Jump to content

Wardialling....


Jonovich

Recommended Posts

GCXH34 -A Game of Two Halves

 

1/3 of all the finds have only had one half of the co-ords... :D

Mind you, only 9 cachers have found it!

 

As someone who found it with BOTH sets of co-ords, I have to take my hat off to those that only had half the set.

 

edit to add: We found GC10QH2 with partial co-ords -had more than one answer for one of the questions, so drew a line with what we had, and used the clue.

 

G

Edited by KandG
Link to comment

Hi folks,

 

I'm after a bit of advice about finding a cache... If you only know part of the co-ords, but go out, and search using only the partial co-ords you have, and find the cache, is it acceptable to log it? Is a find a find?

 

Cheers,

 

Jon.

 

Don't see why not, you found it & signed the log (presumably), so log it. I've done the same at least once with a puzzle cache where I couldn't work out the final digits.

 

Edit to add that someone's also done the same to log one of my caches, didn't bother me in the slightest.

Edited by MartyBartfast
Link to comment

I'd say it's acceptable, unless the cache owner has forbidden it (I know of one cache where you have to collect the numbers on several travel bugs, and although it's possible to figure ou the location with only 2 sets of numbers, the cache setter has specifically said that if you haven't had all three TBs, your log will be deleted)

Link to comment

 

What's wardialling? :D

 

MrsB :D

 

Wardialling refers to a hacking practice of setting your modem to dial phone numbers in sequence until one is answered by another modem. Then the computer can set about connecting to the other computer and the hacker can set about hacking into it. It's a way of finding computers to hack into. It's not used very much now that most people don't use modems.

 

A more modern development is Warwalking / Wardriving, where you walk/drive around with a laptop looking for an open wireless connection so you can check your email.

Link to comment

I'm of the opinion that if you sign a logbook, you've found the cache, so you can certainly log it online. I personally don't care HOW you get that find. Some others have pointed out that some owners are a little more uptight about what constitutes a find on their cache, so for those, you'll have to submit to the owner's will too.

Link to comment

As far as I'm concerned, yes. If the cache owner makes a puzzle which can be partially cracked to get you close enough to the cache to find it, that's their problem. (There's a whole art to making a puzzle where you can't do anything with the numbers unless you have them all.)

I have to agree with you. It's OK to log, but it's a design flaw on the part of the cache setter if it's possible/easy. There are plenty of them out there too. :D

Link to comment

Slightly off topic but: -

 

I'm on a business trip to Paris (Versailles) and decided to do a couple of caches while I'm here. Because of time I decided to do one near the office the other near the hotel.

 

The cache near the office was a multi which had .5 mile stages, I did the stages during one lunch break, worked out the coords of the final and went to the final on my lunch break the next day but it was gone.

 

I logged it as a DNF and emailed the owner who verified that I was at the correct place and the cache had gone, he said I could log it as found...............is that OK?

 

BTW....the cache near the hotel was gone too..........it was hidden in a tree on a VERY busy street near Varsailles Palace!!!!

 

Thanks in advance.

 

TLHM.

Link to comment

[i logged it as a DNF and emailed the owner who verified that I was at the correct place and the cache had gone, he said I could log it as found...............is that OK?

 

Log owners discretion. If they say log it then you can. I have a virtual which requires an e-mail with some information. If I get a slightly wrong answer but it is obvious that they visited the site to get even the wrong answer I will let them log it. My reason for having that cache is to get people to see the object involved not answer a question. By the same token I just did a cache in France and realised, whilst in the middle of nowhere that I hadn't got anything to sign the log book with so took a photo of the actual cache container and asked for that to be taken as proof of visiting and finding the cache.

 

I would have thought that most "finds" that are not 100% as should be will be given if they have been approached in the proper spirit of the game.

Link to comment

I logged it as a DNF and emailed the owner who verified that I was at the correct place and the cache had gone, he said I could log it as found...............is that OK?

It's OK if the owner says it's OK - but why would you log a cache that you didn't find? It's only a game: there's nothing to be gained by doing that.

 

To the OP, I don't see any problem at all with logging any cache on-line if you found it and signed the log book. However, others don't like it if you didn't follow their exact instructions ("Additional Logging Requirements"), and will delete your log. Normally there's a warning to that effect in the cache description: I avoid that type of cache, and assume that if there's nothing mentioned you can log the cache as a find simply by finding it.

