Cache accruracy, and hiding them too well

38.2k · August 26, 2002

I haven't found that WAAS provides any better accuracy. I've had it both on and of and and didn't see a difference. Of course someone in a different area may have a different experience. Try it both ways and see what you come up with.

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

August 26, 2002

Be persistent! I just found one yesterday that stumped me the first time I hunted it. As it turns out, I was looking completely in the wrong area the first time (Hint was a bit tricky, but now I get it). I finally found it when I turned off the GPSr and turned it back on, let it rest quietly for about ten minutes, then resumed the hunt. All told, it took me about 1.5 hours to finally bag it. When you finally find your first, you'll be hooked.

As far as hints are concerned, I live in an area where there are only three other cachers and I'm trying to encourage the expansion of the sport. For that reason, when I place a cache, I give exact directions as to where it is, though that can be off-putting for experienced cachers. I want newcomers to find 'em, so they won't give up on the sport.

Also, if your little one is getting discouraged, try hunting one on your own and get a little experience for yourself. That way, you'll be much more of a hero in his/her eyes when you do find one.

I looked at the three caches you logged Not Found, and they looked pretty standard and not too difficult (with the exception of the 4 terrain). I think it's pretty apparent that the datum setting was the problem. Now that you're familiar with the areas, try those again.

Good luck and keep the faith!

"Man's ability to weasel out of trouble is what separates us from the animals...except weasels, of course." - Homer Simpson

20.7k · August 26, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by ktjensen:
So should I activate WAAS? or not? Given all the other issues.

I wouldn't bother. From what others have experienced, the benefits are negligible. Also, some have reported worse accuracy with WAAS enabled.

The big question is, "Did you try again and were you successful?"

I would definitely start out with easy ones that don't require a ton of walking. There is nothing more demoralizing than treking in a mile on a hot, humid day and not finding the cache. I can see how this could turn you away from the game.

If you aren't successful, why don't you team up with a friendly, local cacher to go after a couple?

1.7k · August 26, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by ktjensen:
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 http://www.geocaching.com would have conformed to that standard. Guess not.

Why conform to a standard that even USGS is trying to get rid of? Why use a datum that only applies to a single country, and not even that entire country, when geocaching is done worldwide? Why use any other datum when WGS84 is the official GPS datum? Did you somehow fail to notice the coordinates at the top of the cache page for the closest cache to your ZIP code, where it says N 41° 28.335 W 072° 49.530 (WGS-84)

I've read this entire thread, and I really get the feeling that you don't understand something very fundamental, and you need to understand it if you're going to enjoy posting in these forums: we're not stupid. Not only do we (some of us) know what declination is, but some of us even know what causes it and why it changes from year to year (moral: don't be too quick to trust the declination guide on your topo map if it's more than a few years old.) We also know that the declination at your location is about 14 degrees or so this year, which is a lot more than it is at a lot of places in the world where your post is being read, so saying that everyone everywhere must take declination into account is just a bit naive.

By way of example, the declination at my location this year is only 5 degrees (most of the difference is because I'm further west than you are, and thus the magnetic north pole is closer to true north from here.) That means that in this area, over a distance of 100 meters, the difference between a magnetic and true bearing is only about 8 meters. You can't even find the starting point that accurately if all you have is a handheld GPS, so declination is the least of your worries if all you have is a set of coords, a distance, and a bearing.

So, my advice: lighten up, don't be so quick to assume that you know more than the other guy, don't be so critical of the way others choose to do things, and get out there and find more caches.

August 26, 2002

It sounds to me like you are making this *way* too hard!

Just turn on your gps, type in the coordinates, and follow the arrow. When you get down to say, 30 feet of the cache- start looking

As for settings, use what is recommended in the geocaching faq- it does not matter which settings are better- what matters is which settings the other geocachers use when they hide the cache you are looking for.

As others said- start with some 1/1 caches.

We were unsuccessful on our first few hunts, too. But after you start finding them you develop some kind of 6th sense (or would this be the previously undsicovered 7th "geocaching" sense) and it just gets easier... sometimes too easy

Another suggestion would be to contact some other cachers in you area that seem experienced and ask if they can offer advice or even take you out on some searches.

