Checker system to find out if a cache site will work?

[+Doctor A]

I just sent the following email to Groundspeak. I know this issue has been discussed before, but I guess I'm hoping that others might also express their thoughts about this to Groundspeak, especially since it sure seems to me like there's a majority of cachers who'd like to be able to check potential hiding spot coords in the field, instead of making trips back to retrieve hidden caches. Surely if enough people express the same sentiment, TPTB might listen, kind of like they listened and put back the find and hide count on the my friends link just recently.

 

I tried to hide a cache yesterday and it got rejected, because the reviewer told me it was within 400 feet of the final stages of a puzzle cache. I have internet access on my phone, so while at the hiding spot, I checked the coordinates and made sure nothing showed as listed as being within the requisite tenth of a mile. The nearest multi starts over a mile away.

 

I keep running into this problem, more often with puzzle caches. I’ve had caches that I’ve had to move three times to get them in a legitimate position. This has made me reluctant to hide caches, especially at any distance from my home, out of concern that I’ll have to go back and move it, and frankly, with today’s gas prices, I don’t want that hassle.

 

I’ve ONLY heard complaining and frustration about this, I haven’t heard anyone praising the fact that this happens. I don’t understand why there can’t be some sort of checker system so that, especially given that so many people these days do have laptops with wifi or phones with internet access that they take caching, people could plug in proposed coordinates and see if it was a legitimate spot. Why do I have to come home and wait for the reviewer to review it, to only be told I’m 400 feet too close to a multi? Why can’t I get that same info instantly? I can literally file a listing out in the field, and I have done that, but I can’t find out if I have a legitimate hide?

 

I know this has been brought up in the forums and I’ve read stuff like how people could use such a system to somehow figure out where puzzle caches are indeed hidden. If that’s the concern, then put a limit on it, like say I can only put in three proposed coordinates within half a mile of each other a day or something. Frankly, if someone wants to go to all that trouble to figure out my puzzle cache answer, then I say more power to them- it’s more creative and takes more thinking (which is what puzzles are supposed to make you do, right?) than asking a previous finder for the coordinates.

 

Can someone please explain to me why, when my impression from reading the forums and talking to lots of other cachers is that everyone would like it, such a system can’t be implemented? I don’t even need to know what type of cache I’m near, and while it’d be nice to know how close I am to the offending other cache, so that I could know how far I likely have to move, I’d even settle for just a flat out no, you’re too close and no further information, at least I wouldn’t have to make a trip back to retrieve my hide.

 

Thanks

Doctor A

[+KoosKoos]

In all of the previous threads on this subject, the point is brought up that someone can feed such a system a few coordinates and triangulate the location of those puzzle caches.

 

Rather than giving people the tools to "battleship" hidden caches, TPTB haven't implemented any automatic system for this.

[+tozainamboku]

So far the problem that you refer to doesn't seem to be that much of a problem - even in areas where there a lots of puzzle caches or multis. The volunteer reviewers have a agreed to serve as the type of system you are requesting. You can send your proposed coordinates to your reviewer before you place your cache an they will tell you if it is OK. What's more they can do some things that an automated system can't do. They can give you some help as to where to move to if your coordinates are too close to an existing cache. If your coordinates are close to an existing cache, they may approve it anyway, if they feel an exception is warranted - for example if there is some obstacle between your coordinates and the existing cache. And they can tell if someone is repeatedly trying coordinates to try to brute force the puzzle. They may even be able to detect if group of cachers are trying to join forces to do this. The only problem with the reviewers is that your answer may not be instantaneous. You'll probably have to wait 24 hours or so to get your answer. But once you get a positive response, the reviewers could hold the space for you a few days to give you a chance to place your cache.

 

Until the problem gets so big that the reviewers decide that it is taking too much of their time to check coordinates for cachers, don't look for an automated system. No automated system will be as good as the reviewer.

[Keystone]

Reviewers are happy to help, as capably explained above. We also have the good sense to sniff out people playing "Battleship." An automated system can't do that with certainty. Even a limit of checking one location per day will not deter a committed geocacher trying to crack a puzzle. I know this from direct personal experience.

[+BushandBoots]

What she said!!!!!!!

 

I just had the same problem. I had to drive 8 plus miles one way, 3 round trips in 3 days to move a hide. It gets frustrating. If were all live in the field and reviews were automatic via a program, not human interface, we could cope. But the human interface seems necessary. Why put the restriction of .1 on a stage of a multi or a puzzle. If they get found, who would know what they found? You couldn't log it if you don't know what it is.

 

Jerry, Bush of BushandBoots

[+Doctor A]

I have found reviewers to be quite helpful when I have asked them to check, so I know they are willing to do that and I've used that option, but that still means I have to drive to a location and gather coordinates, even if I don't actually plant a cache right then, so it actually takes MORE effort that way, because it'll definitely take me two trips- one to scope it out and then one to go back and hide it. That's why I've generally chosen to just plant a cache and then submit the report, hoping that it'll be OK, and more often than not it is, probably 70% of the time or so I'd estimate. So I do appreciate what the reviewers are willing to do, but I don't think that that option saves me any time or gas, and in fact costs me more.

 

Couldn't some sort of computer program also figure out if there was a pattern that suggested that someone seemed to be trying to use the system to figure something out?

[Keystone]

You can get approximate coordinates using mapping software or Google Earth. You can even reference a nearby traditional cache. This doesn't require driving to the location prior to checking with the reviewer.

 

Sample e-mail exchange:

 

"Hi, I was thinking of hiding some more caches in Memorial Park. Right now, the only cache there is GCXXXX. Could you check there and let me know if there are any puzzle caches in the area? Thanks."

 

"Thanks for writing. I checked the Memorial Park area. There is indeed a puzzle cache that you have not yet found. It is somewhere north of GCXXXX. You should be fine if you stay south of GCXXXX. I look forward to reviewing your cache. Let me know if I can be of further assistance."

[+PurpHaze]

I'm backing my San Joaquin Valley brothers and sisters on this issue. I've encountered the problem of trying to set a cache too close to the final leg of a puzzle or multi-cache several times which can be up to two miles away from the starting coords. There are many areas where a great hide might be set but I've passed them up because puzzles or multi-caches are too close. The reviewers have a hard enough job as is... especially in a state as populated as ours... to be reviewing potential cache sites. I'll just move along to another area where "what I see (on the map) is what I get" and place my caches there.

[+Prime Suspect]

Couldn't some sort of computer program also figure out if there was a pattern that suggested that someone seemed to be trying to use the system to figure something out?

If you can come up with a way to detect the difference between someone trying to game the system, and someone trying to set up an 8 stage multi-cache, I'd like to hear about it.

 

This has been brought up several times. Every solution that's been proposed has at least one flaw in it.

[+FunnyNose]

Couldn't some sort of computer program also figure out if there was a pattern that suggested that someone seemed to be trying to use the system to figure something out?

 

I have a sure fire way to do this.. Find all the Multis and Puzzles in your area.

[+trainlove]

... final leg of a puzzle or multi-cache several times which can be up to two miles away from the starting coords.

 

Those are the current guidelines. There are many older caches that have their posted coords 10 or more miles away from the final. There are even some new ones that go outside the 'suggested' 2 mile limit. The reviewers can allow them for good reasons. As they can allow caches closer than 528 feet for other reasons.

 

As someone said above, the best way is to solve ALL puzzles and multi's 'everywhere' (my emphasis).

[+the hermit crabs]

... final leg of a puzzle or multi-cache several times which can be up to two miles away from the starting coords.

 

Those are the current guidelines. There are many older caches that have their posted coords 10 or more miles away from the final. There are even some new ones that go outside the 'suggested' 2 mile limit. The reviewers can allow them for good reasons. As they can allow caches closer than 528 feet for other reasons.

 

As someone said above, the best way is to solve ALL puzzles and multi's 'everywhere' (my emphasis).

I think that the current guideline regarding the 2-mile maximum between the posted coordinates and the real coordinates applies only to the first stage of a puzzle cache. If a puzzle cache has more than one stage, subsequent stages (including the final) can be 10, 100, or 1000 miles away.

 

I don't think there are any distance guidelines for non-puzzle multicaches. For those, the first stage would be at the posted coords; subsequent stages could be any arbitrary distance away.

 

but trainlove is right: the only way to be 100% sure that the area is clear is to solve them all

[+StarBrand]

Couldn't some sort of computer program also figure out if there was a pattern that suggested that someone seemed to be trying to use the system to figure something out?

 

I have a sure fire way to do this.. Find all the Multis and Puzzles in your area.

Agreed.

[+Harry Dolphin]

Couldn't some sort of computer program also figure out if there was a pattern that suggested that someone seemed to be trying to use the system to figure something out?

 

I have a sure fire way to do this.. Find all the Multis and Puzzles in your area.

 

But, I do not keep all the intermediate waypoints and finals stored in my Gupy Gap. That would clutter up his maps. His maps are cluttered enough as it is.

[+PurpHaze]

I have a sure fire way to do this.. Find all the Multis and Puzzles in your area.

 

Whatever floats your boat. Some like them... some don't.

[+BushandBoots]

When there is no limit to how far the final of a puzzle or multi can be hidden from the posted coords, then how do you possibly find all the puzzles to hide in your own home town. It could be a puzzle from Bakersfield with a final in Fresno. We in Fresno do not want to solve all the Bakersfield puzzles or multis to hide one here. So what if 300 feet from where you want to place a cache there is a secret cache. It would be unmarked and if you plot your coords correctly nobody would stumble on it anyway. Let the puzzles suffer they're own problems. If someone finds a puzzle by accident looking for a traditional do you think they will log the puzzle? No. They will log the one they were looking for. When the owner of the one they were looking for thinks the log does not fit they're hide, then it would be deleted. If not, the puzzle still does not get found. I think I would like to hide the final of a puzzle in a posted traditional.

[+Michael]

I'm backing my San Joaquin Valley brothers and sisters on this issue. I've encountered the problem of trying to set a cache too close to the final leg of a puzzle or multi-cache several times which can be up to two miles away from the starting coords. There are many areas where a great hide might be set but I've passed them up because puzzles or multi-caches are too close. The reviewers have a hard enough job as is... especially in a state as populated as ours... to be reviewing potential cache sites. I'll just move along to another area where "what I see (on the map) is what I get" and place my caches there.

