Ground Zero - CO's -- How intentional are you with coords?

[+LaughterOnWater]

When you're in an urban area especially, you can lock down your coordinates with great precision to the edge of a building or a parking lot lamp post. In practice as a cache finder, ground zero as reported by CO's is what you expect, more often than not, almost precisely where you expect to find the cache. But that doesn't always seem to be the case.

 

In this previous post, the question was asked, "how far can a cache be from ground zero?" with the emphasis being on the precision of the GPS instrument and decent attempts at waypoint averaging by the CO. But maybe, sometimes, CO's intentionally place ground zero in a spot not quite where you expect.

 

One cache had GZ facing a fantastic mural across from a business, but the actual hide was thirty feet away. No emphasis on the business was placed in the cache description. The emphasis was placed on what the mural says.

 

The CO could have placed GZ right at the corner of the building, exactly where the hide was. Instead, he placed it across an asphalt path about two feet in front of the mural. The find would have been much easier if I had known to go to the exact corner of the building on the other side of the asphalt. On a clear day, GPS has about a four-foot WAAS lock with some satellite constellations. I think GZ was intentionally placed a little away from the hide to make the search a little more difficult and to emphasize the mural.

 

Just to narrow the scope of my questions, I'm talking about traditional caches, and not necessarily multicaches or other puzzle-type caches with multiple waypoints.

 

I imagine it would be inappropriate to intentionally obfuscate true GZ in a remote area with dense tree canopy because it's hard enough already under these circumstances just to get an accurate GPS lock under the trees. But in urban situations, or where the hide might be too obvious and the sky has clear GPS access, maybe the rules slide a little.

 

How often do you place your hide exactly at GZ as provided by your diligent GPS waypoint average? Are you ever tempted to place GZ a little away from the hide to increase the search challenge or to emphasize a specific view? Are there ethical considerations in placing GZ away from the hide, or is this a non-issue for you? What's the farthest away from a hide you would be willing to place your ground zero intentionally, and why? When would it be bad/rude/unethical to place GZ away from the hide?

 

Please feel free to use examples from your own caches.

 

Cheers,

 

Chris

[+JL_HSTRE]

"I think GZ was intentionally placed a little away from the hide to make the search a little more difficult"

 

Should never happen.

[+on4bam]

Some CO's intentionally use coords that are "a bit off", this makes it a bit more challenging if it's an open area and GZ is in the middle of a wide path so you have to search both sides. After a while you get to know the CO's where you can expect that and the ones that are always "spot on". It's all in the game and it shouldn't be made too easy

Sometime coord are off because of the separation rule. Exact coords may be less than 161m from another physical WP and some creativity might be used to be able to use the best spot.

BTW, near building, coords will almost always be off because of lack of satellite signals from certain directions and signals bouncing off buildings.

[+redsox_mark]

The coordinates of my hides are all as accurate as I can make them. That is part of the guidelines. Intentionally posting coordinates which are inaccurate should not happen.

Edited June 12, 2015 by redsox_mark

[+narcissa]

I take a dim view of cache owners who intentionally fudge coordinates to make things more difficult. For traditionals, your coordinates should be the best you can possible get with your GPS. There is already error inherent in the system. If you want to take people to more than one spot, make it a multi or a letterbox.

[+on4bam]

The coordinates of my hides are all as accurate as I can make them.

 

That doesn't mean they can't be off. Since consumer GPS's are not "military grade" accurate as you can make them doesn't mean "spot on". A cache we tried in Tokyo was a DNF because readings were so far off and jumping around a lot. As we moved on we passed the US embassy that was nearby and once we were further away our location on the map of our Colorado 300 returned to our actual location. Would surprise me if our GPS problems were "man made"

[+Sapience Trek]

If you intentionally give bad coords to get around proximity problems, be prepared for your cache to be archived and future caches scrutinized.

