MNTA

Or it could be the kid likes playing with sticks. Throw them into streams watch them float. Poke at things But I agree toss it. lol

Personally I dislike swag for the main reason is I find 90% of it is junk. Back when my kids were excited about it we found so little to even allow the kids to touch them let alone keep them. The reward should be hanging out with the family. Learning something new or seeing something new. Using your mind and observation skills to make the find. Not the dollar store reject broken toys. Don't get me started about leaving candy. No parent is going to allow their kids to eat anything left in a musty cache. Thows get thrown away.

May I recommend you trying to place a cache in your urban environment. You'll see the difficulty I'm trying to offer suggestions on improving. Looking at your last physical cache, yes it was unknown, but it was placed 10 years ago. The tools and the submission process have changed greatly, as has the potential for software automation and computing performance. The guidelines you quoted are cumbersome and not very user friendly this forum is intended to help GCHQ identify aspects of the game that may be candidates for change and/or improvement. I forgot to include offer insight and ideas on improvement. If things don't continue to improve and become easier and better, the next generation cachers will not materialize. So glad Pokemon Go was just a fad. GCHQ spends a lot of effort and money to continue to improve the overall geocaching experience. The message I received was that they were actively working on this aspect of the game and knew of the limitations and issues.

I just asked a cacher which TOTT they used to get a cache stuck up on a utility pole. The response floored me... We took our Little Giant Folded Ladder with us and just put it up against the pole, climbed up and got it! No one even stopped to ask us what we were up to! If verbally confronted I always respond with the truth. This helps with angry homeowners who don't want caches near their property or the coordinates were incorrectly inputted. I offer to notify the CO of the problem and get it removed from the system. With muggle with badges and guns.... Definitely the truth. Was on the side of the road in the middle of rural Idaho doing some great challenge caches. He was more concerned i was not in need of help. After explaining things and showing him the 100s of caches in the area we proceeded to look for and make the find together. Strange looks I keep on walking or pretend to make a phone call.

I just published my second cache after years of just being a finder. My first a challenge cache, really wanted it to be a climbing cache but liability meant I had to place it accessible from the ground. The D/T was such only premium would have access. I still would have limited it as I wanted experienced and committed cacher to find. The second cache I made D/T 1/1 specifically in mid to be open to all. Encourage new folks to come to a pretty area and maybe get hooked on this game. I hope it will survive but if not will maintain it if the community likes the cache and the location. I have an extended family member that only had basic membership who went caching in alaska with my folks premium members. Man were they so annoyed that they could not log the premium only cache that my folks found. They are in no way power cachers, or driven by padding their stats. Personally I don't agree with the complaint the yearly fee is pretty low for what I get out of the game.

Off the top of my head you could implement this many ways so this is just a thought experiment pros and cons would have to be thought out and weighed so to start the conversation. - Ideally this would be implemented in the very first stage of "hide a geocache" You have two options here. Search Locations or Already know a location. Possible ideas: 1) Improve the map to be more interactive. Have a propose site button. If hiding the data of unknown caches is important, which I do not agree with but let's say this is still the case. The proposed location could be checked against the same reviewer database. The website could give a warning of some type that says a hidden location may be nearby please confirm with reviewer prior to proceeding. Possibly the 0.1 mile bubble could be expanded to warn the placer of a proximity. 2) To avoid "cheating" Limit the number of checks in a small area. 3) show a randomized bubble on the map to indicate the presence of final caches in the area. To allow the person to confirm with the reviewer prior to proceeding. - If after the initial and creating the web page phase. The second thing you do here is to input the lat/long. At this point a warning could be issued to either confer with a reviewer and/or specify a problem exists. Or flat out say yes/no. When you "confirm coordinates". Though that map does have issues that you can not zoom in and see details. But an indication of problems to come would be very nice. - Finally prior to submission for review a simple check could query the database and say. Oh you have problems with placement. Rather than waiting days or a week for the reviewer to get back to you. An option to proceed could be given to get more details. I'm sure other options could be created. Software is a beautiful thing, if you can do a task manually as the reviewers are currently doing. You can implement it in software and automate it. You can also implement as much are as little rigor you want for any aspect of the game. This is what the guys at GCHQ get paid to do. Remember the original "Stash" game was simply a static website of lat/long coordinates a lot of work has gone into improving and developing things. Like adding maps, supporting smart phones, maintaining databases, show statistics. Personally I have liked most changes, wish trail maps would load better but the fact I can see a trail is awesome. Hope that answers your question

Just curious to your thoughts on the following: A puzzle cache with a validation checker attached. I solve the puzzle for 14/15 coordinates. For the last one there is two possible solutions. I try the first, nope. I try the second, that does the trick. Did I fully solve the puzzle? No but I got the solution. Is there a problem here? I find my problem. Now expand this to not knowing the 15th digit at all. Most checkers allow for multiple attempts before timing out. So if they pound on the checker till they get that last digit is that a problem. They obviously got almost all the way there. How is this different from asking for help from the CO? I recall doing this once as the CO was no longer active the puzzle intrigued me enough that I could not let it go. I then took the solution and figured out my mistake. How is this different from asking the previous finder? Now if I use google maps to look at the area and click through where it might make sense. Nope in a building, nope in the river. Ah here is one possibility. Try the checker. To some the first example is cheating. To a lot the second is cheating. Third is way out there definitely outside of the box thinking, but how would you know. My point is unless you can control every aspect of the game, which you can't and why does it matter, then the software tools for improving the overall enjoyment and ongoing development should continue to evolve. Worry about the things you can control, like creating a kick a** puzzle rather than how folks game the system. BTW my favorite puzzle was a crazy version of the old mastermind game. It had me up till 2 in the morning the day it was published. Another local puzzle was a video game balancing blocks, was impossible to get a high enough score to reveal the solution. Finally after three months one cacher hacked the java script and got the solution. This annoyed the CO but he acknowledged the outside of the box thinking and changed the puzzle setting to make it easier. To date no one else has found this guy five months later.

Off the top of my head you could implement this many ways so this is just a thought experiment pros and cons would have to be thought out and weighed so to start the conversation. - Ideally this would be implemented in the very first stage of "hide a geocache" You have two options here. Search Locations or Already know a location. Possible ideas: 1) Improve the map to be more interactive. Have a propose site button. If hiding the data of unknown caches is important, which I do not agree with but let's say this is still the case. The proposed location could be checked against the same reviewer database. The website could give a warning of some type that says a hidden location may be nearby please confirm with reviewer prior to proceeding. Possibly the 0.1 mile bubble could be expanded to warn the placer of a proximity. 2) To avoid "cheating" Limit the number of checks in a small area. 3) show a randomized bubble on the map to indicate the presence of final caches in the area. To allow the person to confirm with the reviewer prior to proceeding. - If after the initial and creating the web page phase. The second thing you do here is to input the lat/long. At this point a warning could be issued to either confer with a reviewer and/or specify a problem exists. Or flat out say yes/no. When you "confirm coordinates". Though that map does have issues that you can not zoom in and see details. But an indication of problems to come would be very nice. - Finally prior to submission for review a simple check could query the database and say. Oh you have problems with placement. Rather than waiting days or a week for the reviewer to get back to you. An option to proceed could be given to get more details. I'm sure other options could be created To be honest in some areas just knowing of a conflict would allow me to "cheat" if I so chose to do so. In some areas frankly there are not that many hiding spaces. In one of my conflict areas I was able to deduce which cache I was in conflict with. I then tried to solve that puzzle, the checker was non-functional, the CO not active in three years, last finder a year and a half ago. I confirmed with the previous finder as to the coordinates. Which BTW are on private property behind a defunct fence and in an infestation of poison oak. After conferring with the previous finder the cache has be removed. Needless to say a needs maintenance log was filed and in two to three months this will be archived.

I would like some sort of feedback from the database what ever that may entail. Most folks used to the status quo and are resistant to any change at all. i disagree this would harm other types of caches. Yes some would cheat, however those folks are already cheating. Does it hurt you? No. Is working on a D5 puzzle with a group or sharing hints with other cachers cheating. To some the answer is yes. There will never be a solution that all agree up that is why having a discussion with the actual owners of the system is needed. Look how much flack GCHQ get for adding a promotion or changes the user interface. I'm tired of reading logs and blogs of folks complaining about cheaters. Battleshipping is a new term I just learned who knew. To me they solved the puzzle, just not the way you had planned on it. Again does it hurt you? No. Unless you enjoy having a difficult puzzle that no one can solve on their own. A lot of cachers don't feel comfortable with messaging folks to ask for help so they skip them altogether. Most cache owners including puzzle owners I have come to know truly want their caches found and puzzles solved. Fear of cheating should not be the reason to not improve things.

Again just because this is the way it always has been does not mean an improvement can not be made. At a minimum I should be able to get an instant response if I input a coordinate when using the online map page or even prior to submission. Why do I have to go through a reviewer? I'd prefer to see the map be accurate. But some better feed back is truly required. This is not difficult to implement, the data is available to reviewers, add a mechanism to access the data while still maintaining the confidentiality is very simple and would take an experience coder a few minutes to implement.

I just started a thread on this on the website board. It is completely frustrating that the map does not contain all the information required to place a cache. Just because this is the way it always has been does not mean that the process should not be improved.

Second this. How about The CO should be prevented from publishing new caches while cache maintenance is required elsewhere. COs should also stop complaining about NM logs specially when multiple experienced cachers report DNFs.

There are 100s of nearby unknown caches and as I indicated are found by a small number of cachers. Besides unless you improve the solvability of these caches I'm going to ignore them. I was fine with that till I wanted to try and place a cache. Keystone's response to me is missing the point. You are prioritizing one aspect of the game over all others. People would continue hiding them, besides it is a small subset of hiders hiding these caches with the same group solving them. They have the trick to solve them so unless you improve the solvability how is this improving the overall experience of geocaching. Most folks I know put these on their ignore list. I read stories about cache quality, how is a puzzle cache that is solved by 5 cachers and not found in over a year and a half good for geocaching. I simply want the ability to place a cache in an open area. I'd really like to hear from the GCHQ rather than folks saying yeah that's the way it has always been. I'm trying to help improve a thing that I get a lot of enjoyment out of. GCHQ obviously is also motivated to continually improve and innovate, else they risk folks giving up and quitting. Personally if the tools available don't improve I don't want to participate in the hiding aspect of the game. Options: 1) Display the exact circles just like any other cache type. - Figure out a mechanism to limit the time and access to the data. - Don't worry about it if people want to "cheat" let them - Personally know a cache is in the area does not help me to find the cache. 2) Display a random blob shape in a potential conflict area - again if people want to "cheat" and search all locations in a blob let them 3) Like Waymarking & benchmarking move to a separate virtual system that allows all physical caches to be found by all and let the puzzle solving be the reward not finding a cache but by solving the puzzle. 4) Improve the solvability of unknown caches. Require Multiple automatic hints and assistance or even solution without having to message the CO 5) I'm sure there are other options as well Though the #4 about messaging the CO I've worked on several puzzle caches that the CO is no longer active so that does not work in all cases. Then the puzzle just becomes unfound and unsolved. Taking up the space indefinitely. At least with traditional caches everyone has the opportunity to try for it and if problems exist DNF and then eventually archive. Don't get me wrong I'm not anti-unknown. I just want to know they are out there to allow me to be able to place a cache. Not have to jump through extra hoops because the tools are inadequate. Too many cacher try to police things too much and are worried about so called "cheating". If people want to cheat let them. I want to find and place caches I don't want fear of cheating to be the reason this is difficult. I suggest worrying about cache quality, cache maintenance, and improving the overall experience.

Hi I live in an area with a lot of unknown puzzle caches. I've tried now twice to hide a traditional cache and twice have been blocked by an unknown cache that does not show up on the "hide a cache" map. This is extremely frustrating as from my vantage point the area is wide one. There is a great high quality spot but then the reviewer rejects the placement. They can not even tell me anything other than proximity to the nearest unseen location no directional information. I'm sorry to me this makes me not want to waste my time hiding anymore in my area as it is too difficult to find a spot as the tools available are incomplete and inadequate. The web site map to place a cache needs to be 100% accurate. In areas where there are only a few mystery caches this might not be such a big deal. I have sent multiple trips out to scout an area for that may work. Search for a placement site and then get the right cache container for the spot and finally place and write up a description. The whole notion of keeping the puzzle cache locations secret should be stopped. Quit thinking about people cheating or gaming the system. There is no competition and no prizes to people that do this. So if people wish to cheat who are they hurting no one. Yet you are harming my aspect of the game by making me go through hoops to go around one type of a geocache hide to hide my cache. So many unknown caches are crazy puzzles that are so obtuse only a few cachers manage to solve them or require major handholding from the CO. Now I've solved a few but have around 1000 on my ignore list as frankly I don't want to see them on my map unless I've solved them (Another enhancement idea btw) as an icon on a map that is wrong does me no good when I'm driving around. Another possibility is an automated help system to come up with the puzzle coordinates. But I digress.... The map data for placing a cache really needs to be accurate or at least warn of potential conflicts.

That only works if you store the list before you go out. If you travel to an area with little or no cell service it takes a long time to refresh my maps if at all. Just an enhancement suggestion to the developers.

It seems that my geocaching activity is using a lot of my data plan. As an observation it seems that a lot of the image reloading not only includes the physical caches but continually reloading the physical street/trail maps that for the most part don't change much. It would be great for me to download the street/trail map of my area as 90% of my caching is within 10 miles of my home. The streets for the most part don't change that often and when they do the maps are out of synch anyways for awhile. Then only connect to the database to retrieve the cache location icons. Should you travel outside of the area already downloaded, ask the user to download the next area or go into interactive mode as it is implemented today. This would help out in areas where cell service is non-existant. I can't tell you how many times I decide to go for a cache and then have to turn around to reconnect because I lost the information. Most times you don't know you need to download offline data till it's too late. I'm not sure how much storage this would require if it is feasible or not.