 

Please do not tell the reviewers how to do their job. It is part of their job to assist with answers to questions about cache locations. They all know it and none of they have objected to doing it. They all know its the best way at the moment. So don't worry about the reviewers being overloaded. Thats my job. Feel free to ask your reviewer for assistance. They are happy to help. You can also write me but the reviewers are faster.

 

Thanks for your concern but the kids are alright.

[Keystone]

Estimated frequency of someone writing to me to check out coordinates prior to hiding a cache: once every three months.

 

Estimated frequency of someone hiding a cache less than 528 feet from another traditional cache in my review territory: once each day.

 

I think we're worrying about the wrong problem. How about a flashing red light when someone hides a cache less than 528 feet from an existing traditional cache?

 

Really, like Michael said... it is not a problem to respond to "please check these coords" inquiries. We are happy to do it because it eases frustration later on.

[+BushandBoots]

I'm backing my San Joaquin Valley brothers and sisters on this issue. I've encountered the problem of trying to set a cache too close to the final leg of a puzzle or multi-cache several times which can be up to two miles away from the starting coords. There are many areas where a great hide might be set but I've passed them up because puzzles or multi-caches are too close. The reviewers have a hard enough job as is... especially in a state as populated as ours... to be reviewing potential cache sites. I'll just move along to another area where "what I see (on the map) is what I get" and place my caches there.

 

Please do not tell the reviewers how to do their job. It is part of their job to assist with answers to questions about cache locations. They all know it and none of they have objected to doing it. They all know its the best way at the moment. So don't worry about the reviewers being overloaded. Thats my job. Feel free to ask your reviewer for assistance. They are happy to help. You can also write me but the reviewers are faster.

 

Thanks for your concern but the kids are alright.

[+BushandBoots]

Is nobody even listening to the problem? The problem is, not everyone sits in their house and looks at a map and decides where it will be cool to make a hide. We all carry containers of different sizes, shapes, colors, magnetic or micro. We see a place that could use a cache. We make a hide. We have been around the block and know the area. We drive the 10 or so miles home and create the page. We are hoping it gets posted in time for that special person to see it and go make the grab. We then get a message that it is too close to a final stage of a puzzle. Which puzzle? Who cares? Unless you have solved all the puzzles and multis in your state or larger, how can you tell? Most cachers are not live in the field or have that time. If my coords are accurate to within 8 feet, who cares if some surprise cache is 100 feet away?

[+PurpHaze]

Please do not tell the reviewers how to do their job. It is part of their job to assist with answers to questions about cache locations. They all know it and none of they have objected to doing it. They all know its the best way at the moment. So don't worry about the reviewers being overloaded. Thats my job. Feel free to ask your reviewer for assistance. They are happy to help. You can also write me but the reviewers are faster.

 

Thanks for your concern but the kids are alright.

 

Sheesh... I don't believe I was TELLING anyone HOW to do their job. I was expressing that I know how tough a job these volunteers have... especially when inundated with new cache hides. I fully appreciate these volunteer reviewers because without them we wouldn't be able to have the fun we enjoy. Just another cryptic response from the gods to be when concerns are raised???

 

Perhaps... since this subject can be such a heated discussion... the guidelines to submitting a new cache should be updated to include all this great advice regarding submitting coordinates to a reviewer, etc. when there's the possibility of interference from a multi or puzzle cache? The guidelines address supplying additional info and how to appeal a cache but nothing regarding this discussion. Might save some from receiving the file notice of cache death???

[+KoosKoos]

Is nobody even listening to the problem? The problem is, not everyone sits in their house and looks at a map and decides where it will be cool to make a hide. We all carry containers of different sizes, shapes, colors, magnetic or micro. We see a place that could use a cache. We make a hide. We have been around the block and know the area. We drive the 10 or so miles home and create the page. We are hoping it gets posted in time for that special person to see it and go make the grab. We then get a message that it is too close to a final stage of a puzzle. Which puzzle? Who cares? Unless you have solved all the puzzles and multis in your state or larger, how can you tell? Most cachers are not live in the field or have that time. If my coords are accurate to within 8 feet, who cares if some surprise cache is 100 feet away?

 

The problem is that the guidelines state that caches should be at least 528' feet away from each other (generally speaking) to prevent confusion AND to prevent saturation of an area.

 

I never just drop a cache in the field. If I see a place worthy of a cache, I don't mind grabbing coordinates, doing my research, and returning later to place a container. If you place a cache while you're out in the field, then yes, you run the risk of being too close to another cache or stage and you might need to go back out.

[Keystone]

Perhaps... since this subject can be such a heated discussion... the guidelines to submitting a new cache should be updated to include all this great advice regarding submitting coordinates to a reviewer, etc. when there's the possibility of interference from a multi or puzzle cache? The guidelines address supplying additional info and how to appeal a cache but nothing regarding this discussion. Might save some from receiving the file notice of cache death???

The Guidelines already include an explanation of the Cache Saturation Guideline, but see my prior post -- people still hide new traditional caches 300 feet from existing traditional caches, each and every day. That is a far more prevalent problem, at least in my review territory, than caches hidden too close to multicache stages or puzzle solution coordinates. I think it demonstrates that few people actually read the guidelines. They're long and boring, and great effort is made not to make them any longer and boringer, lest even fewer people decide to take the time to read them.

