Takin' the challenge out of challenges/\/\/\/\/\/\/

[+infiniteMPG]

I know there's not much (short of deleting logs) that we owners can do about this, but I wanted to bounce this out there and see the general GC public's opinions. I have several paddle only caches placed along a nearby river that's a nice paddle. In an attempt to salvage some sanity a few days ago after massive manual labor at home during "vacation" time I decided to explore further upstream. I found that what I used to think was the furthest point to paddle to about 4 miles out, actually was not. This spot is an old hunting/fishing lodge that is now a local icon restaurant. I now found I could get almost another 2 miles upstream. This was a beautiful part of the river and very remote so I placed a challenge paddle-only cache to challenge other to make the 6 mile trek upstream.

 

The lodge has a small boat ramp that's listed for customers and is only used by people who head upstream from the one public boat launch in canoes, kayaks or small fishing boats to stop in for lunch or a cold one. I just got an email from someone who stated they think they can get special permission from someone they know at the lodge to launch their canoe from there. The difficulty and terrain are rated for the challenge. My gripe is that the deep cache was placed as a boating challenge from the public launch and I doubt the general caching paddling public can launch from there. Kind of the same if someone got permission a few hundred feet away to launch from someone's house, or wandered thru the woods and waded in the water to find it on foot. I discussed this with them and they understand my position to keep it a paddle challenge.

 

Another example is a cache a friend has that's an 11 mile hike (or tough mountain bike) deep to the far edge of a 5,700 acre preserve. The land on the far side of the preserve is farmland and if someone got special permission to drive thru their farmland for a little they could take this tough challenge and turn it into a PAG.

 

My gripe is I know people can do what they want but short of deleting logs, how can we word or request that the challenge is tackled and that someone doesn't shortcut it? Is it "legal" (by GC rules) to ask someone for info along the paddle to confirm that they DID the challenge? Or at the least imply that you might request some info to confirm the find? Especially for the FTF. Does that make it a puzzle or mystery cache or how else can you protect your challenges????? Would be nice if we could have options for difficulty or terrain so someone finding a way around a difficult challenge wouldn't get credit for finding a high rated cache or getting a FTF on it.

 

Opinions???

[+wesleykey]

 

My gripe is I know people can do what they want but short of deleting logs, how can we word or request that the challenge is tackled and that someone doesn't shortcut it?

 

That is easy. Make it a multi starting at the boat launch you want folks to start from. Then, have 2 or 3 stages leading you on toward the final.

[+GRANPA ALEX]

I have often, using only the GPSr & co-ords, found caches bushwhacking in from a wrong direction, only to find the cache near to a parking lot. I made it a tougher find than it was designed to be.

 

The opposite is true in your case . . . you want it to remain a challenging paddle cache and to be approached in the way that you prescribe (this is fair).

 

It would not be reasonable or fair to enforce the means to the cache by log deletion and impossible to do by 'suggestion' on the cache page.

 

But, it can be done by making it a simple multi-cache with data at each stage that gives final co-ords. This would force the means or egress that you choose . . . you could, to make it fun, make the stages individual smileys, to encourage participation.

Edited July 31, 2008 by GRANPA ALEX

[CoyoteRed]

Not matter what it would have to be something other than a traditional by the way you've laid it out. A traditional can't have any artificial restrictions on finding it. As soon as you make something else required, like any sort of confirmation, then it's not a traditional. Any sort of ALR puts it in the mystery category.

 

Now considering this, personally, I'd make it a multi and simply position the intermediate stages on alternating sides of the water and far from launch points. Just place the stages so that going to multiple launch points in more of a pain than only one.

 

To further enforce this, place the final not at the end, but closer to the beginning. They have to go all the way out to get all the clues, but have to paddle back past other, more convenient, launch points to get the final.

 

I don't think the argument applies that making it a non-traditional would get it fewer visits because you already have put certain requirements in front of the finding: the watercraft.

 

One suggestion for a stage could be a sinker, a tag, and a camoed float. Don't know the speed or water variations, but slow water that doesn't change level much could be a candidate. Might be maintenance issue, don't know, haven't tried it.

 

To make folks get out of the water put a tag up in a tree. This has worked well on some of Sissy's "Sissy" caches.

 

To prevent maintenance issues that would prevent folks from finding, double up on your clues at each stage.

1. Stage 1: put clue A and B
   
2. Clue B and C
   
3. Clue C and D
   
4. Clue D and A
   

Lose any one stage and you still have all the clues. Sure, they can skip a stage and that's the way it's designed. You'll have to add as many stages as needed to force encourage only one launch point.

 

Hint: the above scheme with the clues adjacent to each other seekers can figure out which stages they can skip. Randomize the pairing to make guessing which to skip harder. Also, the more stages you have the more stages can have problems and folks still have enough to find the cache.

 

Oh, it should be obvious the above clue scheme is not for fully linear stage multis. You need the four clues to combine to determine the location of the final.

[+Kit Fox]

I like the option of making it a multi to "Steer cachers" in the direction you want them to go. The downside to this is that your cache will get skipped more often by Least Effort Per Smiley cachers than it will be found.

Edited July 31, 2008 by Kit Fox

[+infiniteMPG]

Didn't think about making it a multi and that would be pretty easy to do. I already have the cache hidden at the extreme end of the river and it's published so wouldn't work to make that the final for a multi as anyone who PQ'ed in the last couple days would have the coords (but that could be changed). I have a couple paddle only caches along the river already and I could move this and make it a bonus (mystery) cache, too. My problem with mystery caches is that if one of the pre-bonus caches disappears then they can't find the bonus either.

 

I like the idea of the final at the launch but the problem is there is already a cache there and I doubt I could get 1/10th mile away (via land) but the launch is actually on a decent sized lake so I am sure I could find a paddle spot for it. This could be gotten around, too as someone could launch at the lodge, find this cache, load the boat up and drive to the launch and find the final, but I guess that's about the same work as doing the paddle but a lot less scenic...

 

I am thinking best bet would be use landmarks as clues along the way to get the coords to the final which will be the existing cache relocated slightly. That way I don't have to place things along the paddle trip, just go off existing things.

