Coordinate errors in new caches?

[motnahp]

A new cache has recently been published in my area that is causing me a lot of trouble. I have not managed to find this cache yet and, although that is annoying me a bit, it is not my only problem with this cache. The cache is called Lu Lu 3 (GC3A2HK)and is a traditional cache with a grading of 1.5 1.5. Not only have I not been able to find it but a number of experienced cachers also have had difficulty. It would appear that the co-ords are not correct (one cacher claims them to be 100 feet out!) and it appears that the cache is on the other side of the river. The given co-ords take you to the edge of a steep cliff which is very dangerous and not in keeping with the grade of 1.5. Despite this the owner has not changed the co-ords or the cache grading. What would you do in this case?

Another worrying thing about this cache is that it has been marked as a favorite by the first finder (quite an experienced cacher). Are we to deduce from this that it is a good thing to mislead cachers by listing the wrong co-ords? Perhaps it is just the gradings that are wrong. How accurate should the coordinates be?

[+flipflopnick]

With caches you can only get within 10 feet on highly accurate signal days. On bad signal days search circle can be too huge. Finders will be using different satellite signal to setter. None of this excuses a crap set of initial coords. Too many new caches have bogus coords.

 

Call for maintenance, and in 6 months a reviewer will archive the cache, when nothing is done by owner.

 

[+MartyBartfast]

To begin with I think you should have posted a DNF on the cache yourself, which might give more weight to the fact that the co-ords are off, if the CO thinks only 4 people have failed to find it he might not be too bothered, but if there are another 50 who didn't find it but haven't DNF'd it how is he to know?

 

Secondly those who found it and think the co-ords are off could have posted an NM log, which makes it a bit more visible that there may be a problem, it would also have been useful if they posted the co-ords where they thought it was, just saying "about 140' out" isn't much use to anyone!

 

You could try Emailing the CO and ask them to check the co-ords again.

 

One of the finders says it's easy enough with the hint, so you could go to the cache and look for something that matches the hint about 140' away! If you do find it, record your own co-ords and post them in your log for future searchers.

 

The co-ords should be as accurate as the GPS allows, but even that could be 20-30' out, and considering it seems to be in a ravine satellite coverage could be dodgy.

Edited January 12, 2012 by MartyBartfast

[+Gushoneybun]

Traditional caches should be at the coordinates 100ft out sounds to me like the GPSr was not set to WGS84. As per MartyBartfast's reply posting the actual coordinates where it is, is so much more helpful than just saying the coordinates were out. This will also give the CO the correct details to put on the cache page if they do not know how to get better coordinates themselves

[+Seganku]

Try looking for a few more caches. There's a few that I have had trouble finding (and a few I still haven't found after a few visits) - I just put it down to lack of experience / bad day / day satellite coverage. Try looking for this one again in a few months and you might hit lucky. Good luck with finding it - it really bugs me when I get a DNF!

[+metal-bijou]

There's a cache near me that sounds so similar GC2VADZ.

 

Cache published 8 months ago.

Cache page coordinates are 855ft from GZ.

Cache page coordinates are the other side of the River Thames from GZ.

3 people have said needs maintenance ref cache page coordinates.

 

Ok these points shouldn't influence my thoughts but do:

CO has only found 2

FTF also only found 2

 

AND. The terrain is more like 1.5 or 2 rather than the 4.5. Though if you consider it's off set and you start at the published coords and go straight line to the cache then 4.5 is probably nearer but still high.

[motnahp]

The owner has now posted new coords and changed the difficulty rating from 1.5 : 1.5 to 3 : 2 which I think is more appropriate.

This still leaves the strange favorites choice... Oh well, I will have another search next week.

[motnahp]

There's a cache near me that sounds so similar GC2VADZ.

 

Cache published 8 months ago.

Cache page coordinates are 855ft from GZ.

Cache page coordinates are the other side of the River Thames from GZ.

3 people have said needs maintenance ref cache page coordinates.

 

Ok these points shouldn't influence my thoughts but do:

CO has only found 2

FTF also only found 2

 

 

I see your point that one is quite strange. It makes you wonder if it was done deliberately to annoy other cachers. I have noticed a few caches recently that seem to have a nasty side to them which is quite sad. I think Lu Lu 3 is probably just a beginner's mistake, but in that location, a mistake that could have been fatal. I don't suppose there is much you can do as beginners have to start somewhere but with the availability of the various mapping sites there is not much excuse for getting the coords wrong. It is very obvious that beginners are not checking their coords. Perhaps this should be made a requirement when submitting a new cache.

[+Just Roger]

There's a cache near me that sounds so similar GC2VADZ.

 

Cache published 8 months ago.

Cache page coordinates are 855ft from GZ.

Cache page coordinates are the other side of the River Thames from GZ.

3 people have said needs maintenance ref cache page coordinates.

 

Ok these points shouldn't influence my thoughts but do:

CO has only found 2

FTF also only found 2

 

AND. The terrain is more like 1.5 or 2 rather than the 4.5. Though if you consider it's off set and you start at the published coords and go straight line to the cache then 4.5 is probably nearer but still high.

 

As the owner has ignored meeds maintenance logs from July and hasn't visited the website since October this cache is clearly in need of a Needs Archiving log.

[+Unobtainium]

I think Lu Lu 3 is probably just a beginner's mistake, but in that location, a mistake that could have been fatal.

The only person responsible for your safety whilst caching is YOU! If you look at a situation and assess it to be too dangerous then it is very simple, DON'T DO IT!

[motnahp]

I think Lu Lu 3 is probably just a beginner's mistake, but in that location, a mistake that could have been fatal.

The only person responsible for your safety whilst caching is YOU! If you look at a situation and assess it to be too dangerous then it is very simple, DON'T DO IT!

 

While I would agree that you are responsible for your own safety I believe that the cache owner is responsible for providing accurate information. If someone was hurt or killed looking for a cache in which I had given the wrong information and it was likely that this caused their accident then I would feel responsible for the accident. Whether I would be legally guilty of anything I don't know but I would certainly feel guilty and that would remain with me for the rest of my life.

Just because someone tells you that you are not responsible for something does not make it true.

In this particular case the coords given by the owner lead you into a dangerous situation. Fortunately all those who found themselves in this situation managed to escape without incident. If any accident had occurred then I think Fluff would feel quite guilty and, I think, rightly so.

[motnahp]

With caches you can only get within 10 feet on highly accurate signal days. On bad signal days search circle can be too huge. Finders will be using different satellite signal to setter. None of this excuses a crap set of initial coords. Too many new caches have bogus coords.

 

Call for maintenance, and in 6 months a reviewer will archive the cache, when nothing is done by owner.

 

What do you mean by "Bogus Coords"? I have come across a couple of caches where the coords were deliberately about 25 meters out. You then have to work out where the cache is from the clue. In these cases the "Bogus Coords" did not involve any risks or danger to the cacher. This is a good way to make a cache more difficult to find but I don't think it is within the rules of Geocaching.

[+Unobtainium]

This is a good way to make a cache more difficult to find but I don't think it is within the rules of Geocaching.

Depends on the cache type. A traditional cache must be at the published coordinates and these must be accurate. A mystery/puzzle or multi type can have the cache some distance away from the published coordinates provided there is an element of GPS usage to locate the cache i.e. following some photos or having a general rummage around would not be allowed.

[+Graculus]

Reviewers wouldn't knowingly publish a traditional cache with 'bogus' coordinates, that is ones that are deliberately wrong to make the cache harder to find. Of course if it's not obvious to us when reviewing it or the owner decides to change it after publication we won't know (unless someone tells us!). We also see many caches with bad coordinates. This is often down to inexperience reading a GPS or phone. When reviewing such a cache if the location isn't obviously wrong - in the middle of a lake or field when the hint says 'beside a building' then it gets published.

It is the owners responsibility to update coords on a cache if they are wrong (or, if they can't due to distance to ask us to do it). We won't update a cache if the owner is no longer active so such a cache is most likely to get archived.

 

Chris

Graculus

Volunteer UK Reviewer for geocaching.com

UK Geocaching Information & Resources website www.follow-the-arrow.co.uk

Geocaching.com Knowledge Books

[motnahp]

This is a good way to make a cache more difficult to find but I don't think it is within the rules of Geocaching.

Depends on the cache type. A traditional cache must be at the published coordinates and these must be accurate. A mystery/puzzle or multi type can have the cache some distance away from the published coordinates provided there is an element of GPS usage to locate the cache i.e. following some photos or having a general rummage around would not be allowed.

 

Could you point me in the direction where this is stated? As far as I was aware listings must contain accurate GPS coordinates and these apply to All Geocaches.

Assuming that you are correct then, if this cache was a mystery cache, are you saying that the coords given are acceptable? The clue is spot on.

What sort of distances are you talking about? There are obviously inaccuracies in all gps readings but to deliberately post inaccurate coords is surely not right.

[+dfx]

Could you point me in the direction where this is stated? As far as I was aware listings must contain accurate GPS coordinates and these apply to All Geocaches.

Assuming that you are correct then, if this cache was a mystery cache, are you saying that the coords given are acceptable? The clue is spot on.

 

Accurate coordinates must be used and provided for all caches, BUT for multis and mysteries, those coordinates would be provided only as hidden waypoints (not visible to the public). However, cachers must still have some way to deduct those coordinates from some information given. Simply giving coordinates "in the general area" and then a clue to zero in on the hiding spot without any other way to get more accurate coordinates is not ok. An example of what could be acceptable is giving cachers a set of bogus coordinates, but also a precise distance to the actual coordinates (without telling them the direction). But even this is somewhat borderline.

 

You're right that deliberately misleading cachers with bad coordinates is just wrong.

Edited January 14, 2012 by dfx

[+dartymoor]

Some people expect exact readings regardless of surroundings. I know this very well as I laid a series last year of 8 caches in a woodland. The first few to attempt had big problems with 3, one stumbled across the hide and said they were reading 30 meters from GZ. I went out right away and rechecked every cache, and on these spots reception was outstandingly vague. One cacher made a rather poor assumption and told the reviewer I must have placed them using google earth as no gps could be that inaccurate, which he repeated in the comments.

 

On rechecking, if I approached one cache from one direction it still read accurately. If I approached from another, then my gps reported the location 30m further in, EVEN WHEN I LEFT THE GPS LYING ON THE CACHE FOR TEN MINUTES! I took several readings and averaged them out, and the next cachers didn't have so many problems. I also added spoiler pics and very descriptive clues. I also accepted amended readings from a trusted cacher for one of them which have worked out well. I then wrote to all the attempters and the reviewer apologising, explaining and advising of the changes.

 

I was using a Garmin Oregon 450 (Incidentally, the cacher who reported me was using a 350, so same receiver). At each location I waited for five minutes and set a waypoint which I then cut and pasted to the submission form.

 

Sorry for the digression. My point is that GPS's are not magical instruments yet even cachers with thousands under their belts will go to the GZ and expect a cache within arms reach, and if it's not there will blame the CO for being sloppy. (I know that many CO's /are/ sloppy, and some do use poor methods btw!) Woodland, hills, buildings and weather make huge differences to their accuracy, and the strength and "accurate to" readings on the unit itself cannot be taken as gospel. I know from these caches that readings even on the same equipment can vary hugely depending on direction of approach, weather and terrain at different times.

 

The reviewer has to take coordinates on trust, along with the assumption that there is a cache there at all. Unless the needle points to the middle of a river, sea or motorway they won't be able to know.

 

The only way you can be relatively sure you're going to a cache with reasonable coords is to wait until you see a string of smileys in its logs.

 

Sorry if this sounds a little ranty, and possibly doesn't apply to the cache in the OP's post, but I thought it worthwhile to mention the CO's POV about poor coordinates.

Edited January 15, 2012 by dartymoor

[+Unobtainium]

Could you point me in the direction where this is stated? As far as I was aware listings must contain accurate GPS coordinates and these apply to All Geocaches.

Assuming that you are correct then, if this cache was a mystery cache, are you saying that the coords given are acceptable? The clue is spot on.

 

Accurate coordinates must be used and provided for all caches, BUT for multis and mysteries, those coordinates would be provided only as hidden waypoints (not visible to the public). However, cachers must still have some way to deduct those coordinates from some information given. Simply giving coordinates "in the general area" and then a clue to zero in on the hiding spot without any other way to get more accurate coordinates is not ok. An example of what could be acceptable is giving cachers a set of bogus coordinates, but also a precise distance to the actual coordinates (without telling them the direction). But even this is somewhat borderline.

 

You're right that deliberately misleading cachers with bad coordinates is just wrong.

DFX is correct.

 

Although 'An example of what could be acceptable is giving cachers a set of bogus coordinates, but also a precise distance to the actual coordinates (without telling them the direction)' is not correct. The direction would also have to be given so accurate coordinates could be projected.

Edited January 15, 2012 by Andy K!

[+dfx]

Although 'An example of what could be acceptable is giving cachers a set of bogus coordinates, but also a precise distance to the actual coordinates (without telling them the direction)' is not correct. The direction would also have to be given so accurate coordinates could be projected.

 

Not necessarily, I have seen caches that were set up in exactly the way I described. Personally I wouldn't have thought that it was ok (which is why I called it "borderline") and maybe they wouldn't publish a cache like that today, I don't know.

[+Stuey]

I was using a Garmin Oregon 450 (Incidentally, the cacher who reported me was using a 350, so same receiver). At each location I waited for five minutes and set a waypoint which I then cut and pasted to the submission form.

 

You ought to try the Waypoint Averaging function on your Oregon. You can leave the Garmin in the place where the cache is, and it will take hundreds of readings over however long you want and give you an average automatically.

[+t4e]

 

I was using a Garmin Oregon 450 (Incidentally, the cacher who reported me was using a 350, so same receiver). At each location I waited for five minutes and set a waypoint which I then cut and pasted to the submission form.

 

 

this is what you need to use:

 

Waypoint Averaging

[+dartymoor]

You know, I've never used that feature... Thank you, that will make things much better all round!

[patdhill]

Just been reading the logs on http://coord.info/GC3AAK4, looks like the cache owner has deliberately set inaccurate coordinates. He's even got a finder to delete some better coordinates off their found log as it was going to help people too much maybe.

[+dfx]

Just been reading the logs on http://coord.info/GC3AAK4, looks like the cache owner has deliberately set inaccurate coordinates. He's even got a finder to delete some better coordinates off their found log as it was going to help people too much maybe.

 

I've come across a cache like that too. I posted coords, CO deleted my log. I went to contact@geocaching.com and explained the situation. It took a bit of persuading and patience, but in the end my log got reinstated and the CO was told to stop doing that. Of course they still never updated the coords, just changed the difficulty from a 5 to a 2 or something lol.

Edited January 15, 2012 by dfx

[+FantasyRaider]

 

You ought to try the Waypoint Averaging function on your Oregon. You can leave the Garmin in the place where the cache is, and it will take hundreds of readings over however long you want and give you an average automatically.

[+dartymoor]

"Distance from original: 164.8 feet or 50.2 meters."

 

Looks like the CO has been 'educated'...

[motnahp]

A lot of these problems with inaccurate coords could be solved if cachers would check their coords using programs like Magic Map wich is free and I use all the time to check where caches are located. Quo is another program which uses OS maps but is not free. Another thing which would help is that new cachers should not be allowed to place caches until they have found 100 caches.

Edited January 17, 2012 by motnahp

[+Stuey]

A lot of these problems with inaccurate coords could be solved if cachers would check their coords using programs like Magic Map wich is free and I use all the time to check where caches are located. Quo is another program which uses OS maps but is not free.

 

I disagree. In my early days, I moved the co-ordinates of a cache a few metres based on the OS 1:25k map, assuming the Ordnance Survey would be more accurate than my £180 Garmin. When the first people went out to find it, the revised co-ords took them to the middle of a main road, but my original co-ords were perfect. It turns out that the maps are not always perfect and in some cases they even introduce deliberate errors.

[motnahp]

A lot of these problems with inaccurate coords could be solved if cachers would check their coords using programs like Magic Map wich is free and I use all the time to check where caches are located. Quo is another program which uses OS maps but is not free.

 

I disagree. In my early days, I moved the co-ordinates of a cache a few metres based on the OS 1:25k map, assuming the Ordnance Survey would be more accurate than my £180 Garmin. When the first people went out to find it, the revised co-ords took them to the middle of a main road, but my original co-ords were perfect. It turns out that the maps are not always perfect and in some cases they even introduce deliberate errors.

 

Do you disagree that you should not check your coords or my suggestions of maps? I have found Magic Map to be very accurate so far, and I think it is based on the Ordnance Survey. Are you sure you were using the correct datum? In this particular case of Lu Lu 3 the maps clearly show that the coords are on the wrong side of the river. If the owner had checked this they would have noticed that something was wrong. In many cases poor coords will not matter except as an inconvienence for the cacher but in some cases they will lead to dangerous situations. Do we just carry on as we are doing or do we try to learn something from this near miss.

[+dfx]

A lot of these problems with inaccurate coords could be solved if cachers would check their coords using programs like Magic Map wich is free and I use all the time to check where caches are located. Quo is another program which uses OS maps but is not free.

 

I disagree. In my early days, I moved the co-ordinates of a cache a few metres based on the OS 1:25k map, assuming the Ordnance Survey would be more accurate than my £180 Garmin. When the first people went out to find it, the revised co-ords took them to the middle of a main road, but my original co-ords were perfect. It turns out that the maps are not always perfect and in some cases they even introduce deliberate errors.

 

Do you disagree that you should not check your coords or my suggestions of maps?

 

I would disagree with the suggestion to check against maps per se. You can trust maps only so far. You should only use them as an additional indicator about whether there might be an error or not. In other words, if the location shows up on the map in the right spot (and if you actually do know that it's the right spot with a decent amount of accuracy, not just "somewhere in those woods"), then the coords are likely good. If it doesn't, then the coords might be bad, and you should double check again with your GPS or somebody else's GPS. But it could also be the map that is incorrect.

 

What you should not do is to "correct" coordinates that show up on the wrong location on the map by adjusting them so that they show up in the "right" location on the map. By doing that, you're effectively dismissing the GPS readings and using the map alone to obtain coordinates. Since you don't know how accurate the map is, you may end up way off.

[+FantasyRaider]

Another thing which would help is that new cachers should not be allowed to place caches until they have found 100 caches.

 

Or found at least ONE!

 

 

(I know, I know .... it's a sock.)

[+Stuey]

A lot of these problems with inaccurate coords could be solved if cachers would check their coords using programs like Magic Map wich is free and I use all the time to check where caches are located. Quo is another program which uses OS maps but is not free.

 

I disagree. In my early days, I moved the co-ordinates of a cache a few metres based on the OS 1:25k map, assuming the Ordnance Survey would be more accurate than my £180 Garmin. When the first people went out to find it, the revised co-ords took them to the middle of a main road, but my original co-ords were perfect. It turns out that the maps are not always perfect and in some cases they even introduce deliberate errors.

 

Do you disagree that you should not check your coords or my suggestions of maps? I have found Magic Map to be very accurate so far, and I think it is based on the Ordnance Survey. Are you sure you were using the correct datum?

 

I disagree that you should check co-ords against any map at all.

 

I was using the right datum. I did say "a few metres", which if I recall was probably about 5 metres. Like I said, the original co-ordinates were perfect, it was just that I had adjusted them to match the OS map, which thinking about it would have been drawn before GPS was invented and would be subject to various errors.