Etrex Legend Waypoints?

[RoosterBoy]

I want to start a cache and was wondering

what's the best way to mark the waypoint so it's very accurate?

I will be under some trees so can someone give me some good tips for the best way of marking a cache

 

thanks

[+RangerRick]

Jason, the best way to mark the waypoint is to use a gps unit that can "waypoint averaging". In this mode, the gps unit will keep taking signals from the satellites and will will keep averaging the readings until you stop it and enter "save". The Garmin GPS V will do that as well as some other units.

[jfitzpat]

Actually, I'd have to disagree. Kerry, and others, have put up some pretty good studies that show that averaging actually can generate less accurate results in many circumstances.

 

My daughters were going to place our first cache near Switzer Falls. The path follows a narrow granite ravine. The spot they liked would be tough going for any receiver, not because of cover, but because of line of sight to the sky.

 

We climbed up either side of the ravine and got good readings. We then measured bearings to the proposed sight. Our thought had been to triangulate the position, then eyeball it for accuracy on http://www.lostoutdoors.com

 

But then we decided that it was a bad fit for the trail (bascially, the climbing and triangulation would make a great family cache pretty stiff). But the method itself works well (get accurate readings around the cache, use bearing (and possibly distance if you can pace it off) to correct, and eyeball it on an aerial map to confirm.

 

It sounds like a lot of work, but it should nail down true coordinates more reliably than just taking a bunch of readings at the site and averaging them.

 

-jjf

 

P.S. We have, so far, had really bad placement luck. Our next plan was to go ahead and place a 5/5 in April, we got rained out on our first trip, and snowed out on our second! We left some slings on both retreats, but no cache...

[jfitzpat]

Actually, I'd have to disagree. Kerry, and others, have put up some pretty good studies that show that averaging actually can generate less accurate results in many circumstances.

 

My daughters were going to place our first cache near Switzer Falls. The path follows a narrow granite ravine. The spot they liked would be tough going for any receiver, not because of cover, but because of line of sight to the sky.

 

We climbed up either side of the ravine and got good readings. We then measured bearings to the proposed sight. Our thought had been to triangulate the position, then eyeball it for accuracy on http://www.lostoutdoors.com

 

But then we decided that it was a bad fit for the trail (bascially, the climbing and triangulation would make a great family cache pretty stiff). But the method itself works well (get accurate readings around the cache, use bearing (and possibly distance if you can pace it off) to correct, and eyeball it on an aerial map to confirm.

 

It sounds like a lot of work, but it should nail down true coordinates more reliably than just taking a bunch of readings at the site and averaging them.

 

-jjf

 

P.S. We have, so far, had really bad placement luck. Our next plan was to go ahead and place a 5/5 in April, we got rained out on our first trip, and snowed out on our second! We left some slings on both retreats, but no cache...

[+Alan2]

igsonline mentions Legend in the topic post so I assume that's what he uses. Legends don't average in any case. This is what I do with my Vista. I lay it down motionless with the face up for a few minutes. This increases the chances I'll pull in a few satellites. Sometimes moving it a couple of feet one way or the other increases reception as well.

 

Good luck.

 

Alan

[+briansnat]

I take about 10 readings and use the numbers that show up the most frequently. Though I have done no studies personally, there are a number of threads here that discuss the subject in detail. The consensus seems to be that waypoint averaging isn't all that important. A person can take an average of a bad "sat" read and it could be very inaccurate.

[+The Cheeseheads]

Personally, I just find the spot for my cache, mark the waypoint, then head back to the car for my box. If I can follow my GPSr back to my hiding spot, that's good enough for me.

 

There's always going to be some range of error, both on mine, and on the GPSr of the seeker.

 

Besides, if you pinpointed the location exactly, what fun would the hunt be?

 

[+The Cheeseheads]

Personally, I just find the spot for my cache, mark the waypoint, then head back to the car for my box. If I can follow my GPSr back to my hiding spot, that's good enough for me.

 

There's always going to be some range of error, both on mine, and on the GPSr of the seeker.

 

Besides, if you pinpointed the location exactly, what fun would the hunt be?

 

[+Pat in Louisiana]

I take several reading at the spot then I walk the same distance (at least 50 paces if there is room)north, south, east & west and take readings. I will plot the intersection of the east/wast line and the north/south line. If they are close to the avarage I got at my cache location I feel comfortable with the final reading.

 

ps I love my Legend!

 

Download easygps and use it to plot your readings.

 

Pat in Louisiana

I never get lost. I simply investigate alternate destinations.

[+towlebooth]

Hi all,

New to Geocaching (found my first three last night) and to the eTrex Legend. Where are the best sites to find maps I can download for this GPS unit? I am heading to the BWCAW on Thursday and want some detailed maps of the Ely, MN area.

 

Thanks,

TB

[+Prime Suspect]

Check out this message.

 

[+culpc]

I like to mark the cache from four different directions. After I have four readings I will average the readings, by hand, and then use the new average to re-find the cache.

 

Fat, drunk, and stupid is no way to go through life, son.