Ground Zero - CO's -- How intentional are you with coords?

[+jellis]

What I don't like is when a cache is off whether by accident because they didn't double check the coords, use of a smart device or intentionally, is when cache finders mention the coords are off and either don't report the correct coords or report this to the reviewer. I have seen many 100 ft off or more.

I have two cases.

One a cache goes live. The coords are good. A FTF find (not me)but second to find can't find it (still not me). (it was in the open). So the CO replaces it 85 ft away. But does not update the new coords on the cache page. Everyone mentions only using the hints but not one posted better coords. Funny thing is when I posted better coords and a NM a previous finder logs a note that the cache is still there. DUH!

 

There is a new listing where the posted coords of a cache is on a freeway but mentions the cache is on a hill. A cacher knew there is no cache on the freeway and knew this would not have gotten published at the correct coords because there is a cache already up there. Most likely didn't get approved so instead of finding a different location, they just moved the coords so it would get approved. Or they just didn't know the coords were in the middle of the freeway?

Edited June 13, 2015 by jellis

[+fizzymagic]

It's all in the margin of error that can be expected.

 

You don't understand how errors actually work, do you?

 

There is never an excuse for moving coordinates away from the best results you can get from your receiver. Claiming that it could have happened that way is dishonest and not part of geocaching.

[+GeoBain]

It's all in the margin of error that can be expected.

 

You don't understand how errors actually work, do you?

 

There is never an excuse for moving coordinates away from the best results you can get from your receiver. Claiming that it could have happened that way is dishonest and not part of geocaching.

 

Don't get sucked in.

 

Just advise everyone to post the best cords they can achieve and leave it at that.

[Pup Patrol]

One cache had GZ facing a fantastic mural across from a business, but the actual hide was thirty feet away. No emphasis on the business was placed in the cache description. The emphasis was placed on what the mural says.

 

The CO could have placed GZ right at the corner of the building, exactly where the hide was. Instead, he placed it across an asphalt path about two feet in front of the mural. The find would have been much easier if I had known to go to the exact corner of the building on the other side of the asphalt. On a clear day, GPS has about a four-foot WAAS lock with some satellite constellations. I think GZ was intentionally placed a little away from the hide to make the search a little more difficult and to emphasize the mural.

 

So your example above is an old "Virtual".

 

http://coord.info/GC708A

 

Not sure what you mean by "the hide", as there is no container to find.

 

Just to narrow the scope of my questions, I'm talking about traditional caches, and not necessarily multicaches or other puzzle-type caches with multiple waypoints.

 

Even though you wrote a lot of detail about an old "Virtual".

 

I imagine it would be inappropriate to intentionally obfuscate true GZ in a remote area with dense tree canopy because it's hard enough already under these circumstances just to get an accurate GPS lock under the trees. But in urban situations, or where the hide might be too obvious and the sky has clear GPS access, maybe the rules slide a little.

 

I don't see anything in the Guidelines that indicates certain situations allow for the rules to slide at all.

 

How often do you place your hide exactly at GZ as provided by your diligent GPS waypoint average? Are you ever tempted to place GZ a little away from the hide to increase the search challenge or to emphasize a specific view? Are there ethical considerations in placing GZ away from the hide, or is this a non-issue for you? What's the farthest away from a hide you would be willing to place your ground zero intentionally, and why? When would it be bad/rude/unethical to place GZ away from the hide?

 

Your terminology is confusing. To me, the "hide" is the same as "GZ". GZ is the published coordinates, where the container is to be found, speaking only of "traditional" caches, not multis or puzzles.

 

It seems to me that you are asking people to post on the forum that they have intentionally gone against the Guidelines by posting about how they *intentionally* fudged the coordinates.

 

If you have experienced coordinates that are waaaaay off, you have a couple of options:

 

1.) Post coordinates in your log that you feel are more accurate.

 

2.) Post a "needs maintenance" log, noting that the published coordinates seem to be incredibly inaccurate.

 

3.) Email the Reviewer to relay your concerns.

 

4.) Post a "Needs Archived" log if you find that the inaccurate coordinates contravene the Guidelines.

 

In addition to the Saturation Guideline, inaccurate coordinates, intentional or accidental, also bring into play the "do no harm" guidelines. Folks wandering around increasingly wider circles tend to trample vegetation, or perhaps they start rooting around flower beds, taking apart rock walls, etc.

 

http://www.geocaching.com/about/guidelines.aspx

 

4. Geocache placements do not damage, deface or destroy public or private property.

 

Caches are placed so that the surrounding environment, whether natural or human-made, is safe from intentional or unintentional harm. Property must not be damaged or altered to provide a hiding place, clue, or means of logging a find.

 

5. Wildlife and the natural environment are not harmed in the pursuit of geocaching.

 

Geocaches are placed so that plant and animal life are safe from both intentional and unintentional harm. In some regions geocaching activity may need to cease for portions of the year due to sensitivity of some species.

