When's a traditional not a traditional?

[clubstew]

I was hunting all over for http://coord.info/GCH8DP when I noticed that it is at 595' while the coordinates are almost 100' higher and about 50 yards in from the base. That makes for a large area to search, so it leads me to wonder how this qualifies as a traditional cache. Is there some maximum distance from the registered coordinates?

 

Yeah, DNFs suck but this one was particularly aggravating since the description and coordinates aren't reasonably close.

[+Flintstone5611]

I was hunting all over for http://coord.info/GCH8DP when I noticed that it is at 595' while the coordinates are almost 100' higher and about 50 yards in from the base. That makes for a large area to search, so it leads me to wonder how this qualifies as a traditional cache. Is there some maximum distance from the registered coordinates?

 

Yeah, DNFs suck but this one was particularly aggravating since the description and coordinates aren't reasonably close.

 

From what I understand about this cache that 595' is elevation. The coordinates have to do with the X and Y axis but don't deal with the Z. The altitude is never a part of that bit of information, nice of the CO to let you know what is happening though. Sounds like a tricky one, for sure.

[+simpjkee]

A traditional should be at the posted coordinates. If the cache is moved by the owner, then the owner should update the coordinates on the cache page.

 

The owner mentions in the cache description that the cache was moved, but the coordinates are the same. It sounds like it is the same area, but just in a different hiding spot.

 

The elevation is 595 ft according to the clue. Are you saying that your gps says the elevation is 695 while at the given coords? While searching, I would search based on the coords not the elevation unless it is possibly high up in a tree or something.

[+Roman!]

The cache is from 2003, i've found traditionals where you had to project a waypoint 1/2 mile away, I DNFed one that was a hike to get to because it was almost like a letterbox, realized what it was when I got home and kicked myself for not reading the description. Seems they were quite lenient on cache types back then.

[+The_Incredibles_]

A traditional is supposed to be at the listed coordinates, but I've seen some older ones that aren't.

 

1 was a night cache

1 required a couple of projections. The final was nowhere near the start.

1 required starting at the listed coordinates and deciphering a little riddle to tell you which way to walk.

 

The cache you listed appears to be at the listed coordinates. The hint gives the elevation (which has nothing to do with the latitude/longitude) and direction on how to best get to the cache. I could be wrong, though, I haven't read all the logs.

Edited January 27, 2013 by The_Incredibles_

[+MartyBartfast]

If you're saying that when you got to the published co-ords your GPS showed an elevation of 695' but the cache page says it's 595' you should bear in mind that the altimeter function needs to be calibrated, and the accuracy for altitude is usually much worse than the accuracy for lat/long. I would ignore the altitude reference unless there's somthing at the GZ (tree/cliff/hole/cave) which may indicate that you're at the right co-ords but it may be above/below you.

[clubstew]

My elevation is calibrated. Maybe the CO's wasn't. But there's no way it could be lower - I was on solid ground at the GZ.

[clubstew]

The coordinates have to do with the X and Y axis but don't deal with the Z. The altitude is never a part of that bit of information...

 

No, but we typically move in 2 dimensions relative to the ground. My point was at the GZ, there's no way you can get down to 595' without moving about 50 yards off the GZ. As someone mentioned, a cache could be in a tree but then the cache would be higher not lower.

[the3gmen]

You mentioned in your DNF log that you did find "one cache in a lock-n-lock but I don't think that was the one (was marked with a lesser geocaching site)"

 

That may well be the cache you were looking for. Sometimes caches are listed on more than one geocaching site.

[+CdAGeoGeeks]

Part of it might be that you are still learning the game as well. We've got over 2500 finds and still learn things on a daily basis about this game. Elevation always presents a unique set of challenges for us, and working the GPS on hillsides have plagued us since day one. Keep trying! It's out there!

[clubstew]

Part of it might be that you are still learning the game as well.

 

I'm not denying there isn't new ways to solve caches - I probably run into even more new ways having fewer finds than you - but I didn't need years of orienteering the old way in Scouts (which I had, and still carry topos and a compass just in case all my spare batteries are dead) to know there's no possible way to be at 595' at this GZ. There's solid ground under me for quite a large circumference around the GZ.

 

Someone else wondered if it was the right one and that crossed my mind as well. But it didn't fit the description of the tube. Then again, with the discrepancy in the elevation vs. coordinates and that the entry was "recycled" perhaps all was not updated and it was indeed the log. Unfortunately, I didn't see the last logger from Geocaching.com on the log book, or maybe they had a different pen name at the time.

 

I'll just have to wait for q reply from the Cal to find out for sure.

[+Mudfrog]

I had an older Garmin 76s that i used for geocaching. I really thought that the sensors (compass and altimeter) would be handy but that was never the case. Calibrating every time i replaced the batteries was rediculous as far as i'm concerned and even when i did calibrate, i found that both the compass and altimeter were not that accurate.

 

The newer units may be better but i just wouldn't trust one to be that accurate. In otherwords, i would go to ground zero, put the gpsr away, then make the search.

 

Edited to add,, from what i'm reading here, it sounds like this cache is a traditional. At least started out as one before, and if, it got moved. Being that it was placed back in 2003, about the time i got my 76s, altitude accuracy would probably be a little iffy.

Edited January 27, 2013 by Mudfrog

[+OZ2CPU]

it is a normal trick to put a traditional GZ at: lets say a nice sculpture at upper ground level,

you see it easy when you get to the area,

BUT the cache is infact 1 or 2 levels down in the parking area UNDER the sculpture !!

and in this area there is NO gps coverage,

this is perfectly LEGAL !!

 

you can pull alot of tricks with the height dimention, since it is NOT listed,

like put a cache on the foot of a VERY steep mountain !!

is cache down ? or up ?

we tried that one too.. what a hike :-)

 

another one: at GZ we see two nice and big trees, the D/T is very high,

so we start to climb the trees with equipment and all that..

3 hrs later giving up.. another cacher arrive, he got the idea to walk to the near by water area,

it turns out there is a large water exit tube near by, clawl inside, like 80m in.. found it

it must be about where the two trees are, 10m over, ha ha

just too bad we could not put pictures on the log

[+JKMonkey]

Could just be bad coords. But then again, if it was done deliberately, what would it be classified as?

[AZcachemeister]

Could just be bad coords. But then again, if it was done deliberately, what would it be classified as?

 

A cache that needs maintenance, and should be disabled until the correct co-ordinates are provided.