Puzzle Caches Must Die

June 27, 2008

Puzzle Caches Must Die ... not really but, I recently had trouble placing a new cache. The first time the reviewer rejected it my location was 50 feet from a new puzzle cache that I had not solved yet. For the second attempt I moved the cache miles away from the first location. Again it was rejected because it was withing 200 feet of a puzzle cache. That puzzle cache had the posted coordinates three towns away. Third placement was approved.

Request: I'd like a tool on GC.com that gives a Go/No-Go on cache coordinates before we submit a new placement to the reviewer. The tool would simple tell us if the coordinates are within 528 feet of another cache location. It doesn't need to tell us where the other cache is. As is, we don't have trouble avoiding traditional caches but puzzle and multi caches can be a problem.

1.4k · June 27, 2008

unlikely to happen - people will abuse it

20.7k · June 27, 2008

Another solution would be for people to use posted coordinates for puzzle caches that are within a mile or two of the actual location, like the guidelines state.

June 27, 2008

There are methods to avoid abuse - a limit of so many queries in a short period of time, some kind of validation like typing a code or something every time you check, attach it to the formation of the cache page and allow x number of requests per possible cache that is placed, etc.

Or have a special tool that allows reviewers to respond to those specific requests (such as a specific email address for just that purpose) in a very short period of time, such as several hours.

I know GS.com doesn't like the automated approach, but this issue has come up a large number of times in the last couple of years as more caches are placed, and it can make it VERY difficult/irritating to get a cache published. The worst part is that you're supposed to place the cache first, then submit the page for review. So, you place the cache, publish the page, get it denied, go get the cache, move it, resubmit, get it denied again, etc... big waste of gas...

They always say you can email your reviewer and ask if the specific coords you're looking at are ok or not, but this requires a wait of however long the volunteer takes to get back to you, and some of us have more than one reviewer in our area, so who do we contact.

Some kind of semi-automated or faster response process would be much better.

8k · June 27, 2008

Request: I'd like a tool on GC.com that gives a Go/No-Go on cache coordinates before we submit a new placement to the reviewer. The tool would simple tell us if the coordinates are within 528 feet of another cache location. It doesn't need to tell us where the other cache is. As is, we don't have trouble avoiding traditional caches but puzzle and multi caches can be a problem.

This has been requested many times, precisely because people have the same problem placing caches as you did. (BTW it's not only puzzle caches but stages of a multi and if you're not a premium member, members only caches). The general consensus is that an automated tool that would tell you if a set of coordinates are within 528 ft. of another cache or not could be misused to determine the location of a puzzle cache. Some scheme would need to be developed to ensure that an automated system would not be abused and so far no one has come up with on that is fool proof. In addition, 528 feet is only a rule of thumb. A human reviewer may decide that cache could be placed closer than 528 ft under certain conditions, or that you need more separation because the land manager for that park has asked that number of caches be further limited. An automated tool could easily give the "wrong" answer and tell you a location is OK when it isn't or that you can't place the cache when you could have. For now the only workable solution is to ask your reviewer. Simplest method is what you did. Place the cache and then go move it when it gets rejected. But you can also contact your reviewer with your proposed coordinates and find out in advance it they are OK. Many reviewers will give a general direction for you to move in if your coordinates are too close that may help you find a workable location.

9.2k · June 27, 2008

(BTW it's not only puzzle caches but stages of a multi and if you're not a premium member, members only caches).

No, not really. You can already check for Premium Member caches, just by using the standard search tool. Enter a set of coordinates, and MO caches will be displayed, along with the distance from the coordinates you entered. And yes, this works for non-Premium members.

All the "solutions" FireRef presented have flaws that have been detailed in the other threads on this subject. Suggestions like "some kind of validation like typing a code or something every time you check" show a misunderstanding of the problem. That kind of validation is what you would use to try and prevent an automated brute-force attack. But that's not how people would go about misusing a system to discover hidden caches. Instead, all you need are a few well chosen points to test, and you can fairly quickly find the point where it changes from Allowed to Not Allowed. Do that 2 more times, and you've nailed it.

June 27, 2008

Another solution would be for people to use posted coordinates for puzzle caches that are within a mile or two of the actual location, like the guidelines state.

More like .1 mile, I would think - since that is the distance limit for placing caches.

Or maybe just not count puzzle caches when judging proximity.

June 27, 2008

From a reviewing stand point, for every 10 caches that have a proximity issue, ~9 of them are with the posted coordinate of a multi, an onsite puzzle or a traditional cache. A noticeable portion of the time is it with the cache hiders own caches.

People have the tools to check this and don't. I wouldn't expect an automated way to check thing to change that too much.

June 27, 2008

From a reviewing stand point, for every 10 caches that have a proximity issue, ~9 of them are with the posted coordinate of a multi, an onsite puzzle or a traditional cache. A noticeable portion of the time is it with the cache hiders own caches.

People have the tools to check this and don't. I wouldn't expect an automated way to check thing to change that too much.

Help a newbie out here - how can I check the location of a cache with a location that is not published, short of doing the cache and finding it myself?

For example - at a park near my house, there's a puzzle that basically takes you for a walk around the perimiter of the park. The only published coords is the start point. Let's say I wanted to hide a cache in this park, saw that it was > .1 mile from the published coords, how could I tell?

Edited June 27, 2008 by derangedlunatech

24.7k · June 27, 2008

...Request: I'd like a tool on GC.com that gives a Go/No-Go on cache coordinates before we submit a new placement to the reviewer. The tool would simple tell us if the coordinates are within 528 feet of another cache location. It doesn't need to tell us where the other cache is. As is, we don't have trouble avoiding traditional caches but puzzle and multi caches can be a problem.

Since this site has chosen to allow puzzle caches, they also get to choose how to deal with the problem it creates. Which is the issue you are having. For the moment the solution is reviewers hinting how far and what direction is good for a placment. It takes a little discression to give out that hint without giving away the puzzle.

Go No Go opens the door for a second problem. Chiefly you could then solve puzzles without actually solving the puzzle itself.

It comes down to having puzzle caches and living wiht the occasional conflict. Or banning them and having less variety but no conflicts.

June 27, 2008

Help a newbie out here - how can I check the location of a cache with a location that is not published, short of doing the cache and finding it myself?

Go to http://www.geocaching.com/seek/

On this page, enter the coords at the "Latitude Longitude Search" area.

The next page will tell you how close it is to another cache. Again, this will help you with posted coordinates only but it still helps!

Example, I want to hide a cache at N 39° 59.498 W 075° 11.772. I put the coords in, hit search and get thi page. I can see that I am only 93 feet from another cache and that won't fly.

11.3k · June 27, 2008

From a reviewing stand point, for every 10 caches that have a proximity issue, ~9 of them are with the posted coordinate of a multi, an onsite puzzle or a traditional cache. A noticeable portion of the time is it with the cache hiders own caches.

People have the tools to check this and don't. I wouldn't expect an automated way to check thing to change that too much.

Help a newbie out here - how can I check the location of a cache with a location that is not published, short of doing the cache and finding it myself?

You can email your Reviewer. That is what I did when I wanted to place a cache, the end point to one of my "Historic Multis," about 40 miles from my house. I checked out potential locations in Google Earth and then emailed the coordinates to my Reviewer, asking if those areas were clear. They were.

I had the Traditional cache locations in my GPSr as I looked for the specific hiding place for my cache so I could make sure I wasn't too close to those.

Edit to add appropriate quote.

Edited June 27, 2008 by Miragee

June 27, 2008

Help a newbie out here - how can I check the location of a cache with a location that is not published, short of doing the cache and finding it myself?

Go to http://www.geocaching.com/seek/

On this page, enter the coords at the "Latitude Longitude Search" area.

The next page will tell you how close it is to another cache. Again, this will help you with posted coordinates only but it still helps!

Example, I want to hide a cache at N 39° 59.498 W 075° 11.772. I put the coords in, hit search and get thi page. I can see that I am only 93 feet from another cache and that won't fly.

Well therein lies the problem. If the published coords are incorrect, that does me no good. As one person in the thread mentioned, they ran across a puzzle cache that was 3 towns over from the published coords.

That's no good. Please don't say that there are tools in place that address the problem when there are not.

June 27, 2008

TFTDP

Edited June 27, 2008 by derangedlunatech

June 27, 2008

Please don't say that there are tools in place that address the problem when there are not.

There aren't tools - we're just discussing the possibility.

June 27, 2008

Please don't say that there are tools in place that address the problem when there are not.

There aren't tools - we're just discussing the possibility.

I am aware of this. OReviewer said there were. Please follow the quotes.

7.3k · June 27, 2008

Please don't say that there are tools in place that address the problem when there are not.

There aren't tools - we're just discussing the possibility.

I am aware of this. OReviewer said there were. Please follow the quotes.

OReviewer clearly states that this only helps with the posted coords.

24.7k · June 27, 2008

Please don't say that there are tools in place that address the problem when there are not.

There aren't tools - we're just discussing the possibility.

I am aware of this. OReviewer said there were. Please follow the quotes.

OReviewer clearly states that this only helps with the posted coords.

The tools in place are that page, finding the nearby puzzle cache so you know, and the reviewer who will look at the coords. It's an imperfect system and process but it's about the best you can do and still have puzzle caches. Though I personally think the 528' rule should be reduced to about 100' for the unknown bits of multi and puzzle caches. Then the problem would crop up a lot less.

June 27, 2008

Well therein lies the problem. If the published coords are incorrect, that does me no good. As one person in the thread mentioned, they ran across a puzzle cache that was 3 towns over from the published coords.

That's no good. Please don't say that there are tools in place that address the problem when there are not.

Please go back and read my message. I never claimed there was an answer to this thread. I said that, from my experience, there isn't really that big of a problem puzzles/multis worth the time of programmers. The problem is with posted coordinates and people not checking them.

June 27, 2008

OReviewer clearly states that this only helps with the posted coords.

For the record, OReviewer stated initially:

People have the tools to check this and don't.

...then went on to illustrate that we can't really do it, which was the OPs point to begin with. That statement was what i was addressing. Please follow the quotes.

June 27, 2008

Please go back and read my message. I never claimed there was an answer to this thread. I said that, from my experience, there isn't really that big of a problem puzzles/multis worth the time of programmers. The problem is with posted coordinates and people not checking them.

Please go back and reread what you posted. You stated:

People have the tools to check this and don't.

In response to the point that it is difficult with caches that are not at the posted locations, like puzzles. I asked specifically what tools I have available to tell me that I am in the vicinity of a cache that is not at the posted location (which is the topic of the thread), and you went on to illustrate the problem presented by the OP.

Your point is well taken that some people may not check the posted coordinates before posting their own. But that wasn't the question presented in this thread.

Again, I'll bring up the illustration that I asked about earlier - there is a park right down the street from me. It is a puzzle cache that essentially has the solver walk the entire perimiter of the small park. There are places that I could hide in this park that would be > .1 mile from the posted coordinates. There are places where I could hide that would be >.1 mile from the actual location. There is nowhere that is > .1 mile from the various waypoints along the way. Supposing that I wanted to do my due diligence before submitting a cache to a reviewer, how could I possibly tell that any cache I placed in this park would not be OK, short of doing the entire cache myself? THAT is the topic being addressed - and I imagine that it is not all that rare of an occurrance, based on some of the responses in this thread.

Edited June 27, 2008 by derangedlunatech

June 27, 2008

Yes, I apologize to all. In my quick read of the post, I had assumed that OReviewer was actually addressing the issue that was presented, not a completely different one. The issue itself, and related questions about it still stand unanswered.

9.2k · June 27, 2008

Again, I'll bring up the illustration that I asked about earlier - there is a park right down the street from me. It is a puzzle cache that essentially has the solver walk the entire perimiter of the small park. There are places that I could hide in this park that would be > .1 mile from the posted coordinates. There are places where I could hide that would be >.1 mile from the actual location. There is nowhere that is > .1 mile from the various waypoints along the way. Supposing that I wanted to do my due diligence before submitting a cache to a reviewer, how could I possibly tell that any cache I placed in this park would not be OK, short of doing the entire cache myself? THAT is the topic being addressed - and I imagine that it is not all that rare of an occurrance, based on some of the responses in this thread.

What are you walking the perimeter looking for? Unless they're clues physically placed by the owner, unlike already existing object like signs, then they're not a proximity issue. And has been mentioned, you can simply find a few potential spots, and email the reviewer with the coordinates. He or she will let you know which are acceptable or not.

3.1k · June 27, 2008

I have found my local cache approver very helpful this way. I email him with a place and he lets me know if it is ok.

Don't abuse the privilege.

T

June 28, 2008

I have found my local cache approver very helpful this way. I email him with a place and he lets me know if it is ok.

Works fine for me, and they can limit the number of checks.

7.9k · June 28, 2008

Your local reviewer is the one and only solution to this issue.

An automated solution would be abused, and used to crack puzzles and shortcut multis.

Way too many individuals would rather exert 3X the effort finding the back door.

June 28, 2008

One point that hasn't been addressed, in all of the people complaining about how the system can be abused to solve multis and puzzles, is that everyone keeps saying you should just play the game the way you want to.

If this is true, who cares how I solve a puzzle? (except for the owner of that specific puzzle) The site doesn't care if you post multiple found it logs on a cache, even if the general consensus is that this is cheating. The site doesn't care if you don't follow ALR's if the owner doesn't delete the logs. The site refuses to administer these issues, rather allowing us to just play however we want.

So why are they so protective of these puzzles? Yes, there are a lot of people putting a lot of effort into some puzzles. Yes, they deserve to have them protected. But so do we deserve to have caches not have multiple found it logs. We deserve not to have people post found it logs on caches they own. We deserve not to have ALR's which aren't logged cancelled or deleted as finds.

And who really cares if people post finds on puzzles that they didn't solve? I can do that on just about every puzzle in my area, and until people start to realize I'm cheating by checking the physical logs. I won't do this, because that's not how I play the game. But what is stopping people from doing that? How many people actually check physcial logs?

So this argument that it is protecting puzzles and multis has a lot of holes in it too. My solutions weren't perfect, but they eliminated a lot of the delays caused by reviewers having other things to do in their lives and not checking their emails all the time.

Why pick one thing to try to protect, but not everything else?

Edited June 28, 2008 by FireRef

3.2k · June 28, 2008

If this is true, who cares how I solve a puzzle? (except for the owner of that specific puzzle) The site doesn't care if you post multiple found it logs on a cache, even if the general consensus is that this is cheating. The site doesn't care if you don't follow ALR's if the owner doesn't delete the logs. The site refuses to administer these issues, rather allowing us to just play however we want.

So why are they so protective of these puzzles? Yes, there are a lot of people putting a lot of effort into some puzzles. Yes, they deserve to have them protected. But so do we deserve to have caches not have multiple found it logs. We deserve not to have people post found it logs on caches they own. We deserve not to have ALR's which aren't logged cancelled or deleted as finds.

And who really cares if people post finds on puzzles that they didn't solve? I can do that on just about every puzzle in my area, and until people start to realize I'm cheating by checking the physical logs. I won't do this, because that's not how I play the game. But what is stopping people from doing that? How many people actually check physcial logs?

So this argument that it is protecting puzzles and multis has a lot of holes in it too. My solutions weren't perfect, but they eliminated a lot of the delays caused by reviewers having other things to do in their lives and not checking their emails all the time.

Because everything you have listed is policed at an acceptable rate to the majority of the people who support the site. Multiple found it logs are policed, by the cache owner who agrees to delete bogus logs everytime they submit a cache. Owners posting found it logs is acceptable because it does not affect other users. ALR's are again something the site chooses to allow and are the individual owners responsibility to monitor their adherence.

Nobody, except probably the owner, cares if someone posts a bogus find on a puzzle cache. The way it currently is set up is to 1. protect against saturation and 2. try to prevent or at the very least discourage bogus logging of an unfound cache that would otherwise be harder to detect by the owner.

Bottom line, GC has decided this is the best way to handle it using the information they have. The majority of people using and contributing to the site (through PM $$) do not want "tools" that make it easy to solve or find the other caches without actually making the effort. If you are placing a cache, it is not hard to see that puzzle or multis are within 1 or 2 miles from where you are doing it and can send the coords to your reviewer and ask if there is a problem prior to expending too much effort.

Why pick one thing to try to protect, but not everything else?

Because the world we live in has no absolutes and solutions always include some type of compromise.

June 28, 2008

The majority of people using and contributing to the site (through PM $$) do not want "tools" that make it easy to solve or find the other caches without actually making the effort.

Thank you for speaking for me (and the majority of people on this site). I would like to see the statistics that support this argument.

People who choose to be PM's do so for the tools, or to support the site. Simply stating that because I spend $3 a month or $30 a year means I support the decisions made by this site is completely incorrect. I, personally, spend the money to get PQ's, and only that. Obviously I don't support a lot of decisions of this site in terms of how TPTB feel the game should be played, or rules and restrictions (sorry, guidelines) forced upon the players.

And I would have to strongly disagree when you say that they make decisions based on the majority of the players. Often, their decisions are in line with what the majority want. But often, a number of people disagree with those decisions. Sometimes they listen, sometimes they do what they want. Sometimes they make decisions which are not in the best interest of the game, but in the best interest of the owners. They, of course, can do this, but it doesn't seem like a good idea to me.

3.2k · June 28, 2008

Thank you for speaking for me (and the majority of people on this site). I would like to see the statistics that support this argument.

Not a problem. Glad to help you articulate it.

Which statistic do you want?

The one from this thread shows 3 users who want the tools, 1 not really indicating and 11 ok with the current methods. Or possibly the statistic that says there are something like 500K of cachers, of which 2 or 3 K are probably active and less than a handful of these are complaining.

I never stated that the decisions are based on what the majority wants, which would be a foolish business model. What I said is the majority either agrees or accepts the current decisions. I don't like all of them all either, but "TPTB" make the decisions on what they feel is best for their site and they most definitely have more information to make it than you or I. Seems like they have "a good idea" so far. We're not hurting for caches or users and the site seems pretty popular. Even those of you with such a disdain for their system still hang around

If someone could offer a suggestion to the problem that would not be easily abused, I and others who are OK with the current system, would most likely be all for it. So far, all the ones suggested are not in the "best interest of the game" and do not appear to be "in line with what the majority want" .

June 28, 2008

Thank you for speaking for me (and the majority of people on this site). I would like to see the statistics that support this argument.

Not a problem. Glad to help you articulate it.

Which statistic do you want?

The one from this thread shows 3 users who want the tools, 1 not really indicating and 11 ok with the current methods. Or possibly the statistic that says there are something like 500K of cachers, of which 2 or 3 K are probably active and less than a handful of these are complaining.

I never stated that the decisions are based on what the majority wants, which would be a foolish business model. What I said is the majority either agrees or accepts the current decisions. I don't like all of them all either, but "TPTB" make the decisions on what they feel is best for their site and they most definitely have more information to make it than you or I. Seems like they have "a good idea" so far. We're not hurting for caches or users and the site seems pretty popular. Even those of you with such a disdain for their system still hang around

If someone could offer a suggestion to the problem that would not be easily abused, I and others who are OK with the current system, would most likely be all for it. So far, all the ones suggested are not in the "best interest of the game" and do not appear to be "in line with what the majority want" .

You did not include the number of other threads that had people asking for a faster, easier way to confirm coordinates before wasting time and money placing it and finding out they are too close to a hidden cache.

You also did not consider all cachers do not take part in these forums.

Decisions are NOT based on what the majority want - they are based on what TPTB want to do with the game - whether it's in the best interest of the game (sometimes) or in their best interest as a business (always). Sometimes people agree, sometimes people disagree. Sometimes they listen to the people, sometimes they don't. Sometimes they even agree that this is something they will do, but then don't actually do it (fixing the "archived caches" on gs.com google maps that they turned off). I wouldn't agree necessarily with doing what the majority want anyway - mob rule isn't often best.

Many suggestions have been made - many good suggestions. None are perfect. Even reviewers aren't perfect - they interpret the guidelines differently, where one would allow something, another might not, etc. So I guess until the reviewers are perfect, we can't change anything? That doesn't make sense.