 

That observation is not made to belittle the problem of proximity to a multicache or puzzle waypoint. I recognize that it's frustrating, like tiptoeing through a minefield. It's just an observation that the listing guidelines are perhaps not the best vehicle for education. Perhaps a better location for the advice to check in advance with a reviewer is in "how to hide a cache" tutorials -- both here at Geocaching.com and on people's personal sites, local forums, etc. Then maybe I'd receive more than five or six advance coord check requests per year.

[+Tequila]

Couldn't some sort of computer program also figure out if there was a pattern that suggested that someone seemed to be trying to use the system to figure something out?

 

I have a sure fire way to do this.. Find all the Multis and Puzzles in your area.

 

But, I do not keep all the intermediate waypoints and finals stored in my Gupy Gap. That would clutter up his maps. His maps are cluttered enough as it is.

 

Actually it won't clutter things. I use Points of Interest to track all of my found caches and intermediate stages. I also use POI's to track a couple of thousand nearest caches I haven't found. They don't show up on the map unless you want them to. One added bonus to this is when I am in the field and a friend calls for help, I can tell them the coordinates for a missing stage etc.

 

I live in a highly saturated area, Greater Toronto, and I have always made sure I have all of the cache locations, including puzzle stages, with me when I go out to find a new location.

[Nomex]

FWIW, I've had this similar issue with my last couple of hides, requiring one abandoned concept (e.g. the park was saturated for all intensive purposes), and some adjustment on another to avoid a nearby Trad that *looked* far enough away (darn parallax....objects in mirror may appear closer than you think)

 

Nomex ducks as he sees Michael raise his hand ready to smack him

 

Since this appears to be a California *issue*, just judging by the responses, I'll weigh in with my opinion.

 

There appears to be two sets of opinions going on here. On the one hand is the OP that suggested we should have an online Proximity checker on the site, which I believe has been answered and the current work around that is available.

 

The second opinion is that we should ignore physical intermediate Stages and Finals to Puzzles?

 

To the OP; Yes, I have a fairly open door policy for checking coordinates. As long as it's not excessive (e.g. someone trying to put together a 50 cache powertrail for instance), and it doesn't appear to be a game of *battleship* going on, I'll cheerfully answer these types of inquiries. I think I can say with a certain amount of confidence that I have maintained a 100% response rate to these types of requests. If it appears, in my judgment, that the area is Saturated, I'll usually tell people so. I usually don't give directions (e.g. N, S, E, or W), as Keystone suggested above, as I feel that might giving out too much information. Rather, if a person is bent to pursue a placement "no matter what", I usually refer them to the nearby cache owner to resolve the issue.

 

To the opinion of the second camp, I'd have to say, considering the amount of time and effort some people take to put Multi's/Puzzles together, I think I can safely say that the response from angry cache owners would probably limit my choices to something between getting "drawn and quartered" and the more traditional "tar and feathering".

 

The Guidelines are the Guidelines, and is the framework that I work within. My *wiggle* room is generally limited to "substantial natural barriers" when faced with a Proximity error. I believe that straying from this basic principle would run the risk of violating the Cardinal "Consistency" Rule that the Community so oft mentions on these Forums.

 

In conclusion, I have to say that generally speaking, the urban hides in places like San Jose, Sacramento, and God Forbid, Yuba City (...sorry Roger, I just had to say that ), are going to be tough nuts to crack to find a place to shoe horn in a cache. Nonetheless, people still find spots, and I'm more than happy to Publish them

 

Edit to add....the aforementioned Proximity problem that I mentioned at the top of my post required 20 miles of driving....Each Way! In both cases, I don't think an online Proximity Checker would have helped me since I didn't have an Internet connection in the field.

Edited July 30, 2008 by Nomex

[+kidcobalt]

Go to search, input the coords of concern and set the search area to 0.10 mi.

 

This will show all the caches within the control range, if any.

 

The only weekness would be a multi-cache.

Edited July 30, 2008 by kidcobalt

[+FunnyNose]

 

Actually it won't clutter things. I use Points of Interest to track all of my found caches and intermediate stages. I also use POI's to track a couple of thousand nearest caches I haven't found.

 

Exactly what I do. I have about 600 multis&puzzles within 10 miles of my place. I have all of the found ones loaded as a POI as a small dot color coded so I know what it is. If you are semi-competent in GSAK you can add your finds and WPs with a simple macro.

[+NHG's]

I am with BandB on this one, and with the "A system checker would not be a good thing...because it could be used for cheating" clan.

 

In my opinion, the proximity guideline, should only apply to the original location on a puzzle or multi. There are more and more people getting into geocaching, and lets face it, we have a wonderful leisure time activity in this game, and I am glad to see it all happenning. As we grow here in the "No" (fresno), there are going to be growing pains.

 

and as Michael the moderator says..."it just a game"

 

mike from:

NHG's

(new haven gangsta's)

 

p.s. I use Google Earth to check out areas...if I have the coords, and it usually works well.

[+Roaming Empire]

I too have had to move a final location of an "unknown cache" because it was 480 feet from another final location of another " unknown cache " the moderator told me the name of the cache that was already place. I solved the puzzle and found the coordinates, then moved my final location to .10 miles away (only had to move it about 75 feet). Call me old fashioned, but the way the system is now works for me, but then again, I'm not a mega-hider.

