Can't puzzle caches be treated differently, please?

[Iwuzere]

Puzzle caches have spoiled the hobby for me... I wish they could all be moved off to their own spin-off site (puzzlecache.com or something?!) and didn't count towards the proximity rule or even the finders' scores.

 

I'm afraid that as long as I don't know where all the local caches are, I'm not going to waste my time looking for new spots only to risk having them ruled out because they're too close to a cache I didn't know about.

 

Shame really, but it really has soured the whole thing for me

 

I don't mind puzzles that can be solved by looking for clues at the cache area, I'm talking about the ones where you have to work out where on earth the cache is from the cache page on the website - by being able to mind-read the cache owner, look at the HTML source (!), solve some tedious soduko or have a flash of inspiration. That's not what caching's about for me - I want a cache and coordinates and let me find it.

 

I'm happy if people enjoy that sort of thing, but I think it has polluted the hobby and taken the edge off it. People are asking me to put out more caches, and I'm feeling guilty about finding more than I place, but it's just too annoying to think I could find a good spot and then have it ruled out. No thanks!

 

[Dinoprophet]

Multis have the same problem -- worse, actually. At least with a puzzle, the coordinates are generally a set distance from the cache. There's no telling with a multi. But I still like both and would protest the removal of either.

Edited October 19, 2007 by Dinoprophet

[CoyoteRed]

Huh. Puzzles are an integral part of geocaching to me. It's the "pirate treasure map" sort of hide in all of its variations that appeals to me. It would be a shame to move them elsewhere.

 

Besides, if Groundspeak did create "puzzlecaches.com" they'd probably use cross-site checking after all of the complaints of "so and so dropped a traditional cache directly on the other side of the tree from my puzzle cache!"

[+sbell111]

That's a bummer, but generally not a huge problem, in my opinion. Since the distance requirement is so small, it is somewhat unlikely that you will violate it, unless there are tons of puzzles and micros in your immediate area.

 

The best thing that you can do is locate the potential hiding location and then run it by your reviewer before you get seriously invested in it. Alternatively, you can team up with someone who likes to solve these puzzles and go find them.

[Keystone]

If you have an area in mind for a cache placement, but you're nervous about puzzles that might end in that area, write an e-mail to your friendly volunteer cache reviewer and ask them if they could give a yes/no answer on whether there would be a conflict near the coordinates you provided.

[Iwuzere]

Thanks... that might be the answer - ask the local reviewer about possible locations so often that he gets totally fed up with it too, and something changes somewhere (probably the reviewer would quit!).

 

An automated online check would be good, but would probably be abused by people using it in trial-and-error mode, hoping to triangulate on puzzle caches!

[+Team Cotati]

I must not understand the process for submitting a new cache report for these puzzles. How does that work?

[Keystone]

I must not understand the process for submitting a new cache report for these puzzles. How does that work?

The owner chooses "bogus" posted coordinates that are no more than two miles from the actual location. The owner enters the actual location of the cache as a hidden "Additional Waypoint" that can only be seen by the owner and site admins/volunteers. With those puzzle waypoints in our database, the cache reviewers can easily check for conflicts using our reviewer toolbox.

[+Vinny & Sue Team]

Puzzle caches have spoiled the hobby for me... I wish they could all be moved off to their own spin-off site (puzzlecache.com or something?!) and didn't count towards the proximity rule or even the finders' scores.

 

I'm afraid that as long as I don't know where all the local caches are, I'm not going to waste my time looking for new spots only to risk having them ruled out because they're too close to a cache I didn't know about.

 

Shame really, but it really has soured the whole thing for me

 

I don't mind puzzles that can be solved by looking for clues at the cache area, I'm talking about the ones where you have to work out where on earth the cache is from the cache page on the website - by being able to mind-read the cache owner, look at the HTML source (!), solve some tedious soduko or have a flash of inspiration. That's not what caching's about for me - I want a cache and coordinates and let me find it.

 

I'm happy if people enjoy that sort of thing, but I think it has polluted the hobby and taken the edge off it. People are asking me to put out more caches, and I'm feeling guilty about finding more than I place, but it's just too annoying to think I could find a good spot and then have it ruled out. No thanks!

 

Sorry to hear that you are feeling disturbed, and myself, I tend to avoid the vast majority of puzzle caches because I personally do not like them (trying to solve puzzles for caches gives me headaches and tends to drain the batteries of the alien implant which the alien grays placed in my brain), but I realize that many other cachers, including my wife Sue, enjoy them a lot. The point which you have raised is a total non-issue for me, but here are a few points which come to mind:

• This is a new one to me; I do not believe that I have ever heard anyone make this particular complaint before.
  
• If you are going to complain about the "invisibility" to future cache hiders of the exact waypoint coordinates for puzzle caches, then you will also need to complain about the invisibility of the waypoint coords for the final stage and for all intermediate stages for all multi-stage caches.
  
• You will also need to include on your complaint list all Premium member only caches, since their waypoint coords cannot be seen by regular (i.e., nonpaying) members.
  
• You will also need to include in your complaint list all under-creation not-yet-published caches for which the cache owner has already created a cache listing page but it has either not yet been submitted for review (i.e., it is not listed as active) or where it has been submitted but has not yet been published, because the waypoint coordinates for these caches are also invisible to you.
  

[+Team Cotati]

Thank you.

[Iwuzere]

This is a new one to me; I do not believe that I have ever heard anyone make this particular complaint before.

 

thanks, it's always refreshing to find I've had thoughts that no-one else has ever had.

I do enjoy being totally out of step with humankind, I seem to be quite good at it.

 

[markandlynn]

 

[*] If you are going to complain about the "invisibility" to future cache hiders of the exact waypoint coordinates for puzzle caches, then you will also need to complain about the invisibility of the waypoint coords for the final stage and for all intermediate stages for all multi-stage caches.

[*] You will also need to include on your complaint list all Premium member only caches, since their waypoint coords cannot be seen by regular (i.e., nonpaying) members.

 

To find these you can go out and do the cache in question to solve puzzles you need to well errr solve the puzzle and if you cant work it out then errr you cant work it out.

 

Members only show up in proximity searches unless its a members only puzzle cache....

 

As for the op id just plant your caches if its to close then hey youve found a puzzle cache the hard way a kind of geocaching minesweeper.

[nonaeroterraqueous]

...look at the HTML source (!)....

 

Those are so easy that they're almost not even puzzle caches.

[Dinoprophet]

To find these you can go out and do the cache in question to solve puzzles you need to well errr solve the puzzle and if you cant work it out then errr you cant work it out.

But you can't really know what multis you have to solve to make sure an area is clear. I've done multis where the stages were miles apart. It's rare, sure. But at least with puzzles, you know that the final is within two miles of the initial coords (unless it's a multi puzzle...).

[+ReadyOrNot]

There should be an automated way on the site to check coordinates. Only allow 1 check per day and it couldn't be abused (or would only be abused by the extremely patient)

[Iwuzere]

Good thinking, ReadyOrNot - that sounds like a fair plan to me!

It only needs to give a Yes or No answer... it would take weeks for someone to figure out a puzzle cache in an otherwise unpopulated area using that method to triangulate (perhaps limit the number of requests per IP address per locality too !! )

[markandlynn]

To find these you can go out and do the cache in question to solve puzzles you need to well errr solve the puzzle and if you cant work it out then errr you cant work it out.

But you can't really know what multis you have to solve to make sure an area is clear. I've done multis where the stages were miles apart. It's rare, sure. But at least with puzzles, you know that the final is within two miles of the initial coords (unless it's a multi puzzle...).

 

Looking at the OP's location id guess that's not a big issue

 

It is a fair point though some big multi's by me suffer with this

 

Ready or not's idea would be severely abused as you only need three searches to triangulate anything and just two carefull searches to give you two possible locations

 

The other idea of saying yes you are within 0.1 of cache again two searches gives you intersecting circles to search and with a clue or photos or previous logs abuse would soon follow.

[+edscott]

Getting rid of puzzles altogether for the reasons cited here seems like overkill. It would be considerate of puzzle hiders to use coordinates of a location that is unlikely to be used for a regular cache.

[+Renegade Knight]

Puzzle caches have spoiled the hobby for me... I wish they could all be moved off to their own spin-off site (puzzlecache.com or something?!) and didn't count towards the proximity rule or even the finders' scores....

 

There is a request for them to be their own type of cache. Then you could filter them out. Until then ignore is your friend. The bogus coordinate issue is one of the problems with a puzzle cache trying to occupy a slot meant for a normal cache. The bogus coordinate should actually be a "center of a larger radius" of people you would like to advertise the puzzle for. Like the state of Wyoming.

[+Quiggle]

Getting rid of puzzles altogether for the reasons cited here seems like overkill. It would be considerate of puzzle hiders to use coordinates of a location that is unlikely to be used for a regular cache.

Posted coordinates, if they're bogus (ie parking coords), aren't [supposed to be] used in proximity searches by reviewers so that's not an issue. The actual cache coordinates are, however.

[+9Key]

Getting rid of puzzles altogether for the reasons cited here seems like overkill. It would be considerate of puzzle hiders to use coordinates of a location that is unlikely to be used for a regular cache.

That's generally what I do with my puzzle cache hides - make the hide in a non-traditional location so it doesn't block a future tradtional cache from a good spot. Not to say my puzzle hides are crappy spots, just not the places you generally see a cache.

[+wimseyguy]

Since the posted bogus coords of the puzzle caches that are frustrating you are not subject to the proximity guideline, why not target those locations for your hides?

Then you only have an issue if the actual location is within 528' of the bogus coords.

 

But seriously, the best solution for your frustration (with this issue only) is to simply ask your local reviewer if a particular set of coords are OK before going to the trouble of creating your listing.

 

I'm not a big fan of puzzles either, but I don't feel they are the ruination of all that is good about geocaching. But I don't understand the mentality that poses that only traditionals should get the good locations. Shouldn't all caches be in good locations? Solving a puzzle to get the actual coords just adds to the difficulty of finding that cache.

Edited October 19, 2007 by wimseyguy

[+windscorpion]

I think that just about everywhere there is geocaching there are FTF Hounds. Some of them seem to be able go out searching 24/7/365. For the rest of us worker bees that like to get a few FTF's, I feel the puzzle cache helps level the playing field. It gives the 40 hour work week cacher a chance to be the first to figure out a puzzle and make the find.

 

I can see the problem of coordinates getting sucked up due to the locations on multis. I live out in a desert community and there is an incredible amount of open land for cache locations so it hasn't been much of an issue here.

 

I do get frustrated trying to figure out some of those puzzles, but I also enjoy it when I succeed. I have about 25 of them solved right now. I just need to get the time to head out of town and make the finds.

Edited October 19, 2007 by windscorpion

[4wheelin_fool]

Puzzle caches have spoiled the hobby for me... I wish they could all be moved off to their own spin-off site (puzzlecache.com or something?!) and didn't count towards the proximity rule or even the finders' scores.

 

I'm afraid that as long as I don't know where all the local caches are, I'm not going to waste my time looking for new spots only to risk having them ruled out because they're too close to a cache I didn't know about.

 

Shame really, but it really has soured the whole thing for me

 

 

But why be so concerned about something that hasn't happened yet?

[+the hermit crabs]

This is a new one to me; I do not believe that I have ever heard anyone make this particular complaint before.

 

thanks, it's always refreshing to find I've had thoughts that no-one else has ever had.

I do enjoy being totally out of step with humankind, I seem to be quite good at it.

 

That's funny; as I was reading this I was thinking just the opposite: that this sounds like something that is said all the time, just with a different fill-in-the-blank:

 

"______ caches are ruining the game! Can't we get rid of them?"

 

micros: "Micros aren't real caches! My kids hate them, and they're starting to hate caching because of micros. Caching is about finding a container and trading something -- not finding some teeny container barely big enough for a scrap of paper!"

 

park'n'grabs: "That's not real caching! Caching is supposed to get you out in the woods, or to someplace new and scenic, not to a lamppost in a parking lot! Can we ban them?"

 

phone-a-friend: "Caching is all about the hunt! What's the point if someone is just going to tell you right where it is? That's not real caching; can we stop it?"

 

evil hides: "Spending two hours searching for a needle in a haystack is not what caching is about! Caching is supposed to be about enjoying the journey to the site, and then making a quick find without tearing up the landscape or attracting attention."

 

public locations: "Trying to extract, log, and replace a container in plain view of hundreds of people isn't what caching is supposed to be about! We're supposed to be finding hidden containers in out-of-the-way places, not playing some super-stealth spy game!"

 

multiple logging of temp caches from events: (right, as if I'm going to touch that one )

[+Snoogans]

There should be an automated way on the site to check coordinates. Only allow 1 check per day and it couldn't be abused (or would only be abused by the extremely patient)

 

And here I didn't think any good could come from such an angsty titled thread.....

 

That is a GREAT idea and you should start a thread in the Geocaching.com forum for that feature request. I think it would be received favorably.

[+Harry Dolphin]

Breathe deeply, young grasshopper. Restore the balance.

Accept the fact that the world was not created for your enjoyment only.

One of the basic laws of humanity is: First come. First served.

My personal philosophy of life is: "Oh, well."

Enjoy your own self, and allow others to enjoy theirs. (Except when they log mutiple 'Attendeds" on an event cache.)

Breathe deeply, young grasshopper, and enjoy life.

Repeat after me: "Oh, well. There are other opportunities."

And seek them wih a peaceful mind.

[+andGuest]

snip

and didn't count towards (snip) the finders' scores.

snip

 

Guess they don't allow you to run up the "score" like other caches do. By the way what place am I on the scoreboard?

[+NYPaddleCacher]

Getting rid of puzzles altogether for the reasons cited here seems like overkill. It would be considerate of puzzle hiders to use coordinates of a location that is unlikely to be used for a regular cache.

That's generally what I do with my puzzle cache hides - make the hide in a non-traditional location so it doesn't block a future tradtional cache from a good spot. Not to say my puzzle hides are crappy spots, just not the places you generally see a cache.

 

There are a few puzzle caches in my neck of the woods with the posted coordinates in the middle of a large body of water. I realize that there *are* some caches located in lakes (based on my handle, one might gather that these are a favorite of mine) but most puzzle caches indicate that they're not at the posted coordinates.

 

Awhile back I was looking for a puzzle cache and because the owner had written that it was "nearby" the posted coordinates, and the title of the cache was a giveaway as to where it would be hidden I went out and looked for it before solving the puzzle. The posted coordinates took me to middle of large building, which I soon discovered was a women dormitory at our nearby university. I gave up my search quickly as I realized the implications of being a 50 year old man wandering around the perimeter of a womens dorm carrying an object that might resemble a digital camera.

 

I *did* solve the puzzle later, and if I recall, the actual coordinates were exposed when doing a "view source".

 

I personally enjoy puzzle caches. My favorite cache so far was a multi level puzzle that produced coordinates that were on an island. I spent about three hours solving the puzzle then drove 35 miles to launch my kayak, then paddled 1/2 mile to get to the cache and got FTF. It was well over a month before someone else logged a find. I'd rather do one cache like that than a dozen urban micros.

[+Team Cotati]

Getting rid of puzzles altogether for the reasons cited here seems like overkill. It would be considerate of puzzle hiders to use coordinates of a location that is unlikely to be used for a regular cache.