Tara P

August 26, 2002

It sounds to me like you are making this *way* too hard!

Just turn on your gps, type in the coordinates, and follow the arrow. When you get down to say, 30 feet of the cache- start looking

As for settings, use what is recommended in the geocaching faq- it does not matter which settings are better- what matters is which settings the other geocachers use when they hide the cache you are looking for.

As others said- start with some 1/1 caches.

We were unsuccessful on our first few hunts, too. But after you start finding them you develop some kind of 6th sense (or would this be the previously undsicovered 7th "geocaching" sense) and it just gets easier... sometimes too easy

Another suggestion would be to contact some other cachers in you area that seem experienced and ask if they can offer advice or even take you out on some searches.

Tara P

20.7k · August 26, 2002

I read this thread and the attitude level was extremely high.

KT's distress was obvious because of the three failed attempts.

What's everyone else's excuse?

KT posted here to try to get help, not a bunch of attitude. Ratchet it back and try to help the newbie.

8.9k · August 26, 2002

OK - no attitude here...

KT - can I make a suggestion to you? Most of the caches in your immediate vicinity seem to be kind of high on the difficulty scale. After perusing your nearby caches from your zip code, I found that one the second page of the search is a cache called Central 'n the Hood. It is 16 miles from you, but the comments and the ratings indicate that this is a very straight-forward cache.

I know when I started I went for the easier caches first and figured things out for a while before I started tackling those harder to find caches. It will also give you that wonderful thrill of the find. You just might have a very sadistic local group.

Markwell

Chicago Geocaching

20.7k · August 26, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by Markwell:
After perusing your nearby caches from your zip code, I found that one the http://www.geocaching.com/seek/nearest_cache.asp?zip=06492+&submit1=Submit&start=25 is a cache called http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.asp?ID=27044. It is 16 miles from you, but the comments and the ratings indicate that this is a very straight-forward cache.

Read the logs for this one before you go. There are a couple of suggested coords. The main one uses a different format then typical.

8.9k · August 26, 2002

Talk about insigificant digits

Markwell

Chicago Geocaching

8.9k · August 26, 2002

Talk about insigificant digits

Markwell

Chicago Geocaching

August 26, 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

Maybe someone could come up with a combo GPSr/metal detector.

August 26, 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

Maybe someone could come up with a combo GPSr/metal detector.

August 27, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by ktjensen:
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 http://www.geocaching.com would have conformed to that standard. Guess not.

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

I had one failed attempt at an easy cache and a near miss on my second my first day out.

It has taken me a bit of time to really get comfortable with using my gps and getting myself around but I've been enjoying every minute of it even when I have struggled.

My advice for what it's worth is to

1) keep trying. Most of the fun for me at least is just getting off the couch and out into the woods. For a geek like me the cache is only the excuse.

2) Also lighten up a little. One of the things that has really attracted me to this hobby is the great folks and sense of community involved. I think you'll find the vast majority of people want you to find their caches and to have fun doing it!

It'll be well worth the effort when you find your first cache! I've still pretty new at this but I still get giddy everytime I find one

In the woods is perpetual youth."

-- Ralph Emerson

August 27, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by ktjensen:
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 http://www.geocaching.com would have conformed to that standard. Guess not.

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

I had one failed attempt at an easy cache and a near miss on my second my first day out.

It has taken me a bit of time to really get comfortable with using my gps and getting myself around but I've been enjoying every minute of it even when I have struggled.

My advice for what it's worth is to

1) keep trying. Most of the fun for me at least is just getting off the couch and out into the woods. For a geek like me the cache is only the excuse.

2) Also lighten up a little. One of the things that has really attracted me to this hobby is the great folks and sense of community involved. I think you'll find the vast majority of people want you to find their caches and to have fun doing it!

It'll be well worth the effort when you find your first cache! I've still pretty new at this but I still get giddy everytime I find one

In the woods is perpetual youth."

-- Ralph Emerson

August 28, 2002

I just tried to find a Geodetic Survey Marker last night, and I found the exact spot. BUT!! my Garmin Etrex Legend GPS (set at the correct DATUM) said the marker was 100 feet south of the spot I was standing on!!

So the GPS is off location!! I will be trying to get Garmin to do a calibration fix on this.

