Video on Setting a Power Trail

[+gsmX2]

It's something

 

My buddy, BadFeet, came up with the idea of setting a power trail on Lockwood Valley Road by Frazier Park, CA. He made up 111 similar, but unique containers and we went out on Saturday to set them. By Sunday they were published as Trail of Wood (TOW)....we have THE BEST REVIEWERS. That night, a local First to Find Hound had found and logged 50 of them.

 

Let's see:

 

• Video
  
• Power Trails
  
• Best Reviewers
  
• First to Find Hounds
  

How many ways will this topic be hijacked?

 

Hope you enjoy the video.

Edited April 9, 2011 by gsmx2

[+briansnat]

Looks like more fun than I would ever allow myself to have.

[+StarBrand]

The video made it feel just like how I would have expected it to be.

[TheCacheSeeker]

Sounds like fun! That reviewer is really great!

[+the4dirtydogs]

Sweet. Great music.

[+joranda]

Great to see another trail of caches out there. Looks like you had fun with the video. I hope to do them sometime if I get out that way.

[+drain13]

man that area is DENSE with trails...

[+Indotguy]

I don't need to see the video to conclude this is about as lame as it gets. The only redeeming quality of power trails such as these are to help bore and burn out a few number crunchers and eventually get them out of the activity.

[+Snoogans]

I don't need to see the video to conclude this is about as lame as it gets. The only redeeming quality of power trails such as these are to help bore and burn out a few number crunchers and eventually get them out of the activity.

 

I have no problem with power trails or numbers cachers. I wouldn't tax a brain cell for such nonsense. You must have a few spare ones that need something to do.

 

However, this struck me funny:

 

What's it like to set 111 caches in four hours?

 

My first thought was, "I'd have many MORE hours of coord adjustments to make." I couldn't possibly hide that many caches in 4 hours and NOT have cachers ticked off at me for all the poor coords I posted. I didn't watch the video either, but that must be one mother of an expensive unit they used to cook accurate coords for 111 caches in just four hours.

 

I hid 2 caches this weekend and it took at least 15 minutes at each site with my 60csx to get merely adequate coords that I STILL tweaked further in google maps for better accuracy.

 

Just sayin'...

Edited April 11, 2011 by Snoogans

[+Too Tall John]

My first thought was, "I'd have many MORE hours of coord adjustments to make." I couldn't possibly hide that many caches in 4 hours and NOT have cachers ticked off at me for all the poor coords I posted. I didn't watch the video either, but that must be one mother of an expensive unit they used to cook accurate coords for 111 caches in just foor hours.

 

I hid 2 caches this weekend and it took at least 15 minutes at each site with my 60csx to get merely adequate coords that I STILL tweaked further in google maps for better accuracy.

 

Just sayin'...

I can't agree more with this. I spent time caching a similarly sized PT in Maine (now archived) and they spent a lot more time setting it up (enough that I did it in three trips because there were days between each section being published) yet somehow there were caches that were way off (60++ feet) from their posted coords. Thank goodness I was there in the winter & we were able to follow the CO's footprints in the snow. Otherwise, it would have just been tedious.

 

Knowing how little time was taken to get coords, I would avoid this one until I knew that the caches were actually findable in a reasonable time.

 

So, add "Bad coords" to your list of how this thread can get hijacked.

 

EDIT: Just actually watched the video, and someone correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't the time taken at each cache to hit "Mark" on the GPS, walk 10 feet away and back and then hit "Mark" again have been better spent just letting the GPS take an average without moving? Regardless, the amount of time spent on coord taking is ridiculously inadequate.

Edited April 11, 2011 by Too Tall John

[+gsmX2]

I have done some geocaching in the forests of Michigan, which I imagine are similar to Maine, and can understand the need to spend a lot of time getting good coords. But if you watch the video, 116 seconds long, you'll see that we have completely unobstructed skies, made an effort to set the caches near objects where one might expect to find a cache, and did do a quick check of the coords at each cache. We had to recheck about six of them because they were more than 4 feet off. So far no complaints of bad coords and the only DNFs were from one of our local FTF Hounds who took his support team with him at midnight. The other three groups have found them all.

[+sbell111]

My first thought was, "I'd have many MORE hours of coord adjustments to make." I couldn't possibly hide that many caches in 4 hours and NOT have cachers ticked off at me for all the poor coords I posted. I didn't watch the video either, but that must be one mother of an expensive unit they used to cook accurate coords for 111 caches in just foor hours.

 

I hid 2 caches this weekend and it took at least 15 minutes at each site with my 60csx to get merely adequate coords that I STILL tweaked further in google maps for better accuracy.

 

Just sayin'...

I can't agree more with this. I spent time caching a similarly sized PT in Maine (now archived) and they spent a lot more time setting it up (enough that I did it in three trips because there were days between each section being published) yet somehow there were caches that were way off (60++ feet) from their posted coords. Thank goodness I was there in the winter & we were able to follow the CO's footprints in the snow. Otherwise, it would have just been tedious.

 

Knowing how little time was taken to get coords, I would avoid this one until I knew that the caches were actually findable in a reasonable time.

 

So, add "Bad coords" to your list of how this thread can get hijacked.

 

EDIT: Just actually watched the video, and someone correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't the time taken at each cache to hit "Mark" on the GPS, walk 10 feet away and back and then hit "Mark" again have been better spent just letting the GPS take an average without moving? Regardless, the amount of time spent on coord taking is ridiculously inadequate.

In my opinion, as long as they had good sat coverage, they actually spent too much time getting coords. There's really no need to take one reading walk away, come back and take another. Also, in my opinion, averaging is a big waste of time. You either have good readings, or you don't. If you don't, averaging (manually or in unit) is not going to get you good readings. Based on the experiences of finders, it appears that the coords for these caches are perfectly adequate. Edited April 11, 2011 by sbell111

[+Too Tall John]

...we have completely unobstructed skies, made an effort to set the caches near objects where one might expect to find a cache, and did do a quick check of the coords at each cache. We had to recheck about six of them because they were more than 4 feet off. So far no complaints of bad coords and the only DNFs were from one of our local FTF Hounds who took his support team with him at midnight. The other three groups have found them all.

Due to the part of your post I highlighted in Red, I find the italicized part hard to believe, especially since Garmin only claims:

Garmin® GPS receivers are accurate to within 15 meters on average.

There's a reason most GPSs include an "Average Coordinates" function. Even with that, Garmin suggests returning for a second set of coordinates on a different day.