 

Or simply require that the reviewers omit the final stage of a multi from their .10 mile calculations. Yes, I know.

Edited October 20, 2007 by Team Cotati

[+Zop]

Puzzles to me just represent a greater challange than the common traditional. I like them a whole lot more than I would have expected. Yes, when I first started I cursed them too but now after solving a score or three, I go out of my way to grab one while out and about. I think it would be a shame to exclude them or isolate them. If you don't like them, simply filter them out or ignore them.

[+Zop]

Puzzles to me just represent a greater challange than the common traditional. I like them a whole lot more than I would have expected. Yes, when I first started I cursed them too but now after solving a score or three, I go out of my way to grab one while out and about. I think it would be a shame to exclude them or isolate them. If you don't like them, simply filter them out or ignore them.

[+Zop]

Puzzles to me just represent a greater challange than the common traditional. I like them a whole lot more than I would have expected. Yes, when I first started I cursed them too but now after solving a score or three, I go out of my way to grab one while out and about. I think it would be a shame to exclude them or isolate them. If you don't like them, simply filter them out or ignore them.

[+Harry Dolphin]

There are a few puzzle caches in my neck of the woods with the posted coordinates in the middle of a large body of water. I realize that there *are* some caches located in lakes (based on my handle, one might gather that these are a favorite of mine) but most puzzle caches indicate that they're not at the posted coordinates.

 

Naw! Say it isn't so!

I helped my sister put out a mystery cache. We put the coordinates in the middle of the river, with a warning that the cache was not at that location. That didn't stop some people from searching both banks of the river.

 

Now, I've gone and confused everyone by putting a letterbox/hybrid in an area that hasn't had one in two years. Nobody seems to know what of make of it! Okay one out of six finders even knew what a letterbox/hybrid is, and stamped the log...

[+Zop]

Puzzles to me just represent a greater challange than the common traditional. I like them a whole lot more than I would have expected. Yes, when I first started I cursed them too but now after solving a score or three, I go out of my way to grab one while out and about. I think it would be a shame to exclude them or isolate them. If you don't like them, simply filter them out or ignore them.

 

HUH????

 

Now there's a puzzle for ya!

 

Three identical posts while the page was unresponsive.

 

Sorry all!

[+Team Cotati]

There are a few puzzle caches in my neck of the woods with the posted coordinates in the middle of a large body of water. I realize that there *are* some caches located in lakes (based on my handle, one might gather that these are a favorite of mine) but most puzzle caches indicate that they're not at the posted coordinates.

 

Naw! Say it isn't so!

I helped my sister put out a mystery cache. We put the coordinates in the middle of the river, with a warning that the cache was not at that location. That didn't stop some people from searching both banks of the river.

 

Now, I've gone and confused everyone by putting a letterbox/hybrid in an area that hasn't had one in two years. Nobody seems to know what of make of it! Okay one out of six finders even knew what a letterbox/hybrid is, and stamped the log...

 

Along with the rest of the known world, I bask in your reflected glory.

[Iwuzere]

If you don't like them, simply filter them out or ignore them.

I'm happy to ignore puzzle caches I can't solve, but I can't ignore them if they affect my ability to know where all the local caches are in my quest to find new places to hide more. Simple as that... I was just floating the idea to see what people made of it... it's been interesting so far

 

I live on an island that fits within 12 x 5 miles, and it started off with a few dozen caches... I could keep up and knew where they all were. Then along came puzzles I just couldn't crack, and now there are a dozen or so out there that I don't know where they are. Given that there are about 100,000 of us clinging to these 40 sq miles in the English Channel, as you can imagine almost every square foot of land is highly prized, worth a fortune, and tended by someone. There are no scruffy areas - it's either wild and safeguarded from development, or someone has squeezed as many housing units as possible into it for profit. The possible places to place caches (given the proximity limit which should be a bit closer for us in the circumstances, IMHO) are getting more and more few and far between. It's bad enough trying to fit one in between the others without worrying about it being too close to one I didn't even know about!

