on. I know some of our cachers here in OKC do that and it helps on the needle in a haystack type caches.

[+humboldt flier]

Would be nice also if hiders factored in multipathing issues. If hiding in concrete, aluminum, steel canyons include a hint which has value and pertinence.

[+L0ne.R]

Probably not something Groundspeak will handle, so I'm going to suggest that we as a community put pressure in the form of constructive criticism in the online logs. Noting that fuzzy coordinates and poor hints only contribute to a degradation of the area (as well as frustration to the finder). Geocachers already have a bad name with land managers who assume that because of the 30 foot radius of error we trample everything in that radius.

[+geodarts]

The whole idea is to find it, not to make it unfound...

RTExplorer

 

Perhaps. I want my caches to be found and if gps reception is spotty I will include hints or letterbox style clues so that people can find the cache.

 

On the other hand I have known cachers who place bison tubes under a bit of moss in a rock covered area on steep hillsides in wooded canyons and tell you that is touching rock. It's quite easy to place a micro where it can't be found.

Edited May 31, 2010 by Erickson

[+Coldgears]

I find it funny how you are only blaming micro's... Why? If you have something against micros fine, if you have something against bad coords fine. It seems to me you are using this as an excuse to hate on micros... Yesterday I had a cache that was hidden 130 feet away from coords... You literally had to use the the hint. I spent 20 minutes searching, this guy must've realize his coords suck because his hint was more like a letterbox than a hint.

[+wimseyguy]

/rant I cannot stand people who cannot use punctuation or paragraph breaks properly.

 

42, and I blame the smartphones for this.

[+Coldgears]

/rant I cannot stand people who cannot use punctuation or paragraph breaks properly.

 

42, and I blame the smartphones for this.

 

Meh, depends on the smart phone. Droids will get you within 5 meters in wooded areas, whereas iphones will get you within 100 feet. Huge difference. Generalizing all smartphones because most suck is a bad thing to do.

[+Team Cotati]

I find it funny how you are only blaming micro's... Why? If you have something against micros fine, if you have something against bad coords fine. It seems to me you are using this as an excuse to hate on micros... Yesterday I had a cache that was hidden 130 feet away from coords... You literally had to use the the hint. I spent 20 minutes searching, this guy must've realize his coords suck because his hint was more like a letterbox than a hint.

 

I'm curious, even though the CO gets notified of the searcher's log entries wrt the coordinate issues, he does nothing. I see this ever once in a while and it never makes sense to me as to why they don't take corrective action.

 

If I lived in the area, I send an email and ask. Depending upon the response, I might notify the local reviewer.

[Clan Riffster]

I find it funny how you are only blaming micro's... Why?

This must be one of them there rhetorical questions?

Let's see... Could it be because micros tend to be small?

Maybe something that is tiny hides better than something that is large?

I'm thinking that, in any given 20' radius, I could find many more places to conceal a blinkie than places to hide a 55 gallon drum.

(Is this concept really that hard to grasp? Seriously?)

 

...and I blame the smartphones for this.

Amen. I consider the term "Smartphone" to be an oxymoron.

How anyone could consider them acceptable as cache hiding devices is beyond me.

[+cx1]

 

Meh, depends on the smart phone. Droids will get you within 5 meters in wooded areas, whereas iphones will get you within 100 feet. Huge difference. Generalizing all smartphones because most suck is a bad thing to do.

 

You do know it is possible to connect a much better gps receiver to an iphone via bluetooth right? Then you can use the Groundspeak app with a very accurate gps. Droid doesn't do that

[Motorcycle_Mama]

...

How anyone could consider them acceptable as cache hiding devices is beyond me.

The GPS receiver on my BlackBerry is VERY accurate.

[+RTExplorer]

Yes it does,

Sorry. It does not. The GPS error circle is not a hard circle giving you the exact radius of your error; it is a probability bound within which your GPS is likely to be accurate 95% (usually) of the time.

 

These errors do not add coherently, as anybody who has done first-year statistics will know. As a result, the expected radius of error for 2 5-meter errors is about 5 * sqrt(2) = 7 meters, not 10, for a normal distribution of errors.

 

Consult Northrup Grumman and the finest Engineers in the world. They will tell you the same as it relates to civilian GPS use.

No, they won't, since they probably know how to do math. Actually, they might be very annoyed by being misquoted like this.

 

Thanks for turning me around, really. Having worked DOD projects with NGLS, I know they can do math and that is all you have correct concerning Civilian GPS accuracy. Even the really smart guys dont know it all but generally have humility, which unfortunately is not covered in Statistics 101. Thanks for reminding me why I don't do forums very often.

