Do some people not understand that GPS is not exact?

November 25, 2002

Anyone else get logs on their caches from people saying the cords were off by X number of feet? I have noticed on some of my caches as well as others in the area. Now I could understand if they were getting readings of 50 70 90 or 100+ feet away that maybe the owner should go out and check.

I’m talking about people that say the cords are off by 10, 20, or 30 feet or so. I’ve had a Cacher actually say that my cords are off then proceed to post the “correct” cords according to their super perfect GPS (can you read my sarcasm here?) and when you type in these “correct” cords they are a whole 5’ from the posted ones. Do these people not understand that these thing are not exact and depending on you GPS’s capabilities (WAAS and such) we are all not going to get the same reading every time?

If I find a cache and its between 1-50’ on my non WAAS GPS, I consider the cords to be good cords.

This Isn't rocket science...

November 25, 2002

yes,I do believe some people think that.I have two gps and can set themon top of each other and they wont read the same 99% of time.all they do is get you close,then"you become the search engine"

Those that can,do; those that can't,teach; those that can't do or teach, manage

1.4k · November 25, 2002

When I tell people about geocaching many ask where the challange is if the GPS tells you right where it is.

---Real men cache in shorts.

7.4k · November 25, 2002

I find that it is usually people very new to the sport who do this. Just yesterday, someone with 15 finds posted that the coords of one of my older caches were "quite off! Never been so far off!" He logged his coordinates for comparison, and if you do the math on them, they are 35 feet off from mine. The cache is in the trees, which compounds the problem. Nonetheless, I'll probably head out in the next couple of days to take another reading and see just how far off they are.

I usually report my coordinates if they are 50 feet or more away from those posted. If the spot has a clear view of the sky and I had good signal when I visited, I may post coordinates at lesser distances.

1.5k · November 25, 2002

I think a lot of people assume GPS is exact. Coworkers raise an eyebrow to me when I explain geocaching, because they think that the GPS takes you right to it. So you can just drive up and log it. I'll cut short the forthcoming rant about how untrue that is

personally I allow for about 30 feet of error. 15 from the owner's GPS, and 15 from mine. I'd only complain about the location being off if it was by more than 40 or 50 feet, depending on tree cover.

November 25, 2002

A couple of thoughts...

First, yup, I am a newbie - doing this about 2 months with 13 finds. And I have posted my "improved" coordinates for one cache. If you still think I deserve it after reading through, flame away.

That being said, I do have a WAAS-capable GPSr, and am usually within 3-6 feet of a cache with it. Yes, I have to be standing still with it, and here around El Paso (where most of my finds are) trees are simply not an issue, so I recognize that my experience may not be applicable to all circumstances.

But when I recently did a Mega-cache, and was off by 2-3 thousandths of a minute for each cache except one where I was off by 24 thousandths, (and everyone before me has logged that part of the mega cache as a no-find) I did suspect that the posted coordinates were off, and did post my coordinates to help those who came after me.

Do you really think the people posting their coordinates are bragging? Is it not possible that they are sincerely trying to be helpful after a more difficult than usual cache hunt? Perhaps a tactful e-mailed suggestion that a little inaccuracy is an inherent part of the game and not a problem to be fixed would be a more effective way of eliminating the clutter on some logs if that is your objection to such log entries. On the other hand, can you tell me again exactly who is being hurt when people share their alternate coordinates? Is it really so impossible that other cachers might actually appreciate the tip?

- Sue

November 25, 2002

Even being new to this hobby, I know that a GPS

is not perfect !

If I can get within 100ft.

or less I consider that almost perfect, the last thing I want is my GPS to put me 10ft. from the cache, that would make the hunt not a hunt at all.

Half of the adventure is the hunt!

1.5k · November 25, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by Majormd&PUNditOK:
Is it really so impossible that other cachers might actually appreciate the tip?

I appreciate it when people post their coords - However - as a cache owner I can see how it might be annoying to have someone simply say "was off by 20 feet" (and those who say this usually don't post the coords that their GPS showed).

November 25, 2002

Honestly?

Take this from a really tech-savvy person that's pretty new at the geocache thing..