 

B.

Edited June 13, 2015 by Pup Patrol

[+LaughterOnWater]

On a clear day, GPS has about a four-foot WAAS lock with some satellite constellations. I think GZ was intentionally placed a little away from the hide to make the search a little more difficult and to emphasize the mural.

 

Are there tall buildings nearby? WAAS could say 4 feet while actual accuracy could be off by 100 feet or more.

 

Austin

No tall buildings, no city canyons. Mostly clear skies. I'll blame it on satellites being poorly constellar.

 

C

[+LaughterOnWater]

Your terminology is confusing. To me, the "hide" is the same as "GZ". GZ is the published coordinates, where the container is to be found, speaking only of "traditional" caches, not multis or puzzles. ...

B.

Semantics can be tricky, eh? When I think of the noun "hide", I sometimes think it can mean the clever container into which a cache is actually stored. For instance, the hide could be a bird feeder or a little-free-library, but the cache might be an object inside the hide.One hide I saw was a long pvc tube connected to a telephone pole, but the cache itself was a tiny bottle in an elbow crook in the hide. In all cases, the hide and its cache should be at ground zero.

 

For the GZ in question (with the mural), the level of inaccuracy is within acceptable limits of which most smart phones are capable. I hope you'll take my word for it. I will not be reporting the cache, and will assume they meant well. In fact the telephone pole hide was even more off than the mural hide with regards to accuracy of GZ, and I could think of no reason why I'd be standing across the road for that one either. They were different CO's, so there is no direct relevance between those two hides.

 

The subject of the original post is a fairly abstract concept. To consider that some people might place GZ not according to the rules intentionally seems almost inconceivable for some. And yet, if I can think of it, not even having owned any caches, I suspect I'm not the only one. And if I'm not the only one, chances are, someone has put this into practice. Yes, the rules are clear, but as we all know, not everyone follows the rules.

 

One of the reasons why I referenced an older post about GZ accuracy in my original post was to ensure others would grasp that I was not talking about the capacity of a machine to properly determine GZ for a hide or a virtual waypoint in a multicache, but rather to determine whether a CO might have intentionally placed GZ a little away from a cache for reasons that are only apparent when you approach the cache.

 

I'm not sure I've really cleared up any confusion. Perhaps I've only muddled it further. Regardless, please understand my intentions are good. I hope you'll agree that the question was worth the asking.

 

Chris

[+LaughterOnWater]

So your example above is an old "Virtual".

 

http://coord.info/GC708A

 

Not sure what you mean by "the hide", as there is no container to find.

 

I'd rather not drag this out into a witch hunt for perfectly valid cache. At the risk of seeming impersonal, let's assume I'm unfamiliar with grandfathered virtuals, that I haven't read the rules, and that, yeah this is the cache in question. Edited June 13, 2015 by LaughterOnWater

[+BCandMsKitty]

Show me somebody being "tricky" or "clever" by deliberately fudging their coordinates, and I'll show you somebody devoid of creativity and imagination.

 

Yep .. and they should get out of the game!

[Pup Patrol]

Semantics, schemantics.

 

Intentionally incaccurate coordinates are against the Guidelines.

 

Report them via "needs maintenance", "needs archived", or contacting the Reviewer.

 

Or post your coordinates in your "found it" log.

 

Lot of blather about something that isn't exactly "new" to the game.

 

Yes, there are plenty of instances where the cache owner blatantly says the coordinates are "fuzzy". Or that they moved the cache for one reason or another. Some of them move their caches by the allowed increments until the cache is where they wanted it to be originally, but were denied by a Reviewer because of the Guidelines.

 

One can either just deal with it in the ways available, or just move on. Lots of people don't give a dadgum about the Guidelines, they just want their smiley. Maybe they're afraid of being labeled "cache police". The people who throw that term around are also not concerned about geocaching honestly.

 

B.

[Pup Patrol]

So your example above is an old "Virtual".

 

http://coord.info/GC708A

 

Not sure what you mean by "the hide", as there is no container to find.

 

I'd rather not drag this out into a witch hunt for perfectly valid cache. At the risk of seeming impersonal, let's assume I'm unfamiliar with grandfathered virtuals, that I haven't read the rules, and that, yeah this is the cache in question.

 

Not starting a witch hunt. In fact, I'm dismayed that you used a "Virtual" in your post. It's so easy to find exactly what caches you are talking about, I'm stunned that you would do it again, especially with a "virtual".

 

My point was that you describe a Virtual, then turn the discussion to "traditionals". Apples and oranges.

 

Come up with examples of "traditional" caches where the coordinates are inaccurate. Then you will make a better point.

 

You sound like you know an awful lot about geocaching, though. Pretending to be "unaware" of things that have gone on for ages is disingenious.

