Inconsistent region for a cache

Question

I recently found a "?" cache (GC3VGHX). The posted coordinates are on the ocean, the cache page shows it as New Brunswick (Canada).  The solved coordinates are also in New Brunswick. However, on the project GC checker for a challenge based on icons in provinces does not show the find of the "?" icon in NB (so I assume it's treating the cache as being in PEI).  

Similarly, I know of a traditional cache on a mountain (GC9DN1W) that the cache page states as British Columbia (which I believe is correct) while the project GC page lists the same cache as being in Alberta (highest cache in a province).  Yes the mountain in question straggles the border, but from what I know of the cache location, it is on the BC side of the border.

I'm curious about the inconsistency.

Answer 1

According to Project-GC, GC3VGHX is in Prince Edwards Island. This is determined by looking at the coordinates for the cache and map data. Similarly, GC9DN1W is in Alberta. For both these (and any other cache), the cache owner may have stated something else. This is outside our control.

Comments

I think the key point has been missed in this answer.... there is a mismatch in terms of the province between the project-GC data and the information that the cache page displays automatically.  At least I assume this generated automatically when the cache page is created (edit... just checked the cache creation page and it looks like a CO can change this, but I would have thought that this is something a reviewer would be checking on for accuracy ?). The part of the cache page I am referring to is seen on the web version of the cache page, in the coloured box near the top and to the right of where the lat / long and UTM appear just below the cache name etc.

---

Yes, exactly. There's a mismatch in this data because what's on the cache page is given by the cache owner and may be wrong. Some reviewers check this, some don't.

The Project-GC information is calculated from the coordinates and the map data and is likely correct (assuming the OpenStreetMap data that underlies this is correct; if not this will eventually get corrected).