[+t4e]

When Micros are hidden, you must publish the Error Margin information on your GPS when placing it.

 

and what makes you think that people will not just say the margin error is less than 5 meters just to comply with this rule?

[+ADTCacheur]

When Micros are hidden, you must publish the Error Margin information on your GPS when placing it.

 

and what makes you think that people will not just say the margin error is less than 5 meters just to comply with this rule?

Well, duh. They have to download a specific Wherigo cartridge to their GPS that will record the coordinates, and the error margin, then plug their GPS into their computer and upload the data. Oh, I forgot to mention, they must be using one of a certain 10 GPSs that Groundspeak gets a 10% portion of all sales from... And they have to do all this while wearing a chicken suit. That would probably be appreciated by those crazy many who actively hate urban caches.

[knowschad]

OK

What <-- he said.

[knowschad]

Folks,

The whole idea is to find it, not to make it unfound...

RTExplorer

Not necessarily. There are plenty of hides out there that are hidden in the hope of never being found. Some people love 'em, some hate 'em. Some put 'em on their watchlist and watch others struggle with them.

 

A Real Challenge (Muther's Challenge)

Shelter III (as well as his other "Shelter" caches)

 

And I'm sure others could add more.

[Allison Wunderland]

I've been at GeoCaching about four days now. But this ain't my first rodeo. I've done similar navigation work in the military with a compass and a topo map -- back WAY before GPS.

 

We'd get "young shave-tails" (new lieutenants) who'd spend most of their free time laying out a course that would deliberately get the troops lost or confused. They'd lose sight of the concept that the objective in navigation is developing navigation and map skills, not getting lost, confused, frustrated.

 

I've been online pretty much full-time these past four days, looking at caches in my area, searching, reading hints, cross-checking w/ Google Earth.

 

It's evident to me, particularly with small caches, that there's an enclave in this sport motivated by the ego gratification they derive from hiding something that others cannot find.

 

Here's a web page that demonstrates this point:

 

http://zile.org/evilhides.htm

 

We won't mention any names, but I spent two days on the beach looking for a cache buried in the sand. Hint is: "Located at the pointy end of the driftwood."

 

That "hint" was first provided as a reference to lyrics for a song I don't know.

 

Not knowing that the cache is buried at the "end of the pointy driftwood," I moved a lot of driftwood looking for a cache hidden in a log.

 

-- Ego gratification in secreting a cache others can't find.

 

I'm working on one. 4 WD access about 5 miles off the paved road, in sage and lava desert, dangerously steep terrain, and no obvious access routes without you reconnoiter Google Earth. I figured a cache about the size of a sport whistle, high overhead in a solitary Juniper.

 

Here are some coordinates if you want to have a look:

 

N46 58' 02.75 W121 01' 36.01

 

Elevation 2,159 ft. according to my maps.

 

I was going to call it "You Can't Find Me!"

 

And then I'm asking myself, is this really what this sport is about?

Edited June 2, 2010 by Allison Wunderland

[+brslk]

/rant I cannot stand people who cannot use punctuation or paragraph breaks properly.

 

42, and I blame the smartphones for this.

 

Meh, depends on the smart phone. Droids will get you within 5 meters in wooded areas, whereas iphones will get you within 100 feet. Huge difference. Generalizing all smartphones because most suck is a bad thing to do.

 

Wow! do you have evidence to back that up? My iPhone gets me a lot closer than that.

It often even gets me closer than my Garmin.

 

Do the Droids have some sort of better GPS receiver?

[knowschad]

/rant I cannot stand people who cannot use punctuation or paragraph breaks properly.

 

42, and I blame the smartphones for this.

 

Meh, depends on the smart phone. Droids will get you within 5 meters in wooded areas, whereas iphones will get you within 100 feet. Huge difference. Generalizing all smartphones because most suck is a bad thing to do.

 

Wow! do you have evidence to back that up? My iPhone gets me a lot closer than that.

It often even gets me closer than my Garmin.

 

Do the Droids have some sort of better GPS receiver?

The way I heard it is that Droids will get you within 5 meters in the wooded areas, whereas iPhones will get you within 16.4041995 feet.

[+journey4truth]

You know, I've been wondering about this. I was in upstate NY, and I was trying to find a micro with a 2 star rating, only the coordinates were over 100 feet off. 100 FEET OFF. I was in the middle of a field, and it was only after reading through the logs that I realized the micro was on a nearby fence hidden under a massive tangle of vines. Seriously?