 

Got me thinking.... and thinking if I want to change it I need to paddle out and move it. Might just chaulk it off as lesson learned as it's still a 4 mile round trip from the lodge and pretty narrow paddling, too.

 

Is it possible to make it a mystery cache or something and let people find it but request they email me information to get credit? Like at such-and-such coords what is there or how many somethings? Is that allowed (if a non-traditional cache)?

[+Isonzo Karst]

make it a mystery cache or something and let people find it but request they email me information to get credit? Like at such-and-such coords what is there or how many somethings? Is that allowed (if a non-traditional cache)?

 

Yes, that would be an additional logging requirement, tacked onto the find. Moves it into the Mystery category.

I'm guessing that your local reviewer won't make that change if the cache has been found already, but might if it hasn't. Changing a cache type after finds changes the statistics of all previous finders. It's not a popular move with some people.

 

Multi-cache or maybe ALR are the ways to make folks go the distance, though I'm not sure why you care.

 

I like multis and longer hike/yak caches, but I enjoy figuring short-cuts too.

Indeed, I can shortcut some of my own hides, precisely because I've got access to private lands that others do not. And I've shortcut other people hides using assorted private access.

Edited July 31, 2008 by Isonzo Karst

[+infiniteMPG]

Yes, that would be an additional logging requirement, tacked onto the find. Moves it into the Mystery category. I'm guessing that your local reviewer won't make that change if the cache has been found already, but might if it hasn't. Changing a cache type after finds changes the statistics of all previous finders. It's not a popular move with some people.

6 mike yak trip in west central Florida during the rainy/stormy/lightning season probably isn't going to see a quick FTF.... but you never know with some FTF hounds around here and then again, I paddled it to place it. And for some strange reason I think my local reviewer is aware of this conversation

Multi-cache or maybe ALR are the ways to make folks go the distance, though I'm not sure why you care.

More of a curiosity then a care. If I beat myself up for a find because it's some 5/5 or something and then find out the people before me or after me jumped a fence or tresspassed somewhere or something like that and snagged it in 2 minutes I'd feel a little slighted. I like the challenge and feel good about cutting 1/8 mile off a hike or paddle because of a shortcut, but to turn an all day hike into a PAG kind of yanks the carpet out from under the owner's intent.

I like multis and longer hike/yak caches, but I enjoy figuring short-cuts too. Indeed, I can shortcut some of my own hides, precisely because I've got access to private lands that others do not. And I've shortcut other people hides using assorted private access.

I can see the point as this is a bit of a strategy game as well as a hide-and-seek game, and if someone figures a quicker way to something then I guess they had a better strategy. In most cases when I read logs of people altering their approach it's usually them making it harder and not easier. But some rich person getting air lifted to the top of the mountain by private chopper still get's 'em a smilie but I think taking credit for a 5/5 isn't too ethical.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

I like the option of making it a multi to "Steer cachers" in the direction you want them to go. The downside to this is that your cache will get skipped more often by Least Effort Per Smiley cachers than it will be found.

 

I would guess that if a cache is six miles from some recommended starting point and is only accessible by a canoe or kayak that anyone that is going to paddle those six miles isn't going to skip it because it is a multi and requires visiting a couple of preliminary waypoints. Those that are likely to bypass that challenge in some manner are probably going to skip it, but it sounds like the OP would rather those that would attempt to bypass the challenge skip it anyway.

 

Given that the terrain requirement is going to be a five due to the special equipment and skills anyway and that the difficulty requirement is unlikely to change whether it's a 2 or 6 mile paddle it's not like the person that took the "shortcut" is padding their stats in any manner and deleting the log of anyone that found some way to circumvent the intended "actual" difficulty is only going to cause problems.

 

I've always had an issue with the automatic 5 star terrain designation for caches with required a boat to access them. Consider a cache that is on an island in a slow moving river and is only 100' or so from the "mainland". While the intent of the owner might be to use a canoe or kayak to get to the island one could get a $5 inflatable raft/pool toy, swim, or even wait until winter when it's frozen over and walk across to access the cache. While "special equipment" would usually be required, someone with virtually no paddling skills could access the cache. Compare that to a cache on an island several miles from shore on the open ocean. In that case, a swim or using a cheap inflatable raft is no longer and option, and one *should* (though some might try to access it without) have the necessary skills to safefully negotiate a crossing which may include water cold enough to kill you due to hypothermia if you should capsize, tides, currents strong enough that would require navigation skills, boat handling skills to deal with 3' or higher breaking waves at the shore (at both ends), 8-10' swells, and winds high enough that just staying on course would be a challenge. Under the current terrain rating designation, both would have a 5 star rating.

[+LSUMonica]

You placed the cache and posted the coordinates --- getting there is at the discretion of the finder.

 

It doesn't matter if they swim, paddle, boat, bike, hike or walk.

 

If they manage to find the container and sign the logbook then it's a find to me!!

[+Mudfrog]

We have caches out that require work to get, if they're done in the manner i set them up. Some have been found using techniques i didn't think about but you know what, it's all good. There will most likely always be someone who can figure out another way to grab them and that is fine by me. We've done the same thing on one or two hard terrain caches, for instance, bushwhacked along the bank instead of using a boat. We've also found a few puzzle caches by using another means to get coordinates, tiral and error, and/or simply guessing. Although i didn't hear from every owner, a few of them still congratulated me on finding them.

 

On yours, if you're insistant on making people follow your terms, then the only thing i can think of is to archive the traditional and make it either a mystery or the final of a multi...

[+infiniteMPG]

On yours, if you're insistant on making people follow your terms, then the only thing i can think of is to archive the traditional and make it either a mystery or the final of a multi...

Never going to insist anyone do anything with my hides except enjoy them and hide them back correctly, but with a couple hundred hides for years I have still only deleted one log and that was for harsh language. Doubt I'll change this one but consider a lesson learned. It's still almost 2 miles one way from the shorter private launch, so it's still not easy. And if someone tries to access it from land, the only place is in the middle of a golf course and it's on the other side and steep banks and they'll probably not enjoy the rest of their game.

