UK-Wide Multi-cache

[+CrazyL200]

[snip]

 

Going to be interesting to work out how to tot up scores etc... towards the final.

 

Again, any ideas on systems to do this are welcome. I have a few of my own, but yours may well be better!

 

A points or percentage marking system, prefixed or suffixed by a country identifier.

eg EN, SC, WA, IR, NI.

As folk mark off the individual caches, the database tots up their score, either marks out of the total number, or as a percentage.

The hardest bit is placing some information in each cache that has to collected along the way, so that all caches need to be found to gain sufficient infor for the final.

Or, once a cacher has reaches 100% then a check is made, somehow, to make sure the score is truly 100% and the "Master" of the Quest sends them some info allowing finding of the final. Depending on how the marking off system on the website is built, this could be automated and an email sent to the registered email address of each successful cacher.

This could be done for countries as well as counties in a country.

 

Each cache can be given a logging password by the owner. The cache is then logged on the BIG Quest site with the code, and it updates the profile? At the time when they have all the codes for a region, it gives them the coordinates to the final for that region? Logging on GC.com would be unrestricted (since we can't limit that). Link to the individual cache logging page on the BIG site from the cache pages?

 

[more snip]

 

Good idea. With links working both ways between the two sites.

[+arock&ahardplace]

I could do West Lothian if nobody else volunteers.

This isn't on the list yet.

 

We also need to decide what counties we are using, for example the list has Edinburgh, East/West/Mid Lothian and yet the map covers it all as Lothian?? Which is the original region.

 

I think that we should use all of the regions (counties) on Rutson's list. West Lothian is there. The map doesn't seem detailed enough to me. As Team Incredible has pointed out already, Falkirk and Lothians are shown as one county on the map, which is definitely wrong.

I believe that the map is only being used to get a rough idea of which areas are still open, but Rutson's list is being used to define the counties. It looks good to me!

Poor Rutson, though, it must be difficult to keep the list up to date!

[+Bambography]

Poor Rutson, though, it must be difficult to keep the list up to date!

I'm working on an interactive form as we speak to save the manual updating. Hope to have it working tomorrow...!

[Deceangi]

Each cache can be given a logging password by the owner. The cache is then logged on the BIG Quest site with the code, and it updates the profile? At the time when they have all the codes for a region, it gives them the coordinates to the final for that region? Logging on GC.com would be unrestricted (since we can't limit that). Link to the individual cache logging page on the BIG site from the cache pages?

 

I hate to pour water on this idea but this will not meet the guidelines unless specific permission is obtained off Groundspeak.

 

Any cache which involves the setting up of a profile or the use of user names and passwords to obtain the coordinates from a external site can not be published, unless prior permission has been given.

[+The Bolas Heathens]

True, but isn't this how all the DeLorme challenges work in the USA. I've also seen other like the South / North Florida Challenge that do this too.

 

Given that this is very much a one-off cache for the UK would it be possible to apprach TPTB about it to see how realistic the idea is, given they do it in the USA already.

 

Any cache which involves the setting up of a profile or the use of user names and passwords to obtain the coordinates from a external site can not be published, unless prior permission has been given.

[sneaky meerkat]

Please may we Meerkats do one for Lincolnshire?

Edited March 11, 2007 by sneaky meerkat

[+dino-irl]

True, but isn't this how all the DeLorme challenges work in the USA. I've also seen other like the South / North Florida Challenge that do this too.

 

Given that this is very much a one-off cache for the UK would it be possible to apprach TPTB about it to see how realistic the idea is, given they do it in the USA already.

You run the risk of being quoted the following from the Cache Placement Guidelines page:

 

First and foremost please be advised there is no precedent for placing caches. This means that the past listing of a similar cache in and of itself is not a valid justification for the listing of a new cache.

 

It would probably be a good idea for someone with influence (where could we find one of those I wonder ) to contact TPTB about the concept and it's validity

[Deceangi]

TPTB look at each request on it's own merits, if they were to request the opinion off the 3 UK Reviewers they would receive a positive reply from all 3 off us.

 

Each Delorme challenge cache has received prior permission of Groundspeak, so I'd expect who ever submitted the request to receive a positive reply, even if not publishable as submitted they would provide suggestions on how to make it suitable for permission.

 

Firm up all the details into a detailed concept, and I'll take it upstairs for their opinion

[+CrazyL200]

The american series has a 3 digit code in each cache (haven't found the final bit about how the 3 digits are actually used - gave up reading after umpteen pages of the thead !!). Also as part of the verification process, a picture has to be taken of you or one of your team and posted on the cache page.

Have a look at any one of the caches in their bookmark list.

