Cache accruracy, and hiding them too well

August 24, 2002

Two questions as a NEWBEE to Geocaching.

1. If someone places a cache with a non-accurate GPS (older without WAAS) and posts that the cache is there at the waypoint. Then someone with an accurate GPS shows up and finds nothing because they go to a different waypoint (the accurate WAAS one), how does this get fixed?

2. If a cache is hidden under leaves, buried, or under water, or hidden in new green leafy growth, how do you find it? I guarentee that I can hide a cache and no one will ever find it without a metal detector and crawling every square inch of the area to find it.

Comments?

August 24, 2002

In response to your questions:

1) Do your best to get accurate readings. Try to take multiple readings over a period of time and average them out. If you're still worried it may not be close enough, ask in your cache descrption for other people to post their coordinates. You can then average theirs in as well and update the cache. Keep in mind that no GPS is perfect, WAAS or not, and that you can pretty much assume there will be at minimum 50ft. of descrepancy.

2) You said the "b" word ... buried. This is strictly prohibited. My advice on this topic would be to hide it so that it is challenging, but so that people do not have to rip up the area to find it. Try to consider the climate of the area you are hiding it as well. Just because there may be growth there now, doesn't mean that it won't stick out like a sore thumb come winter.

Hope that helps!

- Dekaner of Team KKF2A

August 24, 2002

I never thought of bringing a metal detector out with me. This may help on some of the ones I couldn't find!! Now if they only make a portable one ...

- Dekaner of Team KKF2A

1.4k · August 24, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by Dekaner:
I never thought of bringing a metal detector out with me. This may help on some of the ones I couldn't find!! Now if they only make a portable one ...

- Dekaner of Team KKF2A

I've never seen a non-portable one.

====================================

As always, the above statements are just MHO.

====================================

1.4k · August 24, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by Dekaner:
I never thought of bringing a metal detector out with me. This may help on some of the ones I couldn't find!! Now if they only make a portable one ...

- Dekaner of Team KKF2A

I've never seen a non-portable one.

====================================

As always, the above statements are just MHO.

====================================

1.2k · August 24, 2002

Sure you have, at the airport security gate they have non-portable ones

Lapaglia

"Muga Muchu" (forget yourself, focus).

1.2k · August 24, 2002

Sure you have, at the airport security gate they have non-portable ones

Lapaglia

"Muga Muchu" (forget yourself, focus).

August 24, 2002

1. It is the nature of GPS that consumer units may give different readings at the same location.

The final search at the cache site is just part of the hobby. You should always start with the assumption that you will have to search a circle around the coordinates looking for the cache.

If you get very different coordinates at the actual cache, post your coordinates as part of your log -- there's even a place on the log form just for that.

2. It's up to the cache hider how difficult it should be to find the cache. As long as they indicate the difficulty in the cache description it's OK.

Thursday my find streak was broken by not one but four caches that were labeled as 4 on the difficulty scale. There will always be some people who can hide things more cleverly than I can find them. That, too, is just part of the hobby.

Oh, and in at least three, possibly all four, of the cases a metal detector wouldn't have helped.

2.6k · August 24, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by Harrald:
I've never seen a non-portable one.

====================================

As always, the above statements are just MHO.

====================================

There are metaldetector "probes" you can get. You could lash or velcro it to your walking/treking pole/s. They look like a meat thermometer.

Preparation, the first law to survival.

2.6k · August 24, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by Harrald:
I've never seen a non-portable one.

====================================

As always, the above statements are just MHO.

====================================

There are metaldetector "probes" you can get. You could lash or velcro it to your walking/treking pole/s. They look like a meat thermometer.

Preparation, the first law to survival.

August 24, 2002

quote:
Thursday my find streak was broken by not one but four caches that were labeled as 4 on the difficulty scale. There will always be some people who can hide things more cleverly than I can find them.

I don't feel a bit sorry for you Marty! We were skunked by a 1/1 hidden by a four-year-old today! I'm so embarrassed, I shouldn't even post this!

Good Luck ktjensen, It's just a game!

Where in the nursery rhyme does it say Humpty Dumpty is an egg?