[+J Grouchy]

I have one puzzle that provides coordinates to a general area. What one must do is go to the first stage to gather a hint about the location of the cache. Final coordinates are not provided, but the hint is specific enough to lead people to the cache.

 

http://coord.info/GC4Z0W7

 

I DID provide final coordinates when I submitted, but they are never actually revealed to the cacher. I had to explain it to the reviewer before he published it, but it wasn't difficult to get done.

[Keystone]

If you intentionally give bad coords to get around proximity problems, be prepared for your cache to be archived and future caches scrutinized.

I retracted a cache this past week when the owner added "cache is within 50 feet of the posted coords" after publication. (The cache hadn't been found yet.) I only re-published the cache after the owner changed the coordinates and removed that statement.

[+redsox_mark]

The coordinates of my hides are all as accurate as I can make them.

 

That doesn't mean they can't be off.

 

Correct. I was careful with my language, I make them as accurate as I can. That is all anyone can do.

[+narcissa]

I have one puzzle that provides coordinates to a general area. What one must do is go to the first stage to gather a hint about the location of the cache. Final coordinates are not provided, but the hint is specific enough to lead people to the cache.

 

http://coord.info/GC4Z0W7

 

I DID provide final coordinates when I submitted, but they are never actually revealed to the cacher. I had to explain it to the reviewer before he published it, but it wasn't difficult to get done.

 

Good letterbox hybrids use a combination of coordinates and hints too. If the cache isn't a traditional and the ambiguity is part of the design, that's fair.

 

There are cachers who just can't bring themselves to make something NOT traditional but still want the flexibility of other cache types.

[+on4bam]

If you intentionally give bad coords to get around proximity problems, be prepared for your cache to be archived and future caches scrutinized.

 

Given that GPS coords have an inaccuracy of a few meters (10ft) by themselves there's no way to know if coords were intentionally adjusted tot have 161m separation instead 159m. It's all in the margin of error that can be expected. You could easily measure 155m separation between to caches on one day and 161m on another.

 

Would geocaching not become very dull if you could go to a location and find a cache/tag within a 1 ft area?

[+LaughterOnWater]

Okay -- very clear consensus here!

 

In the case of the mural, it would have been better to either make it a mutli-cache or simply add an additional waypoint and say, "About thirty feet away at the additional waypoint, you'll find this cool mural."

 

The GPS for the cache is within thirty feet of the cache -- entirely within the realm of possibility. While it is an urban scene, it's entirely possible the CO averaged the waypoint on a crummy day or when there was a crummy satellite constellation. It's not like there are that many urban canyons in Athens, GA where the buildings themselves block out too many satellites. But if CO's want to be entirely precise, isn't it just easier in urban situations to go to Google maps or mapnik and get the specific coordinates of the corner of a building in satellite view and use those?

[+Touchstone]

But in urban situations, or where the hide might be too obvious and the sky has clear GPS access, maybe the rules slide a little.

 

No, they don't. IMO, that's a different game being played, not geocaching anymore.

 

It's all in the margin of error that can be expected.

 

Sapience Trek's post specifically stated "intentionally". While intent can sometimes be difficult to interpret, other times it's not. Nobody would argue with the inherent inaccuracy of the technology that we use, and a few feet given in your example is part and parcel of that reality.

 

But if CO's want to be entirely precise, isn't it just easier in urban situations to go to Google maps or mapnik and get the specific coordinates of the corner of a building in satellite view and use those?

 

Generally frowned upon. Many threads discuss the random inaccuracies of online mapping tools like google maps and the rest. There really is no substitute for taking coordinates at the cache location with a gps. IMO, if faced with a situation where accurate coordinates are difficult or impossible due to lack of clear sky, or "bad days", then it's better to give a more explicit Description of the hide (aka letterboxing), or a really good Hint.

Edited June 12, 2015 by Touchstone

[+Sapience Trek]

If you intentionally give bad coords to get around proximity problems, be prepared for your cache to be archived and future caches scrutinized.

