Don't people check their listing before publishing?

[+zookeepertx]

I'm just wondering about why, when people list a new cache, a person wouldn't look at the map before hitting the final button, to make sure the map shows the cache to be where they put it. There's a new hider around here that has placed a number of caches recently, with VERY hit-or-miss coords. Some are right on, but at least 3 are WAYYY off! One of them has coords that are off by almost 1/2 mile!! I found a place that fit the hint, but didn't know where to start looking. Emailed the CO that evening and found that I had been in the correct area. He/she said they were going to stop to check the coords and fix them. That was on Dec 18-19 and the listing still shows the original coords, although another finder has posted correct coords in their log. Another of the person's caches hasn't had anybody actually search for it, because there is NO way to get closer than about 1/4 mile from GZ and it's totally surrounded by private property and locked gates, not to mention that the general area looks nothing like the description.

 

When I've listed caches, I always click on the button to view the listing on the map, just to make sure I've gotten it correct. Don't people usually do that? I can't imagine why not, (but then, I have a bit of a map fetish, LOL)!

 

Anyway, just thought I'd wonder about it in public, since I don't feel like doing dishes.

[+Touchstone]

Hey! Those dishes aren't going to clean themselves

 

I think people just get excited, and forget to do basic checks on their Listing before submitting. Sounds like a friendly Needs Maintenance log entry may be in order, if it's been since mid December without action.

[+zookeepertx]

Hey! Those dishes aren't going to clean themselves

 

I think people just get excited, and forget to do basic checks on their Listing before submitting. Sounds like a friendly Needs Maintenance log entry may be in order, if it's been since mid December without action.

 

You don't think it'd be enough if I just let the dogs clean the dishes? They'd LOVE to help!

 

That's probably true about people getting excited about it, but it seems like, after 5 or 6 logs on each of 3 caches talking about coords being off by a LOT, and the CO even saying they were going to check on them the next day, maybe they'd double check before listing.

[+palmetto]

It has ever been thus.

 

The current CSP forces you to see your coords on a map, too. Admittedly, not a terribly good map. Street view and out some zoom distance. Still, you'd think people would notice sometimes that what the map is showing is might poor match for their hide.

 

I used to see caches in the deserts of Algeria. This from transposing the longitude (W 08, instead of W 80).

 

I rarely see that with the current CSP. Instead I see E80, E81 - this puts caches into north India and Nepal. Even the somewhat simplified map on the CSP looks pretty funky relative to anything you'd expect to see in Florida. And it generates the "far from home" warning.

 

Oddly, I don't recall ever seeing N latitude as S. Why one and not the other? I dunno.

[+NanCycle]

Apparently they don't. About a year ago a cache was published with coordinates that turned out to be off by .6 mile. After about 2 weeks and several DNFs the CO posted an OM log with coordinates that he said he got "with a GPS instead of Google Maps." After that people who read the OM log could find the cache, but those who relied on the listed coordinates could not. The CO was never heard from again and a few months later the cache was archived.

[+AustinMN]

I brought a case like that to the attention of a local reviewer. The coordinates were soon fixed. When the same CO seemed to have continuing problems with coordinates, his caches started getting disabled...then archived.

 

He/she is gone.

[+Manville Possum]

I often see bad coordinates corrected after a friend's FTF.

[+The A-Team]

About a year ago a cache was published with coordinates that turned out to be off by .6 mile. After about 2 weeks and several DNFs the CO posted an OM log with coordinates that he said he got "with a GPS instead of Google Maps."

That's a perfect candidate for an instant "Needs Archive", because the owner has admitted that they ignored and violated one of the most important (if not THE most important) guideline ("Listings must contain accurate GPS coordinates."). A number of years ago when the owner of a local cache admitted that they had gotten their coordinates from some website online, the reviewer very quickly archived it.

 

There are many possible reasons why someone may get the wrong coordinates from their device, but below are some possible explanations why those wrong coordinates could make it through the cache submission process:

• Overexcitement
  
• Carelessness
  
• A feeling of infallibility ("Of course the coordinates are right, I just typed them in a second ago!")
  
• Intentionally-incorrect coordinates (often in a misguided attempt to make the cache more difficult)
  

I'm sure there are others, but these probably explain most of the cases.

[+MountainWoods]

I'm sure it's against the guidelines (Pup Patrol can help me here!) but I don't think that you're allowed to deliberately enter bad coordinates just to increase the difficulty level of your cache. But I've found a couple of caches where I think the CO did that on purpose.

 

The one that immediately comes to mind is one that is on the edge of a cemetery in Missouri, but the coordinates put the cache about 250 feet or so directly out in front of you in a private field. Fortunately the description and/or hint (can't remember which) helps you to find it. But any number of NM, DNF and Found It logs that mention this problem are deliberately ignored.

 

Don't remember the other one(s), but they had that in common: the CO would ignore any and all logs stating that the coordinates were off by more than 100 ft.

 

I know it's wrong to try to read intent into other folks' thinking. But I just can't figure any other reason why they'd deliberately post and keep wrong coordinates in some of these cases, except to make the search harder. (Okay, some of them might be because the CO has and over-inflated ego: "I can't be wrong!". But the "make it harder" seems like a less harsh, if invalid, reason for posting/ignoring.)

[+J Grouchy]

I'm sure it's against the guidelines (Pup Patrol can help me here!) but I don't think that you're allowed to deliberately enter bad coordinates just to increase the difficulty level of your cache. But I've found a couple of caches where I think the CO did that on purpose.