I expected at some level to be able to take the coordinates and pretty much go right to a cache. We're pretty outdoor people and the hiking part we expected. But to be quite honest the first time I actually expected a little less of a challenge in plugging in a waypoint and going to it. When that first cache wasn't where the GPS said it "should" be, made me pause a second.

That said, as a techie, my quick realization was that the technology although accurate was not pinpoint. Some people that maybe aren't of a technical orientation may have more of an expectation that the device that they paid for should be better than sliced bread and yours must not be as good. Either that or they're just the kind of people that can't/won't/don't want to accept the fact that it's not an "exact" technology. Some of those types can be downright hard to make see otherwise, as anyone in a tech support role can understand.

Face it, you have to have to be at least able to walk and chew gum at the same time to be able to use the features on most of these units, and somewhat computer savvy to deal with the software and maps if you have that type of GPSr. The average IQ of most will probably be higher than it takes to grunt. But we all know that those types of users come in all skill levels, so it's pretty much an accept it and go on kind of thing.

That said, where's my "Any" key? (grin)

Roger

7.4k · November 25, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by Majormd&PUNditOK:

Is it really so impossible that other cachers might actually appreciate the tip?

Not at all. However, in my response I was commenting not on the correction of inaccurate coordinates, but on the "correction" of coordinates that are well within the expected radius of error given the cache site environment.

5.9k · November 25, 2002

My situation was the other way around. My cache was posted with great geometry and a six foot position error. Others were not able to duplicate that.

2.6k · November 25, 2002

Why would any responsible cache hider post coordinates that were not exact!?

If you do not extend your expectations unto others, you will not be disappointed by the stupid things they do.

Mokita!

November 26, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by CCrew:
Honestly?

Take this from a really tech-savvy person that's pretty.

We're pretty outdoor people

Roger

That's like...pretty fantastic!

2.6k · November 26, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by leatherman:
Why would any responsible cache hider post coordinates that were not exact!?

I just found an interesting combined cache at Valkeakoski, Finland which consisted of multi, micro, webcam and offset cache. One point was to go to coordinates that were inaccurate, and once there you had to figure where the webcam is. This was pretty nice way to include otherwise imho quite boring and unchallenging webcam caches to the hunt

November 26, 2002

I once caught grief from a cache owner for posting my own coordinates although his were off by about 100'.

He sent me a vulgar and nasty e-mail asking how someone who had only been caching for a few months could dare question someone who had been caching for more than a year. Of course, I had about 5 times as many finds at that point in time as he did.

After 3 or 4 later finders indicated in their logs that the posted coords were off and that mine were the way to go, the coords on the cache page magically changed to match mine.

Strange, but I never heard another word from him.

Now where did I park my car???????

November 26, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by Ramness570:
Do some people not understand that GPS is not exact?

Anyone else get logs on their caches from people saying the cords were off by X number of feet? I have noticed on some of my caches as well as others in the area. Now I could understand if they were getting readings of 50 70 90 or 100+ feet away that maybe the owner should go out and check.

I’m talking about people that say the cords are off by 10, 20, or 30 feet or so. I’ve had a Cacher actually say that my cords are off then proceed to post the “correct” cords according to their super perfect GPS (can you read my sarcasm here?) and when you type in these “correct” cords they are a whole 5’ from the posted ones. Do these people not understand that these thing are not exact and depending on you GPS’s capabilities (WAAS and such) we are all not going to get the same reading every time?

If I find a cache and its between 1-50’ on my non WAAS GPS, I consider the cords to be good cords.

Second cache I found was off by 30 metres -- about 35 yards, about 100feet. It was hidden beside a rockface beside an open area, and my gps was showing quite well into the open area. A find pic from a previous finder was what helped me when I said "hmmm, that rock looks familiar, I'll sit down for a minute." Voila, la cache.

Another was an outright irresponsible set of coordinates -- 450metres off! the cache is supposed to be hidden just off a parking spot at the top of a mountain as per the hint, but the coordinates are 450m away in an area I almost killed myself. Still haven't found that 1/1 cache after three attempts, but it is a two hour drive away ...

Worst part of this last cache is that I think it was set by vacationers -- they say they had difficulty with getting good coords (never had such terrible readings) due to the mountains, and applied the standard deviation to their readings (Don't really know how you do that properly, but from my field experience on this cache it probably aggravated the problem.) Even worse is that despite the dozens of people who have found the cache and posted better coordinates, all of which are well within gps error of each other and meet the specs, major hints and pictures rather well when I tested them out another time I tried again but still failed, the owners haven't bothered to check and update the coordinates.

38.2k · November 26, 2002

I've had comments about coordinates on many of my caches. Usually good comments where they say they were right on the money, but sometimes I get a complaint. The funny thing is that on the same cache one finder will say the coordinates were "spot on" and a subsequent finder will complain that they were "way off". I ignore these because it means to me that they are perfect.

The only time I will take action is if I consistently get complaints. In which case I'll consider going back and taking another reading. If everyone is still finding the cache OK, I won't even do that, because how bad could they be?

"You can't make a man by standing a sheep on its hind legs, but by standing a flock of sheep in that position, you can make a crowd of men" -Max Beerbohm

3k · November 26, 2002

That explains the few I didn't find!

Of course it's not exact, there are too many variables. But it has been pretty darned close many times. There have been caches that we've walked right up to and then there are those that we never found. Those we vow to go back to someday.

Cache you later,

Planet

Two Wrongs Don't Make A Right, But Three Lefts Do.

November 26, 2002

On a recent hunt I noticed several "corrected" coordinates on the cache page so I entered them all into my GPS.

When, after 15 to 20 minutes at the first set of coords, I couldn't find it I switched to the second set which moved me to another area. Still no luck, so I tried the third set. New area.

After a while I had no idea whose coords I was using. I finally went back to the originals and found the cache. The additional coords made the cache much harder than it had to be.

November 26, 2002

For one of my caches I received the comment that the grid was 6m out and therefore the cache took ten minutes to find. Well excuse me how long did they expect the hunt to last? On a more serious note at the top of a wadi I have experienced the problem of being exactly at a given grid recording a good accuracy and being unable to find the cache. However as I descended down the wadi side the accuracy dropped off rapidly, increasing the search area leading to us finding the cache. Clearly the person setting the cache recorded the grid in less than ideal circumstances and this led to the subsequent confusion of being on top of the recorded grid with a good accuracy but not being at the correct location. I do believe there is case for listing the recorded accuracy where it is not good especially when it can give rise to this problem.

2.5k · November 26, 2002

I think there is a learning curve for newbies. On my first find I took my GPS right out of the box and went searching. I found the cache about 10 feet away. I posted my coordinates, which were very close to the hider's coordinates, and asked the next finder to verify my readings.

The next finder was also a newby, and his coordinates were about 10 feet off in a different direction, and he posted his coordinates, again very close to the hider's.

I think it's just a newbie's way of questioning the accuracy of their own GPSr. I was lucky to have chosen a relatively easy cache as my first find. Had my first find been harder, I may not have gotten hooked.

Having learned my lesson, I will now only post my coordinates if they are more than 50 feet away. I do expect the hider's coordinates to be properly averaged, and I do expect my GPS to get me to the area the cache is hidden in. More than 50 feet is not acceptable, the whole reason the game was started was to be able to get as close to the exact spot as possible using the improved accuracy when Selective Availability was turned off.

On my first hide, I thought my coordinates were pretty good, but received some posts questioning the accuracy, and even one no-find. I assumed that it was just newbieness, as the cache was a pretty easy find in an obvious spot.

One of the finders emailed me and told me my coordinates were off by 35 feet, and that he checked with 2 seperate Gpsr's.

At first I thought that it was a bit bold of them to assume their GPSr was more accurate than mine. I did some reading on how to properly average coordinates. I went back with this new information and tried again, the proper way. It turns out they were right and I was wrong.

So, I'm glad it was pointed out to me, since it taught me how to properly hide a cache.

Summary: I expect the hider to do their very best on posting accurate coordinates, and I expect my GPSr to get me to that spot within the accuracy of my receiver.

Don't be offended by finders posting their coordinates, since it could be newbieness or it could be they are right, but in either case, they are logging their experience and their data. That data can be examined and may provide some enlightenment as to what is actually happening.