 

I also disagree with the automatic 5 terrain on paddle caches and I use the difficulty as a measure of the paddle. I don't mind seeing a 1.5/5 a few hundred feet from the launch, and a 5/5 that takes a half a day to reach. Makes me glad the ratings of caches aren't posted as part of a user's stats on the GC site

[Mushtang]

Would be nice if we could have options for difficulty or terrain so someone finding a way around a difficult challenge wouldn't get credit for finding a high rated cache or getting a FTF on it.

It doesn't matter what you do, the First person To Find a cache is the first person to find the cache. It's a fact that happens, not a credit to be awarded only to those that performed the way you wanted them to.

 

Even on an ALR, the FTF may get his log deleted if he didn't conform to the logging requirement, but that doesn't change the fact that he was the first one to find the cache.

[+Renegade Knight]

...Opinions???

Personally I don't really care if people find a better or quicker way to the cache. However in the same vein I do get annoyed when the Phone a Friend Network reduces a difficult hide to a 'gee I spent 30 seconds, I'll call Joe Cacher and ask what the angle is". All of the sudden a 4 difficutly that took the first finder 3 trips to find, find is 30 seconds for everone else.

 

Now Joe Cacher is a local hero and your cache is chopped liver.

 

In the end it's short circuting the intended caching expereince that is annoying us both. Our only recourse is to place caches that aren't easy to short circut.

Edited July 31, 2008 by Renegade Knight

[+Renegade Knight]

...Even on an ALR, the FTF may get his log deleted if he didn't conform to the logging requirement, but that doesn't change the fact that he was the first one to find the cache.

 

Not quite.

An NBA all star can sink baskets all day, but until the game starts he's just practicing. There are rules to play by.

Same with an ALR. If you don't meet the cache rules, you have a practice run but you don't have a find. Yeah, you found a container, but you didn't find the cache.

[+infiniteMPG]

Personally I don't really care if people find a better or quicker way to the cache. However in the same vein I do get annoyed when the Phone a Friend Network reduces a difficult hide to a 'gee I spend 30 seconds, I'll call Joe Cacher and ask what the angle is". All of the sudden a 4 difficutly that took the first finder 3 trips to find, find is 30 seconds for everone else.

Been there and seen it. Got a local puzzle cache I've had people email me quit a few times on since over the last several months my FTF is the only find. If the owner wants to make it easier then that's what they'd do, I'm not about to turn my days of number crunching and brain bustin' turn into a PAG for someone else. Now if it was my cache I might save someone from going iNsAnE by helping a tad but if it ever got circulated I'd probably not do it again.

In the end it's short circuting the intended caching expereince that is annoying us both. Our only recourse is to place caches where it's not easy to short circut.

Yup.... mutli's do serve a purpose and I enjoy putting them out. But then again one of my better camo jobs seemed to of gotten bypassed somehow when a log sounded like someone couldn't find stage 2 of 3 but somehow still found the final hmmmmmm

[+gof1]

I don't worry so much about it. If someone can figure it out what do I care. But, I have been known to encourage people to do it my way.GCXZ58

There are ways to get to this cache without the hike. Thing is I ain't gonna tell.

[Dinoprophet]

Make it a multi or don't worry about it. As a traditional, I don't see it being any different than someone finding closer parking in a park than the one the hider found (happened to me), or finding an easier solution to a puzzle. In any thread about parking coordinates, most people suggest that finding your own way is part of the hunt. If it turns out someone found an easier way to the coordinates you provided, they deserve congratulations.

[+The Jester]

Questions like this always makes me think of the climbing cache that someone found using a hot air balloon (this was a few years ago). Not at all how the owner "planned" on people finding their cache...

[+NYPaddleCacher]

Questions like this always makes me think of the climbing cache that someone found using a hot air balloon (this was a few years ago). Not at all how the owner "planned" on people finding their cache...

 

I haven't heard that one but I've seen a couple of people post logs in jest about bringing along a chain saw to retrieve a cache hidden high up in a tree.

[Mushtang]

...Even on an ALR, the FTF may get his log deleted if he didn't conform to the logging requirement, but that doesn't change the fact that he was the first one to find the cache.

 

Not quite.

An NBA all star can sink baskets all day, but until the game starts he's just practicing. There are rules to play by.

Same with an ALR. If you don't meet the cache rules, you have a practice run but you don't have a find. Yeah, you found a container, but you didn't find the cache.

I agree, there are rules. If you don't meet the cache rules then your Find shouldn't be allowed to remain on the cache page. But you did find the cache before anyone else.

 

The NBA star was still sinking baskets. Just because they didn't count in the official score nobody can argue that he wasn't sinking baskets during practice. Not getting credit in some score for something doesn't mean that the thing never occurred.

 

Someone that finds a cache first, finds it first. Just because their Find isn't allowed to remain on the cache page by the owner doesn't change the fact that he found it before anyone else found it.

 

FTF is a statement of fact. FTF doesn't mean the First To Log, First To Get Credit, or First To Meet Requirements.

[+Happy Humphrey]

If you add an ALR to try and force people to find the cache "your way", I think that it would discourage a good proportion of otherwise eager cachers from attempting it. To me, it tends to look like a cache where the owner couldn't be bothered to set/maintain some puzzle or multi-trail so went for the easy option by making up an artificial requirement. I say, make your cache non-findable without using the designed method or accept that shortcuts will be taken.

 

If you think that maintenance of a few containers along the river could be too much of a pain: how about getting some non-corroding metal tags made and nailing them to appropriate trees, stumps or posts along the way? I've seen that done quite effectively, and if well-executed it will solve all your problems and require little or no maintenance. Don't have the coordinates on them, just a codeword or number with the translation to coordinates on the cache description: that way, you can prepare them in advance without having to decide on the exact placement, and if one turns out to be inaccurate or disappears you can adjust the position/sequence without having to make a new tag.

[+Cedar Grove Seekers]

I once found a cache on an island in a small lake in a public park by merely waiting until winter and walking across the ice. The owner didn't like this and disabled the cache for the rest of the winter (guess they didn't think it through when they were placing it in the summer).

 

If you want cachers to use a similar route/means to the cache as you, then force it though a mutli, otherwise be happy that people are finding your cache their way and having fun doing it.

[+Stargazer22]

I feel that if you leave it as a traditional cache, then you can't be picky about HOW finders get their way to the cache. Be it by boat, foot, car, or helicopter, all that counts there is that they get to the location and find the cache.

 

I would either have gone with a multi to "steer" folks in the way you want them to go, or just place the cache in a location that is not easily accessible from any other direction. I have a paddling cache that I put out in April during a paddling CITO. It's a 6 mile paddle and it has yet to be found.

But it is in a very remote location and if anyone wants to try to approach it from any other direction than the water, they are going to have a hard time on their hands. I intentionally picked that spot for that reason.

 

Maybe you are too worried about finders getting permission from a person who owns private property along the river near the cache. After all, how many folks do you expect to use the private property access route? I would be surprised if there are that many geocachers who personally know someone with property with this kind of access. There may be a few out there that would do that, but surely it would be a small number of them. And if they didn't specifically say something about using that type of access, you would never know how they actually got there.

 

Multi is the way to go if you want to ensure what path cachers take to the cache.

 

Happy Caching!

[CoyoteRed]

My problem with mystery caches is that if one of the pre-bonus caches disappears then they can't find the bonus either.

You can double up on the clues like I mentioned earlier and not worry about losing one cache.

 

One scheme for someone to easily reassemble coords yet keep them fairly secure is have them multiply some numbers to get another number which becomes the coordinates. I have a tool that can take your coords and give you those numbers. The tool explained. Any form of simple calculator will do from a cheap $1 calculator to one on your cellphone or PDA. Heck, you could use pencil and paper as there is no complex math needed in the field.

[+Renegade Knight]

...FTF is a statement of fact. ..

As a fact it should be accurate.

First game point doesn't happen before the game, even if it was the perfect shot.

FTF doesnt happen until the cache is found by the rules of the cache owner.

 

As a point of fact, a peson who sinks a shot at any time can assign any number of points to that shot. They just don't matter in the real game. Just like FTF by any other set of rules by any other person other than the owner.

[CoyoteRed]

FTF doesnt happen until the cache is found by the rules of the cache owner.

You're confusing FTF with FTFBTROTCO (First To Find By The Rules Of The Cache Owner).

[+infiniteMPG]

As a fact it should be accurate. First game point doesn't happen before the game, even if it was the perfect shot.

FTF doesnt happen until the cache is found by the rules of the cache owner.

I agree that as the owner of a cache you are setting out a challenge and not following the "rules" of the challenge means the owner has the "right" to delete the log. Not saying they will or have to, but they legitimately "can". I recall a thread recently about someone logging the FTF in a park outside the normal park hours and the log was deleted. The owner was actually protecting the future of GC in their area as people violating local rules or laws to access a cache can impact the acceptance of GC in their area.

 

Same kind of goes with the cache in question GC1EP0Z "Ready Oar Knot". Nothing around it but high priced homes and a golf course. And even getting thru someone's yard you'd have some pretty dense bushwhacking and steep banks to get thru (not counting the water). The launch at the lodge is at N 27° 24.729 W 082° 26.917 and the public launch is at N 27° 25.910 W 082° 28.866 so you can see there's a big difference in the paddling from those. If I change this one I'd end up probably archiving it and moving it slightly and re-listing it as a multi. I like the tag idea, that takes a lot of the math away from someone sitting in a 'yak.

 

It kind of comes down to the fundamentals of geocaching. Is the theme of the game to simply find a container or to conquer the challenge set out by the owner? If it's just finding the container then where do you draw the line at what is acceptable to just find the container? Calling the last logger and finding out exactly where it is without doing the stages or hunting for the camoed container? I think the game is conquering the challenge as much (if not more then) making the find. I agree with taking a shortcut you figured out, or finding a little easier apporach then others (which is why I won't balk at someone launching from the lodge), or somehow stratigically thinking and figuring out your best approach is totally acceptable as long as you still hold true to the theme of the challenge.

 

If an owner posts the hint AT THE END OF THE FENCE UNDER THE ONE BIG OAK TREE then that's the challenge they put out. If another owner makes subtle hints, evil camo and tricky text then that's their challenge. Cachers are trying to tackle the cache's challenge, not just find the container which is the final stage of each challenge. Which is also why I feel the FTF is the FTF within the theme of the challenge. Not that they live next door to a cacher and saw them hiking off with an ammo can so they followed them and saw where they hid it. But then again, that's just IMHO and to each his/her own.

[+Still_Avatar]

Finding boating caches in the winter is known as "walking on water" around here and is generally considered an acceptable approach in light of the fact that the hide itself may not be winter/snow friendly. Also, not everyone can afford the cost or storage space (speaking as the owner of 3 kayaks) to have a seaworthy craft on hand at all times.

[+DocDiTTo]

If the cache is listed as traditional, the point is to get yourself to that location any way you legally can and sign the log. As long as people do so in a lawful manner, I don't see anything wrong with that. I've used some out of the ordinary means to get to caches that were probably not what the owner intended, but I got to the spot and signed the log. Sometimes coming up with a creative approach is as much fun as the hunt itself. If you really want to force people to do it your way, then make it a puzzle or a multi as other suggested. But deleting finds because someone got special permission to do it differently than you planned isn't fair to them. Find the cache, sign the log, trade items if you want. That's geocaching, and it sounds like that's what they were doing.

[+Harry Dolphin]

It kind of comes down to the fundamentals of geocaching. Is the theme of the game to simply find a container or to conquer the challenge set out by the owner? If it's just finding the container then where do you draw the line at what is acceptable to just find the container? Calling the last logger and finding out exactly where it is without doing the stages or hunting for the camoed container? I think the game is conquering the challenge as much (if not more then) making the find. I agree with taking a shortcut you figured out, or finding a little easier apporach then others (which is why I won't balk at someone launching from the lodge), or somehow stratigically thinking and figuring out your best approach is totally acceptable as long as you still hold true to the theme of the challenge.