 

One early suggestion was for numbers to be hidden in each cache (obtained from the "puzzlemaster").

In order to find the final cache you add each of the numbers together.

The final answer gives the co-ordinates from a simple addition of all the numbers in the caches, therefore ensuring all stage caches need to be visited.

 

It would look like this:

 

Cache 1 - 750

Cache 2 - 672

Cache 3 - 914

... and so on .........

 

Total=531055900322479 = N53 10.559 x W003 22.479 for example.

 

Another was that all the numbers from each cache are needed to calculate (simple combination of addition and subtraction) the number for a combination lock on the final container. Thus ensuring all counties must be visited to get the combination. Although this assumes the final has it's location published, so maybe a combination of both ideas to ensure it can only be found, and opened, by a cacher that has visited all the caches.

 

Is each county cache going to be a trad or will it be upto the setter to decide?

I believe they should be up to the setter, but with an agreed limit on difficulty.

 

One idea I have for the Merseyside cache is based on there being 5 boroughs. So a trad in each borough, leads to a final, which is the Merseyside County Cache. But, to make it simpler, in parallel, the county cache can be found by doing a simple multi, the first stage of which is within easy, short, walking distance of the final.

In otherwords, two (optional) routes to the final.

 

Just some ideas to try and get the multi and puzzle setting brains going.

 

I think the criteria are:

Not too difficult, to ensure evryone has a chance of doing the whole series.

But....

Clever enough to ensure all caches must be visited, without the risk of a short cut being taken, or complicated validation being needed.

 

Tell me to shut up if I'm talking b......s

[+CrazyL200]

TPTB look at each request on it's own merits, if they were to request the opinion off the 3 UK Reviewers they would receive a positive reply from all 3 off us.

 

Each Delorme challenge cache has received prior permission of Groundspeak, so I'd expect who ever submitted the request to receive a positive reply, even if not publishable as submitted they would provide suggestions on how to make it suitable for permission.

 

Firm up all the details into a detailed concept, and I'll take it upstairs for their opinion

 

If we don't ask, we won't get

[Edgemaster]

The american series has a 3 digit code in each cache

 

Cache 1 - 750

Cache 2 - 672

Cache 3 - 914

... and so on .........

 

Total=531055900322479 = N53 10.559 x W003 22.479 for example.

 

Another was that all the numbers from each cache are needed to calculate (simple combination of addition and subtraction) the number for a combination lock on the final container. Thus ensuring all counties must be visited to get the combination. Although this assumes the final has it's location published, so maybe a combination of both ideas to ensure it can only be found, and opened, by a cacher that has visited all the caches.

 

That's a good idea. I still like the splitting each country into more manageable regions each of which is found from the county caches. It would make the final solve (slightly) less prone to calculation error.

Both methods probably should be used, so unintentional finds will be deterred. The GB final should be a Large cache as well, make it worth something more.

 

Is each county cache going to be a trad or will it be upto the setter to decide?

I believe they should be up to the setter, but with an agreed limit on difficulty.

 

One idea I have for the Merseyside cache is based on there being 5 boroughs. So a trad in each borough, leads to a final, which is the Merseyside County Cache. But, to make it simpler, in parallel, the county cache can be found by doing a simple multi, the first stage of which is within easy, short, walking distance of the final.

In otherwords, two (optional) routes to the final.

The individual boroughs may make it a little too complex, we'd end up with several tiers of caches all to be completed. IMO, if this method were to go ahead anywhere with boroughs, the second route to the county cache would be a requirement. (Would London be suited to this as well?)

[+Dr Bunsen and Beaker]

Wheeey heeeeeey Im on the list woooo!

 

Cracking guys looks like its gonna be a corker! Wonder who will get FTF!?!?!?

 

Can i sign up for more than one area? Had a look at the list, I can do Lincolnshire and or West Midlands as well if you like....

 

Not beeing greeeedy or anything just trying to help! Poss put me on a reserve, just in case list

 

Dr B

Edited March 11, 2007 by Dr Bunsen and Beaker

[+OldGimmer]

As many of us use OS mapping for cache plotting, navigating etc... etc... would it not be reasonable to use counties as defined by OS (both UK and Irish versions). ??

Can you point me at these definitions please? I've had a look around the OS site and can't see anything like that.

 

The definition of county boundaries is proving to be elusive. It would appear that counties, as I've always known them are no longer officially recognised for many things governmental. They have set up lots of new "administrative" areas, many of which cross over old county boundaries. E.g Greater Manchester covers areas of what I would consider Lancashire, Cheshire and possibly Derbyshire. These include things lke Unitary Authorities etc.