August 24, 2002

quote:
Thursday my find streak was broken by not one but four caches that were labeled as 4 on the difficulty scale. There will always be some people who can hide things more cleverly than I can find them.

I don't feel a bit sorry for you Marty! We were skunked by a 1/1 hidden by a four-year-old today! I'm so embarrassed, I shouldn't even post this!

Good Luck ktjensen, It's just a game!

Where in the nursery rhyme does it say Humpty Dumpty is an egg?

1.5k · August 24, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by ktjensen:
Two questions as a NEWBEE to Geocaching.

1. If someone places a cache with a non-accurate GPS (older without WAAS) and posts that the cache is there at the waypoint. Then someone with an accurate GPS shows up and finds nothing because they go to a different waypoint (the accurate WAAS one), how does this get fixed?

Well, first off - I have one of the best handheld GPS receivers out there, but I still tend to not use the WAAS. I'm sceptical of the alleged advantages of WAAS - so I stick with the regular satellites which usually give me accuracy to 17-19 feet.

As for incorrect coordinates - I find it hard to believe that someone would hide a cache that could be WAY off from the posted coordinates, unless it was noted in the cache description. In fact, I have a cache under heavy tree cover that I went back to a second time to average its waypoints and get a more accurate reading.

If you believe the coordinates are way off, I think it wouldn't be out of line to e-mail the cache owner - give them the info of where you looked, if you looked in all the nooks, crannies, etc... they can maybe help you determine if you were in the right area.

And with accuracy, I look at it this way... people hide caches, probably having a 20-30 foot accuracy when hiding. And I find em, having about the same accuracy rating - so that leaves a big ol' 60 foot area for discrepency. But so far, most that I have found have been very close to where my GPSr indicated. I wouldn't worry about it too much.

- Toe.

--==< http://home.columbus.rr.com/rubbertoe >==--

1.5k · August 24, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by ktjensen:
Two questions as a NEWBEE to Geocaching.

1. If someone places a cache with a non-accurate GPS (older without WAAS) and posts that the cache is there at the waypoint. Then someone with an accurate GPS shows up and finds nothing because they go to a different waypoint (the accurate WAAS one), how does this get fixed?

Well, first off - I have one of the best handheld GPS receivers out there, but I still tend to not use the WAAS. I'm sceptical of the alleged advantages of WAAS - so I stick with the regular satellites which usually give me accuracy to 17-19 feet.

As for incorrect coordinates - I find it hard to believe that someone would hide a cache that could be WAY off from the posted coordinates, unless it was noted in the cache description. In fact, I have a cache under heavy tree cover that I went back to a second time to average its waypoints and get a more accurate reading.

If you believe the coordinates are way off, I think it wouldn't be out of line to e-mail the cache owner - give them the info of where you looked, if you looked in all the nooks, crannies, etc... they can maybe help you determine if you were in the right area.

And with accuracy, I look at it this way... people hide caches, probably having a 20-30 foot accuracy when hiding. And I find em, having about the same accuracy rating - so that leaves a big ol' 60 foot area for discrepency. But so far, most that I have found have been very close to where my GPSr indicated. I wouldn't worry about it too much.

- Toe.

--==< http://home.columbus.rr.com/rubbertoe >==--

August 24, 2002

I've found that with accuracy the way it is, this is a sport of determining the clues. Some caches in this area (NJ) have been very clever in the clues in ways that don't really give you the answer, but make it an amusing puzzle to solve when you hit the zone.

Some geocachers are die hard in refusing to "cheat", but sometimes there's no way to do it otherwise.

I advocate hiders getting more clever and riddle like in their clue giving. This adds to the puzzle aspect, and is likely to cut down on frowing "not found" faces.

Never hold back your step for a moment...

Never doubt that your courage will grow...

Hold your head even higher, and Into the Fire we go!

August 24, 2002

I've found that with accuracy the way it is, this is a sport of determining the clues. Some caches in this area (NJ) have been very clever in the clues in ways that don't really give you the answer, but make it an amusing puzzle to solve when you hit the zone.

Some geocachers are die hard in refusing to "cheat", but sometimes there's no way to do it otherwise.

I advocate hiders getting more clever and riddle like in their clue giving. This adds to the puzzle aspect, and is likely to cut down on frowing "not found" faces.

Never hold back your step for a moment...

Never doubt that your courage will grow...

Hold your head even higher, and Into the Fire we go!

August 24, 2002

I always cheat the clue when I print the cache page. Heck, if it weren't for the clues, in some cases, It would be a wasted trip whether over the river, throught the woods or up the mountain side.

I just came off a cache hunt where the coords were off by 65 ft on my GPS and thats with a solid lock...a hugh radius to to have to turn over every rock. Not easy to 'Leave-no-trace'.

In another instance, the cleverly crafted clue at an early Spring find saved a lot of random tramping over delicate young ground cover. Its a lot nicer place to visit today due to the cache placers clever clue.

"When you find it, its always in the last place you look."

August 25, 2002

I went out for a different cache today. I did not find my second attempted cache. This is very discouraging when I am trying to motivate my son to try this out and we can not find the caches. He mentioned that after two long one mile woods walks that he is not interested in doing this again. I can not say that I blame him. We would need to tear apart the woods to finds the cache. Not very helpful.

This one had a picture (very vague) and a bearing. Of course if the person who set the bearing knows nothing about DECLINATION then the bearing would have put me in the wrong place the whole time.

The picture was of a fallen tree and some small saplings, but no clear landmarks where in the picture the cache would be. People need to do better, clearer pictures with landmarks.

The clue was really vague as there were two identical "split" rocks that easily caused my confusion.

August 25, 2002

How about this for a better way. We need to start telling people exact directions to a cache. Maybe tell people to stand on top of an exact landmark, and walk exactly XXX paces to the cache in the exact direction (compass bearing including DECLINATION) to the cache.

If this is "cheating" then is it better that:

1. People get discouraged and give up Geocaching?

2. People tear up the area looking for the cache?

I know it is a game. But guess what: If you loose a lot I bet you do not play any more.

1.5k · August 25, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by ktjensen:
I went out for a different cache today. I did not find my second attempted cache.

This one had a picture (very vague) and a bearing. Of course if the person who set the bearing knows nothing about DECLINATION then the bearing would have put me in the wrong place the whole time.

Are you sure you are using the proper settings on your GPS? The data needs to be WGS84, and the lat/lon needs to be dd-mm.mmm If you are using something other than this, that would be your problem. Also, are you looking for incredibly hard caches to start out with?

quote:
The picture was of a fallen tree and some small saplings, but no clear landmarks where in the picture the cache would be. People need to do better, clearer pictures with landmarks.

Well, most people don't want to entirely give away the location of their cache with images. The whole idea of finding the cache is to do it in person, with a GPS. I have added a few pictures to some of my harder caches, but even then I try not to let them be too detailed.

quote:
The clue was really vague as there were two identical "split" rocks that easily caused my confusion.

What kind of readings were you getting with your GPS? Were you supposed to be close to the cache? Did you have a low accuracy rating while you were searching? I just have a hard time understanding how someone could have so much trouble.

- Toe.

--==< http://home.columbus.rr.com/rubbertoe >==--

1.5k · August 25, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by ktjensen:
We need to start telling people exact directions to a cache.

Umm... no. The whole point of geocaching is to use a GPS to guide you to the cache. Hints are good, yes... and pictures can be helpful. But what fun is "hunting" something that you know exactly where to find? Doesn't sound like fun at all, to me.

quote:
Maybe tell people to stand on top of an exact landmark, and walk exactly XXX paces to the cache in the exact direction (compass bearing including DECLINATION) to the cache.

Perhaps you could define DECLINATION for those of us who don't know. It doesn't matter in my hunting or hiding, since I don't use a compass in either situation... but your capitalized use of the word has gotten my interest.

quote:
If this is "cheating" then is it better that:
1. People get discouraged and give up Geocaching?

2. People tear up the area looking for the cache?

I don't call it cheating - I call it boring. I don't want to know how to find a cache from just reading the description. I want to HAVE to use the GPS. Giving peopled detailed instructions to the cache just takes all the "hunt" out of it. If you want to find caches easier, look for the caches with a 1/1 rating.

And as for people tearing up the area... that will happen no matter how easy or hard a cache is to find. That's just how it is, unfortunately.

quote:
I know it is a game. But guess what: If you loose a lot I bet you do not play any more.

This will sound rude - but I'm not worried about losing a few people if they are unable to figure out how to find a cache. And if they get discouraged after a couple of failed hunts, then this really isn't something for them anyway.

I try to make my cache descriptions as helpful as possible, and whenever I think I am giving too much detail I always mark it with a spoiler note - warning people not to look if they don't want the location spoiled. Some people wouldn't even do that much, and that is fine. But I would never go so far as to provide detailed directions to every one of my caches, just to keep a few less-capable yet eager geocachers from getting frustrated.

- Toe.

--==< http://home.columbus.rr.com/rubbertoe >==--

1.5k · August 25, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by ktjensen:
We need to start telling people exact directions to a cache.

Umm... no. The whole point of geocaching is to use a GPS to guide you to the cache. Hints are good, yes... and pictures can be helpful. But what fun is "hunting" something that you know exactly where to find? Doesn't sound like fun at all, to me.

quote:
Maybe tell people to stand on top of an exact landmark, and walk exactly XXX paces to the cache in the exact direction (compass bearing including DECLINATION) to the cache.

Perhaps you could define DECLINATION for those of us who don't know. It doesn't matter in my hunting or hiding, since I don't use a compass in either situation... but your capitalized use of the word has gotten my interest.

quote:
If this is "cheating" then is it better that:
1. People get discouraged and give up Geocaching?

2. People tear up the area looking for the cache?

I don't call it cheating - I call it boring. I don't want to know how to find a cache from just reading the description. I want to HAVE to use the GPS. Giving peopled detailed instructions to the cache just takes all the "hunt" out of it. If you want to find caches easier, look for the caches with a 1/1 rating.

And as for people tearing up the area... that will happen no matter how easy or hard a cache is to find. That's just how it is, unfortunately.

quote:
I know it is a game. But guess what: If you loose a lot I bet you do not play any more.

This will sound rude - but I'm not worried about losing a few people if they are unable to figure out how to find a cache. And if they get discouraged after a couple of failed hunts, then this really isn't something for them anyway.

I try to make my cache descriptions as helpful as possible, and whenever I think I am giving too much detail I always mark it with a spoiler note - warning people not to look if they don't want the location spoiled. Some people wouldn't even do that much, and that is fine. But I would never go so far as to provide detailed directions to every one of my caches, just to keep a few less-capable yet eager geocachers from getting frustrated.

- Toe.

--==< http://home.columbus.rr.com/rubbertoe >==--

9.2k · August 25, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by ktjensen:
We need to start telling people exact directions to a cache.

Nope. The day that this becomes the rule is the day I stop geocaching. I'm in it for the fun of the hunt. My 8-year old and I have been stumped many times upon our initial search, but some further effort almost always leads us to the cache. Other times, we walk right to it. All told, we have just four no-finds that didn't later become finds. And three of those caches were later archived because the cache was missing. One of them was our 3rd hunt, we wasted three hours searching for a cache that wasn't there anymore. Did it discourage us? No! It made us better hunters.

This activity has taught my daughter patience and perseverence towards a goal, as well as a love for the outdoors. I'd encourage you and your son to take a deep breath and try again, before suggesting that the rules of the game ought to change. Maybe start with some 1/1 rated caches that don't require a one-mile hike, and work your way up to the harder ones as your skills improve. Good luck!

x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-

"Daddy, are we there yet? No, .17 to go. Are we there yet? No, .16 to go....."

1.5k · August 25, 2002

Perhaps you could post the links or names of the caches that you are having problems with. That would allow everyone to take a look at them and give their opinion on if the given information is enough to find the cache.

- Toe.

--==< http://home.columbus.rr.com/rubbertoe >==--

August 25, 2002

quote:
This will sound rude - but I'm not worried about losing a few people if they are unable to figure out how to find a cache. And if they get discouraged after a couple of failed hunts, then this really isn't something for them anyway.

Upinyachit feels that if the owners provide enough information, pictures, and maybe some clues when submitting the cache, they might not get a geocacher discouraged. The number one thing, though, is posting the correct coordinates. We all understand that the weather plays a big part in it, too, but that's where the rating and the clues come in. There has been a couple of caches that we missed, but it was our own fault. We didn't read the complete cache information. All we did was enter the coords and off we went. Ever since then, we make sure we read the whole description of the cache, and then decide if we are going to use the clues or not.

