Jump to content

Posting Bad Coordinates on Purpose


Followers 1

Recommended Posts

I've come into a strange situation as a new cacher. A large number of hides around our area hidden by a cacher have some pretty bad coordinates. Not just the usual inaccuracies - many are between 30-60 feet off. One is over 60 feet off. Some are pretty old hides. Some are really clever hides. Some just make you want to punch a wall. Most, even those with "easy" difficulty ratings, have a large amount of DNFs and require a considerable amount of time and scouring to find.

 

If you're local, you start attempting to find these, find a few, DNF a few, scratch your head and think...ok, is it time to get a new GPS? A few have recently been flagged as maintenance desperately needed or suggestions were placed to update coordinates. The CO hasn't been of much help. In fact, the CO's response was the coordinates were deliberately off on many of the hides to "make it more fun" for the finders...even if the difficulty is rated at 1-1.5 stars with no hint. The CO also makes reference that local people "know" this about the hides and shouldn't worry about it. What about non-locals? I could see this as just leaving a very poor taste for them about caching in our area.

 

What would you do in a siutation like this? Considering I'm somewhat new, I'd like the opinions of some veteran cachers on how to handle (or simply ignore) things.

Link to comment

This is from the cache listing guidelines. Note that it say accurate GPS coordinates.

 

Listings must contain accurate GPS coordinates. You must visit the geocache site and obtain all the coordinates with a GPS device. GPS usage is an integral and essential element of both hiding and finding geocaches and must be demonstrated for all cache submissions. Projecting waypoints from locations defined by coordinates is permissible. For geocaches that include Additional Waypoints, see the guidelines specific to those cache types.

 

If you find that the coordinates are off log a NM stating that they are off. If the CO says it is intentional you could report it. Or you can just use the ignore list and avoid that CO's caches.

Link to comment

In fact, the CO's response was the coordinates were deliberately off on many of the hides to "make it more fun" for the finders...

30-60 feet off isn't all that much of a problem, particularly with regular sized hides. The "old-timers" routinely put up with that much inaccuracy because of the hardware of the day.

 

The quoted portion, however, is a problem. The guidelines clearly state that coordinates should be as accurate as possible. Do a forum search for "soft coords" (and variations) for other discussions on this issue. You'll find plenty.

Link to comment

That's not a good situation and there are no perfect answers.

 

If you choose to search for those caches, post corrected coordinates and NM's. If others also post NM's and the coordinates are corrected, then post a NA. But expect to receive the wrath of the CO. If you've got HARD evidence, such as an email or log entry, that CO deliberately posted bad coordinates then provide that information to a local reviewer.

 

We've got two cachers in our area that are known for their bad coordinates. One isn't on purpose, the other...I don't know, but it makes for a very unpleasant experience as a cacher.

Link to comment

If I find out a cacher INTENTIONALLY used soft coordinates, I violate ALL of my own principles and turn into self prescribed Cache-Cop.. which I despise.

 

Try this instead then. Praise the soft coordinate hider for "trying something new and different", badmouth anyone who doesn't like the soft coordinates in your cache log, and assign a favorites point to the cache. Not that I've actually seen this happen, or anything. :ph34r:

 

In all seriousness, I'd ignore most or all of the hider's hides. I have done just that in the case of the only major soft coordinate hider ever to show up in my area.

Edited by Mr.Yuck
Link to comment

The CO is violating the cache listing guidelines and you should probably issue a NA for his caches, or at least put all of his caches on your ignore list. Deliberately listing soft coordinates is inexcusable.

 

If I were to encounter such a situation, I would ignore the user's caches but also forward any proof (statements from the CO in an email or cache log) that the CO's coordinates are intentionally soft and forward them to the appriproate Reviewer

 

BTW if you like intentionally soft coordinates to "make it more fun/challenging" I believe there is a way to do it within the guidelines: post the cache as type Unknown instead of Traditional and note in the description that the posted coordinates will take you near the cache but not exactly to it. Also rate it appropriately. I have seen a cache like this where the description says something to the effect of "the posted coordinates are off by 20 feet. The challenge is figuring out 20 feet in what direction!"

Link to comment

In fact, the CO's response was the coordinates were deliberately off on many of the hides to "make it more fun" for the finders...

30-60 feet off isn't all that much of a problem, particularly with regular sized hides. The "old-timers" routinely put up with that much inaccuracy because of the hardware of the day.

 

The quoted portion, however, is a problem. The guidelines clearly state that coordinates should be as accurate as possible. Do a forum search for "soft coords" (and variations) for other discussions on this issue. You'll find plenty.

In the old days up to 50' was just normal. These days? Inexcusable. Always post the most accurate coordinates you can get and adjust them if you get complaints.