1.5k · November 26, 2002

I usually start with a fifteen foot search radius, and then expand out from there.

On a recent hunt, we were about 30 feet away searching, when it turned out that I had set my GPS down (as I usually do at the "zero point" - I really need to bring a collapsable flag with me) about five feet away from where the cache was hidden. Ouch.

November 26, 2002

M&Ms brings up an interesting point - that there are TWO ways in which a GPSr can be "off"

1) When you are standing atop the the cache, your coordinates may be somewhat different than those recorded by the cache owner.

2) When you are somewhere other than the cache, you may be at the exact coordinates listed for the cache.

Usually, these are congruent and trivial, so way think of the error as "one" - your coordinates at the cache read 2/1000ths higher latitude than listed, and when you stand 10 feet to the south, you are "spot-on".

But abrupt chages in elevation (cliffs) or overhead cover could mean that there is another spot (or other spots) in the general vicinity where you can get a "spot-on" reading. We scoured a hilltop one time and could get to within 1-2/1000ths of the exact coordinates from two different spots about 10-15 yards apart. Spent about an hour looking before abandonding the search due to darkness. Had we ever found that cache, we would have included an encrypted hint suggesting where NOT to look.

A couple comments I want to respond to:

quote:
From Mr.Snazz:

I appreciate it when people post their coords - However - as a cache owner I can see how it might be annoying to have someone simply say "was off by 20 feet" (and those who say this usually don't post the coords that their GPS showed).

Well, what do you do when you've pretty well searched the immediate vicinity of the coordinates? You can repeat your efforts & go over the same area or fan out. A comment of "off by 20 feet" would encourage me to fan out at this stage without giving anything away. Helpful, but not spoonfeeding.

quote:
From Moun10Bike:

Not at all. However, in my response I was commenting not on the correction of inaccurate coordinates, but on the "correction" of coordinates that are well within the expected radius of error given the cache site environment.

Sounds like that's a matter of perspective - quite a few different numbers mentioned just on this thread as inherent error.

- Sue

November 26, 2002

What kills me is when people try and make corrections on Multi-caches. Someone wrote over a faded number, so you could not tell between the old and the new. The new numbers were not correct.

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?ID=19428

I finally found the cache after looking behind every sign post and bench.

November 26, 2002

Just to chime in with another possibility, what if they are searching during a time with the satellites "lined" up wrong. You wouldn't believe how often we start searching to realize that the satellites are lined up in a row and we have a 150 ft error showing. So we just keep looking until the satellites can triangulate better. On one cache we searched for 2 hours, it was in a deep valley and the cache had been placed by a vacationer who only took one reading! The cache was over 200 ft away from the coordinates when we finally found it, 2 days later.

When trying to place a cache in a similar valley a friend discovered he couldn't get coordinates more accurate than 150 feet. Instead of driving people nuts, it was decided that maybe it wasn't the best place to locate a cache.

So accuracy isn't dependant upon a GPSr or it's user all the time. Some times one person has great (16 ft) accuracy with 7 satellites while the next looker can't get more than 3 satellites and they are lined up instead of well placed.

Just a thought,

Jen

2.6k · November 26, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by Jennifer & Dean:

When trying to place a cache in a similar valley a friend discovered he couldn't get coordinates more accurate than 150 feet. Instead of driving people nuts, it was decided that maybe it wasn't the best place to locate a cache.Jen

Or just leave a good hint.

george

Pedal until your legs cramp up and then pedal some more.

November 26, 2002

We hope the location becomes a multistep cache with some orienteering involved by midsummer. It was just too deep to make a simple cache, so we are going to have fun with it. Gorgeous area, absolutely mystical. We didn't have the time to take care of it before dark, so we decided to wait.

-Jen

1.5k · November 26, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by Majormd&PUNditOK:
Well, what do you do when you've pretty well searched the immediate vicinity of the coordinates? You can repeat your efforts & go over the same area or fan out. A comment of "off by 20 feet" would encourage me to fan out at this stage without giving anything away. Helpful, but not spoonfeeding.