 

I suppose what they are doing is to set up admin areas with similar populations, but this leads to several geographically small, but highly populated areas. Not my idea of a "County"

 

The nearest seems to be what are called the "Ceremonial" counties of England, with similar for Scotland and Wales. Details of these are listed in "Wiki". Unfortunately even these seem to have variations, so I won't put the links in here, or on the webpage, until I have had chance to read them more fully and get some more understanding

[+CrazyL200]

Can you point me at these definitions please? I've had a look around the OS site and can't see anything like that.

 

OS United Kingdom Administration

[+OldGimmer]

Snip---------

 

One early suggestion was for numbers to be hidden in each cache (obtained from the "puzzlemaster").

In order to find the final cache you add each of the numbers together.

The final answer gives the co-ordinates from a simple addition of all the numbers in the caches, therefore ensuring all stage caches need to be visited.

 

It would look like this:

 

Cache 1 - 750

Cache 2 - 672

Cache 3 - 914

... and so on .........

 

Total=531055900322479 = N53 10.559 x W003 22.479 for example.

 

Another was that all the numbers from each cache are needed to calculate (simple combination of addition and subtraction) the number for a combination lock on the final container. Thus ensuring all counties must be visited to get the combination. Although this assumes the final has it's location published, so maybe a combination of both ideas to ensure it can only be found, and opened, by a cacher that has visited all the caches.

 

Snip ---------------------------

 

My initial idea for possible coding system, is similar to CrazyL200's but, I think, a little more secure.

 

Each cache is allocated a 3 digit number prefixed by one of five random letters, A to E. These numbers are totally random, coming from one of several web-sites that provide random numbers. The codes are distributed randomly around the caches. The letters DO NOT indicate an area or region. Examples are A275, C834, E409 etc

 

As each cacher collects codes from different caches they simply add the new code to any value they have in the appropriate group. Eventually, when they have visited all the caches they will have a value in each box.

 

e.g

---A------B-----C-----D------E

5492 -2558-1962-3195-2047

 

This value, taken overall, is the key to unlock the final cache location (rather like a Microsoft activation code). The Geocaching.com web-page for the final location will, ideally, have some code (or a link to a site with the code) which uses the value as a password to the real co-ordinates of the final cache. Alternatively, the cacher forwards the value to a BigQuest co-ordinator who then supplies the co-ordinates to the claimant. Probably at this stage a manual check is made of the claimants record before the co-ordinates are supplied, particularly for a FTF.

 

Advantages

1. The co-ordinates are not simply generated from the addition, or similar of codes, The codes generate a value that is essentially a password or key.

2. By breaking the code into groups it is harder for someone who may have most of the code numbers to guess what the final value will be. If a simple addition of all collected values was used the correct value would become easier to guess as more and more caches were completed.

2. If regional targets are set, e.g England, Scotland, Wales etc. different values would apply to each region, the total of all of them unlocking the Final Cache location

 

Disadvantages.

1. Slightly more complicated than the cacher simply adding a new value to a single total.

2. Making sure that only the correct final value is generated by completing all caches, either overall or within a region.

[+OldGimmer]

Can you point me at these definitions please? I've had a look around the OS site and can't see anything like that.

 

OS United Kingdom Administration

Thanks for the link.

The illustration appears to be just a wall map, using a large scale of 1cm =10Km with no obvious grid markings. Defining exactly where a boundary exists from it would be hard, almost as hard as deciding what we will finally define as a county. Also it shows the multitude of small administrative authorities etc for Manchester etc.

 

Thanks anyway.

[+CrazyL200]

Can you point me at these definitions please? I've had a look around the OS site and can't see anything like that.

 

OS United Kingdom Administration

Thanks for the link.

The illustration appears to be just a wall map, using a large scale of 1cm =10Km with no obvious grid markings. Defining exactly where a boundary exists from it would be hard, almost as hard as deciding what we will finally define as a county. Also it shows the multitude of small administrative authorities etc for Manchester etc.

 

Thanks anyway.

 

I did have an OS counties only map, but can't find it. It was a download from the OS website.

Memory Map has the boundaries, but it also shows the borough boundaries, so you'd need to know which county any given borough is in.

[Edgemaster]

Snip---------

 

 

Advantages

1. The co-ordinates are not simply generated from the addition, or similar of codes, The codes generate a value that is essentially a password or key.

2. By breaking the code into groups it is harder for someone who may have most of the code numbers to guess what the final value will be. If a simple addition of all collected values was used the correct value would become easier to guess as more and more caches were completed.

2. If regional targets are set, e.g England, Scotland, Wales etc. different values would apply to each region, the total of all of them unlocking the Final Cache location

 

Disadvantages.

1. Slightly more complicated than the cacher simply adding a new value to a single total.

2. Making sure that only the correct final value is generated by completing all caches, either overall or within a region.

Disadvantage 3. Requires permission from Groundspeak.

Edited March 12, 2007 by Edgemaster

[+CrazyL200]

Can you point me at these definitions please? I've had a look around the OS site and can't see anything like that.

 

OS United Kingdom Administration

Thanks for the link.

The illustration appears to be just a wall map, using a large scale of 1cm =10Km with no obvious grid markings. Defining exactly where a boundary exists from it would be hard, almost as hard as deciding what we will finally define as a county. Also it shows the multitude of small administrative authorities etc for Manchester etc.

 

Thanks anyway.

 

I did have an OS counties only map, but can't find it. It was a download from the OS website.

Memory Map has the boundaries, but it also shows the borough boundaries, so you'd need to know which county any given borough is in.

 

Found it, but ........... it has all the unitary authorities. So not much help. Again, no grid markings.

 

Ah well............

[+OldGimmer]

Can you point me at these definitions please? I've had a look around the OS site and can't see anything like that.

 

OS United Kingdom Administration

Thanks for the link.

The illustration appears to be just a wall map, using a large scale of 1cm =10Km with no obvious grid markings. Defining exactly where a boundary exists from it would be hard, almost as hard as deciding what we will finally define as a county. Also it shows the multitude of small administrative authorities etc for Manchester etc.

 

Thanks anyway.

 

I did have an OS counties only map, but can't find it. It was a download from the OS website.

Memory Map has the boundaries, but it also shows the borough boundaries, so you'd need to know which county any given borough is in.

 

Found it, but ........... it has all the unitary authorities. So not much help. Again, no grid markings.

 

Ah well............

 

I have seen that one, looks good, but isn't quite. Thanks again, and Ah Well...... also.

 

By the way...... Get to bed it's almost 1AM. I'm going now. Night-night

Edited March 12, 2007 by OldGimmer

[Edgemaster]

snip

 

Found it, but ........... it has all the unitary authorities. So not much help. Again, no grid markings.

 

Ah well............

Have we lost sight for what we want the boundary definitions for? If it's for a map for the site, there's one on T:UK that we could use. (for example). If to define which counties we use, select between the OS outlines (modern, or 1995) (links from here).

And I think our resident cartographer still has to return with his findings?

 

Oh, and a bit more, the OSNI has quite a few things here. To be exact, zipped what appears to be hi-res NI admin boundaries for 1981, 1995, and NI. Be careful when opening those files, they are massive, ensure you save any open work.

Edited March 12, 2007 by Edgemaster

[+CrazyL200]

A sound system indeed.

 

As far as the diasadvantages are concerned,

1 - while being more complicated, it'll be a worthwhile robust avoidance of the risk of short cut.

2 - would need an automatic database check that all fields have been correctly completed

3 - all good things come to those who ask

 

Amazing how quickly something so simple as looking for tuperware boxes becomes so complicated.

[+CrazyL200]

 

Have we lost sight for what we want the boundary definitions for? If it's for a map for the site, there's one on T:UK that we could use. (for example). If to define which counties we use, select between the OS outlines (modern, or 1995) (links from here).

And I think our resident cartographer still has to return with his findings?

 

Oh, and a bit more, the OSNI has quite a few things here. To be exact, zipped what appears to be hi-res NI admin boundaries for 1981, 1995, and NI. Be careful when opening those files, they are massive, ensure you save any open work.

 

The map that's used for the site needs to be one that reflects the counties list we use. So that the numbers balance.

If it's to be useable in a profile, then they definately need to be based on the same list, for accurate marking off purposes. Unless I'm being too pedantic ?

The one on T:UK looks like the OS 1995 one.

The Marnanel one seems to be the OS modern one, without the boroughs showing up, so may be better.

 

As you say our resident cartographer has still to return. So I'll shut up now

[+minxyy]

Are the caches going to be "stand alone" too! as it's a long way to Inverness from Dorset on a push bike!

 

Fantastic Idea though and am willing to attempt a cache in Dorset unless anyone else has nabbed it first!

 

Does it have to be central Dorset? Is there a web link yet? or cache page on geocache?

 

Cache you soon

minxyy

ps I hope my bookmarking has worked and will pop back soon to check

[Edgemaster]

Each cache can be given a logging password by the owner. The cache is then logged on the BIG Quest site with the code, and it updates the profile? At the time when they have all the codes for a region, it gives them the coordinates to the final for that region? Logging on GC.com would be unrestricted (since we can't limit that). Link to the individual cache logging page on the BIG site from the cache pages?

 

A sound system indeed.

