Correct coords for all cache types - why?

[+dprovan]

Fast-forward to November 2011. Groundspeak decided to add similar functionality to cache listings on the website, and since many people (probably including a bunch of Lackeys) already knew such functionality as "corrected coordinates" due to their use of GSAK, they went with the same name.

I appreciate the history lesson, but I still claim this is giving too much credit to the idea that there's something wrong with calling them "corrected coordinates". If "corrected coordinates" is wrong, what term should GS have used? Anything else -- "fixed coordinates", "adjusted coordinates", "changed coordinates" -- would still be open to the same objection that they shouldn't be called that because they only have an effect for the person doing the correcting, fixing, adjusting, or changing. Yes, corrected coordinates have only been corrected for me, but they're have, nevertheless, still been corrected.

[+justintim1999]

Fast-forward to November 2011. Groundspeak decided to add similar functionality to cache listings on the website, and since many people (probably including a bunch of Lackeys) already knew such functionality as "corrected coordinates" due to their use of GSAK, they went with the same name.

I appreciate the history lesson, but I still claim this is giving too much credit to the idea that there's something wrong with calling them "corrected coordinates". If "corrected coordinates" is wrong, what term should GS have used? Anything else -- "fixed coordinates", "adjusted coordinates", "changed coordinates" -- would still be open to the same objection that they shouldn't be called that because they only have an effect for the person doing the correcting, fixing, adjusting, or changing. Yes, corrected coordinates have only been corrected for me, but they're have, nevertheless, still been corrected.

 

How about personal coordinates?

 

I too intemperate corrected as a permanent change to the listed coordinates. After reading The A Team's explanation I understand it now but others may not make the connection.

[+The A-Team]

Fast-forward to November 2011. Groundspeak decided to add similar functionality to cache listings on the website, and since many people (probably including a bunch of Lackeys) already knew such functionality as "corrected coordinates" due to their use of GSAK, they went with the same name.

I appreciate the history lesson, but I still claim this is giving too much credit to the idea that there's something wrong with calling them "corrected coordinates". If "corrected coordinates" is wrong, what term should GS have used? Anything else -- "fixed coordinates", "adjusted coordinates", "changed coordinates" -- would still be open to the same objection that they shouldn't be called that because they only have an effect for the person doing the correcting, fixing, adjusting, or changing. Yes, corrected coordinates have only been corrected for me, but they're have, nevertheless, still been corrected.

You may have missed the next few sentences after what you quoted, because I covered exactly that.

Fast-forward to November 2011. Groundspeak decided to add similar functionality to cache listings on the website, and since many people (probably including a bunch of Lackeys) already knew such functionality as "corrected coordinates" due to their use of GSAK, they went with the same name. Those who don't know about its use in GSAK may not understand the reason for calling it that, so a better name might have been "personal coordinates" or something similar. Oh well. It's called "corrected coordinates" now, so we'll just have to live with it.

I'm not sure "corrected coordinates" is necessarily wrong, but it can certainly be ambiguous for those not familiar with the background and I think there could potentially be better options. In addition to "personal coordinates" that I mentioned above, "user coordinates" could be another option. Both make it more clear that it's something specific to that user.

[+Team Microdot]

Not that I think it matters much as I've never struggled with them being labeled corrected coordinates and I don't think a perfect descriptive term exists in this scenario but to me adjusted coordinates or modified coordinates might better fit the sense of the process that's taking place.

 

To return to the original topic for a moment, I've had a read through some of the other related threads and the answer to my original question seems to be that there don't seem to be any uses for having the ability to adjust coordinates on traditional caches other than the obvious i.e. adjusting for original coordinates which are deemed less than accurate.

[+fizzymagic]

As the actual originator of the term I guess I should step in.

 

I implemented what I called "corrected coordinates" in a Perl script (called gpx2html) I wrote when PQs were brand-new. The idea was to have a private, correct set of coordinates for a cache for which the published coordinates did not represent the true location of the cache container.

 

The correction could apply to any cache type for any reason.

 

I see no reason why the term causes some people angst; my only guess is that they somehow don't understand English very well. A correction need not be public to be a correction.

 

I used to be somewhat annoyed that Clyde seems to have gotten credit for an idea I invented, but I don't much care any more.

[+J Grouchy]

When you correct them on the page (and I posted this image early on) it says it right there: "hidden from others". So they can call it whatever they choose and it would STILL be clear to anyone who pays attention that the coordinates you put in there are, yes, "hidden from others".

[+thebruce0]

"corrected coordinates" does not necessarily mean "correct coordinates". Grammatically it does imply a change towards correctness, but being entirely private to the account, "correct" is a matter of personal interpretation.

 

"adjusted personal coordinates" would be the best literal term, but "corrected coordinates" is just as valid, if one doesn't assume they are somehow public and "correct".

 

This really seems to be a pointless semantic argument. Whatever it's called, it's just for personal use, so change the coordinates to whatever you want, realizing how that change impacts your own experience with the listing via gc.com.

[+Team Microdot]

Whatever it's called, it's just for personal use

 

So call them personal coordinates* - that's a term I'd expect to mean much the same thing to every English speaking person.

 

Dictionary definition seems clear enough - http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/personal

 

*Again - not that it matters to me.

[+J Grouchy]

Whatever it's called, it's just for personal use

 

So call them personal coordinates* - that's a term I'd expect to mean much the same thing to every English speaking person.

 

Dictionary definition seems clear enough - http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/personal

 

*Again - not that it matters to me.

 

Perhaps they should have made such a decision however many years ago when they started allowing us to change the coordinates on the cache page...

 

But as long as we're here picking nits and being pedantic, maybe we could talk about the fact that even the TRULY "correct" coordinates given by the CO at publication are often far from being correct. In fact, even if your GPS reads zero, mine may not...so MY "correct coordinates" may be quite different from YOUR "correct coordinates". In fact, for 100 people finding the cache, there may be 100 different sets of "correct coordinates".

 

So honestly, this discussion is essentially useless and all you really need to know is this:

 

[+Team Microdot]

But as long as we're here picking nits and being pedantic...

 

So honestly, this discussion is essentially useless and all you really need to know is this:

 

 

I wasn't aware anyone was nit-picking or being purposely pedantic - we're just having a civil chat about something which isn't a matter of life-or-death, which seems quite reasonable to me

 

And if people want to spend their time on pursuits that you consider useless - I'd say that's up to them - especially given that we're here on a forum dedicated to finding pieces of paper in plastic boxes for fun.

[+J Grouchy]

But as long as we're here picking nits and being pedantic...

 

So honestly, this discussion is essentially useless and all you really need to know is this:

 

 

I wasn't aware anyone was nit-picking or being purposely pedantic - we're just having a civil chat about something which isn't a matter of life-or-death, which seems quite reasonable to me

 

And if people want to spend their time on pursuits that you consider useless - I'd say that's up to them - especially given that we're here on a forum dedicated to finding pieces of paper in plastic boxes for fun.

 

The fact is, people seem to be debating something that was established LONG ago and was never before questioned (that I'm aware of).

[+Team Microdot]

The fact is, people seem to be debating something that was established LONG ago and was never before questioned (that I'm aware of).

 

It's not harming anyone

[+J Grouchy]

The fact is, people seem to be debating something that was established LONG ago and was never before questioned (that I'm aware of).

 

It's not harming anyone

 

Please, do show me where I said or implied that it was.

[+jellis]

I think it's about time. Wherigos sometimes I complete but can't find the cache. Trads many issues with coords off and the CO won't update the coords. We have one cache that was 190ft off and CO hasn't logged back in.

[+fizzymagic]

The fact is, people seem to be debating something that was established LONG ago and was never before questioned (that I'm aware of).

 

It's not harming anyone

 

It is reducing the signal-to-noise of the forums and reinforces the perception that the forums are full of people who make mountains out of molehills.

 

And it is certainly harming you, if you care at all about your reputation.

[+Team Microdot]

The fact is, people seem to be debating something that was established LONG ago and was never before questioned (that I'm aware of).

 

It's not harming anyone

 

It is reducing the signal-to-noise of the forums and reinforces the perception that the forums are full of people who make mountains out of molehills.

 

And it is certainly harming you, if you care at all about your reputation.

 

ROFL - hilarious

 

It's really not harming me at all, in any way, shape or form - you needn't worry - honestly, I'm absolutely fine and will continue to be so whatever happens in these forums.

 

If you want someone to worry about you could give some of your time to the people who think th discussion here is making a mountain out of a molehill

[+The A-Team]

I used to be somewhat annoyed that Clyde seems to have gotten credit for an idea I invented, but I don't much care any more.

I wasn't aware that you were the originator of the term, so I apologize for implying that it was created by Clyde. Thanks for posting here and letting us know the original thinking behind the term.

[+frinklabs]

"correct" is a matter of personal interpretation.

 

[+Team Microdot]

"correct" is a matter of personal interpretation.

 

 

ROFL

[+thebruce0]

"correct" is a matter of personal interpretation.

 

 

lol, taken out of context that sentence is definitely not "correct". The implication of course was that "corrected" in its use context does not mean the end result is objectively "correct", rather adjusted towards what a person might consider correct for their own purposes.

 

Great clip

Edited November 11, 2016 by thebruce0