 

The theme of the game is: Find cache, sign log, get smiley. Unless there's an ALR, that's all there is to it. Yep, I walked across the ice for the Swamp Muck cache. Hee hee hee. (I was not daring enough to find all the kayaking island caches that way, but I know someone who did.) I never solved the second stage puzzle of the semi-orthographic-Dvorak cache. I brute forced that one. (Annoyed the bejeezus out of the 2nd to find...) I've considered the chain saw for the one 45 feet up the tree, but the owner requires 'return the cache as you found it.' Doesn't come through as an ALR, but geocaching frowns on destroying the environment. Nope. The only way you can force someone to find the cache 'as you intended' is to put an ALR on it and make it a mystery cache. I saw someone hiding a cache once. I signed the log whilst he wasn't looking. He took great exception to that. I didn't 'experience the hunt' as he wanted. I withdrew my log, and no one logged an FTF on that one. (I also do not hunt his caches anymore.)

My personal ethics do not include PAF, unless I've searched extensively. And we've only used that twice.

[Mushtang]

...FTF is a statement of fact. ..

As a fact it should be accurate.

First game point doesn't happen before the game, even if it was the perfect shot.

I agree, and the First Find to remain on the cache page doesn't happen until the ALR is met.

 

FTF doesnt happen until the cache is found by the rules of the cache owner.

Not true, that is also the First Find to remain on the cache page. If it's found by someone that doesn't follow the ALR, they still found it.

 

As a point of fact, a peson who sinks a shot at any time can assign any number of points to that shot. They just don't matter in the real game.

True. But as you said, they sank the shot. Just because they didn't sink it during the game doesn't change the FACT that they sank the shot. It just means they don't deserve any official points for it.

 

Just like FTF by any other set of rules by any other person other than the owner.

Again, you're talking about First Find that will be allowed to remain on the cache page.

 

Who was the first person to walk on the moon, Neil Armstrong or Buzz Aldrin? What if NASA decided (for whatever reason) that it only counted if the astronaut was in the military, and civilian astronauts wouldn't count, and all their published literature claimed Buzz Aldrin was the FTF (First To Foot)? I don't think that would change the fact that someone else was on the surface first, no matter what the history books said.

 

When I was a kid I learned (in public school) that Christopher Columbus was the first person to discover America. For some reason the other millions of people that lived here over the years didn't count, so he got credit. Did that really make him first?

[+Michael]

FTF is first to FIND the container and sign the log. An ALR is an additional Logging requirement for the site not the log book in the cache. If the cache is out there and you find it before anyone else has you are the first person to find the cache. You sign the paper log. The ALRs are for the website. You can't use the "practice" vs "game" analogy here as it does not apply. Once the cache is put in place the game is on.

 

If you are the first to locate the container and sign the log you ARE the FTF. Its that simple. All the ALR's in the world will not change that.

 

Sheesh people its a game, its Tupperware in the woods. There should not be this much angst over a silly container in the woods with a piece of paper to sign. Why work so hard to make so it difficult?

Edited August 2, 2008 by Michael

[+Mudfrog]

FTF is first to FIND the container and sign the log. An ALR is an additional Logging requirement for the site not the log book in the cache. If the cache is out there and you find it before anyone else has you are the first person to find the cache. You sign the paper log. The ALRs are for the website. You can't use the "practice" vs "game" analogy here as it does not apply. Once the cache is put in place the game is on.

 

If you are the first to locate the container and sign the log you ARE the FTF. Its that simple. All the ALR's in the world will not change that.

 

Sheesh people its a game, its Tupperware in the woods. There should not be this much angst over a silly container in the woods with a piece of paper to sign. Why work so hard to make so it difficult?

 

Of course it's a silly game, but debating about the silly things that geocaching involves can be interesting and entertaining for those doing the debating and for those just reading. You are right in that some take this stuff way too seriously but this thread has been quite civil.

 

And while i'm here,, i have experienced something i never thought would happen. I agree with Mushtang!

[+infiniteMPG]

Of course it's a silly game, but debating about the silly things that geocaching involves can be interesting and entertaining for those doing the debating and for those just reading. You are right in that some take this stuff way too seriously but this thread has been quite civil.

A game but in many ways, far from "silly" Have logs of caches not far from interstate highways that are posted "not accessible from interstate" yet someone without the listing page pulled off, jumped a couple fences, pushed their way past cattle, and bushwhacked thru stuff they should never of had to in order to make the find (and then turn around and do it all again to return to their car). That I don't mind at all.... they made the challenge more then I intended, and wrote one of the most fun logs I have read.

 

The fundamental issue here can be shown with this example : You visit an area for a couple days for business and run a PQ and see a puzzle cache listed very near your hotel. You note that it's been found 25 times in the last couple months and the last time the day before, so when you arrive you take it on. You burn thru all the paper supplied in your room and start ripping thru your work pads and burn up the wi-fi in your room, also noting it was found a couple more times while you were there by rookie cachers with less then a handful of finds. As soon as you're out of your business meeting, you're at it again. After a frustrating couple of days wasted trying to figure it out, you log your DNF, hang your head and fly home. A couple days later you find out that the brother of the owner saw the coords writen down in his brother's bedroom. Being part of a large group of local cachers he immediately emailed the coords to all his buddies who all went out and snagged the find. Turns out the puzzle is impossible because of some mistake in the logic. Do you think back at your days of struggle and think "Oh well, the object of the game is finding the container by any means available and that's what they did"?

[+KBI]

...Opinions???

Personally I don't really care if people find a better or quicker way to the cache. However in the same vein I do get annoyed when the Phone a Friend Network reduces a difficult hide to a 'gee I spent 30 seconds, I'll call Joe Cacher and ask what the angle is". All of the sudden a 4 difficutly that took the first finder 3 trips to find, find is 30 seconds for everone else.

 

Now Joe Cacher is a local hero and your cache is chopped liver.

