Accuracy of Newly Placed Caches

The Coffee's · Post by **The Coffee's** » 03 July 06 1:13 pm

I know this subject has been in the forums before, but lately there seems to be more and more new cache where the coordinates are purely wrong.
Not wanting to stereotype the problem but it appears most of these are from cachers who have only found limited caches. Although we can easily make a mistake in publishing the coordinates of a new cache, most appear to be a problem of new cachers not being able to use a GPS properly.
Should there be a minimum find before a cache can be placed?.
How do we help new geocachers?

Rabbitto · Post by **Rabbitto** » 03 July 06 2:15 pm

With the Coffee Clan as our FTF Beta Testers the problem is usually fixed be the time we go out

.

The Garner Family · Post by **The Garner Family** » 03 July 06 2:36 pm

I think that putting a requirement like this in makes the game a little 'elitist'... suggesting that those with more finds under their belt are somehow better.

I know cachers with 20 finds under their belt who I'd trust a lot more with co-ordinates than some with 200 finds.

If a cacher who I don't know puts out a cache in my area I will take a look at their profile before attempting it & there are some that I've then deliberately decided to wait a while before attempting... this is an easy way for me to solve the problem of inexperience & avoid wasting my time.

It also needs to be noted that in some areas someone might want to start caching, however there mightn't be any caches in their area - so the only way for them to even begin is to start placing caches.

In fact I'd have to say that some of the better caches around were placed way back in 2001 by cachers with little experience & probably less accurate GPSRs then we have now - how do you explain that?

Geodes · Post by **Geodes** » 03 July 06 3:21 pm

I don't think there should be any requirement that a certain number of finds should precede one's first cache placement, although 10-20 will undoubtedly give the new cacher a better idea of what cache placement is all about

However, I would most certainly recommend that the first few caches placed be as uncomplicated as possible - no puzzles, no attempts at tricky maths to get intermediate wps on multis, no ultra tricky micros, no fantastic attempts at camouflage, etc - in fact, just choose a nice location and go for a simple traditional and hope that people like it

swampgecko · Post by **swampgecko** » 03 July 06 3:29 pm

Geodes wrote:I don't think there should be any requirement that a certain number of finds should precede one's first cache placement, although 10-20 will undoubtedly give the new cacher a better idea of what cache placement is all about
However, I would most certainly recommend that the first few caches placed be as uncomplicated as possible - no puzzles, no attempts at tricky maths to get intermediate wps on multis, no ultra tricky micros, no fantastic attempts at camouflage, etc - in fact, just choose a nice location and go for a simple traditional and hope that people like it

Agree in full, but in fact our first cache was a simple Maths based multi, our second cache was a traditional cache.

pprass · Post by **pprass** » 03 July 06 3:30 pm

According to that famous French liberalist Monsieur Laissez-faire, let people work it out for themselves, make mistakes and learn from them. The reviewer helps to some extent, but we find that by advising newbies of errors etc that we instantly develop a rapport of goodwill and understanding

THAT is of coarse after we have bad mouthed them for the past 20 minutes after making us waste 1.5hrs searching in the bottom of a gully that is infested with blackberries and other Poll 12 (I think) nasties.

ian-and-penny · Post by **ian-and-penny** » 03 July 06 3:43 pm

Should there be a minimum number of finds? - No.

How do we help new cachers? - By providing supportive advice (perhaps offline) rather than criticism.

BTW - "No Fords Allowed" (for those that know about it) posed an interesting problem because:
* Only those who have done the other puzzle cache know the final location.
* The typing error didn't help, and it was too far out to be corrected by the owner, so a reviewer had to do it.
* The reviewer fixed the typo, and kept it approved. (Is the final puzzle hidden from reviewers too?)
* The owner (on sound, supportive advice from a nearby but not local cacher) moved the cache 160 metres.

* I believe that it is all fixed now.

Post edited to remove some unintentional "spoiler" information.

crew 153 · Post by **crew 153** » 03 July 06 3:50 pm

I agree that a new cacher can place a great cache in a great location. They can also just put out a simple micro in a trashy spot with bad coordinates.

I think that it is then up to the "more experienced" cachers to give an HONEST appraisal of the cache both in the log and by personal email.

Abuse and flaming are not required to point out their feelings.

Papa Bear_Left · Post by **Papa Bear_Left** » 03 July 06 3:55 pm

While wearing my white reviewer hat, I'm a little wary of placements from cachers who've found very few caches and I'll take a little extra time to check the cache in Google Earth etc., and look at the few caches they _have_ found to see if they were found in spite of a wrong datum in their GPSr.

I also don't usually check maths puzzles (hey, getting it right is the cache-placers' problem!) but I might on a newcomer's cache.

The main problem I see is the wrong datum _plus_ minimalist description cache, so there's no way of knowing which 200m distant feature is the one with a box under it!

