CO posting wrong coordinates and requesting correct coords removed from log

[+Highlands_Guy]

I found a traditional cache yesterday and found the coordinates were wrong. Many previous logs also referenced the posted coordinates took then to the wrong location.

 

In my log I posted the correct coordinates, but the CO contacted me requesting me to remove the correct coordinates as it makes it too easy to find.

 

This is the note I was sent:

thanks for the note on Gingers Walk #1.the coords were correct for were I wanted you to arrive,then you have to read the hint to finish the search for the cache.can you please go back and deleate the other cords you have posted,other wise its just way to easy a find if you don't have to think about it.thank you very much for you help on this. cache for two

 

What are your thought on this>

 

https://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC349CC_gingers-walk-1

[+J Grouchy]

Tell him to read the guidelines.

 

https://www.geocaching.com/about/guidelines.aspx#coordinates

 

Listings must contain accurate GPS coordinates.

You must visit the cache location and obtain the coordinates with a GPS device. GPS usage is an integral and essential element of both hiding and seeking caches and must be demonstrated for all cache submissions. Projecting waypoints from a specific location already defined by set of coordinates is permissible. For geocaches that include additional waypoints see the guidelines specific to those cache types.

[+cerberus1]

Possible that your accurate coordinates are too close to the hide that's currently .1 away, and wouldn't have been published?

Been able to hide the fact from the Reviewer, by emailing cachers, claiming his traditional now some sorta offset?

[kanchan]

I find it rude the a cache owner ask a visitor to remove legitimate information from their log, but after reading the actual message from the cache owner, they may just be ignorant. I would probably first point them to the guideline as suggested by J Grouchy above, and if they still insist to list bad coordinates, I might report them to a local reviewer. Geocaching is a game to find hidden containers using GPS coordinates. Hints are only supplementary.

[+fizzymagic]

I added it to my "intentionally bad coordinates" list, FWIW.

[+niraD]

I've found a traditional cache that was listed back in the first couple years of geocaching, that was actually some sort of puzzle/offset cache. People often treat it as a straight traditional cache, and post their corrected coordinates. But that one is essentially grandfathered because it complied with the guidelines in effect at the time.

 

The cache linked to here was published in 2011, when the guidelines requiring traditional caches to be at the posted coordinates (and for geocache listings to include accurate GPS coordinates) were in full effect. And it looks like the puzzle/offset was part of the cache from the beginning.

 

A cache can still be hidden using directional clues like this, but it can't be listed as a traditional cache, and accurate GPS coordinates must be incorporated into the experience at some point.

[+GeoTrekker26]

What is the distance between the false coordinates and the actual cache location? You were correct in posting what your GPS told you at the cache and it is a service to other cachers. There was no need for you to edit your log to remove the corrected location.

[Keystone]

I would edit your suggested coordinates back into your log. See the log from August 21, 2016 as an example - that log was made by a Geocaching HQ Lackey under her player account. If the CO deletes your log, write to Geocaching HQ to ask for it to be restored, and mention the issue of the intentionally bad coordinates. This cache doesn't comply with the listing guidelines.

 

Tip for cache owners: if you want to make a difficult cache hide, try using camouflage, unique containers and unusual hiding techniques rather than relying on intentionally fuzzy coordinates.

[+hzoi]

You're not even the only person to post corrected coordinates -- a lackey has as well. CO may just not be tracking because it's not in the log text. (Or they didn't have the chutzpah to ask a lackey to edit their log.)

 

edit: Keystone posted while I was still looking through the logs. So the Supreme High Judiciary of the Groundspeak Forums* have ruled unanimously in your favor and against the CO.

 

 

 

 

*not a real thing

Edited May 31, 2017 by hzoi

[+Team Microdot]

Tell him to read the guidelines.

 

https://www.geocaching.com/about/guidelines.aspx#coordinates

 

Listings must contain accurate GPS coordinates.

You must visit the cache location and obtain the coordinates with a GPS device. GPS usage is an integral and essential element of both hiding and seeking caches and must be demonstrated for all cache submissions. Projecting waypoints from a specific location already defined by set of coordinates is permissible. For geocaches that include additional waypoints see the guidelines specific to those cache types.

 

What J Grouchy said.

 

A traditional cache should be at the posted coordinates and those coordinates should be accurate.

 

I would have no problem in posting my coordinates with my log and rejecting the CO's request to remove them.

[Keystone]

*not a real thing

I beg to differ. We can discuss this further once your posting suspension is overwith.

[+lee737]

I wonder if the Lackey was asked to delete the coords from their log??

[+hzoi]

*not a real thing

I beg to differ. We can discuss this further once your posting suspension is overwith.

oh noes!

[Keystone]

I wonder if the Lackey was asked to delete the coords from their log??

