Geocaching without a GPS?

[Tectonicninja]

Me and my sister have tried three times in one day to find a geocache without a handheld GPS. Is it possible?

[JoshMillward]

Ofcourse it's possible!

 

I've fount all 17 of my caches without a GPS device, but it is a lot harder and requires a bit more skill.

[+StarBrand]

Some folks have found many thousand using only maps and a compass.

 

In some areas you can find them with just google maps and some searching.

[+Gitchee-Gummee]

Sure you can -- it just requires a different method of attack. A lot of ways to git'erdone -- real maps, Google maps, compass, sextant, dead reckoning, and most likely any combination of the above.

 

Urban caching is fairly easy just using Google maps -- better yet with Google Earth.

 

Outlying areas, easier for the most part with good maps and compass.

[+niraD]

Yes, it can be done. I've found hundreds of caches using the satellite view of Google Maps. The only thing a GPS receiver does is get you to ground zero, where you can start your search. The question is whether you can identify ground zero.

 

Naturally, your success will depend upon the resolution and calibration of the satellite images in your area. The satellite images for my local area are very high-res, and are at least as accurate as my old yellow eTrex. But I've seen areas where the resolution of the images is 10x worse, or where the calibration is off by 100' or more.

 

Your success will also depend upon your ability to identify landmarks in the images, and to navigate using those landmarks. This is highly variable. Landmarks are easy to identify in many urban/suburban areas, but less so in some rural/wilderness areas. Some people are very good at reading maps and satellite images, but others aren't.

[+A & J Tooling]

I'm new and use no GPS. I have only posted 3 finds because I wait for my kids to go with me to find and log the visits but I've found about 65 between my place of residence and the town I work in. There have been a few that have stumped me but if I can't locate them, my kids never will, so it's no loss.

[Pup Patrol]

There have been a few that have stumped me but if I can't locate them, my kids never will, so it's no loss.

 

Could I borrow those kids once in a while?

 

[+A & J Tooling]

There have been a few that have stumped me but if I can't locate them, my kids never will, so it's no loss.

 

Could I borrow those kids once in a while?

 

 

My kids found one today rated with 3 stars, Took about 2 minutes.

[+Student Camper]

There have been a few that have stumped me but if I can't locate them, my kids never will, so it's no loss.

 

I think you'd be surprised, the kids are more likely to find them because they don't know they can't, unless you tell them.

[+kwcahart]

I guess it's just me, but I can't imagine why you would want to do geocaching without a hand held GPS. To me using the GPS is just part of the fun.

[+niraD]

I guess it's just me, but I can't imagine why you would want to do geocaching without a hand held GPS. To me using the GPS is just part of the fun.

Well, identifying GZ without a GPS receiver can be fun too. In some situations, it can be rather challenging, which makes it fun to those of us who enjoy challenges.

[+stanolli]

I have a Blackberry, without GPS, but it has Google Maps loaded so I can zoom and scroll the aerial view to match what I am seeing plus I get a live connection to geocaching.com. It's all paperless and I have a built in camera - how much more fun could I have lol.

Seriously though I also enjoy the additional challenge of sometimes having to think on my feet and improvise, but I think there are also times when seeing a plan of the whole picture is easier than following a GPS.

[+A & J Tooling]

I look up the GZ on google and try to find it hours later by memory. If the machine tells me where to go, where is the fun in that? Might as well sit on my butt at home and have someone else do all the work.

 

Hey look.....someone followed their gps....True....

[+PeachyPA]

I guess it's just me, but I can't imagine why you would want to do geocaching without a hand held GPS. To me using the GPS is just part of the fun.

Because it is a challenge! I found my first seven caches without a GPS unit, the next five with a borrowed one. Then my husband bought me one for my birthday, and it is a basic yellow eTrex. My count is 430+.

[+Gitchee-Gummee]

I guess it's just me, but I can't imagine why you would want to do geocaching without a hand held GPS. To me using the GPS is just part of the fun.

Because it is a challenge! I found my first seven caches without a GPS unit, the next five with a borrowed one. Then my husband bought me one for my birthday, and it is a basic yellow eTrex. My count is 430+.

+1

Agree with the challenge statement. Some like the challenge as a GPSr takes a lot out of the challenge (for the most part). Kudos to those successful GPSr-less cachers! Me? -- I've done my time w/o a GPSr, I have and use one now and you ain't takin' it away!

[sick4x4]

My 1st cache was without a GPSr but my 2nd if i followed the map directions had me almost half a block away....kudos to you if you can do without but i dont think im that savvy and couldnt imagine caching without one....i think the urban caches could be done without but when roads arnt mapped im that guy and will get lost lol....have fun

[Ruzhye]

I've also used the google maps image to find caches, as well as my GPSr and iPhone. Use whatever you can to find your next cache.

