Geocache Description Totally Different?

[+richthediabetic]

First, I'd like to explain that I'm new to geocaching (about 2 weeks), and today I was traveling, and while at a rest stop on the interstate, I decided to check to see if there was a cache there. There was. It was described by the cache owner as a medium cache in an ammo box.

 

What I found, was a simple test tube with a cap, totally by accident, not near the coordinates posted. I looked for a good long time for that ammo box, and just as I was trekking out of the woods to give up, I found this test tube that was a geocache. There was only 1 cache logged in my app for that rest stop location, I double checked that. So I'm not sure if the ammo box was raided, or if it was still out there. Not sure if this cache was part of the ammo box cache. The log had been there for a while because there were lots of names on it. When I leave a comment on the cache log for my find, does the cache owner get notified whenever someone finds their cache? Should I contact the cache owner directly?

 

Thanks for any suggestions!

[+Manville Possum]

You found an ownerless cache that is being maintained by the community with crappy throwdowns.

 

Edit to add: The cache owner gets notified when you post a log, but this cache owner has not signed on since Saturday, 10 May 2014.

Edited July 6, 2016 by Manville Possum

[+Viajero Perdido]

Or you found a cache that was placed but denied publication, because it was too close to the existing (ammo box) cache.

 

Or you found an earlier cache that was archived for whatever reason, allowing the ammo box cache to come along later and be published in almost the same spot.

[+T.D.M.22]

The one you found could have been a throw down. That is when someone can't find the cache, instead of leaving it at that, they put one out "to help the cache owner." In reality it's more often than not just so they can cheat and say they found it. (What's the point of even trying to look for the cache if you're going to do that anyway. )

 

I'd say it's more likely, since it wasn't near the place the other cache was supposed to be, that it's an older cache that was archived (taken out of the game.) Or it could be the final location to a puzzle or multi cache which wouldnt show on the map. Or could have been from another geocaching website.

 

You still log the cache you tried to find, only log it as a needs maintanance, so it will give the owner a heads up that it needs to be checked on. Normally I'd say log it as DNF (did not find) because you could have just been having a bad caching day, but I don't think so because of the size of the cache.

[+cerberus1]

You found an ownerless cache that is being maintained by the community with crappy throwdowns.

Edit to add: The cache owner gets notified when you post a log, but this cache owner has not signed on since Saturday, 10 May 2014.

Yep.

By logs & pics, seems throwdowns were being used for years.

Heck, people were still "finding" the fallen-tree mangled ammo can for over a year.

Some were even logging a letterbox close by and calling it a find here.

All those people, though they do mention finding a couple tubes, and small LNLs, there's only four NM the life of the hide.

Sheesh...

Shoulda been archived some time ago and they should be ashamed of themselves.

 

Allowing another to turn your cache into trash is why I believe in archiving hides instead of adopting 'em out.

[+Manville Possum]

You found an ownerless cache that is being maintained by the community with crappy throwdowns.

Edit to add: The cache owner gets notified when you post a log, but this cache owner has not signed on since Saturday, 10 May 2014.

Yep.

By logs & pics, seems throwdowns were being used for years.

Heck, people were still "finding" the fallen-tree mangled ammo can for over a year.

Some were even logging a letterbox close by and calling it a find here.

All those people, though they do mention finding a couple tubes, and small LNLs, there's only four NM the life of the hide.

Sheesh...

Shoulda been archived some time ago and they should be ashamed of themselves.

 

Allowing another to turn your cache into trash is why I believe in archiving hides instead of adopting 'em out.

 

Yes, I agree that cache should be archived and open up the area to another user to place and maintain a new one.

 

On the same note, one of our rest area caches is near a letterbox and it is self-maintained by the community. You never know if they found our geocache or the letterbox most of the time. I've picked up several throwdowns there also, so it's typical of a geocache in a rest area.

[+Harry Dolphin]

And then there were cachers who signed the tree that fell on the ammo can.

[+J Grouchy]

You found an ownerless cache that is being maintained by the community with crappy throwdowns.

Edit to add: The cache owner gets notified when you post a log, but this cache owner has not signed on since Saturday, 10 May 2014.

Yep.

By logs & pics, seems throwdowns were being used for years.

Heck, people were still "finding" the fallen-tree mangled ammo can for over a year.

Some were even logging a letterbox close by and calling it a find here.

All those people, though they do mention finding a couple tubes, and small LNLs, there's only four NM the life of the hide.

Sheesh...

Shoulda been archived some time ago and they should be ashamed of themselves.

 

Allowing another to turn your cache into trash is why I believe in archiving hides instead of adopting 'em out.

 

This one definitely needs a "Needs (to be) Archived" log.

[+AustinMN]

Although I agree that in this case, this cache has become a piece of junk that needs to be archived, I know of no requirement that a cache listing be accurate.

