+ChileHead Posted June 3, 2006 Share Posted June 3, 2006 When submitting a multi cache or puzzle cache you need to (should at least) enter the additional waypoints. There is no way that I can see to check the proximity of these waypoints against other caches in the area so you don't run into the 0.10 mile rule. I'd like to see a "find nearby caches" link added when editing/viewing additional waypoints so you can verify you haven't bumped too close to another cache. Ideally there would be a validate option as well when submitting caches that would do this for the posted coordinate and the additional waypoints to save a little time (both submitter and reviewer.) Of course it would be for a sanity check anyway, since additional factors may affect the proximity rule, such as bogus parking coordinates of a puzzle. Link to comment
H to the Bizzle! Posted June 3, 2006 Share Posted June 3, 2006 I'd like to see this feature added as well. I submitted a puzzle the other day but couldn't get it published because a multi leg was 400 feet from it, and I had no way of knowing it. (Well except finding the cache ) Link to comment
+Prime Suspect Posted June 3, 2006 Share Posted June 3, 2006 When submitting a multi cache or puzzle cache you need to (should at least) enter the additional waypoints. There is no way that I can see to check the proximity of these waypoints against other caches in the area so you don't run into the 0.10 mile rule. I'd like to see a "find nearby caches" link added when editing/viewing additional waypoints so you can verify you haven't bumped too close to another cache. Ideally there would be a validate option as well when submitting caches that would do this for the posted coordinate and the additional waypoints to save a little time (both submitter and reviewer.) Of course it would be for a sanity check anyway, since additional factors may affect the proximity rule, such as bogus parking coordinates of a puzzle. You can already check for traditionals, just by using the search page. If it also checked for the actual location of mystery and multi-caches, then anyone could manipulate the waypoints in order to find them, without having to solve the puzzle or find the intermediate stages. Link to comment
+StarBrand Posted June 3, 2006 Share Posted June 3, 2006 Not if it simply replied that there was a stage or actual cache "too close" without revealing the distance or bearing. I know many problems with that too but better than nothing. Link to comment
+alexrudd Posted June 3, 2006 Share Posted June 3, 2006 Not if it simply replied that there was a stage or actual cache "too close" without revealing the distance or bearing. I know many problems with that too but better than nothing. "Too close" = 528 feet or less. For puzzles with bogus coordinates, that's a huge reduction. Also, with a few trials, you could narrow it down pretty well. For the number of times it would be used, I'm not so sure it would be worth the negative effects. Reviewers can already check anyway. Link to comment
+Prime Suspect Posted June 3, 2006 Share Posted June 3, 2006 (edited) Not if it simply replied that there was a stage or actual cache "too close" without revealing the distance or bearing. I know many problems with that too but better than nothing. It doesn't matter if the distance and bearing are not included. It would still be a trivial matter to determine the location. Edited June 3, 2006 by Prime Suspect Link to comment
+ChileHead Posted June 3, 2006 Author Share Posted June 3, 2006 You can already check for traditionals, just by using the search page. sure, but that's a pain to have to enter in the coordinates multiple times. If I've already entered them in as a waypoint, then I don't want to type them in again in the search page. Especially if I have a lot of waypoints. Link to comment
+Prime Suspect Posted June 3, 2006 Share Posted June 3, 2006 You can already check for traditionals, just by using the search page. sure, but that's a pain to have to enter in the coordinates multiple times. If I've already entered them in as a waypoint, then I don't want to type them in again in the search page. Especially if I have a lot of waypoints. True. Link to comment
+kayak-cowboy Posted June 4, 2006 Share Posted June 4, 2006 When I hide a cache, I always load all nearby caches into my GPS before I go out to hide. This includes found, unfound, owned and temp disabled. This gives me distance to any Regular cache out there. Unfortunatly it won't help for stages of a Multi. That is just left up to chance until it is reviewed. I haven't had any problems placeing a cache by doing this. I also set up my Garmin Legend with special tags so I know what type of cache is near by. IE: regular, micro, multi, virtual etc. If there is a Multi cache in the general area I may very well go ahead and do the cache just to know where the stages are. It really doesn't take that much more time to do. Link to comment
+Markwell Posted June 4, 2006 Share Posted June 4, 2006 (edited) It doesn't matter if the distance and bearing are not included. It would still be a trivial matter to determine the location. Cool - even I could figure out how to do that with my meager web skills. Create a grid of points in Excel or Access, and use them to create concatenated text to create links. If this were implemented, I could create and HTML document that could give me a good idea where the cache was in about 15 minutes. Wouldn't be hard at all to search and see a pattern to zero in on: Edited June 4, 2006 by Markwell Link to comment
Recommended Posts