Converting Co-ordinates From Google Maps To The Standard Used Here

[+siddas]

Hi All,

Hope someone can point me in the right direction here. I am setting my first cache up and have been out and picked a location. I took my GPS with me and made a waypoint where I was. When I cam back and google mapped the point it was not where I hoped. So using the satellite pics I pinpointed where the cache will be and got the co-ordinates. But they are in a totally different format.

 

Eg using a random point it gives me 53.241990, -2.103564 - how can I easily convert this to one showing a format like this - N 53° 15.295 W 002° 07.070?

 

Thanks in advance for any help on this.

 

Cheers,

Sid.

[+Isonzo Karst]

On every cache page under the coordinates is link "other conversions". That link will take you to page where you can convert from one format to another. It will be loaded with the coords of the cache, but you can put anything in the boxes.

 

Please use a gps for cache coords, not google maps. Thanks

[+siddas]

On every cache page under the coordinates is link "other conversions". That link will take you to page where you can convert from one format to another. It will be loaded with the coords of the cache, but you can put anything in the boxes.

 

Please use a gps for cache coords, not google maps. Thanks

Brilliant - thanks for the reply so quickly. That will do the trick perfectly.

 

Can I just ask why use a GPS and not google maps? The GPS ref it gave me was a different location when I put it into maps.

[+Totem Clan]

Hi All,

Hope someone can point me in the right direction here. I am setting my first cache up and have been out and picked a location. I took my GPS with me and made a waypoint where I was. When I cam back and google mapped the point it was not where I hoped. So using the satellite pics I pinpointed where the cache will be and got the co-ordinates. But they are in a totally different format.

 

Eg using a random point it gives me 53.241990, -2.103564 - how can I easily convert this to one showing a format like this - N 53° 15.295 W 002° 07.070?

 

Thanks in advance for any help on this.

 

Cheers,

Sid.

Google Maps can be off by several feet denpending on where in the world you're looking and how nice of a day the tech at google was having when they coded it. They will give you an idea of what corner of building, or what side of the park the cache might be in but beyond that don't trust it for coords.

[+dfx]

Can I just ask why use a GPS and not google maps? The GPS ref it gave me was a different location when I put it into maps.

 

Because people use a GPS to find caches, not a map. Most of them, anyway.

 

PS: if you're unsure about the coordinates, double check them! Not on a map, but on location with your GPS.

Edited January 24, 2012 by dfx

[+BBWolf+3Pigs]

Eg using a random point it gives me 53.241990, -2.103564 - how can I easily convert this to one showing a format like this - N 53° 15.295 W 002° 07.070?

 

You can also take the decimal portion and multiply it by 60.

 

So in your example, 53.241990 =>

 

.241990 * 60 = 14.5194 or 14.519 (rounded) to you get 53° 14.519'

[+Isonzo Karst]

Can I just ask why use a GPS and not google maps?

 

In some places the calibration on Google maps is good. In other places it's as much as 200 feet off. Also, using a GPS to get your coordinates is in the listing guidelines, here >> linky thingy

 

The GPS ref it gave me was a different location when I put it into maps.

 

This tells me that you're not *quite* using the technology right, somewhere. It would be far better if you were to figure out how to use the device you have, and not default to something familiar (maps) that will give you a moderately poor set of coords.

 

Geocaching is a "high tech" game, so master the high tech, and have fun in the game.

 

Good luck, and thanks for thinking to place a cache.

[+siddas]

Can I just ask why use a GPS and not google maps?

 

In some places the calibration on Google maps is good. In other places it's as much as 200 feet off. Also, using a GPS to get your coordinates is in the listing guidelines, here >> linky thingy

 

The GPS ref it gave me was a different location when I put it into maps.

 

This tells me that you're not *quite* using the technology right, somewhere. It would be far better if you were to figure out how to use the device you have, and not default to something familiar (maps) that will give you a moderately poor set of coords.

 

Geocaching is a "high tech" game, so master the high tech, and have fun in the game.

 

Good luck, and thanks for thinking to place a cache.

 

Actually I think I have done my GPS a great dis-service. When I put the co-ords into google maps it put the marker on a road - near where I have planned for the cache. It turns out that it some stupid street view thing that defaults to the nearest image on that. When I checked the actual co-ords from the gps they were spot on. Lesson learned here - sod google maps.

 

Thanks for your input everyone.

[+dfx]

Actually I think I have done my GPS a great dis-service. When I put the co-ords into google maps it put the marker on a road - near where I have planned for the cache. It turns out that it some stupid street view thing that defaults to the nearest image on that. When I checked the actual co-ords from the gps they were spot on. Lesson learned here - sod google maps.

 

Ah, the good old double marker syndrome

It can be avoided by prefixing the coordinates with "loc:"

[Mr.Yuck]

On every cache page under the coordinates is link "other conversions". That link will take you to page where you can convert from one format to another. It will be loaded with the coords of the cache, but you can put anything in the boxes.

 

Please use a gps for cache coords, not google maps. Thanks

Brilliant - thanks for the reply so quickly. That will do the trick perfectly.

 

Can I just ask why use a GPS and not google maps? The GPS ref it gave me was a different location when I put it into maps.

 

I actually didn't know that either, but I've been using a version of that tool, just going to the page on Geocaching.com http://www.geocaching.com/WPT/ where you enter your own coordinates and get maps, not get maps for an already established cache. Not that you couldn't just edit the coordinates on the page in IK's link.

 

You can not use Google Maps because Geocaching.com says so. I have in fact seen caches archived by reviewers when it became apparent (or was admitted) that Google Maps were used to obtain the coordinates.

Edited January 24, 2012 by Mr.Yuck

[+Doctroid]

Ah, the good old double marker syndrome

It can be avoided by prefixing the coordinates with "loc:"

 

Never knew that. Thanks!

[+Alkhalikoi]

Hi All,

Hope someone can point me in the right direction here. I am setting my first cache up and have been out and picked a location. I took my GPS with me and made a waypoint where I was. When I cam back and google mapped the point it was not where I hoped. So using the satellite pics I pinpointed where the cache will be and got the co-ordinates. But they are in a totally different format.

 

Eg using a random point it gives me 53.241990, -2.103564 - how can I easily convert this to one showing a format like this - N 53° 15.295 W 002° 07.070?

 

Thanks in advance for any help on this.

 

Cheers,

Sid.

 

There's also an option in Google Earth to have it display as Degrees/Decimal Degrees, Degrees/Minutes/Decimal minutes (the GC standard), or Degrees/Minutes/Seconds. Check Preferences in your Google Earth.

[+addisonbr]

I've found that in urban environments with tall buildings, the combination of signal interference and far above average map calibration makes satellite imagery more accurate than GPS readings. YMMV.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

Can I just ask why use a GPS and not google maps?

 

In some places the calibration on Google maps is good. In other places it's as much as 200 feet off. Also, using a GPS to get your coordinates is in the listing guidelines, here >> linky thingy

 

In addition to the inconsistent calibration issues which aligns what you see in the satellite photos with "real world" lat/long coordinates, there is also an inconsistency with Google Maps resolution and many places where the ground view is completely obscured by cloud cover. For example, enter these coordinates into the Google Maps search form: 10.215936,-84.546161

 

What you'll see is a fairly low resolution photo, where the ground is almost entirely obscured by ground cover (that's because the area is a rain forest in Costa Rica). BTW, there *is* a cache located near those coordinates I found last February. Zoom out a little bit and you'll see that a area about a mile south has much better resolution, such that you could probably identify a corner of a building. Because this a game that is played world wide, it needs to use a technology that can reliably produce accurate coordinates consistently around the world and, at least at this point, satellite imagery calibrated with "real world" lat/long data can not do that.

[+dprovan]

I know the standard is GPSr coordinates, and I know space views are not always calibrated exactly. Good things to keep in mind. But on the other hand, around the SF Bay Area where I cache, for example, the space view is almost always at least as accurate as GPSr readings. It's quite common for inexperienced CO's to be embarrassed when everyone can see that their posted coordinates are off. When I hide, I take a reading, go back home and refine it via space view, then go back in the field to make sure I really can get that reading at GZ. If I did that a couple times, and it always failed, then I'd abandon the idea, but for me where I am, it always produces better coordinates.

 

And, as has been mentioned, let's not forget the complete exceptions: GPSr reading are almost always way wrong in a city, and if you're using some cheapo gizmo in the field, your error might exceed any error in the space view calibration no matter where you are.

 

Oh, and since no one's mentioned it: make sure to turn off that 45 degree angle thing if you have it when you're looking down from space: in my experience, that always skews the location by a random offset.

Edited January 24, 2012 by dprovan

[+Totem Clan]

About 5 years ago while still in North Dakota I hid cache and one the first cachers to go and try it complained that it was missing. Mind you this cache was a LARGE cache. It was 3'x4'x1.5'. Everyone else was finding it just fine. After about a month of this hw finally finds it by about just hunting around till he all but tripped over it. Then he complained that the coords were off by over 300'. Everyone else said the coords were spot on. Come to find out he didn't own a GPSr and was using Google Earth to hunt caches.

In town the maps were good enough to get him in the right area in the with hints and geosence he could find them. However a few miles down the road in the woods the maps were off just enough to mess everything up for him.

The moral here is don't trust Google to always be right.

[+addisonbr]

If I did that a couple times, and it always failed, then I'd abandon the idea, but for me where I am, it always produces better coordinates.

That's been roughly my experience as well.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

I know the standard is GPSr coordinates, and I know space views are not always calibrated exactly. Good things to keep in mind. But on the other hand, around the SF Bay Area where I cache, for example, the space view is almost always at least as accurate as GPSr readings.

 

That's probably true for many large cities in the U.S. and Europe. However, I doubt that Groundspeak is going to change the guideline from the "the use of a GPS is required to obtain accurate coordinates" to "the use of a GPS is required to obtain accurate coordinates, unless you happen to live the the SF Bay Area". The guidelines need to apply globally.

[cezanne]

I know the standard is GPSr coordinates, and I know space views are not always calibrated exactly. Good things to keep in mind. But on the other hand, around the SF Bay Area where I cache, for example, the space view is almost always at least as accurate as GPSr readings.

 

That's probably true for many large cities in the U.S. and Europe. However, I doubt that Groundspeak is going to change the guideline from the "the use of a GPS is required to obtain accurate coordinates" to "the use of a GPS is required to obtain accurate coordinates, unless you happen to live the the SF Bay Area". The guidelines need to apply globally.

 

I do not think that is a guideline issue. I know of several caches in my area where the hiders used GPSr devices to get the coordinates and where later on finders who have been equipped with GPSr devices as well required corrections based on data from maps (not necessarily Google maps) and the corrected coordinates led to much more satisfaction on the side of the hiders. So in some urban areas with bad reception it might make sense to doublecheck coordinates measured by GPSr technology by looking up the coordinates on good maps and investigate the case further if deviations show up.

 

Moreover, many cachers rely on satellite view maps when hunting for urban caches in particular when it concerns nanos where searching in the appropriate area is important. For such caches it is important that either the GPSr leads reliably to the cache or what works out better in my area the map view provides a good indication of where to search.

 

Cezanne

Edited January 24, 2012 by cezanne

[+addisonbr]

That's probably true for many large cities in the U.S. and Europe. However, I doubt that Groundspeak is going to change the guideline from the "the use of a GPS is required to obtain accurate coordinates" to "the use of a GPS is required to obtain accurate coordinates, unless you happen to live the the SF Bay Area". The guidelines need to apply globally.

As long as taking coordinates with an iPhone follows the letter and using satellite imagery does not, I'm hoping that folks will think of the guidelines as guidelines. Those who hunt caches in urban areas will be grateful.

Edited January 24, 2012 by addisonbr

[+Z3ROIN]

Ah, the good old double marker syndrome

It can be avoided by prefixing the coordinates with "loc:"

 

Awesome!

Edited January 24, 2012 by Z3ROIN