adding corrected coordinates to a log

[+JL_HSTRE]

You go to find a cache. You eventually do find it, but it's a bit off from where your GPS claims the GZ is. Tree cover and tall buildings are not involved. Your GPS claims high accuracy (6-7 ft).

 

Given the circumstances I have described, in your opinion, how far off the published coordinates would the cache need to be to prompt you to attach alternative coordinates in your log and politely note that you found the cache at those coordinates not the published ones? 10ft? 20ft? 30ft? 50ft?

[7rxc]

You go to find a cache. You eventually do find it, but it's a bit off from where your GPS claims the GZ is. Tree cover and tall buildings are not involved. Your GPS claims high accuracy (6-7 ft).

 

Given the circumstances I have described, in your opinion, how far off the published coordinates would the cache need to be to prompt you to attach alternative coordinates in your log and politely note that you found the cache at those coordinates not the published ones? 10ft? 20ft? 30ft? 50ft?

 

The distance? up to 30 ft is considered by many to be within tolerances... I used to cache with an older unit that had EPEs of up to 11 meters on a regular basis... more in heavy trees if anything at all... My recent rig is usually 2 to 4 metres EPE. Which raises what I consider a valid point...

 

IF you are going to post a set of alternate coordinates, then perhaps specify the GPS Model / Software Version, EPE, and local conditions... open or treed, canyon or hilltop, etc... Then the CO and others can make an educated guess as to the correctness or whatever... You might be as wrong as the CO was, just using different sats or weather conditions, time of year etc... Remember, basically you are expressing an opinion... that's all. It will be considered or ignored, and there isn't much you can do beyond that... This does not apply exactly to errors of a great magnitude... But those should be stated much the same... observed results, checked many times... not assumed data.

 

Doug 7rxc

[+dfx]

for me it mostly depends on how difficult the cache was to find. if it's more than 10 meters off, i usually always post my own coords. if it's less than that, i may not bother if judging from size, description, hint and ratings there were only so many logical hiding spots and we made a quick find. the longer it takes us, the more likely i am to take a reading and post those coords.

[+Mr. Wilson & a Mt. Goat]

for me it mostly depends on how difficult the cache was to find. if it's more than 10 meters off, i usually always post my own coords. if it's less than that, i may not bother if judging from size, description, hint and ratings there were only so many logical hiding spots and we made a quick find. the longer it takes us, the more likely i am to take a reading and post those coords.

Same here, usually the hint and description give it away easily. If it's a difficulty higher then 3, then I may take extra coords to post if it's more them 5-7meters off.

[+humboldt flier]

We here on the north coast of Calif. deal with a dense Redwood canopy and some canyons. We are rarely miffed if someone posts a different set of co-ordinates. Then there are those of us who invite the posting of co-ordinates.

[+SSO JOAT]

The CO's who frequently have bad coords will totally ignore anyone who goes out of their way to post the correct coords. Thus I never collect the coords with the CO in mind; I do it for cachers that will follow behind me.

 

If a cache has several old logs complaining about coords being off, I'll always record my own good set of coords and post them with my log. I find it very annoying when finders will make the effort to complain about bad coords, yet not do anything about providing a better set.

 

There are certain hiders that I automatically know I'll be hunting a larger circle and I know that there is a good chance I'll need to collect better coords and post them with the log.

[jd-mitchell]

There's one I'm working that the cO posted corrected coodants for it. The original ones bounced around so much that it would put you inside a grocery store. Here's the link if you would like a peek: http://coord.info/GC1JWCH

[+Isonzo Karst]

how far off the published coordinates would the cache need to be to prompt you to attach alternative coordinates in your log ....10ft? 20ft? 30ft? 50ft?

 

more than 30 - 40 ft in open sky, I might remember to take and post my coords.

Under heavy tree cover, if I find it, it's good. If I don't, I don't know anything to comment on coords.

