Very frustrating!

[+nittany dave]

I think an automated tool would be very nice, but I just don't see a big need for it.

This happened to me once and the local reviewer helped me with general answers to find a spot that would work. It was a little frustrating but I understand why I couldn't get more specific answers and have no problem with that. If it happens again I'll work with the reviewer again.

I think far more puzzle and other caches are found by phone calls and emails to previous finders than an automated system would yield but that's a whole 'nother topic!

[Rhialto]

If he asked the reviewer first, this would have been avoided. The reviewer then tells him a nearby spot that will work.

Now I know and this is how I will proceed from now on. But it wasn't specified in the basic course 101.

 

I cannot say I'm a new geocacher or a veteran either, what I'm saying is it happened to me and it was a first and a surprise to me. Now I know!

[+Harry Dolphin]

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

 

Wow! Even with subsequent refinements, I find this to be quite a sweeping indictment! I guess that I missed it in the guidelines.

"Sign log. Get smiley."

Yes. I will admit to having brute forced a few mystery caches. (I still have no idea what made Brittany Spears famous.) At one that had not been found in a few weeks, I beat Second to Find by fifteen minutes. She had your attitude. Hey! I signed the log first! Find cache. Sign log. Get smiley. Seems simple.

On the other fin, I have one that was brute forced a few times. If they want to spend hours searching a twenty-acre park for the first stage... Hey! Go for it. They signed the log! They get a smiley!! I don't feel a bit cheated!

I have another where about half the finders noted 'received help from a previous finder'. (And it is noted that none of them asked me for help. ) But, they signed the log, so they get a smiley! Hey! Go for it!! I'm glad that they found my cache interesting enough to find it!

On the third fin, I did find one cache 'not in the method intended by the cache owner'. He took exception to my method of find, rehid the final, and tore my signature out of the log book. With that sort of attitude, I am more than happy to look for other cache owners' hides. I know where the 'ignore button' is.

Nope. Can't say that I agree with your attitude. Find cache. Sign log. Get smiley.

That being said, I do not care for, nor would ever use, the triangulation method being mentioned.

[Clan Riffster]

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

With your proposal, I could nail down the location of a puzzle within 6', simply by testing various combinations of coordinates. A bit of software would make this process much faster. It seems that those folks who's frustrations lead them to such proposals bring most of that frustration upon themselves, espescially since there are tools, (called Reviewers), in place that will allow you to avoid such problems. If I know there's a puzzle within, say, 5 miles of where I want to hide a cache, I try to solve it. Since I'm not the sharpest knife in the ammo box, this method usually fails. Then it's on to step 2. I contact my local reviewer and give them the coords, asking them if there's anything near there I need to be aware of. Reviewers are cachers too, and as such, they want to publish your cache, and they'll help you make that happen.

[+XopherN71]

With your proposal, I could nail down the location of a puzzle within 6', simply by testing various combinations of coordinates.

 

No, you couldn't... you'd have one coordinate to go off of, 2 at most.

 

But you obviously didn't read the thread (especially the last page or two) and hit the reply button just to get your $.02 dig in like everyone else.

 

Not that I'm bitter or anything.

[Keystone]

... there are tools, (called Reviewers), in place that will allow you to avoid such problems.

I think you just called me a tool. I should, like, suspend your posting rights and archive all your caches or something.

 

Reviewers are cachers too, and as such, they want to publish your cache, and they'll help you make that happen.

Forget what I just said. Print this statement out and frame it. This is how reviewers are supposed to approach cache reviewing. I open every new cache submission with the hope of seeing it published without controversy, and I am sad when I need to hold some up because of guideline issues. It then becomes my duty to work through alternatives, if any are available. This includes, for example, making vague suggestions to "check out the north end of the park" when there is a puzzle final in the south end of the park.

[+XopherN71]

I think you just called me a tool. I should, like, suspend your posting rights and archive all your caches or something.

 

[+Juicepig]

you got your litmus test - reviewer told you the puzzle is within 100m

 

lucky you! go find it!

[4wheelin_fool]

Frankly, I don't see any issues.

 

If a reviewer says your cache is too close to another one you can either:

 

- move your new cache .2 in any direction

- solve or find the other cache or stage.

- take up yoga and learn some deep breathing techniques.

 

if there is no viable spots within .2 then perhaps the area is saturated with too many caches anyway

[+root1657]

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.

 

Breaking out a modified quote I've used here before "geocaching is a game that can never be won, only played" so really, even if someone does cheat, what do they gain? I can tell you what they loose, and that is thier integrity, even if no one else knows it. If there is someone who is willing to trade his integrity for a number on a website, well, that kind of colors the character then, doesnt it...

 

In the end though, does it even matter how many caches someone has found? no prizes beyond the FTF, no special privilage for high numbers... it's a game you play against yourself, and no ammount of cheating on someone elses part is going to change the game for me. Let em cheat. In the end, doesnt that make the honest players better anyway?

[Clan Riffster]

With your proposal, I could nail down the location of a puzzle within 6', simply by testing various combinations of coordinates.

 

No, you couldn't... you'd have one coordinate to go off of, 2 at most.

 

But you obviously didn't read the thread (especially the last page or two) and hit the reply button just to get your $.02 dig in like everyone else.

Don't assume that, just because you are unable to figure out how something can be accomplished, that everyone else has the same limiting factors.

It's not rocket science. Just simple extrapolation.

[Clan Riffster]

I think you just called me a tool. I should, like, suspend your posting rights and archive all your caches or something.

Ruh Row!

[+XopherN71]

Please enlighten me with your infinite wisdom how you can narrow down (within 6 feet) from 1 coordinate (since that is all you'd get automatically). My 'limiiting factors' just can't get passed the fact that it's not possible.

 

I'd love to hear it.

 

And furthermore, how this would be any more a giveaway than contacting a reviewer directly... since they will also say yes or no, and even nudge you in the right direction.

Edited May 8, 2008 by XopherN71

[Rhialto]

Frankly, I don't see any issues.

 

If a reviewer says your cache is too close to another one you can either:

 

- move your new cache .2 in any direction

- solve or find the other cache or stage.

 

Not sure I want to go thru all this again. I would if I could do it in french because it would be easier for me but if you read the whole thread you should get the point.

 

A quick example: I haven't visited all the caches in my country (not mandatory, isn't?) and I plan to design a multi with a few stage so I spot the clear areas and create clues, containers, special hints with numbers to go from stage to stage then I'm all set, everything is in place after 10 hours of "bricolage". Submit, no go a stage is too close to a final of another cache.

 

Now only, like you said, I may be forced to solve surrounding cache to find a true clear spot and then rework all the parts that were related to that stage I had to move. Let's say I wrote numbers on a piece of paper then paid to get it plastified so rain won't damage it... I would need to redo that. There are geocachers who put many hours and sometimes money into disigning a cache concept so it would be nice to know from start if all is clear.

 

edit: note that after this discussion that endend last week, I said my solution will be to ask a reviewer if all is safe before going too far in the design process. I just wanted to reply to 4wheelin_fool

Edited May 8, 2008 by Rhialto

[Clan Riffster]

My 'limiiting factors' just can't get passed the fact that it's not possible.

That's OK. Don't feel bad. Not everybody gets to be an astronaut.

[Keystone]

Please enlighten me with your infinite wisdom how you can narrow down (within 6 feet) from 1 coordinate (since that is all you'd get automatically). My 'limiiting factors' just can't get passed the fact that it's not possible.

 

I'd love to hear it.

 

And furthermore, how this would be any more a giveaway than contacting a reviewer directly... since they will also say yes or no, and even nudge you in the right direction.

A reviewer isn't going to say "your cache location is 151 feet east from a puzzle cache."

 

I will say something like: "Uh oh, that spot is less than 300 feet from a protected waypoint. You'd have better luck looking for a spot on the west side of the stream."