Log the cache or try to get better numbers?

[+DoodleCat & MisterKrrk]

I placed a cache in Oregon City. I've been to the hiding spot 3 times in the last couple of weeks and I am not satisfied with the coordinates. The 'seconds' won't settle, they swing 15 to 20 points. I've stood there for 20 minutes at a time waiting for a good lock but no luck so far. There are trees where the cache is (about 30 feet from the main path). The main path is clear of trees and I can get a lock there.

 

I'm looking for opinions/suggestions:

 

Should I take the coordinates at the path and then direct people with clues?

 

Should I buy a different GPS?

(Using an Ipaq with a Navman sleeve which has served pretty me well while hunting caches).

 

Should go ahead and post it with the average numbers and detailed clues and ask first few people who hunt for it to tell me the coordinates they come up with?

[+Lazyboy & Mitey Mite]

Are there any overhead obstructions? If so no one will get very good readings. Are you holding your gps up high over your head, pointing straight up? I don't look at the numbers until I see that I have very strong satellite readings. If the readings are poor I change cache locations. Some places just don't work.

 

I hear voices.....and they don't like you!

[+Logscaler and Red]

I think you could make it a multi stage.

 

Get the numbers where you get the best lock, walk away, come back, write those numbers down and do that several times until you get a good set of average numbers for that location. You might walk as many of the cardinal points along the trail as possible.

 

Then get a compass reading and distance from that point to the actual cache location. When you are getting the compass bearing, make sure you know if it is Magnetic or True North your using and post that to the web page also.

 

Your hints might have to be real easy as well just in case.

 

logscaler.

[+Nurse Dave]

I think doing an offset is a good solution or you could just have very good hints. I wouldn't lose a good cache location because of this, there are ways to make it work.

 

--Dave

 

---Real men cache in shorts.

[+Gloom]

Since it sounds like your GPS doesn't automatically average, you could try manually averaging it. Take a couple of waypoints at the location, I usually do 10 to 20 depending on how bad it seems. If you want to do more it'll only increase your accuracy, but then it takes longer. Then do an average on the numbers that you get. You should get pretty accurate coordinates that way.

 

----

Duct tape is like the Force. It has a light side and a dark side, and it holds the universe together.

[+Nurse Dave]

Actually the navman does do averaging, I use one. But I still average on my own like logscaler said. I punch in the coordinates I got, walk away and then follow my GPS. If it doesn't point me right to the cache, I get another reading and try again. Once I get a few that point pretty close, I average those.

 

---Real men cache in shorts.

[+bazzle]

I would go with the manual averaging method. Get as good as you can and the leave hints if you feelt it is necessary.

 

My mind not only wanders, sometimes it leaves completely.

 

**Namaste**

[+fractal]

When I hid Pi recently, not only are there a ton of trees in the area, but all 3 times I went there to get numbers, the trees were wet...which I tend to think makes it even harder.

Each time I was at the park, I took about 5 or 6 readings, so that totaled up to about 15-18... So far it's worked ok

 

Another thought.... Some GPS units have a 'project waypoint' feature... I suppose you could use a compass and get .1 miles away and project a waypoint to where the site is... Maybe do it a few times from different angles....

But then again.. Maybe not... My thought process is a little screwy right now

 

-fractal

 

-=-=-=-=-=-=-

N 45? 30.ish

W 122? 58.ish

[+Criminal]

Try an amplified antenna maybe?

 

http://fp1.centurytel.net/Criminal_Page/

[+DoodleCat & MisterKrrk]

Thanks for the advice and encouragement.

 

I went back and did some averaging and then averaged out the readings I took before and I think the numbers are ok..and then added a hint

that should help.

 

I just reported it. I hope it gets approved.

 

When we went back today someone walking their dog gave us directions to another part of the park we didn't know about and we stumbled on a couple of Geoditic Benchmarks. First time we've found one. Serendipity!