 

tougher are when stage or puzzle solution coords are off - I found a final where the coords, under moderate tree cover, were off by 60+ feet. About all you can say is something like, "found final about 60 ft north of where i started hunting".

[+SSO JOAT]

I found the final of a multi was off by quite a bit and nearly every other finder had made the same comments. What I did, since it was a math problem on the cache listing that gave you the coordinates, was recompute the problem backwards from where I found the cache and came up with the needed adjustments for their starting numbers. I posted those in my log, stating that if people had problems finding the cache that they could change the 2 starting numbers to xxx & yyy to get to the coordinate where I found the cache at.

 

Got a note from the CO the next day thanking me for the rework and that they would check on the cache to make sure it was correct and see if they should adjust the listing. We'll see, but like most things in life approach dictates response. If you just drop a log complaining about problems, they tend to get ignored. If you do a little extra work and offer a real solution in a diplomatic way, you sometimes get a response.

[7rxc]

There's one I'm working that the cO posted corrected coodants for it. The original ones bounced around so much that it would put you inside a grocery store. Here's the link if you would like a peek: http://coord.info/GC1JWCH

 

At it again? You have to get out of downtown, really... Glad to see you are chasing some toughies after that other one... Remember the advice though...

 

For everyone: Sometimes typos happen, so it isn't always conditions, or poor GPS work, and people do want to know about it.

 

Some of us recently vetted a puzzle for the owner... from Finland. He must have been giving hints to the first finders... since no of them noticed the coordinates for the puzzle, when found, were over 200 km OFF. Now fixed, the only problem is the puzzle itself... still doesn't get many finds or even attempts, despite being relatively straight forward to find the solution... Good puzzle. Maybe someday I'll get to go find it... not likely though.

 

Doug 7rxc

[Skippermark]

I generally won't post new coordinates unless they're more than 50 feet off, but I might say something if they're 40 feet off.

[jd-mitchell]

There's one I'm working that the cO posted corrected coodants for it. The original ones bounced around so much that it would put you inside a grocery store. Here's the link if you would like a peek: http://coord.info/GC1JWCH

 

At it again? You have to get out of downtown, really... Glad to see you are chasing some toughies after that other one... Remember the advice though...

 

 

Doug 7rxc

 

actually Doug, There's an easier one I'm working that's almost 14 miles away! I do appreciate the help & support. BTW,I LOVE THE TRUCK!

[+Harry Dolphin]

The circumstances can make a big difference. Three recent ones 70' off, by my GPS.

Forest area with no underbrush. Hint says "Hole in wood". Coords lead to a tree with a hollow spot at the bottom. Not there. 70' away is another similar tree. There it is. Only two places it could be hidden. Log: "Coords seem soft."

Small park with strange statue. Coords lead to the statue. Hint says: "This is an old pill bottle that has been camoed. There are a few rocks surrounding it. What else...ground level..." That could be anywhere in the park. Found cache 70' away. Posted corrected coords.

Town with small lots. Ground zero is in somebody's back yard. Sharp slope down a cobblestone street. Hint says: "Look for the stump!" 70' away, down the cobblestone street, 40' lower, in a green area between the streets. Posted corrected coords.

To me, it depends if it makes that much of a difference. First example: Nope. Didn't make much difference. Third one: Made a very big difference.

One that irked me was a cache where the coords lead to the middle of a bridge across a small stream. "Cross the bridge, into the woods." Didn't say which way to cross the bridge. Previous finders said the coords were 50' to 70' off. Someone had posted corrected coords, but that was more than five logs back and CO did not correct them. Could have been in the dense woods on two sides of the trail, or in the less dense woods on the other side of the bridge. That one got an NM! Coords are bad, and CO hasn't bothered to correct them.

[+wimseyguy]

I generally won't post new coordinates unless they're more than 50 feet off, but I might say something if they're 40 feet off.

