Very frustrating!

[+ArcherDragoon]

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.

...and that is my point of view...but in this case...I would argue that while "using the system" may not affect other finders of the cache, it cerrtainly affects the placer of the cache that was found...

[+XopherN71]

I don't understand why every time this is brought up it has to focus so strongly on cheating.

 

If we put half the energy into finding a valid solution as we do in defining what cheating is or is not then we might actually get somewhere.

 

Archer, you seem to be well versed in the art of caching Why not offer up an idea or two? I think having a solution to this would be incredibly valuable to hiders.

Edited April 25, 2008 by XopherN71

[+ArcherDragoon]

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.

-J

X...there are a couple of us in the area that fit that description...you ever need help, just let us know. I am always willing to go out for some caching fun!!!

 

Later,

ArcherDragoon

[Rhialto]

Dean and I have given lists of "still open" areas

Give me an idea... why not a map showing red & green areas? Would it work? In green you are safe (no surprise like a mystery/puzzle final) and maybe this way it would minimize those who like to cheat.

Edited April 25, 2008 by Rhialto

[+XopherN71]

I am always willing to go out for some caching fun!!!

 

I'll have to take you up on that, especially for a couple of YOUR caches I tried to nab on the way to work

 

Had I put an honest attempt into finding them I would have marked a DNF but since I had my work clothes on and only browsed the areas I felt a DNF wasn't quite accurate.

 

I'm not asking for coordinates or even a visual... just a simple query that returns a clear/not clear status. It could even be limited to one query per mile, after that you're stuck going through the manual process.

Edited April 25, 2008 by XopherN71

[+sbell111]

Dean and I have given lists of "still open" areas

 

Give me an idea... why not a map showing red & green areas? Would it work? In green you are safe (no surprise like a mystery/puzle final) and maybe this way it would minimize those who like to cheat.

Have you ever played 'minesweeper'?

[+ArcherDragoon]

I don't understand why every time this is brought up it has to focus so strongly on cheating.

 

If we put half the energy into finding a valid solution as we do in defining what cheating is or is not then we might actually get somewhere.

 

Archer, you seem to be well versed in the art of caching Why not offer up an idea or two? I think having a solution to this would be incredibly valuable to hiders.

That would be the issue..."What is Cheating???" If you can get a group together long enough to define cheating in the world of geocaching...the more power to you!!!

 

If you notice...I have been careful not to call the system proposed and the use of it by others "cheating"...I only said that I, as a cache owner, would feel cheated...

.

.

.

I would not blame the person that used it...I would not call them a cheater...

.

.

.

PS...there are other forms of "cheating" out there...just a heads up...and I have been accused of a couple of them

...So, I may not be as well versed in geocaching as you give me credit for...

Edited April 25, 2008 by ArcherDragoon

[+Totem Clan]

Dean and I have given lists of "still open" areas

Give me an idea... why not a map showing red & green areas? Would it work? In green you are safe (no surprise like a mystery/puzzle final) and maybe this way it would minimize those who like to cheat.

That would give a map to all off them. Now all I need to do is go to the center of the red areas with a cache listing there. That would save the cheater even more work.

[+XopherN71]

Have you ever played 'minesweeper'?

Yes, and I suck at it

[+sbell111]

I don't understand why every time this is brought up it has to focus so strongly on cheating.

Many puzzle/multi owners prefer if people can't 'brute force' the final coordinates. Implementing the suggested 'feature' would make it easier to 'brute force' the final coordinates for any puzzle/multi.

If we put half the energy into finding a valid solution as we do in defining what cheating is or is not then we might actually get somewhere.

 

Archer, you seem to be well versed in the art of caching Why not offer up an idea or two? I think having a solution to this would be incredibly valuable to hiders.

Just because you don't see what you want on the menu, doesn't mean that a restaurant doesn't offer options.

 

Lots of ideas have been offered:

• find all the local caches
  
• Ask someone who has pretty much found all the local caches
  
• ask the reviewer
  
• submit the cache and see what happens
  

ETA:

• ask the hider of the local multi/puzzles.
  