I don’t look at it that way. Never have.

 

In that example, if I were a bystander I would not see your cache as chopped liver; I would see it in the same way I see any outstanding and well-written crossword puzzle for which some impatient person has skipped to the next page for the solution. I would not congratulate the finder; I would pity him. I would not see Joe Cacher a hero; I would merely see him as an enabler.

 

While I may or may not lose respect for the cache seeker, I would see no reason to change my opinion of the cache hider.

 

Many of my own cache hides are designed to be mental challenges. Once a cacher realizes that someone (a previous finder) other than me (the owner) knows the secret (i.e., once it’s been found), then I figure it’s totally up to each individual cacher whether he wants to solve it himself and enjoy the satisfaction of cracking the challenge as designed, or to get help from someone else via Phone-a-Friend and thereby rob himself of that satisfaction.

 

I only provide help on my own caches when asked, but once asked I will provide exactly as much help as is requested, up to and including a total spoiler. It’s not my call to decide what other people should want out of their caching experience. They know better than I do what is fun for them.

 

Anyone can deny himself of good entertainment if he tries hard enough, or if he values the log-signing more than the hunt; that doesn’t make the cache itself chopped liver.

 

In the end it's short circuting the intended caching expereince that is annoying us both.

Watching someone cheat himself out of a potentially rewarding experience doesn’t annoy me. At worst it may cause me to pity the person. At best it may actually move me to want to congratulate them on discovering a particularly clever shortcut. Either way it doesn’t take anything away from my own caching satisfaction, and doesn’t make it any less rewarding when I read the logs of those who worked my cache as it was intended.

 

Our only recourse is to place caches that aren't easy to short circut.

Exactly. The existence of shortcuts indicates a design failure on the part of the hider, not a behavior flaw on the part of the finder.

 

It’s up to the cache hider to anticipate any shortcuts; it’s up to the cache finder whether he wants to dilute his own fun via cellphone.

[+KBI]

...Even on an ALR, the FTF may get his log deleted if he didn't conform to the logging requirement, but that doesn't change the fact that he was the first one to find the cache.

Not quite.

An NBA all star can sink baskets all day, but until the game starts he's just practicing. There are rules to play by.

Same with an ALR. If you don't meet the cache rules, you have a practice run but you don't have a find. Yeah, you found a container, but you didn't find the cache.

Any cacher who insists on seeing the idea of First Finder as anything more than a subjective, unofficial and informal concept is destined for disappointment.

[+KBI]

The fundamental issue here can be shown with this example : You visit an area for a couple days for business and run a PQ and see a puzzle cache listed very near your hotel. You note that it's been found 25 times in the last couple months and the last time the day before, so when you arrive you take it on. You burn thru all the paper supplied in your room and start ripping thru your work pads and burn up the wi-fi in your room, also noting it was found a couple more times while you were there by rookie cachers with less then a handful of finds. As soon as you're out of your business meeting, you're at it again. After a frustrating couple of days wasted trying to figure it out, you log your DNF, hang your head and fly home. A couple days later you find out that the brother of the owner saw the coords writen down in his brother's bedroom. Being part of a large group of local cachers he immediately emailed the coords to all his buddies who all went out and snagged the find. Turns out the puzzle is impossible because of some mistake in the logic. Do you think back at your days of struggle and think "Oh well, the object of the game is finding the container by any means available and that's what they did"?

Me? Absolutely. Who am I to begrudge anyone of their desire to cheat themselves out of a challenging puzzle?

 

If I become aware of a puzzle cache, it is my free-will choice whether to attempt it. Should I succeed OR fail at the puzzle, the honest judgment of whether I wasted my time depends only on whether I enjoyed the experience.

 

Why should it matter to me whether a bunch of other people decided to deny themselves the fun of working the puzzle?

 

Also: how is it even relevant that the puzzle in your example was fatally flawed? How is this analogous to your kayak cache? The possibility that any puzzle is logically flawed is a known risk in this amateur-driven hobby. Knowing this, how can I blame anyone but myself if I choose to allow my entertainment to depend on an amateur puzzle written by a stranger?

 

(Of course, if you really want to give those other ‘cheating’ finders in your analogy a hard time, the most eloquent solution would be to post a note to the cache page explaining that the puzzle is flawed and the cache impossible without help, thereby indirectly (yet loudly) highlighting the fact that every existing find log to date was accomplished the lame way. Then put the cache on your watchlist, sit back and watch as the excuses pour in.)

[+infiniteMPG]

Me? Absolutely. Who am I to begrudge anyone of their desire to cheat themselves out of a challenging puzzle?

Not so much the others cheating themselves out of a puzzle and a challenge, but yourself out of being basically cheated out of seeking the couple dozen other fun local caches that you could of been doing instead of straining your brain on a seemingly easy puzzle.

 

If I become aware of a puzzle cache, it is my free-will choice whether to attempt it. Should I succeed OR fail at the puzzle, the honest judgment of whether I wasted my time depends only on whether I enjoyed the experience.

Some people (like me for example) like to be challenged with a good puzzle cache. One really tough local puzzle I am the only person who figured it out in four months or so it's been out Phoney Music GC1BR3J and it hurt my brain getting thru that one. If a few dozen people found it while I was struggling with it I'd of worked even harger at it thinking somehow I am missing something. If that "something" I was missing was someone played with the owner's GPSr and read the coords and shared it with their friends I'd feel a little less of an accomplishment when I did figure it out because from the outside, the finds both "look" the same.

 

Why should it matter to me whether a bunch of other people decided to deny themselves the fun of working the puzzle?

Hate to bring the shoe onto my foot, but kind of like the example of armchair logging of a missing cache (that I really hate), someone cheating making a find can also make someone seek a cache that's impossible to find by the posted listing. I didn't just say that, did I?

 

Also: how is it even relevant that the puzzle in your example was fatally flawed? How is this analogous to your kayak cache? The possibility that any puzzle is logically flawed is a known risk in this amateur-driven hobby. Knowing this, how can I blame anyone but myself if I choose to allow my entertainment to depend on an amateur puzzle written by a stranger?