 

That's where I'm coming from, if the background helps. Maybe it's similar where you are and it's not a problem for you... but that's how it is from where I'm sitting

Maybe it's just the frustration of being "in the know" one year and then not the next (where they all are).

 

Cheers.

[+J-Way]

I live on an island that fits within 12 x 5 miles, and it started off with a few dozen caches... I could keep up and knew where they all were. Then along came puzzles I just couldn't crack, and now there are a dozen or so out there that I don't know where they are. Given that there are about 100,000 of us clinging to these 40 sq miles in the English Channel, as you can imagine almost every square foot of land is highly prized, worth a fortune, and tended by someone. There are no scruffy areas - it's either wild and safeguarded from development, or someone has squeezed as many housing units as possible into it for profit. The possible places to place caches (given the proximity limit which should be a bit closer for us in the circumstances, IMHO) are getting more and more few and far between. It's bad enough trying to fit one in between the others without worrying about it being too close to one I didn't even know about!

That's where I'm coming from, if the background helps. Maybe it's similar where you are and it's not a problem for you... but that's how it is from where I'm sitting

Maybe it's just the frustration of being "in the know" one year and then not the next (where they all are).

Actually, it does help understand your reasoning, but not your over-reaction. If you were simply in an overpopulated urban area most people would just tell you to walk/ride/drive to a more rural region. But in your case that would be open ocean... so not an option. I agree than a local exception to the 0.1mile rule would be acceptable in your area, but probably on a case-by-case basis.

 

As for the "overreaction" part... I couldn't help but notice that HALF of the caches you own are Unknown (Mystery) caches where the container is not at the posted coordinates. Your suggestion would ban half of your hides from this site? Granted, they are extremely easy to solve. Maybe that's what you really want; ban all HARD puzzles that you can't figure out???

 

The best suggestion I've seen is to email your reviewer the coordinates BEFORE you go to the trouble of placing a cache and working on the description. Your argument that this would bug your reviewer to hatred of you is kinda weak... You have 70 finds and 4 hides as of this post; exactly how many caches are you planning on spewing across the countryside that it would bug your reviewer??

[+elmuyloco5]

If you don't like them, simply filter them out or ignore them.

I'm happy to ignore puzzle caches I can't solve, but I can't ignore them if they affect my ability to know where all the local caches are in my quest to find new places to hide more. Simple as that... I was just floating the idea to see what people made of it... it's been interesting so far

 

I live on an island that fits within 12 x 5 miles, and it started off with a few dozen caches... I could keep up and knew where they all were. Then along came puzzles I just couldn't crack, and now there are a dozen or so out there that I don't know where they are. Given that there are about 100,000 of us clinging to these 40 sq miles in the English Channel, as you can imagine almost every square foot of land is highly prized, worth a fortune, and tended by someone. There are no scruffy areas - it's either wild and safeguarded from development, or someone has squeezed as many housing units as possible into it for profit. The possible places to place caches (given the proximity limit which should be a bit closer for us in the circumstances, IMHO) are getting more and more few and far between. It's bad enough trying to fit one in between the others without worrying about it being too close to one I didn't even know about!

 

That's where I'm coming from, if the background helps. Maybe it's similar where you are and it's not a problem for you... but that's how it is from where I'm sitting

Maybe it's just the frustration of being "in the know" one year and then not the next (where they all are).

 

Cheers.

 

I understand your situation completely. Although I'm not living on an island, I live on the top of a mesa in a little town that is completely surrounded by Indian land and National Park land. So in essence, it's a sea of land that caches can't be placed. We are a unique place that exists for a National Lab.....and hence a lot of scientists. These guys love their puzzles. While we want to do them in the future, we also don't want to wait until we get all of them to hide our own.

 

I would suggest getting to know your local cachers a bit better. If you don't always want to go through the reviewer process, the cache owners can also help you out. They can tell you whether or not coordinates are within too close a range of their caches. And, if you get to know them, you might find they're quite helpful in guiding you through their puzzles as well.

[+hukilaulau]

Puzzle caches have spoiled the hobby for me...

And here's the punch line... 50% of your hidden caches are... yep... Puzzle Caches!

[Iwuzere]

My 'puzzle' caches are of the variety where you collect clues at the cache area.. scavenger hunts that can be solved by anyone being there and looking around. The locals here won't have a problem with it, and won't be in my predicament because the posted coords aren't far away from my caches. The puzzles I cannot stand are the ones where the posted coordinates are miles offshore (for the safe of having coords at all) and you have to read the cache owner's mind!

 

Yes I could ask the other local cachers, but then they'd know where I was placing one! (and probably beat me to it, knowing them, LOL)

 

ta.

[+Rockin Roddy]

I HATE puzzles, but that doesn't stop a few of our locals from dropping them like candy wrappers. I hate the fact that, when I do a search of the caches within 30 miles of my home, nearly 70% of the unfound are puzzles.

 

BUT, that's my problem! I've tried to counter it by placing a lot of hides, but they just keep popping up. Since I don't like puzzle caches, I just have to live with it (or find someone willing to solve them all and follow them to the cache so I can be rid of them)! Those puzzles seem to mock me with their little blue question mark....

 

A few of the puzzles around here are so silly...one is just a blank page...how on earth do you solve that? A new one is a series of pictures (one's a nice large behind, but most are people's faces or of their pet dogs). You have to figure out who each picture represents and then get them to share their number with you (the pictures are placed in a series like coords, each picture being a number for the coords)...not a bad idea unless you get one person who doesn't want to participate. And yes, one is my picture, so I have to deal with the multitude of people asking for my number (or which picture is me etc).

 

It's gotten to where I just ignore the new caches that I get notified for, most are puzzles...and most are placed by the same puzzle fiend. Again, this is MY problem...but I do hate them!!

[+elmuyloco5]

 

Yes I could ask the other local cachers, but then they'd know where I was placing one! (and probably beat me to it, knowing them, LOL)

 

ta.

 

I'm sorry, from your OP I thought you were wanting to hide a traditional cache, in which the coordinates would be posted anyway when you published your cache. If you get to know your local cachers, they're not going to go out chasing after your cache prior to it's publishing. Sure there are some people out there who might "cheat" at the game, but I think you'll find that the locals who get involved and take the time to come out and meet with other cachers, just aren't like that.

 

We were given the coordinates to our last local event a day prior to when we could search for them. We were the only ones that went out as early as we did (most people coming to the event didn't live in our little town), and we still waited in our car until it was midnight (and therefore the day we could look) and we only took the time to do one cache as we didn't want to take all the FTFs from everyone else.

 

If you're wanting the coordinates to place a puzzle cache, then how does your logic work??? It doesn't matter whether yours are easy or hard. There are some almost impossible traditional caches that require tools or equipment to do. Although not everyone can accomplish these caches, they have the right to be there.

[Iwuzere]

I stand by my opinion (and we all know what those are worth ) that puzzle caches are an unwelcome deviation from the original spirit of caching, and if they didn't count towards the proximity rule I wouldn't have to be asking reviewers about new hides.

 

That's probably a good place to wrap up the thread, thanks for letting me vent... looks like it's just me then

[4wheelin_fool]

 

That's probably a good place to wrap up the thread, thanks for letting me vent... looks like it's just me then

 

The majority of cachers who hide puzzles will give you enough hints to solve if you just simply ask them.(unless its a new cache with no finders yet) If you suspect a cache is in an area where you want to place one, just ask the puzzle owner for some hints.

[Iwuzere]

That's a good idea to try, I suppose - thanks. I don't normally like to pester people, but it might be worth asking these puzzlefolks at least roughly where there caches are, and then I might feel happy enough to start putting some more out there

I'll hold my hands up to getting so carried away with my frustration and my wonderful new suggestion that I missed the blindingly obvious, LOL

 

Grumble grumble... blasted puzzles... hehe

Cheers

Edited October 21, 2007 by Iwuzere

[+nikcap]

...