Why would anyone want to discourage a future cacher is beyond me!

Duane from

Upinyachit

Our feet go where the caches are!

August 25, 2002

quote:
This will sound rude - but I'm not worried about losing a few people if they are unable to figure out how to find a cache. And if they get discouraged after a couple of failed hunts, then this really isn't something for them anyway.

Upinyachit feels that if the owners provide enough information, pictures, and maybe some clues when submitting the cache, they might not get a geocacher discouraged. The number one thing, though, is posting the correct coordinates. We all understand that the weather plays a big part in it, too, but that's where the rating and the clues come in. There has been a couple of caches that we missed, but it was our own fault. We didn't read the complete cache information. All we did was enter the coords and off we went. Ever since then, we make sure we read the whole description of the cache, and then decide if we are going to use the clues or not.

Why would anyone want to discourage a future cacher is beyond me!

Duane from

Upinyachit

Our feet go where the caches are!

August 25, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by ktjensen:
How about this for a better way. We need to start telling people exact directions to a cache. Maybe tell people to stand on top of an exact landmark, and walk exactly XXX paces to the cache in the exact direction (compass bearing including DECLINATION) to the cache.

How about we set up some 0/0 caches where the hunter emails the hider and the hider brings the cache over to hunters house?

Of course I am kidding.

I would not do a cache that had step by step directions. And I sure as heck wouldnt set one up with explicit goto directions.

August 25, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by ktjensen:
How about this for a better way. We need to start telling people exact directions to a cache. Maybe tell people to stand on top of an exact landmark, and walk exactly XXX paces to the cache in the exact direction (compass bearing including DECLINATION) to the cache.

How about we set up some 0/0 caches where the hunter emails the hider and the hider brings the cache over to hunters house?

Of course I am kidding.

I would not do a cache that had step by step directions. And I sure as heck wouldnt set one up with explicit goto directions.

1.5k · August 25, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by upinyachit:
Why would anyone want to discourage a future cacher is beyond me!

I'm not out to discourage anyone - but if someone isn't able to find my caches, and becomes discouraged and decides they don't want to look any more - I'm not going to lose any sleep over it. And I'm not going to start posting detailed directions to all my caches because I'm worried that someone will stop geocaching if I don't.

If you look at the caches I've hidden, you will see that I do my best to make them easily accessable to anyone - and I try to put a lot thought into the cache and the location, hoping that it will be fun for whoever tries to find it. I'm hardly one to discourage new geocachers.

- Toe.

--==< http://home.columbus.rr.com/rubbertoe >==--

1.5k · August 25, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by upinyachit:
Why would anyone want to discourage a future cacher is beyond me!

I'm not out to discourage anyone - but if someone isn't able to find my caches, and becomes discouraged and decides they don't want to look any more - I'm not going to lose any sleep over it. And I'm not going to start posting detailed directions to all my caches because I'm worried that someone will stop geocaching if I don't.

If you look at the caches I've hidden, you will see that I do my best to make them easily accessable to anyone - and I try to put a lot thought into the cache and the location, hoping that it will be fun for whoever tries to find it. I'm hardly one to discourage new geocachers.

- Toe.

--==< http://home.columbus.rr.com/rubbertoe >==--

August 25, 2002

Okay just put in my zip code 06492 into the Geocache machine. The top three closest are the caches I tried to find. Everyone else is finding them but I am getting hosed. I just can not find them. Really weird. I think I may be off by 20 feet or something.

When I was walking back down the trail, my GPS shows me to be 30 feet off the trail instead of exactly on it.

August 25, 2002

DECLINATION is the official term for the difference between magnetic north and actual north.

It is preety significant. Around 13 degrees in Connecticut.

24.7k · August 25, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by ktjensen:
DECLINATION is the official term for the difference between magnetic north and actual north.

It is preety significant. Around 13 degrees in Connecticut.

Well now when it comes to declination that all depends on your viewpoint. I just placed a cache with reference to MAGNETIC North. If you allowed for Declination you would be using the wrong angle. I wanted this one to be easy.

