Can't puzzle caches be treated differently, please?

[+fox-and-the-hound]

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.

 

It's an interesting dilemma. There are a couple good solutions more near at hand than you might realize though. Your cache reviewer (as previously mentioned) can be very helpful here. I've placed bogus coords within 50 feet of an actual cache belonging to someone else in order to hide a mystery cache (cache in the parking lot of a park with only one entrance can make things pretty tough). Would never have pulled it off without the reviewer's help. A good resource for finding these tricky caches might just be as simple as asking to hook up for a day of caching with someone who loves puzzle caches. Meet a new friend, enjoy a day of caching and crack a bunch of difficult hides... what's better than that? Considering your unique situation, you might be able to get help from your reviewer and designate a single start point at the mathematical center of your town/island/area and ask everyone to move their start coords. We tend to be a pretty nice bunch and if you explain why, you might get a lot of support. Personally, I'd love to see a "shared" start point for puzzles in our area.

Edited October 22, 2007 by fox-and-the-hound

[+NYPaddleCacher]

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.

 

On the other hand there are puzzle caches which require triangular math puzzle to solve to get the coordinates:

 

See GCWX59

[+NYPaddleCacher]

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.

 

I agree. Unknown Cache really doesn't mean much. A quickly gave up on a puzzle cache yesterday that required answering a bunch of questions from various locations in the field to determine the final coordinates. IMO, that's more of a multi (where the previous stages are all virtual) than a puzzle cache. I would like to see a Puzzle Cache definition limited to puzzles which can be solve from the listing and access to the internet, but do not require travel to a specific location to get necessary information.

 

I also like puzzle caches, and using Pocket Queries have searched for "all unknown caches" to find them, solve the puzzle, and keep a bookmark list which only has puzzle solutions. A cacher friend of mine has worked on solving a few puzzle for which she will never likely find. I've been working on one in South Africa that I have a slim chance of finding but the first stage of the puzzle lured me in, and now I want to solve it just so I can post a "puzzle solved" note.

 

I have been starting to work on a cache called "Five Puzzles". It will pay tribute to several existing puzzle cache. I'll write a simple web application that will allow cachers to enter in the solution coordinates from four different puzzle caches I have selected. Entering the coordinates of a solved puzzle will give one number to a four digit virtual combination lock. Enter all four digits to unlock the combination to a final puzzle (which I will create). Solve that puzzle to get the final coordinate to my cache. I want the preliminary puzzles to be fun, and something that most cachers can solve in under an hour. The final puzzle might not be so easy. I want to give local cachers something to do when the ground is covered in snow (though, it has been in the high 70s and sunny here in upstate NY the last two days).

[+yawetag]

Which cache is it? I love to solve puzzles in other areas.

 

I've been working on one in South Africa that I have a slim chance of finding but the first stage of the puzzle lured me in, and now I want to solve it just so I can post a "puzzle solved" note.

[ElementalJay]

The Coolest Cache I Ever Found was a puzzle cache. You had to read a classic short story by Edgar Allen Poe, retrieve a document from a regular cache, figure out the secret to the document, solve the code, find a location without coordinates, shoot an azimuth from THAT position, retrieve a second set of coordinates from there, and then finally locate a well-hidden cache in the woods. The entire thing closely followed the Poe story. It was fun and not TERRIBLY difficult. The caching community would suffer a loss if this cache wasn't available.

[markandlynn]

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.

 

Err id use propriety software to do it for me triangulation and mapping tools of that type are everywhere.

[Iwuzere]

The Coolest Cache I Ever Found was a puzzle cache...

... was fun and not TERRIBLY difficult. The caching community would suffer a loss if this cache wasn't available.

