Jump to content

Three Suggestions


Blodlizrd
Followers 0

Recommended Posts

I was wondering if it would be possible to add a selection to the search page so that one could filter a search if they were only looking for micros or only full sized boxes in the area. We have a lot of micros in the Memphis area and it would be nice to filter those out when I am looking to place a Travel Bug.

 

The other suggestion I have is to add a field on the "Report a New Cache" page where you would have to enter the type of GPS you used to place the cache. I have a Garmin unit and in cases where I know a user placed their cache with a Magellan I go in knowing that I will need to search a little bit further (in some cases 75-100 ft) from where my GPS points me.

 

My final suggestion is that when logging a cache find it would be nice if there was a way to anonymously rate the cache, perhaps on a scale of 1 to 5. This would help cache owners know what the cacher hunters like and don’t like so that in the future they know what to place and what not to place. It helps the cache hunters by giving them a voice to tell not only the cache owner how much they enjoyed or disliked a cache but also to tell the cache approvers and admin whether or not a cache should be in that area. Since the cache approvers obviously cannot go to each cache in advance of approving it is hard to gauge whether or not a cache is in a less than appropriate place. This would allow the people that actually go to the site a chance to report back on the placement.

 

Thanks for your consideration,

Blodlizrd

 

nonflashygif.txt

My skills are ferior!

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Blodlizrd:

I have a Garmin unit and in cases where I know a user placed their cache with a Magellan I go in knowing that I will need to search a little bit further (in some cases 75-100 ft) from where my GPS points me.


 

Can you explain this a little bit more??? icon_confused.gif

Sounds weird to me ...

 

Cornix

Cornix

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Blodlizrd:

I have a Garmin unit and in cases where I know a user placed their cache with a Magellan I go in knowing that I will need to search a little bit further (in some cases 75-100 ft) from where my GPS points me.


 

Funny.

 

CR

 

72057_2000.gif

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Cornix:

Can you explain this a little bit more??? icon_confused.gif

Sounds weird to me ...


 

I got together with a few other geocachers this past weekend and we were talking about how in many cases if someone places a cache with a Magellan and you are looking for it with a Garmin the waypoint tends to point you quite a distance away from the cache. When I know that someone placed it with a Magellan I tend to widen my search.

 

nonflashygif.txt

My skills are ferior!

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Blodlizrd:

 

My final suggestion is that when logging a cache find it would be nice if there was a way to anonymously rate the cache, perhaps on a scale of 1 to 5. This would help cache owners know what the cacher hunters like and don’t like so that in the future they know what to place and what not to place. It helps the cache hunters by giving them a voice to tell not only the cache owner how much they enjoyed or disliked a cache but also to tell the cache approvers and admin whether or not a cache should be in that area. Since the cache approvers obviously cannot go to each cache in advance of approving it is hard to gauge whether or not a cache is in a less than appropriate place. This would allow the people that actually go to the site a chance to report back on the placement.


 

I like this idea

 

If you get lost while geocaching, don't worry. Someone else will get lost while geocaching and find you. icon_wink.gif

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Blodlizrd:

you are looking for it with a Garmin the waypoint tends to point you quite a distance away from the cache.


It seems that lower end Garmin units use a patch antenna. These units tend to have trouble under tree cover. Unfortunately most new geocachers do not do their homework before buying the GPS. Instead, they ask others which one is better.

 

Garmin has some low priced GPS units and therefore sells a lot of them. Users of these low end units will exaggerate when describing these units, rather than have to admit that they made a mistake. It's not uncommon for people to want to feel that they made the right purchase. And so the endless circle never gets broken.

 

The higher end Garmin units use a different antenna similar to the one in the Magellan units, and generally do not have the same trouble with tree cover. You get what you pay for.

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by cachew nut:

These units tend to have trouble under tree cover. Unfortunately most new geocachers do not do their homework before buying the GPS. Instead, they ask others which one is better.

 

You get what you pay for.


 

True but the fact of the matter is that people do hunt with Garmin units. I tend not to have the same issues with caches that are placed with Garmin units that I do with the ones with Magellans, and that includes in the woods. It would be nice to know in advance if I should expect this variance or not.

 

nonflashygif.txt

My skills are ferior!

Link to comment

It may have a lot to do with the person placing the cache. When I hide a cache, I generally let it average for 5 minutes, take it out of averaging, and then let it average for 10 more minutes. Comments I receive about my hides is that the coordinates are spot on, whether the finder is using a Garmin or Magellan. Each hider should learn to use their GPS properly, no matter what make or model they are using. For what it's worth, there are plenty of caches hidden with Garmin units that are just as inaccurate.

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Blodlizrd:

True but the fact of the matter is that people do hunt with Garmin units. I tend not to have the same issues with caches that are placed with Garmin units that I do with the ones with Magellans, and that includes in the woods. It would be nice to know in advance if I should expect this variance or not.


