Many new caches have inaccurate coordinates - could smartphones be to blame?

[+Highpointer]

I have noted that I am seeing a higher percentage of relatively easy caches with inaccurate coordinates - off by more than 20 feet. It seems like caches are being recorded by less experienced geocachers.

 

Could this be because many of these less experienced geocachers are using iPhones or other smart phones instead of dedicated GPS units, and thus these phones with GPS applications are less accurate than dedicated GPS units?

 

If this is true, should we require that cache coordinates of new caches be recorded using dedicated GPS units to avoid these inaccuracies?

 

It is important that geocaches have accurate coordinates. Geocache coordinates need to be measured and recorded accurately with a high quality GPS unit.

 

Highpointer

[+StarBrand]

I think it is sometimes smartphone users using triangulated tower information instead of turning on the GPS chip. Sometimes it is users of older models of smartphones. Sometimes it is users of old models of GPS units. Sometimes it is just a transient error that would affect any unit. Sometimes it is just inexperience. Sometimes it is using Google maps or Google Earth rather than a GPS unit. Sometimes it is overuse of a variety of online maps rather than a GPS reading. Sometimes it is tree canopy.

 

I really do not worry too much about off coordinates until it is well over 30 feet.

[+Lieblweb]

It's not the smart phone that's taking the coordinates - it's the people.

 

I'm not a fan of smartphones for taking coordinates - but with a little patience and know-how, you might actually be able to get decent coordinates IF you know what you're doing. But it does take patience....

 

Taking coordinates is an involved PROCESS (regardless what you use). It's not a 'Grab & Go'

 

If you grab-n-go with a cell phone, your coordinates WILL be wrong/off.

 

Heck - there are caches out there with bad coordinates that were done with a handheld. People just don't take the time, nor the proper process to get accurate coordinates.

[+Gitchee-Gummee]

It's not the smart phone that's taking the coordinates - it's the people.

 

This is the answer! ↑↑↑↑↑↑

 

I have to support smart phone use (I do not have one).

That said - I prefer to see them used to find caches, not place them. But the problem of placements being off, is not so much the device as it is the person using the device. Heck, we all have seen caches placed (supposedly) with coordinates obtained from a GPSr way off, too.

That leads me to believe the root problem is not the device, but the user. Likewise, we have also seen very good (accurate) placements using a smart phone.

 

The real problem I see - and it is mentioned quite a bit here in the forums - is that people 'check' the coordinates with the maps (now that Google maps aren't easily available, just how good are the new ones? Anybody know?). It just stands to reason that if they aren't trusting the device, then they rely on the mapping. A sorry state of events, for sure.

Most do not state which set of coordinates they end up using, but let's think again at that 'trust issue'. My guess is that they end up using the coordinates obtained from the mapping. There have been a goodly number that have 'oops' posted that they always use the map coordinates. I guess the guidelines can just be, well..... darned (family friendly).

Outside of that, oh so many feel the need to hurry up and git 'er done -- getting the coords to have their cache reviewed and published.

 

All-in-all, I don't think that 20' off is all that bad. Question is: Who is off, the finder or the CO? Most likely, a combination of the two. Start having them 30'+, then I would agree that it is a problem that should be addressed.

Edited April 12, 2012 by Gitchee-Gummee

[+nthacker66]

Interestingly enough, when I am caching with my garmin oregon and am having a problem getting a good fix, I pull out the droid and it has pretty darn accurate readings along with the garmin so, coming from a person (me) who used to be a nay sayer, I have to admit, the droids gps is pretty good. That all being said, I don't think the "off" coords are the fault of the phones, its the people. EVen very experienced hiders seem to have "off" coords. Personally, I think this is a new aspect of caching, like "dirtbagging" being dliberate in throwing off a hide under the guise that "as long as it is within the 50 foot radius, it should be fine" to add to the difficulty of the hide. That, I think is kind of lame.

[+BAMBOOZLE]

You'll always find some that seem to be off....many reasons including overhead power lines, etc,etc.

