Why not require a coordinate checker for puzzle caches?

[+greenwoodturner]

When publishing a new puzzle cache, you are required to define a waypoint for the final coordinates; this makes perfect sense to me. I wonder, though, why new puzzle cache owners are not required to also define a coordinate checker link? It goes without saying that it can be very frustrating to tackle a puzzle cache, only to discover that you had an incorrect answer, so your results were out in left field; you also can't differentiate between an incorrect result, and a correct result (but a lack of geosenses). On the positive side, the majority of puzzle cache owners will respond to your emails, should you ask for validation or clarification; but there still exists those puzzle cache owners who refuse to respond to all email requests.

 

Most modern day coordinate checker programs have a built-in governor mechanism, which prevents people from continuously trying to guess the answer, so defining a coordinate checker doesn't overly increase the risks of people guessing the correct answer.

 

What do people think? Does this seem like a valid enhancement?

 

-GreenWoodTurner

Edited February 16, 2009 by greenwoodturner

[+Dgwphotos]

While I wouldn't mind seeing more puzzle caches with verifiers, sometimes it doesn't apply to the cache.

[+greenwoodturner]

While I wouldn't mind seeing more puzzle caches with verifiers, sometimes it doesn't apply to the cache.

 

Can you give me an example of the type of cache you are talking about? I would think that any cache which required you to calculate the final coordinates could make use of a coordinate checker.

[+fizzymagic]

When this was first suggested a couple years ago, I was vehemently opposed. My reason? The coordinate checkers out there required manual entry of the solution into 6 or more input boxes, a tedious and error-prone process.

 

Since then, things have gotten much better; my own code is being used at geochecker, which now requires only 2 boxes (and I would be even happier if he would let me reduce that to one!). A new checker started by a Bay Area geocacher, Certitude, also allows single-box coordinate entry. Evince is still far behind, requiring separate degrees and minutes entry.

 

But I am still mildly opposed to the idea. First, the CAPTCHA requirements make them unsuitable for people with sight disabilities. Second, the lockout policies on same are too loose and others too tight for some puzzles. And then there is my belief that most well-designed puzzles are such that when you have the correct answer you know it.

 

The great majority of puzzles I have experienced that really required a coordinate checker were pretty poorly designed. Including more than one of my own!

[+fizzymagic]

Can you give me an example of the type of cache you are talking about? I would think that any cache which required you to calculate the final coordinates could make use of a coordinate checker.

This one.

This one.

and

This one.

[+greenwoodturner]

Although I probably would not argue with you that a well-defined puzzle doesn't require a coordinate checker, since it is obvious when you've solved it, the problem is that there are many poorly defined puzzles out there. Unfortunately, when a new cache is published, the reviewers really have no way of determining whether a puzzle is well-defined or not. If there were some way to determine this, then the reviewer could require the cache owner to either disambiguate the puzzle -or- add a coordinate checker. I don't see that happening.

 

I agree with you, in some ways, that there are problems with some of the existing coordinate checker programs. Are these problems insurmountable? Probably not. Should we address that problem, by attempting to define the ultimate coordinate checker program? Might not be a bad idea! I'm a retired software engineer, so this has the potential of being a very interesting problem to tackle.

 

Getting back on topic, though, given the fact that there will always be poorly defined puzzles, I would rather see a coordinate checker required on all puzzle caches, even though I know that some subset of those really don't need one; in those cases, people might not use them anyways. There is peace of mind knowing that you have the correct coordinates, even when you are 99% confident that you solved the puzzle.

 

Just my 2-cents worth

[+flask]

I wonder, though, why new puzzle cache owners are not required to also define a coordinate checker link? It goes without saying that it can be very frustrating to tackle a puzzle cache, only to discover that you had an incorrect answer, so your results were out in left field;

 

 

What do people think? Does this seem like a valid enhancement?

 

-GreenWoodTurner

 

sometimes i'd just as well have you go stand out in left field until you get the answer right.

 

enhancement? is "enhancement" a new synonym for "unnecessary red tape"? perhaps it is used here to mean "let's force people to do things we want them to do"?

[+Lil Devil]

I don't see any need to make it a requirement. Those puzzle owners that want one will add one. The rest won't. That's fine with me.

[+greenwoodturner]

I don't see any need to make it a requirement. Those puzzle owners that want one will add one. The rest won't. That's fine with me.

