Accuracy of Google sat maps

[+Doc_musketeers]

Normally, when placing a hide, we obtain at least a couple good averaged waypoints on different days (Garmin Etrex20) and navigate back to the point from various directions to check.

But on occasion we notice that if we type the coordinates into Google Maps and use the satellite or hybrid view, the waypoint appears off by maybe 10 feet in relation to some visible landmark (fence, building corner, rock, etc.). Usually still within “working radius” for a decent GZ but we’d love to be as precise as possible. 

My inclination is to assume my waypoint was off a smidge and adjust the coordinates to match the satellite image. But I realize I have no good reason to assume Google’s coordinates are any more reliable to the last decimal place than mine, just because that’s how it’s labeled on the “picture” from space. I’ve also noticed what appear to be rounding errors on the Google Map App’s part when switching between coordinate formats (eg DDM to DD) which makes me even less sure who to trust. Any insights or experiences?

[+Touchstone]

My experience tells me that online mapping resources like google maps, are good in some areas and not in others.  In other words, proceed with caution.  For the most part, I usually believe my handheld GPS before an online map. 

[Ranger Fox]

Please keep in mind the satellite maps may be taken at an angle, so there may be some skew.

This burned me quite a bit when dealing with my state's reviewer.  He kept saying that some railroad tracks were too close to the coordinates I had.  I gave him the actual coordinates of the railroad tracks from my track log (put not intended) and he didn't believe me due to what the satellite maps said.  So, in the end, I went back out there and made a video to prove my cache was farther from the railroad tracks than what he was claiming.

[+Doc_musketeers]

I guess another question has to do more with how cachers search. We have one very successful local cacher who either memorizes the sat map or prints it out and then searches without a GPSr, and our team is likely to use the map to decide which side of a building corner or other such feature to search at, so once we are within the typical accuracy of the searcher’s handheld unit, I almost wonder if “matching the map” is more instructive than true precision.

[Ranger Fox]

11 minutes ago, Doc_musketeers said:

I almost wonder if “matching the map” is more instructive than true precision.

A wonderful question!  Like so many others, the answer is, "it depends."  If people are searching by the map, matching the map is more important.  If people are searching by coordinates, coordinate accuracy is more important.  Perhaps it's better to have accurate coordinates and then either a hint or other coordinates for people searching using the map.

[+Doc_musketeers]

22 minutes ago, Ranger Fox said:

Please keep in mind the satellite maps may be taken at an angle, so there may be some skew.

This burned me quite a bit when dealing with my state's reviewer.  He kept saying that some railroad tracks were too close to the coordinates I had.  I gave him the actual coordinates of the railroad tracks from my track log (put not intended) and he didn't believe me due to what the satellite maps said.  So, in the end, I went back out there and made a video to prove my cache was farther from the railroad tracks than what he was claiming.

Wow. Great example. Thankfully in our case it’s a little less critical, and relatively small, less then 10 ft, but sometimes that’s enough to change a cacher’s search, especially in a “hidey-hole rich environment” like a boulder breakwater!

[+Touchstone]

12 minutes ago, Doc_musketeers said:

Wow. Great example. Thankfully in our case it’s a little less critical, and relatively small, less then 10 ft, but sometimes that’s enough to change a cacher’s search, especially in a “hidey-hole rich environment” like a boulder breakwater!

The breakwater example reminds me of some of the deep redwood canyons we have along the central coast of CA.  In some of those locations, reception is pretty much non existent.  Some of the early hides in these areas, knowing of the shortcomings of the technology, relied on letterbox style descriptions and explicit hints.  Nowadays, it seems like an invitation for an "evil" hide

[+arisoft]

20 minutes ago, Ranger Fox said:

A wonderful question!  Like so many others, the answer is, "it depends."  If people are searching by the map, matching the map is more important.  If people are searching by coordinates, coordinate accuracy is more important.  Perhaps it's better to have accurate coordinates and then either a hint or other coordinates for people searching using the map.

Using the GPS as the primary source of coordinates is a mandatory part of the game.

Before submitting a cache page

• Get accurate GPS coordinates.
  • GPS usage is an essential element of hiding and seeking caches.
  • The cache owner must visit the geocache location to get accurate coordinates with a GPS-enabled device.
  • For at least part of the search, the cache must require finders to navigate with a GPS-enabled device to specific coordinates necessary to finding the cache.

As you see... maps are not mentioned here. Some of my caches are difficult to find because the map is not accurate but if you use the GPS only, there is no problems.

[+Doc_musketeers]

14 minutes ago, arisoft said:

Using the GPS as the primary source of coordinates is a mandatory part of the game.

Before submitting a cache page

• Get accurate GPS coordinates.
  • GPS usage is an essential element of hiding and seeking caches.
  • The cache owner must visit the geocache location to get accurate coordinates with a GPS-enabled device.
  • For at least part of the search, the cache must require finders to navigate with a GPS-enabled device to specific coordinates necessary to finding the cache.

As you see... maps are not mentioned here. Some of my caches are difficult to find because the map is not accurate but if you use the GPS only, there is no problems.

Good point. I especially like the bullet point that CO needs to obtain coordinates while AT the location, which rules out an armchair pin drop! So that limits it to using Google and friends to improve accuracy of coordinates, but NOT using the map to supersede GPS coordinates.

[+niraD]

37 minutes ago, Doc_musketeers said:

I guess another question has to do more with how cachers search. We have one very successful local cacher who either memorizes the sat map or prints it out and then searches without a GPSr, and our team is likely to use the map to decide which side of a building corner or other such feature to search at, so once we are within the typical accuracy of the searcher’s handheld unit, I almost wonder if “matching the map” is more instructive than true precision.

