Jump to content

Very frustrating!


Rhialto
Followers 3

Recommended Posts

Happened to anyone else?

 

Like everyone I look on maps if there is a cache around, no problem, area clear. Start working on a 2 stages multi where I put a few hours of work into it. When I finally submit to get published, I get a message telling me there is a cache 100 meters from my 1st part.

 

I look at the cache that is close to mine and find out it's a mystery that on the map is far away but the final is 100 meters from mine.

 

This is very frustrating. How could I have know? Now even if I want to move the 1st part 61 meters away to be accepted, I have no clue in which direction to move it and so it would be a guess and I could get refused another time and another time... please don't tell me to do the mystery to find out where I could possibly move mine.

 

We should have access to a minimal Litmus test just like reviewers use but without knowing precisely where all the cache are.

 

Or better yet, why not adding a validation process as soon as we enter coordinates, there is a check done so we know if we are safe to continu and put a few hours designing a cache.

Link to comment
Or better yet, why not adding a validation process as soon as we enter coordinates, there is a check done so we know if we are safe to continu and put a few hours designing a cache.

 

The main reason why I could see why not to do this is because somebody would use it to hunt down those puzzles they can't or don't want to solve. :rolleyes:

Link to comment

I agree it's a problem. A validation process like that, though, would make it very easy to find later parts of multis and puzzles (a loser move, but still, people would do it).

 

I think I agree with rhialto on this .... and I think the benefits for honest hiders would far outweigh any gain gathered by the "loser moves" that might transpire. People will always try to find a shortcut, but it really is frustrating for the hider. And to email the reviewer in your area for clearance before publishing seems to put more work on already burdened volunteers.

Link to comment

Happened to anyone else?

 

Like everyone I look on maps if there is a cache around, no problem, area clear. Start working on a 2 stages multi where I put a few hours of work into it. When I finally submit to get published, I get a message telling me there is a cache 100 meters from my 1st part.

 

I look at the cache that is close to mine and find out it's a mystery that on the map is far away but the final is 100 meters from mine.

 

This is very frustrating. How could I have know? Now even if I want to move the 1st part 61 meters away to be accepted, I have no clue in which direction to move it and so it would be a guess and I could get refused another time and another time... please don't tell me to do the mystery to find out where I could possibly move mine.

 

We should have access to a minimal Litmus test just like reviewers use but without knowing precisely where all the cache are.

 

Or better yet, why not adding a validation process as soon as we enter coordinates, there is a check done so we know if we are safe to continu and put a few hours designing a cache.

 

When working on a cache, if you want to be sure the area is clear and all, ask your reviewer. While he/she might not give exact info, they CAN let you know if you're "good to go"!

 

And yes, if someone had the tool you described, they might sit there and triangulate where a cache is located. Some people have more time on their hands than others, some would continue to enter coords until they located any caches they might want to find that way!

 

Of course...if you have found all the caches in the area you want to place a hide, you'd also know (or have a good idea) the location is open! :rolleyes:

Link to comment

Happened to anyone else?

 

Like everyone I look on maps if there is a cache around, no problem, area clear. Start working on a 2 stages multi where I put a few hours of work into it. When I finally submit to get published, I get a message telling me there is a cache 100 meters from my 1st part.

 

I look at the cache that is close to mine and find out it's a mystery that on the map is far away but the final is 100 meters from mine.

 

This is very frustrating. How could I have know? Now even if I want to move the 1st part 61 meters away to be accepted, I have no clue in which direction to move it and so it would be a guess and I could get refused another time and another time... please don't tell me to do the mystery to find out where I could possibly move mine.

 

We should have access to a minimal Litmus test just like reviewers use but without knowing precisely where all the cache are.

 

Or better yet, why not adding a validation process as soon as we enter coordinates, there is a check done so we know if we are safe to continu and put a few hours designing a cache.

 

When working on a cache, if you want to be sure the area is clear and all, ask your reviewer. While he/she might not give exact info, they CAN let you know if you're "good to go"!

 

And yes, if someone had the tool you described, they might sit there and triangulate where a cache is located. Some people have more time on their hands than others, some would continue to enter coords until they located any caches they might want to find that way!

 

Of course...if you have found all the caches in the area you want to place a hide, you'd also know (or have a good idea) the location is open! :rolleyes:

 

Wouldn't want someone making such a bold move as to consider placing a cache in an area until they had found every other cache around.

 

The nerve of some people, eh?

Link to comment

There are two simple solutions to this problem that will tell you if a cache leg is to close.

 

1) Complete any puzzle or multi caches in the area.

 

2) Submit your cache page and let the reviewer tell you if you are to close.

 

My preference is the first one, but have used the second. I've also used a third. Find a cache already in the spot I wanted to hide a cache in. Done that twice now.

Link to comment
1) Complete any puzzle or multi caches in the area.

This is a joke, right? I hope so...

 

2) Submit your cache page and let the reviewer tell you if you are to close.

From now on I will always ask a reviewer 1st if all the stages are safe then spend a numbers of hours build it and then submit for review.

 

So it's now a 2 steps proccess, they validate 1st then we build then we submit for review and they publish.

Link to comment
Of course...if you have found all the caches in the area you want to place a hide, you'd also know (or have a good idea) the location is open! :rolleyes:
Wouldn't want someone making such a bold move as to consider placing a cache in an area until they had found every other cache around.

 

The nerve of some people, eh?

I realize that you were simply making a troll-post, but for those that don't, I'm happy to play your straight man.

 

People have many perfectly acceptable reasons for not finding all caches in an area. For instance, some people do not like puzzles, so they filter them out of their PQs. Some people don't like caches hidden by specific cachers, so they filter them out. Some don't like micros or high terrain or difficulty caches. I'm sure that there are many other reasons.

 

Certainly, these people should still be able to hide a cache if they want to.

Edited by sbell111
Link to comment

...Or better yet, why not adding a validation process as soon as we enter coordinates, there is a check done so we know if we are safe to continu and put a few hours designing a cache.

It's the rule of unintended consequences. You can use your test to determine the location of the cache with fake coords.

 

Reviewers have the discression to give the kind of fuzzy hints that you would need to place your cache where it could be listed while not giving up the location of the other cache.

Link to comment
1) Complete any puzzle or multi caches in the area.

This is a joke, right? I hope so...

 

2) Submit your cache page and let the reviewer tell you if you are to close.

From now on I will always ask a reviewer 1st if all the stages are safe then spend a numbers of hours build it and then submit for review.

 

So it's now a 2 steps proccess, they validate 1st then we build then we submit for review and they publish.

 

Not exactly ... if you are doing a multi, you could possibly have more than one of your stages too close to even stages of another multi, not to mention the final! You have already done quite a bit of work in shooting the coords for the stages of your multi before you ever get to the point of asking a reviewer.

Link to comment
Of course...if you have found all the caches in the area you want to place a hide, you'd also know (or have a good idea) the location is open! :rolleyes:
Wouldn't want someone making such a bold move as to consider placing a cache in an area until they had found every other cache around.

 

The nerve of some people, eh?

I realize that you were simply making a troll-post, but for those that don't, I'm happy to play your straight man.

 

People have many perfectly acceptable reasons for not finding all caches in an area. For instance, some people do not like puzzles, so they filter them out of their PQs. Some people don't like caches hidden by specific cachers, so they filter them out. Some don't like micros or high terrain or difficulty caches. I'm sure that there are many other reasons.

 

Certainly, these people should still be able to hide a cache if they want to.

On top of that, you can never tell how far to go with multis. I worked on finding a multi just yesterday where stage two was over five miles from stage one. Stage three was another couple of miles beyond that. There are quite a few multis in this area like that. Just looking at what's nearby isn't sufficient.

 

I'm all for a solution, and maybe the likelihood of cheaters is offset by the convenience to everyone else. But if a well-known, easy cheat were available, I wonder if people would be as willing to put out cool multis.

 

Since the common wisdom is that PMs are less likely to cheat (whether or not you believe it), maybe only make it available to PMs.

Link to comment
1) Complete any puzzle or multi caches in the area.

This is a joke, right? I hope so...

 

2) Submit your cache page and let the reviewer tell you if you are to close.

From now on I will always ask a reviewer 1st if all the stages are safe then spend a numbers of hours build it and then submit for review.

 

So it's now a 2 steps proccess, they validate 1st then we build then we submit for review and they publish.

 

My entire post was meant to be light hearted, but not a joke. Solving puzzles and multis near your proposed location is a valid, if sometimes difficult, answer to you problem.

 

There are actually more ways to go about this than those I listed. Your contacting the reviewer first is also one of them. Odds are that if you don't have a multi or puzzle within about two or so miles you'll be good to go.

 

Truth is that unless you are hiding caches in a very cache dense place you are not going to run into trouble very often.

Link to comment

Thank you and someone pointed out many other threads on the subject:

 

An "Available Location" Check Feature

Absolutely Frustrated, hiding caches

.1 mi. rule...earlier notification?

Posting a Cache Location

Request: Coordinate Proximity Check, I Wanna Know... Where Your Cache Is

Question on Placing Puzzle Caches

 

I've done a search before posting but with "Litmus" as the search term and got no significant result. Maybe I should have tried "frustrated"! :-)

 

So haven't read them all yet but it's clear we are facing a problem that should be addressed in some way. Many opinions but is there a group designed to analyse such problematic or is there a single person deciding all the rules?

Link to comment

A policy change could be implemented. Oh, wait. What am I thinking!

 

Anyway, a few issues are at play here:

  • If all caches were marked with cache name and waypoint one element of the proximity rules would not be needed, namely the part where caches get confused with one another.
  • It's hard to confuse a regular-sized cache--the final to a mystery--with the virtual first stage of a different mystery. In these cases, the proximity rules should not be applicable. Even physical stages that are simply micros or tags to direct the seeker to the next stage shouldn't be considered in the proximity rule--only actual caches.
  • As already been mentioned, only the reviewers and staff know where all the stages are located. (The reported ones, anyway.) Some folks don't want to find all caches before placing one of their own.
  • An automated system of coordinate confirmation can be "gamed" in order to find out the coordinates to other caches or stages. Not good.

The problem can be fixed relatively easily.

Link to comment

Why make it very easy? I don't think it is easy to find with no clue and without knowing what cache is in a 161 meters circle.

Triangulation will pinpoint the cache.

 

Find a cache area. Move to the west until you are out or it. Draw an arc from that point. Move to the east until you pass out of other side of the area. Draw an arc. Do the same north and/or south. Where the arcs cross, is where the cache is.

Link to comment
Why make it very easy? I don't think it is easy to find with no clue and without knowing what cache is in a 161 meters circle.
Triangulation will pinpoint the cache.

 

Find a cache area. Move to the west until you are out or it. Draw an arc from that point. Move to the east until you pass out of other side of the area. Draw an arc. Do the same north and/or south. Where the arcs cross, is where the cache is.

Unless the cache is on the same latitude as the test coordinates then you really only need two arcs which will give you two possible points. Then you have a 50/50 chance of picking the right one first.

Link to comment
Why make it very easy? I don't think it is easy to find with no clue and without knowing what cache is in a 161 meters circle.
Triangulation will pinpoint the cache.

 

Find a cache area. Move to the west until you are out or it. Draw an arc from that point. Move to the east until you pass out of other side of the area. Draw an arc. Do the same north and/or south. Where the arcs cross, is where the cache is.

Unless the cache is on the same latitude as the test coordinates then you really only need two arcs which will give you two possible points. Then you have a 50/50 chance of picking the right one first.

Yup, that's correct. But I want to show that you could find the exact coords if you cared to. :rolleyes::(

Link to comment

Why make it very easy? I don't think it is easy to find with no clue and without knowing what cache is in a 161 meters circle.

Triangulation will pinpoint the cache.

 

Find a cache area. Move to the west until you are out or it. Draw an arc from that point. Move to the east until you pass out of other side of the area. Draw an arc. Do the same north and/or south. Where the arcs cross, is where the cache is.

And this is supposed to be easy? Ok someone will manage to create a macro you will tell me.

 

So what? Never I will ruin this activity by using it. If a geocacher decide to cheat instead of having fun then it is his problem. Cannot we cheat already by asking our best friend who have found a lot more to tell us where they are all?

Link to comment
Thank you and someone pointed out many other threads on the subject:

 

An "Available Location" Check Feature

Absolutely Frustrated, hiding caches

.1 mi. rule...earlier notification?

Posting a Cache Location

Request: Coordinate Proximity Check, I Wanna Know... Where Your Cache Is

Question on Placing Puzzle Caches

 

I've done a search before posting but with "Litmus" as the search term and got no significant result. Maybe I should have tried "frustrated"! :-)

 

So haven't read them all yet but it's clear we are facing a problem that should be addressed in some way. Many opinions but is there a group designed to analyse such problematic or is there a single person deciding all the rules?

Many people would argue that a number of threads complaining about something is not evidence of a problem in need of a solution.
Link to comment

I hear ya... and have the same thoughts you do, hopefully you get farther than I did :rolleyes:

You know what, what I'm trying to do is simply bring up the discussion. I would like to help the thousands of geocachers and futur ones by giving them the tools for easier hidding without having to get such a situation like we both had and many.

 

Until there is something (a tool) to help us, I will do everything to be sure a spot is clear from secret/unknown neighbors. I've been angry once and don't want this to happen again to me.

Link to comment

Why make it very easy? I don't think it is easy to find with no clue and without knowing what cache is in a 161 meters circle.

Triangulation will pinpoint the cache.

 

Find a cache area. Move to the west until you are out or it. Draw an arc from that point. Move to the east until you pass out of other side of the area. Draw an arc. Do the same north and/or south. Where the arcs cross, is where the cache is.

And this is supposed to be easy? Ok someone will manage to create a macro you will tell me.

 

So what? Never I will ruin this activity by using it. If a geocacher decide to cheat instead of having fun then it is his problem. Cannot we cheat already by asking our best friend who have found a lot more to tell us where they are all?

Ok, they already cheat, so let's give them another tool to cheat with. :rolleyes:

 

 

As far as being hard, as CoyoteRed pointed out, it would only take 2 points to get a good idea of where the cache is. So it wouldn't take more than a minute or two longer to find the coords, than it would for you to find an area to place your cache in question.

 

There are some puzzles here that would take me days to solve. Knowing the guidelines and using this method, I could find them in less than an hour guaranteed. And nobody would even know that I cheated.

 

By the way I would never really do it.

Link to comment
By the way I would never really do it.

Yeah, I'd like to point out that just because you know how someone could cheat doesn't mean you're looking to do it yourself. Me, I try to look at all of the ways someone could shortcut a puzzle and try to shut it off in an attempt to get them to do it the way I intended them to do it. Once they sign the logbook it's a done deal, no matter the shortcut used. There's none of this "well, you didn't do it the way I wanted you to do it so I'm gonna delete your log" non-sense.

 

Kind of like how you know how a thief might steal your stuff and take precautions against it.

Link to comment

I just don't see this as some kind of "huge" problem that needs dealt with.

 

The current system allows for 3 ways to solve this.

 

1. Pick an area that is greater than 2 miles from any multi's or published puzzle caches. (not 100% but very high odds of avoiding a problem.)

 

2. Ask the reviewer if your proposed coordinates are ok.

 

3. Actually go and do all of the puzzle and multis within 2 miles. Some of you may not want to do this but you have to admit - it is a viable option.

 

If you give some people an easy way to cheat - they will do it. Why even create a system that allows it.

Link to comment
Thank you and someone pointed out many other threads on the subject:

 

An "Available Location" Check Feature

Absolutely Frustrated, hiding caches

.1 mi. rule...earlier notification?

Posting a Cache Location

Request: Coordinate Proximity Check, I Wanna Know... Where Your Cache Is

Question on Placing Puzzle Caches

 

I've done a search before posting but with "Litmus" as the search term and got no significant result. Maybe I should have tried "frustrated"! :-)

 

So haven't read them all yet but it's clear we are facing a problem that should be addressed in some way. Many opinions but is there a group designed to analyse such problematic or is there a single person deciding all the rules?

Many people would argue that a number of threads complaining about something is not evidence of a problem in need of a solution.
Who would argue that? Politicians? :rolleyes:
Or anyone who realizes that the squeaky wheel shouldn't always be greased.
Link to comment
If you give some people an easy way to cheat - they will do it. Why even create a system that allows it.

 

I usually agree with most of your posts, however the debate on cheating continues.

 

How do you cheat when you're only playing against yourself? It's not like it effects anyone else but the 'cheater'. Sure, cheating is cheating but I fail to understand why we as a society tend to cater to the few rather than benefit many.

 

If it cannot be done, fine... end of story, however I'm 99.9% sure it can be done rather easily. I'd even be up for a special 'Hider Account', pay an extra $12/year to be a registered hider and have access to this feature.

 

Lastly, has it been tried? Or are we just convicting certain people without just cause.

Edited by XopherN71
Link to comment
If you give some people an easy way to cheat - they will do it. Why even create a system that allows it.
How do you cheat when you're only playing against yourself? It's not like it effects anyone else but the 'cheater'.
Well said

Ok then, I guess you don't mind if I log a find on all your caches right now, do you? I've never seen them but that does affect you so who cares. :rolleyes:

Link to comment

I agree, I had trouble with this just recently, actually. Placed a cache (not a multi though) in a perfect spot, no caches around...

 

but of course, there was a final to a puzzle there. How silly of me!

 

Took me a while, but I finally got back and moved it to a completely different location.

 

It would be nice if there were a solution that could be found for this, but somehow I doubt that will ever happen. :rolleyes:

Link to comment
If you give some people an easy way to cheat - they will do it. Why even create a system that allows it.
How do you cheat when you're only playing against yourself? It's not like it effects anyone else but the 'cheater'.
Well said

Ok then, I guess you don't mind if I log a find on all your caches right now, do you? I've never seen them but that does affect you so who cares. :rolleyes:

I have your name now so it's too late. :-) But try this this summer and I won't notice it. Québec is celebrating his 400 and there is always a lot of tourist in the summer. I usually don't go check the log in every cache but sometimes I read them when I collect them to place a new one.
Link to comment
Ok then, I guess you don't mind if I log a find on all your caches right now, do you? I've never seen them but that does affect you so who cares. rolleyes.gif

 

Will I check to make sure you actually visited the cache? No.

 

If you say it's found, then it must be there. That does effect me and other cachers because it's a false indication that my cache is still there and in good repair. Someone might be headed out for a nice day of caching and notice your 'found' log and decide to add that one to their list, only to find it's been muggled a week before you supposedly found it.

 

Someone actually putting some effort into a cache to find it's coordinates, finding it, and logging it as a find is much different than what you describe.

Edited by XopherN71
Link to comment
Ok then, I guess you don't mind if I log a find on all your caches right now, do you? I've never seen them but that does affect you so who cares. rolleyes.gif

 

Will I check to make sure you actually visited the cache? No.

 

If you say it's found, then it must be there. That does effect me and other cachers because it's a false indication that my cache is still there and in good repair. Someone might be headed out for a nice day of caching and notice your 'found' log and decide to add that one to their list, only to find it's been muggled a week before you supposedly found it.

Similarly, if someone cheats their way to a later stage of a multi, you will assume stage one is fine and it may not be.

Link to comment
If you give some people an easy way to cheat - they will do it. Why even create a system that allows it.
How do you cheat when you're only playing against yourself? It's not like it effects anyone else but the 'cheater'.
Well said

Ok then, I guess you don't mind if I log a find on all your caches right now, do you? I've never seen them but that does affect you so who cares. :rolleyes:

I have your name now so it's too late. :-) But try this this summer and I won't notice it. Québec is celebrating his 400 and there is always a lot of tourist in the summer. I usually don't go check the log in every cache but sometimes I read them when I collect them to place a new one.

 

So you do care if others cheat. I take it you just don't want them to cheat on your caches? You don't care if they cheat on other peoples caches?

Link to comment

Fair enough... but why should that effect a traditional cache? Put extra requirements in multi's for example to log a code (a piece of which would be in each cache) in order to claim the final find.

 

There is a way to make this better, that is all some others and myself are trying to accomplish. We're not trying to change the game, only enhance it.

 

So you do care if others cheat. I take it you just don't want them to cheat on your caches? You don't care if they cheat on other peoples caches?

Show me where I said this? What I said was that if someone else's actions effect another cacher, then it's an issue.

Edited by XopherN71
Link to comment
If you give some people an easy way to cheat - they will do it. Why even create a system that allows it.

 

I usually agree with most of your posts, however the debate on cheating continues.

 

How do you cheat when you're only playing against yourself? It's not like it effects anyone else but the 'cheater'. Sure, cheating is cheating but I fail to understand why we as a society tend to cater to the few rather than benefit many.

 

If it cannot be done, fine... end of story, however I'm 99.9% sure it can be done rather easily. I'd even be up for a special 'Hider Account', pay an extra $12/year to be a registered hider and have access to this feature.

 

Lastly, has it been tried? Or are we just convicting certain people without just cause.

That may be...but I would also say there is at least one other person being cheated and that is the person that placed the hide. They took the time to put together a good multi/puzzle and wanted people to complete a certain task...

.

.

.

X...I posted to your thread about this topic...you found the puzzle of mine "fair and square"...you found it by accident looking for a hide...I think that is fair...I would feel a bit different if someone found one of my puzzles or multi-caches using a "coor-checker"...

Link to comment

Fair enough... but why should that effect a traditional cache? Put extra requirements in multi's for example to log a code (a piece of which would be in each cache) in order to claim the final find.

 

There is a way to make this better, that is all some others and myself are trying to accomplish. We're not trying to change the game, only enhance it.

 

So you do care if others cheat. I take it you just don't want them to cheat on your caches? You don't care if they cheat on other peoples caches?

Where did I say I care if someone 'cheats'? I said quite the opposite, in fact.

By guidelines...the multi is now a mystery cache with additional logging requirements...

Link to comment
So you do care if others cheat. I take it you just don't want them to cheat on your caches? You don't care if they cheat on other peoples caches?

Whatever. I usually don't compare side-by-side the log book vs the internet log. If something looks too suspicious when I receive an email about a found log then I may check later, the day I will replace the book but will I remember at that time? Not sure... and me contacting the other to tell him I cannot find his signature? Not sure also...

 

I do geocaching for having fun and explore the world outside my house and I place cache so people have fun hunting for them. If I can have a tool to better place my cache and don't get bad surprise when all the work is done then give it to me. Simple as that.

Link to comment

I have your name now so it's too late. :-) But try this this summer and I won't notice it. Québec is celebrating his 400 and there is always a lot of tourist in the summer. I usually don't go check the log in every cache but sometimes I read them when I collect them to place a new one.

But you said cheating doesn't effect anyone but the cheater so why would you bother deleting my 'found logs.' :(

 

 

Whether we admit it or not, we want all cachers to play the game within an 'acceptable' realm of actions. Anything beyond that is viewed as 'cheating.' Unfortunately if you give people the power to cheat somebody will. There are ways to solve your problem without needing this tool. While I can understand your frustration, I feel that what you purpose to solve it would cause more frustration in the long run than it would ever solve.

 

 

(By the way, I would never log a find on a cache I haven't found. So don't wait for my logs :):rolleyes: )

Link to comment

Alternate option 4-

Ask your local "cache hounds", you know, the ones who have found EVERYTHING, if they know of anything in that particular area. (Make it clear you dont' want a hint or help with a puzzle, just that you want to place in the area.)

We've had this asked of us a few times by new cachers who didn't want to step on anyone's toes when placeing their caches.

 

It sometimes can help.

 

Dean and I have given lists of "still open" areas to new cachers a few times when they complained about the area being "full" and having nowhere to hide anything. :rolleyes:

-J

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...
Followers 3
×
×
  • Create New...