Cache-On!!!!!!!!!!!

[+Prime Suspect]

Go to search, input the coords of concern and set the search area to 0.10 mi.

 

This will show all the caches within the control range, if any.

 

The only weekness would be a multi-cache.

That's a good step #1.

 

Step #2 is to then go out to a radius of 2 miles, and see if there are any puzzles or multis that you haven't found. If so, you might want to email your Reviewer with your coordinates.

[+vaetanone]

Wow, this hobby of ours does generate discussion and suggestions! Personally, I agree with several of those who have posted, Doctor A, Bush and Boots and Purple Haze especially. I understand that the reviewers can and do let us know when we want to place a cache too close to an existing waypoint but especially when one lives in a rural area (not in Ca by the way) placing caches can involve a fair amount of driving and at the prices of gas these days.... It definitely is a consideration.

In addition, some of us are not as technically able as others and don't have all of the toys for being able to get online while in the field. We have cached with someoe who is able to look up caches while out there, make phone calls (when towers are available), send emails, etc. It is great when that can all be done but for various reasons, we can't all do those things.

To me, puzzles are more of a problem than the multi caches even though those also can present problems especially if they have numerous point. ie. a multi in our area has five stops but each one has two possible locations so that eliminates quite a lot of possible cache locations in that town. The other example is that a puzzle is within 1.5 miles of our home. I THINK I know about where it is but I haven't been able to solve the puzzle so I avoid that whole general area.

It would be nice if we could check those locations without having to "bother" the reviewer. I really appreciate the work the volunteer reviewers do and it seems that if they have to respond to many queries as to possible locations for new caches that after a while it could become onerous.

Sorry to be so long winded but figures I'd put in my two cents worth.

 

By the way we live in VA.

Edited July 31, 2008 by vaetanone

[Keystone]

It would be nice if we could check those locations without having to "bother" the reviewer. I really appreciate the work the volunteer reviewers do and it seems that if they have to respond to many queries as to possible locations for new caches that after a while it could become onerous.

Sorry to be so long winded but figures I'd put in my two cents worth.

PLEASE feel free to "bother" us reviewers, because it is no bother at all. I am only asked a few times each year for advance clearance of coordinates, yet my review territory covers two of the ten most cache-dense states in the country. I'm frankly puzzled why more people don't ask in advance.

 

You know what's more of a bother? Telling people each and every week that their traditional cache is too close to someone else's traditional cache.

 

I would much rather help someone before they hide their cache. That way, the hider isn't upset because they need to go move their cache, and I'm not sad because I have to deliver bad news. I would love it if I could publish every cache that was submitted.

[+Miragee]

The only time I had to remove a cache I placed was when I forgot about one of my own caches while placing one at a trailhead . . .

 

When I wanted to place a cache outside my normal territory, I checked the area in Google Earth and then emailed those potential locations to my Reviewer. He was glad to help and let me know there were no Puzzle Final locations or Multi Waypoints or Finals nearby.

 

Whenever I go out to place a cache, I load all the caches I have not yet found, and the caches I have found, in my GPSr so I can make sure I have enough distance from any existing caches. Now I have to remember to load my own caches in the GPSr as well . . .

[jholly]

Is nobody even listening to the problem? The problem is, not everyone sits in their house and looks at a map and decides where it will be cool to make a hide. We all carry containers of different sizes, shapes, colors, magnetic or micro. We see a place that could use a cache. We make a hide. We have been around the block and know the area. We drive the 10 or so miles home and create the page. We are hoping it gets posted in time for that special person to see it and go make the grab. We then get a message that it is too close to a final stage of a puzzle. Which puzzle? Who cares? Unless you have solved all the puzzles and multis in your state or larger, how can you tell? Most cachers are not live in the field or have that time. If my coords are accurate to within 8 feet, who cares if some surprise cache is 100 feet away?

 

Okay, lets go with this. I'm out caching, see a neat spot and drop a cache. It is only 10 feet away from yours, well outside the 8 foot circle. You keep getting SBA's or maintenance requests because the info needed for the next stage is not in the container. Pretty soon it stops though because people quit looking for your cache. I keep getting MR's because the log is is full. You know not everyone has a survey grade GPS nor are the satellites in perfect alignment every day or the sun decides to throw a hissy fit and the readings degrade. Lets keep it at 528 feet.

 

Jim

Edited July 31, 2008 by jholly

[Nomex]

I would love it if I could publish every cache that was submitted.

 

My feelings exactly

 

For me, I would much rather be *inconvenienced* at the cost of about 30 seconds of my time, than to see people wasting, sometimes hours, of their valuable time trying to relocate a cache in order to comply with the Guidelines.

 

Believe me, it really is that easy to check.

 

On a follow up side note, I did get a request from a cacher, who had read this thread and understood the concern over the plethora of hidden Additional Waypoints that folks have to deal with these days, to move his Puzzle Cache page coordinates closer to the Finals so that folks would be able see pretty readily that a Puzzle Final was nearby.

 

Although I responded back that I thought that was a nice gesture, even though he didn't have to do that. I went ahead and changed them, and thought, at least for the Urban hides, maybe that would be something helpful to the Community, particularly some of the new folks coming into the sport and trying to get their first cache approved.