It's only a real problem if it also happens to be off the beaten track, causing the FTF hounds to burn precious fuel and waste hours looking for it in the wrong place.

Actually, now that I think about it, I might include a checklist for all "placed: 0" caches...

1) Is there a logbook and, ideally, a pen plus a pencil in the cache?
2) Was your GPSr set to WGS84 datum? (Link to what this means)
..(It might not be if you've found that the caches you've found seemed to be a long way (more than 10-20m) away from where your GPSr thought they were!)
3) Did you try entering your coordinates into your GPSr and seeing if it took you to the cache?
4) If there's a puzzle or arithmetic involved, have you asked someone else to figure it out, without any clues other than what's on the listing?
5) If the cache is hidden in a place that could get wet, have you tested your container to see how well it will keep the water out?

Any others you'd suggest?

-PBL aka theUMP.

Papa Bear_Left · Post by **Papa Bear_Left** » 03 July 06 4:12 pm

ian-and-penny wrote:BTW - "No Fords Allowed" (for those that know about it) posed an interesting problem because:
...various trials and tribulations...
* I believe that it is all fixed now.

Yes, this was quite the communal effort, wasn't it? Well done, most of Victoria!

(Soapbox alert!)

The final issue of being too close to the end-point of another multi should be an object lesson into the value of adding in the waypoints and GZs into our multis and puzzle/mystery cache listings.

Otherwise, there's a chance that people will bypass all your masterful waypoints and conundrums while they're looking for the simple traditional that got placed 10m away without the reviewer having the information needed to notice it!

I can think of four or five instances off the top of my head, once to a puzzle cache of ours!

(I'll get off the soapbox now before anyone notices that I've yet to add waypoints to most of our older multi/puzzles....)

Geof · Post by **Geof** » 03 July 06 4:54 pm

If you vote yes there may never be a cache in a cache free country given holiday caches are out on GC.com

On the other hand if caches are available in the general area it would shure be advisable to find a few.

I settled on 30 before I hid one

Geodes · Post by **Geodes** » 03 July 06 6:35 pm

Bear_Left wrote: Otherwise, there's a chance that people will bypass all your masterful waypoints and conundrums while they're looking for the simple traditional that got placed 10m away without the reviewer having the information needed to notice it!

There was a recent Vic multi which had one of its wps (which involved a container, not just info gathering) all of 2m from the (very well hidden) final cache in a puzzle series. It's all fixed now, however I personally don't mind wps for multis being less than 161m from other caches or (in particular) wps for other multis as long as they don't involve a physical container - why shouldn't an attractive spot be used as an intermediate wp by more than one multi (and there are quite a few cases where this happens).

Post by **caughtatwork** » 03 July 06 7:43 pm

In the last couple of months I've found two that were over 1km from the posted (or calculated) co-ordinates.

No-one is perfect and typo's creep in. I liked it better when GC gave you an instant GPX file that you could load up to your mapping program and see if it fitted. They took that away, so now I can type right in Ozi but wrong on the cache page

Some of it's due to carelessness, some of it newbiness, some of it fat fingers

There is nothing you can do to get it right 100% of the time, so now unless the cache is by someone I trust, I don't go FTF'ing. Hey one day, I'll make a booboo too and then y'all can curse me.

I had 30 finds before my first hide, but numbers mean nothing. I could just as easily fat finger a co-ord today.

The Coffee's · Post by **The Coffee's** » 03 July 06 11:45 pm

GC.com should put item 3 placing a cache details - hiding your first cache, into the fill in a new cache form. How many of us check our own GPSÃ‚â€™s map datum when placing a cache?, average (let the GPS sit) for more than 1 minute, try to find the cache yourself more than 2 times, and take more than 1 reading.
I do check my map datum (WGS84) prior to locating a new cache, I try to let the GPS sit for 10 -15 minutes, I also check the EPE and how many satellites are visible from where the GPS is going to sit for itÃ‚â€™s reading, many times I have noticed if you place the GPS down low for a reading you loose satellite coverage. I take 5-10 readings but usually use the reading of the 10 minute average. I also test my coordinates by trying to find the placed cache starting from around 50 metres away and twice.
I understand all is not perfect in the caching world and there are times you cannot let the GPS sit due to its location, however by checking what you can and trying to find your cache yourself may just pick up any errors. This thread I hope will encourage us all to help new cachers or each other more often. I think I checked the coordinates about 20 times on our first cache over a period of 2 weeks.

LazyLeopard · Post by **LazyLeopard** » 04 July 06 12:02 am

Bear_Left wrote:3) Did you try entering your coordinates into your GPSr and seeing if it took you to the cache?

Aye. At very least download the co-ordinates that got into the website and check that they match the ones you thought you'd entered. I learned that one the hard way. It's amazing how far off the track you can send folks if you get a couple of digits transposed...

Geocaching Australia

Accuracy of Newly Placed Caches

should there be a minimum find before being able to placing a cache

Accuracy of Newly Placed Caches