 

Published coordinates for a "traditional" = GZ = container location. Doesn't matter if the log book is in some sort of container in a container. That has nothing to do with your topic of inaccurate coordinates.

 

B.

[+Manville Possum]

Show me somebody being "tricky" or "clever" by deliberately fudging their coordinates, and I'll show you somebody devoid of creativity and imagination.

 

I see one local hider that is constantly "updating" the coordinates more than 100 feet after their spouse is FTF. It make me wonder what the purpose is, other than gathering up FTF's to meet the requirements of some silly challenge cache.

[+LaughterOnWater]

... You sound like you know an awful lot about geocaching, though. Pretending to be "unaware" of things that have gone on for ages is disingenious.

 

Published coordinates for a "traditional" = GZ = container location. Doesn't matter if the log book is in some sort of container in a container. That has nothing to do with your topic of inaccurate coordinates.

 

B.

In one post by you, I am apparently not able to tell the difference between a grandfathered cache and a traditional cache. In the next post, I'm someone who knows an awful lot about geocaching and now I'm disingenuous. I throw up my hands in fluster. I feel like I'm being toyed with here, and find myself darkly amused.

 

Allow me to clarify. The cache with the mural from my original post is not the virtual grandfathered cache of the phoenix mural you have selected from my recent cache logs. I asked you to assume it was so we don't start a witch hunt on a perfectly valid cache. Searching my recent logs may have merely confused the discussion. Athens, GA is resplendent with murals on sides of buildings, many of them worthy of a cache on their own. I know enough about geocaching rules to get by. However, I don't have nearly that much experience in the field. Between the two extremes lies wisdom. I'm trying to gain some by picking the brains of smart individuals on this forum so I can acquire some degree of wisdom in a shorter time and with less pain. Apparently that's not always possible, eh? In all my posts, I have tried to be clear that I'm curious about how people sometimes bend the rules, and why.

 

Edit: I decided to review the cache again. The name of the cache is "Cry Baby!".

I copied and pasted the coords into google maps. This is what I got:

 

The coords are exactly where they're supposed to be on google maps, even down to the fact that it's under the eave about a foot or so. Unfortunately, nobody took a great photo of the crybaby part of the mural yet. I probably should go back and do so. This is a valid cache by any judgement, since they really nailed the placement of the cache. My GPS failed to find it correctly, leading me to wonder if people might sometimes fudge the results intentionally. I really like the mural.

 

 

Please don't accuse me of lying or disingenuity. To my knowledge, I have never purposefully done or been so on this forum.

 

Chris

Edited June 13, 2015 by LaughterOnWater

[+ArtieD]

So your example above is an old "Virtual".

 

http://coord.info/GC708A

 

Not sure what you mean by "the hide", as there is no container to find.

 

I'd rather not drag this out into a witch hunt for perfectly valid cache. At the risk of seeming impersonal, let's assume I'm unfamiliar with grandfathered virtuals, that I haven't read the rules, and that, yeah this is the cache in question.

 

Not starting a witch hunt. In fact, I'm dismayed that you used a "Virtual" in your post. It's so easy to find exactly what caches you are talking about, I'm stunned that you would do it again, especially with a "virtual".

 

My point was that you describe a Virtual, then turn the discussion to "traditionals". Apples and oranges.

 

Come up with examples of "traditional" caches where the coordinates are inaccurate. Then you will make a better point.

 

You sound like you know an awful lot about geocaching, though. Pretending to be "unaware" of things that have gone on for ages is disingenious.

 

Published coordinates for a "traditional" = GZ = container location. Doesn't matter if the log book is in some sort of container in a container. That has nothing to do with your topic of inaccurate coordinates.

 

B.

 

I agree with this totally, especially the part about the OP being "unaware" of things when he sounds pretty well educated. I get the feeling he's posting more and more just to pull our legs. Why else are there so many topics in such a short amount of time?

 

I also agree that he should use an example of a traditional as well. You can't compare a virtual and a traditional.

 

This whole thread reeks. The honest facts should have been reported right off the bat.

[+LaughterOnWater]

I agree with this totally, especially the part about the OP being "unaware" of things when he sounds pretty well educated. I get the feeling he's posting more and more just to pull our legs. Why else are there so many topics in such a short amount of time?

 

I also agree that he should use an example of a traditional as well. You can't compare a virtual and a traditional.

 

This whole thread reeks. The honest facts should have been reported right off the bat.

For some reason, my writing style or my candor has set you against me. After what happened with Two Ponds, is it any wonder I was afraid that someone would try to NA a perfectly valid cache? What compounds the current calamity is that I have an interest in urban murals, of which Athens has a plethora, so it's no wonder that a casual glimpse at my recent finds will show the phoenix market mural photo I took, as required by that virtual cache owner.

 

The mural by the traditional cache "Cry Baby!" is spoken of directly in the cache's description:

Welcome to the home of the Cry Baby logo. This is a quick park and grab. Bring your own pen. No Cry Babies!

