Semínko

Long term, you're right, obviously. BUT... They will not change the website for a few "uncheatable" caches. That's the point.

Yup, I was thinking along the same lines BTW, I love the qoute: "If you log the cache without a token, I won't delete it, but everyone will know you cheated!"

Fair enough.

Basically, it would work the same way as the challenge caches. I don't know how it works in the US, but here we have challenge caches, which are in fact puzzle caches where one doesn't have to find final coords. In other words the posted and final coords match. But, for your log to be accepted you have to meet certain criteria, ie have at least 300 found caches in specific region. So if you physically log the cache without meeting the criteria, which is checked AFTER you log in online, your log will be deleted by the CO - no questions asked. As for your point of "Someone would just upload the rest of the information.", that's not how that works. The site is pretty structured. It's not like a forum where one can write anything. So sure, people would be able to communicate what has to happen for their log to be accepted by other means, but that's fine. By cutting the website off, the majority of cheating would be thwarted. Even the example with the disabled person is fine - as per my example above, the only thing that would need to happen is for both of you having to solve the puzzle - ie do some online action (which precedes getting the coords), which would then log that info into a db etc...

Where I'm from, someone started a website for sharing finals of puzzle / multi caches a long time ago and it cought on. I discussed this with experienced cachers from my community and I'm told the trend is that close to 75% of all the finds for any D3+ puzzle/multi is being acquired through the site. So almost noone is actually solving the harder puzzles except for the first few and then just here or there - mostly people who don't know about the site. I'm wondering if it is within the rules for me, as the CO, to delete the logs of people who I know did not solve the puzzle. Pertinent info is that the site doesn't provide you the solution, it only provides you with the final coords. So, if there are people solving in groups, they are free to share the steps needed to get to the solution, and that is fine. Which I would specificaly state in the listing. Hence, this would only affect people who pirated the coords.

I would be fine with just displaying the circles for puzzles which I have solved. But overall agree with you. Anyways, the macro update was easier than I thought. I got it to work already in GSAK...

I will look into it when I have some time to spare. Thanks guys

Sure, there will always be some right? But I can solve the vast majority of puzzle caches in my area so one would expect I should be able to benefit from that when placing a cache. Oh well, just wanted to check whether there is native solution or not. Seems there is none, so will have to create one myself - I guess a macro for GSAK or a python script should do the trick.

I think I didn't get my point across well enough. Sure I can have a location checked. But in my area, there are a LOT of caches, so 95 spots I come up with will already be taken and I will spend A LOT of time looking for those spots. If the preview map worked well (meaning it would actually show the 161m red circles around mystery chaches I have updated the coords for [and logged?]), I could see which spots are free and look within those free spots and only then do a coordinate check to see whether it doesn't collide with a stray non-solved mystery.

Yes, that's one of the ways, but one that makes my reviewers life more difficult. It makes even my life more difficult, because without knowing where the free spots are there is almost a guarantee that the spot I find is already taken by a mystery cache that, even though I already solved, updated its coords and even logged doesn't appear in the preview map. And let's be honest, if you're serious about your cache, you will not put it just anywhere, right? We all want cool spots for our cache with a great hiding place. So finding a spot is the time drain. Hence if the preview map would in fact reflect the solved locations, that would solve the whole issue. Maybe it does and there's an issue on my pc, but so far I doubt it.

Where I'm from it's pretty crowded with caches. Finding a good spot is hard on its own but finding a good spot that is collision free is almost impossible. Found three good spots for my cache in the last month, unfortunately all of them collide with other caches. So I went ahead and started solving mystery caches around my area so I know where I stand, only to find out that when I actually log the mystery caches, the icon on the map changes from the solved locations I updated manually to the original listing's fake coords. The frustrating bit is that the map with red circles that you get when updating your cache's coords doesn't reflect the mystery caches manually updated locations. So I'm nowhere closer to knowing where there's a potential free spot for a cache. Am I missing something? Is there a reasonable way that doesn't involve me exporting all the caches, their updated locations and plotting it with the 161m circles myself?

In our case, the cache was in a pretty frequented area and got stolen. After which we moved it like 20 meters out of the main road, behind the block of flats that we lived in. It was well hidden - noone could have found it by accident, with almost no pedestrian traffic. Got stolen again. I suspect it was due to careless cachers and nosy neighbors. The first cache theft we'd foreseen, but it still had a good run - almost a year. The second cache - no idea what happened there hence unfortunately no lesson to learn, really. Except for maybe, people are assholes... A bit of a rant but with how heavilly bureaucratic the cache placement process is and people being assholes it took me two years to even consider placing a cache again. Makes one respect all the people who keep their caches alive for years!

Understood. Thanks I'd like to hide a cache pretty near where I live so I can service it. I hid a cache at the last place I lived and had to service it a lot more than I though. The unfortunate thing (for hiding a cache) is that it's pretty cache-busy where I live so finding a empty spot that is interesting or relevant to the cache is close to impossible. Can't imagine finding multiple spots...

Oh, ok good to know. And since it would be a physical stage it would need to adhere to the 161m rule, right? What a shame.

I'm preparing a mystery cache "multi" which will require going to a couple of places to get additional clues - BUT - sequentially. From what I understand this falls under virtual stages, which can be located even within 161m of other caches / physical stages. My question is - do I need to list those stages upfront? Will they be visible? Obviously if they were visible, people would just go to the last one. If I gather correctly virtual stages are more of a 'collect clues from all these stages in ANY order, put them together and you will get the final location' right? What if I want people to solve the first part of the puzzle via the listing, get a location, go to a location, solve a puzzle at the spot, get location for the final? Is that within the rules? If so, how do I set up a cache like that? Just the usual - bogus location (visible) + final location (not visible)?

Thanks for your thoughts, everyone!

I have a two part question. It seems only a premium member can flag a cache as 'premium only'. I've done some googling and it seems that if the premium membership expires, the cache retains the 'premium only' setting. Is that info still valid? Here's the conundrum I'm in. I'm planning to hide a mystery cache. Have a story written, great puzzle to solve so it's only fitting to have a great final container. I'm thinking about some minor electronics, buttons, LED lights, all the bells and whistles. Now, I did some calculations and it will cost some amount of money. Since converting currencies doesn't give clear picture, let's say I would need to work 5 hours to earn the amount of money the components cost. Plus there would be time spent putting it together, making the container itself, finishing touches etc. From my limited experience as a non-premium member, I can safely say that some people just don't give a dadgum, at least in my neck of the woods. And obviously I don't want to spend time and money on something that will get broken in a month. In your experience, do you see a difference in how people treat your container / how long it's in an OK condition when the cache is set as 'premium only' and when it's not?

@cerberus1, thanks for the comment. This helps me understand where you guys are coming from.

Yup, you are right. For some reason I though the cache radiuses cannot intersect, which would make the minimum distance for another cache to be placed 322m. Despite me literally placing a cache cca 165 meter from another cache . I still think it would be doable, detecting shady behavior I mean, but yea, I see your guys' point a bit better now...

Well, it's not like there would be no need to solve the puzzle. You'd have to abuse the system, risking a ban and after all this hustle be left with a 161 meter circle you would have to go in and brute force your way to get the cache. This seems like too much work for most people just to get one particularly difficult puzzle cache. I mean even now there are websites that can, apparently, give you the final locations of puzzle caches. Do those puzzle caches listed there have any meaning? Of course they do! Sure, there will be people who will pay for those final coords just to be able to log the cache, but I'm asking again - how does that affect me as a person who wants to find the cache the normal way or you as the cache owner who, presumably, wants the same thing?

I disagree. This is a very black and white view of the issue, basically saying that if we can't be close to absolutely sure people are not abusing the system the whole concept is meaningless. What I'm interested in is why you feel puzzle caches wouldn't have any meaning at all if a miniscule minority of people cheated to find them. How does that affect me or others who want to find the cache without cheating? How does that affect the cache owner? I'm not anywhere close to your guys' cache counts so I'm genuinly interested in your opinions.

That is good to know. I will make sure I do that once I have a new location to check. Thanks for the advice, I appreciate it.

Hi @Keystone, thanks for the reply. Regarding my draft cache - I acted based on our local rules, which specifically state that for a coords check I should not submit the cache for review but rather send my reviewer a private message. Which I did. Regarding the automation - didn't know that was a thing. So if I understand correctly, there are people who would use the proposed system to be able to triangulate the 161 circle and despite not knowing the exact location, go there and try to find the cache brute force? If that is the case I guess we would have to compare the positive and negative effects of such a change, and the ratio of benefit. To me the benefit of saving a couple of days of literally everyone who creates a cache outweights the downside of, I assume, a limited number of people abusing the system. Also the checks can be limited. For example, you have to be logged in to use the feature. Your account has to have at least X found caches to use the feature. Your account has to be at least X months old to use the feature. If you would use the feature excessively your account would get banned. etc. That would hopefully prevent people from using the feature extensively and also creating fake accounts to do that. I guess you can also track the IPs of logins. EDIT: thanks for the check

I have been geocaching on and off for years now and the topic that always crops up, at least in my neck of the woods, is that new people don't bother creating new caches. So last year I decided I will not be one of those who just take and don't bring anything to the table, and decided to create a cache of my own. But boy, oh boy, was I in for a headache. Biggest offender - Collisions I totally get why the rule (161m) is in place. Having said that, what I don't understand is why the collision check is not automated. I mean we have solution checkers for mystery caches, why can't we have the same feature for creating caches? You would create a cache listing and then have the opportunity to check whether the location you would like to hide the cache at is collision free or not. Some people might point out that this could be abused but I mean reviewers do the same thing now, don't they? You can create an empty listing with several coords to be checked and contact a reviewer who then tells you that locations 1, 2 and 4 are colliding with other caches but location 3 is fine. The difference between a reviewer telling you or a reCaptcha module telling you is the time saved. You'd save everyone's time which from my limited experience reviewers don't necessarily have enough. In case of my first hidden cache, it took over two months only to get the coords checked, three months to get the cache published (despite there not being any outstanding issues). With my second cache I'm planning to hide at the moment, it's been two weeks but no reviewer reply in sight. This seems completely avoidable. Would you be in favor of automating collision checks? If not, why?