Mult-cache Security

[+Polk Street Bandits]

I'm a relatively new geo-cacher, and I am about to place my first cache. I've given it quite a lot of thought, but need some guidance regarding the final cache and security.

 

In order to prevent people from "cutting to the end", and to keep the final cache from being muggled, I am toying with the idea of using a combination lock on my final cache. I plan to reveal 1 segment of the combination in the form of a puzzle using the first 3 stages... Is this kosher?

 

Thanks.

[+Team Perks]

Sounds perfectly fine to me. I've seen several others done in a similar manner.

[+briansnat]

Its kosher. I own one like that. I'm not sure how it will prevent people from cutting to the end however. A properly executed multi should to that by itself.

 

I doubt it would increase security. In fact it might idecrease it. If people find a box in the woods, they will probably open it up and see a bunch of toys, read the letter and leave it. Put a lock on it and they're gonna wonder what's locked up inside, take it home and break out the hacksaw or sledgehammer.

[+hoovman]

Most (not all, though) 'cachers understand the game and are honest and wouldn't want to get the final stage without getting the other ones.

 

On the flip side, muggles might bust open a locked container to see what's in it, but they might leave a cache alone once they open it and read the note explaining what it is.

 

I don't see a real problem with what you propose, but why not just hide the final stage in a place less likely to be muggled?

 

And what about making it a members-only cache. That makes it less likely that a 'cacher will skip stages.

 

(OK, so I type slower than briansnat)

Edited July 11, 2005 by hoovman

[+Polk Street Bandits]

I like the "security through anonimity" approach... Thanks for the insight. Since it's my first hide, I want to give it the thought and preparation it deserves.

[+Moose Mob]

We had a multi like that in our local area. Four intermediate points 75-100 feet from each other, each had a part of the combo to the safe at the end.

 

Eventually someone found the well hidden safe and took it home. They beat on it and eventually were able to drill through the bottom and open it to get to the contents. They discovered it was a geocache and sent a very very apologetic e-mail to the owner and to Groundspeak. However, the container was destroyed and would no longer function.

 

I do not want to detour you from your efforts wit this story. As others have said, if it is well put together, it can a great and memoriable cache.

[+tabulator32]

I did a three stage multi recently with a friend and stage two was no where to be seen. We searched for about 45 minutes in an area that was defined by the description and the clues as being about a foot wide, six feet tall and 10 feet long. There was little foliage and the prominent feature in this space was a chain link fence. We simply could not find the coords.

 

We DID use the clue for stage three to derive the location of the final cache and ended up signing the log.

 

I'm not sure if this is actually cheating or not, however, it DID take us a thourough search and we DID find it.

 

[+Jeremy]

Put a lock on it and they're gonna wonder what's locked up inside, take it home and break out the hacksaw or sledgehammer.

The first combination lock-style geocache was an ammo box screwed to a stump. A non geocacher hit it with a sledge and took the contents. As long as the final container is well-hidden you'll probably be ok. But look for evidence of human habitation in an area before you place it.

[+WalruZ]

whever you're putting in a puzzle that has to be solved in the field, I suggest including a checksum as a hint. ie, add all the numbers and you should get this result. two reasons

 

1. if you do it for coordinates (15 digit checksum), then people don't go chasing after wild gooses if they've done something wrong, which happens more often than you would think.

 

2. redundency. if one stage is missing or question is unclear, the checksum can be used to puzzle it out from the data that the finder does have.

 

you may think this makes the cache a little easier, and it does i suppose, but consider how you would feel hunting the cache and being frustrated by something missing or unclear. if you had a safety net you would be more likely to have an enjoyable find rather than an unhappy dnf, and i've found that an enjoyable find is why you put the container out.

[+NotThePainter]

whever you're putting in a puzzle that has to be solved in the field, I suggest including a checksum as a hint.

 

you may think this makes the cache a little easier, and it does i suppose, but consider how you would feel hunting the cache and being frustrated by something missing or unclear.

I did this on one of my caches 80 Feet of Waterline and I recently took down the checksum info? Why, it made the cache too easy. It was certainly my fault. I had the latitude summing to a certain number and the longitude clue being a perfect square.

 

It turns out this narrowed down the hiding spots to, I think, three possible spots and some finders found the cache without ever visiting the 2 intermediate points.

 

Now I certainly give them major props for doing it that way, seems harder than the "correct" way, but part of the purpose of this cache was to visit an interesting spot on the MIT campus and I really wanted you to find the connections between the spots.

 

I like the idea of checksuming all the numbers, that won't give it away and it will give you a safety valve.

 

Paul

[+Bjorn74]

If you do use a combination lock, make sure it's weather resistant. I remember one that we couldn't get open because the innards were all rusty and messed up.

[+Tidalflame]

whever you're putting in a puzzle that has to be solved in the field, I suggest including a checksum as a hint.  ie, add all the numbers and you should get this result.  two reasons

 

1. if you do it for coordinates (15 digit checksum), then people don't go chasing after wild gooses if they've done something wrong, which happens more often than you would think.

 

2. redundency.  if one stage is missing or question is unclear, the checksum can be used to puzzle it out from the data that the finder does have. 

 

you may think this makes the cache a little easier, and it does i suppose, but consider how you would feel hunting the cache and being frustrated by something missing or unclear.  if you had a safety net you would be more likely to have an enjoyable find rather than an unhappy dnf, and i've found that an enjoyable find is why you put the container out.

I concur. I believe that ALL caches with any sort of puzzle should have some sort of checksum. Maybe I'm not as hardcore as some people, but as much as I love puzzle caches, I don't want to be several kilometres from the cache because of some ambiguous word puzzle.

Edited July 12, 2005 by Tidalflame

[CoyoteRed]

I concur with the above folks who caution against a locked box.

 

And actually it's called "security through obscurity." There is more to hiding a cache than throwing a few leaves over it. You also have to consider folks looking for it can give it away by their actions and while trading. That's why a lot of people like to be away from view to search for the cache and move away from the hiding spot to trade.

 

I disagree with your should always use checksums. It's according to the puzzle that you will need one. The more legs one visits to get clues, the more likely a stage will go missing or the better chance someone will write down the wrong number. Also, check sums don't have to be simple ones like adding up the numbers. It could be something visual or logical that would tell you you're off.

 

Or, you could use factors to get a number to plug into the coords and then checksum the coords. This has little redundancy, adds security, and still gives you a check to make sure you are right. Here's a little tool to help with that. It's incomplete, but workable.

 

Hope this helps.

[+Robespierre]

Or I've seen a key hidden (hiding a key is easy) which then has to be returned.

[+roveron]

In order to prevent people from "cutting to the end", and to keep the final cache from being muggled, I am toying with the idea of using a combination lock on my final cache. I plan to reveal 1 segment of the combination in the form of a puzzle using the first 3 stages... Is this kosher?

 

Thanks.

Ummm, I'm confused. How would someone cut to the end if the only way to get the ending coordinates is from the next to last stage of the cache, or a combination of coord's from serveral stages.

Am I missing something?

[+KKTH3]

What is the thoughts on a large size cache that will contain higher dollar items for the first finders of a difficult puzzle cache? I have one in the works and would hate to hide things like a 21" flat screen monitor, brand new Pocket PC, surround sound audio system, special edition DVDs, and such in a container without a lock on it. I'd like to reward FTFs of a challenge but I think leaving the box hidden without a lock would be a little too trusting of a curious muggle that happens to stumble upon the cache.

[+hoovman]

What is the thoughts on a large size cache that will contain higher dollar items for the first finders of a difficult puzzle cache? I have one in the works and would hate to hide things like a 21" flat screen monitor, brand new Pocket PC, surround sound audio system, special edition DVDs, and such in a container without a lock on it. I'd like to reward FTFs of a challenge but I think leaving the box hidden without a lock would be a little too trusting of a curious muggle that happens to stumble upon the cache.

Given my fear of "muggle finds box and breaks it open" (possibly breaking contents), I'd personally go with something like an IOU:

 

"Congratulations on your first-to-find! This card entitles you to one <insert_expensive_item> from <insert_geocaching_handle>. Contact me on geocaching.com to claim your prize."

[CoyoteRed]

Ummm, I'm confused. How would someone cut to the end if the only way to get the ending coordinates is from the next to last stage of the cache, or a combination of coord's from serveral stages.

Am I missing something?

Many times a puzzle is simply an exercise in counting objects somewhere. The more math and more any one number is used the easier it is for someone to guess or deduce the answer. Some folks think they are making a puzzle harder when in fact they are making it easier.

 

The majority of these types of puzzles make it easy to bypass certain stages.

 

In fact, we've actually solved some of these puzzles before we even hit the field. We went straight the final.

Edited July 13, 2005 by CoyoteRed

[+dogbreathcanada]

I am toying with the idea of using a combination lock on my final cache. I plan to reveal 1 segment of the combination in the form of a puzzle using the first 3 stages... Is this kosher?

Perfectly. There's a cache here in Vancouver that does just that. The intermediary waypoints kept giving us numbers and telling us to keep them. But the numbers weren't used in any way to calculate the final coords. Some people didn't write them down, only to regret it when they got to the final cache location.

[+sept1c_tank]

If I was not a geocacher (knew nothing about the hobby), and I found a container with a lock on it, I would probably either take it or call LE.

 

Having said that, I own a multi-cache with a locked final container, but it is placed with permission inside a library and the librarian carries a big stick!

[+Jeremy]

I would probably either take it or call LE.

Ugg.. LE is grating and it is their word. Let's not adopt it. law enforcement is fine. If you must save on typing, cops works.

[+sept1c_tank]

I would probably either take it or call LE.

Ugg.. LE is grating and it is their word. Let's not adopt it. law enforcement is fine. If you must save on typing, cops works.

Sorry, I'll erase that one from my geodictionary; I always liked cops, too, but I imagine some law enforcement officers find it degrading.

[+roveron]

Many times a puzzle is simply an exercise in counting objects somewhere. The more math and more any one number is used the easier it is for someone to guess or deduce the answer. Some folks think they are making a puzzle harder when in fact they are making it easier.

Ah, ok. I guess even when making something complicated I tend to keep it simple.