Search Radius

[+Nappy5727]

When you get to GZ and don't find the cache. How big of a search radius do you use before you say enough is enough ? Where do you draw the line ? Thanks.

[+wmpastor]

When you get to GZ and don't find the cache. How big of a search radius do you use before you say enough is enough ? Where do you draw the line ? Thanks.

30 feet, unless taken further by geosense or interesting possibilities.

 

The further from GZ, the less time - unless there's something worth investigating.

Edited August 9, 2014 by wmpastor

[+ADKer]

Sometimes if there is heavy tree cover I'll look farther, but I agree that about 30 feet is the usual. Check to see what your current GPS accuracy is, then double it. That's probably the maximum amount that it can be off. (Though it's certainly possible to be worse. I did find a cache the other day that was 100ft from GZ!)

[+BAMBOOZLE]

I'll agree with the 30'......in the forest we may go 100' and have found some by doing that.

[+BikeBill]

I don't really have a set distance - though 30 feet sounds reasonable. It all depends on conditions and my state of mind. Also, if going after a FTF, you often have to go further as you are the field tester for the cache. Inaccurate coordinates are a common occurrence with new hides, especially if the CO is inexperienced.

[+niraD]

As a rule of thumb, I'd say that I generally use a search radius of about 10 steps (roughly 30ft). But I've found a puzzle cache as far as 150ft from my GZ (my solution turned out to be wrong). And I don't always notice when my search wanders further from GZ. And sometimes, I don't even extend my search radius that far before giving up.

[+Nappy5727]

Thanks for the replies. I've had a few that I've gone back to time and time again. I keep expanding me search radius. Found a few about 50' off. Makes me wonder if the co's do that on purpose to make their cache's more challenging. Thanks again.

[+badger10]

The accuracy of gz can depend on the weather conditions, accuracy of the hiders gps (Phone vs gps unit), terrain, and other factors at the time they get their readings. I put a cache out and switched two numbers by accident. Lucky for me I double checked my gps units coordinates and the location on the map before I sent it to the reviewer.

[+CanadianRockies]

I've had a few that I've gone back to time and time again. I keep expanding me search radius. Found a few about 50' off. Makes me wonder if the co's do that on purpose to make their cache's more challenging.

Around here, if the published coordinates are more than 30 feet off, finders often will put alternative coordinates in their logs. Owners sometimes will then update their posted coordinates. If they don't, occasionally the local review will do it for them.

[+niraD]

I've had a few that I've gone back to time and time again. I keep expanding me search radius. Found a few about 50' off. Makes me wonder if the co's do that on purpose to make their cache's more challenging.

Around here, if the published coordinates are more than 30 feet off, finders often will put alternative coordinates in their logs. Owners sometimes will then update their posted coordinates. If they don't, occasionally the local review will do it for them.

I don't think I've seen volunteer reviewers update the coordinates, and in general, I think that is overstepping their role. But I have seen people post more accurate coordinates, and have done so myself (and have seen a CO update the published coordinates in response).

 

I've also found a cache where the geography interfered with GPS reception, and the CO apologized that his coordinates might be 50ft off. As far as I could tell, they were perfectly accurate, but my readings were jumping all over the place. The CO did provide a good hint that directed seekers to the correct GZ though.

 

And I also know of a very old "traditional" cache that has a bit of an on-site puzzle. A lot of people seem to miss the puzzle, and find the cache by expanding their search radius, or by using the coordinates posted by someone who expanded their search radius. If it were listed today, it wouldn't be listed as a traditional, but it's been listed that way for more than 10 years, and I don't think it should change now. But the on-site puzzle works perfectly well using the published coordinates; you just have to think a bit outside the "traditional" box to see it.

[+CanadianRockies]

Around here, if the published coordinates are more than 30 feet off, finders often will put alternative coordinates in their logs. Owners sometimes will then update their posted coordinates. If they don't, occasionally the local review will do it for them.

I don't think I've seen volunteer reviewers update the coordinates, and in general, I think that is overstepping their role.

Cache owners have an obligation to post accurate coordinates. Our local reviewers seem more likely to step in when the hiders are relatively new to geocaching and the persons posting the "better" coordinates are veterans. If there are indications that environmental damage is being inflicted due to the poor coordinates, then the reviewers also seem to be more likely to correct the situation.

Edited August 11, 2014 by CanadianRockies

[+wmpastor]

After reviewing the entire thread, I think post #2 nailed it.

 

Of course we also heard many interesting nuances and variations along the way.

[+DarkZen]

There are a few sources of GPS error. Here's a cache I just put up explaining some of them. This is a remake of an earlier cache I put out:

 

http://www.geocachin...bc-680d441eff3c

 

30 feet seems perfectly reasonable under the right (wrong?) circumstances.