The End of Geocaching?!

[+wmpastor]

An improvement in coordinate accuracy could also justify a reduction in the minimum cache separation distance, which is imposed to prevent mistaking one cache for another nearby one. I can see Groundspeak perceiving an advantage to adding a fourth digit and simultaneously dropping the minimum separation to, say, 100 feet or 30 meters, as a way to accommodate new paying members in areas where saturation will have (by then) become a problem.

 

Cool, the E.T. Highway could be 10,000+ caches.

Excellent. Headquarters could open up a hotel for the die-hards promoting "eco-tourism."

[+JPreto]

Soft coordinates, I know people that use that strategy now.

They shouldn´t!!! It goes against guidelines: "Listings must contain accurate GPS coordinates."

 

So if you do that on purpose you are going against the guidelines of the game...

[+desmognathus]

The best caches I've found were large containers that I could see from 40 feet away. For those of us who cache for the journey, greater accuracy won't be an issue.

That's what I was thinking. My enjoyment of caching comes from the journey, not the hunt. (Sure, sometimes the hunt is fun but most times I just find it tedious.) Bring on 1 foot accuracy!

The challenge of the hunt (for those that crave it) will still be there for some caches. The key variable is still the "Z" coordinate (height). I mentioned tree caches, but I have seen a few other situations where there is an abrupt change of height in a very short distance (foot bridges in parks - is the cache over, under or on the bridge?) (staircase in park from upper level to lower level that circles back on itself) (very steep slope with trees).

 

Trees can be tough, no doubt. One of of most intensive hunts I ever engaged in was somewhere on a corner of a multistory parking garage. Never did find it...

[+wmpastor]

Soft coordinates, I know people that use that strategy now.

They shouldn´t!!! It goes against guidelines: "Listings must contain accurate GPS coordinates."

 

So if you do that on purpose you are going against the guidelines of the game...

So be a good cache cop and turn in those scofflaws! Seriously, it's hard enough without bad coords also.

[+niraD]

An improvement in coordinate accuracy could also justify a reduction in the minimum cache separation distance, which is imposed to prevent mistaking one cache for another nearby one.

If the purpose of the saturation guidelines were to prevent mistakenly finding one cache instead of another, then 528ft/161m is more than overkill, and always has been.

 

Once upon a time, the guidelines stated that the reason for the saturation guidelines was to encourage people to seek out new places for geocaches, and to limit saturation. The issue of mistakenly finding one cache instead of another was never mentioned.

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

GPS receivers are expensive. Many if not most of us paid $500+ for ours. I don't care what new technology comes along in the next few years I don't plan on tossing that investment to chase the new toy. I see no reason my iPhone 5s and Garmin GPSMap 62st won't do everything I want re geocaching for the next five years. Thus the launch of more accurate technology won't affect my decision to adopt it, and I expect that there are many like myself, thus I can't see reducing the 528' guideline anytime soon.

 

I found my first 600+ caches 11 years ago with an eTrex Yellow and it works just as good today as it did then.

Edited August 15, 2014 by TheAlabamaRambler