I found hundreds of geocaches before I had a GPS receiver, and I did it pretty much the way you described, using online maps and satellite photos. Sometimes the marker on the satellite photos was right on top of the hide location. Sometimes not. Occasionally, Google will update the online satellite photos, and the calibration will change.

For my own geocaches, I have used online maps and satellite photos to get a first approximation of the coordinates, but I get the actual coordinates using a GPS device, and then I test the coordinates. I approach the cache location from at least 100ft/30m away, and make sure the arrow points right at the cache location as I approach. Then I repeat the process, approaching the cache location from various directions, from at least 100ft/30m away each time.

Also, for reference, see the Help Center article How to Get Accurate Coordinates.
 

 

[+Mausebiber]

Quote

the waypoint appears off by maybe 10 feet in relation to some visible landmark

How do you know that it is 10 feet off?  10 Feet ist the average accuracy of a consumer GPSr, therefore it could be very well, that you measurement was not correct.

For additional information about GPSr accuracy please see this article

or read here

[+Doc_musketeers]

23 minutes ago, Mausebiber said:

How do you know that it is 10 feet off?  10 Feet ist the average accuracy of a consumer GPSr, therefore it could be very well, that you measurement was not correct.

For additional information about GPSr accuracy please see this article

or read here

That’s pretty much my point. The ”10 feet off” is appearance on the map. easilt within GPSr accuracy - mine and the searcher. The question was more about dealing with the discrepancy between coordinates and display on the map. For instance: If I know my hide is on the front of the building, but Google Maps displays my coordinates on the side of the building ... 

[+Rebore]

17 hours ago, Doc_musketeers said:

My inclination is to assume my waypoint was off a smidge and adjust the coordinates to match the satellite image. But I realize I have no good reason to assume Google’s coordinates are any more reliable to the last decimal place than mine, just because that’s how it’s labeled on the “picture” from space.

Trust your GPSr. It will show the estimated positional error (EPE) so you know how reliable the reported position is. Google might be more precise in urban areas, when other sources (wireless access points and/or GSM transmitters) are available, but I wouldn't count on that.

Edited January 30, 2018 by Rebore

[+The A-Team]

3 hours ago, arisoft said:

Using the GPS as the primary source of coordinates is a mandatory part of the game.

^This

Geocaching is all about GPS usage. Don't use a map to get your coordinates. There's a hider near me who updated the coordinates for their cache and stated in the log that they had gotten the coordinates from an online map, and a reviewer promptly archived the cache.

[+digimuzik]

If you wanted to be really helpful and add a map-based coordinate, you could add a waypoint. But keep in mind that the satellite images or even map lines may shift over the years. There are a number of map-based mysteries around me that are pretty much unsolvable since they're based on images from 10+ years ago (though Google Earth does have a nice history feature...).

[+barefootjeff]

I've noticed places where the GPS signals are distorted by nearby landforms or structures, such as where two points ten or more metres apart consistently read the same coordinates. In such cases I always go with an averaged GPSr reading taken over multiple days, as that's what people will be using to find it, with extra hints if need be to make up for the ambiguity.

[+WarNinjas]

What I do is get the coords from my GPS.  Then I do check google earth just as a quick reference.  If it is way off then I know I might need to go check again.  Usually it is pretty close.  If it is across the street or further off then I go double check but always use the coords you get from your GPS. 

  I guess if it is only a matter of 10' you could split the difference if you are wanting it to be as close to the map and coords, 5' off for either wouldn't be a crazy big deal and might keep both kinds of cachers happy.  If it was more then 10' I would go double check it.

[+colleda]

I always use GPSr coordinates. I have three etrex20s, and an Etrex10, and use all of them to waypoint average. I have never compared them to Google maps.There's simply no need.

[+thebruce0]

The other issue with maps is which source to use? A CO might prefer Google, or Apple, or Bing, or Esri, or... each of them might have differently aligned tiles - and I've seen when checking a cache position by map. IF, big IF at any point you cannot be certain of your coordinates, you could use a mapsource and indicate in the listing that GPS reception is very poor, and the pin was visually placed using a mapsource. I find that often is helpful in very high urban centers; the downfall is if the imagery is updated, the CO needs to re-verify the visual positioning.

The best solution really is just to provide, as mentioned above, letterbox style hints and cues to find the cache if the GPS can't settle on a sufficiently accurate location.  But that's usually pretty rare occurrance tho, in my experience.

What bugs me is not knowing whether a CO used their GPS or used a Sat map to provide the coords. Occasionally the pin will land smack on top of an obvious spot, like a tree in a field. No question they used the map, especially if you settle away from the tree, and you find that the map tiles are off. That can happen if someone takes coords, checks the map, sees they're visually way off, then adjusts to the map tile instead of trusting the gps. It can be tough though - is reception bad? Or is the map tile misaligned? Well just as mentioned above, this is a GPS game. Trust the GPS first.  If you're uncertain of gps accuracy, indicate that on the listing.  Only use the map if you are absolutely positive that the map tiles are accurately aligned, and you are not confident in your gps's accuracy. (even then, indicate the map source)

Unless of course you're trying to be evil.  Then let us hate you.

[+Doc_musketeers]

42 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

That can happen if someone takes coords, checks the map, sees they're visually way off, then adjusts to the map tile instead of trusting the gps. It can be tough though - is reception bad? Or is the map tile misaligned? Well just as mentioned above, this is a GPS game. Trust the GPS first.

Exactly the scenario. We haven’t ever merely “followed the map” but it has made us wonder who is off. We usually just go back out and take a few more readings. I’ve also plugged in the map coordinates and followed those - they are usually what’s off.

But with the smartphone app bringing players into the game who might not own a separate GPSr, you wonder which THEY will trust? This is also related to an issue I brought  up on the “how to” section about driving instructions. If the tiles are off it can make a hide appear on the wrong side of a fence. If a player relied on the image instead of or even in addition to coordinates - they can end up trespassing. Sure, a note in the description can clarify (we’ve had that discussion), but I can see why some CO’s might be tempted  to adjust coordinates to alleviate the possible confusion. Again, this is all within a 10’ circle anyway. I totally agree with reliance on GPSr, I’m just noticing this discrepancy as we place more hides and wonder if it’s likely to become more of an issue with newer generations of players using smartphones. Maybe it’s just a matter of education. I wasn’t sure how accurate the maps were, hence my initial post. A good CO wants accurate coordinates. I don’t think it’s a bad thing to be concerned about it or to compare with other sources (cachers chime in about coordinates in logs all the time). The reassurance from the community to trust our coordinates is great, I think we will probably find we need to help newer players understand the limitations of online maps. 

[+thebruce0]

12 minutes ago, Doc_musketeers said:

But with the smartphone app bringing players into the game who might not own a separate GPSr, you wonder which THEY will trust?

Yep, and that's why I have no qualms about searching by gps, and also checking satellite imagery on various sources, just in case. Moreso in urban cores with lots of high rises, or just more generally populated areas where it's likely people hiding them are using maps more than gps. I encourage people insist that every cache should be placed by gps only to loosen just a little and understand that there are players out there who don't quite understand yet; and you may have a better chance finding (those) caches if you let yourself get used to checking sat imagery more often   Coordinates could be off for any number of reasons these days - whether smartphone users, dedicated gpsr users, or new users who don't know how to properly use either of those devices. Best to get acquainted with techniques that make finding them easier

 

15 minutes ago, Doc_musketeers said:

Maybe it’s just a matter of education.

Yeah, another reason why events and local community support and interaction is a good thing.  And I don't mean people saying "this is how you should do things" - that can be very standoffish and turn people away. I just mean by association with people who have more insigth and experience, it can guide newer players into a better understanding of why there are benefits to doing things the "proper" way. It's just generally better for everyone.

 

17 minutes ago, Doc_musketeers said:

(cachers chime in about coordinates in logs all the time)

Oh man. Don't you love it when someone comes along to find a 5 year old cache with hundreds of finds then states in their log that the coordinates are out?  Something's a little off here   I think people trust their gps devices (smartphone or dedicated) sometimes too much.

[+Doc_musketeers]

26 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

 

Oh man. Don't you love it when someone comes along to find a 5 year old cache with hundreds of finds then states in their log that the coordinates are out?  Something's a little off here   I think people trust their gps devices (smartphone or dedicated) sometimes too much.

Lol. A great  local cacher has a spoof LPC hide where coordinates dump you in the middle of a section of parking lot with 6 lampposts surrounding you. It’s called “1 of 6” or something similar and a clear explanation in the description ...and there are still logs saying “coordinates were 79 ft off!” To which the CO once replied “coordinates are perfect ...” 

i guess it helps to at least read the NAME of the cache even if you skip the description 

[+Doc_musketeers]

As an aside, ignoring maps can lead to downfall too. After all, what’s one of the first steps in placing a new cache? Besides searching the area for existing caches, once you type in your coordinates you are asked to confirm using what? Your coordinates displayed on an online map. Granted that process isn’t supposed to involve the micro level adjustments I was originally referring to, but sometimes I wonder if players really look at that before moving on excitedly to typing the description, etc.

case in point: we recently had a player place a hide at a specific location in honor of a family member. However the posted coordinates were off by a couple hundred feet! In fact it appeared to be in someone’s back yard. The cache name led to the correct location but it was still confusing. When a couple of us pointed this out, the CO posted updated coordinates only to have the cache instantly disabled because the ACTUAL location was too close to an existing cache. They subsequently found a new site for their hide that still met their desired theme, but I can’t believe they ever looked at where their original coordinates put you. This wasn’t “wrong side of the building” it was “wrong block!”

[+arisoft]

1 hour ago, Doc_musketeers said:

Lol. A great  local cacher has a spoof LPC hide where coordinates dump you in the middle of a section of parking lot with 6 lampposts surrounding you. It’s called “1 of 6” or something similar and a clear explanation in the description ...and there are still logs saying “coordinates were 79 ft off!” To which the CO once replied “coordinates are perfect ...” 

If geocachers think that coordinates are wrong, they shoud give better coordinates, not a distance. When there is enough data available, the CO can adjust coordinates according this information from many different sources.

[+Doc_musketeers]

14 minutes ago, arisoft said:

If geocachers think that coordinates are wrong, they shoud give better coordinates, not a distance. When there is enough data available, the CO can adjust coordinates according this information from many different sources.

Well, in this example, any log that listed more specific coordinates would probably have been deleted by the CO, lol. (Can you imagine someone posting the “correct” coordinates for a puzzle cache “coordinates were nearly 2 miles off!...”)

but your point does fall in the “don’t complain if you can’t suggest a solution” ballpark. Definitely true for most caches.

[+niraD]

51 minutes ago, arisoft said:

If geocachers think that coordinates are wrong, they shoud give better coordinates, not a distance.

Well, as Doc_musketeers mentioned, posting coordinates won't work with multi-caches or mystery/puzzle caches.

But even with traditional caches, when you find the cache, your device/app is probably telling you the distance and direction to the posted coordinates. It's easy to just post that information. Recording the actual coordinates might require an additional step or two, depending on the device/app you're using.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

On 1/29/2018 at 0:01 PM, niraD said:

I found hundreds of geocaches before I had a GPS receiver, and I did it pretty much the way you described, using online maps and satellite photos. Sometimes the marker on the satellite photos was right on top of the hide location. Sometimes not. Occasionally, Google will update the online satellite photos, and the calibration will change.

For my own geocaches, I have used online maps and satellite photos to get a first approximation of the coordinates, but I get the actual coordinates using a GPS device, and then I test the coordinates. I approach the cache location from at least 100ft/30m away, and make sure the arrow points right at the cache location as I approach. Then I repeat the process, approaching the cache location from various directions, from at least 100ft/30m away each time.

Also, for reference, see the Help Center article How to Get Accurate Coordinates.
 

 

I have also found quite a few caches from remembering what I saw on satellite imagery.  I have to wonder, though, if those that rely on satellite photos find caches in a forest or densely wooded area.  Here's a place where I may be next month and want to find a few caches.  I wonder how many I could find if I just used satellite photos.

https://www.geocaching.com/map/?1=1&ll=-1.23983,36.834771&z=17#?ll=-1.23983,36.834771&z=17

[+arisoft]

1 hour ago, Doc_musketeers said:

Well, in this example, any log that listed more specific coordinates would probably have been deleted by the CO, lol. (Can you imagine someone posting the “correct” coordinates for a puzzle cache “coordinates were nearly 2 miles off!...”)

Your example is a good example where guidelines are intentionally violated. Deletion of such finds are best to handle with appeals. Giving correct coordinates to a traditional cache can not be interpreted as spoiling because posted coordinates must be correct. There is no exception for this rule.

Cooridnate deviation of multi- and mystery caches can be presented using offset. For example N+0.004 E-0.010 without spoiling the final location.

[+Doc_musketeers]

29 minutes ago, arisoft said:

Cooridnate deviation of multi- and mystery caches can be presented using offset. For example N+0.004 E-0.010 without spoiling the final location.

I like this idea- or just message the CO.

As for the guidelines, I’m curious how many players (or even Reviewers) would consider this example a violation? The spirit of this guideline is that posted coordinates for a traditional cache should put you in a fair location for your search. Having 6 possible hiding spots equal distance and in line of sight with clear instructions seems to meet that goal. I’m not even sure it was 70 feet from coordinates to actual LPC, I haven’t looked it back up, but anyone who read the log name/description and knows anything about LPC’s would chuckle, not rant, so a challenge seems rather pharisaical.

[+thebruce0]

58 minutes ago, NYPaddleCacher said:

I have also found quite a few caches from remembering what I saw on satellite imagery.  I have to wonder, though, if those that rely on satellite photos find caches in a forest or densely wooded area.  Here's a place where I may be next month and want to find a few caches.  I wonder how many I could find if I just used satellite photos.

I've actually done this sometimes. Depends on how 'rough' the canopy is. If the sat imagery has one treetop that stands out visibly and the pin is near it, to me there's a much bigger chance that the cache is at that "big tree" and if it's obvious in my vision, that will be where I go first rather than tracking and following the gps.  But otherwise generally speaking, yeah sat imagery is useless where there's visible landmark that could be seen as the hide location.

 

40 minutes ago, arisoft said:

Your example is a good example where guidelines are intentionally violated. Deletion of such finds are best to handle with appeals. Giving correct coordinates to a traditional cache can not be interpreted as spoiling because posted coordinates must be correct. There is no exception for this rule.

Yes, if the name is in the logsheet, then the find logs can't be deleted. If there is spoiler information (coordinates aren't spoilers for traditional caches), then the log could be reinstated with the info removed, but otherwise an appeal could have the log reinstated.

 

13 minutes ago, Doc_musketeers said:

The spirit of this guideline is that posted coordinates for a traditional cache should put you in a fair location for your search. Having 6 possible hiding spots equal distance and in line of sight with clear instructions seems to meet that goal

The "spirit" of traditional cache is that the cache is at the posted coordinates. When a CO intentionally provides fuzzy coordinates, when more accurate coordinates are intentionally not used, then it's no longer a traditional, it's an offset cache and should either be completed as a multi or mystery.  If it's a traditional, then the coordintest should be at the proper location.  Arguably, the CO might be able to get away with the 'field puzzle' attribute, but I'd wager the 'puzzle' still needs to be at the posted coordinates.

For this cache in the middle of 6 lamp posts, and if it's a traditional, then anyone who posts 'correct' coordinates in their find log is doing the right thing. If the CO doesn't like it, they should make the cache a mystery or a multi (and add whatever task the reviewer might require in order to qualify it as that cache type).

[+Doc_musketeers]

 

27 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

Yes, if the name is in the logsheet, then the find logs can't be deleted. If there is spoiler information (coordinates aren't spoilers for traditional caches), then the log could be reinstated with the info removed, but otherwise an appeal could have the log reinstated.

 

The "spirit" of traditional cache is that the cache is at the posted coordinates. When a CO intentionally provides fuzzy coordinates, when more accurate coordinates are intentionally not used, then it's no longer a traditional, it's an offset cache and should either be completed as a multi or mystery.  If it's a traditional, then the coordintest should be at the proper location.  Arguably, the CO might be able to get away with the 'field puzzle' attribute, but I'd wager the 'puzzle' still needs to be at the posted coordinates.