 

This kind of hits the problem head on ... it's not the puzzle owners who are necessarily in the best position to decide whether a coordinate checker is needed ... it's really something which the puzzle solver needs to determine the need for. By requiring all puzzle caches to supply a coordinate checker, it then is up to the puzzle solver to decide whether or not they feel the need to check their answer. I'm sorry, but no matter how confident I am that I have solved a puzzle correctly, I always validate my answer, if a coordinate checker is supplied.

[+greenwoodturner]

I propose this as an enhancement, but yes, it would eventually become a requirement, if deemed a worthwhile change. Although you may personally view this as 'unnecessary red tape', I suspect that many cachers would beg to differ with you. Change is sometimes hard to accept; over time, I suspect that cache owners would become accustomed to dealing with this feature, just as they have become accustomed to having to define a waypoint for the final puzzle cache location.

 

If adding a coordinate checker were more tightly integrated into the puzzle cache creation process, then it would seem less and less like red-tape.

 

You may not be one of the people who would benefit from this feature, but you are probably far outnumbered by those who would benefit.

Edited February 16, 2009 by greenwoodturner

[+greenwoodturner]

Can you give me an example of the type of cache you are talking about? I would think that any cache which required you to calculate the final coordinates could make use of a coordinate checker.

This one.

This one.

and

This one.

 

Thanks for the examples! However, what would be more useful to me would be for you to provide your criteria for selecting these particular caches as ones not requiring a coordinate checker. I'm just curious why they were chosen.

 

Thanks!

[+CC]

I think it is just a convenience to the owner who does not want to have to reply to users inquiries about confirming coordinates. I built my own for my own convenience (and laziness).

[+greenwoodturner]

I think it is just a convenience to the owner who does not want to have to reply to users inquiries about confirming coordinates. I built my own for my own convenience (and laziness).

 

I guess you could view it as a convenience for the cache owner, but I also see it as a convenience for the cacher who is trying to verify their solution. When I solve a puzzle, I typically want to know ASAP if my answer is correct, especially if I'm trying to get FTF. I really appreciate cache owners who respond to my emails, but it would be a heavy, heavy burden to expect a cache owner to respond to every person who wants to verify their puzzle answer. Also, if the cache owner is unavailable for a period of time, then people are left hanging.

[jholly]

I propose this as an enhancement, but yes, it would eventually become a requirement, if deemed a worthwhile change. Although you may personally view this as 'unnecessary red tape', I suspect that many cachers would beg to differ with you. Change is sometimes hard to accept; over time, I suspect that cache owners would become accustomed to dealing with this feature, just as they have become accustomed to having to define a waypoint for the final puzzle cache location.

 

If adding a coordinate checker were more tightly integrated into the puzzle cache creation process, then it would seem less and less like red-tape.

 

You may not be one of the people who would benefit from this feature, but you are probably far outnumbered by those who would benefit.

 

Some how I just don't think Venona would agree with you.

 

Jim

[CoyoteRed]

What do people think? Does this seem like a valid enhancement?

As a creator of one of the first coordinate checking systems I think it would be a terrible idea to force cache owners to use one.

 

I created a private one from my own caches because we were getting a lot of queries. I didn't post a link to the checker on the cache page simply so folks could make a happy discovery if they checked out our website. I created a generic solution for public consumption and others took and ran with it. Others created their own from a different angle.

 

I think checkers are a great addition.

 

However, I no more think they should be forced on a cache owner than they should be forced to provide a hint. Period.

 

The option of providing automated coordinate confirmation: good idea.

 

Being forced to provide automated coordinate confirmation: terrible idea.

[+greenwoodturner]

One way to cut down on the impression that this is extra red-tape, would be if the coordinate checker was automatically generated when the puzzle cache was submitted. After all, we are already required to define a waypoint for the final coordinates, so why not have the coordinate checker link automatically generated based on the final waypoint value? This then makes it not an extra burden for the cache owner!

 

If anything, this strengthens my feelings that if a coordinate checker were integrated into the process of defining a puzzle cache, the extra work for the puzzle cache owner would be negligible, if any at all!

[+greenwoodturner]

What do people think? Does this seem like a valid enhancement?

As a creator of one of the first coordinate checking systems I think it would be a terrible idea to force cache owners to use one.

 

I created a private one from my own caches because we were getting a lot of queries. I didn't post a link to the checker on the cache page simply so folks could make a happy discovery if they checked out our website. I created a generic solution for public consumption and others took and ran with it. Others created their own from a different angle.

 

I think checkers are a great addition.

 

However, I no more think they should be forced on a cache owner than they should be forced to provide a hint. Period.