[+dprovan]

Lots of good points, but to go back and respond to the original question: yes, for various reasons, sometimes the descriptions differ from the actual hide. In this case, it sounds like that's because the owner who originally wrote the description no longer has nothing to do with what is hidden there (which is why people are talking about suggesting archiving it), but it can also happen innocently when an owner has to replace the container and forgets to update the description. And coordinates can be off, that's just a fact of life.

 

None of these things are good, and they can definitely get in the way of a search, but you still need to anticipate those possibilities. They are more common in some areas than others, so even if you don't have to worry about it around home, but you should still consider it while traveling. Often other logs can give you a clue whether the cache you're looking for has such issues.

 

How you use this knowledge is up to you: sometimes when I'm having trouble finding a cache, I'll just try to forget everything in the description and the hint to avoid being misled by false information, but other times I'll just decide that if the cache isn't hidden as described, I'm not going to bother looking for anything different. The important thing is to have a good time, so if you're enjoying the hunt even though it's poorly directed by the information you have, continue hunting! On the other hand, if you're not having fun at a particular cache, just move on and don't worry about whether it's because the description is wrong or because it's there as described but you just can't find it.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

Although I agree that in this case, this cache has become a piece of junk that needs to be archived, I know of no requirement that a cache listing be accurate.

 

I have not heard of a case where a cache was archived because the size or D/T ratings were not accurate but know of a specific example of one in which the CO did not use the proper procedure for updating the coordinates after the container was moved 100' or so. Caches *will* be archived if the coordinates are not accurate.

 

 

[+richthediabetic]

Wow! Thanks for all the replies everyone. I learned SO MUCH from this thread. Thank you!

[+AustinMN]

Although I agree that in this case, this cache has become a piece of junk that needs to be archived, I know of no requirement that a cache listing be accurate.

 

I have not heard of a case where a cache was archived because the size or D/T ratings were not accurate but know of a specific example of one in which the CO did not use the proper procedure for updating the coordinates after the container was moved 100' or so. Caches *will* be archived if the coordinates are not accurate.

 

There is always an exception. Always. If you are going to pick on exceptions, then you should have included the exception to your exception, puzzle caches, where the listed coordinates are not expected to be accurate. It's this kind of nonsense that usually keeps me away from this forum.

Edited July 7, 2016 by AustinMN

[+niraD]

There is always an exception. Always. If you are going to pick on exceptions, then you should have included the exception to your exception, puzzle caches, where the listed coordinates are not expected to be accurate. It's this kind of nonsense that usually keeps me away from this forum.

Even puzzle caches are required to use accurate GPS coordinates at some point. Even if the published coordinates are bogus, at some point seekers will need to use accurate GPS coordinates.

[+narcissa]

There is always an exception. Always. If you are going to pick on exceptions, then you should have included the exception to your exception, puzzle caches, where the listed coordinates are not expected to be accurate. It's this kind of nonsense that usually keeps me away from this forum.

Even puzzle caches are required to use accurate GPS coordinates at some point. Even if the published coordinates are bogus, at some point seekers will need to use accurate GPS coordinates.

 

Not necessarily. For example, puzzles that involve geometry, projections, radius calculations etc. can be a bit fuzzy. The person who sets it up will have final coordinates that are the basis of the design, but a given solution may not work out to those coordinates precisely.

[+niraD]

Even puzzle caches are required to use accurate GPS coordinates at some point. Even if the published coordinates are bogus, at some point seekers will need to use accurate GPS coordinates.

Not necessarily. For example, puzzles that involve geometry, projections, radius calculations etc. can be a bit fuzzy. The person who sets it up will have final coordinates that are the basis of the design, but a given solution may not work out to those coordinates precisely.

Even the puzzles I've done that have had fuzzy solutions (e.g., using the "within 25 ft" feature of the solution checkers) have used precise coordinates. My solution might have been fuzzy (because that's the reality of calculations sometimes), but the locations provided in the puzzle itself used precise coordinates.

 

But for geocaching purposes, "accurate coordinates" has to allow an error margin of at least 3m/10ft. If my fuzzy solution is as precise as my device's accuracy, then the fuzzy solution doesn't really contradict the use of accurate coordinates.

[+narcissa]

Even puzzle caches are required to use accurate GPS coordinates at some point. Even if the published coordinates are bogus, at some point seekers will need to use accurate GPS coordinates.

Not necessarily. For example, puzzles that involve geometry, projections, radius calculations etc. can be a bit fuzzy. The person who sets it up will have final coordinates that are the basis of the design, but a given solution may not work out to those coordinates precisely.

Even the puzzles I've done that have had fuzzy solutions (e.g., using the "within 25 ft" feature of the solution checkers) have used precise coordinates. My solution might have been fuzzy (because that's the reality of calculations sometimes), but the locations provided in the puzzle itself used precise coordinates.