 

My fear that someone would archive a perfectly valid cache fed others expectations that a cache needed archiving because of the Two Ponds incident. Imagine my relief after further inspection to find the cache's GZ is exactly where it's supposed to be, at least on Google maps, even though my app brought me to the mural. (See previous post.)

 

The lesson this thread has taught me is that some of us, myself included, when given a choice between positive and negative likely outcomes, we will expect only the negative outcome as likely.

 

At some point, I will want to hide a cache or two, just to see how well I can manage it. When I filter on only "event" within an hour radius of Athens, GA, I don't see any current events. There are events and even meetup.com meetings in Atlanta, but that's over an hour away. For me, the most useful option is to learn about rules and wisdom from people on this forum. As to whether I'm clueless or intelligent, it's possible for me to be both. Reading rules and understanding them is one thing. Putting them into practice is another. Again, it's the difference between knowledge and experience. Of course I have lots of questions. I'm that guy in your high school social studies class who always asked questions, regardless of how embarrassed it made me. It doesn't make me sinister. It makes me curious.

 

I apologize if you don't like my prose style. I seem to have gotten right up your nose, and beyond apologies, there isn't a lot I can do about that. And I keep having to apologize... As for leg-pulling, I suspect you're using that term as euphemism for "deceit". To my knowledge I have not at anytime been deceitful on this forum. There's only so much of that I can do before I have to stand up for myself rather than let others treat me like their welcome mat. What to do? Our best option may be to ignore each others' posts entirely, if that is your preference. I will certainly be disheartened for the lack of your fellowship.

 

But I will continue to post questions. There are no stupid questions, and I have a lot of them.

 

Chris

[+AustinMN]

... You sound like you know an awful lot about geocaching, though. Pretending to be "unaware" of things that have gone on for ages is disingenious.

 

Published coordinates for a "traditional" = GZ = container location. Doesn't matter if the log book is in some sort of container in a container. That has nothing to do with your topic of inaccurate coordinates.

 

B.

In one post by you, I am apparently not able to tell the difference between a grandfathered cache and a traditional cache. In the next post, I'm someone who knows an awful lot about geocaching and now I'm disingenuous. I throw up my hands in fluster. I feel like I'm being toyed with here, and find myself darkly amused.

 

Allow me to clarify. The cache with the mural from my original post is not the virtual grandfathered cache of the phoenix mural you have selected from my recent cache logs. I asked you to assume it was so we don't start a witch hunt on a perfectly valid cache. Searching my recent logs may have merely confused the discussion. Athens, GA is resplendent with murals on sides of buildings, many of them worthy of a cache on their own. I know enough about geocaching rules to get by. However, I don't have nearly that much experience in the field. Between the two extremes lies wisdom. I'm trying to gain some by picking the brains of smart individuals on this forum so I can acquire some degree of wisdom in a shorter time and with less pain. Apparently that's not always possible, eh? In all my posts, I have tried to be clear that I'm curious about how people sometimes bend the rules, and why.

 

Edit: I decided to review the cache again. The name of the cache is "Cry Baby!".

I copied and pasted the coords into google maps. This is what I got:

 

The coords are exactly where they're supposed to be on google maps, even down to the fact that it's under the eave about a foot or so. Unfortunately, nobody took a great photo of the crybaby part of the mural yet. I probably should go back and do so. This is a valid cache by any judgement, since they really nailed the placement of the cache. My GPS failed to find it correctly, leading me to wonder if people might sometimes fudge the results intentionally. I really like the mural.

 

 

Please don't accuse me of lying or disingenuity. To my knowledge, I have never purposefully done or been so on this forum.

 

Chris

 

This entire post says the CO did things perfectly, and you screwed up. But your original post said the opposite:

 

One cache had GZ facing a fantastic mural across from a business, but the actual hide was thirty feet away. No emphasis on the business was placed in the cache description. The emphasis was placed on what the mural says.

 

The CO could have placed GZ right at the corner of the building, exactly where the hide was. Instead, he placed it across an asphalt path about two feet in front of the mural. The find would have been much easier if I had known to go to the exact corner of the building on the other side of the asphalt. On a clear day, GPS has about a four-foot WAAS lock with some satellite constellations. I think GZ was intentionally placed a little away from the hide to make the search a little more difficult and to emphasize the mural.

 

Your own words demonstrate that you are being the very things you now deny.

 

Done with another of your threads.

 

Austin

[+jwmoe1973]

Yep. After reading this thread I went back and revisited the page of a cache very near home that plagued me for months. I visited that cache five times (logged 3 DNF's, I should have logged the other two) before finding it with some helpful hints from a phone cacher friend. Even after trying to contact the CO, there was NO indication that they cared that the cache was intentionally 75' off...