Link to comment

In fact, the CO's response was the coordinates were deliberately off on many of the hides to "make it more fun" for the finders...

30-60 feet off isn't all that much of a problem, particularly with regular sized hides. The "old-timers" routinely put up with that much inaccuracy because of the hardware of the day.

 

The quoted portion, however, is a problem. The guidelines clearly state that coordinates should be as accurate as possible. Do a forum search for "soft coords" (and variations) for other discussions on this issue. You'll find plenty.

In the old days up to 50' was just normal. These days? Inexcusable. Always post the most accurate coordinates you can get and adjust them if you get complaints.

Yup...I sometimes find myself revisiting places where I had found caches in my first years of caching, and today am actually shocked when I see the range of territory I covered, looking for the cache. Today, I get to the lowest distance my GPS will show me, and pretty much look right there, and more often than not, find the cache without moving significantly from that spot.

Link to comment

The hides are, for the most part, urban micros in areas with low GPS bounce - regardless of whether you're using a GPSr or cell phone. If you view the cache location on Google maps for many of them, the GZ is often a structure or landscape separate from where the cache is actually located.

 

I'd definitely be more forgiving if it was a larger cache placed in the woods or an area with spotty GPS.

Link to comment

This is really a lame way to make a cache more difficult to find. If I find a cache like this I will usually help the CO out by posting better coords in my log. I like to help out my fellow cachers. :ph34r: Plus I've seen a lot of damage to the landscape because cachers were looking all over the place for one of these lame caches with crappy coords. No reason for this kind of play in my opinion. It's ALL about the coords.

Link to comment

This is really a lame way to make a cache more difficult to find. If I find a cache like this I will usually help the CO out by posting better coords in my log. I like to help out my fellow cachers. :ph34r: Plus I've seen a lot of damage to the landscape because cachers were looking all over the place for one of these lame caches with crappy coords. No reason for this kind of play in my opinion. It's ALL about the coords.

Yes, post coorected coordinates. When the CO gets mad and deletes your log, just fire an e-mail to GS and everything should be all fixed up.

Link to comment

If I were to encounter such a situation, I would ignore the user's caches but also forward any proof (statements from the CO in an email or cache log) that the CO's coordinates are intentionally soft and forward them to the appriproate Reviewer

 

BTW if you like intentionally soft coordinates to "make it more fun/challenging" I believe there is a way to do it within the guidelines: post the cache as type Unknown instead of Traditional and note in the description that the posted coordinates will take you near the cache but not exactly to it. Also rate it appropriately. I have seen a cache like this where the description says something to the effect of "the posted coordinates are off by 20 feet. The challenge is figuring out 20 feet in what direction!"

My exact thoughts. Get out of my head!!!

 

I despise people who rate something a 1 when it's really a 3. All 1's should be a quick park and grab and should require almost no effort in finding.

Link to comment

If I were to encounter such a situation, I would ignore the user's caches but also forward any proof (statements from the CO in an email or cache log) that the CO's coordinates are intentionally soft and forward them to the appriproate Reviewer

 

BTW if you like intentionally soft coordinates to "make it more fun/challenging" I believe there is a way to do it within the guidelines: post the cache as type Unknown instead of Traditional and note in the description that the posted coordinates will take you near the cache but not exactly to it. Also rate it appropriately. I have seen a cache like this where the description says something to the effect of "the posted coordinates are off by 20 feet. The challenge is figuring out 20 feet in what direction!"

My exact thoughts. Get out of my head!!!

 

I despise people who rate something a 1 when it's really a 3. All 1's should be a quick park and grab and should require almost no effort in finding.

 

A 1.5 difficulty hide (because of poor coordinates, no hints) took 2 of us 5 separate visits and the combined time of about 2 hours.

 

Unbelievable.

Link to comment

IF I found one of the caches I would post corrected coordinates in my log.

 

At that point I would decide whether or not to hunt any more of that CO's caches.

If i did decide to look for them, I would scour the previous logs and record any corrected coordinates into GSAK.

If i decided to not look for them they would go on my Ignore list.

 

And, probably for good measure, I would locate any caches where the CO states the coordinates were intentionally bad and post a Needs Archived on them. I have no patience for that sort of hider.

Link to comment

The CO is violating the cache listing guidelines and you should probably issue a NA for his caches, or at least put all of his caches on your ignore list. Deliberately listing soft coordinates is inexcusable.

 

If I were to encounter such a situation, I would ignore the user's caches but also forward any proof (statements from the CO in an email or cache log) that the CO's coordinates are intentionally soft and forward them to the appriproate Reviewer

 

BTW if you like intentionally soft coordinates to "make it more fun/challenging" I believe there is a way to do it within the guidelines: post the cache as type Unknown instead of Traditional and note in the description that the posted coordinates will take you near the cache but not exactly to it. Also rate it appropriately. I have seen a cache like this where the description says something to the effect of "the posted coordinates are off by 20 feet. The challenge is figuring out 20 feet in what direction!"