I'm sure it would suffer a loss, I'm glad people enjoy puzzles BUT I still can't help feeling they're a spin-off from the original idea of caching and not true to the pure idea of 1) hide cache 2) provide coords online 3) let others find it WITH A GPS

Such puzzles make step 2 too convoluted and move the challenge from step 3 to step 2... i.e. using the GPS to find something in the wild should be the challenge, getting us outdoors in the fresh air instead of spending even more time sitting around

Just my opinion, of course. Remember, I was not saying to ban puzzles, just to stop them making complicate the proximity rules. I realise you could then end up with a minimum separation network of non-puzzle caches and another network of puzzle caches overlaid... with puzzle caches that could be right next to normal caches. Obviously that would be less than desirable... my solution to that would be to keep the proximity rules for puzzles and non-puzzles within their own types BUT allow a normal cache to be within 150-200ft or so of a puzzle cache. That way you'd only ever get one normal cache next to a puzzle cache and not especially close. It would be a reasonable compromise because I'd have to be pretty unlucky to pick a spot that close to a puzzle cache I didn't know about.

But hey, I do know I'm just daydreaming out loud.

[+simpjkee]

no change needed. if it aint broke..........

[Iwuzere]

It's a matter of opinion whether it's broke

[CoyoteRed]

It's a matter of opinion whether it's broke

True.

 

Personally, I feel what's broke is not the fact puzzle caches are published here, but the proximity rules. A shift in paradigm would probably reduce the angst.

• Who cares if someone accidentally finds your cache? It's still a find and hopefully they still enjoyed it.
  
• Who cares if you accidentally find the wrong cache? It's still a find, right?
  
• If all caches are marked properly and folks pay attention then there wouldn't be much of an issue of logging the wrong cache.
  
• Do we really need a nanny to prevent poaching hiding spots? What about cross-site listings?
  
• Do we really need to separate a large container final from a micro stage? What difference is it from being the same cache hunt or a different one?
  
• Proximity is a poor indicator of saturation. With ability to put 112 caches in one square mile, how often does this even come close to being a problem?
  
• There are plenty of times when two close, yet independent, locations deserve a cache. If one cacher places a cache and doesn't highlight an even more worthy though nearby location, the overall caching experience for the area is reduced.
  
• Power trails are not prevented under these rules, but a separate, and probably more appropriate, one.
  

We've found caches that were less than 100' from each other--obviously placed before the rules went into effect--and we didn't have a problem with confusing the two nor felt anything negative in the experience. I just don't understand the train of thought that went into the conclusion to develop the proximity rule.

Edited October 24, 2007 by CoyoteRed

[+NYPaddleCacher]

Which cache is it? I love to solve puzzles in other areas.

 

I've been working on one in South Africa that I have a slim chance of finding but the first stage of the puzzle lured me in, and now I want to solve it just so I can post a "puzzle solved" note.

 

It's called Descartes Communique (GCWX59).

He's also got one called Stoddard's Demist (GCNN9C)

A friend of mine recently solved one she really liked called "Turtle Soup" (GCWEGQ)

[Iwuzere]

It's got to the point with one particular puzzle that I know I'll be spending the rest of my life occasionaly wondering just what the heck it was all about. Other people here have cracked it, obviously their brains work differently to mine. Someone's given me extra clues and I still don't get it. Apparently it's really easy! Nice... now I feel totally dumb, and excluded.

 

I just don't need that kind of Unsolved Mysteries frustration, so I'm not even going to LOOK at further puzzles, whether I could have solved them or not. I shall just ignore them completely.

 

I say: if you want me to go looking for your cache, post the *&%£& coords!

[+yawetag]

As a puzzle lover (and puzzle cache placer), I think they should stay. I do agree (and there's a topic going now about it) that puzzles should have their own category, leaving the other "unknowns" to stay where they are.

 

That said, I also understand that some people don't like puzzles. That's why our traditionals have many more finds than our puzzles. But I'm okay with that. If my cache doesn't get seen by anyone for 2 months, but it finally is, it's worth it.

