greenwoodturner

After uploading field notes to geocaching.com, you see a list showing the cache name and the timestamp. It would be nice if the GC # were also displayed. When we are geocaching, my wife keeps notes in a notebook for each cache we have attempted; this allows us to write more meaningful log entries, since we don't have to rely only on our memories. On occasion, she has accidentally forgotten to add an entry for a cache; this has occasionally caused me to log the wrong information, since the field notes and her notes no longer are in sync. To remedy this, I frequently have to open up the cache description page while I'm logging, to make sure that I'm using the correct notes from her notebook. This is a very inefficient way of logging and really slows the process down. It would be SOOOO much nicer if the field notes page showed the GC #, since this would allow me to quickly detect when an entry has been omitted from her notebook. I would think that this would be a trivial change to the geocaching.com website.

The latest site updates definitely have a bug when it comes to generating a PQ of your finds. I requested a list of my latest finds, and although I quickly received an email saying that the file had been generated and was ready for download, the file never appeared; for the last 3 hours I've had 0 PQs ready for download. Refreshing the page, or logging out and then back in make no difference. Sure hope that they fix this soon!

Thanks for the suggestions! Obviously, I don't use the forums too often

In early August, we will be driving down into the southeastern portion of Oregon, in an attempt to complete the Oregon Delorme Challenge. We plan on visiting Delorme pages 72-79. I was wondering if fellow geocachers have any "must-do" caches for any of those pages? We have a Jeep, so we are not limited to caches along the highways. I've had the following recommendations: "The Knox Box" - GCXPT5 "Wild Horse Homelands Confluence" - GCB41 Thanks, GreenWoodTurner

Hi Flask, I never meant to imply that first-to-solve was the same as first-to-find. If I solve a puzzle first, but lose out on FTF because I took the time to use a coordinate checker, then I totally understand that I neither deserve nor can claim FTF honors. And yes, I owe you an apology for my insincerity and my own uncivil tone; it was wrong of me to have responded that way and I would like to publically ask for your forgiveness. It was the case of me allowing my own character flaws to take control of my tongue/fingers. There was no excuse for it, and I'm sorry it happened. GreenWoodTurner

if you are racing for FTF i especially want to leave you hanging, and allow the guys who risks the trip to the unknown spot to get the FTF he deserves. I guess that I have to humbly disagree with you. If I solve the puzzle, but wish to verify my answer, I am no less deserving of the FTF honors than someone who doesn't verify their answer. ah, but no. the one who deserves the FTF is not the first to solve the puzzle; that's why it's called "first to find". if you are not the first one to find the cache, you are much, much less deserving of the FTF honors than the guy who actually IS the first to find it. you may sit at home waiting to try more little numbers in the box, especially if the puzzle is fuzzy and the checker is not. my money and my hopes are on the guy with enough brass to go into the field without getting his hand held. that's the guy who's deserving of the honor. a required checker is a bad idea. if one should be required in the future, here's a good way to queer the results: purposely make the last digit wrong. the stay-at-home-until-i-get-verification types will be humbly sitting behind their desks while the first finders are at the cache laughing, every blessed time. Before responding to a thread, I would encourage you next time to read everything which has transpired after that thread. You would see that I have come around to a slightly different stand regarding coordinate checkers. I have agreed that requiring them is probably not the best idea, although my reasons are different from yours. Having them available as an integrated option within a puzzle cache submission page would go a long way towards meeting the goal I have been pursuing. Your FTF philosophy seems a little warped to me. You assume that simply because I use a coordinate checker to validate my response, I'm doing so because my answer is fuzzy. Give me a break! From the sounds of it, you are a purist at heart ... I respect that, but I don't respect your superior attitude. It's a good thing that most geocachers I encounter know how to be civil to others. Evil for the sake of evil reflects nothing more than a severe character flaw. Enjoy the rest of your day!

This has been a very enlightening discussion! All in all, I'm still a big proponent of coordinate checkers. However, two different people have contacted me with examples of puzzle caches where having a coordinate checker would effectively allow someone to guess the answer without any effort at all ... this would not be a good situation! As a compromise, it would be nice if Groundspeak integrated the ability to easily add a coordinate checker, when defining a puzzle cache. They could easily add a checkbox, enabled by default (of course ), which indicates whether a coordinate checker should be added. When this option is selected, the cache owner would need to define the 'final location' waypoint. Does this completely solve the issue? No ... but it would be an improvement. Hard core cache owners, who feel that coordinate checkers are for sissies, would still refuse to use them. That's their choice, and I respect it. But cache owners who have never added one, because they didn't know how to, would now be able to have them effectively for free.

I see this as an argument that is more in favor of the OP than opposed. 1. When placing a puzzle the hider is required to enter an additional waypoint of the the type Final Location. 2. If the user has specified Final Location and the cache type is Mystery/Unknown, the system can automatically add a button "Check Coordinates" that takes you to a page to enter your solution and compare this to the Final Location. The user does not need to know HTML to link to an offsite coordinate checker, it is done automatically for any Mystery/Unknown cache with hidden coordinates in a Final Location waypoint. The are just too many problems with an automatic solution. 1. Some users may not create the final location properly. There is no requirement to use the final location type or to have just one final location. This would mean additional coding to verify the final location additional waypoint is filled in for Mystery/Unknown caches or additional work for the reviewers (albeit work that they mostly already do). 2. Some "puzzles" may not depend on calculating the final coordinates. They have to be entered so the reviewers can check if the placement of the final location meets the guidelines, but finders are expected to find the final location based on some work they do in the field and by solving a puzzle at home before they start. 3. Some puzzles caches are not at the Final Location. They may have been moved and the hider just forgot to update the Final Location. 4. Older caches don't always have the additional waypoints listed. 5. Even if the coordinate check is performed by Geocaching.com, some hiders will not trust it. What keeps someone from using the checker from brute forcing an answer? Some puzzles may be ones were the solver has figured out all but one or two digits. A coordinate checker could be easily used to get the rest of the solution at this point. OK ... I'll go out on a limb here, possibly exposing some ignorance on my part. With regards to your first point: anytime I've created a puzzle cache, but not created a waypoint for the final location, the cache reviewer has rejected the request ... I must provide the coordinates for the final location, in the form of a waypoint. I've always used the 'final location' waypoint type, because (a) it made sense, and ( I assumed that that was the required type. If people mis-enter their final waypoint coordinates, then that is an out-and-out mistake on their part. The reviewer is going to evaluate the new cache based on the coordinates entered by the cache owner; if bogus coordinates are entered, then it's possible that the cache should have been rejected because the real location was too close to another existing cache. As an aside, when ever I add a coordinate checker, I verify that it works using the correct coordinates, before I publish the cache. With regards to your second point: puzzle caches which require work in the field still could use a coordinate checker. I've worked this kind of puzzle before, and even though my work seems correct, if I can't find the cache in the field, being able to come back home and verify that my work was correct is nice to do. Again, there is no harm here by having the coordinate checker available. With regards to your third point: the only think I can say about this is that cache owners need to be more careful . Again, if the waypoints are incorrect, then reviewers cannot properly evaluate new caches, in order to determine if they are at least .1 miles apart. With regards to your fourth point: I doubt that there would be anyway of going back and updating existing puzzle caches ... not saying that it's impossible ... just not very likely, especially if no guidelines were in place when these caches were defined. With regards to your last point: if you can't trust Groundspeak with your final cache coordinates, then who can you trust? If your puzzle cache was defined correctly, they already have that information available in the form of a waypoint. Using brute force or guessing to solve a puzzle could certainly be a potential problem. As it is right now, people can already do this by emailing a friend or someone else who has already solved the puzzle.

if you are racing for FTF i especially want to leave you hanging, and allow the guys who risks the trip to the unknown spot to get the FTF he deserves. I guess that I have to humbly disagree with you. If I solve the puzzle, but wish to verify my answer, I am no less deserving of the FTF honors than someone who doesn't verify their answer.

If coordinate checkers were in place, you would still at least receive emails from those cachers who needed a nudge. Unfortunately, not all cache owners are as considerate and responsive as you are. As a cacher who enjoys solving (and creating) puzzles, I appreciate cache owners who are willing to respond to my emails, but not everyone does.

Change is sometimes hard to accept ... I understand that. I also understand that people know about coordinate checkers, so they can currently use them if they want to. But for all of the reasons I've stated in my previous postings, I think that there is a valid reason to have a coordinate checker link automatically added to a puzzle page. I'll reiterate one of my points: it isn't necessarily the puzzle creator who is in the best position to decide the need for a coordinate checker link ... it's the other cachers who are trying to solve the puzzle!

Regardless of whether I'm going for FTF or 100th to find, having a way to validate a solution, without requiring an email exchange with the cache owner, is a win-win in my book. It's a win for the cacher, because they don't have to wait an unknown amount of time to find out if their solution is correct; it's a win for the cache owner, because they don't have to reply to an avalanche of email requests. With respect to trusting the puzzle checker owners: what if the checker was owned and managed by Groundspeak? By integrating this into the cache submission process, it would only be natural for them to own the coordinate checker. If you can't trust Groundspeak with your final coordinates, who can you trust?

In this case, I could see where a coordinate checker would be redundent ... but harmless. For this class of puzzle cache, people would simply never use the coordinate checker. But since the coordinate checker would have been added automatically (at least that's what I've proposed), it didn't require any extra work on the part of the cache owner.

As a creator of one of the first coordinate checking systems I think it would be a terrible idea to force cache owners to use one. I created a private one from my own caches because we were getting a lot of queries. I didn't post a link to the checker on the cache page simply so folks could make a happy discovery if they checked out our website. I created a generic solution for public consumption and others took and ran with it. Others created their own from a different angle. I think checkers are a great addition. However, I no more think they should be forced on a cache owner than they should be forced to provide a hint. Period. The option of providing automated coordinate confirmation: good idea. Being forced to provide automated coordinate confirmation: terrible idea. Again, if the process was automatic, then no one is really being forced to provide an automated coordinate checker ... it happens automatically and painlessly. What possible reason would a cache owner have for not wanting a coordinate checker in place, especially if it required no work on their part?

One way to cut down on the impression that this is extra red-tape, would be if the coordinate checker was automatically generated when the puzzle cache was submitted. After all, we are already required to define a waypoint for the final coordinates, so why not have the coordinate checker link automatically generated based on the final waypoint value? This then makes it not an extra burden for the cache owner! If anything, this strengthens my feelings that if a coordinate checker were integrated into the process of defining a puzzle cache, the extra work for the puzzle cache owner would be negligible, if any at all!

I guess you could view it as a convenience for the cache owner, but I also see it as a convenience for the cacher who is trying to verify their solution. When I solve a puzzle, I typically want to know ASAP if my answer is correct, especially if I'm trying to get FTF. I really appreciate cache owners who respond to my emails, but it would be a heavy, heavy burden to expect a cache owner to respond to every person who wants to verify their puzzle answer. Also, if the cache owner is unavailable for a period of time, then people are left hanging.

This one. This one. and This one. Thanks for the examples! However, what would be more useful to me would be for you to provide your criteria for selecting these particular caches as ones not requiring a coordinate checker. I'm just curious why they were chosen. Thanks!

I propose this as an enhancement, but yes, it would eventually become a requirement, if deemed a worthwhile change. Although you may personally view this as 'unnecessary red tape', I suspect that many cachers would beg to differ with you. Change is sometimes hard to accept; over time, I suspect that cache owners would become accustomed to dealing with this feature, just as they have become accustomed to having to define a waypoint for the final puzzle cache location. If adding a coordinate checker were more tightly integrated into the puzzle cache creation process, then it would seem less and less like red-tape. You may not be one of the people who would benefit from this feature, but you are probably far outnumbered by those who would benefit.

This kind of hits the problem head on ... it's not the puzzle owners who are necessarily in the best position to decide whether a coordinate checker is needed ... it's really something which the puzzle solver needs to determine the need for. By requiring all puzzle caches to supply a coordinate checker, it then is up to the puzzle solver to decide whether or not they feel the need to check their answer. I'm sorry, but no matter how confident I am that I have solved a puzzle correctly, I always validate my answer, if a coordinate checker is supplied.

Although I probably would not argue with you that a well-defined puzzle doesn't require a coordinate checker, since it is obvious when you've solved it, the problem is that there are many poorly defined puzzles out there. Unfortunately, when a new cache is published, the reviewers really have no way of determining whether a puzzle is well-defined or not. If there were some way to determine this, then the reviewer could require the cache owner to either disambiguate the puzzle -or- add a coordinate checker. I don't see that happening. I agree with you, in some ways, that there are problems with some of the existing coordinate checker programs. Are these problems insurmountable? Probably not. Should we address that problem, by attempting to define the ultimate coordinate checker program? Might not be a bad idea! I'm a retired software engineer, so this has the potential of being a very interesting problem to tackle. Getting back on topic, though, given the fact that there will always be poorly defined puzzles, I would rather see a coordinate checker required on all puzzle caches, even though I know that some subset of those really don't need one; in those cases, people might not use them anyways. There is peace of mind knowing that you have the correct coordinates, even when you are 99% confident that you solved the puzzle. Just my 2-cents worth

Can you give me an example of the type of cache you are talking about? I would think that any cache which required you to calculate the final coordinates could make use of a coordinate checker.

When publishing a new puzzle cache, you are required to define a waypoint for the final coordinates; this makes perfect sense to me. I wonder, though, why new puzzle cache owners are not required to also define a coordinate checker link? It goes without saying that it can be very frustrating to tackle a puzzle cache, only to discover that you had an incorrect answer, so your results were out in left field; you also can't differentiate between an incorrect result, and a correct result (but a lack of geosenses). On the positive side, the majority of puzzle cache owners will respond to your emails, should you ask for validation or clarification; but there still exists those puzzle cache owners who refuse to respond to all email requests. Most modern day coordinate checker programs have a built-in governor mechanism, which prevents people from continuously trying to guess the answer, so defining a coordinate checker doesn't overly increase the risks of people guessing the correct answer. What do people think? Does this seem like a valid enhancement? -GreenWoodTurner