For this cache in the middle of 6 lamp posts, and if it's a traditional, then anyone who posts 'correct' coordinates in their find log is doing the right thing. If the CO doesn't like it, they should make the cache a mystery or a multi (and add whatever task the reviewer might require in order to qualify it as that cache type).

Makes sense. Especially since as you and Arisoft pointed out the fuzziness is INTENTIONAL. Yeah, what does “field puzzle” actually cover? Seems weird and almost more confusing to call it a mystery or multi when it just requires you to walk a few extra steps. Arguably these lampposts are so close most cachers would switch to visual search mode at about the same spot... 

[Blue Square Thing]

1 hour ago, NYPaddleCacher said:

I have also found quite a few caches from remembering what I saw on satellite imagery.  I have to wonder, though, if those that rely on satellite photos find caches in a forest or densely wooded area.  Here's a place where I may be next month and want to find a few caches.  I wonder how many I could find if I just used satellite photos.

https://www.geocaching.com/map/?1=1&ll=-1.23983,36.834771&z=17#?ll=-1.23983,36.834771&z=17

It's much harder in any kind of forest. In that example, some are quite near obvious trail lines and at that point it comes down to looking for obvious hiding spots, trails leading away from the main trail etc... I've done it plenty of times, but sometimes you just need a GPS device to be certain you're in about the right place.

In the specific location you linked to, I'd say that it'd be much easier as there are so many caches at fairly regular intervals. You'll stumble across something to get a location fix I imagine. Much harder if it's one cache in a big old wood in my experience.

[+niraD]

1 hour ago, thebruce0 said:

2 hours ago, NYPaddleCacher said:

I have also found quite a few caches from remembering what I saw on satellite imagery.  I have to wonder, though, if those that rely on satellite photos find caches in a forest or densely wooded area.  Here's a place where I may be next month and want to find a few caches.  I wonder how many I could find if I just used satellite photos.

I've actually done this sometimes. Depends on how 'rough' the canopy is. If the sat imagery has one treetop that stands out visibly and the pin is near it, to me there's a much bigger chance that the cache is at that "big tree" and if it's obvious in my vision, that will be where I go first rather than tracking and following the gps.  But otherwise generally speaking, yeah sat imagery is useless where there's visible landmark that could be seen as the hide location.

I've done it too. Some are easier than others. In NYPaddleCacher's example, some of the caches are located near (possibly at) easily recognized landmarks, so identifying GZ is relatively straight-forward. For the other caches, I'd pick semi-near landmarks, and note a distance and bearing from those.

[+baer2006]

On 1/30/2018 at 7:51 PM, Doc_musketeers said:

As for the guidelines, I’m curious how many players (or even Reviewers) would consider this example a violation? The spirit of this guideline is that posted coordinates for a traditional cache should put you in a fair location for your search. Having 6 possible hiding spots equal distance and in line of sight with clear instructions seems to meet that goal. I’m not even sure it was 70 feet from coordinates to actual LPC, I haven’t looked it back up, but anyone who read the log name/description and knows anything about LPC’s would chuckle, not rant, so a challenge seems rather pharisaical.

Posting intentionally inaccurate coordinates for a traditional cache is definitely a guideline violation, but in the example with the 6 lamp posts, I probably wouldn't do anything about it. It's clearly meant as a little joke, and not at the expense of the seekers (after all, looking at 6 lamp posts won't take that long).

In general, however, I will post my own coordinates in my log, if I find a traditional to be significantly off (more than, say, 10m or so). And if such a log is deleted because the CO wants the coordinates to be inexact, I re-log my find, and add NM asking to update the coordinates. Has happened maybe 3 or 4 times in 10 years of caching. In the hypothetical case that my logs are deleted again, I'd add an NA, but this has never happened. What did happen once was that the CO called me a spoil-sport and archived his listing ... but I can live with that .

[+NYPaddleCacher]

16 minutes ago, baer2006 said:

Posting intentionally inaccurate coordinates for a traditional cache is definitely a guideline violation, but in the example with the 6 lamp posts, I probably wouldn't do anything about it. It's clearly meant as a little joke, and not at the expense of the seekers (after all, looking at 6 lamp posts won't take that long). 

I did a cache once that was in a parking lot with at least that many lamp posts that could be seen from the published coordinates.  It wasn't in any of them.  There was a large culvert under the parking lot where the cache was hidden.  

[+baer2006]

20 minutes ago, NYPaddleCacher said:

I did a cache once that was in a parking lot with at least that many lamp posts that could be seen from the published coordinates.  It wasn't in any of them.  There was a large culvert under the parking lot where the cache was hidden.  

Yes, the third dimension can make some tricky hides, where you can be at the exact coordinates, but don't have any chance to find the cache. But usually, the cache description and/or attributes should give some indication, that you are not supposed to search in the parking lot but somewhere underground. These "indications" can be quite funny ... e.g. "If you see any muggles, you are almost certainly in the wrong spot" . And to get back to topic: For such hides, relying on Google Maps for coordinates is more or less mandatory, for obvious reasons .

[+thebruce0]

35 minutes ago, NYPaddleCacher said:

I did a cache once that was in a parking lot with at least that many lamp posts that could be seen from the published coordinates.  It wasn't in any of them.  There was a large culvert under the parking lot where the cache was hidden.

Evil. What was the terrain rating? That might be the clue.

[+Doc_musketeers]

2 hours ago, baer2006 said:

Posting intentionally inaccurate coordinates for a traditional cache is definitely a guideline violation, but in the example with the 6 lamp posts, I probably wouldn't do anything about it. It's clearly meant as a little joke, and not at the expense of the seekers (after all, looking at 6 lamp posts won't take that long).

Yeah, I guess that was my feeling.