 

The option of providing automated coordinate confirmation: good idea.

 

Being forced to provide automated coordinate confirmation: terrible idea.

 

Again, if the process was automatic, then no one is really being forced to provide an automated coordinate checker ... it happens automatically and painlessly.

 

What possible reason would a cache owner have for not wanting a coordinate checker in place, especially if it required no work on their part?

[+Caching Scout]

What do people think? Does this seem like a valid enhancement?

As a creator of one of the first coordinate checking systems I think it would be a terrible idea to force cache owners to use one.

 

I created a private one from my own caches because we were getting a lot of queries. I didn't post a link to the checker on the cache page simply so folks could make a happy discovery if they checked out our website. I created a generic solution for public consumption and others took and ran with it. Others created their own from a different angle.

 

I think checkers are a great addition.

 

However, I no more think they should be forced on a cache owner than they should be forced to provide a hint. Period.

 

The option of providing automated coordinate confirmation: good idea.

 

Being forced to provide automated coordinate confirmation: terrible idea.

 

Again, if the process was automatic, then no one is really being forced to provide an automated coordinate checker ... it happens automatically and painlessly.

 

What possible reason would a cache owner have for not wanting a coordinate checker in place, especially if it required no work on their part?

There is this one cache in the area where 5 possible coords are given and clue can help narrow it down. If a coordinate checker was given, people wouldn't even need to fiqure out the clue to find the cache, just insert the coords and check.

[+Prime Suspect]

Can you give me an example of the type of cache you are talking about? I would think that any cache which required you to calculate the final coordinates could make use of a coordinate checker.

This one.

This one.

and

This one.

 

Thanks for the examples! However, what would be more useful to me would be for you to provide your criteria for selecting these particular caches as ones not requiring a coordinate checker. I'm just curious why they were chosen.

 

Thanks!

There are caches that require you to solve an on-line puzzle or do some on-line task, at the completion of which the final coordinates are revealed to you. These are puzzle type caches, but there is no need of a checker. You either have the right coordinates, or you have no coordinates.

[+greenwoodturner]

There are caches that require you to solve an on-line puzzle or do some on-line task, at the completion of which the final coordinates are revealed to you. These are puzzle type caches, but there is no need of a checker. You either have the right coordinates, or you have no coordinates.

 

In this case, I could see where a coordinate checker would be redundent ... but harmless. For this class of puzzle cache, people would simply never use the coordinate checker. But since the coordinate checker would have been added automatically (at least that's what I've proposed), it didn't require any extra work on the part of the cache owner.

Edited February 16, 2009 by greenwoodturner

[+CC]

I think it is just a convenience to the owner who does not want to have to reply to users inquiries about confirming coordinates. I built my own for my own convenience (and laziness).

 

I guess you could view it as a convenience for the cache owner, but I also see it as a convenience for the cacher who is trying to verify their solution. When I solve a puzzle, I typically want to know ASAP if my answer is correct, especially if I'm trying to get FTF. I really appreciate cache owners who respond to my emails, but it would be a heavy, heavy burden to expect a cache owner to respond to every person who wants to verify their puzzle answer. Also, if the cache owner is unavailable for a period of time, then people are left hanging.

 

In my opinion, if you are racing for a FTF puzzle cache, you have to trust your solution.

 

At least one of my puzzles could result in multiple solutions which is why I offered a way to verify your coordinates. Checksums work to a degree, but for absolute verification, you have to be willing to wait or trust your solution.

 

I mentioned elsewhere, I do not trust puzzle checker owners not to look at my final coordinates. Regardless of what they claim, once you submit the coordinates, they can save them. You own the tool, you own all the data. I don't trust reviewers either but don't have any choice since I have to put in a final location.

[+greenwoodturner]

In my opinion, if you are racing for a FTF puzzle cache, you have to trust your solution.

 

At least one of my puzzles could result in multiple solutions which is why I offered a way to verify your coordinates. Checksums work to a degree, but for absolute verification, you have to be willing to wait or trust your solution.

 

I mentioned elsewhere, I do not trust puzzle checker owners not to look at my final coordinates. Regardless of what they claim, once you submit the coordinates, they can save them. You own the tool, you own all the data. I don't trust reviewers either but don't have any choice since I have to put in a final location.

 

Regardless of whether I'm going for FTF or 100th to find, having a way to validate a solution, without requiring an email exchange with the cache owner, is a win-win in my book. It's a win for the cacher, because they don't have to wait an unknown amount of time to find out if their solution is correct; it's a win for the cache owner, because they don't have to reply to an avalanche of email requests.