Declination is only relevant when you are using a compass to find a true direction, say North Azimuth or a Quadrant Bearing.

In all honesty is sounds like you are trying for harder caches to start with. You need to go find a simple 1 or 2 difficulty cache.

Here in Idaho I've found caches that litterly could have 500 hiding places (think of a field of rocks 2-10' deep covering an acre and a cache in the middle). Sometimes its persistance, sometimes you need to put down the GPS and say "Where would a cacher hide this" and sometimes you need to trust the GPS.

But only experience (and not always then either as I've just been skunked several times this past couple of weeks) can teach you these things.

2.6k · August 25, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by ktjensen:
the difference between magnetic north and actual north.

It is preety significant. Around 13 degrees in Connecticut.

Your getting coordinates using the timing between satilites. Magnetic north has nothing to do with it. You probably don't even have a magnetic sensor in your GPS.

Anyways the GPS can only get you within 30' or so. It doesn't matter how accurate your device is. The hider is not using the same device. Even if they did, they didn't take readings under the same conditions you did.

You have to search. The GPS will not find it for you.

Preparation, the first law to survival.

2.6k · August 25, 2002

You're getting so much good stuff from the replies above I hope you can soak it all in.

First and formost.. coordinates only get you so far. If coordinates were exact, what would be the point?

Hiding a cache so hard that no one could find it.

I don't think that's been done yet. Finding it without tearing the place up is another thing. If you make it hard to find, just make sure you rate it as a hard cache so people know what they're getting into.

As hard goes, try finding a fake rock in a field of rocks. That's hard. But people will find the cache.

You mentiond buried caches. Now, covered in a few leaves and twigs... OK. Covered with inches of dirt.... Not Ok. Having said that, I do have a cache buried in a sand bar out in the middle of nowhere. But I also give the exact locatoin paced off a know landmark in the clue. Every time I've checked on it, the area looks untouched. The wind blows the sand smooth within a day or two.

Giving exact clues

Some people do, some people don't. You don't have to. It depends on the cache, and the area. Are there an infinate number of hiding spots? Will the area be damaged if it is searched to excessivly? Do you want to be nice? It's up to you.

There is an art to writing a clue. I'd rather have no clue than one that says "Keep Looking" or "You don't need a clue" There's nothing wrong with writing an ambiguous clue. Something that might not make sense at first, but usually only makes sense after the cache is found.

I remember once cache gave the clue IES. That was the whole clue. Now what does that mean? Well, there was a sign and the cache was hidden behind the letters IES in the sign.

Trouble finding the cache

It takes time. Go after some easy ones first. 1/1 is a good start. And maybe pick ones that aren't such a long walk to begin with. Also, read the logs, when was the last time the cache was found? Has it been months? Have the last 3 people NOT found it? It may be gone.

Being new, you just may not be looking in a large enough area.

george

Remember: Half the people you meet are below average.

August 25, 2002

I use an actual Magnetic compass with a DECLINATION offset to tell me the true north direction. Unfortunately many who place Geocaches may not know about what that means. In fact your GPS has a setting to decide between Magnetic North or Actual North, that you need to pick. If your GPS is the wrong setting then you are marking the way point in the wrong place (maybe).

That said, I found that I was using the NAD27CONUS version of the DATUM instead of the WGS84 that is recommended. I am changing it, and I will try to find some 1/1 skill level caches. Maybe that will make the difference. So does everyone think the DATUM thing was putting me way off?

August 25, 2002

Since I have yet to find one, what does a Geocache look like? Is it a bag covered with leaves? Is it stuck between roicks, or under rocks? Is it in a tree? or under branhes? Is it in a can, or a plastic container?

This all sounds like a Dr. Suess thing doesn't it?

August 25, 2002

quote:
I use an actual Magnetic compass with a DECLINATION offset to tell me the true north direction. Unfortunately many who place Geocaches may not know about what that means. In fact your GPS has a setting to decide between Magnetic North or Actual North, that you need to pick. If your GPS is the wrong setting then you are marking the way point in the wrong place (maybe).