As for me hanging around, my disdain is with some decisions that TPTB make which are more in the interest of the website or owner than in the interest of the game. Even the person who created the game didn't like what was done with it. But until other sites become popular enough to justify switching, many of us (and I don't know how many - just know there's a decent number from emails supporting my rants on here) put up with the arbitrary rules (sorry, guidelines... which are enforced as rules when TPTB want to) so that we can go find a decent number of these little containers.

I haven't seen many restrictive decisions which are done in the best interest of the game. Many ones where more information in made available, or more easily accessed, are very good for both the website and beneficial to the game. But most decisions which limit, restrict, or outright ban cache types, descriptions, comments, inclusions in cache pages, use of detail in cache pages, use of HTML in cache pages, access to the data, etc, are not in the best interest of the game - they are only done to make it better/safer for the site owner(s). Do they have the right to do this? Yes. Does it benefit the game... I don't believe so.

Edited June 28, 2008 by FireRef

2.2k · June 28, 2008

Your local reviewer is the one and only solution to this issue.

An automated solution would be abused, and used to crack puzzles and shortcut multis.

Way too many individuals would rather exert 3X the effort finding the back door.

I hear this so often when this topic comes up and I have to ask one question: "Who cares?"

Seriously, as a cache owner, why do I care how someone found my puzzle cache? As long as they had fun finding it does it really matter if they found it "my way"? If someone wants to go through the effort of brute forcing the location of a puzzle cache by typing in a whole series of coordinates, let them have at it.

June 29, 2008

Your local reviewer is the one and only solution to this issue.

An automated solution would be abused, and used to crack puzzles and shortcut multis.

Way too many individuals would rather exert 3X the effort finding the back door.

I hear this so often when this topic comes up and I have to ask one question: "Who cares?"

Seriously, as a cache owner, why do I care how someone found my puzzle cache? As long as they had fun finding it does it really matter if they found it "my way"? If someone wants to go through the effort of brute forcing the location of a puzzle cache by typing in a whole series of coordinates, let them have at it.

As a cache owner, I do care...why else did I create the puzzle? There, our votes cancel. :laughing:

3.2k · June 29, 2008

You did not include the number of other threads that had people asking for a faster, easier way to confirm coordinates before wasting time and money placing it and finding out they are too close to a hidden cache.

Since you and I both know the results would be the same, as pointed out to you on some of those threads as well, there was no point.

You also did not consider all cachers do not take part in these forums.

Actually, I did. Just like when we vote for a president in the Untied States, each and every citizen votes. Some go to the polls and do it, others stay home and let the majority cast their vote for them.

If cachers are upset enough, they find their way here.

Decisions are NOT based on what the majority want - they are based on what TPTB want to do with the game - whether it's in the best interest of the game (sometimes) or in their best interest as a business (always).

You say this like it is a bad thing. If the site is to survive, two things must occur. 1. All decisions must be made based on what is best for the site and 2. all decisions must take into consideration what will keep the most users active.

Again, they seem to have an excellent handle on this.

Many suggestions have been made - many good suggestions. None are perfect. Even reviewers aren't perfect - they interpret the guidelines differently, where one would allow something, another might not, etc. So I guess until the reviewers are perfect, we can't change anything? That doesn't make sense.

Even laws leave room for leeway.

I am not sure if you follow sports, and I am not comparing GC to sports, however there is not one sport out there that does not allow judgment. You get frustrated here, try baseball, basketball, football, hockey, NASCAR, curling, gymnastics, etc all have some flexibility built in and are not black and white.

In the case of what is going on here, no tool (aside from the fact that there have been none suggested that would work) would allow for some of the flexibility needed such as a river or interstate between the two caches or a clif that actually separates the caches by a significant height, all which have had occasion to be allowed by the human reviewer.

This is getting old. I'll let you fight it out amongst yourself. The thread is too far off course.

Edited June 29, 2008 by baloo&bd

July 1, 2008

OK, I learned a lot, request withdrawn. Thanks for the replies.

2.1k · July 1, 2008

[sNIP] (fixing the "archived caches" on gs.com google maps that they turned off). [sNIP]

Bug #1803 "Show Archived Caches on Google Maps"

Sorry for the derail.

1.1k · July 1, 2008

OK, I learned a lot, request withdrawn. Thanks for the replies.

Closing thread per request of the OP.

Puzzle Caches Must Die

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment