Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Zuckerruebensirup

User-Entered Coordinates (Why were they created?)

Recommended Posts

When logging a cache find, there is a place for entering alternate 'user assigned' coordinates. I thought this was a great idea, especially in the cases of Locationless caches. But since recently launching a personal travel slug to track my caching travels, I discovered that even when I've entered my own coordinates, the tracking log still reflects mileage for whatever the posted cache page coordinates are. icon_frown.gif

 

Because of this, I've posted all of those logs as notes, rather than as placement/retrievals, because I don't want my mileage skewed by showing I visited a cache in Australia, for example, when I actually bagged my find near my own backyard. (But by doing so, I've instead skewed my mileage to the short side, by missing out on the real miles that I *DID* travel.)

 

I'd like to see the tracking method changed, so that the tracking log is based off the user-assigned coorinates (whenever they exist), and for the listed coordinates whenever the field is left blank.

 

Does anyone else have an opinion on this?

Share this post


Link to post

quote:
Originally posted by Zuckerruebensirup:

When logging a cache find, there is a place for entering alternate 'user assigned' coordinates.


 

I've used these fields to enter the coordinates I've read at a cache, when the posted coordinates are way off the mark, perhaps from not averaging long enough by the original cache placer.

quote:

Because of this, I've posted all of those logs as notes, rather than as placement/retrievals, because I don't want my mileage skewed by showing I visited a cache in Australia, for example, when I actually bagged my find near my own backyard. (But by doing so, I've instead skewed my mileage to the short side, by missing out on the real miles that I *DID* travel.)


Not sure I follow this, if the cache coordinates are in Australia, how did you know to look in your backyard? I think the distance of your slug's travels would have varied by mere feet, but now by not logging it in, your slug indeed has skewed mileage.

quote:

I'd like to see the tracking method changed, so that the tracking log is based off the user-assigned coorinates (whenever they exist), and for the listed coordinates whenever the field is left blank.


I've seen cache pages where the hider did a bad job on the coordinates. On the same page are many logs with user defined coordinates. Each finder would record his or her reading at the find. Sometimes those readings vary from each other as much as they do from the hider's coordinates. Which coordinates would you use for your slug?

Share this post


Link to post

I was confused the first time I read the post. This is because I typically use this field to note when my coords greatly differ from the posted coords.

 

I realized when I reread your post that you are referring to locationless cache issues. You are temporarily logging in a personal travel bug on the caches you visit. You do this in order to track your cache visits. This also gives you a pretty cool map of your travels.

 

The TB page pulls the coords from the cache page rather than your post. This doesn't present a problem with 'standard' caches because you don't care if this info is as much as several feet off. When you follow this procedure with a locationless cache, however, this information is skewed because it pulls the coords from the cache page, rather than your post. This results in info that is hundreds or thousands of miles off.

 

I see your point and agree that, in doing what you are doing, it would be better if these coords were pulled from your posted coords, rather than those listed on the page.

Share this post


Link to post

doh! Thanks sbell111 for the explanation, and sorry Zuckerruebensirup for answering so quickly.

Share this post


Link to post

quote:
Originally posted by sbell111:

I was confused the first time I read the post. This is because I typically use this field to note when my coords greatly differ from the posted coords. [...]


 

Yes, sbell111, you've described my question (and my stand on it) perfectly. I completely forgot to clarify that I was refering to Locationless caches. That would have made the entire context easier to decipher, huh? icon_biggrin.gif

 

As for physical caches whose posted coordinates vary signicantly from where our own GPSr says the cache is located...the special field for entering alternate coordinates seems kind of silly. It only saves us typing TWO letters (the N and the W, in my case). If they can't be used for tracking purposes, it seems like it would be just as easy to note the coordinates in our find logs. (It's not like it's the case very often that caches are notably off. While, with Locationless, there will ALWAYS be alternate coordinates.)

 

-------

"I may be slow, but at least I'm sweet!" 196939_800.jpg

Share this post


Link to post

I do agree with you and like the idea...as I didn't get to log my personal tb into the 1 locationless I did. But I wonder if people would abuse the freedom of specifying the coords the bug was placed in. I know it would be silly, but there's a ton of people out there who do silly things like that! icon_wink.gif

Also, what happens if you accidentally enter the wrong coords and now the bug shows an incorrect milage?

Share this post


Link to post

Egnix brings up a good point that I didn't consider.

 

I was thinking that the issue would only relate to personal TBs. I didn't realize the ramifications for regular TBs if someone who places the TB in a new cache makes a substantial coord error when posting his find. This will create great problems because 1) these errors will be difficult to detect by the TB owner and 2) it could become difficult to get some cachers to make the appropriate corrections.

Share this post


Link to post

Not logging TBs into a locationless cache certainly would solve the problem of the coords being wrong on the map, but it wouldn't solve the dilemna as posted in the thread.

 

Many people have created TBs which they use to track their geocaching activity. If for no other reason, it allows them to have a cool map of their travels. In order to do this, it is necessary to 1) log these personal TBs into locationless caches, and 2) use the coords where the locationless cache was found instead of the coords as listed on the top of the cache page.

Share this post


Link to post

quote:
Originally posted by Egnix:

 

I do agree with you and like the idea...as I didn't get to log my personal tb into the 1 locationless I did. But I wonder if people would abuse the freedom of specifying the coords the bug was placed in. I know it would be silly, but there's a ton of people out there who do silly things like that! icon_wink.gif


What would be the ramifications of the 'abuse'? A lot of people seem to behave as if Finds and/or mileage are a contest here. I don't personally understand what all the hub-bub is about. (As it is currently, people can abuse the system by logging the cache's posted coordinates and get HUGE mileage credit that is completely bogus.)

 

quote:
Also, what happens if you accidentally enter the wrong coords and now the bug shows an incorrect milage?

Hopefully they would notice that on the map, and modify their cache log, then delete and re-add the TB log to correct it. If they don't notice it, their mileage will be off. It's pretty difficult to come up with a system that idiot proofs against typos by people who are careless and don't bother to double check their entries.

Share this post


Link to post

I haven't really kept up on the "personal travel bug" discussions, so maybe this has been brought up already. I really don't want to have to set up a personal travel bug, but I wouldn't mind seeing how many miles I've gone in my caching addiction.

 

Couldn't Groundspeak use the same system used for mapping travelbugs to map cachers themselves? I mean, we've each got an ID number, just like the bugs, how difficult would it be to set the system up to track us?

 

Not that I want to make any more work for anyone. ;-)

 

Bret

 

"The kingdom of heaven is like treasure hidden in a field.

When a man found it, he hid it again." Mt. 13:44

Share this post


Link to post

quote:
Originally posted by CYBret:

 

Couldn't Groundspeak use the same system used for mapping travelbugs to map cachers themselves? I mean, we've each got an ID number, just like the bugs, how difficult would it be to set the system up to track us?


 

Sure they could. Just add your request to the ever-growing Wish List, and then hold your breath. icon_wink.gif

 

Actually, I imagine this is a feature that'll eventually be incorporated. A lot of people seem interested in the concept. But if/when it's added, there's still the issue of incorrect mileage credit for Locationless caches. My proposed solution above would still apply.

Share this post


Link to post

quote:
Originally posted by sbell111:

Not logging TBs into a locationless cache certainly would solve the problem of the coords being wrong on the map, but it wouldn't solve the dilemna as posted in the thread.


 

I know. I was being trying to be sarcastic and subtle at the same time. Without the subtleties, the sarcasm would have read...

"Don't hunt locationless caches."

 

Just seeing if I could get a rise out of anyone. Never mind.

 

Markwell

Chicago Geocaching

Share this post


Link to post

quote:
Originally posted by Markwell:

 

Just seeing if I could get a rise out of anyone.


 

No way, not in this crowd! We refuse to allow ourselves to become agitated over anything! icon_wink.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

×
×
  • Create New...