 

As far as the diasadvantages are concerned,

1 - while being more complicated, it'll be a worthwhile robust avoidance of the risk of short cut.

2 - would need an automatic database check that all fields have been correctly completed

3 - all good things come to those who ask

 

Amazing how quickly something so simple as looking for tuperware boxes becomes so complicated.

 

If we're getting permission anyway, it'll just be easier to take on the owner set code/website approach? Or just get the numbers in the caches to refer to the final (region/GB) coords directly, cuts out the Groundspeak request requirement.

 

I think CrazyL200's suggestion here will probably work the best. We always have to consider what would happen if the puzzlemaster or the final site for some reason becomes unavailable. The summing gives a method that is fairly infallible, guesswork will only get a person so far.

 

(Naturally, it should be also noted that the people responsible for the stages will have to look after their caches, replace them if they go AWOL, or if unable to, adopt them to another cacher.)

 

Time for bed, I hope I've tried to keep this on-topic.

[+CrazyL200]

Are the caches going to be "stand alone" too! as it's a long way to Inverness from Dorset on a push bike!

 

Fantastic Idea though and am willing to attempt a cache in Dorset unless anyone else has nabbed it first!

 

Does it have to be central Dorset? Is there a web link yet? or cache page on geocache?

 

Cache you soon

minxyy

ps I hope my bookmarking has worked and will pop back soon to check

 

All the caches will stand alone, so you can do which ever you like or can get to.

 

I think it would be nice for each county cache to be in or near the county town, or other significant monument, or place of interest (permissions granted where needed).

 

Website here.

[+CrazyL200]

I think CrazyL200's suggestion here will probably work the best. We always have to consider what would happen if the puzzlemaster or the final site for some reason becomes unavailable. The summing gives a method that is fairly infallible, guesswork will only get a person so far.

 

(Naturally, it should be also noted that the people responsible for the stages will have to look after their caches, replace them if they go AWOL, or if unable to, adopt them to another cacher.)

 

That method assumes someone has the co-ords for the final(s) before any of the stages are placed, and that the summation has been pre-determined and all checked several times for accuracy.

 

Time for bed, I hope I've tried to keep this on-topic.

Yup, my brain hurts now

[+Windsocker]

QUOTE(rutson @ Mar 9 2007, 11:27 AM) List as I THINK it should be now...

 

Also not on the list are those that've offered to do more than one county.

 

England filling up nicely, looking a bit quiet across the Irish sea tho :-(

 

 

I'll step in for "Windsockerland"

 

which covers Co Dublin, Co Louth, Co Meath

 

just bumping my response to an earlier post

Edited March 12, 2007 by The Windsockers

[+minxyy]

How's about something to do with the "Olympics" (won't give too many suggestions of figures etc cos you can guess em yerselves) but maybe reaching a sum total of "finds" to obtain the final co-ords i.e. not having to have travelled the whole of the country to find remote caches! (from your home co-ords). Do our bit for the planet as emissions for the Uk are going to rocket with the Games approaching!

off to bed very tired and happy "babygeocacher"

minxyy

[+minxyy]

 

All the caches will stand alone, so you can do which ever you like or can get to.

 

I think it would be nice for each county cache to be in or near the county town, or other significant monument, or place of interest (permissions granted where needed).

 

Website here.

thanks crazy

best of luck all

minxyy (babygeocacher)

[Edgemaster]

The map that's used for the site needs to be one that reflects the counties list we use. So that the numbers balance.

If it's to be useable in a profile, then they definately need to be based on the same list, for accurate marking off purposes. Unless I'm being too pedantic ?

The one on T:UK looks like the OS 1995 one.

The Marnanel one seems to be the OS modern one, without the boroughs showing up, so may be better.

 

As you say our resident cartographer has still to return. So I'll shut up now

Yep, they need to agree with each other.

Rutson's list appears to be a mash of both 1995 and current data (ther are no boroughs in England but from as far as I can tell, a lot in Scotland)

Marnanel uses a customised current county list (as of 2001), he's merged the boroughs and cities into their respective counties. I like the idea, the image needs cleaning up though, I think its a bit messy.

 

Yes, and I lied about going to bed

 

And as a side note, I now see about the coding methods.. Change would be a problem.

Edited March 12, 2007 by Edgemaster

[+CrazyL200]

If the location of any of the finals, Country or UK Quest, had to change, one or more of the stages would need to have its info changed.

[+macroderma]

Got to this thread veeeeery late!

 

Very exciting concept

 

Somerset/Bristol/Wiltshire already gone - but can I bag Gloucestershire?

 

As to the county list, I think it is a bit of a red herring as whatever govt is in power could monkey around with county/administrative boundaries

 

We just need to decide on a list (any list!) and use it

 

Regional 'prizes' sound like a good idea, as they will encourage progress. Starting this uber-series will be a daunting prospect

 

Someone raised the issue of caching teams. Personally I think this is a bad idea; if this is to have any integrity the person completing the series should have visited every cache in the series. Still, everybody plays it their own way

 

As to the regional/national/final caches I think they should be allocated by lottery - and at the placer's discretion.

 

I quite like the idea of linking to the Olympics - it might take that long before anyone completes it!

[+rutson]

List now updated (quite quickly, so error prone ;-) ).

 

All but six of England's counties are 'taken', the other mainland countries also filling up nicely.

 

Oh, and no need for bumps, thank you.

[Deceangi]

I've a possibly a couple of names for Flintshire and Denbighshire

 

Team Marzipan for Flintshire [currently on holiday so they have no idea of this cache challenge yet ] who I'm sure will be up for this one

 

I've emailed the possible for Denbighshire as they don't visit the forums much

[+purple_pineapple]

Well since various people got in first with Surrey and then Greater London, we'll take Kent and/or East Sussex if no one else comes forward..!

[+macroderma]

List now updated (quite quickly, so error prone ;-) ).

 

All but six of England's counties are 'taken', the other mainland countries also filling up nicely.

 

Oh, and no need for bumps, thank you.

Should that be 5?

 

I'd like to bag Glawstershire

[+OldGimmer]

 

Updated map 14:30 12th March 2007

[+OldGimmer]

Snip---------

 

 

Advantages

1. The co-ordinates are not simply generated from the addition, or similar of codes, The codes generate a value that is essentially a password or key.

2. By breaking the code into groups it is harder for someone who may have most of the code numbers to guess what the final value will be. If a simple addition of all collected values was used the correct value would become easier to guess as more and more caches were completed.

2. If regional targets are set, e.g England, Scotland, Wales etc. different values would apply to each region, the total of all of them unlocking the Final Cache location

 

Disadvantages.

1. Slightly more complicated than the cacher simply adding a new value to a single total.

2. Making sure that only the correct final value is generated by completing all caches, either overall or within a region.

 

Disadvantage 3. Requires permission from Groundspeak.

 

We don't neccesarily need permission from Groundspeak. If the claim for completion of all the required caches, via the key number, is done via the BigQuest site this won't be necessary. It would be nice to do it via the Groundspeak forums , but not vital. Its rather like contacting another member to confirm the answer to a puzzle cache.

 

As to "What happens if the "Key-master" goes missing, I expect that several people will be privy to the loaction(s) details, all having access to the web-site, his is not meant to be operated only by one person.

 

 

The american series has a 3 digit code in each cache (haven't found the final bit about how the 3 digits are actually used - gave up reading after umpteen pages of the thead !!). Also as part of the verification process, a picture has to be taken of you or one of your team and posted on the cache page.

Have a look at any one of the caches in their bookmark list.

 

One early suggestion was for numbers to be hidden in each cache (obtained from the "puzzlemaster").

In order to find the final cache you add each of the numbers together.

The final answer gives the co-ordinates from a simple addition of all the numbers in the caches, therefore ensuring all stage caches need to be visited.

 

It would look like this:

 

Cache 1 - 750

Cache 2 - 672

Cache 3 - 914

... and so on .........

 

Total=531055900322479 = N53 10.559 x W003 22.479 for example.

 

Another was that all the numbers from each cache are needed to calculate (simple combination of addition and subtraction) the number for a combination lock on the final container. Thus ensuring all counties must be visited to get the combination. Although this assumes the final has it's location published, so maybe a combination of both ideas to ensure it can only be found, and opened, by a cacher that has visited all the caches.

 

Unfortunately to arrive at a 15 digit number simply by adding together 3 digit values would require someting like a 12 digit number of caches. I don't think even the most ardent cacher would find that easy. This method was my first idea, until I realised the number of caches involved. Larger number values (more digits) coud be used in each cache, but would have many digits, maybe 12, which would lead to errors in transcribing and addition. Hence my multi-section number system.

 

Is each county cache going to be a trad or will it be upto the setter to decide?

 

Trad, make it easy. See comments from others about travelling many miles and then no been able to solve a puzzle or find a Micro.

 

I believe they should be up to the setter, but with an agreed limit on difficulty.

 

Proposed difficulty limits 2.5/2.5, as in the US series?

 

Edited March 12, 2007 by OldGimmer

[+CrazyL200]

One early suggestion was for numbers to be hidden in each cache (obtained from the "puzzlemaster").

In order to find the final cache you add each of the numbers together.

The final answer gives the co-ordinates from a simple addition of all the numbers in the caches, therefore ensuring all stage caches need to be visited.

 

It would look like this:

 

Cache 1 - 750

Cache 2 - 672

Cache 3 - 914

... and so on .........

 

Total=531055900322479 = N53 10.559 x W003 22.479 for example.

 

Another was that all the numbers from each cache are needed to calculate (simple combination of addition and subtraction) the number for a combination lock on the final container. Thus ensuring all counties must be visited to get the combination. Although this assumes the final has it's location published, so maybe a combination of both ideas to ensure it can only be found, and opened, by a cacher that has visited all the caches.

 

Unfortunately to arrive at a 15 digit number simply by adding together 3 digit values would require someting like a 12 digit number of caches. I don't think even the most ardent cacher would find that easy. This method was my first idea, until I realised the number of caches involved. Larger number values (more digits) coud be used in each cache, but would have many digits, maybe 12, which would lead to errors in transcribing and addition. Hence my multi-section number system.

 

Is each county cache going to be a trad or will it be upto the setter to decide?

 

Trad, make it easy. See comments from others about travelling many miles and then no been able to solve a puzzle or find a Micro.

 

I believe they should be up to the setter, but with an agreed limit on difficulty.

 

Proposed difficulty limits 2.5/2.5, as in the US series?

 

 

I agree, the bigger the number or the more complex the handling of those numbers the more chance of error creeping in.

 

Your multi-section system would be better.

 

As far as Trad vs multi, obviously trad would be the most straight forward and less likely to create risk of error. I just had an idea for bringing in the boroughs in my county to make the county one a bit more interesting, but, run a simple single stage multi (no clacs, no micro etc...), as well as the borough multi.

At the end of the day, it all needs to be straight forward.

Trad is the way to go. I'll just have to set another multi separately

[Edgemaster]

Snip---------

 

 

Advantages

1. The co-ordinates are not simply generated from the addition, or similar of codes, The codes generate a value that is essentially a password or key.

2. By breaking the code into groups it is harder for someone who may have most of the code numbers to guess what the final value will be. If a simple addition of all collected values was used the correct value would become easier to guess as more and more caches were completed.

2. If regional targets are set, e.g England, Scotland, Wales etc. different values would apply to each region, the total of all of them unlocking the Final Cache location

 

Disadvantages.

1. Slightly more complicated than the cacher simply adding a new value to a single total.

2. Making sure that only the correct final value is generated by completing all caches, either overall or within a region.

 

Disadvantage 3. Requires permission from Groundspeak.

 

We don't neccesarily need permission from Groundspeak. If the claim for completion of all the required caches, via the key number, is done via the BigQuest site this won't be necessary. It would be nice to do it via the Groundspeak forums , but not vital. Its rather like contacting another member to confirm the answer to a puzzle cache.

Oops, my misunderstanding there, at least I think so...

 

Any cache which involves the setting up of a profile or the use of user names and passwords to obtain the coordinates from a external site can not be published, unless prior permission has been given.

 

I may just kick myself and say, we'd need permission for a delorme-type challenge anyway, if the final coords are given by the puzzlemaster.

 

I may just still be confused.

 

 

Anyway, in regards to counties, I'll try and put together a map from the OS ones to match Rutson's county list. (We probably don't want to disappoint those who've signed up for counties that don't/didn't exist anymore/back then )

[+Bambography]

YOU CAN NOW SELECT COUNTIES YOURSELF.

 

Rutson has done a cracking job watching the forum and updating the list, but to save this we now have a form located HERE where you can add your name to the list.

 

County Selection Form

 

Rutson - cheers, you can go to the pub now!

 

If there are any mistakes, please PM me. I'll add another form to collect email addresses later on.

Edited March 12, 2007 by Bambography

[+OldGimmer]

YOU CAN NOW SELECT COUNTIES YOURSELF.

 

Rutson has done a cracking job watching the forum and updating the list, but to save this we now have a form located HERE where you can add your name to the list.

 

County Selection Form

 

Rutson - cheers, you can go to the pub now!

 

If there are any mistakes, please PM me. I'll add another form to collect email addresses later on.

Magic Chris

 

Thanks very much, it's one giant leap for geokind.

[Deceangi]

Just to clarify the point over needing Groundspeak's permission if you wish these caches publishing on Geocaching.com

 

Any cache which requires the searcher to log in into or create a profile on a external site. Or contact the owner to obtain the coordinates, can only be Published with the prior permission of Groundspeak. The Reviewers Can Not publish these caches without Groundspeaks permission

 

The above will cover the Country Final Caches and the Quest Final Cache, plus any intermediate caches where the coordinates are obtained from the Quest site. Having to input No's obtained from caches will be considered by Groundspeak to be a form of logging in.

[+OldGimmer]

Can I have your responses to the following "Draft Guidelines" Version-1 (12/3/07)

 

1. Traditional style caches ONLY

2. One cache only per county

3. Regional groups of caches to be created, e.g England - Southwest, West, North, East etc. These treated as separate sub-quests

4. Log all caches to gain access to co-ordinates of Final, Regional or National Cache (as appropriate)

5. Difficulty no more than 2.5/2.5

6. Common Naming Structure e.g BIG Quest - West Yorkshire

7. Use standard layout on Geocaching.com listings site via centrally supplied HTML

8. Each cache to contain unique code number, cacher to collect them all for region or overall

9. Cache owner to monitor logs of his cache to prevent spoilers disclosing code number

10. Cache owner to be prepared to maintain cache in long-term or be prepared to allow adoption

11. Each cache to be placed fairly centrally within area of the county (to avoid boundary disputes)

12. Cache to be placed in a location that is environmentally representative of the county or region, whilst still attempting to satisfy (11)

13. Final, Country and Regional Caches to be located reasonably close to centre of the area, where possible, or close to a location which is significant to the area.

 

Over to you folks.....

 

Try to be gentle with me.

[+Sensei TSKC]

Can I have your responses to the following "Draft Guidelines" Version-1 (12/3/07)

 

1. Traditional style caches ONLY

Not going to allow a simple one stage off set then?

11. Each cache to be placed fairly centrally within area of the county (to avoid boundary disputes)

Personally I don't think this should be enforced. The cache setter should ensure the right location before publishing

12. Cache to be placed in a location that is environmentally representative of the county or region, whilst still attempting to satisfy (11)

Is this necessary?

13. Final, Country and Regional Caches to be located reasonably close to centre of the area, where possible, or close to a location which is significant to the area.

Why try to enforce this? What does this 'requirement' achieve?

[+purple_pineapple]

Can I have your responses to the following "Draft Guidelines" Version-1 (12/3/07)

 

1. Traditional style caches ONLY

Not going to allow a simple one stage off set then?

11. Each cache to be placed fairly centrally within area of the county (to avoid boundary disputes)

Personally I don't think this should be enforced. The cache setter should ensure the right location before publishing

12. Cache to be placed in a location that is environmentally representative of the county or region, whilst still attempting to satisfy (11)

Is this necessary?

13. Final, Country and Regional Caches to be located reasonably close to centre of the area, where possible, or close to a location which is significant to the area.

Why try to enforce this? What does this 'requirement' achieve?

 

following on from sensei, i will say that i was planning a simple one stage multi, using a plaque or similar.... should be ok...

 

as to the centre of the county, i would unfortunately have to drop out completely, as there is no way i could place a cache centrally in kent - i was planning on the north end of it!

[+The Mighty Shark]

Can I have your responses to the following "Draft Guidelines" Version-1 (12/3/07)

 

Can I have your responses to the following "Draft Guidelines" Version-1 (12/3/07)

 

1. Traditional style caches ONLY

I agree. It's going to be hard enough to complete even with regular caches

 

2. One cache only per county

Ageed, due to the number of caches involved with just one in each county

 

6. Common Naming Structure e.g BIG Quest - West Yorkshire

Sounds good to me. then people know what to look for when searching for the series.

 

11. Each cache to be placed fairly centrally within area of the county (to avoid boundary disputes)

Is it not more important to have caches local to the individual that has to maintain it. So long as it's within the county it's supposed to be then why does it have to be central?

[+CrazyL200]

Can I have your responses to the following "Draft Guidelines" Version-1 (12/3/07)

 

1. Traditional style caches ONLY

agree with this - keep it simple - but no nanos/micros ? possibly single stage, simple multi/offset

11. Each cache to be placed fairly centrally within area of the county (to avoid boundary disputes)

or near the county town or significant "monument" or place of interest, thereby avoiding the problem purple_pineapple has just encountered.

 

Over to you folks.....

 

Try to be gentle with me.

 

Now, just to clarify the structure/sequence to the BIG Quest final ? ('cause I get confused easily !!)

 

All counties, to get the regional, all regionals to get the country, all counties to get the BIG Quest Final ?

[+Jaz666]

1. Traditional style caches ONLY

Not going to allow a simple one stage off set then?

 

Allowing Trads only would be a mistake, there's plenty of worthwhile locations to take people to which can't hold a cache due to various reasons. That's where simple offset multis come into play.

 

Instead, why not stipulate that each cache should be possible to complete in under x number of minutes (but without encouraging a multitude of drivebys).