Jump to content

How deep in the woods do you hide caches - with accuracy?


RTechS
Followers 3

Recommended Posts

Currently I am caching with an Android and an older etrex. When I travel maybe 300 yds. + into heavy wooded areas I get a lot of bounce. It may settle down for a bit and then it will start to bounce all over the place again.

 

How do you CO's get accurate coords. when placing caches deep in the woods?

Link to comment

300 yards is deep in the woods?

 

I use an Oregon and let it waypoint average for a bit while I set up the cache, have lunch etc.

 

Whenever I go back I take more readings but if you're worried about the cache being found nothing beats a good hint or spoiler picture.

Link to comment

when I'm searching for a cache, I stand in a spot with strong sunlight. That means a better sky picture and less bounce from foliage. If you're looking for very stable coords, set our GPS down on the hiding spot, set it to average points, then walk a short distance away and let it average for 5 minutes or so.

Link to comment

In a few places in my area, it can be very difficult to get accurate coordinates due to heavy Redwood growth, and steep canyon walls, and it's actually kind of irrelevant, as nobody else can get a good signal either, so even if the coordinates were *perfect* it would really only be of academic interest.

 

In spots like those, the tendency is to make very specific hints, and/or turn by turn instructions (aka letterboxing style).

Edited by Touchstone
Link to comment

Or leave off all the giveaways, provide a more subtle hint (if any at all), and jack up the difficulty rating appropriately. It's entirely up to you and what experience you want to provide, but not all caches have to be a gimme. But even at that, I'd mention the difficulty in obtaining quality coords so folks have an idea what to expect.

Link to comment

The same problem with trees I have with buildings... I agree that an accurate description, hint or photo are the solution when GPS is bouncing a lot. It will be for everyone that goes to that cache!

 

But if you really want accurate GPS coordinates do home made triangulation:

 

1) Pick up 3 or more spots around the cache, where GPS coordinates are accurate (you have clear sky and no walls nearby) an with a compass point to the cache location and take the azimuth (direction angle).

 

2) Now print a map of the location (or use a map software), write or place the spots in the map and draw each of the taken directions or azimuths.

 

3) The points where each of the lines cross are your approximate points so, average all the points and you will have a good estimate of the coordinates.

 

There are another possibilities but I think this one is the easiest!

Edited by JPreto
Link to comment

It isn't really how deep. Wood products reduce the signal. Fifty feet in is more than enough to get huge bounce. Many COs will put a specific hint (more of a spoiler). Like previously mentioned I will try to find a opening close by. Stand in it for a couple minutes and then look at the bearing and distance. Pace it off and start hunting.

Link to comment

Thanks for all the replies, guys.

 

I sort of figured good hints and photo(s) would be the way to go. And, I guess also to stay near the "beaten path", so to speak. That is, if you want to keep it at a reasonable difficult level.

 

It would be very tough to locate a cache under heavy cover if you also had to bushwhack deep into it with little or no clues.

Link to comment

 

It would be very tough to locate a cache under heavy cover if you also had to bushwhack deep into it with little or no clues.

 

 

Well, that all depends on several factors. Experience and preferences of the searcher being the main one. Just get the best coords you can. Between different devices and different experience levels, what you get will not be the same as what someone else gets anyway. And the bushwhacking may or may not be a factor at all. I know several cachers who only go after bushwhacking-required caches and only do so with no more than the coordinates and they do just fine. But that's their thing. And 300' is not "deep" into the woods for folks that like that sort of thing. In fact, it is barely entering the woods at all to them. On the other end of the spectrum, you have cachers who need their hand held every step of the way, stepping off a paved trail is what they would consider a wilderness adventure, and if there is not a neon sign pointing to the cache, they think it is too hard to find. No matter what you do, you will not create a cache that will make every cacher happy.

 

Another factor is the hide itself. Is this a nano glued to a rock placed under a log somewhere or is it a large bright red tupperware container just sitting next to a tree? All I'm saying is that some caches warrant more consideration for clues than others.

 

Ultimately, the best advice is to hide the kinds of caches you enjoy finding and take care to make the cache and its listing provide the kind of experience you enjoy and want to share with other cachers. If you want to make it a D1 find and provide detailed instructions and/or hints to find it, go for it. If you enjoy and want to place something more difficult, leaving some element of challenge and not be nearly so specific, feel free.

Link to comment

I find that the newer units are pretty accurate even under a heavy tree canopy. At least I have no complaints about my coordinates for caches in the woods. With my older units I sometimes had issues getting good coords.