 

Without exception, all of this CO's hides that I've found have been disgusting experiences for one reason or another. Yeah, I know, that's why there's an Ignore List. Sometimes I ignore the list to find them and make mention of the conditions to let others know what to expect. If someone had done the same before me, my kids might not have been turned off by the experience.

 

Make the coords as accurate as you can. Do cache maintenance, and please, if you quit the game, police your cache/trash by removing it and archive it.

[+LaughterOnWater]

...Your own words demonstrate that you are being the very things you now deny.

 

Done with another of your threads.

 

Austin

I'm not in the habit of checking GZ's on Google maps before I go out on a foray. When I was there, GZ appeared to be in front of the mural using the compass feature of the backcountry app. I am not lying about that, either. I did make the mistake of not checking Google maps before publishing the original post in this thread, but as others have pointed out, Google Maps isn't always the be-all/end-all arbiter of GPS location. For all I know, the CO used Google maps and not averaged waypoints to create the cache's GZ.

 

You weren't there.

 

If you insist in finding fault at every opportunity, by all means, please avoid reading any of my future posts. I've added you and Pup Patrol to my ignored users list. I am unable to do so with "Arthur & Trillian", for some reason. I cordially request you do the same.

Edited June 14, 2015 by LaughterOnWater

[+Kelux]

If you insist in finding fault at every opportunity, by all means, please avoid reading any of my future posts.

 

This forums are public and worldwide, if you don't want to be read and/or criticized, and above all, if you don't respect others opinions, you better not write here.

[knowschad]

If you insist in finding fault at every opportunity, by all means, please avoid reading any of my future posts.

 

This forums are public and worldwide, if you don't want to be read and/or criticized, and above all, if you don't respect others opinions, you better not write here.

 

Within guidelines. Insinuating that someone is lying does not fall within those guidelines. Reminding someone that they do not have to read their posts is.

[+wimseyguy]

In an urban setting, I will look at where is the hide on google maps because I think the CO has done the same thing and doesn't want anyone led astray by the whack readings one can get from their device in a highrise-building environment.

 

Meanwhile,

 

moot

 

 

Isn't that the alligator infested canal around a castle?

[+ArtieD]

...Your own words demonstrate that you are being the very things you now deny.

 

Done with another of your threads.

 

Austin

 

Yeah, I am beginning to feel the same way, too.

 

If you insist in finding fault at every opportunity, by all means, please avoid reading any of my future posts. I've added you and Pup Patrol to my ignored users list. I am unable to do so with "Arthur & Trillian", for some reason. I cordially request you do the same.

 

What I find funny is that you seem to try very hard to sound proper and educated yet you put anyone who dares disagree with you on ignore, choosing to dismiss their comments instead of responding to them. I have people in this forum that I vehemently disagree with on a regular basis and I have ignored exactly no one.

 

For someone who's as educated as open-minded you'd like to portray yourself, you sure do hate being challenged, don't you?

 

This forums are public and worldwide, if you don't want to be read and/or criticized, and above all, if you don't respect others opinions, you better not write here.

 

Quote of the day.

[knowschad]

In an urban setting, I will look at where is the hide on google maps because I think the CO has done the same thing and doesn't want anyone led astray by the whack readings one can get from their device in a highrise-building environment.

 

Meanwhile,

 

moot

 

 

Isn't that the alligator infested canal around a castle?

 

Only in Canada. You are talking aboot the moot, 'eh?

[+ArtieD]

In an urban setting, I will look at where is the hide on google maps because I think the CO has done the same thing and doesn't want anyone led astray by the whack readings one can get from their device in a highrise-building environment.

 

Meanwhile,

 

moot

 

 

Isn't that the alligator infested canal around a castle?

 

Only in Canada. You are talking aboot the moot, 'eh?

 

[+jwmoe1973]

Have I posted about this one before? GC2ZF5T This one was knowingly placed off coords... Just surprised it took so long for anyone to log NM or NA. If I was that FTF, I'd have gladly posted NM.

 

Fixed it

Edited June 15, 2015 by jwmoe1973

[+DanOCan]

Would geocaching not become very dull if you could go to a location and find a cache/tag within a 1 ft area?

Not at all. People could still hide caches in interesting locations and people could still hide caches in unique ways that make them difficult to find. If I'm doing a cache at the end of a long hike, the last thing I care about is an "interesting" search.

[+on4bam]

Not at all. People could still hide caches in interesting locations and people could still hide caches in unique ways that make them difficult to find. If I'm doing a cache at the end of a long hike, the last thing I care about is an "interesting" search.

 

Anything within 10m is OK with me. It's nice to find a tag/cache with 0 or 1m showing on the GPS but most of the time it isn't. There might be buildings, tree cover, high tension electricity lines... We found one this weekend @ 15m (45ft) thanks to the spoiler. Readings were jumping up and down and after finding the cache I put the GPS on the ground, opened the box, logged, discovered a TB, put everything back and looked at the GPS... 15m to GZ, trees all over the place...The rest of the caches were all between 2 and 7m from GZ (same CO).