 

Good luck getting that by a reviewer. It is unlikely to be published.

Link to comment

IF I found one of the caches I would post corrected coordinates in my log.

 

At that point I would decide whether or not to hunt any more of that CO's caches.

If i did decide to look for them, I would scour the previous logs and record any corrected coordinates into GSAK.

If i decided to not look for them they would go on my Ignore list.

 

And, probably for good measure, I would locate any caches where the CO states the coordinates were intentionally bad and post a Needs Archived on them. I have no patience for that sort of hider.

 

Some have done this...only to result in a lot of passive aggressive emails from the CO.

Link to comment

The CO is violating the cache listing guidelines and you should probably issue a NA for his caches, or at least put all of his caches on your ignore list. Deliberately listing soft coordinates is inexcusable.

 

If I were to encounter such a situation, I would ignore the user's caches but also forward any proof (statements from the CO in an email or cache log) that the CO's coordinates are intentionally soft and forward them to the appriproate Reviewer

 

BTW if you like intentionally soft coordinates to "make it more fun/challenging" I believe there is a way to do it within the guidelines: post the cache as type Unknown instead of Traditional and note in the description that the posted coordinates will take you near the cache but not exactly to it. Also rate it appropriately. I have seen a cache like this where the description says something to the effect of "the posted coordinates are off by 20 feet. The challenge is figuring out 20 feet in what direction!"

 

Good luck getting that by a reviewer. It is unlikely to be published.

 

I've actually seen more than a few get published in this way- none recently tho so maybe they aren't allowed anymore. Don't know as I really like the concept, altho I did have a little fun with the idea by putting this one out for people to find... :ph34r:

Link to comment

The CO is violating the cache listing guidelines and you should probably issue a NA for his caches, or at least put all of his caches on your ignore list. Deliberately listing soft coordinates is inexcusable.

 

If I were to encounter such a situation, I would ignore the user's caches but also forward any proof (statements from the CO in an email or cache log) that the CO's coordinates are intentionally soft and forward them to the appriproate Reviewer

 

BTW if you like intentionally soft coordinates to "make it more fun/challenging" I believe there is a way to do it within the guidelines: post the cache as type Unknown instead of Traditional and note in the description that the posted coordinates will take you near the cache but not exactly to it. Also rate it appropriately. I have seen a cache like this where the description says something to the effect of "the posted coordinates are off by 20 feet. The challenge is figuring out 20 feet in what direction!"

 

Good luck getting that by a reviewer. It is unlikely to be published.

 

I've actually seen more than a few get published in this way- none recently tho so maybe they aren't allowed anymore. Don't know as I really like the concept, altho I did have a little fun with the idea by putting this one out for people to find... :ph34r:

 

The difference here is that you're admitting openly to hiding it that way on purpose directly on the cache page.

Link to comment

The CO is violating the cache listing guidelines and you should probably issue a NA for his caches, or at least put all of his caches on your ignore list. Deliberately listing soft coordinates is inexcusable.

 

If I were to encounter such a situation, I would ignore the user's caches but also forward any proof (statements from the CO in an email or cache log) that the CO's coordinates are intentionally soft and forward them to the appriproate Reviewer

 

BTW if you like intentionally soft coordinates to "make it more fun/challenging" I believe there is a way to do it within the guidelines: post the cache as type Unknown instead of Traditional and note in the description that the posted coordinates will take you near the cache but not exactly to it. Also rate it appropriately. I have seen a cache like this where the description says something to the effect of "the posted coordinates are off by 20 feet. The challenge is figuring out 20 feet in what direction!"

 

Good luck getting that by a reviewer. It is unlikely to be published.

 

I've actually seen more than a few get published in this way- none recently tho so maybe they aren't allowed anymore. Don't know as I really like the concept, altho I did have a little fun with the idea by putting this one out for people to find... :ph34r:

 

The difference here is that you're admitting openly to hiding it that way on purpose directly on the cache page.

 

Sort of (my cache is a traditional and everything on the cache page is as accurate as possible...). It's a little different from what Joshism was talking about- if you look at the bookmark list on my cache page you'll see several caches there that are exactly like it however.

Link to comment

Let's see. If you post corrected coords (which I probably would), you will annoy the CO. If he deletes the log, you ca appeal to GS, and get the log reinstated, and locked. Hee hee hee. But you will irritate the annoying CO.