[+Doctor A]

I would love it if I could publish every cache that was submitted.

 

My feelings exactly

 

For me, I would much rather be *inconvenienced* at the cost of about 30 seconds of my time, than to see people wasting, sometimes hours, of their valuable time trying to relocate a cache in order to comply with the Guidelines.

 

Believe me, it really is that easy to check.

 

On a follow up side note, I did get a request from a cacher, who had read this thread and understood the concern over the plethora of hidden Additional Waypoints that folks have to deal with these days, to move his Puzzle Cache page coordinates closer to the Finals so that folks would be able see pretty readily that a Puzzle Final was nearby.

 

Although I responded back that I thought that was a nice gesture, even though he didn't have to do that. I went ahead and changed them, and thought, at least for the Urban hides, maybe that would be something helpful to the Community, particularly some of the new folks coming into the sport and trying to get their first cache approved.

 

And I SOOOO appreciate that he did that! When I hid my few puzzle caches, I made the fake coords all within a few hundred feet of the actual location- just seemed to make sense to me- let someone know the general area they were going to be looking. And when I do hide caches, I do that search and if I am within say something like .2 of a puzzle cache, then I'll often avoid the location, fearing that the actual final location may fall too close to where I want to make a hide. I was frankly surprised to find out just how far away actual and fake coords could be. So if there was some tighter closeness between the actual coords and fake coords, that would sure help. If say the fake coords had to be within a tenth of a mile of the real coords, then I'd know what my radius was for hiding caches.

[+PurpHaze]

For me, I would much rather be *inconvenienced* at the cost of about 30 seconds of my time, than to see people wasting, sometimes hours, of their valuable time trying to relocate a cache in order to comply with the Guidelines.

 

In all honesty... until this thread and the responses it has generated from reviewers I had no idea that we could even submit potential traditional cache coords to you or Krypton to check and see if they would be too close to the final stage of a multi or puzzle cache. I will avail myself of this service in the future to save some grief.

 

On a follow up side note, I did get a request from a cacher, who had read this thread and understood the concern over the plethora of hidden Additional Waypoints that folks have to deal with these days, to move his Puzzle Cache page coordinates closer to the Finals so that folks would be able see pretty readily that a Puzzle Final was nearby.

 

That indeed, is a very nice gesture of concern from the cache owner!

 

Although I responded back that I thought that was a nice gesture, even though he didn't have to do that. I went ahead and changed them, and thought, at least for the Urban hides, maybe that would be something helpful to the Community, particularly some of the new folks coming into the sport and trying to get their first cache approved.

 

I know it would be a PITA but when dealing with urban multis and puzzles... to have a shorter leash on them would be nice. When I attempted to set out two new traditional caches along a popular walking/biking route only to have them disallowed because a puzzle cache had been placed there with its starting coords over 1-1/2 miles away it totally discouraged me from setting any more caches along that pathway. Perhaps one indicator of multi/puzzle caches in an area is a blank spot on the map and asking the question, "Why aren't there any traditional caches in this area?" and then submitting potential coords to you guys.

 

As always... thanks for the tremendous work you guys do for the rest of the caching community.

[+the hermit crabs]

If say the fake coords had to be within a tenth of a mile of the real coords, then I'd know what my radius was for hiding caches.

You still wouldn't know for sure, since the puzzle could have additional stages that go beyond that range. The same is true for multis.

 

Also, requiring the fake coords to be within .1 of the actual coords would make many puzzles way too easy to solve.

Edited August 1, 2008 by the hermit crabs

[+Miragee]

If say the fake coords had to be within a tenth of a mile of the real coords, then I'd know what my radius was for hiding caches.

You still wouldn't know for sure, since the puzzle could have additional stages that go beyond that range. The same is true for multis.

 

Also, requiring the fake coords to be within .1 of the actual coords would make many puzzles way too easy to solve.

Yup . . . a friend of mine knew a Puzzle final was on a hill where there were several other caches. By walking around in the area .1 away from the other caches, he found the container. It took awhile, but he did it.

[+BushandBoots]

Is nobody even listening to the problem? The problem is, not everyone sits in their house and looks at a map and decides where it will be cool to make a hide. We all carry containers of different sizes, shapes, colors, magnetic or micro. We see a place that could use a cache. We make a hide. We have been around the block and know the area. We drive the 10 or so miles home and create the page. We are hoping it gets posted in time for that special person to see it and go make the grab. We then get a message that it is too close to a final stage of a puzzle. Which puzzle? Who cares? Unless you have solved all the puzzles and multis in your state or larger, how can you tell? Most cachers are not live in the field or have that time. If my coords are accurate to within 8 feet, who cares if some surprise cache is 100 feet away?

 

The problem is that the guidelines state that caches should be at least 528' feet away from each other (generally speaking) to prevent confusion AND to prevent saturation of an area.

 

I never just drop a cache in the field. If I see a place worthy of a cache, I don't mind grabbing coordinates, doing my research, and returning later to place a container. If you place a cache while you're out in the field, then yes, you run the risk of being too close to another cache or stage and you might need to go back out.

 

You are taking statistics out of context. Of course there are more caches hidden too close to traditional hides because they are more prevalent. Not everyone has the equipment to track or remember where all the hides are. Even if you do, you can't know where the puzzles are hidden. If you are not good at or for that matter like puzzles you are pretty much screwed.