Long hike/bikeride or not we enjoy "interesting" searches. This weekend we spend 2 nights away from home just for high favorite caches, we weren't disappointed.

[+NeverSummer]

Not at all. People could still hide caches in interesting locations and people could still hide caches in unique ways that make them difficult to find. If I'm doing a cache at the end of a long hike, the last thing I care about is an "interesting" search.

 

Anything within 10m is OK with me. It's nice to find a tag/cache with 0 or 1m showing on the GPS but most of the time it isn't. There might be buildings, tree cover, high tension electricity lines... We found one this weekend @ 15m (45ft) thanks to the spoiler. Readings were jumping up and down and after finding the cache I put the GPS on the ground, opened the box, logged, discovered a TB, put everything back and looked at the GPS... 15m to GZ, trees all over the place...The rest of the caches were all between 2 and 7m from GZ (same CO).

Long hike/bikeride or not we enjoy "interesting" searches. This weekend we spend 2 nights away from home just for high favorite caches, we weren't disappointed.

Well, there's a person being "fine" with general GPS error, and then there's encountering a cache owner who essentially says, "I intentionally listed coordinates 10m away".

 

I too don't mind if I meet a cache whose coordinates seem to be 10m away from where I find the cache. I call that my GPS not being the same in all variables with how the owner determined the coordinates on that day, with that GPS unit, etc. etc.

 

What I tend to mind is when I meet a Traditional cache where they list an offset for the container. That's a Multi. It's not cute; it's inaccurate on purpose to mislead, misdirect, and/or increase difficulty in an inappropriate manner where the cache type chosen should be at the posted coordinates, with the most accurate measurement taken.

[pasco rascal]

I always make my coordinates as accurately as possible. It is the ethical thing to do. I am of the opinion that a cache owner whose coordinates are repeatedly way off, only tends to make him appear that he is either just plain stupid or if not that, too cheap to buy an accurate gps device, or if it is done on purpose, it reveals his true character. Purposely putting the wrong coordinates in a cache description is nothing more than lying. Nobody likes a liar. It tells searchers that the hider is a person who can never be trusted. Only a fool would want that kind of reputation.

[Pup Patrol]

I always make my coordinates as accurately as possible. It is the ethical thing to do. I am of the opinion that a cache owner whose coordinates are repeatedly way off, only tends to make him appear that he is either just plain stupid or if not that, too cheap to buy an accurate gps device, or if it is done on purpose, it reveals his true character. Purposely putting the wrong coordinates in a cache description is nothing more than lying. Nobody likes a liar. It tells searchers that the hider is a person who can never be trusted. Only a fool would want that kind of reputation.

 

There are no cache hides under the username "pasco rascal". No finds, no hides.

 

So what username are your accurate as possible hides under?

 

 

B.

Edited June 30, 2015 by Pup Patrol

[Captain Clorox]

All is well here.

[+pascopete]

What I don't like is when a cache is off whether by accident because they didn't double check the coords, use of a smart device or intentionally, is when cache finders mention the coords are off and either don't report the correct coords or report this to the reviewer. I have seen many 100 ft off or more.

I have two cases.

One a cache goes live. The coords are good. A FTF find (not me)but second to find can't find it (still not me). (it was in the open). So the CO replaces it 85 ft away. But does not update the new coords on the cache page. Everyone mentions only using the hints but not one posted better coords. Funny thing is when I posted better coords and a NM a previous finder logs a note that the cache is still there. DUH!

 

There is a new listing where the posted coords of a cache is on a freeway but mentions the cache is on a hill. A cacher knew there is no cache on the freeway and knew this would not have gotten published at the correct coords because there is a cache already up there. Most likely didn't get approved so instead of finding a different location, they just moved the coords so it would get approved. Or they just didn't know the coords were in the middle of the freeway?

[+pascopete]

It's all in the margin of error that can be expected.

 

You don't understand how errors actually work, do you?

 

There is never an excuse for moving coordinates away from the best results you can get from your receiver. Claiming that it could have happened that way is dishonest and not part of geocaching.

[+pascopete]

I always make my coordinates as accurately as possible. It is the ethical thing to do. I am of the opinion that a cache owner whose coordinates are repeatedly way off, only tends to make him appear that he is either just plain stupid or if not that, too cheap to buy an accurate gps device, or if it is done on purpose, it reveals his true character. Purposely putting the wrong coordinates in a cache description is nothing more than lying. Nobody likes a liar. It tells searchers that the hider is a person who can never be trusted. Only a fool would want that kind of reputation.

 

I, pascopete replied with the paragraph above using the alias pasco rascal. Hope I dis this right. Pasco Rascal is gone forever I hope.

[+pascopete]

I always make my coordinates as accurately as possible. It is the ethical thing to do. I am of the opinion that a cache owner whose coordinates are repeatedly way off, only tends to make him appear that he is either just plain stupid or if not that, too cheap to buy an accurate gps device, or if it is done on purpose, it reveals his true character. Purposely putting the wrong coordinates in a cache description is nothing more than lying. Nobody likes a liar. It tells searchers that the hider is a person who can never be trusted. Only a fool would want that kind of reputation.

 

There are no cache hides under the username "pasco rascal". No finds, no hides.

 

So what username are your accurate as possible hides under?

 

 

B.

I, pascopete replied with the paragraph above using the alias pasco rascal. Hope I dis this right. Pasco Rascal is gone forever I hope.

[Pup Patrol]

I always make my coordinates as accurately as possible. It is the ethical thing to do. I am of the opinion that a cache owner whose coordinates are repeatedly way off, only tends to make him appear that he is either just plain stupid or if not that, too cheap to buy an accurate gps device, or if it is done on purpose, it reveals his true character. Purposely putting the wrong coordinates in a cache description is nothing more than lying.

 

Nobody likes a liar. It tells searchers that the hider is a person who can never be trusted. Only a fool would want that kind of reputation.

 

I, pascopete replied with the paragraph above using the alias pasco rascal. Hope I dis this right. Pasco Rascal is gone forever I hope.

 

In forum-speak, an "alias" is a "sock puppet" or just "sock".

 

Which is, of course, against the Forum Guidelines.

 

5. Sock puppet accounts are not permitted. A sock-puppet account is created and used by a person who already has a primary account, for the purpose of posting anonymously. Posts from known sock puppet accounts may be deleted, and both the sock-puppet and primary accounts may be suspended from the Groundspeak sites. Please use your real, primary account for posting in the Groundspeak forums.

 

A very poorly disguised sock, at that.

 

Sorry for the drift.

 

But this was just too funny.

 

B.

Edited June 30, 2015 by Pup Patrol

[+Touchstone]

In forum-speak, an "alias" is a "sock puppet" or just "sock".

 

Or in the common (aka "vulgar") Forum parlance, a "Ringbone"

 

Welcome to the Forum pascopete.

[Captain Clorox]

I remain vigilant for any posts from the Pasco Ringbone account.

 

Should I be busy doing laundry, citizens know how to alert me.

 

[+wmpastor]

I always make my coordinates as accurately as possible. It is the ethical thing to do. I am of the opinion that a cache owner whose coordinates are repeatedly way off, only tends to make him appear that he is either just plain stupid or if not that, too cheap to buy an accurate gps device, or if it is done on purpose, it reveals his true character. Purposely putting the wrong coordinates in a cache description is nothing more than lying.

 

Nobody likes a liar. It tells searchers that the hider is a person who can never be trusted. Only a fool would want that kind of reputation.

 

I, pascopete replied with the paragraph above using the alias pasco rascal. Hope I dis this right. Pasco Rascal is gone forever I hope.

 

In forum-speak, an "alias" is a "sock puppet" or just "sock".

 

Which is, of course, against the Forum Guidelines.

 

5. Sock puppet accounts are not permitted. A sock-puppet account is created and used by a person who already has a primary account, for the purpose of posting anonymously. Posts from known sock puppet accounts may be deleted, and both the sock-puppet and primary accounts may be suspended from the Groundspeak sites. Please use your real, primary account for posting in the Groundspeak forums.

 

A very poorly disguised sock, at that.

 

Sorry for the drift.

 

But this was just too funny.

 

B.

 

Why assume he's guilty of sock puppetry??? He said the other username is gone forever. Lots of people change their user names! There have even been threads on how to do it.

 

Edit: i've said several times in the forum recently that there's much too much "guilty until proven innocent" in the caching world. I guess it's part of the "culture," sadly.

Edited June 30, 2015 by wmpastor

[Pup Patrol]

Why assume he's guilty of sock puppetry??? He said the other username is gone forever. Lots of people change their user names! There have even been threads on how to do it.

 

Edit: i've said several times in the forum recently that there's much too much "guilty until proven innocent" in the caching world. I guess it's part of the "culture," sadly.

 

Seriously?

 

This person did not change their username. They created a new one. He's been posting using both usernames in this thread! Two different names, two different accounts....that's pretty obvious.

 

I've got a separate account, too. It's a Basic Member account, and I never use it for caching or for posting. I created it because I kept answering people only to find out that only Premium Members could do what I was describing. So I created the Basic Member account to be able to see what other Basic Members see.

 

And don't worry, the "pasco rascal" account has not been disabled.

 

B.

[+Colonial Cats]

In an urban setting, I will look at where is the hide on google maps because I think the CO has done the same thing and doesn't want anyone led astray by the whack readings one can get from their device in a highrise-building environment.

 

Meanwhile,

 

moot

 

 

Isn't that the alligator infested canal around a castle?

Edited June 30, 2015 by Colonial Cats

[+Colonial Cats]

...Your own words demonstrate that you are being the very things you now deny.

 

Done with another of your threads.

 

Austin

 

Yeah, I am beginning to feel the same way, too.

 

If you insist in finding fault at every opportunity, by all means, please avoid reading any of my future posts. I've added you and Pup Patrol to my ignored users list. I am unable to do so with "Arthur & Trillian", for some reason. I cordially request you do the same.

 

What I find funny is that you seem to try very hard to sound proper and educated yet you put anyone who dares disagree with you on ignore, choosing to dismiss their comments instead of responding to them. I have people in this forum that I vehemently disagree with on a regular basis and I have ignored exactly no one.

 

For someone who's as educated as open-minded you'd like to portray yourself, you sure do hate being challenged, don't you?

 

This forums are public and worldwide, if you don't want to be read and/or criticized, and above all, if you don't respect others opinions, you better not write here.

 

Quote of the day.

There is a difference between disagree and attack. I find that many of the posters here become too negative and suspicious of what I see as honest questions. It results with the original poster feeling that he needs to defend himself and has the affect of not wanting to ask any more questions. Other forums I converse in are not so controversial. It makes for a much more pleasant experience. That said, I agree that the coordinates must be as accurate as possible. I used to have one cache where I couldn't place the physical cache at the spot I wanted. I turned it into a multi and projected a waypoint to the physical cache.

[+Colonial Cats]

If you find that the coordinates are way off, just place a throwdown at GZ. Just kidding.

[+cerberus1]

Edit: i've said several times in the forum recently that there's much too much "guilty until proven innocent" in the caching world. I guess it's part of the "culture," sadly.

It wasn't just this thread, it was also in this one, and I reported it in both.

"Culture" had nothing to do with it.

Sheesh...

[+edscott]

Okay -- very clear consensus here!

 

In the case of the mural, it would have been better to either make it a mutli-cache or simply add an additional waypoint and say, "About thirty feet away at the additional waypoint, you'll find this cool mural."

 

The GPS for the cache is within thirty feet of the cache -- entirely within the realm of possibility. While it is an urban scene, it's entirely possible the CO averaged the waypoint on a crummy day or when there was a crummy satellite constellation. It's not like there are that many urban canyons in Athens, GA where the buildings themselves block out too many satellites. But if CO's want to be entirely precise, isn't it just easier in urban situations to go to Google maps or mapnik and get the specific coordinates of the corner of a building in satellite view and use those?

 

What makes you think the coordinates from that are more accurate than coordinates taken on the ground?

 

Many years of mapping experience???

[+Kelux]

Many years of mapping experience???

 

Google's official stance says, "makes no claims as to the accuracy of the coordinates in Google Earth. These are provided for entertainment only and should not be used for any navigational or other purpose requiring any accuracy whatsoever".

Edited July 1, 2015 by Kelux

[+bflentje]

Edit: i've said several times in the forum recently that there's much too much "guilty until proven innocent" in the caching world. I guess it's part of the "culture," sadly.

It wasn't just this thread, it was also in this one, and I reported it in both.

"Culture" had nothing to do with it.

Sheesh...

 

What if I have TWO full premium member accounts, both of which are several years old, which one should I consider to be the sock?

[knowschad]

...Your own words demonstrate that you are being the very things you now deny.

 

Done with another of your threads.

 

Austin

 

Yeah, I am beginning to feel the same way, too.

 

If you insist in finding fault at every opportunity, by all means, please avoid reading any of my future posts. I've added you and Pup Patrol to my ignored users list. I am unable to do so with "Arthur & Trillian", for some reason. I cordially request you do the same.

 

What I find funny is that you seem to try very hard to sound proper and educated yet you put anyone who dares disagree with you on ignore, choosing to dismiss their comments instead of responding to them. I have people in this forum that I vehemently disagree with on a regular basis and I have ignored exactly no one.

 

For someone who's as educated as open-minded you'd like to portray yourself, you sure do hate being challenged, don't you?

 

This forums are public and worldwide, if you don't want to be read and/or criticized, and above all, if you don't respect others opinions, you better not write here.

 

Quote of the day.

There is a difference between disagree and attack. I find that many of the posters here become too negative and suspicious of what I see as honest questions. It results with the original poster feeling that he needs to defend himself and has the affect of not wanting to ask any more questions. Other forums I converse in are not so controversial. It makes for a much more pleasant experience.

 

+100

 

Moderators, please make this a "sticky"!

[+narcissa]

Many years of mapping experience???

 

Google's official stance says, "makes no claims as to the accuracy of the coordinates in Google Earth. These are provided for entertainment only and should not be used for any navigational or other purpose requiring any accuracy whatsoever".

 

When I look at Google Earth, there is a seam in map images that makes an entire chunk of my house and lawn look like it doesn't exist. I don't need "many years of mapping experience" to call shenanigans.