I guess you can easily argue this should technically have been a puzzle cache but that conjurs a different image: a cache needing to be solved offsite, filtered out of (or into) searches due to a technicality. It also begs the question “what is GZ?”

Most our GPSr’s list elevation. If hiding “in the 3rd dimension” as the recent cool-sounding examples, should elevation be included to meet the concept of “accurate?” I suppose it might be a fun hint on a cliff or culvert hide if nothing else.

An enjoyable hide can have many facets: A beautiful or awe-inspiring location. An evil container that you can see and touch but struggle to discover, or some other element that brings a little spice or joy to the “aha” moment. Just the fact that I can follow an arrow on my GPSr, although integral to the game, isn’t the goal. Aren’t we encouraged to ponder why we are placing a cache at a particular location? Just for someone to find? Or because there’s some reason we want to bring players here?

I think there is a world of difference between posting misleading coordinates versus supplying coordinates that place you EXACTLY where you need to be to make the Find. With the LPC example I mentioned, you aren’t being misled by the coordinates. They don’t take you to the WRONG lamppost. And You need your GPSr to locate and position yourself to find this cache. The description clearly states it is a LPC and in one of six obvious hiding spots within a few paces of GZ. There’s no “puzzle” to solve to obtain a slightly different set of coordinates, simply a largish search area at GZ.

Some may say the following is an apples/oranges comparison, but think about Earthcaches: the coordinates often place you in a central location from which to observe features that could be quite some distance away. All the info you need to claim the Find is visible from GZ or in the cache description. 

Obviously a physical cache is different, but the principal seems the same. We have “guidelines” not “laws” and “Reviewers” not a dictator. The CO’s Intent and the actual effect of a unique hide method is something I hope Reviewers — and fellow cachers — consider. Otherwise the whole game would become exactly what would happen if the CO in my example had given precise coordinates for the “one of six” at GZ: just another boring LPC.

 

[+niraD]

30 minutes ago, Doc_musketeers said:

I guess you can easily argue this should technically have been a puzzle cache but that conjurs a different image: a cache needing to be solved offsite, filtered out of (or into) searches due to a technicality. It also begs the question “what is GZ?”

I guess I've found enough mystery/puzzle caches that don't need to be solved offsite that I don't have that image of what a mystery/puzzle cache is. It's really a catch-all cache type.

And I found a mystery/puzzle cache once that was based on the Monty Hall problem. There were three waypoints (lamp posts) which represented the three doors. The prize (the cache) was behind one of the doors, and a goat (a "keep trying" message) was behind the other two doors. The idea was to retrieve one of the opaque containers (representing your first choice of door), and then read the label on the outside of the container, which told you which door was revealed to have a goat by the MC. You then had the choice to open that container (stick to your original door), or to put it back unopened and open the remaining door (changing your mind after seeing the goat). If the first container you opened was not the cache, then you were allowed to open the other unknown container (which would be the cache). The CO asked finders to post whether the first container they opened was the correct one or not.

That isn't the same as posting coordinates that are in the middle of several lamp posts (or other obvious hiding locations), but it came to mind while I was reading that discussion. And one of the longest searches I've had to make was a cache with three or four obvious hiding locations within 10 feet of GZ. It turned out that the hide didn't use any of them, but I had thoroughly searched them all before noticing the camouflaged container sitting a few feet from where I was standing.

But for a traditional cache with "soft" coordinates, I too would post accurate coordinates if the distance from GZ is enough that I notice it.

[+Doc_musketeers]

35 minutes ago, niraD said:

I guess I've found enough mystery/puzzle caches that don't need to be solved offsite that I don't have that image of what a mystery/puzzle cache is. It's really a catch-all cache type.

 

I’ve seen such examples as well, but if I’m visiting an area, or driving through, I’m likely to filter out mystery/puzzle caches because most will require enough extra effort to restrict my caching time. 

41 minutes ago, niraD said:

I

And I found a mystery/puzzle cache once that was based on the Monty Hall problem. There were three waypoints (lamp posts) which represented the three doors. The prize (the cache) was behind one of the doors, and a goat (a "keep trying" message) was behind the other two doors. The idea was to retrieve one of the opaque containers (representing your first choice of door), and then read the label on the outside of the container, which told you which door was revealed to have a goat by the MC. You then had the choice to open that container (stick to your original door), or to put it back unopened and open the remaining door (changing your mind after seeing the goat). If the first container you opened was not the cache, then you were allowed to open the other unknown container (which would be the cache). The CO asked finders to post whether the first container they opened was the correct one or not.

That sounds fun! I’ve been searching pretty far off for puzzle cache ideas so we don’t copycat anything too local.

43 minutes ago, niraD said:

But for a traditional cache with "soft" coordinates, I too would post accurate coordinates if the distance from GZ is enough that I notice it.

Lets say the “field puzzle” attribute was checked. That’s a pretty broad category if I understand it correctly. Between that and clear indications of intent in the description why GZ was chosen, would you still post “correct” coordinates on the log?

If so, why, exactly? That’s not a personal challenge, I’m honestly curious. To me, in this game, unless a CO is being careless or flagrantly violating a guideline that could lead to Geocaching’s reputation being tarnished, if they are honestly trying to fit a somewhat idiosyncratic hide into what they think is the best category, and it passed the review process, I’m not going to spoil their hide by posting what in those circumstances would be spoilers. That’s not the same as correcting an error.

I suppose I think that if you really felt it violated the guidelines, messsging the owner or even a Reviewer seems a better option. The only “complaints” on the example cache were from players who obviously didn’t bother to read the clear description or even catch the clear hint in the name.

