Please tell me that this is not the cache of the future?

[+thekennelat79]

The worrying thing about the entire thread, whether it be spelling or semantics, size or placing and even ratings is that SOMEONE has taken the time to put out a cache. There are an awful lot of cachers,who are willing to critise, (even constructive criticism can be misunderstood) and NOT WILLING to put out some caches of their own. True there are "Number Hounds"also for whom any cache will do - But all you have to do is read the description on the page, and if you don't like it - Don't go !

cheers

palujia

 

I quite agree with the above sentiment.

However, with most of these caches under discussion, the on-site reality is very different to what is presented on the cache page.

 

In the Portsmouth area, there are currently 3 active cache setters who do not appear to know how to use a GPS.

The co-ordinates that they submit for publication are frequently at least 60+ feet out.

Early seekers of their caches are faced with the choice of either abandoning the hunt, or resigning themselves to searching anything up to a 200' stretch of busy main road with hordes of Muggles around.

 

This is why so many of these caches include a request by the cache owner for cachers to try and find the cache then submit the accurate co-ords to him.

There then ensues a (sometimes prolonged) series of "adjustments" to the published figures, until the actual location is known to cachers with some certainty.

 

As to the concept of "educating" or "enlightening" the cache owner with offers of assistance or genuinely helpful comment, 2 of the 3 individuals have either rejected most approaches or refused to communicate at all.

The 3rd owner is not sure what Datum their GPS is set to, and does not know how to check the cache co-ordinates on Google Maps or Google Earth prior to publication.

None of the 3 seem inclined to learn, or to modify their present conduct in any way.

 

So where do we go from there?

[+BlueDeuce]

But all you have to do is read the description on the page, and if you don't like it - Don't go !

cheers

palujia

 

hmmm, always a good idea to read the cache page, but there's not always enough information to form a opinion.

 

 

Edit: sorry, borked the quote thingy

Edited June 27, 2010 by BlueDeuce

[+Palujia]

The worrying thing about the entire thread, whether it be spelling or semantics, size or placing and even ratings is that SOMEONE has taken the time to put out a cache. There are an awful lot of cachers,who are willing to critise, (even constructive criticism can be misunderstood) and NOT WILLING to put out some caches of their own. True there are "Number Hounds"also for whom any cache will do - But all you have to do is read the description on the page, and if you don't like it - Don't go !

cheers

palujia

 

I quite agree with the above sentiment.

However, with most of these caches under discussion, the on-site reality is very different to what is presented on the cache page.

 

In the Portsmouth area, there are currently 3 active cache setters who do not appear to know how to use a GPS.

The co-ordinates that they submit for publication are frequently at least 60+ feet out.

Early seekers of their caches are faced with the choice of either abandoning the hunt, or resigning themselves to searching anything up to a 200' stretch of busy main road with hordes of Muggles around.

 

This is why so many of these caches include a request by the cache owner for cachers to try and find the cache then submit the accurate co-ords to him.

There then ensues a (sometimes prolonged) series of "adjustments" to the published figures, until the actual location is known to cachers with some certainty.

 

As to the concept of "educating" or "enlightening" the cache owner with offers of assistance or genuinely helpful comment, 2 of the 3 individuals have either rejected most approaches or refused to communicate at all.

The 3rd owner is not sure what Datum their GPS is set to, and does not know how to check the cache co-ordinates on Google Maps or Google Earth prior to publication.

None of the 3 seem inclined to learn, or to modify their present conduct in any way.

 

So where do we go from there?

I know that sometimes there is not enough info on the Cache page - but if you know the "names" of the cache placers you can ignore their caches and when they (perhaps) realise that no one is logging them they may catch on. Just as a thought regarding the errors, I have recently been on hols with our friends the Beauchiefs and found when out caching with them our GPS readings varied by quite some distance. They have the cheapest Garmin with just the co-ords and how far etc, whereas I have the full range of the ETrex legend. Strangely enough in two out of three caches theirs was much more accurate. But the variation was quite pronounced in one case out by about 100 feet. I was told by an experienced cacher that if the placer's GPS was a bit out, and yours a bit out the variation can be quite a bit! This, of course, does not excuse them from checking the co-ords on the maps

just a thought !!

[+needaxeo]

So where do we go from there?

 

The issue is the lack of accuracy in the co-ordinates.

 

I think the problem with the OP is that by the time I read down to item 5 and find something that's objective and actually matters, I'm just thinking "Ok here's someone who doesn't like lamp posts or Portsmouth..." and the emphasis of what is actually wrong is already lost.

 

Moreso when the long list just precipitates more irrelevant pet hates from others "I don't like his spelling" "I don't like his wife!" and so on

 

Then of course there's the inevitable response to those responses "Well, don't speak to his wife...don't visit lampposts"

 

The problem is, when you're sat in the back of a taxi and the driver says "1. It's always raining. 2. The price of fish is too high. 3. My wife doesn't understand me 4... " you're not listening to him if he says anything that actually matters later in the journey.

 

I'll admit I have no idea at all who the reviewers are or what they are expected or supposed to do before they publish a cache, but if, as you suggest, it's obvious from reading the cache page that the person who placed it has no idea where the cache is and indeed, it's not where they say it is, it should, imo, never have been published in the first place.

 

If the mistake wasn't clear at the time of publication then it should be removed after it has been published once it is clear. That's really the only thing that matters from your list, imo.

 

But it seems moot, because it doesn't matter which lamp post the cache is really on, it obviously isn't a cache you'd want to do in the first place.

Edited June 28, 2010 by needaxeo

[+Palujia]

Right !

[+purple_pineapple]

I haven't read the whole thread, so apologies of this repeats anything!

 

Down here in Surrey and Sussex, I think we are very lucky with the standard of caches. there are a huge range of types, including lots of long circular walks in the country with plenty of caches - which we happen to like! There's also extreme caches, puzzles, unusual trads, and simple drive bys at Churches etc. My point is though - because the general standard is high, new cachers will see this and put out caches of reasonable quality. (monkey see, monkey do...) Obviously, there are a few that fall short, but not all that many.

 

So, how do we bring the standards back up in other areas? Well, IMHO, it requires two things, firstly, that the experienced cachers get out there and show what they should be like. This includes placing easy drive bys (micros if necessary) that have a purpose. I know opinions differ, but micros have their place, and we need to show the 'less experienced' cachers what that place is (not in the bin, before anyone says it )

 

Secondly, and possibly more usefully, there are over 60,000 caches in the UK now. Apart from Dr Solly, none of us are going to find them all, so if we all ignore the poor quality caches, as a group, then eventually they can be replaced with better ones. Constructive advice on any logs (eg this cache would probably be much more enjoyable 500 metres further down the road, bext to the local blue plaque, and might get found more there...) could only help.

 

Anyway, just my tuppence worth! back to work!

[+Jonovich]

What would be really handy would be an additional attribute flag for caches that were placed by users of IPhones... Something like "IPhone Cache", so we know the co-ords are going to be so far out they'll need a different postcode to where the cache physically is. Then using the latest enhances in Pocket Queries and Garmin Firmware, we can omit them from our searches

 

Jon.

Edited June 28, 2010 by Dakar4x4

[+keehotee]

What would be really handy would be an additional attribute flag for caches that were placed by users of IPhones... Something like "IPhone Cache", so we know the co-ords are going to be so far out they'll need a different postcode to where the cache physically is. Then using the latest enhances in Pocket Queries and Garmin Firmware, we can omit them from our searches

 

Jon.

 

Sorry?

 

This is THE iPHONE, and until Steve Jobs says so, it is incapable of being inaccurate in any way. Apple Infallibility, I think it's called.

 

What I think must be happening is that due to the power and awesomeness of the iDevice - rather than it's onboard GPS being inaccurate - the Earth slightly realigns itself after the user has taken their co-ordinates, thus preventing other, inferior receivers from getting as good a position. Eventually Apple will reinvent global positioning - identical in all ways to the current system, but with a slight (100 metre or so) offset. This will, of course, turn out to be far more popular than GPS or EGNOS, and will force the closure of the Ordnance Survey when it is realised that their maps have been 100 metres (or so) out for the past couple of centuries...

Edited June 28, 2010 by keehotee

[+Jonovich]

Sorry?

 

This is THE iPHONE, and until Steve Jobs says so, it is incapable of being inaccurate in any way. Apple Infallibility, I think it's called.

 

What I think must be happening is that due to the power and awesomeness of the iDevice - rather than it's onboard GPS being inaccurate - the Earth itself slightly realigns itself after the user has taken their co-ordinates, thus preventing other, inferior receivers from getting as good a position. Eventually Apple will reinvent global positioning - identical in all ways to the current system, but with a slight (100 metre or so) offset. This will, of course, turn out to be far more popular than GPS or EGNOS, and will force the closure of the Ordnance Survey when it is realised that their maps have been 100 metres (or so) out for the past couple of centuries...

 

Ahh my mistake, I didn't realise the "i" in I-Phone stood for infallible, I thought it mean't innacurate

 

J

[+journey4truth]

You know, I'm actually curious as to how the accuracy of the GPS on the iPhone 4 will compare now to previous versions. Maybe if He Whose Name is Jobes has smiled upon us, it got an upgrade as well and we may see more accurate placements now. Maybe?

[+dino-irl]

I try to be honest as well in my logs, though it can be a double edged sword if you're not careful. Too harsh and the GC owner will probably delete your log,

 

If they do, log it again.

If they delete it a second time, add a "needs archived" to your original log, and an email to the reviewer.

Sorry but this isn't a reviewer's area of responsibility. Check the post below that I made earlier in this thread to see what to do when your log gets deleted:

 

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php...t&p=4378903

[+vw_k]

If the setters of these "caches" are showing no willing to improve the accuracy of their co-ords, to learn how to use a GPS or to take advice from other cachers then a "Needs Maintenance" log for the innaccurate co-ords (and anything else such as wet logbook/leaking container) would be the thing to do, this will at least let other cachers know what the cache is like. Then if no maintenance is carried out a "Needs Archiving" can be logged.

 

Ignoring caches by certain people is all well and good but it still means areas can get saturated with rubbishy caches which may prevent someone from placing a better cache with purpose nearby. I'd be pretty annoyed if I wanted to place a cache by a monument in a park or near a building with some interesting history but couldn't because the inaccurate co-ordinates for a cache like these was nearby.

[team tisri]

You know, I'm actually curious as to how the accuracy of the GPS on the iPhone 4 will compare now to previous versions. Maybe if He Whose Name is Jobes has smiled upon us, it got an upgrade as well and we may see more accurate placements now. Maybe?

 

Perhaps, as long as nobody was holding the iPhone 4 when the readings were taken.

[team tisri]

If the setters of these "caches" are showing no willing to improve the accuracy of their co-ords, to learn how to use a GPS or to take advice from other cachers then a "Needs Maintenance" log for the innaccurate co-ords (and anything else such as wet logbook/leaking container) would be the thing to do, this will at least let other cachers know what the cache is like. Then if no maintenance is carried out a "Needs Archiving" can be logged.

 

Ignoring caches by certain people is all well and good but it still means areas can get saturated with rubbishy caches which may prevent someone from placing a better cache with purpose nearby. I'd be pretty annoyed if I wanted to place a cache by a monument in a park or near a building with some interesting history but couldn't because the inaccurate co-ordinates for a cache like these was nearby.

 

It could become part of a problem for reviewers, given they need to enforce the proximity rule.

 

If a cache isn't allowed within 500-odd feet of another cache to avoid confusion, and a cacher is routinely placing caches of any description with coordinates that are out by anything up to 300 feet, the proximity rule breaks and the potential for the confusion of finding one cache while seeking another appears.

 

It would be very unfortunate if a cache at a quality location was disallowed because of proximity to another cache stuck to a lamp post, when the actual location of the blocking cache was far enough to allow the proposed one.

[+Palujia]

If the setters of these "caches" are showing no willing to improve the accuracy of their co-ords, to learn how to use a GPS or to take advice from other cachers then a "Needs Maintenance" log for the innaccurate co-ords (and anything else such as wet logbook/leaking container) would be the thing to do, this will at least let other cachers know what the cache is like. Then if no maintenance is carried out a "Needs Archiving" can be logged.

 

Ignoring caches by certain people is all well and good but it still means areas can get saturated with rubbishy caches which may prevent someone from placing a better cache with purpose nearby. I'd be pretty annoyed if I wanted to place a cache by a monument in a park or near a building with some interesting history but couldn't because the inaccurate co-ordinates for a cache like these was nearby.

 

It could become part of a problem for reviewers, given they need to enforce the proximity rule.

 

If a cache isn't allowed within 500-odd feet of another cache to avoid confusion, and a cacher is routinely placing caches of any description with coordinates that are out by anything up to 300 feet, the proximity rule breaks and the potential for the confusion of finding one cache while seeking another appears.

 

It would be very unfortunate if a cache at a quality location was disallowed because of proximity to another cache stuck to a lamp post, when the actual location of the blocking cache was far enough to allow the proposed one.

