Jump to content

Multi-cache would this be alright?


swhite7000

Recommended Posts

Personally, when we are out caching, we don't want to go home to look up additional information. We usually drive 15 miles or more to go caching, and really don't want to drive more for additional coordinates.

 

That being said, we have done multi's that have taken more than one day of caching to find. If the cache seemed that special, we might find the first part, and then, in a month or so, when we are out caching again, if our trip takes us by that area, we might go search for it again. It all depends on the situation, and how much we want to get that particular cache. With almost 2000 caches in 50 miles, we can be real picky about the ones we want to search for. There are a lot we don't bother even looking for, if we don't like a particular type of hide. For example, we really aren't fond of urban type hides (micros on sign posts, lightpoles, behind stores, etc). We prefer going to a park, even a small urban park, so we tend to search for that type.

Link to comment

I don't see a problem with it. I have a couple caches that might require more than one trip, and many puzzle caches do (heck, Choreographed Chaos is requiring me to make the 2 hour trip to New Jersey about 10 times).

 

I've done caches that give you a phone number to call. If you don't have a cell phone on you, you'd have to leave and go find a payphone or go home to call.

 

Same difference in my opinion. However, you should mention something about it in your writeup.

Edited by ThePropers
Link to comment

I think you'd need to list it as a Mystery? and not a multi, as it wouldn't necessarily be workable from coords to coords. I'm frankly not sure if it would be listable or not. I suspect it depends on the website you use - whether the reviewer finds it (the website) to meet the guideline's standard of "public websites".

 

For example, a puzzle that requires research on public websites in order to determine the coordinates may be acceptable, while a puzzle that requires sending an e-mail to the cache owner with the solution in order to obtain the coordinates may not be.

 

http://www.geocaching.com/about/guidelines.aspx#mystery

 

I really think this inquiry ought to go to your local reviewer. I can see the cache being listed either way - multi/ or mystery and I can see it being allowed or not, depending on the website you use and the reviewer's take on its accessibility.

Edited by Isonzo Karst
Link to comment

Recently, I submitted a cache report for a similar cache I hid - it used puzzle links on a web site that I own and operate.

 

It was rejected by the reviewer. Apparently, there is a growing problem of multi and puzzle caches with links to external web sites that are down temporarily or permanently. When the site goes down, nobody can find the cache.

 

My reviewer told me that the reviewers were being instructed not to approve any caches that weren't wholly self-contained. That is, all of the elements needed to solve whatever puzzles are there are either on the Groundspeak servers themselves (as description text or uploaded images ... no scripts nor executables) or rely upon researchable information that is widely available (such facts in an almanac or encyclopedia). She also said that such constraints will likely change from informally enforced to a hard requirement in the near future.

 

I totally agree with this requirement ... it will improve the longevity of such caches.

 

-eP

Link to comment

 

My reviewer told me that the reviewers were being instructed not to approve any caches that weren't wholly self-contained. That is, all of the elements needed to solve whatever puzzles are there are either on the Groundspeak servers themselves (as description text or uploaded images ... no scripts nor executables) or rely upon researchable information that is widely available (such facts in an almanac or encyclopedia). She also said that such constraints will likely change from informally enforced to a hard requirement in the near future.

 

 

Well - I can understand the rationale - to some extent - but, unless GC.com allows broader capabilities in the type of webpages you can create, and stops munging uploaded image files, there would be many puzzle caches that could no longer be created which would be a shame.

 

The following caches of mine would no longer be possible for example:

 

A 440 (I acknowledge that this does have the now banned BGSOUND tag in it - so if you don't like sound, turn it off or don't click on the link - even without this the cache would not be possible in another form were this rule to be implemented)

 

Steganography

 

Listen for the Numbers

 

all of which have got generally positive comments.

 

I fear this might end up being a case of "throwing the baby out with the bathwater" unless gc.com provide satisfactory alternatives for puzzle caches like these. There is usually a good and valid reason why people host parts of their cache description off site.

 

Would this also mean that one could no longer include links to coordinate checker sites?

 

I would hope that TPTB will carefully think through all the implications before implementing such a policy.

Link to comment

 

My reviewer told me that the reviewers were being instructed not to approve any caches that weren't wholly self-contained. That is, all of the elements needed to solve whatever puzzles are there are either on the Groundspeak servers themselves (as description text or uploaded images ... no scripts nor executables) or rely upon researchable information that is widely available (such facts in an almanac or encyclopedia). She also said that such constraints will likely change from informally enforced to a hard requirement in the near future.

 

 

A further thought on this topic - why is the obligation that the cache owner has to maintain the availability of the information required to solve the puzzle any different from the obligation that the cache owner has to maintain the availability of the actual cache container?

 

I fear this may be a "knee jerk" reaction to some particular incidents - but I can only speculate.

 

It would be helpful if TPTB could provide some definitive comments on this subject so that it can be discussed rationally with the community before a decision is made that could cause upset.

Link to comment
I fear this might end up being a case of "throwing the baby out with the bathwater" unless gc.com provide satisfactory alternatives for puzzle caches like these. There is usually a good and valid reason why people host parts of their cache description off site.

I exchanged email a bit with the reviewer over this issue. She said there are some great puzzles out there, but there are a bunch of broken links, too.

 

I asked if Groundspeak might consider offering its own hosting service to ensure that the puzzles stay active ... either hosting more complex web pages or even allowing uploads of binary files that could be downloaded and executed. She said that had been discussed but nixed.

 

It sounded like Groundspeak is concerned about the effort and resources required for that extra level of support and to ensure that they don't create more problems for themselves. Their servers are already the targets of security attacks; they don't need the added risk of possibly spreading viruses, trojans and worms (oh my!) on top of that.

 

And, frankly, I agree. I think geocaching is more about getting outside than about spending even more time in front of your computer than you already do. I don't think every puzzle idea has to have a cache associated with it ... there are tons of puzzles, puzzle sites, and other groups on the net.

 

One alternative that just came to mind is java script: can we embed JavaScript in our cache descriptions? That might enable some advanced puzzle coding while still staying within the existing GC framework. I don't know if the JS is stripped from the description or not.

 

Would this also mean that one could no longer include links to coordinate checker sites?

I would guess that they would be allowed, because a coordinate checker is a convenience item, not a requirement. If you want to check the coordinates without a checker site, then hit the road and go searching. Which, arguably, is what you really should be doing anyway.

 

I would hope that TPTB will carefully think through all the implications before implementing such a policy.

It sure sounded to me like they have. And, as a software engineer myself, I can totally understand their rationale.

 

-eP

Edited by ePeterso2
Link to comment

Even if it's approvable, which it sounds like it may not be under the mentioned guidelines, you should really consider carefully the reason for doing it that way. If it's just a webpage with coordinates on it, then the only difference between this and having the coords in the first stage is the seeker has to make an extra trip home. If there's something more to the web page, then I can see it.

 

That's interesting about the emeriging guidleline. I've been considering a cache where a computer game must be played to get the coordinates. I assume this would be disallowed. I see the reasoning, but is a broken link that much different from a missing stage of a multi? It seems to me it's less worrisome than that, in fact, as it can be discovered immediately instead of in the field.

Link to comment

Javascript - not allowed for security reasons. That is reasonable.

 

I don't see this as a software issue at all - it seems to be more a matter of concern over negative reactions to caches that have issues with the listing not working as intended. Which brings me back to the point I made earlier on which no-one has yet commented - "why is the obligation that the cache owner has to maintain the availability of the information required to solve the puzzle any different from the obligation that the cache owner has to maintain the availability of the actual cache container?"

 

If the cache container goes missing or is broken, the owner can either fix the problem, or disable or even archive the cache listing. Often the owner won't find out about it until someone has made the trek to locate the cache and reported it missing. Similarly, if the cache description is "broken" or "missing" the owner can either fix the problem, or disable or even archive the cache listing. Whoever discovers the problem can post a Needs Maintenance or an SBA just the same if they feel so inclined. And in this case people would not have wasted their time going out to find the thing before reporting the problem. This would typically be less aggravating than having the actual cache container go missing.

 

I would like to hear TPTB's thoughts on this logic.

 

Edit: fix typos

Edited by Geofellas
Link to comment

Javascript - not allowed for security reasons. That is reasonable.

 

I don't see this as a software issue at all - it seems to be more a matter of concern over negative reactions to caches that have issues with the listing not working as intended. Which brings me back to the point I made earlier on which no-one has yet commented - "why is the obligation that the cache owner has to maintain the availability of the information required to solve the puzzle any different from the obligation that the cache owner has to maintain the availability of the actual cache container?"

 

If the cache container goes missing or is broken, the owner can either fix the problem, or disable or even archive the cache listing. Often the owner won't find out about it until someone has made the trek to locate the cache and reported it missing. Similarly, if the cache description is "broken" or "missing" the owner can either fix the problem, or disable or even archive the cache listing. Whoever discovers the problem can post a Needs Maintenance or an SBA just the same if they feel so inclined. And in this case people would not have wasted their time going out to find the thing before reporting the problem. This would typically be less aggravating than having the actual cache container go missing.

 

I would like to hear TPTB's thoughts on this logic.

 

Edit: fix typos

 

I definitely agree here. If a needed website or phone number is down, then it's the owner's responsibility, and others can use the needs maintenance or SBA logic already built in. It's the same thing as if a needed stage goes missing...a piece needed to complete the cache isn't working, so it needs maintenance.

 

I would really hate if we're suddenly limited to just text descriptions. Besides there's already a built in "associated web page" box when you go to submit a cache.

Edited by ThePropers
Link to comment

Everything needed to find the cache should be available on the cache page.

 

PDAs, Laptops or a trunkful of reference books are not part of the average geocachers tote bag and therefore should not be required to make the find.

 

So no puzzle caches then, right? Nothing that would require a calculator? Nothing that might require a quick google search? Nothing from wikipedia for sure. What about having to do some simple math in the field....or might need a pencil and paper? Nothing that would say "go read this sign and then..."

 

Canoes and climbing gear aren't part of every geoacher's bag either, so we should eliminate any cache that might need those too, right?

 

I completely disagree. 100%.

Edited by ThePropers
Link to comment

Everything needed to find the cache should be available on the cache page.

 

PDAs, Laptops or a trunkful of reference books are not part of the average geocachers tote bag and therefore should not be required to make the find.

 

Puzzles are typically not expected to be solved "in the field". For those who seek extra mental challenge (and there are all types involved in caching so we should all acknowledge that not everyone likes the same kinds of cache as others), an imaginative puzzle can be part of the fun. There are a LOT of cachers round here, and I suspect worldwide, who share that opinion. I typically try to cater to all tastes by setting a mixture of straightforward caches and puzzle caches. I personally tend to get more fun out of solving puzzles (which I can do when I can't get away from the house for example) than simply going to some coordinates somewhere (although some of my most memorable finds have been of the latter type)

Link to comment

For the most part, there doesn't need to be any fancy gizmos on puzzle pages, but we should always be allowed to have the option to link to another page should we want to throw those gizmos in!

 

I agree with GCs stance on binary files though, it would be a mess if people allowed them on the pages, but if we were to host the linked content that seems fair to me!

Link to comment

Everything needed to find the cache should be available on the cache page.

 

PDAs, Laptops or a trunkful of reference books are not part of the average geocachers tote bag and therefore should not be required to make the find.

 

So no puzzle caches then, right? Nothing that would require a calculator? Nothing that might require a quick google search? Nothing from wikipedia for sure. What about having to do some simple math in the field....or might need a pencil and paper? Nothing that would say "go read this sign and then..."

 

Canoes and climbing gear aren't part of every geoacher's bag either, so we should eliminate any cache that might need those too, right?

 

I completely disagree. 100%.

 

You are wuite right - I suppose what I should have said is that anything required that's not on the cache page should be noted in the description - I just know I hate to get to a cache site and find that it requires something I don't have, or multiple trips when I am on the road.

 

Tell me what I will need and I can choose to do it or not, that's all I really mean. :o

 

Ed

Link to comment

I can understand the rationale behind this as well, but as others have already pointed out the problem of missing resources can apply to any cache, not just web based caches. It is much easier to fix a broken link than it is to replace a leaky container or a missing multi cache stage, so this seems to be just another (relatively simple) facet of cache maintenance.

 

While many puzzles are expressible with resources that can be stored on the Groundspeak servers there are many interesting examples that cannot. I have one cache that has a puzzle element that would not work if it were converted to a different format, and have solved several others that require external resources. All of these have enriched my caching experience.

 

As to what is needed to make a good/interesting cache I believe that the more variety the better. Geocaching is an activity that allows each participant to bring their own rules to the table. What one cacher enjoys another may not. Personally, I like each cache to be a unique experience. I can only travel to amazing locations (cliffs, mountains, historic places) once in a while, so I do what I can to make the caches close to where I live more memorable. I can make the geocaching experience more vicarious by travelling to nearby caches by bike instead of by car, and I have seen pictures of cachers who wear costumes (or nothing) or paint themselves blue while at the cache site. But the best way by far to make the geocaching experience unique is to rely on the imagination of those who hide the caches. Hence, arbitrarily limiting the creativity of fellow cachers does not seem like a good idea, particularly when it solves so little.

Link to comment

It was rejected by the reviewer. Apparently, there is a growing problem of multi and puzzle caches with links to external web sites that are down temporarily or permanently. When the site goes down, nobody can find the cache.

Groundspeak is worried that other websites are unavailable too often? That's hilarious.

 

Seriously, though, I agree with the argument that the cache owner should be responsible for keeping external web pages up and running in exactly the same way that he or she is responsible for keeping the cache container well maintained.

 

dave

Link to comment

There is a multi cache similar to what the OP is thinking. There are 10 stand alone caches that contain needed info to find the final. Each of these caches contains a mystery and a clue. You go to a website maintained by the cache owner and enter your clue at the end of the url and a webpage pops up with a needed clue to find the final. The neat thing about this is you can choose to complete it all at once or over time.

 

Since you are able to log each cache as a find it isn't as daunting as having to go back and forth to find clues for a single final of a Multi.

 

DaVinci Code Final: The Grail

Link to comment

"The hike to the cache exercises the body, while the solving of puzzles exercises the mind."

 

AdventureRat - December, 2006

 

For those that do not enjoy solving puzzles or researching various topics, many have pointed out that the ignore list is there for a reason. Please feel free to use it as you see fit. Do not eliminate an aspect of the game that many of us find extremely enjoyable.

 

Broken links on external pages required to solve a puzzle shouldn't be treated any differently than damaged stages or potentially muggled or missing cache containers. Needs maintenance log entries should be posted, and prompt replies and action should be taken (and required) by cache owners to ensure quality caching experiences for all.

 

Here are a couple of suggestions:

 

1) Run a daily process that disables any cache listings where the "Needs maintenance" attribute has been set for longer than one month.

 

2) Have cache reviewers allow cache owners less time for response and action on cache issues, and archive caches much sooner than six months (which seems to be the going rate) after seeing no action.

 

The real thrust of this should be to place more onus and responsibility on cache owners to maintain their caches, be it the physical containers or the cache information. Whatever you do, keep puzzle caches alive !!!

Link to comment
1) Run a daily process that disables any cache listings where the "Needs maintenance" attribute has been set for longer than one month.

 

2) Have cache reviewers allow cache owners less time for response and action on cache issues, and archive caches much sooner than six months (which seems to be the going rate) after seeing no action.

I don't know what it's like in your area, but our reviewers seem to be doing this already. Caches with Needs Maint or that have been disabled for too long get a reviewer note prompting the owner to take action. If no action is taken, the cache gets archived.

 

-eP

Link to comment
1) Run a daily process that disables any cache listings where the "Needs maintenance" attribute has been set for longer than one month.

 

2) Have cache reviewers allow cache owners less time for response and action on cache issues, and archive caches much sooner than six months (which seems to be the going rate) after seeing no action.

I don't know what it's like in your area, but our reviewers seem to be doing this already. Caches with Needs Maint or that have been disabled for too long get a reviewer note prompting the owner to take action. If no action is taken, the cache gets archived.

 

-eP

 

I think that the cache reviewers do a great job, and I am thankful for their tireless efforts, but ... things still get missed. The "Needs maintenance" attribute has been set since August on one cache listing near my house, and on another since March. Neither listing has had a reviewer note posted. Also, there is a multi-cache nearby that has been disabled because of a missing stage since September, also with no reviewer note posted since then. All three have resulted in disappointing cache experiences for visitors. This is why I'd like to see some automation of the review process with known acceptable limits on "Needs maintenance" and cache disabling.

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...