 

Given that GPS coords have an inaccuracy of a few meters (10ft) by themselves there's no way to know if coords were intentionally adjusted tot have 161m separation instead 159m. It's all in the margin of error that can be expected. You could easily measure 155m separation between to caches on one day and 161m on another.

 

Would geocaching not become very dull if you could go to a location and find a cache/tag within a 1 ft area?

 

As my colleague to my South pointed out, sometimes the cache owner posts something that gives it away. A recent one I saw was "Cache is actually at location XXX/YYY, but I couldn't get it posted at those coordinates because of another nearby cache".

 

I'm no Einstein, but that is a strong indication of deceit.

[+narcissa]

Okay -- very clear consensus here!

 

In the case of the mural, it would have been better to either make it a mutli-cache or simply add an additional waypoint and say, "About thirty feet away at the additional waypoint, you'll find this cool mural."

 

The GPS for the cache is within thirty feet of the cache -- entirely within the realm of possibility. While it is an urban scene, it's entirely possible the CO averaged the waypoint on a crummy day or when there was a crummy satellite constellation. It's not like there are that many urban canyons in Athens, GA where the buildings themselves block out too many satellites. But if CO's want to be entirely precise, isn't it just easier in urban situations to go to Google maps or mapnik and get the specific coordinates of the corner of a building in satellite view and use those?

 

What makes you think the coordinates from that are more accurate than coordinates taken on the ground?

[+on4bam]

 

As my colleague to my South pointed out, sometimes the cache owner posts something that gives it away. A recent one I saw was "Cache is actually at location XXX/YYY, but I couldn't get it posted at those coordinates because of another nearby cache".

 

I'm no Einstein, but that is a strong indication of deceit.

 

It's better not to put that in the listing of course but "GPS reception is not always at it's best at GZ, read the hint" would pass without any problems

 

I find it strange that accuracy (not posted coords, but the seeker's GPS reading) is getting so important these days. If someoe wants to borrow my (still working) Garmin GPS12XL (no maps, sorry) to go caching, be my guest. Accuracy is overrated

[+LaughterOnWater]

What makes you think the coordinates from that are more accurate than coordinates taken on the ground?

While WAAS has pretty decent accuracy, I'm (perhaps wrongly) assuming that Google Maps and Mapnik, etc., triangulate their coordinates with survey markers on the ground and average waypoints continually, using more complex and accurate methods rather than just depend on some sky readings. Wouldn't that make a difference?

[+on4bam]

While WAAS has pretty decent accuracy, I'm (perhaps wrongly) assuming that Google Maps and Mapnik, etc., triangulate their coordinates with survey markers on the ground and average waypoints continually, using more complex and accurate methods rather than just depend on some sky readings. Wouldn't that make a difference?

 

Just looking at Google Earth/maps you will notice that the roads overlay does not always line up exactly with the satellite images so there are bound to be errors. So coords taken by GPS should be preferred.

[+LaughterOnWater]

... Just looking at Google Earth/maps you will notice that the roads overlay does not always line up exactly with the satellite images so there are bound to be errors. So coords taken by GPS should be preferred.

Granted, roads change, and it's not always precise. But for some urban areas in the US, Google maps can come off as freakishly precise, down to which side of the road you're walking, and whether you're in the street or on the sidewalk. Open Street tends to be much less accurate in most places, but again, they've got it down to the lane on some cities, like some of the sky ramps for the interstates in downtown Tampa, Florida. But that's urban examples. The same maps, when brought into walking paths at the local botanical gardens are far more imprecise. Sometimes the map shows you walking in the middle of the river, even with little tree canopy and no cloud cover. I see where you're coming from. And I'm more likely to place hides in remote, tree-covered areas, so GPS-waypoint-averaging it is. Edited June 12, 2015 by LaughterOnWater

[+Kelux]

With every new topic you start (13 in less than a month), I have this feeling that you could learn a lot more from attending an Event, by instance.