 

Come to think of it, it might have been more than a 100 feet since that was the difference from GZ to the fence itself, not to the micro. That's what makes me wonder if the guy didn't intentionally fudge his coordinates just to screw with cachers.

 

If you're gonna do that, fine, but raise the difficulty rating accordingly. That is all.

[+brslk]

/rant I cannot stand people who cannot use punctuation or paragraph breaks properly.

 

42, and I blame the smartphones for this.

 

Meh, depends on the smart phone. Droids will get you within 5 meters in wooded areas, whereas iphones will get you within 100 feet. Huge difference. Generalizing all smartphones because most suck is a bad thing to do.

 

Wow! do you have evidence to back that up? My iPhone gets me a lot closer than that.

It often even gets me closer than my Garmin.

 

Do the Droids have some sort of better GPS receiver?

The way I heard it is that Droids will get you within 5 meters in the wooded areas, whereas iPhones will get you within 16.4041995 feet.

 

Nice. Now tell me the final digit of pi?

[+bittsen]

Nice. Now tell me the final digit of pi?

 

7

 

but.. shhhhhh.... don't tell anyone. It won't be discovered for another 12 years (after the world ends on December 21, 2012)

 

Edited to correct the date of the worlds destruction.

Edited June 2, 2010 by bittsen

[+briansnat]

I was going to call it "You Can't Find Me!"

 

And then I'm asking myself, is this really what this sport is about?

 

For some people it is. There are cache owners who take pride in DNFs. I personally see them as failures on my part. I want people to find my caches.

 

Then there are the cache owners who intentionally post bad coords to make the search more difficult. That's a horse in a different garage.

[knowschad]

I was going to call it "You Can't Find Me!"

 

And then I'm asking myself, is this really what this sport is about?

 

For some people it is. There are cache owners who take pride in DNFs. I personally see them as failures on my part. I want people to find my caches.

Yes, most of us do. But not all of us.

 

Then there are the cache owners who intentionally post bad coords to make the search more difficult. That's a horse in a different garage.

Yup. We have one here. He has bragged about his mysterious ability to hide caches in areas that get a lot of bounce. He refuses to correct his coordinates when several cachers have posted notes with corrections that almost match each other.

[+t4e]

 

Well, duh. They have to download a specific Wherigo cartridge to their GPS that will record the coordinates, and the error margin, then plug their GPS into their computer and upload the data. Oh, I forgot to mention, they must be using one of a certain 10 GPSs that Groundspeak gets a 10% portion of all sales from... And they have to do all this while wearing a chicken suit. That would probably be appreciated by those crazy many who actively hate urban caches.

 

are you sure its not a frog suit?

[+NYPaddleCacher]

I've been at GeoCaching about four days now. But this ain't my first rodeo. I've done similar navigation work in the military with a compass and a topo map -- back WAY before GPS.

 

We'd get "young shave-tails" (new lieutenants) who'd spend most of their free time laying out a course that would deliberately get the troops lost or confused. They'd lose sight of the concept that the objective in navigation is developing navigation and map skills, not getting lost, confused, frustrated.

 

I've been online pretty much full-time these past four days, looking at caches in my area, searching, reading hints, cross-checking w/ Google Earth.

 

It's evident to me, particularly with small caches, that there's an enclave in this sport motivated by the ego gratification they derive from hiding something that others cannot find.

 

 

And then I'm asking myself, is this really what this sport is about?

 

There can be many answers to that question.

 

For some, the sport is about finding as many caches as possible. For those, easy to find caches that are a short distance from where one can park a vehicle are the ideal.

 

For others, the sport is about getting out and walking long distances to find a cache, or the challenge of a difficult puzzle or a tricky hide.

 

The way I see it, there are a gazillion caches which cater to those that like to play the game in the first example, and plenty of room for caches that present a challenge to those that choose to seek them.

 

I doubt that there are many that actually place a cache with the goal of it never being found. There are some, however, that will place caches with the goal of it being very difficult to find, and there are plenty of geoachers that enjoy the challenge.

[davnig]

Thanks for turning me around, really. Having worked DOD projects with NGLS, I know they can do math and that is all you have correct concerning Civilian GPS accuracy. Even the really smart guys dont know it all but generally have humility, which unfortunately is not covered in Statistics 101. Thanks for reminding me why I don't do forums very often.

 

I do love the fact that you bring humility into this thread, from your 5 posts I don't see much there - maybe that's 'why you don't do forums very often'

[+BulldogBlitz]

sometimes i ask myself those same questions....

