On our vacation last week we came across a “?/Mystery” cache that was sort of like that. You got the coords and then had to figure where exactly in that location the cache was. It was actually kind of neat because of the theme. We have yet to log it, but I’ll post it once we do get it logged.

We also found a cache that took us to a spot that had a micro and then within it stated to walk 8 paces and find the ‘real’ micro w/ the log. It didn’t say right or left, it said to choose. I thought that one was kind of silly. Especially because where the actual micro was another car was parked there with a guy sleeping in it 🙁

Can you give waypoint references for specific caches where you think this occurred?

@Trudy & the beast wrote:

I am calling a foul.

The coordinates are intended to help you find the cache, not to meerly get you in the general vicinity. There is enough error in GPSr readings as it is.

I thought the purpose in hiding a cache was to have it found.

Deliberate error – not cool 🙁

We have come across a few like this as well, and it annoys me. If someone who places the cache gets his/her GPS within 20 feet, isn’t it possible mine gets it within 20 feet of their coordinates that were off? Egads, some of these caches are challenging enough without the “It’s in the park. The park is 10 acres. Go find it” thing going on LOL!

@cheezehead wrote:

I just put out my first caches. On one of them, the ftf said that my cords. were off by 100 yards or so. The next said that they were dead on.

100 yards is a huge amount! But, results may vary.

I did 3 avgs waypoints on the one so it is what it is.

Just for future placement, you may want to get a few more averages. I do between 150 and 200 waypoint averages, and check the coordinates by “finding” the cache several times (often on different day). Works for me.

All the one I have found have been right on a close as a foot up to 35 feet but have had no truble finding any of them.

I consider 35 feet to be as close to dead on as possible. At about 50 feet I tend to put away the GPSr and start looking anyway.

Bec

Okay, so I’ve been working a lot lately and haven’t had much time to get onine…I am wondering though, what in the heck is this really about? Rather than generalize your statement about the placement of several hides, shouldn’t you perhaps stop to think that there could be a problem with the GPSR that you’re using. When’s the last time you calibrated your unit? When was the last time that you walked with someone else who found your numbers to be exact? When was the last time you got a notice on one of your own hides that stated your co-ords to be exactly the same as those of the seeker? It’s kind of a pain to be off of here for a while, only to return and find notes from people who think they’re better than the rest of us. In the instance you metioned, there’s nothing really to say. As for the rest of the so called “trend”…give me a break! I personally find it very hard to believe that people hide caches with the intentions of making seekers go to the wrong place. Trend…indeed!

I reviewed the cache in question.

Before it was published, I had an email conversation with the placer related to the coordinates.

It was determined that no guidelines were violated.

It is cache text hyperbole.

@MajorBrat wrote:

It’s kind of a pain to be off of here for a while, only to return and find notes from people who think they’re better than the rest of us. In the instance you metioned, there’s nothing really to say. As for the rest of the so called “trend”…give me a break! I personally find it very hard to believe that people hide caches with the intentions of making seekers go to the wrong place. Trend…indeed!

Just imagine the pain to be attacked immediately by you once you do get back on.

Yeah, and I know what you’re thinking — I’m just saying what a lot of people are thinking.