No wonder I can not find anything!!!

********

Did anyone mention checking the GPS with a fixed known survey marker? If you did thanks, but I can not remember reading abut it.

*********

Also I had another GEOCACHER email me and show a picture of a cache that they could never find. It was under an inch of leaves. No one could have found it without an accurate GPS, and a ton of searching.

1.7k · August 28, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by ktjensen:
I just tried to find a Geodetic Survey Marker last night, and I found the exact spot. BUT!! my Garmin Etrex Legend GPS (set at the correct DATUM) said the marker was 100 feet south of the spot I was standing on!!

You should be aware that some Geodetic Survey markers are more accurately placed than others. If you were looking for a benchmark, for example, its published location might only be accurate to within 6 seconds, but its elevation is very accurate. Depending on where you are on the earth, 6 seconds can be as much as 600 feet. Put simply: your GPS might be "right" and the datasheet for that marker might be "wrong."

If you're checking the accuracy of your receiver, make sure to check it against a horizontal control point, which is much more precisely surveyed as to latitude and longitude.

August 28, 2002

I've only found one cache that was actually at the coordinates given. Most of them have been off by 15 to 35 feet. When you get close, you need to look for foot prints, wear patterns, etc. (essentially you get become an old fashioned tracker). However, when I once used the wrong datum, I was over a mile off and heading into someone's front yard, a definite no-no as far as hiding goes. After changing the datum I was in the correct area. I've also found that without the clues/cheats some of the hiding places are just too difficult to find. Hunting for a cache is good, but 30+ minutes of searching is not so good.

August 28, 2002

ktjenses, to test the accuracy of your GPS why don't you go and hide something, or mark a spot, then leave the area. Once you're sufficiently far away try to "find" your marked spot again. After doing just this on a recent trip I was off by 12' when I came back to the spot again 1 hour later.

August 28, 2002

Are these HCP (Horizontal Control Points) listed as such on the benchmark survey marker list here ?? http://www.geocaching.com/mark/

This really takes the cake. Another way to be completely off when you check on GPS accuracy.

I am getting some serious education here. What about the poor beginning GEOCACACHER who has no idea about all this?

2.3k · August 28, 2002

From a mathematical point of view, a placers EPE and a finders EPE doesn't add algebraically.

If one has 10 meters and the other has 15 meters, the combined EPE will be 18 meters. Computed as sqrt(epe1^2+epe2^2).

Think about it: Both EPE's describe a circle, which to some extent overlap each other.

Myself, I like caches that are fairly obvious, once you've managed to reach the correct position, as far as that is possible, with our receivers. But that's my taste.

Metal detectors are banned in Sweden, since they were used to dig up all kinds of old treasures (from an era long before the indians discovered Columbus).

Anders

1.7k · August 28, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by ktjensen:
Are these HCP (Horizontal Control Points) listed as such on the benchmark survey marker list here ?? http://www.geocaching.com/mark/

Yes, they are. On the list for my area, it shows "horizontal control disk" in the "type" column. You can probably get accurate values for triangulation or traverse stations, too. The thing to be wary of is this sentence on the disc's description page: "Coordinates may not be exact. Altitude is ADJUSTED and location is SCALED. (more info)" In the case of the benchmark disk I looked at, the "more info" link leads you to this note: "The horizontal coordinates were scaled from a topographic map and have an estimated accuracy of +/- 6 seconds."

An ADJUSTED location is probably okay, because that usually seems to mean that they just did a datum conversion.

20.7k · August 28, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by ktjensen:
This really takes the cake. Another way to be completely off when you check on GPS accuracy.

I am getting some serious education here. What about the poor beginning GEOCACACHER who has no idea about all this?

I'm lucky. I bought my GPSr and went right out and found my first cache. I didn't have to consider datums, declination, et al.

I suspect that your GPSr is fine. Its pretty rare to get a bad one. Its too bad there aren't more 'easy' caches in your area. I think the best thing for you to do is find a cache near you that doesn't require a long hike. Get out and try to find it. Since you don't have to deal with the long hike, you will be able to put more effort into finding the cache.

Which brings us to the most important part (and is on point with your original question). Once you are in the general area, How do you find the cache that someone so devilishly hid?