So all it needs is for the putative "placer of the interesting type cache" to do is visit the "duff" cache, Accurately log the co-ordinates. Send a note to the reviewer that the co-ords of the "duff" cache are very distorted, and will not interfere with the placement of the "interesting type cache"

Simples!

[+L8HNB]

So all it needs is for the putative "placer of the interesting type cache" to do is visit the "duff" cache, Accurately log the co-ordinates. Send a note to the reviewer that the co-ords of the "duff" cache are very distorted, and will not interfere with the placement of the "interesting type cache"

Simples!

 

Eh? Whats wrong with the CO taking the responsibility of getting it right first time?

 

Please explain why you think it's some one elses responsibility to sort others _______* out! There are plenty of good examples about if folks get out and about and look and learn.....

 

* insert lack of understanding of equipment, incompetence, idleness,- the list is endless - LOL.

[team tisri]

If the setters of these "caches" are showing no willing to improve the accuracy of their co-ords, to learn how to use a GPS or to take advice from other cachers then a "Needs Maintenance" log for the innaccurate co-ords (and anything else such as wet logbook/leaking container) would be the thing to do, this will at least let other cachers know what the cache is like. Then if no maintenance is carried out a "Needs Archiving" can be logged.

 

Ignoring caches by certain people is all well and good but it still means areas can get saturated with rubbishy caches which may prevent someone from placing a better cache with purpose nearby. I'd be pretty annoyed if I wanted to place a cache by a monument in a park or near a building with some interesting history but couldn't because the inaccurate co-ordinates for a cache like these was nearby.

 

It could become part of a problem for reviewers, given they need to enforce the proximity rule.

 

If a cache isn't allowed within 500-odd feet of another cache to avoid confusion, and a cacher is routinely placing caches of any description with coordinates that are out by anything up to 300 feet, the proximity rule breaks and the potential for the confusion of finding one cache while seeking another appears.

 

It would be very unfortunate if a cache at a quality location was disallowed because of proximity to another cache stuck to a lamp post, when the actual location of the blocking cache was far enough to allow the proposed one.

So all it needs is for the putative "placer of the interesting type cache" to do is visit the "duff" cache, Accurately log the co-ordinates. Send a note to the reviewer that the co-ords of the "duff" cache are very distorted, and will not interfere with the placement of the "interesting type cache"

Simples!

 

Sure, if they can be bothered to check every lamp post within 100 yards of the posted coordinates in the hope that it's really 0.11 miles from their proposed spot and not 0.09 miles.

 

It's a sad day when in order to place an interesting cache one must search for an uninteresting cache with woefully inaccurate coordinates to verify the location.

 

Of course it does raise an interesting possibility, in that the would-be placer of the interesting cache could simply move the uninteresting one to a qualifying lamp post 0.11 miles from their desired location and post the "corrected" coordinates to the owner.

 

Back to the original issue, if the hider of these caches ended up placing one within 0.1 miles of an existing cache but with coordinates showing a distance just enough to be accepted it would need to be archived once the coordinates were corrected because it would fail the proximity test.

[+Bear and Ragged]

Back to the old suggestion of:

Minimum time as a member and minimum number of finds before you can list a cache...

 

I've got my eye on a cache, co-ords are totally wrong, C/O has tried to change them (can't, it's more than the system allows) has listed the correct co-ords on the cache page -using minutes and seconds...

 

I've emailed to say 'contact your reviewer' to change the co-ords, finders have posted the same info as well...

Cacher hasn't logged in for two weeks...

 

And. At 15 days old, the cache contents are already wet!

 

Cache owner has performed maintenance on the cache...

i have put it in a new tub that isn't as leaky

And.

It's still listed 0.387miles from where it is!

[+keehotee]

So all it needs is for the putative "placer of the interesting type cache" to do is visit the "duff" cache, Accurately log the co-ordinates. Send a note to the reviewer that the co-ords of the "duff" cache are very distorted, and will not interfere with the placement of the "interesting type cache"

Simples!

 

Eh? Whats wrong with the CO taking the responsibility of getting it right first time?

 

Please explain why you think it's some one elses responsibility to sort others _______* out! There are plenty of good examples about if folks get out and about and look and learn.....

 

* insert lack of understanding of equipment, incompetence, idleness,- the list is endless - LOL.

 

Ditto! Well said

[+Happy Humphrey]

It's still listed 0.387miles from where it is!

Simple! Merely move the cache so that the coordinates match. Of course, this means that the cache owner cannot find the cache any more...and you might have to ask him to change the hint from "on a lamppost" to "in the middle of the sludge". But he'll be so grateful for your help, he won't mind!

[+thekennelat79]

It's still listed 0.387miles from where it is!

Simple! Merely move the cache so that the coordinates match. Of course, this means that the cache owner cannot find the cache any more...and you might have to ask him to change the hint from "on a lamppost" to "in the middle of the sludge". But he'll be so grateful for your help, he won't mind!

 

I'm so looking forward to moving a few 35 mm film canisters/nanos to the published co-ordinates, out into the middle of a main road for example

 

Do you think that they are traffic proof?

Edited June 30, 2010 by thekennelat79

[team tisri]

It's still listed 0.387miles from where it is!

Simple! Merely move the cache so that the coordinates match. Of course, this means that the cache owner cannot find the cache any more...and you might have to ask him to change the hint from "on a lamppost" to "in the middle of the sludge". But he'll be so grateful for your help, he won't mind!

 

Depending on where it is and where the posted coordinates are, this might give you all the excuse you need to take a truly awful cache and throw it in the river

[+Pharisee]

Depending on where it is and where the posted coordinates are, this might give you all the excuse you need to take a truly awful cache and throw it in the river

Oh dear... did I need an excuse?

[+keehotee]

Depending on where it is and where the posted coordinates are, this might give you all the excuse you need to take a truly awful cache and throw it in the river

Oh dear... did I need an excuse?

[+Cornell Finch]

Had to be done:

 

http://feedback.geocaching.com/geocaching/..._hiding_a_cache

[GerritS]

Had to be done:

 

http://feedback.geocaching.com/geocaching/..._hiding_a_cache

 

OK now I have to ask, just how bad is the iphone? Started caching on an N95 and warned my positions could be out on my first cache placements.

 

As I recall the positions where not that bad at all.... The ones that where where because I had typed them in wrong!

 

Unless there was heavy tree cover I could get pretty much on target. I used to grumble about it but to be honest it was not that bad... In-fact when I got my basic Yellow Etrex I thought the N95 had a better GPS.

 

Is the I phone that bad?

[+keehotee]

Had to be done:

 

http://feedback.geocaching.com/geocaching/..._hiding_a_cache

 

OK now I have to ask, just how bad is the iphone? Started caching on an N95 and warned my positions could be out on my first cache placements.

 

As I recall the positions where not that bad at all.... The ones that where where because I had typed them in wrong!

 

Unless there was heavy tree cover I could get pretty much on target. I used to grumble about it but to be honest it was not that bad... In-fact when I got my basic Yellow Etrex I thought the N95 had a better GPS.

 

Is the I phone that bad?

 

Apparently Apple never intended for the iPhone to be used as a navigation device. The GPS chip was only included to give real time location data to apps that needed to know roughly where you were in order to work - such as for advertising, or to let you know where the closest Apple shop chippy might be.

 

Edited to add useful location

Edited July 1, 2010 by keehotee

[+Arenalife]

I can't believe how much rubbish is spread about the iphone, usually from people who haven't used one. It's somehow passed into standard legend that it's not accurate (as if GPS was that accurate anyway).

 

I haven't done scientific tests yet but my phone often reads 1ft or even 0ft when I'm stood at GZ so I can't complain about that. When watching the (free) satellite imagery (does your gps do that?) as I'm walking down the street, not only does it show me walking on the pavement, but which SIDE of the pavement! Put it this way, it's never read more than 10ft from a cache location.

 

Objectively, it's slower to lock on if you're not in a signal area but it does do it and doesn't settle down as quickly while you're at GZ pacing about. There's also the brilliant compass feature, the arrow actually points at the cache, you don't have to do some 'straight line walks' to give your gps arrow a datum (does your GPS do that?).

 

I'm not an Apple fanatic or apologist by any means, till I got the phone (after using a friends) I was full of snidey comments about them/their owners and would sulk if my friend made me go with him to the Apple shop. I now see that I was a misguided twonk

[+The Blorenges]

The iPhone does indeed work but unfortunately, when it doesn't you have a problem. With the Geocaching app running it doesn't tell you where it is getting the location information from. If you are in an 'urban canyon' and have no or poor GPS signal the phone triangulates its position from the mobile phone signal and can give you a position accuracy that can be wildly innacurate - I've had it half a mile off! Apps like MotionX GPS at least show whether its a true GPS fix or not so you know.

 

Same applies to using the compass (either the built in app or the geocaching app) to get the location of your new cache placement. If you've not got a good fix the coords you read could (and often are) way off!

 

The real problem with the iPhone is between the pavement and the screen...... Someone who doesn't really know how it is working will just read off the figures and assume they are good and correct when they may not be.

 

Even with a handheld GPS I always check what accuracy figure I've got and take several readings at a cache site when placing it, walking in from several directions then averaging the readings. It works.

 

Chris (MrB)

[+thekennelat79]

I have to agree with everything that Chris has said (above).

Having used a V3 iPhone and 5 different models/makes of GPS at various times, I now have very firm views on the subject.

 

When setting caches, an iPhone cannot be relied upon to give an accurate fix.

Notice that I'm not saying that it is not able to.

It simply cannot be relied upon to give consistently accurate figures.

 

For all my caches (I have a few out there), I will use only the co-ords provided by my 2 GPS units when both are displaying a 20' (or better) accuracy.

Even then, I will perform 3 or 4 walk-ins from various directions to generate a minimum of 10 readings.

These are then averaged out to give the published co-ordinates.

A final check on Google Earth serves to confirm that I haven't made any silly mistakes.

 

This approach is not foolproof, but seems to work quite well.

If only some of the iPhone cache setters were to put their published co-ordinates into Google Earth, they might be surprised to find their caches located on building roofs or in the middle of busy main roads!

[+The Blorenges]

Some may be interested to read Jeremy's comment, see under this 'idea' posted by Cornell Finch:

 

"Ban iPhone coordinates when hiding a cache."

 

MrsB

[+Jonovich]

Some may be interested to read Jeremy's comment, see under this 'idea' posted by Cornell Finch:

 

"Ban iPhone coordinates when hiding a cache."

 

MrsB

 

That makes for an interesting read!

 

I know some local cachers to me that don't own a GPSr of any type. They cache purely via paper map. They have recently published a new puzzle series and their co-ords have been pretty accurate - placed from a map reading and then fine tuned on google earth.

 

Jon

[+Happy Humphrey]

Some GPSrs will be better than others at giving accurate coordinates under tricky conditions. But in some places it's just no good standing against the cache taking readings; the average reading could be highly inaccurate and misleading and will vary significantly from day to day.

 

The way I set coordinates for a cache hidden in an area with sketchy signal (tree cover, cliffs, tall buildings), is

1. Obtain the initial waypoint using the GPSr / Iphone or whatever, but regard this as only a rough indicator
   
2. Walk away to the nearest spot with a good signal (obviously if this is miles away you might have to compromise, but there's usually a reasonable area nearby: e.g. road junction, clearing)
   
3. Walk back towards the rough waypoint, watching the GPS arrow and distance. Also note what the general bearing is (East / West / North-East etc).
   
4. Before getting into the thick tree cover again, make an estimate on how well the GPSr is pointing towards the cache. If it looks "out", manually adjust the coordinates; for instance if it's pointing too far West, then take a few points off the "west" coordinates. If you're approaching from the south and it's indicating 100m away when it's only actually 70 paces, subtract a few off the north coordinates. Then walk back and try again, and re-adjust if necessary.
    
   An example would be: the waypoint is 53d 34.997 and you change it to 53d 34.993. With a bit of practice it only takes a few minutes to adjust the coordinates so that a cacher will be approaching the area with GPSr pointing exactly at the cache, with an accurate indication of distance. Although the signal might waver when they're on top of the cache, chances are that they'll get pretty close before the signal starts getting blocked or bounced.
   

[+keehotee]

I know some local cachers to me that don't own a GPSr of any type. They cache purely via paper map. They have recently published a new puzzle series and their co-ords have been pretty accurate - placed from a map reading and then fine tuned on google earth.

 

Jon

 

Have they stated that on the cache page? Grounds for instant archiving, methinks ??

[+Jonovich]

Have they stated that on the cache page? Grounds for instant archiving, methinks ??

 

Nope... It's something I found out about when they got in touch to ask for advice about what GPSr to buy...

 

But how odd that their caches are really rather accurate and go against the rules with a risk of instant archiving (I'm not going to say who they are or which caches, so they are safe), yet another local chappie is running around throwing out caches placed with an iPhone's co-ords and just yesterday had another one corrected by over 100ft as they were so inaccurate - yet this is perfectly alright?

 

Jon

[+Pharisee]

I suspect we all have our own way of recording the location for a new cache and to a greater of lesser extent, they're all valid. For what it's worth, this is how I do it:

I'll take an empty container of the size I want to use to the area I would like to place a cache. I then search for suitable hiding places. When I find one, I'll place my 60CSx on the spot and leave it 'averaging' for a minimum of 10 minutes. That will give me the average of at least 600 separate readings taken at one a second. I'll then look around for other likely cache hiding spots (you rarely spot the best one straight away) and do the same for that one. Having exhausted my search, I'll decide which of the locations I like best, go back to that one and take another 10 minute reading. At some later time; it may be hours or days; I'll bring the the completed cache back and hide it. I'll take another 10 minute average at that time. The published co-ordinates will be an average of the three averages. The three averages very rarely differ by more than a value of 1 or 2 in the least significant digit of the latitude or longitude. That way works for me and I very often get logs on my caches that mention the accuracy of the published co-ordinates.

[+keehotee]

Have they stated that on the cache page? Grounds for instant archiving, methinks ??

 

Nope... It's something I found out about when they got in touch to ask for advice about what GPSr to buy... :huh:

 

But how odd that their caches are really rather accurate and go against the rules with a risk of instant archiving (I'm not going to say who they are or which caches, so they are safe), yet another local chappie is running around throwing out caches placed with an iPhone's co-ords and just yesterday had another one corrected by over 100ft as they were so inaccurate - yet this is perfectly alright?

 

Jon

 

I don't doubt that there are also far easier ways of getting a golf ball from the tee to the hole than by hitting it with one end of an iron stick - but seeing as it's golf, use of a golf club is, I believe, one of the rules.

 

Now apply that philosophy to geocaching...

[+Graculus]

When reviewing a cache if it's pretty obvious the coordinates don't seem right I'll ask the cache owner to check them before considering publishing the cache. If the cache is on moorland somewhere we've no real check whether they are accurate or not - even using Google Earth. For urban caches we use Streetview which gives us an idea and try to match up any hint or clue in the description to what we are seeing. Bu if a cache is down an alley between some buildings we've no way of knowing if the location is wrong. One end of an alley is the same as the other.....

 

Even using Streetview and Google maps any inaccuracy of around 20 to 30 feet would be accepted because that is not untypical of a GPS in an 'urban' location.

 

We do try and make sure coordinates are as good as possible because at the end of the day it's usually us who have to update them (or check them when the owner updates them) so it would only make extra work for us

 

Now, what was that bit about not using a GPS to place caches.....

 

Chris

Graculus

Volunteer UK Reviewer for geocaching.com

UK Geocaching Information & Resources website www.follow-the-arrow.co.uk

Geocaching.com Knowledge Books

[+Jonovich]

 

Now, what was that bit about not using a GPS to place caches.....

 

 

Sorry... Did I say no GPSr... My mistake, they use one... No, in fact they use several. Yes. Lots of GPSr's and take an average reading from them all. I don't think I've ever seen them with a map. No... Not at all. In fact that's it, they have Papyrophobia, so no. Would never have a map

 

Jon

[GerritS]

 

Now, what was that bit about not using a GPS to place caches.....

 

 

Sorry... Did I say no GPSr... My mistake, they use one... No, in fact they use several. Yes. Lots of GPSr's and take an average reading from them all. I don't think I've ever seen them with a map. No... Not at all. In fact that's it, they have Papyrophobia, so no. Would never have a map

 

Jon

 

I once found most of a cache series near Portsmouth, it was noted to be placed by OS map the coords where pretty good the caches hard to find mainly because of the tree cover and terrain..

 

It was round a sewage works "Common As Muck" I think was the name, now archived ...

 

It was more fun than I expected , yes you knew when you where down wind and up wind ... Some how it has stuck in my memory for the right reasons ...

 

We have all done caches where positions set by GPS have been well out. So if some one is the time to set a cache by map, google earth as long as positions are reasonable and clues good I will not complain. A good cache is a good cache, regardless...

 

I think we all respect cacher's who find finds using a map, I think the same respect should go to cacher's that set good cacher's with a map. As long as its position collates with that given by a GPS.

 

If some one is happy to walk round a golf course as a caddy does not mean he does not enjoy the sport he just does it differently

[+Happy Humphrey]

For what it's worth, this is how I do it: ...