 

The one that immediately comes to mind is one that is on the edge of a cemetery in Missouri, but the coordinates put the cache about 250 feet or so directly out in front of you in a private field. Fortunately the description and/or hint (can't remember which) helps you to find it. But any number of NM, DNF and Found It logs that mention this problem are deliberately ignored.

 

Sounds like it's time for a "Needs Archived" log, if for no other reason than to get a reviewer involved. People are too shy about posting NA logs, as if the very act will cause the cache containers to spontaneously implode or something.

[+MountainWoods]

I'm sure it's against the guidelines (Pup Patrol can help me here!) but I don't think that you're allowed to deliberately enter bad coordinates just to increase the difficulty level of your cache. But I've found a couple of caches where I think the CO did that on purpose.

 

The one that immediately comes to mind is one that is on the edge of a cemetery in Missouri, but the coordinates put the cache about 250 feet or so directly out in front of you in a private field. Fortunately the description and/or hint (can't remember which) helps you to find it. But any number of NM, DNF and Found It logs that mention this problem are deliberately ignored.

 

Sounds like it's time for a "Needs Archived" log, if for no other reason than to get a reviewer involved. People are too shy about posting NA logs, as if the very act will cause the cache containers to spontaneously implode or something.

Makes sense to me. Guess I hadn't thought of it (at the time) 'cause back then I hadn't read these forums as much. I was thinking that NA only meant that the cache just totally "ain't" there (got ploughed under or something). Guess my thinking has changed from reading the forums over the years. I can see where an NA comes in handy to pull some chains / ring some bells / raise some red flags / whatever you wanna call it.

 

If I ever run into such a sichumation again, NA it is!

[+Pontiac_CZ]

Or if one is shy and doesn't want the CO to get mad at him, he can directly contact the reviewer who published the cache and let him know about it.

[+cleandrysurface]

Hey! Those dishes aren't going to clean themselves

 

I think people just get excited, and forget to do basic checks on their Listing before submitting. Sounds like a friendly Needs Maintenance log entry may be in order, if it's been since mid December without action.

 

You don't think it'd be enough if I just let the dogs clean the dishes? They'd LOVE to help!

 

That's probably true about people getting excited about it, but it seems like, after 5 or 6 logs on each of 3 caches talking about coords being off by a LOT, and the CO even saying they were going to check on them the next day, maybe they'd double check before listing.

 

They probably let the dog take the coordinates.

 

We recently had a newbie CO place a bunch of caches shortly after they joined. The coordinates for most of the caches were well off (80 - 100'). Even after cachers commented on the coordinates and provided accurate coordinates in their logs, the CO never corrected the listings. Most of those caches have since been archived.

[+JL_HSTRE]

Oddly, I don't recall ever seeing N latitude as S. Why one and not the other? I dunno.

 

With the latitude in FL there are no zeros to transpose unlike longitude.

 

Also, N latitude is positive while W longitude is negative. I suspect in South America there is a Reviewer who periodically has someone accidentally list their cache in Florida.

[TahoeJoe]

My last cache I placed was about a half mile off and I didn't realize it until my cache went active. I had switched over to my smartphone to geocache and was trying out a new app that ended up being way off. I didn’t have time to hike back 3 hours to the cache anytime soon so I remembered I had taken a photo from the cache location. I used the geotag from the photo to make the correction and had the FTF verify the location was correct. I don’t think experience has anything to do with it. I work in tech and was being lazy when it came time to list the cache.

Edited February 10, 2016 by TahoeJoe

[+wandillup wanderer]

Given that GPS coordinates are the fundamental requirements to the game it is imperative that they are as accurate as possible.

I use a phone and Garmin 650T at the same time when determining correct coords for hiding caches.

I read in some guidlines that when setting coords approaching GZ from differing angles helps to average out readings,this can also help if there is tree or building cover.

Having inaccurate coords is frustrating for cachers and can result in people looking about areas that may not be appropriate.

[+Walts Hunting]

I'm sure it's against the guidelines (Pup Patrol can help me here!) but I don't think that you're allowed to deliberately enter bad coordinates just to increase the difficulty level of your cache. But I've found a couple of caches where I think the CO did that on purpose.

 

The one that immediately comes to mind is one that is on the edge of a cemetery in Missouri, but the coordinates put the cache about 250 feet or so directly out in front of you in a private field. Fortunately the description and/or hint (can't remember which) helps you to find it. But any number of NM, DNF and Found It logs that mention this problem are deliberately ignored.

 

Don't remember the other one(s), but they had that in common: the CO would ignore any and all logs stating that the coordinates were off by more than 100 ft.

 

I know it's wrong to try to read intent into other folks' thinking. But I just can't figure any other reason why they'd deliberately post and keep wrong coordinates in some of these cases, except to make the search harder. (Okay, some of them might be because the CO has and over-inflated ego: "I can't be wrong!". But the "make it harder" seems like a less harsh, if invalid, reason for posting/ignoring.)

If one cacher had the nerve to log a NA the problem would be solved I've done several one was at the end of a five mile hike i came to the obvious spot (open field with pile of rocks in the middle) and no cache. Then read the recent found logs which mentioned it was gone but took a find anyhow. I logged a NA and a couple of days later archived. Just recently I came across two in Yuma that were traditionals but had been changed to multis. A couple of NA logs and they were both archived until fixed. One false multi led to a cache on indian groinds where it would not be permitted. So either take action or be quiet but don't whine here.