Edited April 25, 2008 by sbell111

[Rhialto]

Enough reading for now, I'll be back later to continu reading on this. After 3 hours refreshing the page to read, it's time to go outside for a bike ride. :-)

[+Totem Clan]

 

I'm not asking for coordinates or even a visual... just a simple query that returns a clear/not clear status. It could even be limited to one query per mile, after that you're stuck going through the manual process.

You can already do that by talking to your reviewer.

 

Edit to fix broken quotes

Edited April 25, 2008 by Totem Clan

[+XopherN71]

You're missing the point...

 

I've been very lucky in that the reviewer for my area gets things done rather quickly, however what I believe we're trying to accomplish is an automatic process so you can look at an area, find a location, check if it's clear and move on.

 

Without having to wait.

Without solving the puzzle, etc.

Without asking others.

 

Not trying to help 'cheaters', rather working toward finding a valid solution. If you can help with that, great... otherwise please, let the ones who want to figure it out do so. If a solution is found that does not help someone 'cheat' and helps hiders hide, what's the problem?

Edited April 25, 2008 by XopherN71

[Rhialto]

Dean and I have given lists of "still open" areas

Give me an idea... why not a map showing red & green areas? Would it work? In green you are safe (no surprise like a mystery/puzzle final) and maybe this way it would minimize those who like to cheat.

That would give a map to all off them. Now all I need to do is go to the center of the red areas with a cache listing there. That would save the cheater even more work.

True for a unique cache in a location because you would see a single red circle but in a dense place you would see red all around and a green spot in the middle.

 

But you are right, cannot be done.

[Dinoprophet]

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.

Ugh. I'm not opposed to the tools being discussed, but I am to that idea. I can't stand additional logging requirements. I thought the idea of verification codes was nixed years ago by TPTB, but I still see them occasionally.

 

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.

I don't even disagree. But the method does allow people to bypass the intent of the hider to find the cache. Cheating in geocaching is a bigger deal to some people than to others, so while you or I may say "eh" to cheaters, it has to be considered.

[+gof1]

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.

 

Sorry friend, I never said you did. I was replying to Rhialto's post. If it will help your point to quote me out of context then have a ball. It's not like any of this means squat.

[+Totem Clan]

That would be the issue..."What is Cheating???" If you can get a group together long enough to define cheating in the world of geocaching...the more power to you!!!

 

If you notice...I have been careful not to call the system proposed and the use of it by others "cheating"...I only said that I, as a cache owner, would feel cheated...

.

.

.

I would not blame the person that used it...I would not call them a cheater...

.

.

.

PS...there are other forms of "cheating" out there...just a heads up...and I have been accused of a couple of them

...So, I may not be as well versed in geocaching as you give me credit for...

To me 'cheating' is finding or logging the cache by any means other than that intened by the owner or outlined in the guidelines.

[+ArcherDragoon]

That would be the issue..."What is Cheating???" If you can get a group together long enough to define cheating in the world of geocaching...the more power to you!!!

 

If you notice...I have been careful not to call the system proposed and the use of it by others "cheating"...I only said that I, as a cache owner, would feel cheated...

.

.

.

I would not blame the person that used it...I would not call them a cheater...

.

.

.

PS...there are other forms of "cheating" out there...just a heads up...and I have been accused of a couple of them

...So, I may not be as well versed in geocaching as you give me credit for...

To me 'cheating' is finding or logging the cache by any means other than that intened by the owner or outlined in the guidelines.

Which is fine...and I respect you for that...but as that being said...

.

.

.

One of my caches (puzzle that is) was found by accident...the person did not solve the puzzle, they just stumbled on the hide...would you deny the find...afterall, it was not found as I had intended...but it was still found and without abuse of a feature...

[+gof1]

You're missing the point...

 

I've been very lucky in that the reviewer for my area gets things done rather quickly, however what I believe we're trying to accomplish is an automatic process so you can look at an area, find a location, check if it's clear and move on.

 

Without having to wait.

Without solving the puzzle, etc.

Without asking others.

 

Not trying to help 'cheaters', rather working toward finding a valid solution. If you can help with that, great... otherwise please, let the ones who want to figure it out do so. If a solution is found that does not help someone 'cheat' and helps hiders hide, what's the problem?