I strongly suspect that this didn't happen.

 

If it did, I think we would've seen an "Update Coordinates" log soon after.

 

You can read between the lines to imagine what else would have happened behind the scenes.

[+The A-Team]

I found the cache in question back in 2012. Thinking back, I'm pretty sure the coordinates were wrong back then too. Usually I'm one of those who will post better coordinates, so I'm not sure why I didn't in this case. If I had, I wouldn't even consider removing the coordinates if asked.

 

I just did some quick measuring on some aerial imagery based on my recollection of where the cache really is, and the coordinates are off by about 17 metres (~55 feet), give or take a few metres.

 

The COs aren't exactly known for staying within the lines. One of their caches in this series was the subject of a bomb squad visit, which they promptly replaced with the same kind of suspicious pipe bomb-ish container (PVC pipe wrapped in camo tape with a wire hanger) and left all the rest of the series using this container as they were. They've also logged a lot of bogus finds that should have been DNFs. I'm not surprised that they'd resort to using soft coordinates.

[Pup Patrol]

I found a traditional cache yesterday and found the coordinates were wrong. Many previous logs also referenced the posted coordinates took then to the wrong location.

 

In my log I posted the correct coordinates, but the CO contacted me requesting me to remove the correct coordinates as it makes it too easy to find.

 

This is the note I was sent:

thanks for the note on Gingers Walk #1.the coords were correct for were I wanted you to arrive,then you have to read the hint to finish the search for the cache.can you please go back and deleate the other cords you have posted,other wise its just way to easy a find if you don't have to think about it.thank you very much for you help on this. cache for two

 

What are your thought on this>

 

https://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC349CC_gingers-walk-1

 

I would post a NM log. "Maintenance" involves the cache page as well as the physical container.

 

"soft" coordinates are against the Guidelines.

 

I would also email the Reviewer and send him/her a copy of that CO's communication.

 

Sounds like someone should have posted an NA a long time ago. Like maybe a Lackey.

 

B.

Edited May 31, 2017 by Pup Patrol

[+Highlands_Guy]

Thanks for all your input. This would be a totally different game if CO's posted bogus coordinates to make it more difficult.

 

I have restored my log showing the correct coordinate, and sent a note to the cache owner with a link to the listing requirements. I couldn't see how to post a Needs Maintence log, only a Note log.

 

A-team was correct, about 15-meters away.

 

Question: How do I message the reviewer? It looks like the person that published to listing is no longer active.

[+lee737]

Really - if they want to do it with a riddle, it needs to be an unknown or letterbox hybrid, not a traditional....

[Keystone]

Question: How do I message the reviewer? It looks like the person that published to listing is no longer active.

You can see a list of the reviewers for any region by looking in the Regional Geocaching Policies Wiki. Here's a direct link to the British Columbia page. If you're unsure which of the four reviewers to write to, then write to Skookum Bear because he's the junior member of the team. If you do that, be sure to give him my regards.

[+Touchstone]

A very common beginner mistake (looks like the cache was placed the 2nd year they were caching), in which they equate *clever* with annoying. There is a right way to do this sort of thing, and a wrong way. Unfortunately, they chose the latter. To do this sort of thing correctly, you need to choose your caching environment carefully. Example below:

 

[+edexter]

I've had mixed results when requesting that a CO "correct" their coordinates. Some are happy for the help and correct them. Most simply ignore the request. No one has suggested that I remove them and in this case I would suspect they are "fuzzy" on purpose to make the cache more difficult to find (or .1m away) as noted. Most common is an abandoned cache where several folks have noting the coords are "off" and you discover this in the field after searching for a while and then reading the old logs which show the cache has always had "bad coords". If the reason the coords are "off" is due to terrain or cover issues (hillsides, valleys, dense tree cover, etc.) the best you can hope for is for the CO to notes that in the description and adds a decent location hint (always appreciated). When the cache is placed in an open setting (field, seashore) and the coords are way off it's likely the CO made an error (typo) or it's deliberate.

[+J Grouchy]

I've had mixed results when requesting that a CO "correct" their coordinates. Some are happy for the help and correct them. Most simply ignore the request. No one has suggested that I remove them and in this case I would suspect they are "fuzzy" on purpose to make the cache more difficult to find (or .1m away) as noted. Most common is an abandoned cache where several folks have noting the coords are "off" and you discover this in the field after searching for a while and then reading the old logs which show the cache has always had "bad coords". If the reason the coords are "off" is due to terrain or cover issues (hillsides, valleys, dense tree cover, etc.) the best you can hope for is for the CO to notes that in the description and adds a decent location hint (always appreciated). When the cache is placed in an open setting (field, seashore) and the coords are way off it's likely the CO made an error (typo) or it's deliberate.