 

But for geocaching purposes, "accurate coordinates" has to allow an error margin of at least 3m/10ft. If my fuzzy solution is as precise as my device's accuracy, then the fuzzy solution doesn't really contradict the use of accurate coordinates.

 

It really depends on the set-up of the cache. For examples, I have found more than one cache that started with a reference to a particular landmark (i.e. a photograph or a riddle, no coordinates), and then involved geometric calculations from there. We ran into trouble with one because we were too precise. When we tried it a second time and rounded our solutions at each stage (bearings, distances, never coordinates) we were much closer and found the cache.

Edited July 7, 2016 by narcissa

[+J Grouchy]

Even puzzle caches are required to use accurate GPS coordinates at some point. Even if the published coordinates are bogus, at some point seekers will need to use accurate GPS coordinates.

Not necessarily. For example, puzzles that involve geometry, projections, radius calculations etc. can be a bit fuzzy. The person who sets it up will have final coordinates that are the basis of the design, but a given solution may not work out to those coordinates precisely.

Even the puzzles I've done that have had fuzzy solutions (e.g., using the "within 25 ft" feature of the solution checkers) have used precise coordinates. My solution might have been fuzzy (because that's the reality of calculations sometimes), but the locations provided in the puzzle itself used precise coordinates.

 

But for geocaching purposes, "accurate coordinates" has to allow an error margin of at least 3m/10ft. If my fuzzy solution is as precise as my device's accuracy, then the fuzzy solution doesn't really contradict the use of accurate coordinates.

 

It really depends on the set-up of the cache. For examples, I have found more than one cache that started with a reference to a particular landmark (i.e. a photograph or a riddle, no coordinates), and then involved geometric calculations from there. We ran into trouble with one because we were too precise. When we tried it a second time and rounded our solutions at each stage (bearings, distances, never coordinates) we were much closer and found the cache.

 

There's a CO here that creates a number of puzzles involving aeronautical navigation, with landmarks, wind speed and travel speed thrown in. I've gone back and forth with him on several occasions trying to understand and even using the same factors he does I have, on occasion, come up with a different solution each time I try to solve the same problem. Usually when I get to within about 50 to 100 feet, he'll take pity on me and give me the "real" coordinates.

 

I also remember doing a puzzle that involved going to a particular gravestone in a cemetery, taking coordinates there, using an equation to calculate north coordinates for the final...then doing the same thing at another grave stone for the west coordinate. Depending on the device, cloud cover, tree cover and amount of time spent at each location, the answers can vary wildly.

Edited July 7, 2016 by J Grouchy

[+niraD]

It really depends on the set-up of the cache. For examples, I have found more than one cache that started with a reference to a particular landmark (i.e. a photograph or a riddle, no coordinates), and then involved geometric calculations from there.

Ah, yes. One of my Favorites was like that. The cache description described two waypoints, which I had to find and take coordinates for. Then I had to plot a course from the first waypoint to the second, and using that as a reference, plot a course from the second waypoint to the final. But a lot of that depends on how accurate all the waypoint locations, bearings, and distances are, both the cache owner's "true" versions and the seekers' "in the field" versions. In theory, accurate coordinates are still being used. In practice, seekers may need to match the owner's errors. Edited July 7, 2016 by niraD

[+narcissa]

It really depends on the set-up of the cache. For examples, I have found more than one cache that started with a reference to a particular landmark (i.e. a photograph or a riddle, no coordinates), and then involved geometric calculations from there.

Ah, yes. One of my Favorites was like that. The cache description described two waypoints, which I had to find and take coordinates for. Then I had to plot a course from the first waypoint to the second, and using that as a reference, plot a course from the second waypoint to the final. But a lot of that depends on how accurate all the waypoint locations, bearings, and distances are, both the cache owner's "true" versions and the seekers' "in the field" versions. In theory, accurate coordinates are still being used. In practice, seekers may need to match the owner's errors.

 

See, you're still talking about something that starts with actual coordinates. I'm talking about something where even the given starting point doesn't involve coordinates. Sure, the owner used coordinates in setting it up, but there are so many ways to solve these things that no reasonable owner would expect you to be right on the mark at each stage. Some people measure bearings in degrees, others measure in mils. Some use their GPS, others use a smartphone, others do it on the computer, some use compass and pencil on a map. There are so many variations and so much fuzziness inherent in the set-up that "precise" coordinates are not the expectation at any point.

[+Pond Bird]

Although I agree that in this case, this cache has become a piece of junk that needs to be archived, I know of no requirement that a cache listing be accurate.

 

Me neither, but it is a good idea to have correct information so people don't get confused or frustrated. I've seen listings that say "easy find" and the cache was very difficult to find and took many tries. This cache could be a hard to find cache and if it has a low difficulty rating people might not realize that the cache is still there but since theres a problem finding it for whatever reasons that are logging a "throwdown"