Guess it's a tad off topic, but seemed to follow the flow of the conversation.

 

(Of course, if you really want to give those other ‘cheating’ finders in your analogy a hard time, the most eloquent solution would be to post a note to the cache page explaining that the puzzle is flawed and the cache impossible without help, thereby indirectly (yet loudly) highlighting the fact that every existing find log to date was accomplished the lame way. Then put the cache on your watchlist, sit back and watch as the excuses pour in.)

Hehehe.... I like the devious way some people think.... hehehehe. Good one!

[+KBI]

Me? Absolutely. Who am I to begrudge anyone of their desire to cheat themselves out of a challenging puzzle?

Not so much the others cheating themselves out of a puzzle and a challenge, but yourself out of being basically cheated out of seeking the couple dozen other fun local caches that you could of been doing instead of straining your brain on a seemingly easy puzzle.

You can’t blame the cache owner or the previous finders for that. Only yourself.

 

As I explained above: When you choose to attempt a puzzle cache – or any cache for that matter – you are assuming a known risk: that you might conceivably do so at the expense of time you could have spent doing something else, or that you might fail to find the cache for reasons beyond your control.

 

You can’t blame the cache owner or previous finders for your own choices.

 

 

If I become aware of a puzzle cache, it is my free-will choice whether to attempt it. Should I succeed OR fail at the puzzle, the honest judgment of whether I wasted my time depends only on whether I enjoyed the experience.

Some people (like me for example) like to be challenged with a good puzzle cache. One really tough local puzzle I am the only person who figured it out in four months or so it's been out Phoney Music GC1BR3J and it hurt my brain getting thru that one. If a few dozen people found it while I was struggling with it I'd of worked even harger at it thinking somehow I am missing something.

What about those hypothetical find logs would have led you to conclude that they actually solved the puzzle? Didn’t you already show that there can be more than one explanation for smileys showing up on a tough-puzzle cache page – or for that matter, a tough-kayak-cache page?

 

If you drew the conclusion that you were having more trouble cracking the puzzle than those other finders, then I would say, based on your previous puzzle cache analogy, that your logic is invalid.

 

If that "something" I was missing was someone played with the owner's GPSr and read the coords and shared it with their friends I'd feel a little less of an accomplishment when I did figure it out because from the outside, the finds both "look" the same.

Why should you care how it “looks” to someone else? Is that why you solve difficult puzzles – to impress strangers? Nothing wrong with that, but there is an easy solution: simply write an explanation in your “Found it” log. No need to criticize other finders, either; just explain that you found the cache the ‘correct’ way.

 

Why should you care how someone else accomplished their find? How does that diminish your own enjoyment of the puzzle?

 

Why should it matter to me whether a bunch of other people decided to deny themselves the fun of working the puzzle?

Hate to bring the shoe onto my foot, but kind of like the example of armchair logging of a missing cache (that I really hate), someone cheating making a find can also make someone seek a cache that's impossible to find by the posted listing. I didn't just say that, did I?

I see your point, but you are now no longer talking about cache-finding shortcuts. You are now talking about outright lies.

 

If someone takes a non-kayak shortcut which allows them to sign the logbook in your traditional (non-ALR) cache container, then in my opinion you should allow the online find log to stand – but that’s your call. It’s your cache.

 

If someone provably lies about ever visiting the cache site and doesn’t sign the paper log, on the other hand, then in my opinion you should delete the find log.

 

If someone lies about solving the challenge, yet truthfully found the cache itself, then I would put that somewhere in the middle. Again, your call.

 

Either way: For a person considering your challenge to base his chances of success on the number of previous finders is invalid for a number of reasons, not the least of which is your puzzle cache analogy above. For him to blame his erroneous conclusion on the finders who happened to find the shortcut(s) is equally invalid.

 

I learned this years ago. A local cacher created a puzzle cache with a code so cryptic and obscure it was next to impossible. I’m still not so sure anyone ever solved it without a heavy dose of help from the owner. Several folks, including me, spent a great deal of time working on it just after it was published. The finds started showing up a couple weeks later, right after a local event-cache meeting. The finders described in their logs that they were given the solution to the code by the owner at the event. I reacted angrily at first, but soon realized that the owner didn’t owe me anything – and that it was illogical of me to be upset. I continued working on the puzzle without help, but eventually gave up.

 

The experience taught me that there are many routes to a cache find, and that it is my choice whether to (1) seek alternate routes, as well as whether to (2) take any of those alternate routes.

 

Ever since then, whenever I see a particularly difficult puzzle cache listing with an associated long list of find logs, I sometimes wonder how much phone-calling has been going on behind the scenes. Doesn’t affect my decision whether to attempt the puzzle. Either I can solve it, or I can’t. If I want to ask the owner directly for help or sneak a peek at his GPS waypoints – and risk cheating myself out of a more satisfying solve – then that’s between me and the owner.

[+KBI]

(Of course, if you really want to give those other ‘cheating’ finders in your analogy a hard time, the most eloquent solution would be to post a note to the cache page explaining that the puzzle is flawed and the cache impossible without help, thereby indirectly (yet loudly) highlighting the fact that every existing find log to date was accomplished the lame way. Then put the cache on your watchlist, sit back and watch as the excuses pour in.)

Hehehe.... I like the devious way some people think.... hehehehe. Good one!

[+infiniteMPG]

You can’t blame the cache owner or the previous finders for that. Only yourself. As I explained above: When you choose to attempt a puzzle cache – or any cache for that matter – you are assuming a known risk: that you might conceivably do so at the expense of time you could have spent doing something else, or that you might fail to find the cache for reasons beyond your control. You can’t blame the cache owner or previous finders for your own choices.

Very true and in the real world of geocaching, it's a personal experience so anything that happens outside our find on someone's cache is outside the realm of our personal experience. Sometimes some of us wish for a level playing field but I think our wishes would be better spent on things such as peace on earth or the winning power ball numbers

 

What about those hypothetical find logs would have led you to conclude that they actually solved the puzzle? Didn’t you already show that there can be more than one explanation for smileys showing up on a tough-puzzle cache page – or for that matter, a tough-kayak-cache page? If you drew the conclusion that you were having more trouble cracking the puzzle than those other finders, then I would say, based on your previous puzzle cache analogy, that your logic is invalid.