 

Please don't get me wrong, but I think that you are trying to learn in the forums, while any experienced geocacher will say that you will need to go out, finding some caches... better than that, finding other geocachers.

 

After all "The Best Finds are Other Geocachers!"

 

Be welcome!

 

PS: You don't need to wait for a new Event in Athens... place one yourself, and the people will come.

Edited June 12, 2015 by Kelux

[knowschad]

From the Hiding Your First Geocache page:

 

Step 3 - Placing Your Cache

Once you arrive at the location of your hide, it is critical to obtain accurate GPS coordinates. This is the very heart of the activity, after all.

 

And from the guidelines themselves:

 

Listing Guidelines for All Geocaches Technical Requirements

• Listings must contain accurate GPS coordinates. You must visit the cache location and obtain the coordinates with a GPS device. GPS usage is an integral and essential element of both hiding and seeking caches and must be demonstrated for all cache submissions. Projecting waypoints from a specific location already defined by set of coordinates is permissible. For geocaches that include additional waypoints see the guidelines specific to those cache types.

 

(bolding is mine)

 

 

[+BCandMsKitty]

For me, if I discover that a CO is intentionally posting bad coordinates, I will post a NA log for that cache, and ignore any other caches by that CO.

 

Make the hides difficult by tricky hiding methods and camouflage, not intentional bad coordinates! There is no skill involved in lying about coordinates to make the cache more difficult. That kind of hider would be better playing a different game!

[+Gitchee-Gummee]

The MAP problem is compounded by different factors...

 

1] The earth's surface is neither flat or level, but maps are... both paper maps and on-screen maps. Maps (that we use) are two dimensional and therefore, incapable of being truly "accurate".

 

2] All maps are simply tiled overlays placed upon a grid-system. Land surface deviations and other anomalous features are not (cannot?) be corrected -- certainly not on a two-dimensional surface. Mapping tiles displayed on electronic devices (computer monitor, GPSr, phone) are even worse. Some locations appear to be pin-point accurate while others are wildly "off". You never really know where or when they are (or are not) accurate.

 

Even consumer-grade devices will provide better and more consistent overall coordinate locations than will tiled map overlays.

 

Both types of location detecting devices (GPSr units and maps) have drawbacks, but one should trust the GPSr over maps. After-all, most finders will generally also be using a GPSr device -- with or without maps.

[+Malemotives]

First and foremost.... Geocaching rules are not rocket science. They are pretty easy to read and understand. All this fuss can be solved through Reviewer consistency, which is sorely lacking. Reviewers should always follow the rules, and refrain from making up their own requirements before activating new geocaches.

[+cerberus1]

First and foremost.... Geocaching rules are not rocket science. They are pretty easy to read and understand. All this fuss can be solved through Reviewer consistency, which is sorely lacking. Reviewers should always follow the rules, and refrain from making up their own requirements before activating new geocaches.

What does your ordinary rant about Reviewers have to do with this topic?

[+AustinMN]

On a clear day, GPS has about a four-foot WAAS lock with some satellite constellations. I think GZ was intentionally placed a little away from the hide to make the search a little more difficult and to emphasize the mural.

 

Are there tall buildings nearby? WAAS could say 4 feet while actual accuracy could be off by 100 feet or more.

 

Austin

[Keystone]

First and foremost.... Geocaching rules are not rocket science. They are pretty easy to read and understand. All this fuss can be solved through Reviewer consistency, which is sorely lacking. Reviewers should always follow the rules, and refrain from making up their own requirements before activating new geocaches.

We don't hide the caches, take the coordinates or test the coordinates. We do the best we can with what rolls across our doorsteps. Some of it ain't pretty. It is an art, not just a science, to sniff out cache placements with bad coordinates (whether done intentionally or not). I always feel good when I catch a problem with coordinates, and I don't lose any sleep when I miss one.