 

Solving some of the puzzle caches are celebrations themselves. There are some great caches in the Farmington, MO area by Know Future. If you troll around the cache page enough, he gives you links to all of the information you need to solve the puzzles, he just doesn't tell you that. His 4-stars are more around 2.5-3 once you find the information you need.

 

Before you blast a certain category and want it to leave, make sure it's really not liked. What's the difference between forcing puzzlecache.com and forcing traditionalcache.com. Why not make them all different sites? Of course, it's because they all have the same idea -- find a cache!

 

I'm sorry puzzle caches have "soured" caching for you. However, puzzle caches have enhanced caching for me. I find it a lot more enjoyable to solve a puzzle and THEN look for the tupperware.

 

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!

 

[+JamGuys]

It's got to the point with one particular puzzle that I know I'll be spending the rest of my life occasionaly wondering just what the heck it was all about. Other people here have cracked it, obviously their brains work differently to mine. Someone's given me extra clues and I still don't get it. Apparently it's really easy! Nice... now I feel totally dumb, and excluded.

 

I just don't need that kind of Unsolved Mysteries frustration, so I'm not even going to LOOK at further puzzles, whether I could have solved them or not. I shall just ignore them completely.

 

I say: if you want me to go looking for your cache, post the *&%£& coords!

Just stumbled upon your thread, read it in its entirety, then spent an interesting few minutes on the internet and on Google Map Search. Here's what I've discovered:

 

1. The Bailiwick of Jersey has a 48.1 mile coastal path that circles the island.

 

2. A majority of caches on the island are placed in coastal locations with pockets of concentration on the south and southwest coasts, fewer on the east, north, and west coasts, and a scattering across the middle.

 

3. There are a total of 21 Unknown caches on the island (14 of which you've already logged and 2 of which you own) leaving 5 potential "trouble" caches with which to contend.

 

Now, ASSUMING these 5 Unknown caches are all placed in scenic coastal locations, that would potentially eliminate no more than 0.5 miles of prime coastline (at an average distance of 0.1 mile from the shore) for placing a new cache. Therefore, the chances of your intended new cache(s) conflicting with one of these 5 Unknown caches would seem to me to be pretty slim. Of course, since you do have a finite geographic area to deal with, this is a situation that is likely to get worse (from your point of view) rather than improve. So, here are a question and a suggestion I have for you:

 

QUESTION

Have you actually had a cache rejected because the co-ords were reportedly within 0.1 mile of an Unknown?

 

If the answer is YES, then you were probably just unfortunate.

 

If the answer is NO, then your concern would seem to be without merit.

 

If you've NOT submitted a cache for review then you might have a problem dealing with rejection.

 

SUGGESTION

Rather than sit around and complain about not knowing where these 5 Unknown caches are hidden, get out there and place a few more caches of your own before all the really good real estate is taken!

 

P.S. There are some good-looking spots on that there north coast you might want to check out!

Edited October 24, 2007 by JamGuys

[+Too Tall John]

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?"

Yeah, I'm pretty sure Vinny was being sarcastic there.

 

Or senile.

[+Cedar Grove Seekers]

[i'm sure it would suffer a loss, I'm glad people enjoy puzzles BUT I still can't help feeling they're a spin-off from the original idea of caching and not true to the pure idea of 1) hide cache 2) provide coords online 3) let others find it WITH A GPS

 

I love puzzles and puzzle caches, but I can completely understand what you are saying. A lot of the joy for me is solving the puzzles, but if I didn't like puzzles then I probably wouldn't want puzzle caches mixed in with regular caches.

 

For selfish reasons my vote is to keep them on GC.com as I don't want to use more than one site (I stopped using Waymarking.com months ago).

 

There are other types of caches I don't love, but I've learned to live with them.

 

Good luck.

[+Juicepig]

It's a matter of opinion whether it's broke

 

different people enjoy different flavours of geocaches. The elderly will may not enjoy caches that are 5/5, The adventerous may not enjoy parking-lot skirt-lifters, the short may not enjoy caches that require you to reach high, and the tall may not enjoy caches that require you to sqeeze into a drainage pipe

 

Do i recommend a seperate website for everyones particular tastes? no, i think that would be unreasonable.

 

Do i recommend allowing people to ignore certain types of caches? yes! And thank you Groundspeak for adding this magnificent feature...

 

If you can't find a place to put your cache that doesn't have a cache there already, i recommend looking elsewhere. There are many uncached and beautiful regions of the earth just waiting to be filled up with ammo boxes!

[Iwuzere]

JamGuys, with all due respect you can't really judge the situation here unless you know the place!

Often a whole mile a two of coast is thought of as one area, and once there's a cache there somewhere that's it - it's done and dusted... and putting another one in that area seems like overkill. That seems to be how everyone here is treating it, and I think it will stay like that until it's REALLY hard to find new spots.

 

Juicepig, it's not about what type of caches I enjoy - although I've relished the chance to moan about my preferences! To me, caching is healthy outdoors hide and seek with a GPS, and puzzles are an unnecessary extra layer of cruft that gets in the way. Everything that initially attracted me to caching is soured by pointless puzzles. But hey, go ahead and enjoy them if that floats your boat.

 

Yes I'll ignore puzzles.

 

But the issue is about keeping track of what's where, when you start ignoring puzzles or member caches, because you then have caches you don't know about. You said "If you can't find a place to put your cache that doesn't have a cache there already, I recommend looking elsewhere." that's the whole point - how can I tell if there is a cache there already?!

 

Caches should, IMHO, be divided into two networks : visible (coords published) and invisible (members only, multi stages, puzzles) and the proximity rules should apply separately to the two sets - with a closer proximity rule between the two types. That's my Big Idea and I'm sticking to it

 

No, I don't expect anyone else to agree

[CoyoteRed]

Caches should, IMHO, be divided into two networks : visible (coords published) and invisible (members only, multi stages, puzzles) and the proximity rules should apply separately to the two sets - with a closer proximity rule between the two types. That's my Big Idea and I'm sticking to it

 

No, I don't expect anyone else to agree

That's fine. It appears that you're wishing that puzzle caches didn't exist.

 

As I said back in post #3 just separating the two will not solve the problem. The situation is only going to get worse. As you mention, it's not just about puzzle caches. Multicaches present the same problem. Will new players be forced to find all multis, and keep track of each stage, before they can place a cache? Will the work load of checking stages get to the point where there will need to be a new class of reviewer, one that checks these minutiae and the other actually publishes caches? Will the frustration level get to the point folks start giving up?

[+JamGuys]

JamGuys, with all due respect you can't really judge the situation here unless you know the place!

Often a whole mile a two of coast is thought of as one area, and once there's a cache there somewhere that's it - it's done and dusted... and putting another one in that area seems like overkill. That seems to be how everyone here is treating it, and I think it will stay like that until it's REALLY hard to find new spots.

Well, you can't have your cake and eat it too. If you're expanding the spacing restrictions yourself (and I'm not referring to you personally), you're likely to run out of territory a lot faster! Seems as though there may be a need for a mindshift in your caching area.

[Iwuzere]

The mindshift I've had is...

before : kept up with things, knew all the caches, happy to place some

after : frustrated, reluctant to place more, will hunt for non-puzzles only

 

I just don't fancy putting effort into finding new hiding places that could get rejected. I'm sure the rest of you around the world are used to it and can't see the problem, but there has been a noticeable change for the worse in my experience, and that's that. It's one of those things you accept if it's always been that way, but is really disheartening when something starts good and goes bad.

 

I may try asking the puzzle cache owners for general areas I should avoid, but if that comes to nothing then it's no big deal, I just won't place any more. No-one's going to cry about that, I'm sure!

[+JamGuys]

The mindshift I've had is...

before : kept up with things, knew all the caches, happy to place some

after : frustrated, reluctant to place more, will hunt for non-puzzles only

I just don't fancy putting effort into finding new hiding places that could get rejected. I'm sure the rest of you around the world are used to it and can't see the problem, but there has been a noticeable change for the worse in my experience, and that's that. It's one of those things you accept if it's always been that way, but is really disheartening when something starts good and goes bad.

 

I may try asking the puzzle cache owners for general areas I should avoid, but if that comes to nothing then it's no big deal, I just won't place any more. No-one's going to cry about that, I'm sure!

Sounds to me that the issue you're having is less about puzzle caches and more about you wanting to know where every cache in Jersey is hidden. Unlike many of us, you live in a location where it's still possible for someone to have found every cache in the area (most of us gave up on that idea a long time ago!) and the fact that you haven't is causing frustration. But face it, if you've found every cache there is, what new challenge is there for you? You'll just be sitting around your computer waiting for that new cache that you didn't hide to pop up. So, no offense, but saying that you don't want to put the effort into finding a new hiding place because it COULD get rejected seems like a bit of a cop out to me.

Edited October 25, 2007 by JamGuys

[markandlynn]

Just had a look at jersey

 

93 caches placed a couple of earth caches and 22 mystery caches.

 

Ive not clicked on every mystery cache to check if its a puzzle to solve but the usuall rule of thumb is about 70% will be puzzles to solve at home so thats 15 locations barred to you the odds of hitting one of them must be quite remote even on a small island like jersey just carry on hiding them and if proximity comes up as an issue try again you would be pretty unlucky or lucky to hit less than 0.1 from all 15

 

I also note that you are not a PM yet some on the island are, if they plant members only caches the same problem in a different way will affect you.

 

Have you actually just emailed any of the cache owners with a blatant id like to find such and such cache but i dont solve puzzles any chance of giving me the final co ords ?? question you may just be surprised.

[+Team GeoBlast]

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...).

 

I'm not sure that is correct. Did I miss the two mile requirement?

[+JamGuys]

I'm not sure that is correct. Did I miss the two mile requirement?

From gc.com's cache placement guidelines:

 

Mystery or Puzzle Caches

 

For many caches of this type, the coordinates listed are not of the actual cache location but a general reference point, such as a nearby parking location. Unless a good reason otherwise can be provided, the posted coordinates should be no more than 1-2 miles (2-3 kilometres) away from the true cache location. This allows the cache to show up on the proper vicinity searches and to keep the mileage of Trackables that find their way into the cache reasonably correct.

[+VirginiaGator]

I will keep the mystery caches. I do like those, and they're probably my second favorite...after Earthcaches. However, I can do without multis!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! In most cases, they don't tell you how many stages you're looking for. Then when I find stage one, then can't find stage two, and wonder how many stages there actually are to this thing, I pretty much give up on them. Who wants to return to try and find the unlocated stage again? LOL! More torture. No thank you!

 

[+Harry Dolphin]

It's got to the point with one particular puzzle that I know I'll be spending the rest of my life occasionaly wondering just what the heck it was all about. Other people here have cracked it, obviously their brains work differently to mine. Someone's given me extra clues and I still don't get it. Apparently it's really easy! Nice... now I feel totally dumb, and excluded.

 

I just don't need that kind of Unsolved Mysteries frustration, so I'm not even going to LOOK at further puzzles, whether I could have solved them or not. I shall just ignore them completely.

 

I say: if you want me to go looking for your cache, post the *&%£& coords!

 

Of course, if mystery cachs are moved elsewhere, many of the rest of us will submit types of caches that we do not do do, that should also be moved elsewhere.

I vote for moving: Cemetery caches, and kayaking caches! I'll never do any of those, and they're cluttering up my maps! Get rid of them. Move them elsewhere!

Others might want to exclude lamp post caches.

What will we have left, by the time everyone excludes caches that they will not do?