Link to comment

It's OK if the owner says it's OK - but why would you log a cache that you didn't find? It's only a game: there's nothing to be gained by doing that.

 

To the OP, I don't see any problem at all with logging any cache on-line if you found it and signed the log book. However, others don't like it if you didn't follow their exact instructions ("Additional Logging Requirements"), and will delete your log. Normally there's a warning to that effect in the cache description: I avoid that type of cache, and assume that if there's nothing mentioned you can log the cache as a find simply by finding it.

Well I guess it depends on how you play the game.

 

The way I've played it up to now is to be able to 'log as found' the log has had to be signed. In the case of this multi cache there was a lot of walking between points and I actually did find the right spot but the container was missing! So logging as found seems to be within the spirit of the game, as does, finding the cache and not signing the log. What's the point in logging it if you haven't found it? You're just cheating yourself!

Link to comment

Caching overseas is a bit different though - it's not easy to pop back when the cache has been replaced. In situations where the cacher was clearly at the right place, and wasn't able to sign the log book because it was missing, and they may not ever be in the area again, it doesn't seem unreasonable that they're awarded the find by the owner. If that still doesn't satisfy naysayers, they could perhaps leave a temporary cache, or just a temporary log, to prove they were there? Ultimately it's at the cache owner's discretion, and generosity of spirit is a nice thing.

Link to comment

Depends how important your find count is to you.

I would'nt but its you playing how you want to log it if it feels right to you post a DNF if that feels right to you.

 

I allowed a find where someone found my cache i removed it and they then came back to sign the log book after id removed it. (combination lock and puzzle on the outside if you think that sounds odd) they emailed the combination to confirm the find.

 

Conversely we have also been very annoyed by how one of our caches was found but let the find stand as they did find and sign the logbook.

 

On the OP we have worked out quite few multi's etc just from the cache page and found a few and logged them unless its an ALR cache (additional logging requirement).

 

There are a few common mistakes people make and its quite easy to spot them.

Link to comment

As most of my caching has been overseas, I've been in this situation a few times. If there's no sign of the cache and/or log book, even though I'm quite sure that I'm at the correct spot, I curse a bit and log a DNF.

 

Sometimes a cache owner has also offered me a "find" log, but for the life of me I can't see why I'd bother recording a "find" when I know I didn't find the cache. It's not a case of "cheating" (or not cheating), it just seems completely pointless. I was at the place where the cache was supposed to be - so what?

 

Perhaps I don't take this seriously enough! :lol:

Link to comment

When we were in the Highlands last year we had a FTF due to the cache being missing. It was a trad that involved a lovely walk by a babbling burn, so in essence the actual logging was a bonus.

 

Having emailed the owner with the details of the area where it should have been and had a reply thanking us for letting him know it was gone, confirming that it had, and advising that we should log it as a find.

 

We think this is ok as it was a trad cache. We would not, and have not in the past, logged caches if they were a multi or unknown cache where the main reason for the cache is the puzzle rather than the scenery.

 

That how we play it, rightly or wrongly, using what we feel is common sense but still within the spirit of the game as we undwerstand it.

 

H&L

Link to comment

Generally if anyone manages to shortcut any of my multis or puzzles (short of being told the coords by someone else), I'm usually happy to let them log it.

 

I did create this cache specifically to catch those who like to take shortcuts out - I've had a few giggles over some of the logs since that one went live!

 

However, I do have one series of caches where I don't want folks taking shortcuts to the final cache, mainly due to the sheer amount of work which went into it.

Link to comment

We think this is ok as it was a trad cache. We would not, and have not in the past, logged caches if they were a multi or unknown cache where the main reason for the cache is the puzzle rather than the scenery.

 

That how we play it, rightly or wrongly, using what we feel is common sense but still within the spirit of the game as we undwerstand it.

That's fine by me: and don't take this as any criticism, but if you'd logged the cache as a DNF (which is what it was), how would that have diminished the value of the walk / scenery etc.?