 

You can always take the cache (once you find it) and move it to the coordinates. Problem solved! :lol:

 

Or you could do this! I rather like this approach! "Cache must have migrated. Moved back to the correct coords, in the middle of the lawn." I like that!

Link to comment

Let's see. If you post corrected coords (which I probably would), you will annoy the CO. If he deletes the log, you ca appeal to GS, and get the log reinstated, and locked. Hee hee hee. But you will irritate the annoying CO.

 

You can always take the cache (once you find it) and move it to the coordinates. Problem solved! :lol:

 

Or you could do this! I rather like this approach! "Cache must have migrated. Moved back to the correct coords, in the middle of the lawn." I like that!

The one cache I found where the CO admitted to soft coords - I was sorely tempted to do just that.

Link to comment

The CO is violating the cache listing guidelines and you should probably issue a NA for his caches, or at least put all of his caches on your ignore list. Deliberately listing soft coordinates is inexcusable.

 

If I were to encounter such a situation, I would ignore the user's caches but also forward any proof (statements from the CO in an email or cache log) that the CO's coordinates are intentionally soft and forward them to the appriproate Reviewer

 

BTW if you like intentionally soft coordinates to "make it more fun/challenging" I believe there is a way to do it within the guidelines: post the cache as type Unknown instead of Traditional and note in the description that the posted coordinates will take you near the cache but not exactly to it. Also rate it appropriately. I have seen a cache like this where the description says something to the effect of "the posted coordinates are off by 20 feet. The challenge is figuring out 20 feet in what direction!"

 

Good luck getting that by a reviewer. It is unlikely to be published.

 

See GC2R3TD

Link to comment

I've actually seen more than a few get published in this way- none recently tho so maybe they aren't allowed anymore. Don't know as I really like the concept, altho I did have a little fun with the idea by putting this one out for people to find... :ph34r:

 

I'm not sure a nano in a forest preserve w/ soft coords is a good idea. Like one of he cachers stated "walked in circles for 10 minutes". It does look well received, but may put unnecessary strain on the preserve.

Link to comment
I've actually seen more than a few get published in this way- none recently tho so maybe they aren't allowed anymore. Don't know as I really like the concept, altho I did have a little fun with the idea by putting this one out for people to find... :ph34r:

 

Seems like that one should be listed as an Unknown.

 

I've actually seen more than a few get published in this way- none recently tho so maybe they aren't allowed anymore. Don't know as I really like the concept, altho I did have a little fun with the idea by putting this one out for people to find... :ph34r:

 

I'm not sure a nano in a forest preserve w/ soft coords is a good idea. Like one of he cachers stated "walked in circles for 10 minutes". It does look well received, but may put unnecessary strain on the preserve.

 

As I said above: everything on the cache page is as accurate as possible... ;)

Link to comment

The CO is violating the cache listing guidelines and you should probably issue a NA for his caches, or at least put all of his caches on your ignore list. Deliberately listing soft coordinates is inexcusable.

 

If I were to encounter such a situation, I would ignore the user's caches but also forward any proof (statements from the CO in an email or cache log) that the CO's coordinates are intentionally soft and forward them to the appriproate Reviewer

 

BTW if you like intentionally soft coordinates to "make it more fun/challenging" I believe there is a way to do it within the guidelines: post the cache as type Unknown instead of Traditional and note in the description that the posted coordinates will take you near the cache but not exactly to it. Also rate it appropriately. I have seen a cache like this where the description says something to the effect of "the posted coordinates are off by 20 feet. The challenge is figuring out 20 feet in what direction!"

 

Good luck getting that by a reviewer. It is unlikely to be published.

 

I've actually seen more than a few get published in this way- none recently tho so maybe they aren't allowed anymore. Don't know as I really like the concept, altho I did have a little fun with the idea by putting this one out for people to find... :ph34r:

 

Here's the cache I had come across that I was referencing - http://coord.info/GC2MQ20 It was published this year. From the description:

"But let me tell you this cache is not at its published coordinates- It's Still 20 feet off. I am not going to tell you which direction it is but just remember It's Still 20 feet off."

Link to comment

IF I found one of the caches I would post corrected coordinates in my log.

 

At that point I would decide whether or not to hunt any more of that CO's caches.

If i did decide to look for them, I would scour the previous logs and record any corrected coordinates into GSAK.

If i decided to not look for them they would go on my Ignore list.

 

And, probably for good measure, I would locate any caches where the CO states the coordinates were intentionally bad and post a Needs Archived on them. I have no patience for that sort of hider.

 

Some have done this...only to result in a lot of passive aggressive emails from the CO.

 

Since I am on good terms with my local reviewer, I just shoot him an email with the details of hte issue, and he deals with it.

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Followers 1
×
×
  • Create New...