 

The newer units are great.....like the combo of high sensitivity receiver and quad ant. on the 62S.

Link to comment

The same problem with trees I have with buildings...

 

Yep. I've found a few places in Manhattan where I can barely get a satellite lock. I've also done enough caching in Europe in cities with narrow streets that I know that I'm just lucky if the coordinates are spot on.

 

Downtown amidst buildings is the absolute worst regardless of unit.

Link to comment

Currently I am caching with an Android and an older etrex. When I travel maybe 300 yds. + into heavy wooded areas I get a lot of bounce. It may settle down for a bit and then it will start to bounce all over the place again.

 

How do you CO's get accurate coords. when placing caches deep in the woods?

 

How old is your Android? I cache exclusively with my Android and hide caches too.

 

It's not how deep into the woods you've traveled, but, really, the specifics of the location. If you're next to a rock wall or in a valley, you're going to have more trouble than if you're in a flat area.

 

When I hide a cache, I take a number of readings, say 4, then average them by hand. I generally will take all my readings in a 15 minute time-period, although it's better to space your readings further apart if practical. For instance, it's best to take a number of different readings on different days and at different times. If reception's bad, I will also give a good hint and often put flagging up. Make sure you don't rely on the flagging as the hint, though, as flagging deteriorates/goes missing. When I am looking for a hiding spot, I will try to find an easily identifiable object, like a large stump or hollow log and put the cache there.

Edited by The_Incredibles_
Link to comment

My Android is new, like 6 months old. It generally does very well, although I am running into a lot of "re-routing" when navigating to a cache - not sure what that is all about. I keep getting directed "around the block" for some reason. But when it does work, it works very well.

 

I am using a GPS averaging app when hiding caches, and it will average until you stop the process.

 

Currently I am caching with an Android and an older etrex. When I travel maybe 300 yds. + into heavy wooded areas I get a lot of bounce. It may settle down for a bit and then it will start to bounce all over the place again.

 

How do you CO's get accurate coords. when placing caches deep in the woods?

 

How old is your Android? I cache exclusively with my Android and hide caches too.

 

It's not how deep into the woods you've traveled, but, really, the specifics of the location. If you're next to a rock wall or in a valley, you're going to have more trouble than if you're in a flat area.

 

When I hide a cache, I take a number of readings, say 4, then average them by hand. I generally will take all my readings in a 15 minute time-period, although it's better to space your readings further apart if practical. For instance, it's best to take a number of different readings on different days and at different times. If reception's bad, I will also give a good hint and often put flagging up. Make sure you don't rely on the flagging as the hint, though, as flagging deteriorates/goes missing. When I am looking for a hiding spot, I will try to find an easily identifiable object, like a large stump or hollow log and put the cache there.

Link to comment

I find that the newer units are pretty accurate even under a heavy tree canopy. At least I have no complaints about my coordinates for caches in the woods. With my older units I sometimes had issues getting good coords.

 

The newer units are great.....like the combo of high sensitivity receiver and quad ant. on the 62S.

 

Newer? Almost 4 years old! :anicute: My the time flies when you're havin' fun.

Link to comment

I find that the newer units are pretty accurate even under a heavy tree canopy. At least I have no complaints about my coordinates for caches in the woods. With my older units I sometimes had issues getting good coords.

 

The newer units are great.....like the combo of high sensitivity receiver and quad ant. on the 62S.

 

Newer? Almost 4 years old! :anicute: My the time flies when you're havin' fun.

 

Well, its replacement has only just come available and still has bugs so I read. :rolleyes:

Link to comment
My Android is new, like 6 months old. It generally does very well, although I am running into a lot of "re-routing" when navigating to a cache - not sure what that is all about. I keep getting directed "around the block" for some reason.
That sounds like you're using Google Navigation (or some other street-navigation app) to get directions to the cache location. Those apps will take you to a street location. If the cache isn't on a street, then the app will choose a nearby (or not so nearby) street location and navigate you there instead. Just this afternoon, mine tried to take me down a freeway, half-way between two exits. Needless to say, the cache wasn't on the freeway. But that was the nearest roadway to the cache location.
Link to comment

Thanks for all the replies, guys.

 

I sort of figured good hints and photo(s) would be the way to go. And, I guess also to stay near the "beaten path", so to speak. That is, if you want to keep it at a reasonable difficult level.

 

It would be very tough to locate a cache under heavy cover if you also had to bushwhack deep into it with little or no clues.