 

Some reviewers are better at this than others. It doesn't mean we're "inconsistent." Also, many reviewers are dogs. Cut them some slack.

[+niraD]

I'm a few hours late to this party, and just trying to catch up...

 

I have always tried to get the coordinates for my caches as accurate as possible. And when I find a cache where the coordinates seem off by 30ft or more, then I'll usually post my coordinates as part of my log.

 

Intentionally "soft" coordinates don't really make the hide any more difficult or clever. They just make people search in the wrong location, which is not the same thing. And IMHO, as Touchstone wrote, it isn't geocaching anymore.

 

And I've done my fair share of geocaching sans GPSr using the satellite/aerial imagery from Google Maps, but their resolution and calibration vary. Around here, they have high resolution, and appear to be at least as accurate as a consumer GPS device. But I've seen areas where they're off by 100ft or more, or where the highest resolution available is useless for geocaching.

 

But with all that said, there is an old "traditional" cache in this area. It can be found by expanding your search radius 50-60ft, and many people have posted the coordinates of the container thinking that the coordinates were off. But there is a more interesting way to find it, using the posted coordinates. Today, it would be listed as a multi-cache or as a mystery/puzzle cache, perhaps with the field puzzle attribute. But 12 years ago, it was listed as a traditional cache, and it is grandfathered as such. (As you may have noticed, the guidelines used to be a lot looser in a number of ways, and have firmed up quite a bit over the years.)

[+NeverSummer]

"I think GZ was intentionally placed a little away from the hide to make the search a little more difficult"

 

Should never happen.

I think that this is the correct, most clear answer.

 

"Fuzzy" coordinates should never be deliberate. Good coordinates should be the goal for every stage.

 

But, yes...sometimes people will use bad coordinates on purpose. Some others just can't get good accuracy at a site. And this is why people should post "better" coordinates when they find them, and owners should update the coordinates when people are able to find better ones than what is provided on the cache page.

[+niraD]

Are there tall buildings nearby? WAAS could say 4 feet while actual accuracy could be off by 100 feet or more.

Sometimes you don't even need tall buildings, or cliffs, or heavy tree cover. I once found a cache where (after finally reading past logs) I discovered that a number of people had found the cache 50-60ft from GZ. So after a thorough search, my caching companion and I head off in the indicated direction. Sure enough, there the cache was.

 

But when I took a GPSr reading so I could post more accurate coordinates with my log, I got virtually the same coordinates as the posted coordinates. None of the typical sources of multipath errors were there: it was the top of a gentle hill, with a beautiful clear sky, with no buildings or cliff faces anywhere, and only a few short trees. But sure enough, I was getting the same reading from both locations.

[+Malemotives]

It's not intend as an ordinary rant against reviewers. Consistency in reviewing and activating would make this topic and others moot:

[+NeverSummer]

First and foremost.... Geocaching rules are not rocket science. They are pretty easy to read and understand. All this fuss can be solved through Reviewer consistency, which is sorely lacking. Reviewers should always follow the rules, and refrain from making up their own requirements before activating new geocaches.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

Okay -- very clear consensus here!

 

In the case of the mural, it would have been better to either make it a mutli-cache or simply add an additional waypoint and say, "About thirty feet away at the additional waypoint, you'll find this cool mural."

 

I have seen this done quite a few times. The published coordinates should be as accurate as possible and if there is something interesting nearby adding an additional waypoint or just mentioning something like "about 100 feet further north is an interesting mural".

 

There is a really extensive page on accuracy of coordinates here: http://support.Groundspeak.com/index.php?pg=kb.page&id=673

 

Here are a couple of relevant statement in the help center about accurate coordinates:

 

"Once you arrive at the location of your hide, it is critical to obtain accurate GPS coordinates. This is the very heart of the activity, after all. ..."