In general, though, I'd like to say hats off to all the hiders out there. I use a 62S and I am amazed at how often I walk to GZ and accidentally kick the cache or have it bonk me in the head....the vast majority of my finds are within 0-5 feet ( my old Meridian Platinum did well also but wasn't as sensitive as the 62 ). The 62 is only half the story as the hiders are using quality equipment and patience in making the placement. I have run into a few phone or map placed caches which were a nightmare.

[+scubahhh]

I'm a little confused, for two reasons.

 

First, i'd actually prefer a few feet of leeway between alleged and actual GZ; otherwise, as has been mentioned, you just walk along following your GPSr until a lock & lock hit syou in the head or you trip over a peanut butter jar full of trinkets.

 

Second, 20' is pretty good. That includes two margins of error- the hider's and the searcher's- so the error is only 10'. Loads of GPSrs claim accuracy within millimeters; but really, do any deliver that kind of accuracy with any consistency?

 

Granted, I dont go much for urban caches or park'n'grabs in congested areas, but for my preference, I'd rather have the technology get me within 50' or so, and then let me develop a little spidey-sense.

 

Just sayin'...

[+Lieblweb]

 

First, i'd actually prefer a few feet of leeway between alleged and actual GZ;

 

As a cache hider - your coordinates should be as accurate as possible IMO. And that's because of the possible variance in GPS units, weather, location etc.

 

As a cache finder - I want the coordinates to be accurate. Because I know - I have a 30' (or more) variance when I get close to GZ. That's a lot of ground to cover. And honestly? If its an ammo can or lock-n-lock, I don't want to spend too much time looking for it. They should be easy unless its a well-thought-out specially designed cache. Micros need more time and specially designed caches need more time.

 

Personally for me, I enjoy 'the hunt' for the container. When I have awesome coordinates and I still can't find it.....that's MY fault. I enjoy being 'stumped' based on the container - not because of bad coordinates.

[+geodarts]

Second, 20' is pretty good. That includes two margins of error- the hider's and the searcher's- so the error is only 10'. Loads of GPSrs claim accuracy within millimeters; but really, do any deliver that kind of accuracy with any consistency?

 

Granted, I dont go much for urban caches or park'n'grabs in congested areas, but for my preference, I'd rather have the technology get me within 50' or so, and then let me develop a little spidey-sense.

 

Just sayin'...

 

I don't know of any consumer unit that claims millimeter accuracy, but mine (62s) does a pretty good job. The owner's manual claims accuracy within 10 meters for 95 percent of the use. Still, if it is three meters "off" and the finder's handheld has a similar range, then I agree that 20 feet is certainly within reason. Of course, tree cover, canyons, tall buildings, and the like will affect that as well.

 

My smartphone gets me close enough if I use it to find a cache, but for placing a cache I rely on the handheld. The search is the least interesting part of the game for me, so I agree with the guidelines that coordinates should be as accurate as possible.

 

You can take pretty good coordinates with a smartphone, you can take soft coordinates with a very expensive handheld. In either case, it involves than just taking a quick measurement -- take time to let the unit settle in, take multiple readings and approach the cache from different directions, average out coordinates over a longer period of time, perhaps even coming back to the site the next day.

[+Glenn]

As a cache hider - your coordinates should be as accurate as possible IMO. And that's because of the possible variance in GPS units, weather, location etc.

Weather (rain/clouds/fog/mist) has no noticeable effect on GPS accuracy. The wavelengths used were chosen specifically for those properties.

[7rxc]

The problem isn't so much the device (up to a point) but the failure to properly vet the coordinates obtained.

 

Averaging is good idea, but... you have to average over time. 100 readings over 10 minutes doesn't come close to 10 taken several hours or days apart. The big test is the go away and come back later or on another day one. I know of one local cache that seems to have both accurate and 'soft' coordinates. It is consistent, in that for me, the posted coordinates take me to the same place each time plus or minus a few feet... but so do my 'new' coordinates, so for me I'll take the 'new' ones. (Three trips over a year).

 

Not sure why the difference, but the CO's GPS appears to do the same for him. Averaging both sets might help in this case, but is anyone 'wrong'? The test is whether the coordinates will get you to the GZ area well and consistently. If everyone gets to the same spot the game is sort of fair to all. Not necessarily bang on target, but equal to all if not too far off!

 

Doug 7rxc

[+JesandTodd]

All-in-all, I don't think that 20' off is all that bad. Question is: Who is off, the finder or the CO? Most likely, a combination of the two.

 

Exactly.

[+Glenn]

The problem isn't so much the device (up to a point) but the failure to properly vet the coordinates obtained.

Or knowing how to properly vet coordinates. Some thing are counter intuitive.

Averaging is good idea, but... you have to average over time. 100 readings over 10 minutes doesn't come close to 10 taken several hours or days apart. The big test is the go away and come back later or on another day one. I know of one local cache that seems to have both accurate and 'soft' coordinates. It is consistent, in that for me, the posted coordinates take me to the same place each time plus or minus a few feet... but so do my 'new' coordinates, so for me I'll take the 'new' ones. (Three trips over a year).

My first GPSr auto averaged whenever it sensed I was standing still but not all GPSrs did that. I've noticed that almost all, if not all, new GPSrs average today. I agree the best test to come back on a another day and see how close your GPS gets you to the cache. You don't need to beat yourself up over getting exact coordinates. Most GPSrs have an Accuracy, sometimes called EPE, reading. When I place a cache I keep an eye on accuracy. It isn't a guarantee of good coordinates but it is one more check to make sure that my coordinates are the best that they can be.

[John E Cache]

I have noted that I am seeing a higher percentage of relatively easy caches with inaccurate coordinates - off by more than 20 feet. It seems like caches are being recorded by less experienced geocachers.

I am curious how you know it is off by more than 20 feet. I see GIS in your sig. Do use GIS to determine accuracy?

[Grasscatcher]

Only a few of the above posts have even come close to answering correctly.......

 

The GPS was designed to be a "thinking person's" tool......

Too many users don't qualify.......

 

Category too exclusive???????

[+Dr. Dragon]

I am beginning to wonder how many people here responded that are guilty of the same thing that they call owners of Geocaches with bad coordinates? Its ridiculous. I know, I was guilty on a couple of my geocaches of having bad coordinates, and I am a surveyor. We pride ourselves in good coordinates. My problem was an older unit that did not have the accuracy. The key here is that someone mentioned it to me and I fixed the coordinates once I upgraded. The only person I can agree with here on is the one who said that the owner could check to make sure the coordinates are the same another day but before its posted. There is also other ways to fix it. Realize that the coordinates being off is not only the owners problem but the finder as well. If you dont let the person, know that the coordinates are off, how are they going to change them.

[+teamhough]

I have had the frustration of looking for a cache and finding it 150 to 200 feet off. when you are searching a stone wall this will take some time.

I have both the iphone and handhelds. I might use the iphone with the geoocaching app in the car to get me near the site, park the car then turn on the handheld.

In placing a cache, most gps units will show you what birds you've got up there and based on tree cover, your birds, and cloud cover, how comfortable are you with the numbers? Walk away from your cache and approach from another angle and see if you have the same numbers.

I've had to go back and adjust a couple in better weather and with better birds

[+Glenn]

I have had the frustration of looking for a cache and finding it 150 to 200 feet off. when you are searching a stone wall this will take some time.

I have both the iphone and handhelds. I might use the iphone with the geoocaching app in the car to get me near the site, park the car then turn on the handheld.

In placing a cache, most gps units will show you what birds you've got up there and based on tree cover, your birds, and cloud cover, how comfortable are you with the numbers? Walk away from your cache and approach from another angle and see if you have the same numbers.

I've had to go back and adjust a couple in better weather and with better birds

 

Clouds have negligible effect on the GPS signal. The frequencies selected where selected because water vapor and other atmospheric conditions have little to no effect on the signals in that frequency range.

 

I recently was searching a stone wall for a cache. Actually I started about 80 feet away from wall because that is where my GPS was directing me to. It was an open area and really no place to hide a small cache. My "cache senses" directed me to the wall. I found the hiding spot at the base of an 8 to 10 foot stone wall. I assume that the CO took the GPS reading at the base of the wall. This would give anyone very poor satellite geometry, and very poor accuracy, no matter when they took the reading. But is experience that tells you that the best place for taking a reading when placing the cache is at the top of the stone wall even if the cache is placed at the bottom.