 

I will repeat, who cares if a puzzle gets accidentally found? You can't log a find if you don't know the name or GC#. Who get hurt if the unknown puzzle cache, I repeat, unknown puzzle cache gets found. IT IS UNKNOWN FROM WHO KNOWS WHERE OR WHO KNOWS WHO.

[+PhxChem]

I have found reviewers to be quite helpful when I have asked them to check, so I know they are willing to do that and I've used that option, but that still means I have to drive to a location and gather coordinates, even if I don't actually plant a cache right then, so it actually takes MORE effort that way, because it'll definitely take me two trips- one to scope it out and then one to go back and hide it.

 

Yes, finding a good location for a cache sometimes take effort. That's the nature of the beast.....

 

Even if there WERE an automatic system, wouldn't you have to go home to check anyway?

[ao318]

Let me start out by saying that when I have hidden a cache I have usually found all of the caches in that area prior to placing. If I haven't, I try to place it in areas that have only traditional caches to avoid this problem we are discussing.

 

Nomex is one of the reviewers in my community. I have hidden 10 geocaches so far. I have only been asked to move 1 so far and it was my fault for placing it too close to a stage of a multi cache that I had solved. The problem was that I solved the cache. Sound funny? Well the cache had questions at each stage that must be answered correctly to get the correct waypoint. If you answered wrong you got bogus coordinates and would have to find a note or small cache that told you that you answered the question incorrectly and to go back and try again. I entered in all of the correct waypoints but not the incorrect ones.

 

When Nomex notified me that I was too close to an existing cache I informed him that I had solved that cache and had given him the date when I did to verify that I wasn't searching for coordinates. He then replied with the coordinates of the bogus stage I was too close to and informed me that it was the only one near my cache placement. I then went out that evening and moved it about a 1/2 mile further down the river and relisted it and it was approved that evening.

[CoyoteRed]

I will repeat, who cares if a puzzle gets accidentally found? You can't log a find if you don't know the name or GC#. Who get hurt if the unknown puzzle cache, I repeat, unknown puzzle cache gets found. IT IS UNKNOWN FROM WHO KNOWS WHERE OR WHO KNOWS WHO.

I agree with the first part, but not the second part. Who cares if a cache get found accidentally? I mean, really?

 

The second part: caches should be marked. It doesn't really matter if a cache gets found accidentally, but you do want folks to be logging the right one.

 

The proximity rule is way too restrictive. It's a joke in terms of limiting saturation, yet causes undue angst like detailed in this and other threads. It's simply bad scheme.

• Physical cache stages are still included in the restrictions even if they are nothing more than a tag or non-cache container. Why? Only actual caches--finals or intermediate stages--should be included in the restrictions to begin with.
  
• Properly labeled caches could be much closer together. Drop the distance to 50'. If the cache folks are looking for is found, then it's all good. If a different cache is found, then it's all good and the seekers get a gimme. You could make differing distances based on relation to the other cache by size: similar caches further apart.
  
• Restrict saturation with a test that actually measures saturation: "No more than X number of caches within a certain radius." You could automate that test without giving away too much secondary information, if any.
  
• You could increase the distance based on whether the placer had found the other cache simply because he knows where the other one is and to prevent poaching the spot.
  

[+Prime Suspect]

• Physical cache stages are still included in the restrictions even if they are nothing more than a tag or non-cache container. Why? Only actual caches--finals or intermediate stages--should be included in the restrictions to begin with.
  
• Properly labeled caches could be much closer together. Drop the distance to 50'. If the cache folks are looking for is found, then it's all good. If a different cache is found, then it's all good and the seekers get a gimme. You could make differing distances based on relation to the other cache by size: similar caches further apart.
  
• Restrict saturation with a test that actually measures saturation: "No more than X number of caches within a certain radius." You could automate that test without giving away too much secondary information, if any.
  
• You could increase the distance based on whether the placer had found the other cache simply because he knows where the other one is and to prevent poaching the spot.
  

There's so much wrong with that, it's hard to know where to begin. Let's take it from the top.

• Physical cache stages are still included in the restrictions even if they are nothing more than a tag or non-cache container. Why? Only actual caches--finals or intermediate stages--should be included in the restrictions to begin with.
  

So, you think it's okay to put a multi-cache redirector 10 feet away from a completely different multi-cache's redirector? You don't see any potential problems with that?

• Properly labeled caches could be much closer together. Drop the distance to 50'. If the cache folks are looking for is found, then it's all good. If a different cache is found, then it's all good and the seekers get a gimme. You could make differing distances based on relation to the other cache by size: similar caches further apart.
  

So, if someone wants to turn their ammo can into a decon kit, they have to move it, because there's already a small cache nearby? Huh? Besides, most caches aren't labeled with the name or ID, and that's not something the reviewers can monitor. Multiple caches within the combined error zone of the hider and seeker's GPS is just a recipe for chaos.

• Restrict saturation with a test that actually measures saturation: "No more than X number of caches within a certain radius." You could automate that test without giving away too much secondary information, if any.
  

Already being done. The radius is 528 feet, and the number of caches is 1.

• You could increase the distance based on whether the placer had found the other cache simply because he knows where the other one is and to prevent poaching the spot.
  