"When placing a geocache, it is important to mark coordinates that are as accurate as possible. Accurate coordinates can make the difference between a happy find and a frustrating DNF of your cache. Even more important is preventing damage to the environment from frustrated geocaches searching for a cache at the wrong location."

 

And here is a statement from the Listing Requirements and Guidelines:

 

"o Listings must contain accurate GPS coordinates.

 

You must visit the cache location and obtain the coordinates with a GPS device. GPS usage is an integral and essential element of both hiding and seeking caches and must be demonstrated for all cache submissions."

"

 

 

[Keystone]

It's not intend as an ordinary rant against reviewers. Consistency in reviewing and activating would make this topic and others moot:

Please explain -- and be specific -- how reviewers are being inconsistent in dealing with hiders who provide bad coordinates. Give separate answers for when the error is intentional vs. unintentional. What should the reviewers be doing? Going out in the field to verify the hider's accuracy? I'd love that gig, if I were paid more.

[+frinklabs]

In an urban setting, I will look at where is the hide on google maps because I think the CO has done the same thing and doesn't want anyone led astray by the whack readings one can get from their device in a highrise-building environment.

 

Meanwhile,

 

moot

 

[+captnemo]

"I think GZ was intentionally placed a little away from the hide to make the search a little more difficult"

 

Should never happen.

I think that this is the correct, most clear answer.

 

"Fuzzy" coordinates should never be deliberate. Good coordinates should be the goal for every stage.

 

But, yes...sometimes people will use bad coordinates on purpose. Some others just can't get good accuracy at a site. And this is why people should post "better" coordinates when they find them, and owners should update the coordinates when people are able to find better ones than what is provided on the cache page.

Agreed, deliberate fussy coordinates should never happen and such caches need to be archived.

[+cheech gang]

Going out in the field to verify the hider's accuracy? I'd love that gig, if I were paid more.

 

I've asked around and got enough donations to triple your pay. Check your mailbox.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

What makes you think the coordinates from that are more accurate than coordinates taken on the ground?

While WAAS has pretty decent accuracy, I'm (perhaps wrongly) assuming that Google Maps and Mapnik, etc., triangulate their coordinates with survey markers on the ground and average waypoints continually, using more complex and accurate methods rather than just depend on some sky readings. Wouldn't that make a difference?

 

A couple of years ago there were some interesting satellite photos from google maps posted.

 

For a cache I found in Costa Rica, the location of the cache was completely obscured by cloud cover for a fairly wide area. It would have been very difficult to obtain accurate coordinates because the terrain was just not visible.

 

Although it's getting much better, there are still many places in the world where the resolution is very poor. In order to make a reasonable guess for a location from maps the resolution needs to be good enough to identify a feature one would recognize at GZ. Even with good resolution the location of a cache in a heavily wooded area would be difficult to pin down from aerial images.

 

Even fairly recently there have been some examples shown where the satellite imagery and real roads didn't line up and some times they were 100+ feet off.

 

If the use of satellite imagery could *consistently* produce accurate coordinates *globally* the guidelines might allow them to be used, but the guidelines still stipulate that the location must be visited and accurate coordinates obtained using a GPS.

 

 

 

[+Sunmill]

If you intentionally give bad coords to get around proximity problems, be prepared for your cache to be archived and future caches scrutinized.

 

Thank you! It's so frustrating when a CO tries to be "clever"

[+NeverSummer]

If you intentionally give bad coords to get around proximity problems, be prepared for your cache to be archived and future caches scrutinized.

 

Thank you! It's so frustrating when a CO tries to be "clever"

Which is another example, LaughterOnWater, of why a NM or NA log in cases where caches are listed with intentionally "fuzzy" coordinates need to be made. Do not fear being a "cache cop", so long as you're following the guidelines. We're all cache cops by way of this game's design.

[Keystone]

Alternatively, I'd love to get more emails like this fictional example:

 

"Hi Keystone, I was talking to CraftyHider42 at an event last weekend and I asked him why I had so much trouble finding his caches. He said he always intentionally moves the coordinates about 20 feet away from ground zero "in order to provide a challenge." Is that allowed and is there anything you can do?

 

Sincerely,

FrequentDNF'r"

[+NeverSummer]

Alternatively, I'd love to get more emails like this fictional example:

 

"Hi Keystone, I was talking to CraftyHider42 at an event last weekend and I asked him why I had so much trouble finding his caches. He said he always intentionally moves the coordinates about 20 feet away from ground zero "in order to provide a challenge." Is that allowed and is there anything you can do?

 

Sincerely,

FrequentDNF'r"

Like. +1. Etc.

[+The A-Team]

If the use of satellite imagery could *consistently* produce accurate coordinates *globally* the guidelines might allow them to be used, but the guidelines still stipulate that the location must be visited and accurate coordinates obtained using a GPS.

I doubt that would happen. Geocaching (well, the GPS Stash Hunt) was conceived as a game/hobby/activity to test out the newly-more-accurate GPS signals. Testing the accuracy of maps or aerial/satellite imagery was never part of it.

 

Personally, I did encounter one or two caches early in my caching-career where the CO had stated that the coordinates were intentionally fudged (either through a post-publication description edit or in a log/note). I found this annoying at the time, but I was too green to know what I should do about it. If I encounter such a cache in the future, a Needs Archive log will be posted faster than a fat kid at a cake buffet.

 

Some others just can't get good accuracy at a site. And this is why people should post "better" coordinates when they find them, and owners should update the coordinates when people are able to find better ones than what is provided on the cache page.

Yep, much more prevalent (I suspect) than intentionally-inaccurate coordinates are COs who have unintentionally-inaccurate coordinates and refuse to do anything about it.

As a cache owner:

• If you see people frequently saying that they're finding your cache X feet/metres away from GZ, please go back out and take some new coordinates.
  
• If you see that someone who found your cache posts "better" coordinates, and multiple subsequent finders use those coordinates and confirm that they're more accurate, please update the coordinates to those.
  

As a cache finder:

• If you find that your GPSr is consistently pointing to a spot some distance from GZ, please take a minute to take a waypoint and post those coordinates with your log. If enough people do this, a trend could emerge indicating that the coordinates could be made more accurate.
  
• If you use coordinates posted by a previous finder and find them more accurate than the posted coordinates, please say so. If enough people confirm that a particular set of coordinates is more accurate, the CO could update the posted coordinates to those.
  

In my area, there used to be a cacher who would frequently post "better" coordinates, and they were almost always far more accurate than the posted coordinates and much appreciated by the locals. When I saw this, I decided to start doing the same and also seem to have gained a good reputation. Unfortunately, I'm pretty much alone in doing this. I wish more people would take the extra minute at GZ to help out their fellow cachers. If taking a few minutes out of my day to help prevent future cachers from being frustrated means one less find on that day, then I'm just fine with that.

[+NeverSummer]

If the use of satellite imagery could *consistently* produce accurate coordinates *globally* the guidelines might allow them to be used, but the guidelines still stipulate that the location must be visited and accurate coordinates obtained using a GPS.

I doubt that would happen. Geocaching (well, the GPS Stash Hunt) was conceived as a game/hobby/activity to test out the newly-more-accurate GPS signals. Testing the accuracy of maps or aerial/satellite imagery was never part of it.

 

Personally, I did encounter one or two caches early in my caching-career where the CO had stated that the coordinates were intentionally fudged (either through a post-publication description edit or in a log/note). I found this annoying at the time, but I was too green to know what I should do about it. If I encounter such a cache in the future, a Needs Archive log will be posted faster than a fat kid at a cake buffet.

 

Some others just can't get good accuracy at a site. And this is why people should post "better" coordinates when they find them, and owners should update the coordinates when people are able to find better ones than what is provided on the cache page.