 

With respect to trusting the puzzle checker owners: what if the checker was owned and managed by Groundspeak? By integrating this into the cache submission process, it would only be natural for them to own the coordinate checker. If you can't trust Groundspeak with your final coordinates, who can you trust?

[jholly]

 

Again, if the process was automatic, then no one is really being forced to provide an automated coordinate checker ... it happens automatically and painlessly.

 

What possible reason would a cache owner have for not wanting a coordinate checker in place, especially if it required no work on their part?

 

After the angst, screaming and downright site hacking over the membership gift thing in the profiles I would hate to see the reaction to this idea. We know they are there, we know how to find them, if we want to use them we will.

 

Jim

[+greenwoodturner]

After the angst, screaming and downright site hacking over the membership gift thing in the profiles I would hate to see the reaction to this idea. We know they are there, we know how to find them, if we want to use them we will.

 

Jim

 

Change is sometimes hard to accept ... I understand that. I also understand that people know about coordinate checkers, so they can currently use them if they want to. But for all of the reasons I've stated in my previous postings, I think that there is a valid reason to have a coordinate checker link automatically added to a puzzle page. I'll reiterate one of my points: it isn't necessarily the puzzle creator who is in the best position to decide the need for a coordinate checker link ... it's the other cachers who are trying to solve the puzzle!

[+tozainamboku]

There is another type of puzzle where the cache is not at the posted coordinates for which a coordinate checker would not work. These are puzzles that use clues in field to get you to final cache. Some will take to first to a location with questions to answer from which you might calculate the final location of the cache. Sometime getting to the final location will involve following letter box clues or matching up photos taken from the cache spot. Note that in order to meet the guidelines there has to be part of the hunt that involves using GPS, but you can still hide a cache where the final doesn't require having coordinates that can be verified. The reviewers will still require the final coordinates in order to check that the cache meets placement guidelines.

 

In addition there are many existing caches and most older caches do not have the final coordinates in the system. It would be impossible to go back and create coordinate checkers for these.

 

My guess is that some cachers have moved the final of a puzzle, have updated the puzzle, but didn't remember to update the final additional waypoint. I guess when people start getting wrong responses from the coordinate checker, they can contact the cache owner and get them to fix their additional waypoint.

 

Automatically putting a coordinate checker on a cache page where the user has posted a hidden final coordinate may seem like a good idea. But there are likely to be many exceptions. And while you could could make a case that having the checker is redundant or simply useless and shouldn't get in the way, it is likely going to confuse some finders who would think there must be some hidden puzzle on the page they just don't see rather than following the plain text of the description to discover the cache location. I'd rather see it left as an option.

 

Now I don't use a coordinate checker on any of my puzzle. If someone asks me, I will confirm the coordinates before they go to look for my cache. I have one puzzle where sometimes people have sent the wrong coordinates but they get something close. I can usually tell that they probably made a small arithmetic error and ask them to check their math. If they are way off, I can ask if they would like a hint on how to solve a puzzle. Coordinate checkers cannot do this. I had a coordinate checker on one of my puzzles once, but I made an error in the coordinates. Someone finally sent me their entire work of figuring out the puzzle because they couldn't get a correct response from the coordinate checker and that is how I found my error. I have no idea if anyone else gave up doing the puzzle because of the error. I removed the checker and avoid relying on them too much when I see others use them.

[+WRASTRO]

After the angst, screaming and downright site hacking over the membership gift thing in the profiles I would hate to see the reaction to this idea. We know they are there, we know how to find them, if we want to use them we will.

 

Jim

 

Change is sometimes hard to accept ... I understand that. I also understand that people know about coordinate checkers, so they can currently use them if they want to. But for all of the reasons I've stated in my previous postings, I think that there is a valid reason to have a coordinate checker link automatically added to a puzzle page. I'll reiterate one of my points: it isn't necessarily the puzzle creator who is in the best position to decide the need for a coordinate checker link ... it's the other cachers who are trying to solve the puzzle!

How about if I don't WANT to have some automated method for cachers to be able to check or solve my puzzle? Bad, bad, bad idea. If you don't want to do the work to solve my puzzle so you can find the cache that is just fine. But don't force me to provide you with the means to obtain coordinates to find my cache even if you don't bother to solve or attempt to solve my puzzle, or if you are not able to solve it. No need for change. It is absolutely the puzzle creator who is in the best position to decide the need for a coordinate checker. It is his or her puzzle! Sometimes being rewarded for the fruits of your own labor is the best reward. Talk about dumbing down the game...

[+dukeofurl01]

I don't see any need to make it a requirement. Those puzzle owners that want one will add one. The rest won't. That's fine with me.

 

 

I disagree, I think in most cases the cache owner just doesn't think of it, or they don't know how to do it.

Edited February 16, 2009 by DukeOfURL01

[jholly]

I don't see any need to make it a requirement. Those puzzle owners that want one will add one. The rest won't. That's fine with me.

 

 

I disagree, I think the cache owner just doesn't think of it, or they don't know how to do it.

 

or since you have to compute the co-ordinates out in the field the online co-ordinate checker is not worth squat and having it included is of no use. And yes, I think about them, just don't care to use them.

 

Jim

[+dukeofurl01]

I don't see any need to make it a requirement. Those puzzle owners that want one will add one. The rest won't. That's fine with me.

 

 

I disagree, I think the cache owner just doesn't think of it, or they don't know how to do it.

 

or since you have to compute the co-ordinates out in the field the online co-ordinate checker is not worth squat and having it included is of no use. And yes, I think about them, just don't care to use them.

 

Jim

 

 

Hmm, that's a very good differentiation there actually, because most puzzles I've seen are one or the other, either figure it out at home, or figure it out in the field.

[+Xaa]

As far as I see the arguments so far, the cache solvers want to verify their results before going away to find the cache. Why is that necessary? Finding a cache shouldn't be a guarantee, that would be boring. Not finding a cache every now and then makes you cherish the ones you find even more.

 

I'd say it's up to the owner to decide if he/she wants to help you this way, but making it a requirement would be a silly thing to do. If you don't like the 'risks' involved in having the wrong solution, skip the cache.

[+dukeofurl01]

As far as I see the arguments so far, the cache solvers want to verify their results before going away to find the cache. Why is that necessary? Finding a cache shouldn't be a guarantee, that would be boring. Not finding a cache every now and then makes you cherish the ones you find even more.

 

I'd say it's up to the owner to decide if he/she wants to help you this way, but making it a requirement would be a silly thing to do. If you don't like the 'risks' involved in having the wrong solution, skip the cache.

 

All of the other cache types, you know you're at least going to the correct location, because you have the coordinates. When you're at the correct location, finding or not finding the cache is not a guarantee, it's based on the difficulty of the hide, but if you're not even going to the correct location, you have no chance at all.

 

Most puzzle cache owners will check the coordinates for you if you ask them, but could possibly take 2, 3, 4, days, or even longer for some. Many people still don't even check their email every day, my own mother doesn't check her email but once a week. I think people want quicker answers than that, I know I would.

It really comes down to a simple yes or no, you have the correct coordinates or not.

[+niraD]

There are puzzles where the final location is not found using coordinates. You get to the penultimate stage with coordinates, and then some other method is used to determine the final location from there.

 

There are puzzles where the cache is located at the posted coordinates.

 

There are lots of puzzles where you either have the correct coordinates, or you have no coordinates.

 

There are puzzles with multiple solutions, and part of the challenge is figuring out which puzzle solution is the most likely location for the container, so you don't have to search them all.

 

In my experience, checksums work fine for most silly translation/decoding errors, when someone has solved the puzzle but makes a mistake while working out the coordinates. With so many types of puzzle where a coordinate checker wouldn't help, why impose a checker that allows someone to brute-force the coordinates?

 

FWIW, I've used a provided coordinate checker only once, and that was after a fruitless search at the wrong coordinates, a new solution using tools with more accuracy, and a fruitless search at the right coordinates. Okay, twice, but the other time, the puzzle was built into the "coordinate checker", so it doesn't really count.

[+Isonzo Karst]

Why not require....

 

Providing a coordinate checker on site is likely not even on the long "to do" list, which means requiring people to link to an off site checker.

That strikes me as an unlikely requirement for Groundspeak to initiate.

And the very people who design poor puzzles are oft times the people with poor html skills. They don't know how to link at all.

[+Harry Dolphin]

Thanks for the examples! However, what would be more useful to me would be for you to provide your criteria for selecting these particular caches as ones not requiring a coordinate checker. I'm just curious why they were chosen.

 

Another good example would be those requiring the finder to project a waypoint. There is no way that your GPS and mine are going to agree. Therefore, making it a requirement would be ridiculous.

[CoyoteRed]

What possible reason would a cache owner have for not wanting a coordinate checker in place, especially if it required no work on their part?

 

Here's a good answer...

Finding a cache shouldn't be a guarantee...

BINGO!

 

The best way to verify the solution of a puzzle is get in the field. Puzzles are supposed to a bit more difficult. The more stars the harder they are. Provide a 5 star difficulty puzzle and the seeker should be required to verify their solution by actually completing the cache. Why make it easier? It's supposed to be hard!

 

Personally, requiring a checker feels like a entitlement mentality. Phone-A-Friend. Questionable finds. Whining a cache is too hard. Etc. A find should not ever be made a guarantee.

 

I suppose we all are deficient in one manner or the other. I'm unable to find fun in most of the urban micros that are being put out. Others just aren't smart enough to figure out puzzles. Some are just too lazy to verify solutions in the field. ...and no one is making sure all urban micros are worth my time.

[+flask]

 

When I solve a puzzle, I typically want to know ASAP if my answer is correct, especially if I'm trying to get FTF.

 

if you are racing for FTF i especially want to leave you hanging, and allow the guys who risks the trip to the unknown spot to get the FTF he deserves.

 

 

Again, if the process was automatic, then no one is really being forced to provide an automated coordinate checker ... it happens automatically and painlessly.

 

What possible reason would a cache owner have for not wanting a coordinate checker in place, especially if it required no work on their part?

 

if the process was automatic, we would then automatically be forced to provide a checker. i don't care about whether or not it means more or less work for me; if checkers came standard and i had to do a little work to eliminate one from one of my cache listings, i'd do it in a heartbeat.

[+Maingray]

What il Devil and CR said. No forcing!

 

A side benefit of puzzle caches without co-ord checkers are the emails you get from finders who need a push or confirmation. I met many out-of and in town cachers this way, starting with simple emails about a puzzle.

[+greenwoodturner]

What il Devil and CR said. No forcing!

 

A side benefit of puzzle caches without co-ord checkers are the emails you get from finders who need a push or confirmation. I met many out-of and in town cachers this way, starting with simple emails about a puzzle.

 

If coordinate checkers were in place, you would still at least receive emails from those cachers who needed a nudge.

 

Unfortunately, not all cache owners are as considerate and responsive as you are. As a cacher who enjoys solving (and creating) puzzles, I appreciate cache owners who are willing to respond to my emails, but not everyone does.

[+greenwoodturner]

 

When I solve a puzzle, I typically want to know ASAP if my answer is correct, especially if I'm trying to get FTF.

 

if you are racing for FTF i especially want to leave you hanging, and allow the guys who risks the trip to the unknown spot to get the FTF he deserves.

 

I guess that I have to humbly disagree with you. If I solve the puzzle, but wish to verify my answer, I am no less deserving of the FTF honors than someone who doesn't verify their answer.

[+addisonbr]

I like designing puzzles. Some of my puzzles resolve to coordinates, while others do not (they might resolve to an English description of how to find the cache, for example). I don't like using geocheckers on any of them because they give an inadvertent hint to the form that the solution is going to come in.

 

I once got chastised in a Found It log by a reviewer (on a caching run) for not providing a geochecker as it had caused him anxiety in the field. I was disappointed he hadn't ever tried to get in touch with me by email. I'm pretty responsive to email.

 

There is a puzzle cache I am working on that doesn't have a geochecker and I will admit I wish this particular puzzle had one. But I'll manage.

 

Another good example would be those requiring the finder to project a waypoint. There is no way that your GPS and mine are going to agree. Therefore, making it a requirement would be ridiculous.

I said I was sorry Harry!!!

[+tozainamboku]

Why not require....

 

Providing a coordinate checker on site is likely not even on the long "to do" list, which means requiring people to link to an off site checker.

That strikes me as an unlikely requirement for Groundspeak to initiate.

And the very people who design poor puzzles are oft times the people with poor html skills. They don't know how to link at all.

I see this as an argument that is more in favor of the OP than opposed.

 

1. When placing a puzzle the hider is required to enter an additional waypoint of the the type Final Location.

 

2. If the user has specified Final Location and the cache type is Mystery/Unknown, the system can automatically add a button "Check Coordinates" that takes you to a page to enter your solution and compare this to the Final Location. The user does not need to know HTML to link to an offsite coordinate checker, it is done automatically for any Mystery/Unknown cache with hidden coordinates in a Final Location waypoint.

 

The are just too many problems with an automatic solution.

 

1. Some users may not create the final location properly. There is no requirement to use the final location type or to have just one final location. This would mean additional coding to verify the final location additional waypoint is filled in for Mystery/Unknown caches or additional work for the reviewers (albeit work that they mostly already do).

 

2. Some "puzzles" may not depend on calculating the final coordinates. They have to be entered so the reviewers can check if the placement of the final location meets the guidelines, but finders are expected to find the final location based on some work they do in the field and by solving a puzzle at home before they start.

 

3. Some puzzles caches are not at the Final Location. They may have been moved and the hider just forgot to update the Final Location.

 

4. Older caches don't always have the additional waypoints listed.

 

5. Even if the coordinate check is performed by Geocaching.com, some hiders will not trust it. What keeps someone from using the checker from brute forcing an answer? Some puzzles may be ones were the solver has figured out all but one or two digits. A coordinate checker could be easily used to get the rest of the solution at this point.

[+Prime Suspect]

Another good example would be those requiring the finder to project a waypoint. There is no way that your GPS and mine are going to agree. Therefore, making it a requirement would be ridiculous.

evince handles that rather nicely. But a simple project usually doesn't need a checker. That's just a basic GPS function - something you can perform with your GPS unit, or on a dozen different sites on the 'net. It's only when it's combined with other puzzle elements would a verification be warranted.

Edited February 16, 2009 by Prime Suspect

[+greenwoodturner]

Why not require....

 

Providing a coordinate checker on site is likely not even on the long "to do" list, which means requiring people to link to an off site checker.

That strikes me as an unlikely requirement for Groundspeak to initiate.

And the very people who design poor puzzles are oft times the people with poor html skills. They don't know how to link at all.

I see this as an argument that is more in favor of the OP than opposed.

 

1. When placing a puzzle the hider is required to enter an additional waypoint of the the type Final Location.

 

2. If the user has specified Final Location and the cache type is Mystery/Unknown, the system can automatically add a button "Check Coordinates" that takes you to a page to enter your solution and compare this to the Final Location. The user does not need to know HTML to link to an offsite coordinate checker, it is done automatically for any Mystery/Unknown cache with hidden coordinates in a Final Location waypoint.

 

The are just too many problems with an automatic solution.

 

1. Some users may not create the final location properly. There is no requirement to use the final location type or to have just one final location. This would mean additional coding to verify the final location additional waypoint is filled in for Mystery/Unknown caches or additional work for the reviewers (albeit work that they mostly already do).

 

2. Some "puzzles" may not depend on calculating the final coordinates. They have to be entered so the reviewers can check if the placement of the final location meets the guidelines, but finders are expected to find the final location based on some work they do in the field and by solving a puzzle at home before they start.

 

3. Some puzzles caches are not at the Final Location. They may have been moved and the hider just forgot to update the Final Location.

 

4. Older caches don't always have the additional waypoints listed.

 

5. Even if the coordinate check is performed by Geocaching.com, some hiders will not trust it. What keeps someone from using the checker from brute forcing an answer? Some puzzles may be ones were the solver has figured out all but one or two digits. A coordinate checker could be easily used to get the rest of the solution at this point.

 

OK ... I'll go out on a limb here, possibly exposing some ignorance on my part. With regards to your first point: anytime I've created a puzzle cache, but not created a waypoint for the final location, the cache reviewer has rejected the request ... I must provide the coordinates for the final location, in the form of a waypoint. I've always used the 'final location' waypoint type, because (a) it made sense, and ( I assumed that that was the required type. If people mis-enter their final waypoint coordinates, then that is an out-and-out mistake on their part. The reviewer is going to evaluate the new cache based on the coordinates entered by the cache owner; if bogus coordinates are entered, then it's possible that the cache should have been rejected because the real location was too close to another existing cache. As an aside, when ever I add a coordinate checker, I verify that it works using the correct coordinates, before I publish the cache.

 

With regards to your second point: puzzle caches which require work in the field still could use a coordinate checker. I've worked this kind of puzzle before, and even though my work seems correct, if I can't find the cache in the field, being able to come back home and verify that my work was correct is nice to do. Again, there is no harm here by having the coordinate checker available.

 

With regards to your third point: the only think I can say about this is that cache owners need to be more careful . Again, if the waypoints are incorrect, then reviewers cannot properly evaluate new caches, in order to determine if they are at least .1 miles apart.