If the logging of the cache was only a bonus, why did you feel the need to log it as a "pretend find"? I'm sure it's not the case, but it looks to the outsider like you were really interested in the extra smiley, and the scenery was just a bonus! :lol:

Link to comment

However, I do have one series of caches where I don't want folks taking shortcuts to the final cache, mainly due to the sheer amount of work which went into it.

My approach is that it's my cache design, and it's up to me to make it watertight if I don't wany any shortcutting to happen. If someone finds a short cut I may be a bit disappointed at first, and then amend the cache description to close the loophole. But it's my fault if there's a weakness in the design and I wouldn't dream of disallowing the find - it's hardly a life-or-death crisis, after all!

 

To me, those caches that specify "you have to collect ALL the travel bugs" (or visit all stages, or whatever) have too much of an officious air to them - so I ignore them. Plus, this is a lazy method of crudely plugging a weakness in the design.

Edited by Happy Humphrey
Link to comment

"That's fine by me: and don't take this as any criticism, but if you'd logged the cache as a DNF (which is what it was), how would that have diminished the value of the walk / scenery etc.?

If the logging of the cache was only a bonus, why did you feel the need to log it as a "pretend find"? I'm sure it's not the case, but it looks to the outsider like you were really interested in the extra smiley, and the scenery was just a bonus!"

 

None taken and can't disagree with your logic :lol:

 

Thinking about it, this was one of our earlier cache finds and our first FTF (failed to find) incidentally. I (H) remember at the time wondering if it was ok to log as a find, being a bit surprised that it was suggested we could.

 

Thinking about it further :lol:, we probably wouldn't log it now, whatever the response from the cache owner was. But I guess this game is all about learning and developing the way its played for your own enjoyment.

 

So we're not going to change the records :lol:, but have always intended to go back to the cache, if its still there, when we get back up in that part of the Highlands, which is soon we hope :P

 

Incidentally, if I remember correctly we had the FTF on A game of Two Halves. We remember chuckling when it was found with one co-ord and thinking why didn't we think of that :P

 

You live and learn...........

 

L&H

Edited by L8HNB
Link to comment

I've had a couple of caches where I have had to use a bit of lateral thinking to find them.

 

A multi with one of the stages missing, where I met my Nemesis.

 

The other (also a multi) was a first to find, where the known half of the coordinates were incorrect, but again I managed to find it.

 

 

One question though - how about if you do find it, but don't sign the log, can you still claim it as a find? :)

Edited by Fifth Barrowcliffe
Link to comment

One question though - how about if you do find it, but don't sign the log, can you still claim it as a find? :)

I was going through some logs of mine and I noticed a few caches had been logged but the book/sheet not signed. Personally I’d rather see the logbook signed to avoid people who “were in the area” just claiming a find without trying. It happens and it’s really annoying; however, if the cache is a micro and you have no pen on you. then a note to the owner or a bit of a description (no spoilers) should suffice. It’s really up to the setter whether they allow the log. (I haven’t recovered from that Mont De Grange cache yet ;-)

Link to comment

(I haven’t recovered from that Mont De Grange cache yet ;-)

 

Just been looking at your stats - I will make the assumption that the one at over 2500m was done on the cable car then. :). Mont De Grange from Col de Bassachaux in 2 hours is good going. (Insert out of breath Smillie!)

It was indeed cable car but not really as much fun as walking. The Mont De Grange cache was quite very tiring and I was inordinately pleased with myself but I would certainly do it again. The trouble with top of the cable car mountains is the number of poeple there.

 

Ooo er, this is now off topic so...

 

I did a series of caches last year and one of the clue boxes was MIA. I plotted all the possible values on a map and visited each one until I got it at number 9! It was the second decimal in the lat/long that was missing, rather than the first so it wasn’t too far – about a mile I think.

I also cheated bigtime on a puzzle cache involving a long walk but I guessed where the end was and logged it having completed the page requirements. Local knowledge! If you find it, log it.

Link to comment

However, I do have one series of caches where I don't want folks taking shortcuts to the final cache, mainly due to the sheer amount of work which went into it.

 

In keeping with the theme of the above cache, I managed to sign my name in the final log, and left some swaps, without claiming a find, and without ever being there, according to the cache page., should have signed as the invisible man.. :(:(:) .

 

ps, Dont shout at me Jamie, it's only a game. :):(:(

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...