When that happens, post the coords of where you actually found the cache, of course. If you find the cache 20 feet away and you don't post the coords of where you did find it, you just say "20 feet off", that isn't very helpful.

November 26, 2002

One thing we like for caches is when people mention on their page the # of satellites and the accuracy they had when placeing their cache. If we see that someone had 3 satellites and 48 ft accuracy, we know to search hard in a pretty big radius.

-Jen

1.5k · November 26, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by Jennifer & Dean:
One thing we like for caches is when people mention on their page the # of satellites and the accuracy they had when placeing their cache. If we see that someone had 3 satellites and 48 ft accuracy, we know to search hard in a pretty big radius.

That's a great idea, I think I'll start doing that for my caches!

November 26, 2002

I disagree, Mr.Snazz.

One thing that has become very clear from my participation on these boards is that the amount of information/help that different cachers want varies tremendously.

If someone wants to to suggest looking over a broad area rather than looking intensely over a narrow area without giving away more information, that may be because they enjoyed the satisfaction of a cache they had to actively search for over a cache where you walk to the coordinates, look down & there it is and want to allow futute hnters the same satisfaction. It is still helpful.

"Not helpful" is an encrypted clue that I didn't look at until we'd spent 30 minutes onsite and all it said was "You locals know how I like to do things. BE PREPARED" when I was from 1600 miles away.

1.5k · November 26, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by Majormd&PUNditOK:
If someone wants to to suggest looking over a broad area rather than looking intensely over a narrow area without giving away more information, that may be because they enjoyed the satisfaction of a cache they had to actively search for over a cache where you walk to the coordinates, look down & there it is and want to allow futute hnters the same satisfaction. It is still helpful.

Are you on crack?

Seriously. Are you?

November 26, 2002

It is just a form of "customer service" to place a small note on your cache that-

***I took 4 readings coming at my placement from every possible direction, with an accuracy of 30 feet and 5 satellites locked***

I don't see why that would cause anyone problems, as a matter of fact, I think is is a courtesy that someone takes the time to "show" me the effort they put into making sure their coordinates are correct.

I've seen some pages with coordinates and the note that "It's out there, go get it." We didn't bother.

1.7k · November 26, 2002

There are at least two better ways to get the "corrected" coords to the owner of the cache without posting them with your log. One cache locally was off by over 50 feet (not much, but enough to make it hard to find in the thicket it was hidden in) and two people noted the correct coords. The first one just wrote the coords in the logbook, and the second one noted online that the coords seemed off by more than usual and that they had their coords available if the owner might find them useful.

To me, it seems that the advantage to both of these is that it puts the decision as to whether to update the coords in the hands of the owner, where it belongs.

November 26, 2002

Don't take it as an accusation about the accuracy of your cache. Instead it is the story about their experience with their GPS.

However to be usefull, they need to identify the GPS model and what kind of results they got in terms of accuracy and distance to go. This tells you more about how well they were able to use their GPS and provides additional waypoint locations to consider should you have dificulty.

The whole geeky fun of this is about using a GPS unit. Otherwise this would be too much like orientering, letterboxing, and adventures in parking.

November 26, 2002

I usually report differences of 30 feet or more in the logs as a note to those following that they have have to expand their overall search, and only if I achieve an accuracy around 10-12 feet. There's no bragging involved, just information for those who follow. If the difference is over 50 feet from the original coordinates, then I also include the actual coordinates I snapped off. I also include in the log when I've experienced that the coordinates are spot on. Is there a problem with that?

1.1k · November 26, 2002

All this talk about accuracy, noticed the following changes mentioned in a software upgrade of one particular unit.

quote:
Improved the accuracy of the estimated accuracy

That's like saying the estimated accuracy we displayed last week wasn't accurate so lets just "change" the accuracy this week and we'll review it again next week

Cheers, Kerry.

I never get lost everybody keeps telling me where to go

November 26, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by Ramness570:
Do some people not understand that GPS is not exact?

Anyone else get logs on their caches from people saying the cords were off by X number of feet

I know of a couple of caches in my area that really are almost exactly 30 feet off the posted coordinates; while I wouldn't ordinarily mention it, because I'd figure it was within our margin of error, these were cases where a number of finders ahead of me commented on the same error, all in the same direction. I'll sometimes mention it in my own log if we find that those before us were indeed correct (and their minor correction allowed us to walk right up to the cache, which it has in the past). It's certainly not the norm, though. I'm more surprised if we go to a cache and the GPS believes it's right on target.

Once recently we found a cache after a rather difficult search ("it's under a rock? there's nothing BUT rocks here!") and were careful to re-hide it just as we'd found it. The next hunters, with two finds, said, "GPS was reading 20 feet off, so we moved the cache back where it belonged." Argh. I just hope they left it under a bloody rock.

November 26, 2002

quote:
The next hunters, with two finds, said, "GPS was reading 20 feet off, so we moved the cache back where it belonged."

OK. I try, I really try, to be nonjudgmental and assume that people mean well, and believe that if you don't find other cachers' logs about the coordinates being off or their alternate coordinates helpful you should just ignore them.

But moving a cache? That is so incredibly arrogant as to be beyond belief. It doesn't matter how helpful someone meant to be, that is just wrong.

And, Mr.Snazz, no, I am not on crack. Why do you ask?

- Sue

1.5k · November 26, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by Majormd&PUNditOK:
And, Mr.Snazz, no, I am not on crack. Why do you ask?

Well, I've been trying to score some. Can you hook me up?

1.6k · November 26, 2002

Yeah, I did the newbie thing of posting coordinates. But atleast mine were right!

Anyway, most of my finds the unit is dead on. We have some pretty good hiders in the area, for the most part.

One adventure though, we forgot the printout. We got to the coordinates, nothing. Sissy seemed to remember a photo of a kid standing in water under a bush. So we searched every dadgum bush! Nothing!

Well, it was a fair walk up the beach and I wasn't ready to give up. The sand gnats and sand flies were eating us, but that only made me peeved and more determined. Man! I was getting hot at the hider! What was he thinking? Sheesh.

Finally, Sissy found the cache well over 500' away!

What the hell was this guy's problem? Huh!?

We signed the log and hightailed it out of there.

It wasn't until we got back to the truck did we realize it was an offset...

Newbies! What can I tell ya?

CR

7.4k · November 26, 2002

To clarify my own position, I do feel that it is helpful to post updated coordinates if results recorded during a visit differ significantly from the ones given for a cache. What I feel is the mark of an inexperienced geocacher is when I see a comment like "the coordinates are wrong," then see the person post coordinates that are within the expected range of error of the original ones. I would feel completely differently if the same person had said something like, "my coordinates differed from those above, so I have posted them in this log in case they may be of help to subsequent seekers."

Saying that the original coordinates are "wrong" in a case like this demonstrates a lack of understanding of the variables involved in recording coordinates with a handheld receiver. Many receivers operating under "ideal" conditions (no WAAS) will generally report position within 15 meters (~49 feet) 95% of the time according to manufacturer's spec (which is likely overstated a bit, as the manufacturers no doubt want to protect themselves). Throw in multipathing in the trees, a masking of the horizons by terrain, and poor satellite geometry and that range of error can grow significantly. The bottom line is that unless the visitor knows the conditions in and lengths to which the hider went to record coordinates for the cache, and can better them, then there is no way that he or she can declare his or her coordinates "better" and the original ones "wrong."

5.9k · November 26, 2002

I mention in a cache log "Coordinates are almost useless, they were leading me away from the area and out into the water."

But they were WAY off. I did get the new owner down the trail to the cache site a week later, stalked him for awhile, took some photos, and got the opportunity to meet him. But in hindsight "useless" may have been a bit extreme...

November 26, 2002

I didn't read one post on this topic but the subject makes me want respond right away. After 200 finds in less then a year, I think the kids finally understand that the GPS will get you close ... but not necessarily to the exact spot! That makes it fun!!!

November 26, 2002

i understand that the GPSr is not 100% exact. we also found out it can be subject to some bizzare anomalies. (we are only into geocaching for a month now.) i belv that if you practice enough you will learn to expect limitations in the units capabilities. (practiced with pencil, protractor, ruler, topo, and lensatic for years, and learned to use two lensatic compasses and compare my results.) learn to expect the worst and hope for the best.

we went out today and attempted a 4 part cache in a riverside preserve. my son and i hiked to a known point near the cache, and found it to be right on. had some water and moved to the 3rd part of the Cutting Cache. a 35mm film tube. when we approached the spot the GPSr went nuts. it was showing all kinds of direction changes. we moved off about 75 yard in the other direction and walked back in on it. the same thing happened again. zakk and i moved off again and walked in picking areas that looked cache friendly and found the cache in 25mins. i could not get a solid reading on this spot, so we moved on to the final part and it was right on.

i have to say that zakk had more fun looking for the film can in dense brush, than walking right up on the final cache. the hunt is what drives us. the gps just needs to bring me close. i will admit that the few we have found by walking right into them were a pleasant suprise also.

required reading

My first bible

November 27, 2002

First, I like to see comments on how far off finders are just to compare the different results. I have encrypted correction factors to some caches because people were not finding the waypoint and the original coordinates WERE outside the accepted accurancy range. This after I've had trouble finding the waypoints or cache. Second, I suggest people create a reference waypoint in their yard or driveway. I have one that I averaged overnight, which was well over 1,000 readings. Now see how it moves around from day to day. Also notice how it can change if you stand still for a minute and then just turn 180 degrees so you reference other satellites. This can help you get a feel for how your GPSR works. In my experience, it is reasonable to expect a radius error of up to 60 feet, though I've found about as many nearly ''spot on'' as I have way off.

Steve Bukosky N9BGH

Waukesha Wisconsin

2.6k · November 27, 2002

If you've ever played a zero spot game at a geo event you can easily see how far different the coordinates can be.

I've played it a couple of times where some the day before had picked a point but didn't mark it, the next day you get 20 people trying to find the exact spot and marking where they think the spot is with a flag and you can get an interesting spread.

Try it at the next picnic you attend, pick a nice open area with a clear view of the sky.

george

Pedal until your legs cramp up and then pedal some more.

November 28, 2002

OK here is an example of what im talking about…

Found this while looking through logs of caches I have visited

This is the found log… the whole found log! I swapped some of the #s for X to keep the guy anonymous.

"my garmin 48 showed coords as N XX° X.335 W 08X° X.152 instead of N XX° X.335 W 08X° X.151"

This Isn't rocket science...

November 29, 2002

Thanks for the insight. I think that taking an average and letting people know that the coordinates have been averaged shows that the cache owner has taken the time and effort to do it correctly. Some that I have looked for have been located "on my GPSr" in the middle of a river. ( Although that still could have been within the allowable error.) I don't see how adding the "finders coordinates" is an insult to the cache owner especially if they didn't state the method used to obtain the original coordinates.

November 29, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by Ramness570:

"my garmin 48 showed coords as N XX° X.335 W 08X° X.152 instead of N XX° X.335 W 08X° X.151"

LOL

People are idiots, what can you do? Move on.

A local cache had been placed in a site that had been used as a dump for concrete fill, and then partially covered with dirt, then left for twenty (?) years, leading to heavy tree and brush growth. Great site. There were literally hundreds of potential hiding spots, and I searched every one within 30 feet or so of where the coordinates led me on my GPSr, including a lot of time on my hands and knees or on my belly reaching into some dark hole, half expecting to pull out a bloody stump. No luck. After 45 minutes I quit. So then I go back and read the logs. The person before me had found the cache at a spot about 50 feet away, and had posted their coords. I went back with the new coords and first tried to find it with the owners coords - same place. The new coords, and we find it within 5 minutes. My coords at the hiding spot differ from the previous finders coords by 2 one-thousandths of longitude, and were exactly the same on latitude. So I posted them, not to suggest that the previous finder was wrong by 2 one-thousandths, but to show how close my reading was to hers, compared to the posted coords. It is possible that both our locations are wrong. It is possible that the cache was moved. Lots of things are possible, but the owner now has more information to help in improving his cache site, if he wants to

A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step . . . and then I get in my truck and drive the rest of the way.

Do some people not understand that GPS is not exact?

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment