encrypt numbers?

[+sejtam]

Shouldn't numbers in hints/logs be encrypted also?

A rot5 could be used to at least make numbers (coordinates etc) that happen to be in there not be immediately obvious.

 

the command for this would be a simple extension of the tr(1) to

 

tr A-Za-z0-9 N-ZA-Mn-za-m5-90-4

 

Of course the decryption cheatsheet would have to be extended by 5 columns also..

[+Allanon]

An easy solution available right now is to spell out the number: 1 = one, etc.

[+sejtam]

An easy solution available right now is to spell out the number: 1 = one, etc.

 

sure, but if a cache owner doesn't use that it means that someone accidentally glancing over the hints will still see the correct numbers. The whole idea of the ROT13 encryption is to allow cachers who don't want to read hints not accidentally become aware of them. That should also go for numbers. (it would be nice if it could even apply to special characters, but there is no simple solution as there is for letters and numbers)

[+Lil Devil]

The cache owner sees the cache page just like you do and if s/he is concerned about the numbers showing, then s/he can spell out the numbers.

[+tozainamboku]

In fact, if a cache owner wants, he can post an unencrypted hint by enclosing the hint in square brackets. There's not much you can do if the cache owner wants to put a spoiler in the hint or cache description. In most cases numerals in the hint are only part of the hint and even though they are not encrypted you'd have to decrypt the hint to understand the hint. e.g. 6 srrg sebz gur gerr.

Another option to spelling out the number is to use Roman numerals, especially since I = V in ROT13. Is that six feet or four feet?

[+pppingme]

One of the issues is that ROT13 is a very widely accepted standard, used way before geocaching was even a thought.

 

Although technically there is no reason that there couldn't be a ROT5 or a ROT18, they just aren't really accepted as standards. With so many users running software external to the site (with rot13 decoders built in), its not really something that would be a popular change.

 

Numbers are probably best to either spell out or express in other terms like the roman numerals suggested (not my favorite idea).

 

Even with coordinates, expressing them as numbers probably won't be an issue because realistically to most people coordinates don't mean anything. I don't know very many people that can look at a coordinate and say, oh, thats at the edge of the park, so most people still have to plug the coord's into their equipment before they have any real meaning, so encoded or not, coords are pretty useless without more work.

[+sejtam]

The cache owner sees the cache page just like you do and if s/he is concerned about the numbers showing, then s/he can spell out the numbers.

 

You don't seem to understand. It is not how the cache owner sees them, but that I as a hunter want to be protected from *accidentally* seeing them if a cache owner did not care to obscure them manually.

 

In fact, if a cache owner wants, he can post an unencrypted hint by enclosing the hint in square brackets. There's not much you can do if the cache owner wants to put a spoiler in the hint or cache description

 

Again, it's about those cache-owners who simply write cleartext into the hint and don't bother thinking further. Any number/digit in the hint I may accidentally be glancing over may tell me something even if I don't want to.

 

Any of the 'solutions' require that the owner is aware and tales care. Using ROT5 on digits would at least provide automatic protection. And no, I don't think this should be done unilaterally, but maybe a wider discussion with other caching-tool writers can lead to an agreement to fix this.

[+Lil Devil]

No, you don't understand. The cache owner has the ultimate control over how easy it is for his hint to be decoded. If he wants it to be harder, he'll spell out the numbers. If he doesn't care, he won't. Most cache owners don't care.

 

Another thing, it's really only an issue for newbies who still use printed cache pages. Once you graduate to paperless, you probably won't even see the hint at all, until you choose to see it decoded. I never even see the encoded version.

 

Edit for spilleng.

Edited February 6, 2009 by Lil Devil

[+sejtam]

No, you don't understand. The cache owner has the ultimate control over how easy it is for his hint to be decoded. If he wants it to be harder, he'll spell out the numbers. If he doesn't care, he won't. Most cache owners don't care.

 

Another thing, it's really only an issue for newbies who still use printed cache pages. Once you graduate to paperless, you probably won't even see the hint at all, until you choose to see it decoded. I never even see the encoded version.

 

Edit for spilleng.

 

Of course the cache owner has ultimate control, but the encryption feature is there protect those who don't want to see the hints from accidentally seeing them (like in the cache webpage on GC.com, where they are always shown encrypted). Encrypting numbers would help in that.

[+tozainamboku]

No, you don't understand. The cache owner has the ultimate control over how easy it is for his hint to be decoded. If he wants it to be harder, he'll spell out the numbers. If he doesn't care, he won't. Most cache owners don't care.

 

Another thing, it's really only an issue for newbies who still use printed cache pages. Once you graduate to paperless, you probably won't even see the hint at all, until you choose to see it decoded. I never even see the encoded version.

 

Edit for spilleng.

 

Of course the cache owner has ultimate control, but the encryption feature is there protect those who don't want to see the hints from accidentally seeing them (like in the cache webpage on GC.com, where they are always shown encrypted). Encrypting numbers would help in that.

Sounds like you need a Greasemonkey script to ROT5 or otherwise encrypt numbers for people who really want to protect themselves from seeing a spoiler. Maybe Lil Devil could write one

[+JBnW]

If a seeker really wanted to do without the hints, and not have them where they might be accidentally viewed, seems like they could run their PQ and select the .loc output, which would hold only the GCxxxx, coords, and cache name.

 

Just a thought.