deliberately inaccurate coordinates?

[+Moose Mob]

One should expect to find a Traditional cache at the posted coordinates. If not, they need corrected as part of cache maintenance. If unmaintained, post a Needs Archived log and let the reviewer address the issue.

[AZcachemeister]

It's not about how wrong the numbers are, it's that they are doing it deliberately, and why they are doing it.

[+dakboy]

Initially, they don't write anything except a vague clue. Then as people log DNFs, they change the description with comments like where not to look, or where it's close to, etc. It is very time consuming to do their caches as a result.

Every one of that person's caches would land on my ignore list. I have better things to do with my time than play their little guessing game.

[knowschad]

We are not keeping score. We are not competing against each other (although, some people might believe so). There are NO winners and no losers in this game.

I'm afraid you're fooling yourself there.

 

There is a certain level of competition in this game for almost all of us. Yes, I can think of a few cachers that perhaps don't think at all of their number of finds in relation to somebody else, but most of us... we use those numbers. Maybe not for winning or losing, but for getting some estimate of where we stand in our experience and skills.

 

But we're drifting off GZ with this discussion and we'd better get back on center before somebody posts an NA for bad coordinates.

Edited May 23, 2012 by knowschad

[+Cachefoxxe]

Ok you find a cache and see the coordinates are off. You contact the CO and he responds that he does it on purpose, to make it harder. you list it as a find and give accurate coordinates, Cant the CO go in and delete the coordinates and your find.....Is there a way to put a log entry in with accurate coordinates, that the CO cant delete?

 

Also how do you find who the reviewer is for a cache? Im in Philly and if I need to contact the reviewer for a cache in NJ how would I find that info?

[+dakboy]

Also how do you find who the reviewer is for a cache? Im in Philly and if I need to contact the reviewer for a cache in NJ how would I find that info?

Look at the Publish log on the cache.

 

If it's too old to have one, look at more recently-placed caches nearby.

[jholly]

Ok you find a cache and see the coordinates are off. You contact the CO and he responds that he does it on purpose, to make it harder. you list it as a find and give accurate coordinates, Cant the CO go in and delete the coordinates and your find.....Is there a way to put a log entry in with accurate coordinates, that the CO cant delete?

 

Also how do you find who the reviewer is for a cache? Im in Philly and if I need to contact the reviewer for a cache in NJ how would I find that info?

The CO can delete a picture, but on the log it can not be edited. He has to leave it stand or delete the whole log. And if the log submitter has his log deleted and raises the issue with the frog, the log will probably be re-instated and the CO will be instructed to correct his coordinates.

 

As for who approved the cache, it is generally the first log unless the CO deleted it.

[+The A-Team]

Ok you find a cache and see the coordinates are off. You contact the CO and he responds that he does it on purpose, to make it harder. you list it as a find and give accurate coordinates, Cant the CO go in and delete the coordinates and your find.....Is there a way to put a log entry in with accurate coordinates, that the CO cant delete?

If the CO were to delete your log on that basis, it would be pretty easy to get TPTB to restore your log and lock it. A reviewer would probably also get involved to nip the soft coordinates in the bud.

 

Also how do you find who the reviewer is for a cache? Im in Philly and if I need to contact the reviewer for a cache in NJ how would I find that info?

If the cache wasn't published many, many years ago, you can just scroll down to the publish log and contact that reviewer. If the cache is pretty old, chances are that reviewer isn't covering that area anymore. See if you can find a more recently-published cache in the area and contact the publishing reviewer from that one.

[+hukilaulau]

If they allow new coords to be posted in find logs, then I don't see it as a big deal. However, if they get upset over that, then perhaps they deserve a whuppin.

 

Yes, but future cache seekers shouldn't have to hunt through the previous logs in order to find better coords.

Good point. So here's a better way. make a bookmark list and name it something like "Caches with coordinates more than 40 feet off". That will stand right up there at the top right of the cache page. And the CO can't delete it. The OP said he didn't want to cause any trouble, so this probably won't work for him, 'cause somebody is going to start howling!

[+NYPaddleCacher]

I have one "soft" cache. It wasn't on purpose and after another cacher found it and posted their quads I went out to try to correct mine...

 

... unfortunately 4 GPSRs all gave me the same reading (which is off by about 10-15'). I've posted in the hint that the quads are off and my plight with trying to fix them, I've also given a fairly "gimmie" hint and (because the cache is close to my home) if I see fellow cachers poking around in the wrong area I go and help them out.

 

If someone reported this cache to a reviewer because my quads are "soft" I would not be happy about it.

You raise a good point... what is 'soft' when it comes to coordinates in the 21st century? I would say that 10'-15' is about as good as it gets. But how far off is tolerable? Obviously, that is dependent on the size and type of the hide and the surroundings where it is hidden. An ammo can hidden in the prairie with one hollow tree for miles could probably be 50' off and pose no real problem.

 

Agreed. I have a couple of caches where the coordinates could be off by 80 feet and I bet that everyone that has search for them has walked directly with 3 feet of the cache as soon as they got to the area.

 

To me, "soft" isn't as much about the distance as much is about the intent. I've found a cache that was in a gorge when my GPS was telling me that there was a 90 foot accuracy. The CO has tried to provide accurate coordinates but there's only so much they can do in that kind of environment. "Soft" coordinates would be when the CO did *not* make an attempt to provide accurate coordinates and even intentionally provided coordinates that were not as accurate as their GPS could provide.

[+hikerT]

I once saw a cache listing that was listed as traditional, but the description said "it's not at posted... you have to earn your smiley, not have them all handed to you". The cache was somewhere along an 80 ft guardrail, and the posted coords were across the road.

 

I posted a NM with explanation, got a rude email from the CO, emailed the reviewer about the issue, a reviewer note was posted and the cache disabled... all within 48 hrs. Eventually the CO did fix the coords.

[+Harry Dolphin]

One can find the names of he NJ reviewers by looking at newly published caches. I find them both to be excellent, and responsive.

I've run into a few 'badly off' caches, but not intentionally. On one, the CO used the north parking coords. Took me three tries following a line due south. But I found it, eventually. .18 south! Shocked the socks off eveyone on that one! Reviewer put it on 'temporarily unavailable' until he corrected the coords. He didn't use the coords I provided, but had to hitch a ride to take a new reading.

Then there was the 'orienteer' person who told me I didn't know hw to use a GPS. Good start. Coords about three miles off. Description started in a private campground. Vacation cache. He lives about 70 miles away, and never came back to get better cooreds.

But if someone told me that s/he deliberately gave bad coords, I would report that as a guidelines violation.

[4wheelin_fool]

If they allow new coords to be posted in find logs, then I don't see it as a big deal. However, if they get upset over that, then perhaps they deserve a whuppin.

 

Yes, but future cache seekers shouldn't have to hunt through the previous logs in order to find better coords.

Good point. So here's a better way. make a bookmark list and name it something like "Caches with coordinates more than 40 feet off". That will stand right up there at the top right of the cache page. And the CO can't delete it. The OP said he didn't want to cause any trouble, so this probably won't work for him, 'cause somebody is going to start howling!

 

Usually people will put in their logs "found with xxx's coords", if someone posts better ones. After a bit they will get the point and change them. Making a bookmark list might make it appear that soft coords are a good thing or widely popular.

 

Log deletion is when they have crossed the line and could lead to the cache being archived. Caches like that should just be listed as a mystery type or a puzzle.

[+ncfinn]

If this person is a "friend" why can you not have a conversation with him/her?

 

If i find a cache far from the posted co-ords, i always say that "MY GPSr thought that they were off by x feet",

instead of saying flat out that the co-ords were wrong.

 

Definitely post the co-ords you think are better.

I don't look at info from newbies, but if a local with 1000+ finds says co-ords are off, i pay attention.

 

My GPSr never agrees with the co-ords of one local hider. I look at what others are saying, and usually end up ignoringthese caches.

 

I have one cache in an area with bad reception. I warn everybody of this ahead of time. I give a hint (which some don't read).

I have tied a bright pink ribbon right next to the cache. I hope people do not put me in their ignore-list.

[+Don_J]

Accurate co-ordinates are a part of the game, and required by the guidelines.

 

It sounds as if your friends really want to make puzzle caches, but aren't smart enough to make one.

 

Since you have 'tipped your hand', and they know that you know it is being done deliberately, there isn't much you can do (while avoiding a conflict) other than ignoring their caches. Perhaps some day they will ask you why you haven't been finding theirs, and you can quietly state that you don't enjoy caches with 'bad' co-ordinates. Since your kids don't like them, say you took a family vote.

 

If it was me...I'd create a sock-puppet account, find their caches, and log that I thought the cache must have been accidentally moved, so I put it back at/closer to the listed co-ordinates.

 

I love it: " I put the cache back at the listed GZ". Followed by a NM log: "Seems a delivery truck ran over your cache".

[+Don_J]

One should expect to find a Traditional cache at the posted coordinates. If not, they need corrected as part of cache maintenance. If unmaintained, post a Needs Archived log and let the reviewer address the issue.

 

This! It is in the very definition of a Traditional Cache.

 

From the Cache Type Definition page: http://www.geocaching.com/about/cache_types.aspx

 

Traditional Cache

This is the original geocache type consisting of, at minimum, a container and a log book or logsheet. Larger containers generally include items for trade. “Nano” or “micro” caches are tiny containers that only hold a logsheet. The coordinates listed on the traditional cache page provide the geocache’s exact location.

[+Team Hugs]

We had an interesting situation similar to this recently ... though with a twist. A new traditional cache, from a very new cacher, was posted with explicitly "soft" coordinates, about 140' off. After two of the locals made the initial find --- with much justifiable complaining in the logs --- the listing was edited (I presume by a reviewer) so that the true coordinates appeared as an unencrypted hint, and as a visible waypoint. Makes me wonder if the true coordinates had been listed as an invisible waypoint all along, and the reviewer didn't notice the discrepancy the first time.

[jholly]

The Rot-13 coding of numbers is the numbers themselves, i.e., they can't be encoded.

[+Crow-T-Robot]

One of the latest ones has had the coords changed due to originally pointing to the middle of grass, after I asked CO about the coords being correct. It now points to a spot on the playground area which is not gz. It's a micro in the play equipment with lots of nuts and bolts.

 

Another cache that is a micro pointed to the middle of a causeway. Then as DNFs pile up, they give clues to cachers where not to look but leave the incorrect coords. It seems the idea with their caches is the difficult ones require cachers to guess where gz is after several attempts and visits. In short, one has to guess the gz on their harder hides even with micros. In our area, some people seem to think high DNFs is a good reputation.

 

Both the above 2 are now permanent DNFs for us as my partner refuses to go back. In fact he said we will avoid their caches altogether as incorrect coords defeats the whole purpose of the game. I wasn't so definite until I read the rules and sent the relevant sections to CO last night.

 

You should tell the CO that if they are intent on sending searchers all over the countryside because they don't like posting accurate coordinates, they should take up letterboxing. If they truly want caches to be difficult to find, have them figure out a way to hide them at the posted coordinates. There are a plethora of cache owners who can hide legitimate 4 & 5 star caches. It doesn't sound like they are one of them.