I love caches that involve a good long bushwhack into the middle of nowhere. Usually the caches are regular sized (which helps make them more findable). Usually there's a pretty good hint. Often the cache is near a particularly huge tree/stump/etc or something unusual - like a rock formation, or maybe a solitary tree in a meadow. Usually the caches are not particularly camouflaged - sometimes just plunked down next to that ginormous tree in the middle of nowhere. Usually they're 2.5 or less in difficulty.

 

However, I've DNFd my share of higher-difficulty caches in the middle of nowhere. :D Even regular-sized ones with excellent coords (I know that bc I found it after several attempts). It's disappointing when it's taken you hours just to reach GZ, but it goes with the territory on higher-difficulty caches.

 

If you're not feeling super confident about your coords because of the tree cover, either keep the difficulty down with a really good hint, or bump the difficulty up and say something in the description. As long as people know what they're getting into, it's ok. It's rewarding to find something after spending a long time looking for it. I think it's even more rewarding when I had to expend significant effort just to get myself to GZ. Most people don't hunt caches like that, and the farther you put it off the beaten path, the less it's likely to get found (just something to keep in mind so you're not disappointed with low traffic to your cache). If you do put one in the middle of nowhere, the crazy cachers who do come will really enjoy it (and they'll probably have a story to tell).

Link to comment
My Android is new, like 6 months old. It generally does very well, although I am running into a lot of "re-routing" when navigating to a cache - not sure what that is all about. I keep getting directed "around the block" for some reason.
That sounds like you're using Google Navigation (or some other street-navigation app) to get directions to the cache location. Those apps will take you to a street location. If the cache isn't on a street, then the app will choose a nearby (or not so nearby) street location and navigate you there instead. Just this afternoon, mine tried to take me down a freeway, half-way between two exits. Needless to say, the cache wasn't on the freeway. But that was the nearest roadway to the cache location.

 

I am using Google Navigation, but there seems to be more going on than that. It's like it gets confused by directing me endlessly around the block in a loop - it can't seem to triangulate on the correct coords. Not all of the time, but maybe 50% of the time it will act up like that. Sorry, wish I could explain it better than this. :anicute: Wish I could figure out a fix for it.

Link to comment

I placed one recently that was about 1.5 kms into the woods, but along established trails.

 

Nearby hydro lines were more of the issue when it came to accuracy; two GPS units (GPSMAP 62s, eTrex 20) and my GLONASS equipped smartphone would not agree on a set of coordinates.

Link to comment
two GPS units (GPSMAP 62s, eTrex 20) and my GLONASS equipped smartphone would not agree on a set of coordinates.

 

How did you decide on a coordinates? Did you just average the two?

I took the reading from the GPSMAP 62s, as my friend with an Oregon 450 was getting similar values.

 

The reading was a redirect tag to get to the final of a night cache.

Link to comment
two GPS units (GPSMAP 62s, eTrex 20) and my GLONASS equipped smartphone would not agree on a set of coordinates.

 

How did you decide on a coordinates? Did you just average the two?

I took the reading from the GPSMAP 62s, as my friend with an Oregon 450 was getting similar values.

 

The reading was a redirect tag to get to the final of a night cache.

 

I'd be going with the GLONASS units. I would prefer the Etrex 20 over the phone although I have a GLONASS W8 phone I still haven't been able to figure out how to cache with it, so I'm using my Etrex 20.

Link to comment

As most of our "Woods" are state parks or county open spaces, which encourage hiding a cache within 20 feet of the trail, rather than massive bushwhack operations, I generally don't have much trouble with coords, I also take pains to give a bit of information about not going far from the path as I like people to find the cache without tramping all over the scenery.

Link to comment

One of the tricks some of the researchers I once knew used was to elevate a remote antennae with a length of PVC pipe to clear some of the ground level clutter and get a better fix on the satellites. It's not much help in deep mountain valleys or between skyscrapers though. Most handheld units today don't take remote antennas, but they are small enough now you could put the unit to averaging and elevate the whole thing.

Link to comment

I find that the newer units are pretty accurate even under a heavy tree canopy. At least I have no complaints about my coordinates for caches in the woods. With my older units I sometimes had issues getting good coords.

 

The newer units are great.....like the combo of high sensitivity receiver and quad ant. on the 62S.

 

Newer? Almost 4 years old! :anicute: My the time flies when you're havin' fun.

 

Hey, I just got my 62S a few months ago. But when I say newer I mean all the way back to the 60CSX. When they came out with the high sensitivity receivers it was a game changer. I don't know how we managed back when you could lose a lock the minute you stepped under trees and not get it back for minutes at a time.

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Followers 3
×
×
  • Create New...