[Tectonicninja]

Thank you all for the input! I tried with google maps, but I haven't tried google earth. Thank you all for the suggestions!

[+edscott]

In most areas where i've cached.. East Coast US.. the normal google satellite image is usually good enough to use. Look 30 ft NW of the downed tree.

 

[Cape Cod Cacher]

You can find but can't hide.

[Mad0Hatter]

You can find but can't hide.

As long as you can figure out the lat/lon of your hide, you can hide. If you know how to do it old school you can probably get more accurate coordinates than your gps, which can be off for any number of reasons.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

In most areas where i've cached.. East Coast US.. the normal google satellite image is usually good enough to use. Look 30 ft NW of the downed tree.

 

 

At the other end of the spectrum, here's the best resolution I could find for a cache I found in Costa Rica. As you can see, not is the resolution pretty poor but the entire region is obscured by cloud cover (it's near a cloud forest)

 

[+edscott]

Sure there are bad photos, but with the number of caches out there I can probably still find enough to keep me busy the rest of my life. Regarding the Costa Rica photo, if the road was accurately drawn I'd still go for it, but I suspect that too is someone's general estimate.

[+Gitchee-Gummee]

You can find but can't hide.

As long as you can figure out the lat/lon of your hide, you can hide. If you know how to do it old school you can probably get more accurate coordinates than your gps, which can be off for any number of reasons.

[Highlighting added]

While that may well be true... the guidelines dictate that one uses a GPSr to obtain coordinates as accurately as possible. In as much as others (usually) be using a GPSr to find the cache, it sort of makes sense, does it not?

[Mad0Hatter]

You can find but can't hide.

As long as you can figure out the lat/lon of your hide, you can hide. If you know how to do it old school you can probably get more accurate coordinates than your gps, which can be off for any number of reasons.

[Highlighting added]

While that may well be true... the guidelines dictate that one uses a GPSr to obtain coordinates as accurately as possible. In as much as others (usually) be using a GPSr to find the cache, it sort of makes sense, does it not?

Guideline are not rules plus I've read the guidelines and have noticed a lot of caches don't always follow them. I'd rather be accurate than have my cache suck because my gps was off. I went on one the other day and the coordinates were off, they were off so much that someone felt the need to add more accurate coordinates in the log (I didn't know they were off that much which screwed my whole hunt up). The coordinates given if accurate would have made it a higher terrain rating than was advertised as well. As long as you're giving accurate data and providing a good hunt, get your info how you want. No one is going to know how you got it any way.

[+edscott]

Assuming you have a good aerial photo, and assuming you can read it accurately, you could eliminate some GPS errors, but I'd not want a bunch of people running around placing caches without a GPS. I've seen enough people struggle with map reading and navigation to know I'd rather have them reading numbers off a screen. I'm OK with the occasional coordinates that are off by 20-30 feet.

[Mad0Hatter]

Assuming you have a good aerial photo, and assuming you can read it accurately, you could eliminate some GPS errors, but I'd not want a bunch of people running around placing caches without a GPS. I've seen enough people struggle with map reading and navigation to know I'd rather have them reading numbers off a screen. I'm OK with the occasional coordinates that are off by 20-30 feet.

I'm not saying that every one should be doing it, just that if you have the skills theres no reason you can't. And 20-30 off plus another 20-30+ for my gps is 40-60+ off. Thats a whole down in a game of football. Most of the caches in my area are tiny; the size of a film canister or smaller. If I don't end up within 20 ft I'm not going to even have a chance at finding them.

[+edscott]

Assuming you have a good aerial photo, and assuming you can read it accurately, you could eliminate some GPS errors, but I'd not want a bunch of people running around placing caches without a GPS. I've seen enough people struggle with map reading and navigation to know I'd rather have them reading numbers off a screen. I'm OK with the occasional coordinates that are off by 20-30 feet.

I'm not saying that every one should be doing it, just that if you have the skills theres no reason you can't. And 20-30 off plus another 20-30+ for my gps is 40-60+ off. Thats a whole down in a game of football. Most of the caches in my area are tiny; the size of a film canister or smaller. If I don't end up within 20 ft I'm not going to even have a chance at finding them.

 

And who certifies us to use maps instead of a GPS for placing a cache? Until that happens I'd rather not go into the woods depending on someone else's interpretation of an aerial photo to locate a cache. I see your point on many urban caches, but again who determines which ones are exempt from the normal rule.

Edited April 9, 2011 by edscott

[Mad0Hatter]

Assuming you have a good aerial photo, and assuming you can read it accurately, you could eliminate some GPS errors, but I'd not want a bunch of people running around placing caches without a GPS. I've seen enough people struggle with map reading and navigation to know I'd rather have them reading numbers off a screen. I'm OK with the occasional coordinates that are off by 20-30 feet.

I'm not saying that every one should be doing it, just that if you have the skills theres no reason you can't. And 20-30 off plus another 20-30+ for my gps is 40-60+ off. Thats a whole down in a game of football. Most of the caches in my area are tiny; the size of a film canister or smaller. If I don't end up within 20 ft I'm not going to even have a chance at finding them.

 

And who certifies us to use maps instead of a GPS for placing a cache? Until that happens I'd rather not go into the woods depending on someone else's interpretation of an aerial photo to locate a cache. I see your point on many urban caches, but again who determines which ones are exempt from the normal rule.

Aerial photo? What are you on about? I'm talking about people with skills to find lat/log using topographic maps and maybe other equipment. Near as I can tell theres no certifying going on around here. Anyone that want to hide something hides it and posts it on here and a reviewer gives it the once over. If no obvious rule is broken online it goes.

[+dfx]

I'm talking about people with skills to find lat/log using topographic maps and maybe other equipment. Near as I can tell theres no certifying going on around here. Anyone that want to hide something hides it and posts it on here and a reviewer gives it the once over. If no obvious rule is broken online it goes.

 

What accuracy do you expect to be able to achieve using your method? And what datum is it gonna be in?

Edited April 10, 2011 by dfx

[geo-curious]

In most areas where i've cached.. East Coast US.. the normal google satellite image is usually good enough to use. Look 30 ft NW of the downed tree.

 

 

I am just starting out and found my first five caches today without gps, using google maps and common sense. Am in the mid-west. I plan to find as many as I can without gps before buying one.

[+Gitchee-Gummee]

Aerial photo? What are you on about? I'm talking about people with skills to find lat/log using topographic maps and maybe other equipment. Near as I can tell theres no certifying going on around here. Anyone that want to hide something hides it and posts it on here and a reviewer gives it the once over. If no obvious rule is broken online it goes.

Maybe you can make a placement as good or better than with a GPSr. But, just so you know, I can also. Was using compass and topo maps two decades before GPS became viable. I still love USGS topo maps.

 

The point of this is... the guidelines DO state that one will utilize a GPSr to obtain the best possible coords for a placement. Should the reviewer discover that you do not, the cache will not be published, or if already published, he/she could very well have it archived. Why? Because you failed to follow the guidelines. Not rules, but the closest thing we got to them, and the reviewers follow them pretty darn closely.

 

Now, you can bend, break or read whatever you want into (or not) the guidelines, but that is what geocaching as we know and utilize it is all about. Argue, whimper, whine and cry all you want. You may be the best orienteer(er) in the world -- your idea is still outside of the guidelines.

[+edscott]

never mind... sometimes there's just no point in stating facts.

Edited April 10, 2011 by edscott

[+edscott]

In most areas where i've cached.. East Coast US.. the normal google satellite image is usually good enough to use. Look 30 ft NW of the downed tree.

 

 

I am just starting out and found my first five caches today without gps, using google maps and common sense. Am in the mid-west. I plan to find as many as I can without gps before buying one.

 

Nothing wrong with that. It keeps your mind working all the time instead of just when you arrive at GZ.

[Mad0Hatter]

I'm talking about people with skills to find lat/log using topographic maps and maybe other equipment. Near as I can tell theres no certifying going on around here. Anyone that want to hide something hides it and posts it on here and a reviewer gives it the once over. If no obvious rule is broken online it goes.

 

What accuracy do you expect to be able to achieve using your method? And what datum is it gonna be in?

As or more accurate than a standard gps. WGS 84 same as my gps.

 

Aerial photo? What are you on about? I'm talking about people with skills to find lat/log using topographic maps and maybe other equipment. Near as I can tell theres no certifying going on around here. Anyone that want to hide something hides it and posts it on here and a reviewer gives it the once over. If no obvious rule is broken online it goes.

Maybe you can make a placement as good or better than with a GPSr. But, just so you know, I can also. Was using compass and topo maps two decades before GPS became viable. I still love USGS topo maps.

 

The point of this is... the guidelines DO state that one will utilize a GPSr to obtain the best possible coords for a placement. Should the reviewer discover that you do not, the cache will not be published, or if already published, he/she could very well have it archived. Why? Because you failed to follow the guidelines. Not rules, but the closest thing we got to them, and the reviewers follow them pretty darn closely.

 

Now, you can bend, break or read whatever you want into (or not) the guidelines, but that is what geocaching as we know and utilize it is all about. Argue, whimper, whine and cry all you want. You may be the best orienteer(er) in the world -- your idea is still outside of the guidelines.

Tell you what you geocahe you're way and I'll geocache mine. But I'm a reasonable man if you can prove to my satisfaction that the geocachers in my are are following every last nit-picky guideline I'll submit to your techno-cratic rule.

 

Of all the guidelines I could choose to ignore this doesn't seem like that big a deal to me, heck my brother wanted to put bullets and condoms in a cache and I had to stop him.

[+edscott]

Maybe your third cache will be a 2 difficulty.

[+dfx]

As or more accurate than a standard gps.

 

So how accurate is that? Down to 1 meter? 3 meters? 6 meters? 10 meters?

[+edscott]

 

As or more accurate than a standard gps.

 

So how accurate is that? Down to 1 meter? 3 meters? 6 meters? 10 meters?

 

note the post above where it is stated that we are not talking about aerial photos but "topographic maps". I'm assuming USGS of some vintage or another.

[+dfx]

As or more accurate than a standard gps.

 

So how accurate is that? Down to 1 meter? 3 meters? 6 meters? 10 meters?

 

note the post above where it is stated that we are not talking about aerial photos but "topographic maps". I'm assuming USGS of some vintage or another.

 

Yeah I'm aware of that. I'm just curious about how much accuracy the OP thinks he can get out of it (or whatever other method he plans to use), and how.

Edited April 11, 2011 by dfx

[Mad0Hatter]

As or more accurate than a standard gps.

 

So how accurate is that? Down to 1 meter? 3 meters? 6 meters? 10 meters?

Personally I think I could get it spot on. But knowing I'm fallible I'm only willing to commit to under 20 feet in the +/- 10 feet range. So however many meters are in 20 feet.

[+A & J Tooling]

I'll take that and raise the standard to 1 meter. I hit 6 caches yesterday and everyone of 'em were off by more then a meter. For shame!

[+nittanycopa]

If you can place the cache without a GPS and get it within standard accuracy - 10-20 feet (urban), 20-30 foot (rural / wooded area), I'd be impressed.

 

If your coords are considerably off, though, you bet I'm posting accurate ones in my log should I find your cache.

[+edscott]

If you can place the cache without a GPS and get it within standard accuracy - 10-20 feet (urban), 20-30 foot (rural / wooded area), I'd be impressed.

 

If your coords are considerably off, though, you bet I'm posting accurate ones in my log should I find your cache.

 

I know lots of people that can do it. My point is that if Geocaching.com would allow it there are lots more that would try it and possibly be off by hundreds of feet. I'd rather go into the woods knowing the spot on my map is within a few feet of the cache, not just on the right hillside.

[+Gitchee-Gummee]

If you can place the cache without a GPS and get it within standard accuracy - 10-20 feet (urban), 20-30 foot (rural / wooded area), I'd be impressed.

 

If your coords are considerably off, though, you bet I'm posting accurate ones in my log should I find your cache.

I can, and he probably can.... make that accuracy better than 20 ft.

But still the point (to me, anyway) is the usage of the GPSr per guidelines.

[+dfx]

Personally I think I could get it spot on. But knowing I'm fallible I'm only willing to commit to under 20 feet in the +/- 10 feet range. So however many meters are in 20 feet.

 

Just commenting to add that there's no such thing as "spot on". Every reading, every measurement has a certain inaccuracy associated with it. The best coordinates you can get on geocaching.com have an accuracy of around +-3 feet due to rounding errors.

 

But if you manage to get within 20 feet using topo maps only, I'd be impressed. Personally I don't believe it's possible, at least not with the USGS 24k maps. 20 feet would equal 0.01 inches on the map, that's beyond what's being measurable accurately. But whatever, if you feel you wanna give it a shot, go for it and see how it works out.

[+A & J Tooling]

So can we post inaccurate data from those of you who use those GPSr thingies?

[+nittanycopa]

So can we post inaccurate data from those of you who use those GPSr thingies?

 

If you feel your coords are more accurate, state it in your log and suggest new coords. Not really a big deal, to be honest.

[+edscott]

When coordinates are off I usually say something like "the photo puts it 60 feet to the east" west ... or whatever.. Often I could say "The aerial photo took me right to the bare spot where everyone starts their search, but the cache is several feet away". Gotta say though that for my first cache find I used a 1:24000 USGS. I found four points on the map that I could identify on an aerial photo with the coordinates marked on that map. (Remember Topozone?) Connecting points 1&3 and 2&4 gave me two crossing lines that were each over a mile long. I marked that crossing on the USGS and found the cache. If I was still using USGS maps instead of today's aerial photos I'd be lucky to find 5 caches a week.

Edited April 12, 2011 by edscott

[+sword fern]

Well, Before I recieved my first GPS I had found about 6 caches. Once when without the GPS I found a geocache (small) thinking it was a different geocache (micro). I realized my mistake when I tried for the cache i had found but did not know. Caching without a gps is possible, but EXTREMELY HARD. Its practically impossible to find caches in the woods without a GPs. for urban caches, its possible.

[+edscott]

........ Caching without a gps is possible, but EXTREMELY HARD. Its practically impossible to find caches in the woods without a GPs. .....

 

What's true for one person may not be true for another....