There was another tough puzzle cache that I solved one rainy day nursing my sick GF but when I put it in their solution code, the numbers didn't work. Emailed the cache owner who replied back that the way I was reading the code (which was pretty cut-and-dry logical and literal as us mechanical engineers tend to be) wasn't what they intended so I went back and looked at a couple other twists in the code until I found it. But the wording was really REALLY misleading. Not tricky, just not clear. Reading back thru the logs it seemed I wasn't the only one thinking so. But the puzzle was supposed to be the hard part, not how to translate your solution into coords. The owner decided to leave it as worded, can't say something... their cache, their choice... my smilie.

 

Why should you care how it “looks” to someone else? Is that why you solve difficult puzzles – to impress strangers? Nothing wrong with that, but there is an easy solution: simply write an explanation in your “Found it” log. No need to criticize other finders, either; just explain that you found the cache the ‘correct’ way.

Always try to put a story in my logs (except for totally lame caches IMHO) and don't care what others think except some other locals who we have a bit of a personal challenge with each other to figure out puzzles first. Fun between friends. Just strikes me strange when someone solves a massively difficult puzzle cache and then just puts TFTH! in the log.

 

Why should you care how someone else accomplished their find? How does that diminish your own enjoyment of the puzzle?

Not worried about it from a find and cachers point of view, more from an owner point of view. Kind of wishing to keep a level playing field on my caches, but then there I go wishing again

 

If someone takes a non-kayak shortcut which allows them to sign the logbook in your traditional (non-ALR) cache container, then in my opinion you should allow the online find log to stand – but that’s your call. It’s your cache.

I'd allow it to stand.

 

If someone provably lies about ever visiting the cache site and doesn’t sign the paper log, on the other hand, then in my opinion you should delete the find log.

Probably would if it was discovered, not sure how much time I'd put into investigating it.

 

If someone lies about solving the challenge, yet truthfully found the cache itself, then I would put that somewhere in the middle. Again, your call.

Would also let that stand as I have multi-'s that have been found by someone "guessing" some part they couldn't find or figure out and worked the final coords out anyway.

 

Either way: For a person considering your challenge to base his chances of success on the number of previous finders is invalid for a number of reasons, not the least of which is your puzzle cache analogy above. For him to blame his erroneous conclusion on the finders who happened to find the shortcut(s) is equally invalid.

Kind of pops the balloon of information people sometimes get from previous logs. Then again, whatever tools get you to the find.... just if you trust someone else's tools then that's a risk we all take. It's also a risk to trust what the owner posts, too. Then again, GC without risk would be like.... well, like boring.

 

I learned this years ago. A local cacher created a puzzle cache with a code so cryptic and obscure it was next to impossible. I’m still not so sure anyone ever solved it without a heavy dose of help from the owner. Several folks, including me, spent a great deal of time working on it just after it was published. The finds started showing up a couple weeks later, right after a local event-cache meeting. The finders described in their logs that they were given the solution to the code by the owner at the event. I reacted angrily at first, but soon realized that the owner didn’t owe me anything – and that it was illogical of me to be upset. I continued working on the puzzle without help, but eventually gave up.The experience taught me that there are many routes to a cache find, and that it is my choice whether to (1) seek alternate routes, as well as whether to (2) take any of those alternate routes. Ever since then, whenever I see a particularly difficult puzzle cache listing with an associated long list of find logs, I sometimes wonder how much phone-calling has been going on behind the scenes. Doesn’t affect my decision whether to attempt the puzzle. Either I can solve it, or I can’t. If I want to ask the owner directly for help or sneak a peek at his GPS waypoints – and risk cheating myself out of a more satisfying solve – then that’s between me and the owner.

Sometimes it's like fishing, the act of trying can be almost as much fun.... that's why they call it "fishing" and not "catching" Edited August 3, 2008 by infiniteMPG

[+Driver Carries Cache]

My gripe is I know people can do what they want but short of deleting logs, how can we word or request that the challenge is tackled and that someone doesn't shortcut it?

 

I've had exactly the same thing happen.

 

We went and found a cache just after we started caching that was up a steep fire road that I'd always seen, but had never explored. While logging our find, we had that "I wonder what's further on out this road" feeling. We returned a number of months later with new caches in hand to encourage people to walk this wonderful ridgeline road from one town to the next. I even gave detailed coordinates for parking at either end of the hike.

 

To this day, not a single person has made the hike. They all found a residential street (where I thought there was a fence) made a short jaunt to the cache locations and went back to the car.

 

Well, they didn't get the experience I wanted to provide, but they have enjoyed the caches, and I guess that will just have to be enough for me too.

 

I'd assume that requiring a specific approach would constitute an "additional logging requirement" which makes the cache something other than a traditional, which works too, but might cut down the number of visitors (which could be good or bad, depending on your perspective).

 

DCC

[+Happy Humphrey]

...

I'd assume that requiring a specific approach would constitute an "additional logging requirement" which makes the cache something other than a traditional, which works too, but might cut down the number of visitors (which could be good or bad, depending on your perspective).

We seem to have come round in a circle here: your cache should have been a multi, it's as simple as that.

[+fox-and-the-hound]

 

My gripe is I know people can do what they want but short of deleting logs, how can we word or request that the challenge is tackled and that someone doesn't shortcut it?

 

That is easy. Make it a multi starting at the boat launch you want folks to start from. Then, have 2 or 3 stages leading you on toward the final.

 

This is what we did and works great. Now the real trick is to get people to do it with a boat instead of waiting for winter so they can walk across the ice to it

 

I think short of making it a multi or mystery you will always have someone who finds a loophole somehow. Personally, I say let'm have it. They're only denying themselves the pleasure of finding it as it was given to them. Like playing solitaire, it get's boring pretty quick if you cheat yourself.