Jump to content

coord correction


Recommended Posts

Is there way to get coordinates updated from what is posted to what is correct for a cache the owner is apparently no longer active. This  CO found nine caches and hid two under the name provided, and has not been active on the message board for a while. I just checked, not a long ago as I thought, just over one  year.

 

I know he has been contacted about correcting the coordinates on the cache page directly and via logs. 

 

Just wondering if a reviewer can change them or is that strictly up to their CO. The cache referred to is GC9Q8Q4.

 

The correct coords are in various logs so they can be seen by searchers.

  • Surprised 1
Link to comment

Correcting the coordinates is part of a cache owner's maintenance responsibilities.  It's not my job to fix them for the owner, unless the correction is more than 528 feet.  In this case, the needed correction is more like 100 feet, which the CO can do themselves using an "Update Coordinates" log.

 

If the community is truly bothered by the discrepancy, someone can log "Needs Owner Attention" / "Needs Maintenance" in an effort to attract the CO's attention.  No one has done that yet.  If that log does not produce the desired result, someone can log "Needs Reviewer Attention" / "Needs Archived" and the local Community Volunteer Reviewer (me, in this case) can decide whether to disable the cache page under the "Cache Maintenance" section of the Geocache Hiding Guidelines.

 

Or, people can continue to reference the better coordinates provided in prior logs.

  • Upvote 3
  • Helpful 3
Link to comment

There was an instance a few years back with a cache placed in a remote gully where GPS reception is less than ideal. The CO realised that when he placed the cache, particularly with the old GPSr he was using at the time (the yellow brick), and provided a helper photo on the cache page. The trouble was people weren't looking at the description before leaving home, after all it was a tradional so why would anyone do that, and with no phone reception anywhere near GZ, they ended up logging DNFs. Amongst all that, various finders posted what they thought were the "correct" coordinates, but there was almost as much spread in those as the error they were seeking to correct:

 

DoraCoordinateSpread2.jpg.cdc70a48ae4642ef714cee24862af43b.jpg

 

Things came to a head at around the time of a nearby mega in 2018, with lots of people out caching in the area and not reading the description beforehand, resulting in someone logging an NA. Eventually the CO updated the coordinates but whether they're that much closer to where the cache really is will always be a matter of contention. Pick any one of those suggested coordinates, or even their average, and someone else will reckon it's 10 or 15 metres off. The helper photo really is needed on that cache regardless, as the cache is well hidden in an area with lots of potential hiding places. When I found it in 2014, the original coordinates got me close enough that I was soon able to spot the feature in the helper photo and easily got the cache.

 

Yes, ideally the CO should be across reports of inaccurate coordinates and, when needed, recheck them and log an Update Coordinates, but sometimes you just have to do your homework beforehand and read through the description and log history. I'd rather a cache like that with coordinates that are 20 metres off than no cache there at all.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
33 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

There was an instance a few years back with a cache placed in a remote gully where GPS reception is less than ideal. The CO realised that when he placed the cache, particularly with the old GPSr he was using at the time (the yellow brick), and provided a helper photo on the cache page. The trouble was people weren't looking at the description before leaving home, after all it was a tradional so why would anyone do that, and with no phone reception anywhere near GZ, they ended up logging DNFs. Amongst all that, various finders posted what they thought were the "correct" coordinates, but there was almost as much spread in those as the error they were seeking to correct:

 

DoraCoordinateSpread2.jpg.cdc70a48ae4642ef714cee24862af43b.jpg

 

Things came to a head at around the time of a nearby mega in 2018, with lots of people out caching in the area and not reading the description beforehand, resulting in someone logging an NA. Eventually the CO updated the coordinates but whether they're that much closer to where the cache really is will always be a matter of contention. Pick any one of those suggested coordinates, or even their average, and someone else will reckon it's 10 or 15 metres off. The helper photo really is needed on that cache regardless, as the cache is well hidden in an area with lots of potential hiding places. When I found it in 2014, the original coordinates got me close enough that I was soon able to spot the feature in the helper photo and easily got the cache.

 

Yes, ideally the CO should be across reports of inaccurate coordinates and, when needed, recheck them and log an Update Coordinates, but sometimes you just have to do your homework beforehand and read through the description and log history. I'd rather a cache like that with coordinates that are 20 metres off than no cache there at all.

 

The original coordinates on that picture are certainly  a long way from the others, that are all with ten metres of each other.

 

Only been one DNF in 5 years since it was moved closer to the finders suggestions. 

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
6 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

Yes, ideally the CO should be across reports of inaccurate coordinates and, when needed, recheck them and log an Update Coordinates, but sometimes you just have to do your homework beforehand and read through the description and log history.

This was a straight up case of a slack CO, who was 'woken up' by a NA log too it seems! :)

I DNFd this one on my first try as a newbie, because I wasn't 'capable of reading past logs, reading clues or using a little bit of intuition to find a pretty easy cache'. I remember piggy backing my youngest at not quite 3 years of age looking for this, miles away from the cache of course....

Link to comment
On 6/2/2023 at 8:29 AM, JL_HSTRE said:

Always amazes me anyone can find a geocache 100+ feet off the posted coords.

 

A normal occurrence if your other 2/3rds was a FTF monster.   :)

Beta testing for newbs with no finds, and too busy to read how the hobby's played...  Her last was 400 feet off, and found it.

Link to comment
On 6/2/2023 at 2:29 PM, JL_HSTRE said:

 

Always amazes me anyone can find a geocache 100+ feet off the posted coords.

Depends on the cache. Some become more or less unfindable, when the coordinates are only 15 meters off. For others, the coordinates could be at the north pole, and you would still be able to find the cache easily with the description and the hint. I once FTF'ed a traditional, which was more than 2 km away from the listed coords.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
21 hours ago, baer2006 said:

Depends on the cache. Some become more or less unfindable, when the coordinates are only 15 meters off. For others, the coordinates could be at the north pole, and you would still be able to find the cache easily with the description and the hint. I once FTF'ed a traditional, which was more than 2 km away from the listed coords.

 

I got FTF once on one 200+ miles off.  The "CO" was a bit off on his North coords...     :laughing:

The name is what got me to notice (why I really missed the "newest in..." on our profiles), one of my favorite fly-fishing areas, and the description was on-the-money too.

Turned out to be where I thought, on Park Service property, and after I notified the Reviewer of the error and it's location, it got archived. 

I was first and last to find.

  • Funny 1
  • Love 1
Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...