Should available co-ords be accurate

[The Garner Family]

OK: Can of worms time.

There are a handful of caches around where accurate co-ordinates of the cache are not available, but rather the best co-ordinates you get (either on the cache page or after solving are puzzle) are something close to the cache & then you've got to find the cache yourself. I personally don't enjoy these caches, although understand that others might.

The guidelines for hiding a cache were recently changed to include the following statement:

You as the owner of the cache must visit the site and obtain the coordinates with a GPS. If time allows take several reading at different times over a few days and average the results. This will help you achieve greater accuracy on your coordinates. GPS usage is an essential element of geocaching. Therefore, although it is possible to find a cache without a GPS, the option of using accurate GPS coordinates as an integral part of the cache hunt must be demonstrated for all physical cache submissions.

Doesn't this mean that hiders must make an effort to provide accurate co-ordinates and it's not sufficient to say "It's somewhere in the park" or "It's hidden somewhere in the wall".

Disclaimer 1: I'm only referring to gc.com caches, of course gca caches are ambivalent to this.
Disclaimer 2: For those who've placed caches of this type: I do appreciate the contribution you've made by hiding your cache, I'm just discussing this, not criticising your cache.

[EcoTeam]

Ok, I'll play with the worms

I don't like caches where the coordinates are deliberately out, and you have a much larger radius to check, e.g. "It could be anywhere within 30m of GZ"
That is a massive area and it just creates more damage. I don't see the point. The journey and location is the reward, not randomly searching a massive square area.

For a good example of a deliberate offset cache, look at Bear Left's "Do The Dishes", an excellent cache.

EcoDave

[EcoTeam]

Doesn't this mean that hiders must make an effort to provide accurate co-ordinates and it's not sufficient to say "It's somewhere in the park" or "It's hidden somewhere in the wall".

The "Hidden somewhere in the wall" bit is OK if it's horizontally within the usual EPE error of the co-ords. There are many examples of caches like this and they can be fun.

EcoDave

[team_diesel]

We don't mind if coordinates are not exact so long as they cache info clearly indicates that fact and the consequences of the variation is not damaging to the environment or the game in general.

Having just ‘done the dishes’ the possible damage that could be caused by having the cache placed 25m from GZ is quite small as the area is a park.

If the same principle had been applied in a forest area then the result would be extreme and highly undesirable.

By having the variation in the cache description it also allows cachers to make a decision if the want to hunt the cache, knowing that it may not be right at GZ.

[Map Monkey]

I hear you

I find that to increase the difficulty of a cache by deliberately falsifying the coordinates can be annoying. Though i've noticed that over time the coordinates get changed with waypoints posted in the logs.

There are caches that have been listed as Mystery/Puzzle types which may allow for this factor. I like this forthought with the cache as it allows people who don't like these types to avoid downloading them. (Nothing like a DNF on a traditional only to read the description later to say that the coordinates are for the carpark )

Agsmky

[Richary]

(Nothing like a DNF on a traditional only to read the description later to say that the coordinates are for the carpark )

Agsmky

<p>
I agree, my 1st ever Qld attempt was like that. Spent half an hour hunting through the wet undergrowth. Checked the cache when I got back to the hotel to find it was another 50m up the track.

[Hounddog]

Co-ordinates being inaccurate can be frustrating and lead to more trampling and damage, but there are so many factors that can lead to a cache being rightly or wrongly deemed as inaccurate. Poor performance of a GPSr under tress and other obstacles. Not waiting at a location long enough for the GPSr to average (both for the placer and the finder) and the 3D aspect of a placement are just a few of the reasons.

I wish I had a buck for every time I've been told by finders the my co-ords are out only to return and find they are not. Having said this, co-ords that are genuinely outside what would be an acceptable scope are a pain, fortunately though these are not as common as many would believe.

I have more an issue with people who OVER hide caches in sensitive areas that are remote or extremely difficult to get to. After all the trouble energy and money in petrol to trek out there, you come up empty handed because the hider has hidden it way too well when they really didn't need to hide it at much at all. That's frustrating

[The Garner Family]

I wish I had a buck for every time I've been told by finders the my co-ords are out only to return and find they are not.

I've got no problem with innacurate co-ordinates, for whatever reason; this just happens. However the caches I'm talking about here are those that deliberately do not provide correct co-ordinates and instead leave it up to you to find it. For me, this isn't geocaching - it's hide and seek, a different game from geocaching altogether. Geocacahing should be about using provided co-ordinates along with maps/GPS to find something.

[Papa Bear_Left]

I've struggled with my conscience on a couple of occasions over how to list offset caches. I choose to assume that a cacher will read the cache description, not just turn up at the GPS coords and look for umm... something between a film canister and a barrell, and not have the listing at least available.

If the GZ's in the same basic area (as in "Do the Dishes" where the cache is given as 25m from the stated coords) and if the given GZ is sufficiently obviously _not_ a cache hideyhole, then there's a case for calling it a traditional instead of a multicache.

It's only worth bending the rules a little because multicaches can often involve long distances and/or multiple waypoints, and so are left off some people's cache-hunt lists because of that. If the offset's small, and doesn't involve a huge amount of added difficulty, then it seems unfair to lump them in this category.

If you need to get back in the car, walk a significant distance to reach the real GZ, or decode numbers to get to the cache, then it's a multi, no argument.

[Aushiker]

I don't like caches where the coordinates are deliberately out, and you have a much larger radius to check, e.g. "It could be anywhere within 30m of GZ"
That is a massive area and it just creates more damage. I don't see the point. The journey and location is the reward, not randomly searching a massive square area.

Agree 100%. We have a cache that is along these lines. The damage to the area is obvious. Does nothing for the reputation of geochacing, other than as enviromental vandals in my opinion. Does that add to the can of worms?

Andrew

[Geof]

Yes unless it's stated in the discription like Rabbitto's Valley Challange and the cache is not list as a traditional.

Its a pain when you turn up to a traditional with only a waypoint to find its realy a multi / offset.

[caughtatwork]

You as the owner of the cache must visit the site and obtain the coordinates with a GPS. If time allows take several reading at different times over a few days and average the results. This will help you achieve greater accuracy on your coordinates. GPS usage is an essential element of geocaching. Therefore, although it is possible to find a cache without a GPS, the option of using accurate GPS coordinates as an integral part of the cache hunt must be demonstrated for all physical cache submissions.

That's a recent addition to the rules at gc.com
Caches that have been grandfathered in shouldn't have to conform to the new rules IMHO.
So it's not a can o' wormies for me.

[Cached]

When did they update the 'guidelines'?

Was it in any mail out?

[Cached]

I do wish they would indicate what has changed...

[Map Monkey]

Cached, this topic has been covered on this thread Doesn't anyone follow the Groundspeak forums regularly any more

Agsmky