 

I'll just be blunt here...

Many COs are either totally clueless about it being a problem, completely uninterested in maintaining the cache OR the cache listing, or unable to comprehend how to change the cache coordinates. I've seen everything from ignoring the problem despite multiple logs stating the problem to thinking that just typing the new coordinates into the cache description or in a 'Note' or OM log is enough. In one case, I posted a note walking the CO through how to change the cache coordinates.

 

Honestly, if someone can't figure this out - and it's really a simple concept - I have to wonder about their overall competence as a CO.

 

</bluntness>

[+The A-Team]

I'll just be blunt here...

Many COs are either totally clueless about it being a problem, completely uninterested in maintaining the cache OR the cache listing, or unable to comprehend how to change the cache coordinates. I've seen everything from ignoring the problem despite multiple logs stating the problem to thinking that just typing the new coordinates into the cache description or in a 'Note' or OM log is enough. In one case, I posted a note walking the CO through how to change the cache coordinates.

 

Honestly, if someone can't figure this out - and it's really a simple concept - I have to wonder about their overall competence as a CO.

 

</bluntness>

More has happened with the cache in question. A reviewer disabled it and apparently communicated with the CO separately about the "fuzzy" coordinates. The CO has since enabled the cache again with a comment that they've updated the coordinates. They have not. This cache is well within my notification range, and there have been no "Update coordinates" logs on this cache.

 

J Grouchy, maybe you should post your note with the walk-through?

[+GeoTrekker26]

This seems to be much ado about nothing.

 

Coords on cache (and not changed):

N 48 27.328 W 123 24.302

Coords posted by lacky:

N 48 27.324 W 123 24.301

 

Distance between the two according to FizzyCalc:

24.65 feet (7.52 meters)

 

I think this is well within the normal error range.

[+The A-Team]

This seems to be much ado about nothing.

 

Coords on cache (and not changed):

N 48 27.328 W 123 24.302

Coords posted by lacky:

N 48 27.324 W 123 24.301

 

Distance between the two according to FizzyCalc:

24.65 feet (7.52 meters)

 

I think this is well within the normal error range.

You missed a crucial part of the Lackey's log:

I marked a WP while there, but the numbers weren't as different as they should have been.

 

...as well as a few other data points:

Highlands_Guy

Found it

Found despite the incorrect coordinates. The actual location is 15-meters at 160 degrees true from the posted coordinates.

...

I just did some quick measuring on some aerial imagery based on my recollection of where the cache really is, and the coordinates are off by about 17 metres (~55 feet), give or take a few metres.

...

This is the note I was sent:

thanks for the note on Gingers Walk #1.the coords were correct for were I wanted you to arrive,then you have to read the hint to finish the search for the cache.can you please go back and deleate the other cords you have posted,other wise its just way to easy a find if you don't have to think about it.thank you very much for you help on this. cache for two

 

So, in summary, the CO used intentionally incorrect coordinates that are off by approximately 16 metres. That's what's being discussed here.

[Pup Patrol]

This seems to be much ado about nothing.

 

Coords on cache (and not changed):

N 48 27.328 W 123 24.302

Coords posted by lacky:

N 48 27.324 W 123 24.301

 

Distance between the two according to FizzyCalc:

24.65 feet (7.52 meters)

 

I think this is well within the normal error range.

You missed a crucial part of the Lackey's log:

I marked a WP while there, but the numbers weren't as different as they should have been.

 

...as well as a few other data points:

Highlands_Guy

Found it

Found despite the incorrect coordinates. The actual location is 15-meters at 160 degrees true from the posted coordinates.

...

I just did some quick measuring on some aerial imagery based on my recollection of where the cache really is, and the coordinates are off by about 17 metres (~55 feet), give or take a few metres.

...

This is the note I was sent:

thanks for the note on Gingers Walk #1.the coords were correct for were I wanted you to arrive,then you have to read the hint to finish the search for the cache.can you please go back and deleate the other cords you have posted,other wise its just way to easy a find if you don't have to think about it.thank you very much for you help on this. cache for two

 

So, in summary, the CO used intentionally incorrect coordinates that are off by approximately 16 metres. That's what's being discussed here.

 

Sounds like the wrong cache type, as well as intentionally "soft coordinates".

 

Guidelines

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

 

Traditional Caches

 

A traditional cache consists of at least a container and logbook and is located at the posted coordinates.

 

B.

[+Highlands_Guy]

 

More has happened with the cache in question. A reviewer disabled it and apparently communicated with the CO separately about the "fuzzy" coordinates. The CO has since enabled the cache again with a comment that they've updated the coordinates. They have not.

 

I noticed that. The original coordinates were 48 27.328 123 24.302. The new coordinated that the CO entered after it was disabled by the reviewer are now posted as 48 27.328 123 24.302. Exactly the same.