There was a thread related to this a while back. I searched for it and found this: http://opentopic.Groundspeak.com/0/OpenTopic?a=tpc&s=1750973553&f=3000917383&m=9450970064&r=1570980064#1570980064

Give it a read. Maybe it will help.

1.5k · August 28, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by sbell111:
I read this thread and the attitude level was extremely high.

What's everyone else's excuse?

People tend to get irritated when someone new comes along, can't manage to find his first few caches - but seemingly blames everyone else. Talking about poor accuracy, poor hints, bad descriptions, incorrect bearings, etc.

Coming in and asking for help is one thing, but when you come in with the apparent attitude that everyone else is doing something wrong - and that is the only reason you can't find the caches... well, that is going to bother some folks.

I've got no problems with the guy... actually exchanged a few e-mails with him in attempts to figure out what the problem was. And, actually - I just read back through the posts and I don't see too much attitude, really.

- Toe.

--==< Rubbertoe's WEBCAM >==--

1.5k · August 28, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by sbell111:
I read this thread and the attitude level was extremely high.

What's everyone else's excuse?

People tend to get irritated when someone new comes along, can't manage to find his first few caches - but seemingly blames everyone else. Talking about poor accuracy, poor hints, bad descriptions, incorrect bearings, etc.

Coming in and asking for help is one thing, but when you come in with the apparent attitude that everyone else is doing something wrong - and that is the only reason you can't find the caches... well, that is going to bother some folks.

I've got no problems with the guy... actually exchanged a few e-mails with him in attempts to figure out what the problem was. And, actually - I just read back through the posts and I don't see too much attitude, really.

- Toe.

--==< Rubbertoe's WEBCAM >==--

August 28, 2002

Sorry folks this is my New York - New England flippant attitude thing showing up here in my posted messages.

If you lived in this area you would know why many of us have this little dark cloud floating over our head. Way too many people, and cost of living (cost of recreation too) that stresses you out. We have to pay $12 on a weekend to go to our own state parks (unless you get the season pass).

2.6k · August 28, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by ktjensen:
Way too many people, and cost of living (cost of recreation too) that stresses you out. We have to pay $12 on a weekend to go to our own state parks (unless you get the season pass).

Some great small towns in the south west. Lowest cost of living in the country.

You could work at 7-11 and still make it.

Not as many people.

Preparation, the first law to survival.

20.7k · August 28, 2002

Whoa! Flag on the play.

How can you suggest that KT move from being convenient to the best darn city in the world to a small town in the southwest? If anything, we should all be jealous of those fortunate ones that have easy access to the City.

2.6k · August 28, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by sbell111:
we should all be jealous of those

Not even remotelly Jealous.

Preparation, the first law to survival.

August 28, 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?

Man,

I don't know exactly how far, but far off!

Don't give up. This is a fun hobby. Like most stuff, there is a small learning curve, then lots of fun.

Keep on caching!

Bluespreacher

"We've got the hardware and the software, the plans and the maps ..." -- Citizen Wayne Kramer

3.1k · August 29, 2002

quote:
Dekaner said:
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 ...

Maybe you mean something like this foot-mounted one. Anybody tried one of these?

2.5k · August 29, 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?

If you find a cache that has inaccurate coordinates, you can post the coordinates you read in your log. This way future seekers will have another set of coordinates to work off of if they have no luck with the original coordinates. If enough finders' coordinates reflect the actual coordinates then the hider should adjust the posted coordinates. The first cache I ever hid was somewhat off, and after a couple of feedbacks from seekers, I went out and took new readings, spending more time at the site to insure the new readings were as accurate as possible.

quote:
Originally posted by ktjensen:
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?

I'd take that bet. If the coordinates are accurate and the cache is there, I'd find it. It may take some time. The exception is if its buried. I would need to know that ahead of time so that I can bring my metal detector, and naturally, there would need to be some metal in the cache, and not buried so deep that the detector would not pick it up. But that's beside the point since they are not supposed to be buried in the first place. As for covered with leaves or new growth etc., it helps to have a stick to poke around with. Searching every square inch is part of the game.

August 29, 2002

kt,

If you think your GPS is way off, here's an easy way to check the accuracy.

If there is a window near your computer, put your GPS by the window and get the coordinates of your location. No window? Go outside.

Once you have the coordinates, go to www.lostoutdoors.com and click on "Mapmaker". Enter your coordinates and tell it to make the map. What you'll get is an aerial photo of your neighborhood. The dot should be right on your house (or wherever you were).

The photos are also very helpful when seeking a cache.

Good luck!

9.1k · August 29, 2002

Actually, Geospotter, the dot on the picture should be 60 feet SOUTH of the building, until Garmin fixes the defect with the Etrex Legend.

quote:
Originally posted by ktjensen:
I have an Etrex Legend and I seriously think the Etrex could be off by 60 feet south of the actual waypoint. I have emailed Garmin (who looks like they actually read email, and actually respond intelligently to them) and I am awaiting a response.

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....."

9.1k · August 29, 2002

Actually, Geospotter, the dot on the picture should be 60 feet SOUTH of the building, until Garmin fixes the defect with the Etrex Legend.

quote:
Originally posted by ktjensen:
I have an Etrex Legend and I seriously think the Etrex could be off by 60 feet south of the actual waypoint. I have emailed Garmin (who looks like they actually read email, and actually respond intelligently to them) and I am awaiting a response.

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 31, 2002

I found two Microcaches with help. (Thanks Suzzana and boyfriend!!)

********

These are being hidden way way way way way too too too hard. Everyone who I talk to, who is a beginner says the same thing.

The clues given in general are very very useless at least 50% of the time.

If you post a spoiler, please post a real spoiler, not just another clue. Tell the exact location, but put it in code.

The rating system must be for all GEOCACHERS as experts. A 1 means an expert should be able to find it in 15 minites. A 5 means an expert will be challenged to find it in a few days.

Is this what Geocaching is all about?

(now putting on asbestos suit for the flame war!!)

2.6k · August 31, 2002

The system works or no one would find any caches.

Not every hider uses the same guide lines when they plant a cache. You can't expect everyone to do it the same way.

If all caches were the same it would get boring after a few finds.

Your being so critical your making this unfun for yourself.

To each his own, though. You get out what you put in.

Quit blaming others. Put more effort into it.

Preparation, the first law to survival.

August 31, 2002

I was going to check them out to offer further advice, but you didn't log them yet.

It does get easier after a while, but a 1 can generally be found without much trouble- you get to the area, and the spot is fairly obvious.

Remember though, the hider does the rating, and one person's 1 is anothers 3 (or 5). We have learned that when seaching for one particular cacher's hides, we add a couple of points to the ratings. His "short walks" are long, exhausting hikes to US... And another, always rates them 3/1, even though we have had no trouble finding them, so we know not to be turned off by his "3"s on future caches.

Here are some examples of our finds- We are walking along the path, the numbers are dropping fast, suddenly, they hit 20, then start to go up again... so we backtrack to the point where they changed, then look around in a 20 foot circle for possible "hiding spots". We see a fallen tree... look inside- there's the cache That's a 1. If you expect it to be *easier* than that- then I guess geocaching isn't your sport

That's basically how it is every time- the differences being- the distance from the path (which makes it harder, as we have a larger circle to search); the number of possible hiding spots- we searched for one the other day that could have been in around 100 places...; the actual hiding spot- it might be in a stump or fallen tree, under some rocks, in the fork of a tree, under a ledge, under a bush, etc.

We have had a few that were really hard to find, and we said if that had been our first search, we may never have tried again! Micros, BTW are particularly hard to find- because of their size, the possible hiding places increases. Look for some one gallon pretzel jars or a few 10 lb buckets and it is much simpler!

It might be that you are expecting too much... or it might be the hiders in your area are hiding them too well... Try taking a day trip to another area for some 1s.

Tara P

August 31, 2002

I was going to check them out to offer further advice, but you didn't log them yet.

It does get easier after a while, but a 1 can generally be found without much trouble- you get to the area, and the spot is fairly obvious.

Remember though, the hider does the rating, and one person's 1 is anothers 3 (or 5). We have learned that when seaching for one particular cacher's hides, we add a couple of points to the ratings. His "short walks" are long, exhausting hikes to US... And another, always rates them 3/1, even though we have had no trouble finding them, so we know not to be turned off by his "3"s on future caches.