 

Just out of curiosity, Why the need to be automated? I can't stand it when a synthetic voice says "For sales press one, for service press two, if you think this is a load of fertilizer press three." I'd rather shoot of an email to my local reviewer and ask how his/her day has been, if they are going to the upcoming event, and "oh, by the way, is nxx xx.xxx wxxx xx.xxx open?" Even when typing to an online forum at least there are people on the other end, even if we don't see eye to eye.

[+ArcherDragoon]

I am all for a method of checking possible hide locations...but currently...my preferred method is to find them all and then hide a new cache!!!

.

.

.

I should add...I have asked our reviewer on a couple occasions...

Edited April 25, 2008 by ArcherDragoon

[Mesa Mike]

 

[*]As already been mentioned, only the reviewers and staff know where all the stages are located.

 

Only if the cacher is honest to the reviewer about where he put the stages.

 

The only way the reviewer can know for sure where the stages of a multi are is to go find them himself, or in the case of a puzzle cache, solve the puzzle.

 

Of course, I'm not advocating deceiving the reviewers!

[+XopherN71]

[Edited by self for useless comment.]

 

 

Between this thread and the one I started previously I guess I've said all I need to.

 

I guess when you have the experience of going through this on your first hide it's different than if I had gone through this after 10 or 20 hides, I'm just that lucky.

 

Maybe it isn't as big of an issue as it appeared to be at first, but I'm still all for finding a solution that works.

 

The ones who are hardcore against the idea are probably the best ones to debate this with, if a solution happens to come about that you can't argue with I guess that will be our proposal to Groundspeak

Edited April 25, 2008 by XopherN71

[+Totem Clan]

Which is fine...and I respect you for that...but as that being said...

.

.

.

One of my caches (puzzle that is) was found by accident...the person did not solve the puzzle, they just stumbled on the hide...would you deny the find...afterall, it was not found as I had intended...but it was still found and without abuse of a feature...

Good point.

 

Let me rephase then.....

To me 'cheating' is when a cacher intentially sets to find or log a cache by any means other than that intened by the owner or outlined in the guidelines.

[+gof1]

That would be the issue..."What is Cheating???" If you can get a group together long enough to define cheating in the world of geocaching...the more power to you!!!

 

If you notice...I have been careful not to call the system proposed and the use of it by others "cheating"...I only said that I, as a cache owner, would feel cheated...

.

.

.

I would not blame the person that used it...I would not call them a cheater...

.

.

.

PS...there are other forms of "cheating" out there...just a heads up...and I have been accused of a couple of them

...So, I may not be as well versed in geocaching as you give me credit for...

To me 'cheating' is finding or logging the cache by any means other than that intened by the owner or outlined in the guidelines.

Which is fine...and I respect you for that...but as that being said...

.

.

.

One of my caches (puzzle that is) was found by accident...the person did not solve the puzzle, they just stumbled on the hide...would you deny the find...afterall, it was not found as I had intended...but it was still found and without abuse of a feature...

 

I think the difference is in the intent. Stumbling on a cache is a "twist of fate" while intentionally circumventing the puzzle is, shall we say, lame?

[+ArcherDragoon]

Which is fine...and I respect you for that...but as that being said...

.

.

.

One of my caches (puzzle that is) was found by accident...the person did not solve the puzzle, they just stumbled on the hide...would you deny the find...afterall, it was not found as I had intended...but it was still found and without abuse of a feature...

Good point.

 

Let me rephase then.....

To me 'cheating' is when a cacher intentially sets to find or log a cache by any means other than that intened by the owner or outlined in the guidelines.

 

Glad I could help!!!

 

That would be the issue..."What is Cheating???" If you can get a group together long enough to define cheating in the world of geocaching...the more power to you!!!

 

If you notice...I have been careful not to call the system proposed and the use of it by others "cheating"...I only said that I, as a cache owner, would feel cheated...

.

.

.

I would not blame the person that used it...I would not call them a cheater...

.

.

.

PS...there are other forms of "cheating" out there...just a heads up...and I have been accused of a couple of them

...So, I may not be as well versed in geocaching as you give me credit for...

To me 'cheating' is finding or logging the cache by any means other than that intened by the owner or outlined in the guidelines.

Which is fine...and I respect you for that...but as that being said...

.

.

.

One of my caches (puzzle that is) was found by accident...the person did not solve the puzzle, they just stumbled on the hide...would you deny the find...afterall, it was not found as I had intended...but it was still found and without abuse of a feature...

 

I think the difference is in the intent. Stumbling on a cache is a "twist of fate" while intentionally circumventing the puzzle is, shall we say, lame?

As I said...as a cache owner...I would feel very cheated if that were to happen...

 

I should be clear...I am talking about a cache of mine being found by abuse of the system that has been proposed in this thread...

 

Finding a cache by accident and claiming a find...go for it!!! Nothing against that, it is bound to happen to all of us at some point...it is just a bonus if it happens to be a puzzle or a multi

Edited April 25, 2008 by ArcherDragoon

[+briansnat]

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.

 

I also don't see it as a huge problem. It happened to me once in 230+ cache hides.

 

My experience has been that most multis are spread out over no more than a mile. Puzzles are supposed to be no farther than 2 miles from the bogus coords. So if you see a multi or puzzle within a few miles and aren't interested in finding the caches yourself, just run it by your reviewer.

 

Might you still get banged by a multi that starts 15 miles way? Sure, but the chances are pretty slim.

[+gof1]

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.

 

I also don't see it as a huge problem. It happened to me once in 230+ cache hides.

 

My experience has been that most multis are spread out over no more than a mile. Puzzles are supposed to be no farther than 2 miles from the bogus coords. So if you see a multi or puzzle within a few miles and aren't interested in finding the caches yourself, just run it by your reviewer.

 

Might you still get banged by a multi that starts 15 miles way? Sure, but the chances are pretty slim.

 

Yep, what he said. I tried to say that before but he says it better'n me.

 

I have found two caches while looking for a place to hide one. I have only run up against the distance rule once. It was only by a few feet and it was too close to one of my own caches. DOH!

[+The Jester]

I'm finding the discussion of this interesting. It seems that some here are saying any way of finding a puzzle - except by the way the hider plannned it - is cheating. I've solved many puzzles in different ways than "planned" - one used nothing but images for the co-ords. I've never figured out how to google images, so I 'reverse engineered' the co-ords (known digits, combination of unknown digits which didn't fall right area, ect.). Oops! Cheating. I've used clues from the text, known digits, and maps to figure out where a cache is - more cheating.

 

One question to AD: How would you "feel cheated" if you don't know how the puzzle was solved? I don't explain how I solved a puzzle in my log (I'm sure you'd be more upset if finders supplied their solutions - more cheating!), so how does a Found log make you feel cheated?

 

BTW, triagulation isn't as easy as been described. First you need to get the right distance (I'm assuming that the co-ord checker only gives a good/bad response, not a xx feet from yy cache), that would take several/many trys. Then find another point that's too close, and work out that distance. And again a third time. This get's even more complicated if there are more than one cache/waypoint in the area. And then you have to figure out if it's a cache or a waypoint...

[+XopherN71]

I for one am not trying to step on toes, as a self proclaimed geek I try to make techie things better by nature. Unfortunately more often than not it opens up a bees nest of related issues 9 times out of 10.

 

This is one of those 9.

 

I guess I'm stuck trying to figure out why some seem so against finding a solution that works. I see a lot of people eager to criticize and shoot down any ideas that come up, I also see a few who are maybe open to change.

 

Whether it's a big deal or not, can we at least be free to discuss the possibility?

 

For it to work we need to have the following:

1. Automation.

2. A method that keeps 'unintended finds' to a minimum.

3. Willingness by Groundspeak to implement.

 

1 = Possible

2 = Harder to accomplish, possible? Maybe

3 = ?

 

Based on this, is it worth 'fighting' for? Up until I typed it I thought it was, now looking at it I'm not so sure anymore. I still believe it's a valid point and a good discussion, if we can stay more on topic maybe something will come of it.

Edited April 25, 2008 by XopherN71

[+ArcherDragoon]

I'm finding the discussion of this interesting. It seems that some here are saying any way of finding a puzzle - except by the way the hider plannned it - is cheating. I've solved many puzzles in different ways than "planned" - one used nothing but images for the co-ords. I've never figured out how to google images, so I 'reverse engineered' the co-ords (known digits, combination of unknown digits which didn't fall right area, ect.). Oops! Cheating. I've used clues from the text, known digits, and maps to figure out where a cache is - more cheating.

 

One question to AD: How would you "feel cheated" if you don't know how the puzzle was solved? I don't explain how I solved a puzzle in my log (I'm sure you'd be more upset if finders supplied their solutions - more cheating!), so how does a Found log make you feel cheated?

 

BTW, triagulation isn't as easy as been described. First you need to get the right distance (I'm assuming that the co-ord checker only gives a good/bad response, not a xx feet from yy cache), that would take several/many trys. Then find another point that's too close, and work out that distance. And again a third time. This get's even more complicated if there are more than one cache/waypoint in the area. And then you have to figure out if it's a cache or a waypoint...

Hey,

 

Sorry, what I meant was about the system that has been proposed in this thread (using some automated system)...

 

You are right...if all that was said is "Found it"...would I know how they solved it...nope...so it would not bother me. As far as solving a puzzle by different methods...go for it!!! For me, "intended method" means working through the puzzle, but this can be done many different ways...completely ignoring the puzzle aspect would be the issue I have...(again, ignoring the puzzle aspect by using an automated system)...

[+Renegade Knight]

Dean and I have given lists of "still open" areas

Give me an idea... why not a map showing red & green areas? Would it work? In green you are safe (no surprise like a mystery/puzzle final) and maybe this way it would minimize those who like to cheat.

If the computer generates the areas, you can use those areas to find the caches in question.

 

This issue is really a matter of picking which problem you want to live with.

Not having caches with fake coords. (The problem being less types of caches to seek and hide).

Or working around the ablity to cheat to find those caches.

[+XopherN71]

All I would personally want is what a reviewer would give me anyway.

 

1. Clear

2. Not Clear

 

Max it out at 1 or 2 attempts for a given radius eliminating triangulation. This method would not give out the location, but would give me the go or no go for my hide.

Edited April 25, 2008 by XopherN71

[+Renegade Knight]

I'm finding the discussion of this interesting. It seems that some here are saying any way of finding a puzzle - except by the way the hider plannned it - is cheating...

 

This is a function of owner intent. Some owners could care less how you solve the puzzle. Some want you to have the puzzle experience they intend. Some are open to alternate solutions to their puzzle as long as it's an honest solution. Most though don't intend for you to draw two or three circles and waltz up to the cache. There are some puzzule caches where that's the solution, but a lot are based on things other than triangulation.

Edited April 25, 2008 by Renegade Knight

[+ArcherDragoon]

I'm finding the discussion of this interesting. It seems that some here are saying any way of finding a puzzle - except by the way the hider plannned it - is cheating. I've solved many puzzles in different ways than "planned" - one used nothing but images for the co-ords. I've never figured out how to google images, so I 'reverse engineered' the co-ords (known digits, combination of unknown digits which didn't fall right area, ect.). Oops! Cheating. I've used clues from the text, known digits, and maps to figure out where a cache is - more cheating.

 

One question to AD: How would you "feel cheated" if you don't know how the puzzle was solved? I don't explain how I solved a puzzle in my log (I'm sure you'd be more upset if finders supplied their solutions - more cheating!), so how does a Found log make you feel cheated?

 

BTW, triagulation isn't as easy as been described. First you need to get the right distance (I'm assuming that the co-ord checker only gives a good/bad response, not a xx feet from yy cache), that would take several/many trys. Then find another point that's too close, and work out that distance. And again a third time. This get's even more complicated if there are more than one cache/waypoint in the area. And then you have to figure out if it's a cache or a waypoint...

Nothing against your post...just wanted to say I have done this...this is an example of how I have been called a "Cheater"...

[+Renegade Knight]

...One question to AD: How would you "feel cheated" if you don't know how the puzzle was solved? I don't explain how I solved a puzzle in my log (I'm sure you'd be more upset if finders supplied their solutions - more cheating!), so how does a Found log make you feel cheated?...

 

You wouldn't know.

 

If the puzzle was morse code. You can use a translation guide. You can copy and paste in a translater. You can ask someone who knows it to read it. You can write a comptuer program that lets you guss the letter and replace the code wiht it and plug and play until it makes sence...Those are all ways I'd call "not cheating" on a morse code puzzle.

 

Or you can say "hey look at this map I drew"? and go find it. Cheating? That's a point of view. Solved anywere near as intended? Heck no.

[+Totem Clan]

 

BTW, triagulation isn't as easy as been described. First you need to get the right distance (I'm assuming that the co-ord checker only gives a good/bad response, not a xx feet from yy cache), that would take several/many trys. Then find another point that's too close, and work out that distance. And again a third time. This get's even more complicated if there are more than one cache/waypoint in the area. And then you have to figure out if it's a cache or a waypoint...

BTW triangulation is that easy. I used to do it all time in my old job. In fact my life and the lives of others depended on me being able to pinpoint a spot on a map that I couldn't see, based only on lines of bearing or distances from given points. If I got wrong, the goods good guys might die. If I got right the bad guys had a real bad day.

 

Since you are already given the distance (161 m or 528 ft) plots on three or more points on the edge of the good/bad response line would give you the coords. Once you have found one point on the edge you could easily move along that edge with minor adjustments to query coords and find your triangulation points. Finding the first one would take some time but not too long.

 

 

 

But now of that matters because we will have that tool as cachers and there are methods in place to help solve the OP's problem already.

[+Totem Clan]

All I would personally want is what a reviewer would give me anyway.

 

1. Clear

2. Not Clear

Then why not ask the reviewer?

[+XopherN71]

For the umteenth time, automation.

 

EDIT

There should be no reason to check with the reviewer using the process I stated above. It gives no additional information than I would get asking the reviewer but has the benefit of instant gratification.

 

Yes - Cool, I'll hide the cache and submit it for the reviewer to approve, one less thing for them to verify.

No - Cool, I'll find a new location - no sense submitting this one.

Edited April 25, 2008 by XopherN71

[+ArcherDragoon]

...One question to AD: How would you "feel cheated" if you don't know how the puzzle was solved? I don't explain how I solved a puzzle in my log (I'm sure you'd be more upset if finders supplied their solutions - more cheating!), so how does a Found log make you feel cheated?...

 

You wouldn't know.

 

If the puzzle was morse code. You can use a translation guide. You can copy and paste in a translater. You can ask someone who knows it to read it. You can write a comptuer program that lets you guss the letter and replace the code wiht it and plug and play until it makes sence...Those are all ways I'd call "not cheating" on a morse code puzzle.

 

Or you can say "hey look at this map I drew"? and go find it. Cheating? That's a point of view. Solved anywere near as intended? Heck no.

Yep!!!

.

.

.

Again...all are different ways to solve the puzzle...and so would the automated system...

.

.

.

Again, just to be clear...I would not call the person that used the system a cheater...I am only saying I would feel "cheated"...would I use such a system to find a puzzle or multi...nope...but again, that is my choice...

.

.

.

To me...there is s big difference between feeling cheated and calling someone a cheater...

.

.

.

I can feel cheated by someone I know and still not call them a cheater...but that is just me...

[+JohnnyVegas]

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.

What I have done in the past is do the cache that is to dlose to mine.

[+XopherN71]

The point here is to automate without adding the need to find other caches prior to hiding your own, or getting shot down after going through the work of finding a location.

 

Are there any objections to the method I posted above other than 'why not ask the reviewer'?

 

All I would personally want is what a reviewer would give me anyway.

 

1. Clear

2. Not Clear

 

Max it out at 1 or 2 attempts for a given radius eliminating triangulation. This method would not give out the location, but would give me the go or no go for my hide.

Edited April 25, 2008 by XopherN71

[+Totem Clan]

For the umteenth time, automation.

Why when it's not needed and workable system exists? Why reinvent the wheel? Automation, just for the sake of automation is not a viable answer. Especially when the automation can be used to bypass the system it is intended to serve.

 

If you could and would purpose a system that would work and not be exploitable, I would not only accept it, I would encourage it acceptance as a whole.

 

 

And once again, as has been point out more than once in this and countless in threads like this by many experienced hiders, this really is a non-issue. It just does occur that often and when it does is easily resolved.

[+sbell111]

The point here is to automate without adding the need to find other caches prior to hiding your own, or getting shot down after going through the work of finding a location.

 

Are there any objections to the method I posted above other than 'why not ask the reviewer'?

 

All I would personally want is what a reviewer would give me anyway.

 

1. Clear

2. Not Clear

 

Max it out at 1 or 2 attempts for a given radius eliminating triangulation. This method would not give out the location, but would give me the go or no go for my hide.

Here's a couple:

• It still allows people to 'minesweeper' the locations to other people's caches.
  
• If the two or three attempts don't identify an available location, it will cause angst at least as great as the current process.
  

[+XopherN71]

I have come up with a system that would work and not exploit the caches in question no more than asking a reviewer would.

 

Prove the system won't work and make the process better and I'll accept your point.

[+tozainamboku]

My guess is that the reviewers themselves will be the ones to propose a solution if this becomes a big enough problem. I seem to recall several reviewer indicate that the proximity guideline is already the number 1 reason that caches aren't published. I would guess that the overwhelming number of these are caches that are within .1 mile of a traditional cache. People simple don't check what they already can check using existing tools. The number of people who have placed a cache after verifying that it doesn't conflict with traditionals that get rejected because of a multi, puzzle, or MOC is probably small. For now the reviewers are willing to work with people individually on these.

 

The reviewers might see an advantage in a system that ran automatically when the cache is submitted that checked just the traditional caches nearby as that would report the majority of proximity problems they currently see. The problem is the .1 mile is a rule-of-thumb. Reviewers often allow caches closer and can even insist on a greater distance (in the case of power trails or where they know a land manager limits the number of caches in a park) So even an automated system that only looks at distance from traditionals might give the wrong answer.

[+sbell111]

I have come up with a system that would work and not exploit the caches in question no more than asking a reviewer would.

 

Prove the system won't work and make the process better and I'll accept your point.

How about you prove the system would work better and not cause the problems that we believe it would? Since you are recommending the change, you should have to defend it.

 

Does anyone remember that saying about 'new people who believe that they are coming up with never before introduced ideas'? My memory is failing me.

Edited April 25, 2008 by sbell111

[+XopherN71]

I agree, the reviewer would have the final decision (obviously) - so how about this modified proposal.

 

When submitting a cache for approval the system will do a quick check, if there is a cache within .1 mile it will flag it and let you know there's a chance this will not be approved, and ask if you wish to continue. If there are no flags there will be no warning and it will go to the reviewer for final approval. If you select 'yes' when prompted it will go to the reviewer flagged so they know there is already one issue with the request.

Edited April 25, 2008 by XopherN71

[+Totem Clan]

My guess is that the reviewers themselves will be the ones to propose a solution if this becomes a big enough problem. I seem to recall several reviewer indicate that the proximity guideline is already the number 1 reason that caches aren't published. I would guess that the overwhelming number of these are caches that are within .1 mile of a traditional cache. People simple don't check what they already can check using existing tools. The number of people who have placed a cache after verifying that it doesn't conflict with traditionals that get rejected because of a multi, puzzle, or MOC is probably small. For now the reviewers are willing to work with people individually on these.

 

The reviewers might see an advantage in a system that ran automatically when the cache is submitted that checked just the traditional caches nearby as that would report the majority of proximity problems they currently see. The problem is the .1 mile is a rule-of-thumb. Reviewers often allow caches closer and can even insist on a greater distance (in the case of power trails or where they know a land manager limits the number of caches in a park) So even an automated system that only looks at distance from traditionals might give the wrong answer.

And thus another reason automation won't solve the problem. Too many other human factors are involed.

[+XopherN71]

My modified proposal above solves this issue.

 

It would also provide a method to disable your account from automatic checking if you abuse the system.

 

It's a benefit for submitters as well as reviewers without sacrificing duties or exploiting cache locations.

Edited April 25, 2008 by XopherN71

[+sbell111]

So does the current system.