To my knowledge true/mag north setting has no bearing on the lat/lon that is displayed. N48 13.133 W122 13.133 will always be N48 13.133 W122 13.133 regardless of true/mag setting.

quote:
That said, I found that I was using the NAD27CONUS version of the DATUM instead of the WGS84 that is recommended.

This setting is important and you should use the same datum. I'm not sure right off the top of my head how far off NAD27 is from WGS84 but any difference only increases your chances of not finding the cache.

quote:
Since I have yet to find one, what does a Geocache look like? Is it a bag covered with leaves? Is it stuck between roicks, or under rocks? Is it in a tree? or under branhes? Is it in a can, or a plastic container?

Yes! Most often the cache description will specify the type of container. Good luck hunting and I would strongly recommend a couple 1/1's.

August 25, 2002

quote:
I use an actual Magnetic compass with a DECLINATION offset to tell me the true north direction. Unfortunately many who place Geocaches may not know about what that means. In fact your GPS has a setting to decide between Magnetic North or Actual North, that you need to pick. If your GPS is the wrong setting then you are marking the way point in the wrong place (maybe).

To my knowledge true/mag north setting has no bearing on the lat/lon that is displayed. N48 13.133 W122 13.133 will always be N48 13.133 W122 13.133 regardless of true/mag setting.

quote:
That said, I found that I was using the NAD27CONUS version of the DATUM instead of the WGS84 that is recommended.

This setting is important and you should use the same datum. I'm not sure right off the top of my head how far off NAD27 is from WGS84 but any difference only increases your chances of not finding the cache.

quote:
Since I have yet to find one, what does a Geocache look like? Is it a bag covered with leaves? Is it stuck between roicks, or under rocks? Is it in a tree? or under branhes? Is it in a can, or a plastic container?

Yes! Most often the cache description will specify the type of container. Good luck hunting and I would strongly recommend a couple 1/1's.

August 25, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by ktjensen:
I use an actual Magnetic compass with a DECLINATION offset to tell me the true north direction. Unfortunately many who place Geocaches may not know about what that means. In fact your GPS has a setting to decide between Magnetic North or Actual North, that you need to pick. If your GPS is the wrong setting then you are marking the way point in the wrong place (maybe).

That said, I found that I was using the NAD27CONUS version of the DATUM instead of the WGS84 that is recommended. I am changing it, and I will try to find some 1/1 skill level caches. Maybe that will make the difference. So does everyone think the DATUM thing was putting me way off?

The setting of the magnetic/true north on the GPS will affect only the bearing that the unit gives you to indicate directions, not the position.

Using the NAD27 CONUS datum instead of WGS-84 would put you off by about 128 feet at the coordinates of the caches you listed.

I have, on rare occasion, managed to find a cache that was more than 100 feet from where I expected it to be but I can tell you from experience that it's dadgum hard. If you have not found any caches before I would guess it would be extremely unlikely you'd find it with the datum set incorrectly.

I think you'll have a much better time if you adjust the datum to WGS-84.

3.5k · August 25, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by Team 5-oh!:

quote:
That said, I found that I was using the NAD27CONUS version of the DATUM instead of the WGS84 that is recommended.

This setting is important and you should use the same datum. I'm not sure right off the top of my head how far off NAD27 is from WGS84 but any difference only increases your chances of not finding the cache.

Sorry, I have not read this thread closely, but YES Datum makes a huge difference! It will vary according to where you are, but 200' is a common offset between NAD27 and WGS84. You gotta be in the correct Datum!

3.5k · August 25, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by Team 5-oh!:

quote:
That said, I found that I was using the NAD27CONUS version of the DATUM instead of the WGS84 that is recommended.

This setting is important and you should use the same datum. I'm not sure right off the top of my head how far off NAD27 is from WGS84 but any difference only increases your chances of not finding the cache.

Sorry, I have not read this thread closely, but YES Datum makes a huge difference! It will vary according to where you are, but 200' is a common offset between NAD27 and WGS84. You gotta be in the correct Datum!

9.2k · August 25, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by ktjensen:
1. If someone places a cache with a non-accurate GPS (older without WAAS) and posts that the cache is there at the waypoint. Then someone with an accurate GPS shows up and finds nothing because they go to a different waypoint (the accurate WAAS one), how does this get fixed?