Here are some examples of our finds- We are walking along the path, the numbers are dropping fast, suddenly, they hit 20, then start to go up again... so we backtrack to the point where they changed, then look around in a 20 foot circle for possible "hiding spots". We see a fallen tree... look inside- there's the cache That's a 1. If you expect it to be *easier* than that- then I guess geocaching isn't your sport

That's basically how it is every time- the differences being- the distance from the path (which makes it harder, as we have a larger circle to search); the number of possible hiding spots- we searched for one the other day that could have been in around 100 places...; the actual hiding spot- it might be in a stump or fallen tree, under some rocks, in the fork of a tree, under a ledge, under a bush, etc.

We have had a few that were really hard to find, and we said if that had been our first search, we may never have tried again! Micros, BTW are particularly hard to find- because of their size, the possible hiding places increases. Look for some one gallon pretzel jars or a few 10 lb buckets and it is much simpler!

It might be that you are expecting too much... or it might be the hiders in your area are hiding them too well... Try taking a day trip to another area for some 1s.

Tara P

August 31, 2002

I have been reading the forums for awhile now and have never seen anyone have as much trouble as this guy, everyone else doesn't seem to be having a problem, so it makes me wonder where the problem is really at!

August 31, 2002

I have been reading the forums for awhile now and have never seen anyone have as much trouble as this guy, everyone else doesn't seem to be having a problem, so it makes me wonder where the problem is really at!

August 31, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by sbell111:
Whoa! Flag on the play.

How can you suggest that KT move from being convenient to the best darn city in the world to a small town in the southwest? If anything, we should all be jealous of those fortunate ones that have easy access to the City.

How interesting. It appears to me that wherever sbell111 lives, the meaning of the phrase "jealous of" is what (out here in the Pacific Northwest) we mean when we use the phrase "overwhelming pity for".

2.6k · August 31, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by Kodak's4:

How interesting. It appears to me that wherever sbell111 lives, the meaning of the phrase "jealous of" is what (out here in the Pacific Northwest) we mean when we use the phrase "overwhelming pity for".

Preparation, the first law to survival.

August 31, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by ktjensen:
I found two Microcaches with help. (Thanks Suzzana and boyfriend!!)

********

These are being hidden way way way way way too too too hard. Everyone who I talk to, who is a beginner says the same thing.

The clues given in general are very very useless at least 50% of the time...

You may as well cut your losses now... I'll give you $25.00 for your GPSr and accessories! Have you considered "letter boxing"? The directions usually walk you right to them. However, once you understand what your GPSr is telling you cache hunting will get much easier.

3k · August 31, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by ktjensen:
I found two Microcaches with help.

I see you haven't logged your two finds yet ... that's surprising, since they were so hard-won.

1k · August 31, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by BassoonPilot:
I see you haven't logged your two finds yet ... that's surprising, since they were so hard-won.

Perhaps the cache log pages are way too hard to find as well

Living on Earth is expensive, but it does include a free trip around the sun.

1k · August 31, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by BassoonPilot:
I see you haven't logged your two finds yet ... that's surprising, since they were so hard-won.

Perhaps the cache log pages are way too hard to find as well

Living on Earth is expensive, but it does include a free trip around the sun.

2.6k · September 1, 2002

quote:
Originally posted by Team 5-oh!:
You may as well cut your losses now... I'll give you $25.00 for your GPSr and accessories!

Preparation, the first law to survival.

2k · September 1, 2002

The cache I found with the worst coordinates ever was more than 1/2 a mile off. The only reason I found it was because another cacher had found it from the clues and posted the corrected coordinates. If you have a similar experience by all means post the correct coordinates. Who knows, the next cacher might be me.

Lost? Keep Going. You're making good time anyway!!

2k · September 1, 2002

The cache I found with the worst coordinates ever was more than 1/2 a mile off. The only reason I found it was because another cacher had found it from the clues and posted the corrected coordinates. If you have a similar experience by all means post the correct coordinates. Who knows, the next cacher might be me.

Lost? Keep Going. You're making good time anyway!!

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