 

Sounds like the CO is playing games. Interesting to see how the reviewer takes the games.

[+Touchstone]

 

More has happened with the cache in question. A reviewer disabled it and apparently communicated with the CO separately about the "fuzzy" coordinates. The CO has since enabled the cache again with a comment that they've updated the coordinates. They have not.

 

I noticed that. The original coordinates were 48 27.328 123 24.302. The new coordinated that the CO entered after it was disabled by the reviewer are now posted as 48 27.328 123 24.302. Exactly the same.

 

Sounds like the CO is playing games. Interesting to see how the reviewer takes the games.

Sounds like A-Team's assessment is correct. There doesn't appear to be any change at all, nor any attempt at changing anything. If the coordinate correction log type was deleted, it would still be visible to the Reviewer, as well as the long and confused history before this episode. I agree, the cache owner is playing games. A game that doesn't usually end well.

[+GeoTrekker26]

This seems to be much ado about nothing.

 

Coords on cache (and not changed):

N 48 27.328 W 123 24.302

Coords posted by lacky:

N 48 27.324 W 123 24.301

 

Distance between the two according to FizzyCalc:

24.65 feet (7.52 meters)

 

I think this is well within the normal error range.

You missed a crucial part of the Lackey's log:

I marked a WP while there, but the numbers weren't as different as they should have been.

 

Yes I did. I took the lackey's caption at face value and didn't read any of the logs. Thanks for the correction!

[+J Grouchy]

I'll just be blunt here...

Many COs are either totally clueless about it being a problem, completely uninterested in maintaining the cache OR the cache listing, or unable to comprehend how to change the cache coordinates. I've seen everything from ignoring the problem despite multiple logs stating the problem to thinking that just typing the new coordinates into the cache description or in a 'Note' or OM log is enough. In one case, I posted a note walking the CO through how to change the cache coordinates.

 

Honestly, if someone can't figure this out - and it's really a simple concept - I have to wonder about their overall competence as a CO.

 

</bluntness>

More has happened with the cache in question. A reviewer disabled it and apparently communicated with the CO separately about the "fuzzy" coordinates. The CO has since enabled the cache again with a comment that they've updated the coordinates. They have not. This cache is well within my notification range, and there have been no "Update coordinates" logs on this cache.

 

J Grouchy, maybe you should post your note with the walk-through?

 

As I expected, the CO didn't know about the 'Update Coordates' log. I posted a note and the CO followed up with a proper coordinate change. As to how accurate the new number is...that's for others to figure out.

[+Highlands_Guy]

As I expected, the CO didn't know about the 'Update Coordates' log. I posted a note and the CO followed up with a proper coordinate change. As to how accurate the new number is...that's for others to figure out.

 

I see the revised coordinates now and they are accurate to both my GPSr and Google maps/Google earth from when I was there last week. All is good.

 

Thanks for the info here and helping me understand a bit more on the cache guidelines. It will be useful in the future.

[+emmett]

.

 

The CO desires for his cache to have a certain level of difficulty. Would not a simple solution be to change it to a puzzle cache? It would presumably be easier than many puzzle caches yet harder than a traditional cache.

 

.

[+cerberus1]

The CO desires for his cache to have a certain level of difficulty. Would not a simple solution be to change it to a puzzle cache? It would presumably be easier than many puzzle caches yet harder than a traditional cache.

Not that simple.

A Reviewer could change a cache type (we can't), but usually only when it's new, and there was an error (wrong cache type) when placed.

Mostly exceptional circumstances, IIRC...

[Pup Patrol]

The CO desires for his cache to have a certain level of difficulty. Would not a simple solution be to change it to a puzzle cache? It would presumably be easier than many puzzle caches yet harder than a traditional cache.

 

Nope, you can't change the cache type.

 

He/she would need to archive the old cache, and send in a new submission for a "?" cache.

 

B.

[+narcissa]

.

 

The CO desires for his cache to have a certain level of difficulty. Would not a simple solution be to change it to a puzzle cache? It would presumably be easier than many puzzle caches yet harder than a traditional cache.

 

.

 

The CO would have to archive and republish, but yes, a CO who wishes to obscure or obfuscate the coordinates should select another cache type.

 

When these COs get caught breaking the rules, they often whine that they did it because other cache types get less traffic.

[Keystone]

Actually, prior to the coordinate correction the best classification of the cache in question is an "offset cache." ("Go to this spot and follow these directions to get to the cache.") Most commonly expressed as a distance and bearing from the posted coordinates to the actual cache location, offset caches are properly categorized as Multi-caches.

 

But yeah, I wouldn't change it this long after publication. Better to fix the Traditional, as has now been done. Good job, forum thread!