Increase the distance because the placer found the other cache? Can't follow the logic of that.

[CoyoteRed]

There's so much wrong with that, it's hard to know where to begin. Let's take it from the top.

You're operating within a paradigm. Maybe the paradigm must change.

• Physical cache stages are still included in the restrictions even if they are nothing more than a tag or non-cache container. Why? Only actual caches--finals or intermediate stages--should be included in the restrictions to begin with.
  

So, you think it's okay to put a multi-cache redirector 10 feet away from a completely different multi-cache's redirector? You don't see any potential problems with that?

If properly labeled, no I don't. If I'm looking for a dog tag and find a bison tube with my clue then I know I've found the wrong clue. What I did find is a happy mistake that I might take advantage of later. So unless neither stage is marked or described, I don't see a problem.

• Properly labeled caches could be much closer together. Drop the distance to 50'. If the cache folks are looking for is found, then it's all good. If a different cache is found, then it's all good and the seekers get a gimme. You could make differing distances based on relation to the other cache by size: similar caches further apart.
  

So, if someone wants to turn their ammo can into a decon kit, they have to move it, because there's already a small cache nearby? Huh?

What is it about that you don't understand? They wouldn't be able to turn their regular into a small because it is too close to another small. With the present system it wouldn't be there at all. With what I'm proposing it can be there.

Besides, most caches aren't labeled with the name or ID, and that's not something the reviewers can monitor.

Why should the reviewers have such a tight control on every aspect of a cache for a different scheme to work? The present scheme doesn't have that control. A placer could say the cache is in an ammo can and it actually be in a paper bag for all the reviewer knows. The reviewer can find out when there is a problem much like the present system. "I found a cache that was not marked."

Multiple caches within the combined error zone of the hider and seeker's GPS is just a recipe for chaos.

That's what marking a cache is for. If a different cache is found, who cares as long as it's marked? It's happy mistake! They can find the other one, too. A two-fer.

 

Besides, what about caches on other sites and letterboxes? Those aren't monitored. You still have game pieces close to each other. If this sites required, or at least strongly encouraged, marking caches then if they found an unmarked cache or box then they know they've found something else other than what they were looking for.

• Restrict saturation with a test that actually measures saturation: "No more than X number of caches within a certain radius." You could automate that test without giving away too much secondary information, if any.
  

Already being done. The radius is 528 feet, and the number of caches is 1.

Which translates into around 112 in one square mile or almost 90 in a half mile radius. Some folks think that is way too high.

 

The end result is a proximity restriction that is too large, but allows a saturation that is too high.

• You could increase the distance based on whether the placer had found the other cache simply because he knows where the other one is and to prevent poaching the spot.
  

Increase the distance because the placer found the other cache? Can't follow the logic of that.

Because he already knows there is a cache nearby.

 

It all boils down rules created way back when and the unintended consequences. The above rules change would fix a few problems that has been seen in the past besides not knowing one is placing a cache too close to another one. Sure there could still be conflicts, but a lot fewer ones.

 

Folks today are running into problems with placing caches to close to finals and stages of puzzles and multis. This hobby has been existence for 8 years. Imagine the issues in another 8 years. You'd probably need to put on volunteers whose sole job is answering proximity requests if you keep the present system. The present system is as much a bandaid as the "hobby code" Groundspeak is trying get rid of. A better thought-out scheme is needed.

Edited August 4, 2008 by CoyoteRed

[+Prime Suspect]

• You could increase the distance based on whether the placer had found the other cache simply because he knows where the other one is and to prevent poaching the spot.
  

Increase the distance because the placer found the other cache? Can't follow the logic of that.

Because he already knows there is a cache nearby.

So a newbie with no finds gets to place caches closer to existing caches? HELLO, SOCK PUPPETS!

 

The current system treats everyone equally, and moving away from that would be an astoundingly bad idea.

[CoyoteRed]

• You could increase the distance based on whether the placer had found the other cache simply because he knows where the other one is and to prevent poaching the spot.
  

Increase the distance because the placer found the other cache? Can't follow the logic of that.

Because he already knows there is a cache nearby.

So a newbie with no finds gets to place caches closer to existing caches? HELLO, SOCK PUPPETS!

 

The current system treats everyone equally, and moving away from that would be an astoundingly bad idea.

Eh, you can toss that part. It was just a thought and I wasn't in love with it to begin with.

[+Michael]

Everyone is welcome to continue this thread as long as these two points are understood.

 

1: Everyone stay civil, as they have so far. Thank you.

 

2: Everyone understands that there are no plans for this type of feature to be put in place on the website. There is already a system in place and if used, it works well.

Edited August 5, 2008 by Michael

[+niraD]

So, you think it's okay to put a multi-cache redirector 10 feet away from a completely different multi-cache's redirector? You don't see any potential problems with that?

If properly labeled, no I don't. If I'm looking for a dog tag and find a bison tube with my clue then I know I've found the wrong clue. What I did find is a happy mistake that I might take advantage of later. So unless neither stage is marked or described, I don't see a problem.

FWIW, some of my favorite caches have been puzzle caches with at least one stage that was neither marked nor described. A big part of the puzzle was finding/identifying the stage, and then determining the coordinates of the next stage from it.