[+thebruce0]

I think the problem is the traditional. Straight forward, the intent is to post the coordinates of the cache container.  AFAIK field puzzle can be added to a traditional, so if you were to post intentionally fuzzy coords on a Trad, then if you add that attribute you're no longer intentionally trying to deceive (yep I said it) contrary to the intent of the Trad - the hint is in the listing, there is 'more to do' as it were at gz. For a Trad the field puzzle attribute might typically mean a container still at gz but some kidn of hands on puzzle has to be solved to get at the log. Depending on the reviewer, they might let the attribute sit on a Trad if the task is to figure out which nearby LPC has the cache. Some might suggest changing it to a mystery, but then you might need to do some form of calculation to get the offset to the coordinates. *shrug*

But no, if it's a Traditional, the intent of the listing type is to provide the best coordinates you can for the cache container. Intentionally being fuzzy is contrary to the cache type.  Nothing wrong with the concept, just not as a straight-forward Traditional with no indication.

Anyone posting 'corrected coordinates' in that case is doing just what they should - helping the Trad location be more accurate to what the listing implies: The cache location.

[+Doc_musketeers]

13 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

Anyone posting 'corrected coordinates' in that case is doing just what they should - helping the Trad location be more accurate to what the listing implies: The cache location.

But how does that in any way make the game more enjoyable for anyone? I just don’t understand why anyone would feel obligated to knowingly ruin the joy of a particular cache to make it better fit into a  box. Again, if a player feels that the Type should be altered or the description isn’t clear enough, then yes! It’s our “obligation” to help improve the game by advocating for a change. But I just don’t see, in an example such as this, how it’s beneficial for anyone. We aren’t robots or sworn to always post corrected coordinates. We are encouraged to do so to improve the game. Again we are discussing a rather small circle here - larger than GPSr error, most likely, but equally likely to make supplying offset coordinates meaningless. Corrected coordinates would likely only put you slightly closer to the correct post, only eliminating the challenge of the search, not improving the search experience or eliminating the frustration of truly bad coordinates.

[+thebruce0]

25 minutes ago, Doc_musketeers said:

But how does that in any way make the game more enjoyable for anyone? I just don’t understand why anyone would feel obligated to knowingly ruin the joy of a particular cache to make it better fit into a  box.

Again, the intent of a straightforward Traditional is to lead the person to the cache. By that standard, coordinates that are intentionally not at the cache with no indication is making the game 'less enjoyable' for them by the expectation (I know people who've dealt with this, and have myself). Obviously many won't care, and it really does depend on magnitude, in this case, of the fuzziness (easier to not care about LPCs in a 30m radius, less easy to not care about a micro in the woods within 30m).  But all things being equal, a straightforward Trad should be at the coordinates.  Like I also said, if the Field Puzzle attribute were applied (approved by reviewer), then that's fine. If it's published as a mystery or multi which implies the final cache is not necessarily at the posted coordinates, that's fine. But the intent of the Traditional, as is, is to have the cache at the coordinates.

To be clear: The only context I'm saying it's not good is a straightforward traditional cache.

 

25 minutes ago, Doc_musketeers said:

We aren’t robots or sworn to always post corrected coordinates.

I didn't say a person had to post corrected coordinates.  I said they'd be doing the right if they did. If they did, they would not be doing the wrong thing. That was just in response to the sentiment that the person would be 'ruining' the cache in that case.  For a straightforward Trad, I don't think they would be - for the reasons cited above.

ETA: Ok re-reading, I said "should" which I see could be taken to mean anyone with better coordinates must post them. That's not what I was saying. This: "We are encouraged to do so to improve the game" is my point. In the case of the basic Trad, intentionally fuzzy coordinates are not a Good Thing, so posting corrected coordinates (who knows whether they were intentionally inaccurate or not?) is a Good Thing.

Edited February 2, 2018 by thebruce0

[+niraD]

57 minutes ago, Doc_musketeers said:

Lets say the “field puzzle” attribute was checked. That’s a pretty broad category if I understand it correctly. Between that and clear indications of intent in the description why GZ was chosen, would you still post “correct” coordinates on the log?

If so, why, exactly? That’s not a personal challenge, I’m honestly curious. To me, in this game, unless a CO is being careless or flagrantly violating a guideline that could lead to Geocaching’s reputation being tarnished, if they are honestly trying to fit a somewhat idiosyncratic hide into what they think is the best category, and it passed the review process, I’m not going to spoil their hide by posting what in those circumstances would be spoilers. That’s not the same as correcting an error.

There is an ancient traditional around here that was published years before I started geocaching, and before the guidelines for the various cache types were firmed up. It's really an offset cache with a field puzzle for the offset. It gets a lot of logs with corrected coordinates. I posted such a log myself, until I figured out the field puzzle and recognized it for what it was.

But except for ancient grandfathered examples like that, traditional caches will be "a container at the given coordinates". The Field Puzzle attribute doesn't change that. A traditional cache with a field puzzle can require solving some sort of puzzle to access a container at the given coordinates, but it will still be a container at the given coordinates.

If the field puzzle involves an offset of some sort, then the cache is not a traditional. It might be a mystery/puzzle cache or a multi-cache, but it is not a traditional cache. If the CO changed the cache after publication to add the offset, then the listing should be archived and a new non-traditional type listing should replace it.

Edited February 2, 2018 by niraD

[+arisoft]

21 minutes ago, Doc_musketeers said:

But how does that in any way make the game more enjoyable for anyone?

Wrong cache type does not make the game more enjoyable. I just found a T3 cache which needed ladders to log. I have no idea why terrain was wrong. Player without ladders will not be satisfied. There is no guideline to force using correct terrain but there is guideline for using correct coordinates and sometimes reviewers will disable the cache if the cache is intentionally at the wrong place. For example, a cache which was placed deep inside an underground tunnel had coordinates to the opening of the tunnel, not to the correct position. CO did not fix this until the reviewer intervened.

[+Doc_musketeers]

I noticed some clarifications that have helped answer some of my questions. Thanks. I guess I was unclear about my concern. I do understand the need for clarity in cache types, but I think I’m more concerned about how  a problem is approached, not expecting it to be ignored.

example: a newbie lists a hide as “small” and a Find log points out “a fake bolt head nano is not a Small!”

Was the Finder correct to address an incorrect size listing? Absolutely! Did they have to do it in a way that was an obvious  spoiler? A private message or less specific description would have solved the technical issue without spoiling the hide.

if you KNOW the CO intended to put you in the center of a square of lampposts, why would you choose to address your concerns in the one way that would invalidate THEIR intent?

Again, I did misinterpret some earlier comments to say a player SHOULD post a correction when really the point is it isn’t WRONG for them to do so. I agree. I just think it’s more constructive to stop and think “was this cache enjoyable to find? If there is something about it I feel should be altered, how can I best call it to the CO’s attention, and can I make a suggestion that would help them do so?”

Im still curious, how do you create any sort of offset cache that might amount to 0.001’ difference in lat or long? I think the CO tried to find what he thought was the best type to match his concept. There appears to even be a disagreement here about whether a Field Puzzle attribute would clarify ... I suppose my biggest fear is that inventive caches that don’t perfectly fit a box get shouted down instead of the community trying to create a way for them to exist. EDIT: yes, Puzzle/Mystery is a catchall ... so I guess that does work. I just look for a bit more challenge in that category than “look up from your GPSr” lol

isnt the Field Puzzle a recent addition? The game is dynamic. Outside of certain perimeters (Safety, Legality, intentionally unfindable or frustrating caches) instead of shouting “You can’t do that!” Shouldn’t we be trying to figure out how it can be done? I’m sure there are other, more clever hide ideas then my LPC example that fall between the cracks. I suppose that’s off topic, but since my OP dealt with the question of intent vs guideline it sort of comes into play.

Edited February 2, 2018 by Doc_musketeers

[+cerberus1]

37 minutes ago, Doc_musketeers said:

I noticed some clarifications that have helped answer some of my questions. Thanks. I guess I was unclear about my concern. I do understand the need for clarity in cache types, but I think I’m more concerned about how  a problem is approached, not expecting it to be ignored.

example: a newbie lists a hide as “small” and a Find log points out “a fake bolt head nano is not a Small!”

Was the Finder correct to address an incorrect size listing? Absolutely! Did they have to do it in a way that was an obvious  spoiler? A private message or less specific description would have solved the technical issue without spoiling the hide.

I sorta agree...

Though as one who got more than a few "go (pick one...) yourself" mails from COs, I now make my case via the cache page.  A Reviewer and HQ can spot those when deleted. 

 - Though I do say something like, "Thought I'd find a small for a trackable, found a micro instead." on every pill bottle "small" I've found for some time. 

[+Doc_musketeers]

35 minutes ago, cerberus1 said:

I sorta agree...

Though as one who got more than a few "go (pick one...) yourself" mails from COs, I now make my case via the cache page.  A Reviewer and HQ can spot those when deleted. 

 - Though I do say something like, "Thought I'd find a small for a trackable, found a micro instead." on every pill bottle "small" I've found for some time. 

I’ve had my messages to CO’s ignored (perhaps my tendency toward verbosity overwhelmed their ability to identify the relevant request for response) but I’ve never yet received abusive responses! I think if I messaged a CO trying to help them quietly remedy an issue with their cache and they responded abusively, it would be no holds barred on what I would then post to the cache log- not abusive but no longer trying to mitigate the “damage”’caused by describing the issue.

Edited February 2, 2018 by Doc_musketeers

[+arisoft]

1 hour ago, Doc_musketeers said:

I suppose my biggest fear is that inventive caches that don’t perfectly fit a box get shouted down instead of the community trying to create a way for them to exist. EDIT: yes, Puzzle/Mystery is a catchall ... so I guess that does work. I just look for a bit more challenge in that category than “look up from your GPSr” lol

Even mystery cache needs correct coordinates for the final. Using GPS is mandatory but you can use it many ways to find the cache.

[+baer2006]

2 hours ago, Doc_musketeers said:

Lets say the “field puzzle” attribute was checked. That’s a pretty broad category if I understand it correctly. Between that and clear indications of intent in the description why GZ was chosen, would you still post “correct” coordinates on the log?

The "clear indications of intent" can become less clear, if you don't speak the language of the cache description . I like to do a bit of geocaching while on holiday, and here in Europe this is quite often in a country, where I don't speak the local language at all. Therefore I go only for traditionals, because these should be findable given only the coordinates, D/T rating, and cache size. If I cannot reach the cache, because some tool is required - ok, bad luck. But not even finding the cache, because it's intentionally off GZ? I'm quite sure I would not like that.

Bottom line is: I think the idea "Traditional = exactly at GZ" is a good one, and should be followed.

If you want to place a funny or tricky hide by using fuzzy coordinates, create a multi cache. The off-coordinate hide is not the final, but gives the exact(!) coordinates of the final. This is perfectly conforming to the guidelines (because some parts of a cache search must be based on exact GPS coordinates, but not all), and doesn't compromise the concept of a traditional cache.