Geosense and the need for hints

[+The HERB5]

I used to use the hint as a last resort preferring to rely on my Geosense, searching out that perfect hiding place.

But as I gained more experience and alot of fruitless hours searching I realised that caches would not be placed near an obvious location.

 

Instead of being in that tree-stump it's in a random bush 5 mtrs away.

Or not under that bridge but in a clump of grass 3 mtrs away.

Et, etc....

 

Is this cunning or misleading.

 

I feel there should be some reason logic in the cache locartion otherwise the hint isn't a hint but a vital piece of info...

[+Simply Paul]

It depends on the nature of the cache. If it's described as a quick drive-by cache, it should be fairly easy to find. If it's an evil puzzle, then it's fair to leave it tricky. There's a size issue too. You shouldn't need a clue for a 5ltr cache, as there will be a finite number of places it could be hidden. A micro, on the other hand, will usually need a clearer clue.

 

If the cache was *always* under the obvious pile of sticks/stones you'd soon get bored of the 'hunt' stage of caching. Is hiding a cache in a non-obvious place cunning or misleading? That'd depend on the clue and the co-ords. I've done plenty of caches where the clue and/or the co-ords had little to do with the hide location, that have left me feeling I've been mislead. However, caches can move over time and it might not be the fault of the cache setter that things have changed.

 

In a nutshell, I like a cache which relates to a fixed point at least, but you can't say just because it's in a random spot that this is somehow unfair and unsporting. It's in the nature of the game to keep you guessing! What I don't like is a clue like 'it's in the grass' when you're surrounded by 200ft of grass on all sides, or 'it's in the tree' when you're looking for a micro in a woodland.

[+Belplasca]

One of my caches in Regent's Park has had its share of DNFs. The co-ordinates are a little out, and the clue could be more helpful. But many cachers (including myself) have found it since it was placed.

 

So, now that I have adopted it, should I correct the co-ordinates, put in a better clue? I decided not to, so as to keep faith with the past finders, but I added a suggestion to read all the logs as an additional clue - finders have added useful information over the years...

 

That's actually what I did before I could find it.

 

So, should I improve the hint, making it an obvious, quick find? Or leave it sas it is?

 

Bob Aldridge

[+macroderma]

The other factor is Muggle Traffic

 

You might want to give an explicit hint so that a cacher can plan a strategy for cache retrieval

 

Certainly useful for urban caches!

[+Alice Band]

I have also discovered that caches are not always replaced in the original spot. I have seen mine and others move around. This would add to the problems I imagine.

[+Kitty Hawk]

Following on from Alice Band's comment - one of mine became waterlogged last year, I've looked a few times and have been unable to find it, yet others keep logging it. I ended up having to ask the next finder to remove it, it wasn't anywhere near the place I left it.

 

I think a clue should pretty much say 'it's under the third blade of grass from the right' rather than 'to the west of Sussex' or something equally vague.

 

I agree with SP though - a cunning cache could have a more cunning clue. I'm not sure of my take on Belplasca's connundrum - I initialy thought it sounded OK, but then I plan an asssault on London one day and may wish it was more accurate....Does the difficulty level reflect the extra level of hunting required?

[nobby.nobbs]

as long as the clue is accurate even if it is devious and difficult then thats fine.

 

if i am off on a longer trip for a cache then i will quickly check the clue before i go. pain to get that far to find you can't find and the clue is hopeless.

[+Johnmelad]

The co-ordinates are a little out

 

Why have coordinates you know are incorrect? I thought the idea was to give accurate coords and then make the location interesting, unusual etc. I have been thanked for giving coords that are spot on but have never been thanked if they are not, not that I am not always precise of course.

[+currykev]

Agreed with JML.Its the coords that count.When you know your in the right vicinity then you can have a good look,obvious places 1st then.. darn well everywhere.If the coords are out by some margin then you could look forever.I actually think it is sometimes easier to find a micro too,as they are not usually placed in bushes or trees,but are usually attached to something metal.

[+macroderma]

The co-ordinates are a little out

 

Why have coordinates you know are incorrect? I thought the idea was to give accurate coords and then make the location interesting, unusual etc. I have been thanked for giving coords that are spot on but have never been thanked if they are not, not that I am not always precise of course.

Sometimes exact coords are not possible - for example due to GPS coverage in the area

 

Anyway, coords are always subject to various errors - the accuracy of the GPS, atmospherics on the day, operator competence (hider and finder !) etc

[+Belplasca]

Yes - I said the co-ordinates are a LITTLE out (about 10ft). I didn't place the cache. Many, many people have successfully found it.

 

So, as the current owner, should I change the co-ords, making it really easy (for the geotrashers as well as the geocachers) or leave it as it is.

 

There are VERY explicit instructions within the past logs...

 

Bob

[+currykev]

Coords out by 10 feet!!

Well I consider that spot on for 99% of caches..even mine.

[+Johnmelad]

Yes - I said the co-ordinates are a LITTLE out (about 10ft).

 

10 ft, that's spot on, almost.

 

I always let the GPS do an average for me, let it run to about 50 and that is as accurate as it gets.

[+Geo-Kate]

Yes - I said the co-ordinates are a LITTLE out (about 10ft).

 

10 ft, that's spot on, almost.

 

I always let the GPS do an average for me, let it run to about 50 and that is as accurate as it gets.

 

I did a great series of caches recently, whcich I wont name here as to not offend anyone. All the co-ords seemed off by around 20-30'. We did consider saying something, but there is no obvious trend of DNFs or complaints, so we left it.

 

I have always believed there should be two stages of clues. The first should be a hint to halp a little, and the second be a givaway.

 

Sometimes you just want a helping hand if GPS is having an off day, and still want the joy of searching. The final givaway is a last resort if you have looked and looked but need to be told exactly where it is to avoid a DNF on a cache that is indeed in place.

[+Alibags]

I hate the idea of a giveaway clue. If you always found every single cache, where would be the fun in that? You need a DNF sometimes to remind you that it's supposed to be cache hunting.

[+Geo-Kate]

I hate the idea of a giveaway clue. If you always found every single cache, where would be the fun in that? You need a DNF sometimes to remind you that it's supposed to be cache hunting.

 

I hate DNFs! I really hate not finding a cache! Especially if you have travelled any distance to get there...

 

I also get panicy if I read a DNF log on one of our caches. I feel bad for the cacher who spent ages looking and couldn't find it, then I get worried if it's been muggled.

 

I do understand what you mean though, there is no challenge if you are told exactly where it is. But I like the walk and getting there just as much as the search, if not more. I always feel a little dissapointed when I park to do a cache and see it is less than 1/2 a mile away! Cash and dash is not my thing...

[+currykev]

I hate the idea of a giveaway clue. If you always found every single cache, where would be the fun in that? You need a DNF sometimes to remind you that it's supposed to be cache hunting.

 

I hate DNFs! I really hate not finding a cache! Especially if you have travelled any distance to get there...

 

 

I would never travel far just for 1 cache,as I reckon 4-5 finds for 1 DNF..If I'm lucky.

Last weekend I had 4 DNF to 7 Finds..I was slightly miffed,but the walk along the Thames made up for it.

If there was never a walk or a hunt I wouldn't bother doing this great hobby.