Yep, much more prevalent (I suspect) than intentionally-inaccurate coordinates are COs who have unintentionally-inaccurate coordinates and refuse to do anything about it.

As a cache owner:

• If you see people frequently saying that they're finding your cache X feet/metres away from GZ, please go back out and take some new coordinates.
  
• If you see that someone who found your cache posts "better" coordinates, and multiple subsequent finders use those coordinates and confirm that they're more accurate, please update the coordinates to those.
  

As a cache finder:

• If you find that your GPSr is consistently pointing to a spot some distance from GZ, please take a minute to take a waypoint and post those coordinates with your log. If enough people do this, a trend could emerge indicating that the coordinates could be made more accurate.
  
• If you use coordinates posted by a previous finder and find them more accurate than the posted coordinates, please say so. If enough people confirm that a particular set of coordinates is more accurate, the CO could update the posted coordinates to those.
  

In my area, there used to be a cacher who would frequently post "better" coordinates, and they were almost always far more accurate than the posted coordinates and much appreciated by the locals. When I saw this, I decided to start doing the same and also seem to have gained a good reputation. Unfortunately, I'm pretty much alone in doing this. I wish more people would take the extra minute at GZ to help out their fellow cachers. If taking a few minutes out of my day to help prevent future cachers from being frustrated means one less find on that day, then I'm just fine with that.

This also assumes that people are caching with a GPSr and not a smartphone, or that if they are caching with a smartphone they know how to find the coordinates...and then they need to be a smartphone user who will log more than "TFTC" or "." when they do find the cache.

[+Harry Dolphin]

My QC department (ABQC), demands that our coords must be as accurate as possible! He will spend quite a bit of time walking off in different directions for about 100', and walk back to the cache. They are as accurate as we can possible make them.

Google streets is not noted for accuracy (in many ways. It can't even get street names correct! Relying on mapping programs is specious at best.

On the other fin, we have done a lot of caching in a large metropolitan city. GPS coords are not good in midtown Manhattan. Our GPS will frequently tell us that we are several blocks from out location. I suspect that most cache hiders there use Google Maps. We did one multi that led us to several locations in midtown. All of the coords were blocks off. It took us a while to find the Starbucks, and the WMCA. At least, the description told us what to look for. (That cache was archived because the CO was a one weekend wonder. The final was missing after we spent quite a bit of time location the intermediate stages.)

So, IMHO, GPS coords are required by the guidelines, but in rare instances (i.e., midtown Manhattan) the GPS cannot offer accurate coords.

[+The A-Team]

This also assumes that people are caching with a GPSr and not a smartphone, or that if they are caching with a smartphone they know how to find the coordinates...and then they need to be a smartphone user who will log more than "TFTC" or "." when they do find the cache.

Naturally.

 

..but then, those cachers don't really care whether the coordinates are accurate anyway. If they can't find the cache because the coordinates are inaccurate, they'll just log it as a find anyway with a "TFTC" log.

[knowschad]

Also, many reviewers are dogs.

I just wanna add that not all dogs are reviewers.

 

Just in case anybody was wondering.

[knowschad]

It's not intend as an ordinary rant against reviewers. Consistency in reviewing and activating would make this topic and others moot:

 

Until they are replaced by robots, reviewers will never be 100% consistent. For that matter, I'm not sure about the robots. Firmware and software updates, new versions, etc will probably cause them to disagree with each other at times, too. Even our courts are not consistent. That is why we have appeals.

 

I will agree that some reviewers seem to have their own personal guidelines that are not shared by other reviewers. That I wish they would not allow. But when it comes to judgement calls, each person is going to be different.

 

Oh, and GZ should be as close as possible.

[+ChileHead]

Show me somebody being "tricky" or "clever" by deliberately fudging their coordinates, and I'll show you somebody devoid of creativity and imagination.