... Unfortunately many who place Geocaches may not know about what that means... If your GPS is the wrong setting then you are marking the way point in the wrong place (maybe).

That said, I found that I was using the NAD27CONUS version of the DATUM instead of the WGS84 that is recommended.

1. Please adjust your Datum.

2. Please adjust your attitude towards the people who are trying their best to be helpful to you. We know how to set our GPSr's just fine, thank you.

3. Please find a cache!

x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-

"Daddy, are we there yet? No, .17 to go. Are we there yet? No, .16 to go....."

August 25, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by ktjensen:
Since I have yet to find one, what does a Geocache look like? Is it a bag covered with leaves? Is it stuck between roicks, or under rocks? Is it in a tree? or under branhes? Is it in a can, or a plastic container?

A lot of geocaches are also ammo boxes. And some caches are very creatively camouflaged.

Can you spot the cache in this picture?

It's the "rock" that the GPS is resting on. I moved it from its original location so I can take this pic but it was sitting by a fallen tree right next to a bunch of other rocks. Took me about 45 minutes to finally find it.

Have patience and get used to finding some easy ones. Before you know, you'll be hooked just like the rest of us...

1.5k · August 25, 2002

Most of mine are heavy-duty ammo cans... however, I have one that is made out of an empty TUCKS container.

The Monster Cache

Shhh - nobody needs to know that.

- Toe.

--==< http://home.columbus.rr.com/rubbertoe >==--

1.5k · August 25, 2002

Most of mine are heavy-duty ammo cans... however, I have one that is made out of an empty TUCKS container.

The Monster Cache

Shhh - nobody needs to know that.

- Toe.

--==< http://home.columbus.rr.com/rubbertoe >==--

August 26, 2002

kt...

Keep trying... I have been caching for 3 weeks now and went through the same experience you had with my 3 year old... I think her exact words were "I don't want to go treasure hunting EVER again Daddy!!!".

I flunked out on my first couple and even failed to find a couple of caches made for kids, but I persevered... I can tell you that the buzz you get from finding your first cache is worth it...

I have since found 6 caches and am feeling more confident every time I go out...

Another tip: If you can't find one, why not make one with your son and hide it for other cachers to find... I did this to celebrate my first find...

Yet another tip... The Datum was probably your main problem, but also ensure that your GSPr has the most up to date software loaded on it (as available on the manufacturers web-site)... My Magellan unit was supplied with version 2.09 of the software on it and when I checked on the web-site, I noticed that they were up to v3.12... Having downloaded that, I'm hoping for even more success...

leek

38.2k · August 26, 2002

Hehehe, I have a cach in one of those too. Of course the label was sanded off.

"Life is a daring adventure, or it is nothing" - Helen Keller

August 26, 2002

Wow!! Who would have thought that I was off by up to 200 feet by using the wrong datum. I was using the datum on most USGS maps, so I assumed (incorrectly) that www.geocaching.com would have conformed to that standard. Guess not.

So should I activate WAAS? or not? Given all the other issues.

38.2k · August 26, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by ktjensen:
Since I have yet to find one, what does a Geocache look like? Is it a bag covered with leaves? Is it

stuck between rocks, or under rocks? Is it in a tree? or under branhes? Is it in a can, or a plastic container?

It can be an ammo box, or small Gladware container. I've seen them in 35mm film cannisters and a 5 gallon, bright orange bucket. I know of several that were in a ziploc bag.

I've found them hidden in tree stumps, between rocks, under rocks, between logs, under a pile of brush and sitting out pretty much in the open.

Try starting with 1/1 caches. When you get to the area start thinking "where would I hide something around here". Remember your GPS can be off as much as 40-60 feet so you have to look all around. Look for something that looks out of place, several logs placed together, rocks that look as if they've been moved, or perhaps a pile of rocks, or bark stacked alongside a tree. Also check out small rock "caves", hollow trees (be careful of raccoons though). A hiking stick, or trekking pole is a good idea to use to poke around.

Good luck with your next hunt. I hope these forum posts have helped (and don't mind the rude ones).

[This message was edited by BrianSnat on August 26, 2002 at 04:52 AM.]

Cache accruracy, and hiding them too well

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