I live on an island that fits within 12 x 5 miles, and it started off with a few dozen caches... I could keep up and knew where they all were. Then along came puzzles I just couldn't crack, and now there are a dozen or so out there that I don't know where they are. Given that there are about 100,000 of us clinging to these 40 sq miles in the English Channel, as you can imagine almost every square foot of land is highly prized, worth a fortune, and tended by someone. There are no scruffy areas - it's either wild and safeguarded from development, or someone has squeezed as many housing units as possible into it for profit. The possible places to place caches (given the proximity limit which should be a bit closer for us in the circumstances, IMHO) are getting more and more few and far between. It's bad enough trying to fit one in between the others without worrying about it being too close to one I didn't even know about!

 

That's where I'm coming from, if the background helps. Maybe it's similar where you are and it's not a problem for you... but that's how it is from where I'm sitting

Maybe it's just the frustration of being "in the know" one year and then not the next (where they all are).

 

Cheers.

 

So, this sounds like a general issue about cache saturation. It has very little to do with puzzle caches per se, but that the inhabitants of you little island have gone nuts placing caches in any open space 528ft from another cache.

Could you imagine if the guide-lines stated that the proximity of cache placement were 1/2 mile or a mile.

 

Since the island and geocaching community in your area is small, I would work this out with the local cachers.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

There are a few puzzle caches in my neck of the woods with the posted coordinates in the middle of a large body of water. I realize that there *are* some caches located in lakes (based on my handle, one might gather that these are a favorite of mine) but most puzzle caches indicate that they're not at the posted coordinates.

 

Naw! Say it isn't so!

I helped my sister put out a mystery cache. We put the coordinates in the middle of the river, with a warning that the cache was not at that location. That didn't stop some people from searching both banks of the river.

 

Now, I've gone and confused everyone by putting a letterbox/hybrid in an area that hasn't had one in two years. Nobody seems to know what of make of it! Okay one out of six finders even knew what a letterbox/hybrid is, and stamped the log...

 

I was in Rome a few weeks ago and was looking for a good cache to drop in some TBs and Coins I brought over. I went in search for a cache called Gilligan Au Roma (GCRE4T). It's located on an island in the middle of the Tiber river though there are bridges to the island from either side. Unfortunately during the summer there are concerts in an area on the island and access to the lower portion of the island (where the cache is located) is blocked off most of the time. That hasn't stopped some people from swimming across the river to get to the cache. When I was looking for it I walked to a spot where I could look over the railing where I to see if I could see a way to get to it. As I approached the railing two people turned around, one of them carrying a GPS such that when he turned around it was within 3' of my face. They were visiting from Germany and we spent a half an hour or so trying to find access. We eventually gave up, discovered each others coins/tbs in our possession and went of in search of other caches. I did find a place to drop my TBs (GCXR2J), which turned out to be quite an adventure as well, and one of the TBs is still in that cache. I also grabbed the Colosseum cache. If you go to wikipedia and look at the geocaching page, it's featured as an example of a micro cache.

[Phatfish16]

I absolutely Disagree with removing these types of caches from Geocaching!!! I LOVE puzzles. Wish I could solve more. Wish there were more in my area. There are different types of caches, if you have a problem with Unknown Caches or Multicaches, stick with finding Traditional Caches. Use filters during your search. But I personally don't want to see them removed from our hobby. I do, however, wish that Unknown caches could be split up and divided into separate and different cache types. Maybe have a cache type titled, "Puzzle Cache" and other types as deemed necessary.

[+yawetag]

The irony here is that cachers would spend time triangulating (and using math that's more difficult than most puzzle caches) to find a cache that would have taken less time to actually solve.

 

The other idea of saying yes you are within 0.1 of cache again two searches gives you intersecting circles to search and with a clue or photos or previous logs abuse would soon follow.