If you have a GPS that uses a patch antenna and you are under tree cover or some other type of signal disruption, the variance is on your end, and you will just have to expect to have to widen your search on any hunt REGARDLESS of the type of GPS that was used to take the original reading.

 

--Marky

"All of us get lost in the darkness, dreamers learn to steer with a backlit GPSr"

Link to comment

quote:
Suggestion #1 was: I want to filter based on cache size.

If you are a premium member, you can get pocket queries (which are one of the biggest perks to being a premium member) and using available tools, filter on all sorts of things, such as cache size (see ClayJar's Watcher program as a good example of what kind of tools are available).

quote:

Suggestion #2 was: have a field saying what GPS was used to take the coords.


If this was an issue, people would already be putting this information into the cache description. This is a non-issue, really.

quote:

Suggestion #3 was: have an anonymous rating when posting a find.


It's not a bad idea. Personally, I'd rather have a difficulty/terrain user rating so that the hider (and future finders) could see what the difficuly/terrain consensus is of those that found the cache.

 

The anonymous rating info would be too easily abused, and the log comments already let the hider know whether people like a particular cache or not. I don't really see the value of it being anonymous.

 

--Marky

"All of us get lost in the darkness, dreamers learn to steer with a backlit GPSr"

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by cachew nut:

It seems that lower end Garmin units use a patch antenna. These units tend to have trouble under tree cover.

<snip>

The higher end Garmin units use a different antenna similar to the one in the Magellan units, and generally do not have the same trouble with tree cover. You get what you pay for.


 

What I find funny is that when I go caching with my brother in law, who has a 'higher end Garmin' he often loses his lock while my good old plain eTrex yellow doesn't when we go into the trees.....

 

----------------------------------

MnGCA-button.gif

----------------------------------

"The number you have reached is imaginary, please rotate your phone 90 degrees and try again... <beeeeep>"

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Marky:

The anonymous rating info would be too easily abused, and the log comments already let the hider know whether people like a particular cache or not. I don't really see the value of it being anonymous.


 

It would not allow anyone to post... just people who had visited the cache. If it is anonymous it allows a cacher to report how he/she feels about the cache without worrying about the cache placer having hard feelings towards them personally.

 

As for the whole thing about how this turned into a Garmin vs. Magellan thing. I don't care what you use to find a cache, I am just stating an issue that I have run into. A number of people in this area have reported the same issue.

 

nonflashygif.txt

My skills are ferior!

Link to comment

I like the idea of being able to rate the cache if you have hunted. Maybe make it 1 to 5 stars right behind your name on the logpage. I think this has been discussed before, tho, and was shot down.

 

As for Garmin's. I've had very few issues with my Legend in tree cover. I think the problem's previous posters have had were user error.

 

--RuffRidr

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by cachew nut:

Garmin has some low priced GPS units and therefore sells a lot of them. Users of these low end units will exaggerate when describing these units, rather than have to admit that they made a mistake.


 

I hope you're kidding, but just in case... come ON. We've found 233 caches with a yellow etrex and the only times we've had a signficant problem getting close to the cache was when the coordinates were just plain bad (such as the time EVERYONE who found the cache said it was 70-100 feet off, and they can't all have been using Garmins). We keep signal under tree cover just fine. The only times we've completely lost it are walking under a long underpass/tunnel, or hanging the unit around my neck and letting it flop face-down. It re-acquires quickly once the problem is resolved.

 

If low-end Garmins were really cheap crap, geocachers using them would either throw in the towel or upgrade quickly, they wouldn't blunder on and defend their Garmins out of pride. I've considered upgrading because maps would be nice, but never for a moment thought "this GPS isn't accurate enough/keeping signal/leading me to the cache, I need a better one." There are people out there who've found 1000+ caches with a yellow etrex. There really ain't nothin' wrong with a patch antenna, and I think we do a disservice to people with an entry-level interest when we suggest they have to buy something expensive to be successful at geocaching.

Link to comment

I have no problem with accuracy on the iPAQ Navman but it is not really suited to life outdoors so I am avoiding the terrain 4-5s for the moment. Unfortunately, I need it for work otherwise I would trade it in for a durable GPSr (whose name shall remain secret) icon_wink.gif

 

Come to think of it, is there an external housing for these ??

 

Andy

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Kite & Hawkeye:

I hope you're kidding, but just in case... come ON. We've found 233 caches with a yellow etrex and the only times we've had a signficant problem getting close to the cache was when the coordinates were just plain bad (such as the time EVERYONE who found the cache said it was 70-100 feet off, and they can't all have been using Garmins).


No, I wasn't kidding. While you may have found 233 caches, think how many more you could have had with a better antenna. I just checked your last 10 DNF logs and in 5 out of 10 you make some comments about trouble with coordinates or GPS drifting.

quote:

If low-end Garmins were really cheap crap, geocachers using them would either throw in the towel or upgrade quickly, they wouldn't blunder on and defend their Garmins out of pride.


I never called them crap, and it may not be pride as much as blind faith.

quote:

There really ain't nothin' wrong with a patch antenna, and I think we do a disservice to people with an entry-level interest when we suggest they have to buy something expensive to be successful at geocaching.


It's well known that the patch antenna is inferior to the quad helix under tree cover. If you've seen documentation that it's the other way around, please post a link. I haven't heard of anyone upgrading from a quad helix to a patch antenna. The disservice to the newbie is telling them to buy the cheapest GPSr and that they will get the same results. While the more expensive units have better antennas, it is possible to find units with better antennas for slightly more. The price differences are really not that far off for an investment that will bring you years of joy.

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by cachew nut:

I just checked your last 10 DNF logs and in 5 out of 10 you make some comments about trouble with coordinates or GPS drifting.


 

Oh, mighty nut master... Where can one look up the DNF logs of a user?

 

Not until we are lost do we begin to understand ourselves.

Henry David Thoreau

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by logscaler:

And an equal disservice suggesting that the Magellan units where the problem to start this thread in the first place.


 

Ok... apparently you didn't get what I was saying. I was not attacking the Magellans. I was saying that when I went on a hunt with my Garmin, if it was placed by someone with a Magellan I would be pointed in a different direction. I would expect that if the tables were turned and I had a Magellan and went on a hunt for a cache placed with a Garmin I would have the same problem. In fact there are people in my area with Magellans that report that very issue. So quit taking a comment I made about a little electronic device so personally. The truth is that in theory they should be exactly the same, but apparently they're not (at the very least they are not in Memphis). The units have different software and different hardware. This could account for a difference in the way that location is caculated within the unit itself, and maybe just in this part of the country. Who knows? I was reporting on an issue that I and many others have talked about. If you are not having the problem, great! I'm glad that you are not dealing with the same thing that I am. So, I'd appreciate it if you would stop this mindless "mine is better" or "don't dis mine" banter. Gee!

 

nonflashygif.txt

My skills are ferior!

Link to comment

I love Garmin units, I have had three of them and they all worked great for the application I have had. I do not have any direct experience with Magellans though.

 

I will say that every GPSr and program displays different location data as they all have diferent allogrythms to determine the location. Case in point:

 

With a Garmin GPSMAP 76s that has an external anntenae, connected to a laptop running Microsoft MapPoint, I will get two different coordinate set (on the Garmin and MapPoint) with the same GPSr and GPSr anntenae - AT THE SAME TIME.

 

So, it doesn't matter what unit you have, it will be different from every other brand to some degree - and I will be as bold as to say from model to model. Now, I don't know anything about the alogrythm used by Garmin, Magellan, Microsoft or any others, but I do know tht they all give different results. So - there's no point in dissing Magellan or Garmin or any others, they do what they do and they have all (the ones I have used) done well by me and by 1000's of other happy GeoCachers.

 

Also, isn't this a treasure hunt? Why do you need the "exact" coords to find them? Are people becomming lazy and want the caches handed to them on 99.99999% accurate coords? Not me, what's the fun in that?

 

Happy GeoCaching

 

/cw

 

aka : Chris Williams

 

Caching in the North Bay and beyond...

sonomarin.net

Link to comment

quote:
I have a Garmin unit and in cases where I know a user placed their cache with a Magellan I go in knowing that I will need to search a little bit further (in some cases 75-100 ft) from where my GPS points me.


 

By this statement, IF I was a newbie and I was in the market to buy a gpsr, and I was reading through these forums trying to judge which unit to buy for my first unit, I would interpolate your statement as saying that "the Garmins are more accurate becuse you have to hunt a bigger area for caches placed by a magellan unit."

 

My next few question's are;

How far away from the problem location have you hunted other caches?

Do you have the same troubles a couple hundred miles away?

Are your troubles all in a definable boundry? 50 square miles?

100 square miles?

One canyon?

One valley?

North side of the hills?

South side?

Time of day?

One certain cacher?

One style of magellan unit? (310,315,330,older, newer?

 

What I would suggest is something like this cache for your area. I am sure there are people out there who have the skill to build a page that would take in account the time of day/year, make and model of the gpsr unit's and get an average for all the different units in that area.

 

That way, you would know how close everyone really is to each other. And if all the units are very close, they you would know it is operator error.

 

Logscaler.

 

[This message was edited by logscaler on July 17, 2003 at 06:47 PM.]

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Followers 0
×
×
  • Create New...