 

why in the heck is the CO bringing us to the side of the highway to find a nano/micro which is 80 feet from his posted co-ordinates? just because he felt the need to put something - anything - out there, so many miles from his house (and really anyones)? and, since he doesn't really want to post the more correct co-ordinates, does he really even want his little micro found?

[+Setan Meyacha]

Probably not something Groundspeak will handle, so I'm going to suggest that we as a community put pressure in the form of constructive criticism in the online logs. Noting that fuzzy coordinates and poor hints only contribute to a degradation of the area (as well as frustration to the finder). Geocachers already have a bad name with land managers who assume that because of the 30 foot radius of error we trample everything in that radius.

 

Geocachers in Canada 'may' have a bad name with land mangers, but I doubt it is for the reason you gave. Here in Idaho I work with BLM officials (Bureau of Land Management) on the placement of caches in sensitive areas (Wilderness Study Areas) and not once have I heard a negative word said about cachers in general, nor geocaching in particular. Most of my caches are hidden on BLM land, with their approval; and, with the understanding that should 'paths' develop the cache in question will be moved to a different location. They have my phone numbers and are actually grateful for the caches placed because the cachers around here do practice CITO; freeing them from the expense and man hours involved in cleaning up some of those areas.

I have seen just as much traffic, sometimes more so, around 'regular' caches as I've seen around an area where a micro was placed; usually because the 'regular' (ammo can type cache) just might hold something worth trading for.

When a person has found enough caches they get a 'feel' for what to look for and where to look, regardless of the size of the cache. A micro may take a little more time because it may not be hidden under a big pile of rocks or logs, which is a dead give away; but, a little patience and wisdom in your search will usually produce results. If not, so what, you can't find them all.

[Clan Riffster]

...

How anyone could consider them acceptable as cache hiding devices is beyond me.

The GPS receiver on my BlackBerry is VERY accurate.

That's what they want you to believe...

[+Flintstone5611]

Meh, depends on the smart phone. Droids will get you within 5 meters in wooded areas, whereas iphones will get you within 100 feet. Huge difference. Generalizing all smartphones because most suck is a bad thing to do.

 

You must not own an iPhone.

You would know better.

[Clan Riffster]

You must not own an iPhone.

Can't speak for ColdGears, but my daughter has a iPhone. It sucks.*

My boss has a Crackberry. It sucks*

I haven't tested a Droid yet.

 

* As compared to my 60CSx in side by side accuracy tests

[+Chokecherry]

You must not own an iPhone.

Can't speak for ColdGears, but my daughter has a iPhone. It sucks.*

My boss has a Crackberry. It sucks*

I haven't tested a Droid yet.

 

* As compared to my 60CSx in side by side accuracy tests

 

Have to agree for finding cache purposes for a ton of reasons I'll use my 60 CSx vs. my phone or other phones any day. Watched my friend wandering all over a wooded area trying to find a cache with his phone one day. I managed to maintain good reception and landed pretty close to where the cache actually was. But I do like my Groundspeak application on my phone for find nearby caches.

[+87preludea20a3]

Ok, so i have to put in my two cents on both issues in this thread. As far as the Iphone issue goes. I have an Iphone and i used it to find over 1500 caches in SoCal. In various locations. From nanos to ammo cans. From urban areas to the middle of state parks and canyons. I believe when using a smart phone i think finding caches is all up to geosense. I have now lived in MO for a month and i found 100 caches, both in the urban area and under tree cover. So i don't think anyone can say anything about smart phones. It is a cheap alternative to enjoying the game. And as far as nanos go, i love them. Both hiding them and finding them. As far as hiding them goes, my motive is to create camo for them and to find a really great place to put them. I think placement is everything with nanos. I hate bison tubes or matchstick containers in a rock hide. Anyway that is all...

[+BurgeoGull & MrsGull]

I personally want cachers to find my caches...some might take you a few minutes to find but you will.But we have a cacher in our area who has 63 caches hidden and 21 of them have never been found....some are a couple years old.So many cachers have posted to him that he IS missing the point of Geocaching and I agree.I found one of his a couple weeks ago that was 12 meters off...too far in my opinion.When I posted I entered that it was 12 meters off and he asked me to remove that part of my post...I did remove it but he refused to update the coords.It only proves that he has probably done this on purpose.In my opinion he is only hogging space on the map.He takes us to some nice areas but no cache.I like the areas geocaching takes me but I also like finding the cache.I,like a few more are just ignoring some of his caches.

 

I have an iPhone with the GC app but I rely on my GPS map60cx when lookin for a cache.I like my phone though because I have all the info on the cache and I can log my finds in the field...totally paperless.

Edited June 4, 2010 by Burgeogull

[+DragonflyTotem]

You must not own an iPhone.

Can't speak for ColdGears, but my daughter has a iPhone. It sucks.*

My boss has a Crackberry. It sucks*

I haven't tested a Droid yet.

 

* As compared to my 60CSx in side by side accuracy tests

 

Have to agree for finding cache purposes for a ton of reasons I'll use my 60 CSx vs. my phone or other phones any day. Watched my friend wandering all over a wooded area trying to find a cache with his phone one day. I managed to maintain good reception and landed pretty close to where the cache actually was. But I do like my Groundspeak application on my phone for find nearby caches.

 

Yup, that's why I carry both my 60CSx and my iPhone. And when I have them going side by side the 60CSx will outperform the iPhone anyday, if nothing else it has a much better antenna than an iPhone does.

[+GeoGeeBee]

Yup, that's why I carry both my 60CSx and my iPhone. And when I have them going side by side the 60CSx will outperform the iPhone anyday, if nothing else it has a much better antenna than an iPhone does.

 

That (better antenna) is really about the only difference between the receiver in my Blackberry and my eTrex. Under heavy tree cover (or the concrete canyons of New York City) I'll spend more time looking at the "searching for satellites" message on the Blackberry, while the eTrex just keeps going.

 

When there's a clear view of the sky, they seem to do an equally good job of pinpointing the location.

[+journey4truth]

Yup, that's why I carry both my 60CSx and my iPhone. And when I have them going side by side the 60CSx will outperform the iPhone anyday, if nothing else it has a much better antenna than an iPhone does.

 

That (better antenna) is really about the only difference between the receiver in my Blackberry and my eTrex. Under heavy tree cover (or the concrete canyons of New York City) I'll spend more time looking at the "searching for satellites" message on the Blackberry, while the eTrex just keeps going.

 

When there's a clear view of the sky, they seem to do an equally good job of pinpointing the location.

 

You ever try raising your Blackberry above your head to see if that helps? I sometimes do this for my GPSr but I've never really determined if it helped at all.

[+GeoGeeBee]

 

You ever try raising your Blackberry above your head to see if that helps? I sometimes do this for my GPSr but I've never really determined if it helped at all.

 

I've never tried it, but I can't imagine how it would actually help. Getting the receiver three feet closer to a satellite that's over 12,000 miles away isn't going to change much of anything.

[+Chokecherry]

I totally would consider paying to watch a group of people holding their phones above their heads trying to get better GPS reception though. The mental image of that is hilarious.

[+niraD]

You ever try raising your Blackberry above your head to see if that helps? I sometimes do this for my GPSr but I've never really determined if it helped at all.

I've never tried it, but I can't imagine how it would actually help. Getting the receiver three feet closer to a satellite that's over 12,000 miles away isn't going to change much of anything.

It isn't about getting the receiver 3' closer to the satellites. It's about getting the receiver above your body, so it has a better view of the satellites on the other side of your body.

[+Proud Soccer Mom]

Alright.

 

Well, I have a Garmin eTrex little yellow booger and for some reason, it never zeros out at GZ. I can't tell you where a single GZ is. When I get within 4 feet of GZ, the thing goes nuts, switching erradictly from 8' to 15' to 6' and so on. It's at this point that I know to begin looking.

 

I understand that I was about four feet away when the device starting freaking out. Then I give a 15' radius on top of that. Now I have my search area.

 

From this point, I consider the information provided on the cache page. The basic D/T ratings, combined with size information, description information and anything said in recent logs. I read rot13 fluently so I know the clue whether I want it or not. I apply this information to my experience at Geocaching. I identify likely hiding spots and search from "most expected" to "least expected" on my internal list of hiding spots.

 

When my find logs say, "Coordinates lead me right to it!" what I really mean is, "My GPS brought me pretty close and I can assume the remaining distance is very accurate to what you've provided."

 

Since I do not have a handheld GPS device that I can use as a bible of Global Positioning, I don't hold the cache owner as responsible for dead-on coordinates as someone else might. I always consider there to be a margin of error and that, as the one who's searching, it's my responsibility to compensate for that in order to find the container.

 

When marking coordinates for a hide, I take a set of ten coordinates, approaching the hide location from as many angles as I can manage. Then, I average. There's not been complaints about my coordinates.

 

I'd have to wonder if you're over-thinking the game a little bit.

[+GeoGeeBee]

I have a Garmin eTrex little yellow booger and for some reason, it never zeros out at GZ.

 

If any GPSr indicates "0" at GZ, it's a remarkable coincidence.