+1

[+Viajero Perdido]

I found the final of a multi was off by quite a bit and nearly every other finder had made the same comments. What I did, since it was a math problem on the cache listing that gave you the coordinates, was recompute the problem backwards from where I found the cache and came up with the needed adjustments for their starting numbers. I posted those in my log, stating that if people had problems finding the cache that they could change the 2 starting numbers to xxx & yyy to get to the coordinate where I found the cache at.

 

Got a note from the CO the next day thanking me for the rework and that they would check on the cache to make sure it was correct and see if they should adjust the listing. We'll see, but like most things in life approach dictates response. If you just drop a log complaining about problems, they tend to get ignored. If you do a little extra work and offer a real solution in a diplomatic way, you sometimes get a response.

I did exactly the same thing for two caches, except I never heard anything from either cache owner.

 

So I posted a note on each of the cache pages - where I mention the modified starting coords - and periodically I edit the date to keep it in the most recent five, because people keep mentioning that they only found it using my numbers.

 

EG, http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?wp=GCHR39

Edited October 19, 2010 by Viajero Perdido

[+L0ne.R]

 

I did exactly the same thing for two caches, except I never heard anything from either cache owner.

 

So I posted a note on each of the cache pages - where I mention the modified starting coords - and periodically I edit the date to keep it in the most recent five, because people keep mentioning that they only found it using my numbers.

 

EG, http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?wp=GCHR39

 

I'm going to try that too. I'll watch caches that I have added an additional waypoint then keep posting a note so it stays in the top 5. Thanks for the idea.

 

BTW, I use CacheSense. It doesn't include the additional waypoint so it's great when people also put their coordinates in the log.

 

It would be nice if posted additional waypoints were collected into the wpts gpx file.

[+Ecylram]

We've got an informal sliding scale for posting corrections in posts. For us, instead of posting coordinates we'll say something like: "found cache 30' SSE of posted coordinates".

 

As for the sliding scale...

 

First, we've got to feel good about what our GPSr is telling us. If we have any doubt, we won't post 'corrections'.

 

Then, it depend on the cache. Real examples:

 

3.5 difficulty tribute cache where CO posted coordinates (we believe) intentionally pointing to an open space in front of strip of target areas. We didn't post any 'correction' as it would have spoiled what the CO was intending (and would have significantly lowered the difficulty from 3.5).

 

4.0 difficulty cache where reading are jumping all over the place and the CO, who normally posts dead-on coordinates and has posted revised coordinates...send a private note to the CO to give him feedback on what WE thought the correct coordinates MIGHT be.

 

1.5 difficulty camo'd film can in a tree posted by a CO with notoriously poor coordinates. Coordinates point to the wrong tree 20-30+ feet away with lots of DNF's (and the owner making repeated visits to check on the DNF's)...we'll post a correction.

 

1.5 difficulty caches where coordinates are off and cachers are trampling or damaging the area searching for the cache...we'll post a hint or correction to reduce wear and tear on the area.

 

LPC where coordinates are 50+ feet off. Yes it was easy to find, but commented just the same (as did several finders.)

 

1.5 difficulty where the cache was 550+ feet off where the newbie CO hasn't logged in months. Posted a NM and provided info to get other cachers into the general area. (Other cachers had posted similar pointers.)

 

So...a number of variables to consider.

 

Our Primary rule: Don't do anything that spoils what the CO intended. If it is supposed to be an easy find but an error or conditions makes it hard, then we'll post something or notify the CO. If the cache is supposed to be hard, don't post anything that makes the cache easy.

[+dfx]

Our Primary rule: Don't do anything that spoils what the CO intended. If it is supposed to be an easy find but an error or conditions makes it hard, then we'll post something or notify the CO. If the cache is supposed to be hard, don't post anything that makes the cache easy.

but a traditional cache is always supposed to be at the given coordinates, and the coords should have the highest possible accuracy. purposely listing wrong coordinates isn't a valid way of making a cache harder to find.

[+Ecylram]

Our Primary rule: Don't do anything that spoils what the CO intended. If it is supposed to be an easy find but an error or conditions makes it hard, then we'll post something or notify the CO. If the cache is supposed to be hard, don't post anything that makes the cache easy.

but a traditional cache is always supposed to be at the given coordinates, and the coords should have the highest possible accuracy. purposely listing wrong coordinates isn't a valid way of making a cache harder to find.

Hence the tag I stole use at the bottom of my posts. IOW, I agree. What I've found is there are different opinions on what constitutes 'bad coordinates'. Some think 50' is ok and other's feel its perfectly appropriate to post off coordinates.

 

I've got no qualms with posting a hint if I believe someone is posting deliberately bad coordinates or information to make a stupid-simple cache harder to find.

[+Ecylram]

Our Primary rule: Don't do anything that spoils what the CO intended. If it is supposed to be an easy find but an error or conditions makes it hard, then we'll post something or notify the CO. If the cache is supposed to be hard, don't post anything that makes the cache easy.

but a traditional cache is always supposed to be at the given coordinates, and the coords should have the highest possible accuracy. purposely listing wrong coordinates isn't a valid way of making a cache harder to find.

Hence the tag I stole use at the bottom of my posts. IOW, I agree. What I've found is there are different opinions on what constitutes 'bad coordinates'. Some think 50' is ok and other's feel its perfectly appropriate to post off coordinates.

 

I've got no qualms with posting a hint if I believe someone is posting deliberately bad coordinates or information to make a stupid-simple cache harder to find.

I realized what I'm writing sounds contradictory. How about this...

 

Our Primary rule: Don't do anything that spoils what the CO intended and is within the guidelines.

[+EscapeFromFlatland]

We here on the north coast of Calif. deal with a dense Redwood canopy and some canyons. We are rarely miffed if someone posts a different set of co-ordinates. Then there are those of us who invite the posting of co-ordinates.

 

Same happens in some of the slot canyons in the woods around NW Oregon.

 

Thus I never collect the coords with the CO in mind; I do it for cachers that will follow behind me.

 

If a cache has several old logs complaining about coords being off, I'll always record my own good set of coords and post them with my log. I find it very annoying when finders will make the effort to complain about bad coords, yet not do anything about providing a better set.

 

That's my view of the issue, too. If one of the previous logs says they used someone else's coordinates or complains the coordinates are off, then I'll search all the logs to see if anyone posted a set of coordinates to use.

 

There's a new(er) cache in my 2-mile radius that is an ammo can in an ivy-infested section of woods on a hillside. The FTF and STF mentioned the coords being off, but didn't provide any new coords. Two others gave up trying to find. I waited 20min for my GPSr to settle down to get better coords.

[+Avernar]

Our Primary rule: Don't do anything that spoils what the CO intended and is within the guidelines.

How does your revised rule apply to soft/incorrect coordinates then? Just a little confused.

 

For a traditional or the first stage of a multi I'll post the coordinates I got if they're out by more than 10 meters from the listed. Doesn't matter how hard to find the cache is supposed to be.

[Andronicus]

I am finding that people (including me) are getting so used to very good coordinates that even 10m off will result in complaints. I recrecently posted coordonates for a cache that was off by only about 9m. There were a lot of complaints, and after I posted, people commenting that they wished they had used the new coordonate suggestion.

[Andronicus]

It would be nice if posted additional waypoints were collected into the wpts gpx file.

+1

[jd-mitchell]

Without having actually doing a hide, is it possible to change the coordinates in the initial listing?

[Andronicus]

Without having actually doing a hide, is it possible to change the coordinates in the initial listing?

No, but in you'r log, you can add coordinates others can see.

[7rxc]

Without having actually doing a hide, is it possible to change the coordinates in the initial listing?

 

The cache owner can do it up to a certain distance... the one you mentioned earlier could be with a few clicks...

but the owner put it into a note way back... perhaps he is not confident in those figures either.

 

As for seekers, no we can't... just offer our opinion of a better set that worked for us... and like I said before...

add some detail as to what took the new set... and conditions... that one may have some reflection issues from the buildings and or the Palisade itself and so on.

 

Doug 7rxc

[jd-mitchell]

Yeah, I knew that seekers couldn't change them. It wouldn't make a lot of sense to post NEW coordinates if the poster (or adopter) can change them.

[+Isonzo Karst]

I posted some coords to a note yesterday. I was near a cache that hadn't been found in 18+ months, with a string of DNFs.

 

I remembered it as a tough hunt with loose coords when I found it about 5 years ago.

Walked in, found it from memory and posted my coords. They turn out to be only 40 feet from the original coords.

 

The area has been overrun with vines. Used to be the a fairly obvious ->> check the grandfather oak, is now almost invisible until you're on top of it.

I don't know that my coords will help much, the big leafed vines are killing the signal at ground level.

 

A new hint would help a bunch, if the cache owner bothers.

[+Student Camper]

We have a cache in my area where the coords are about 8 miles off. when this error was identified, the information was recorded in the spoiler logs and is there for anyone to find.

as a result, the original coords need not be corrected, problem solved. I think it just adds a bit to the challenge.

Edited October 21, 2010 by student camper

[+GeoGeeBee]

We have a cache in my area where the coords are about 8 miles off. when this error was identified, the information was recorded in the spoiler logs and is there for anyone to find.

as a result, the original coords need not be corrected, problem solved. I think it just adds a bit to the challenge.

 

8 MILES???? "Problem solved?"

 

Nope, sorry. You can't expect every new finder to search back through the logs looking for the corrected coordinates. It should either be fixed, or archived.

 

Even if people are ok with finding it using the corrected coordinates from the previous finder, it's still causing problems: the wrong coordinates are blocking anyone from placing a cache within 1/10 of a mile of a place where there is no cache. And there's nothing stopping someone from placing a cache right next to this one, since the reviewers won't see a cache at those coordinates.

[+LightHouseSeekers]

50+

[+Student Camper]

We have a cache in my area where the coords are about 8 miles off. when this error was identified, the information was recorded in the spoiler logs and is there for anyone to find.

as a result, the original coords need not be corrected, problem solved. I think it just adds a bit to the challenge.

 

8 MILES???? "Problem solved?"

 

Nope, sorry. You can't expect every new finder to search back through the logs looking for the corrected coordinates. It should either be fixed, or archived.

 

Even if people are ok with finding it using the corrected coordinates from the previous finder, it's still causing problems: the wrong coordinates are blocking anyone from placing a cache within 1/10 of a mile of a place where there is no cache. And there's nothing stopping someone from placing a cache right next to this one, since the reviewers won't see a cache at those coordinates.

I do agree with the points you make but the cache in question has been in the hunt for over six years and is doing quite well, it is hard to argue with success.

BTW, it is not mine, I've not made any hides as yet.

[+Don_J]

Without having actually doing a hide, is it possible to change the coordinates in the initial listing?

 

You can change the coordinates up to to a total of 528'. Anything greater, you should email the reviewer that published your cache and give him the new coordinates. They will have to review it again. If everything is okay, they will change the coordinates for you.

 

The other day, we had a guy post 8 corrected coordinates logs on his cache and basically move it a half mile. This is NOT the proper way to do things and it can get you on the wrong side of your reviewer.

[+Don_J]

We have a cache in my area where the coords are about 8 miles off. when this error was identified, the information was recorded in the spoiler logs and is there for anyone to find.

as a result, the original coords need not be corrected, problem solved. I think it just adds a bit to the challenge.

 

The problem is not solved. The caches actual location has not been reviewed to see if it meets the guidelines.

 

Care to share the GC#?

[+dfx]

We have a cache in my area where the coords are about 8 miles off. when this error was identified, the information was recorded in the spoiler logs and is there for anyone to find.

as a result, the original coords need not be corrected, problem solved. I think it just adds a bit to the challenge.

The problem is not solved. The caches actual location has not been reviewed to see if it meets the guidelines.

