no_peeking

So how about this one. I was heading out on a camping trip with my family. The night before we left, I'd downloaded my route points the night before I left, so I had current data. The cache in question was 3 hours from home, at a pull-off (not a major highway, just a road). We stopped and My gps was pointing to a couple trees in a grassy pull-off area. All previous logs indicated an easy find, such as in the whole in one of the trees. I could not find it, figured "oh well" and continued on my way. When I returned home a few days later, the log owner had temporarily disabled the cache the day I attempted my find because it had been muggled (sometime before). My thinking: this is a cache that's far enough away from my home that I'm not likely to attempt it again, and I was there and likely would have found it had it not been muggled. So I logged the find and the cache owner deleted the log. Oh well. I didn't argue it because I understand (although don't necessarily agree with) the reasoning. If you were the cache owner, what would you have done? (I would have left the log.)

There's this really clandestine, sneaky side of me that gets the adrenaline rush from finding somethig where it really shouldn't be, and no one knows about it except us cachers. I had a conversation with someone about putting a nano inside a supermarket; perhaps under the shelves where they keep the canned pears or something. No one would ever know it's there, except the people looking for it, and it's otherwise harmless.

How about caches such the OYR (off your rocker) series? I've been reading about that and there seems to be some dissent on whether such a cache was ever a good idea. How about, also, caches that require you to go, for example, into the public library and ask for "the box behind the desk"?

How rigorous should or do you adhere to the "leave no trace" rule for placing a geocache? I ask because I was reading some of the OYR thread and there seemed to be some pretty strong opinions about placing caches in obvious places or otherwise breaking the "leave no trace" rule. I am new, only 75 under my belt, but have hidden three and would like to hide more and want to do some creative stuff, but don't know how far to push the envelope.

What's your 1 best muggle story? I once was looking for a cache on a community college campus and happened to be outside the security office. They came out and asked, "what are you looking for?" I'm sure they were being polite but more likely very concerned about my suspicious behavior. "Ahhh" I said, "I lost my house key out here last week." "Oh, come on inside, we've got a whole lot of keys. Maybe it's in there." "OK" I said. And into the building I went, looking for a non-existent key. I was surprised at the hundred or so keys they had collected. Didn't people miss them? "Nope. Not here" I said. Then went back to look for the cache. After a few more minutes, and noticing that they continued to watch me from the building, I decided to complete this one another day.

Toyota 4 Runner

This is kind of the point I was trying to get to in the other thread. There is only one of the seven characteristics on ClayJar that is used to actually characterize the difficulty of the hide itself. All of the other characteristics have to do with getting to the hide (i.e. terrain), and I'm fine with those. In my opinion, it would be worth adding some additional characteristics to the hide itself. But I'm not going to argue it because of the low signal to noise ratio. Geocaching is an autonomous collective, an anarcho-syndicalist commune where people take it in turns to act as a sort of executive officer of the week.

Awesome! I did not realize gsak had its own forum. I'll watch there more often now. I'm just starting to use it now and learning as I go. I appreciate the pointer and the help. Happy caching to you!

OK. Y'all win. Sorry I brought it up.

Y'know, after thinking about this some more, I finally caught on. I think you're right. The number of possible hiding places has to be taken into account. Your example in a later post and my awareness of where you are caching sunk in. Mostly where I am caching there is a lot of forestry around. I reach the coordinate and immediately there are ten trees with knotches and holes, not to mention the prospect of rocks and all sorts of possible places to hide a 35mm film canister or small dry-match container (not to mention a nano). Perhaps a modification to the "visible" could be: Is the cache visible or in an obvious location? That way, even if the cache is "invisible" the setting could be over-ridden with the "obvious location" characteristic. The other characteristics could still apply.

Ah, my mistake. I we referring to the "Additional Hints" (sorry, I called them clues). If a cache owner provides an Additional Hints that tells exactly where the cache is, then the cache, no matter how difficulty, becomes much easier. This is why I suggest removing points depending on the nature of the additional hint. As for complexity, I can understand your perspective, although I think it is no more complex than the existing system...it's just two additional questions. But I can appreciate your comment.

Were you referring to me (no_peeking)? If so, I would like to point out that I admit my limited geocaching experience, but also correct you in that I more than two micros and a small under my belt. Perhaps you looked at the wrong ID. I am only offering a collaborative suggestion, and I am doing so without pretense of having all of the answers. I am willing to work to make it happen (hence my posted code snippet). I also am not attacking anyone and being careful to be positive and constructive. I don't mind defending my ideas; I am a firm believer of "may the best idea win." I apologize if my earlier response to your post about the number of possible hiding spots offended you. I did not mean such offense. It would be unfortunate if a newcomer were discouraged from speaking up.

My apologies if this is covered somewhere. I did search, and I did look through the GSAK help file, but could not find what I was looking for. In GSAK, when you open the database and select a point, if you press F2 it splits the screen and displays the point on a Google map. Very handy! What if I wanted to display all of the points in the database, or a selection of points from the database, on the Google map at the same time? Can I do that? How?

Again, very thoughtful response. Thank you for taking my suggestion seriously. I might reply on a couple points. I think for the multis, the cache owner will have to make a judgement call. I certainly would not want to offer further specialized characterizations for multis. Take what you think is the average of them all and go for that. I think every cache owner must use this, or whatever system, only as a guide and not an absolute. Ultimately, your last comment is correct: "revise as hard feedback comes in." But as a guide, I think the current system offers too much variance, thereby making it meaningless. As such, cache owners must quite literally rely on the "arbitrary assessment" part of your statement, which means the difficulty rating is meaningless. If it's meaningless, why have it at all?

Yes, the number of potential hiding places. I posted earlier on that. For every cache I've done (admittedly limited experience) there were hundreds of possible hiding spots at the location. This one doesn't help me. Sorry.

It's no more complicated than the existing system; it merely expands the one question of difficulty to three. And you would not be telling anyone what the cache container is, merely using the rating system to come up with the rating. For example, if your cache is rated 3, there's still some variability that retains the cache's "fun" quota. For example: - in plain sight, specialized container, with a cryptic clue - visible but covered, atypical container, with a cryptic clue - visible but covered, specialized container, but your clue tells me where to go after I've become frustrated - it's invisible, but is a typical container, and there's no clues - it's invisible, an atypical container, but your clue tells me where it is when I'm frustrated. This is a legitimate 3 to me. Mystery caches ... good point. I'm not sure how they might figure in here. Maybe they're not rated?

Excellent question. I will try my best to summarize. The present system offers seven characterizations, six of which pertain to terrain involved in getting to the cache. Only one pertains to the difficulty of the cache itself. In that one characterization, there are some holes that make it less than useful. -- Cache is in plain sight or location is fairly obvious. [What about the cache that is in plain sight but the container looks like a "rock". I wouldn't rate that a 1, but it would be.] -- Cache could be in one of several locations. Hunter may have to look for a while. [Every cache I've done was placed where there were one of hundreds of possible hiding spots inside the sixty foot radious in which I was looking. That's a 2? I think not. Throw in that it's desguised like a rock.] -- Cache may be very well hidden, may be multi-leg, or may use clues to location. [What does "very well hidden" mean? That is very subjective. Very well hidden for me is obvious for the cacher that has 2,000 under his/her belt.] I can poke at the last two, but you get my point. The result is that the current difficulty rating question does not portray a reasonably accurate measure of the cache's difficulty. It relies on subjective or otherwise not useful characterizations: "specialized" "very well hidden" "lots possible locations". These terms are so broadly open to interpretation as to be not very useful. What I propose has more objective characterizations that lead to a more accurate representation of the cache difficulty. It very simply comes down to three characterizations: 1) the hiding place 2) the container 3) the clues that are provided

You've made some good, thoughtful points. I'll reply in kind. First, I was trying to stay away from the terrain ratings, which I think are fine. Second, your point about possible locations; I struggle with this because based on my (admittedly limited) experience, every cache I've done so far has hundreds of possible hide locations inside the sixty foot radious in which I'm looking. For me, number of possible hiding places is not very helpful. When you ad in the disguised container factor, such a cache may be impossible ... yet this one could still be rated a 2. Very deceptive. My point here is simple: if what is legitimately a level 5 difficulty can be tagged (technically accurately) as a level 2 difficulty, what value is there in having a rating system at all? Third, puzzles. Most (if not all) of the puzzle caches are multis, and most of them I would suggest make it clear in the cache description that it's a puzzle. So I avoided offering rating puzzles on the assumption that the cacher would know, based on the description, that despite the rating given the multis or the final, they were in for some possibly very difficult work. So in effect, I am suggesting rating the location of the final leaving the puzzle indication as the notice to the cacher of the difficulty they were in for to get there. Fourth, multis. I think another poster brought this up, too. I would defer to the judgement of the cache owner to "average" the multis out. Basically, go through the ratings giving best general assessment and go with the number it comes out with. Leave it at that. That's the best I can do on multis without adding in some additional characterizations. (Based on the few responses so far, it's going to be a big enough piece of work just changing the difficulty characterizations.) Fifth, access via a boat. I think I might characterize this as a "terrain" issue.

Well, here is the code. There would have to be some additional logic to make the calculation, something to the effect: Average (cache, container) minus (clues). I would do that, too, but I don't have access to that engine (javascript perhaps?). I would suggest that ClayJar host it; it's a minor update to his site, and he's already linked to from the geocaching new cache site. <th class="head" colspan=2 align="left">How hidden is the cache?</th> <tr> <tr> <td class="odd" valign="top"><input type="radio" name="Cache" value="1" checked></td> <td class="odd">In plain sight </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="even" valign="top"><input type="radio" name="Cache" value="3"></td> <td class="even">Visible but covered </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="odd" valign="top"><input type="radio" name="Cache" value="5"></td> <td class="odd">Invisible </td> </tr> <td colspan=2> </td> </tr> <th class="head" colspan=2 align="left">What is the container like?</th> <tr> <tr> <td class="odd" valign="top"><input type="radio" name="container" value="1" checked></td> <td class="odd">A typical container for this size cache. </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="even" valign="top"><input type="radio" name="container" value="3"></td> <td class="even">An <em>a</em>typical container for this size cache (but not specialized) </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="odd" valign="top"><input type="radio" name="container" value="2"></td> <td class="odd">A specialized container designed to blend into the surroundings. </td> </tr> </tr> <td colspan=2> </td> </tr> <th class="head" colspan=2 align="left">How helpful are your clues?</th> <tr> <tr> <td class="odd" valign="top"><input type="radio" name="clues" value="0" checked></td> <td class="odd">No clues, or only very cryptic clues. </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="even" valign="top"><input type="radio" name="clues" value="-.5"></td> <td class="even">The clues are clear and give specific pointers or hints to the location without telling the location. </td> </tr> <tr> <td class="odd" valign="top"><input type="radio" name="clues" value="-1"></td> <td class="odd">The clue(s) are clear and tell you the location of the cache. </td> </tr> </tr>

I'm not suggesting to replace the existing system entirely, just the last question, which characterizes the cache itself. And, despite the length of the post required to describe it, it is just as simple as the first six questions. Also, I am not suggesting that we throw out all that hard work. Not at all. I am suggesting that we add just a little more hard work to it to give better guidance on the cache difficulty.

My observation is that the current system has six question about the terrain and only one question about the cache itself. I only suggest replacing that one question about the cache itself with three questions: - characterize the hide - characterize the container - account for clues I suggest only addint two questions to the current system. As for existing caches, I suggest do nothing. If cache owners like the new characterizations and want to update their caches, great. If not, then the ratings remain as they are.

I’d like to propose some changes to the suggested cache rating scale offered by ClayJar and referenced by geocaching.com when establishing new caches (http://www.clayjar.com/gcrs/). First, I understand ‘terrain’ to be how hard it is to get to the location of the cache (not finding the cache itself) Second, I understand ‘difficulty’ to be how hard it is to find the cache itself. Cache difficulty is the topic I think needs better defining criteria in order to be more useful for cache seeker planning. I would like to suggest modifying the cache difficulty rating system to include these criteria: -->1) How hidden is it? --------->1 In plain sight, such as hanging from a tree, or attached to a fence. --------->3 Visible but Covered, but is within an object (such as a knot of a tree), attached to an object (such as sandwiched between a sign post and a wall), is covered with sticks, stones, brush, etc. (good for large canisters) --------->5 Invisible (something will have to be moved, uncovered, or it is otherwise inside something where you won’t be able to see it etc.) -->2) What is the container like? --------->1 It’s a typical container for a cache this size (35mm film, decon kit, small ammo can, large ammo can) [nothing special about it] --------->3 It’s an atypical container, but not “specialized” (see next) --------->5 It’s a specialized container designed to look like part of the background (a rock; a stick; deer poop)—these will likely require help from the cache owner or additional clues Each of these two criteria should be rated 1, 3, 5 and then averaged. The combinations would be: -->1 Plain sight and typical container = 1 -->2 Plain sight and atypical container = 2 -->3 Plain sight and specialized container = 3 -->4 Visible but covered and typical container = 2 -->5 Visible but covered and atypical container = 3 -->6 Visible but covered and specialized container = 4 -->7 Invisible and typical container = 3 -->8 Invisible and atypical container = 4 -->9 Invisible and specialized container = 5 A note about clues. Clues have to be factored in here somehow; sometimes clues are not very “clueful” and other times they are the only reason for success. That should be factored in to the cache difficulty rating and here is how I think they should be factored in. ---->0 No/Cryptic Clues: there are no clues or the clues are very cryptic (i.e. unhelpful) ---->-.5 Clear Clues: The clues are clear and give specific pointers or hints to the location without telling the location. ---->-1 Tell Clues: The clue(s) are clear and tell you the location of the cache Each of these scores should be used to lower the difficulty score of the cache rating by the points indicated, accounting for the fact that no cache difficulty can be lower than 1. Some examples: -->A plain sight and typical container = 1 minus Tell Clues = 1 -->A plain sight and atypical container = 2 minus Tell Clues = 1 -->Visible but covered and specialized container = 4 minus Clear Clues = 3.5 -->Visible but covered and specialized container = 4 minus Tell Clues = 3 -->Invisible and typical container = 3 minus No/Cryptic Clues = 3 -->Invisible and specialized container = 5 minus Clear Clues = 4.5 I think this would be very helpful and would give better guidance to cache owners in rating their caches. It would also help cache seekers understand what they are getting into. Thoughts?

You have to ask them to establish a geocache on the IST! Now that would be awesome! You could actually have them log the placement and return it....

Well, I know I said this, but now it's not working for me. So, doesn't seem to be the issue. Can't wait for the update that fixes the problem... When will that be?

I feel the same way. I've been having this problem since they reimplemented the google map view last year sometime, and watching this thread for a few weeks now. It's an extremely useful feature, and therefore the disappointment is equally extreme to have it not work... When will the next "push out" take place? I have managed to avoid the error by doing this: click to pan, pan and drag to the area you want to see next, BUT before you let go of the click (which will set off the search and thus the error) give it about a second or two to load the map underneath and THEN unclick. This seems to work for me and I dont' get the error. If I pan too quickly, error every time.