That's very good advice, and in most cases I'm sure the final result will be spot-on. But I wouldn't rely on any amount of averaging once the GPS signal is blocked; the average of inaccurate readings is also likely to be inaccurate. That's why I also check that the estimated distance and bearing to the cache from a clear spot nearby appears correct.

Edited July 1, 2010 by Happy Humphrey

[+thekennelat79]

 

I once found most of a cache series near Portsmouth, it was noted to be placed by OS map the coords where pretty good the caches hard to find mainly because of the tree cover and terrain..

 

It was round a sewage works "Common As Muck" I think was the name, now archived ...

 

As long as its position collates with that given by a GPS.

 

 

Ah yes, I remember that series.

When it was first published, most of the cache co-ords were out by anything up to 250'

And the caches themselves were recycled fast food containers................

[+Palujia]

So all it needs is for the putative "placer of the interesting type cache" to do is visit the "duff" cache, Accurately log the co-ordinates. Send a note to the reviewer that the co-ords of the "duff" cache are very distorted, and will not interfere with the placement of the "interesting type cache"

Simples!

 

Eh? Whats wrong with the CO taking the responsibility of getting it right first time?

 

Please explain why you think it's some one elses responsibility to sort others _______* out! There are plenty of good examples about if folks get out and about and look and learn.....

 

* insert lack of understanding of equipment, incompetence, idleness,- the list is endless - LOL.

 

Ditto! Well said

This was actually in answer to the cacher who was complaining about not being able to put of a cache as it was "supposed" to be on top of the innacurately placed one. I did not suggest that the CO should not take responsibility for the accuracy of placement. It was a suggestion that if the cacher wanted to place a cache in an interesting place that conflicted with the innacurate placement of the other cache - they could visit the innacurate location etc etc

So OK already

[+Cornell Finch]

I once found most of a cache series near Portsmouth, it was noted to be placed by OS map the coords where pretty good the caches hard to find mainly because of the tree cover and terrain..

 

It was round a sewage works "Common As Muck" I think was the name, now archived ...

 

It was more fun than I expected , yes you knew when you where down wind and up wind ... Some how it has stuck in my memory for the right reasons ...

 

Unfortunately, it wasn't with OS Map, but using Google Earth. And, yes, the containers were mostly chinese takeaway containers and the like.

 

FWIW - I have an iPhone, along with an eTrex and I have found caches with both. My last find (two in fact, my only finds during June! ) was a park and grab with the iPhone in Croydon, great 3G signal and when I parked the van, sorted the Geocaching app and waited for it to "settle", I had just 156 accuracy showing.

 

I had to use the clue to locate the cache as when I looked, the pointer was sending me 600 feet in a direction that was out of the car park and into waste land. Stood at the cache the iPhone told me I was over 650 away according to the iPhone.

 

It's great for a park and go, but I would never use it for serious caching and there is no way on god's concrete covered earth that I would use the iPhone to "grab" coordinates when hiding a cache. Heck, I even worry about the coordinates I post from the eTrex using a similar method to Pharisee.

[+Cornell Finch]

 

I don't doubt that there are also far easier ways of getting a golf ball from the tee to the hole than by hitting it with one end of an iron stick - but seeing as it's golf, use of a golf club is, I believe, one of the rules.

 

Now apply that philosophy to geocaching...

 

+1!

 

I love this.

[+vw_k]

Have the cache owners in question read this thread I wonder?

[+Cornell Finch]

Have the cache owners in question read this thread I wonder?

 

I suspect not. We would have heard something, either publicly or via PM by now if they had.

[+L8HNB]

What CF said ^^^. It's a small minority of the UK caching community that reads and/or posts here.

Edited July 2, 2010 by L8HNB

[+HouseOfDragons]

I can't believe how much rubbish is spread about the iphone, usually from people who haven't used one. It's somehow passed into standard legend that it's not accurate (as if GPS was that accurate anyway).

 

I haven't done scientific tests yet but my phone often reads 1ft or even 0ft when I'm stood at GZ so I can't complain about that. When watching the (free) satellite imagery (does your gps do that?) as I'm walking down the street, not only does it show me walking on the pavement, but which SIDE of the pavement! Put it this way, it's never read more than 10ft from a cache location.

 

 

When

I look at the satellite imagery on mine whilst sat on my patio, it often shows me sitting 2 houses down the road.

[+Jonovich]

When

I look at the satellite imagery on mine whilst sat on my patio, it often shows me sitting 2 houses down the road.

 

It's probably not you... try waving your arms to see if it is

 

Jon