 

Care to share the GC#?

not too hard to figure out: http://coord.info/GCJZYT

[JohnX]

I am in agreement with a previous poster who was annoyed by cachers would take the time to find and log the cache but could not be bothered to mark a waypoint and post or send the better coordinates. I placed a cache, twice archived now because enough cachers were posting the coordinates were off and took them to the wrong side of the road even though the cache description told potential finders which side of the road the cache was on, where to park and why. The first time I listed the cache I even included which sign it was near in the hint. It was clear that people were not even reading the cache description before going on the hunt.

 

Since I did not want clueless (both literally and figuratively) people to cross the road at times of heavy traffic in search of that ever so important smiley, the cache was archived. I don't want to put anyone in harm's way when looking for a cache. Here is a portion of a 2 paragraph log that demonstrates my point.

 

I noticed in previous logs (when I got back to my hotel and reading the full cache page), that it was said that the coords took you to the wrong side of the road quite a few times. With that said, could the owner please finally go to the cache site and redo the coords to the proper side of the road.

The cache was called "Have a Nice Day" if you care to look the two up under my profile.

[+PikesTravel]

What you might not realize is that some people paperless cache and NOT all GPSr allow you to see the description. You just download the pocket query and off you go. Our current GPSr allows us to download thousands of caches, see description and hints. Our previous GPSr only showed a mark on the map with no information, description, hint or anything. Don't hide your cache based on your GPSr, hide based on the true spirit of the game. DEAD ON ACCURATE COORDINATES! The game is about how good you can get the coordinates and how good a person can find the coordinates. Creativity is the key to difficulty not ones lousy ability to read a GPSr, so they just post anything. Or intentionally leading someone on a wild goose chase and then calling it a traditional. Call it what it is "Mystery Cache" and TELL why in the SHORT DESCRIPTION. That would be "Coordinates get you within 600 feet of the cache, because I don't have enough creativity to hide it in plain sight.

[+Don_J]

We here on the north coast of Calif. deal with a dense Redwood canopy and some canyons. We are rarely miffed if someone posts a different set of co-ordinates. Then there are those of us who invite the posting of co-ordinates.

 

One of the most beautiful places on Earth. I have found caches in the Humboldt Redwoods by pure luck and hints from the cache page. The GPSr was useless. I would put the Avenue of the Redwoods in the same list as the Grand Canyon for places everyone must see at least once in their lives.

 

As far the OT stuff. If I'm reading a 7' EPE, and the cache is 20', or over away, I'll usually post my coordinates. If my EPE is over 10', I may consider, if it's over 15' why bother? It's just a GPSr thing.

[+Don_J]

The circumstances can make a big difference. Three recent ones 70' off, by my GPS.

Forest area with no underbrush. Hint says "Hole in wood". Coords lead to a tree with a hollow spot at the bottom. Not there. 70' away is another similar tree. There it is. Only two places it could be hidden. Log: "Coords seem soft."

Small park with strange statue. Coords lead to the statue. Hint says: "This is an old pill bottle that has been camoed. There are a few rocks surrounding it. What else...ground level..." That could be anywhere in the park. Found cache 70' away. Posted corrected coords.

Town with small lots. Ground zero is in somebody's back yard. Sharp slope down a cobblestone street. Hint says: "Look for the stump!" 70' away, down the cobblestone street, 40' lower, in a green area between the streets. Posted corrected coords.

To me, it depends if it makes that much of a difference. First example: Nope. Didn't make much difference. Third one: Made a very big difference.

One that irked me was a cache where the coords lead to the middle of a bridge across a small stream. "Cross the bridge, into the woods." Didn't say which way to cross the bridge. Previous finders said the coords were 50' to 70' off. Someone had posted corrected coords, but that was more than five logs back and CO did not correct them. Could have been in the dense woods on two sides of the trail, or in the less dense woods on the other side of the bridge. That one got an NM! Coords are bad, and CO hasn't bothered to correct them.

 

I think the EPE, or what Garmin calls accuracy, is my most important factor when posting coordinates with my log. I have set my 60CS to display it in both the Map and Compass screens.

 

I have been in a spot with high tree cover. I had 30' EPE and was actually reading 0' feet to the cache. It was obvious that the cache wasn't there so I did a 360 and found a likely spot about 30 feet away. Sure enough, the cache was there. With an EPE of 30', posting new coordinates would only confuse the issue. If the cache is 50' off and my EPE is 7', I'll usually post my coordinates.

[+fizzymagic]

If the CO has obviously posted "soft" coordinates on a traditional cache, I will post corrected coordinates no matter how close or far they are from the cache location, because the cache finders deserve accurate coordinates and the guidelines require them.

 

Otherwise, I would not do it for an error of less than 25 feet.

 

By the way, we did one of those this weekend. A nano in a muddy ditch/trash heap with intentionally bad coords. It went straight to my ignore list after a 5-minute search. Had we found it, I would have posted corrected coordinates.

Edited January 31, 2011 by fizzymagic

[+Ecylram]

By the way, we did one of those this weekend. A nano in a muddy ditch/trash heap with intentionally bad coords. It went straight to my ignore list after a 5-minute search. Had we found it, I would have posted corrected coordinates.

 

Ugghhh....that brings back a couple of bad caching memories.

[+Don_J]

By the way, we did one of those this weekend. A nano in a muddy ditch/trash heap with intentionally bad coords. It went straight to my ignore list after a 5-minute search. Had we found it, I would have posted corrected coordinates.

 

Ugghhh....that brings back a couple of bad caching memories.

[+Don_J]

By the way, we did one of those this weekend. A nano in a muddy ditch/trash heap with intentionally bad coords. It went straight to my ignore list after a 5-minute search. Had we found it, I would have posted corrected coordinates.

 

Ugghhh....that brings back a couple of bad caching memories.

[+Don_J]

By the way, we did one of those this weekend. A nano in a muddy ditch/trash heap with intentionally bad coords. It went straight to my ignore list after a 5-minute search. Had we found it, I would have posted corrected coordinates.

 

Ugghhh....that brings back a couple of bad caching memories.

 

Saw a local cache posted this morning. Description says that the cache container is a garbage bag. Owner joined yesterday. Found none, hid one, this one. I posted a NA. He then posted a temp disable because the coords are wrong and that his container is waterproof, he just wrapped it in a giant trash bag to protect it.

[+Chrysalides]

Saw a local cache posted this morning. Description says that the cache container is a garbage bag. Owner joined yesterday. Found none, hid one, this one. I posted a NA. He then posted a temp disable because the coords are wrong and that his container is waterproof, he just wrapped it in a giant trash bag to protect it.

Did you find the cache before posting the NA?

 

Also worth noting that, for one reason or another, some experienced geocachers may create a new account just to publish a cache. This may or may not be the case here.

 

I don't usually bother posting better coordinates even when the actual coordinates are off, but I'm always grateful if another finder posts them - provided they are more accurate. I do mention that I found it some distance away from GZ in my log.

[+Don_J]

Saw a local cache posted this morning. Description says that the cache container is a garbage bag. Owner joined yesterday. Found none, hid one, this one. I posted a NA. He then posted a temp disable because the coords are wrong and that his container is waterproof, he just wrapped it in a giant trash bag to protect it.

Did you find the cache before posting the NA?

 

Also worth noting that, for one reason or another, some experienced geocachers may create a new account just to publish a cache. This may or may not be the case here.

 

I don't usually bother posting better coordinates even when the actual coordinates are off, but I'm always grateful if another finder posts them - provided they are more accurate. I do mention that I found it some distance away from GZ in my log.

 

I had considered it, but I came to the conclusion that experienced cachers don't normally use a trash bag for their cache container. I did not post the NA as a knee jerk reaction. There was just too much wrong with this one to ignore it, but your points are well taken.