 

With regards to your fourth point: I doubt that there would be anyway of going back and updating existing puzzle caches ... not saying that it's impossible ... just not very likely, especially if no guidelines were in place when these caches were defined.

 

With regards to your last point: if you can't trust Groundspeak with your final cache coordinates, then who can you trust? If your puzzle cache was defined correctly, they already have that information available in the form of a waypoint. Using brute force or guessing to solve a puzzle could certainly be a potential problem. As it is right now, people can already do this by emailing a friend or someone else who has already solved the puzzle.

[+CC]

 

Regardless of whether I'm going for FTF or 100th to find, having a way to validate a solution, without requiring an email exchange with the cache owner, is a win-win in my book. It's a win for the cacher, because they don't have to wait an unknown amount of time to find out if their solution is correct; it's a win for the cache owner, because they don't have to reply to an avalanche of email requests.

 

 

Personally, I am all for a puzzle coordinate verifier as a built in option. I am against requiring it. It should always be up to the cache owner to determine the difficulty. Inclusion of a verified decreases the difficulty in some cases. For example, if you have a puzzle with four solutions, three of which have to be eliminated by either proximity to other caches or placement restrictions, a verifier would nullify that difficulty by allowing them to simply try all four solutions.

 

I have yet to receive an avalanche of email requests. Before building my own verifier, I received just a couple per week. Not that many folks really solve puzzles. I miss the personal exchanges where people are so nice to me.

 

With respect to trusting the puzzle checker owners: what if the checker was owned and managed by Groundspeak? By integrating this into the cache submission process, it would only be natural for them to own the coordinate checker. If you can't trust Groundspeak with your final coordinates, who can you trust?

 

I don't trust the agents of Groundspeak. There have been past abuses . Luckily these are just geocache puzzles and it is merely annoying when it is abused.

 

Void of an internal solution, several folks made their own as an option. If you want to require a solution verifier for your puzzles, I'll help make something custom. I already have a prototype version that generates a unique identifier for every successful confirmation that could be required before the cache can be logged. Basically this prevents brute force finders from logging without solving or getting the solution from someone else. Keep in mind that I can't be trusted with your coordinates though

[+greenwoodturner]

This has been a very enlightening discussion! All in all, I'm still a big proponent of coordinate checkers. However, two different people have contacted me with examples of puzzle caches where having a coordinate checker would effectively allow someone to guess the answer without any effort at all ... this would not be a good situation!

 

As a compromise, it would be nice if Groundspeak integrated the ability to easily add a coordinate checker, when defining a puzzle cache. They could easily add a checkbox, enabled by default (of course ), which indicates whether a coordinate checker should be added. When this option is selected, the cache owner would need to define the 'final location' waypoint.

 

Does this completely solve the issue? No ... but it would be an improvement. Hard core cache owners, who feel that coordinate checkers are for sissies, would still refuse to use them. That's their choice, and I respect it. But cache owners who have never added one, because they didn't know how to, would now be able to have them effectively for free.

[+Lil Devil]

Personally, I am all for a puzzle coordinate verifier as a built in option. I am against requiring it.

Ditto. All of the arguments on both sides of this discussion are sound, in my opinion, except the one about "requirement." I like the idea of Groundspeak including it as an option, and having it tied in with the already-provided final waypoint. But then there should be a box to check on the submission form (or the final waypoint itself) to "provide coordinate checker" and perhaps another one to make it "fuzzy" for those where a waypoint is thrown or other inexact solution.

[+the pooks]

I've read through most of this thread, and I agree that one could easily add the co-ordinate checker as a default when listing a cache. There definitely are cachers who are not aware of this facility, or the detailed implications thereof; and having been offered it on a plate would end up using it. The hard core puzzle setters who for various (valid) reasons do not want a checker can un-click the box.

Edited February 16, 2009 by the pooks

[+DSPCgecko]

One of my most memorable finds is a puzzle cache without a coordinate checker. I made 3 trips to various locations without finding the cache. If there had been a coordinate checker, I would have simply determined that I was wrong, without out all of the effort... effort that made this cache one to remember.

 

Requiring puzzle caches to have coordinate checkers is a VERY BAD idea.

 

Giving the cache publisher an option to add a coordinate checker during the cache submission process is a VERY GOOD idea.

Edited February 16, 2009 by DSPCgecko

[+Kalkendotters]

Personally, I am all for a puzzle coordinate verifier as a built in option. I am against requiring it.

Ditto. All of the arguments on both sides of this discussion are sound, in my opinion, except the one about "requirement." I like the idea of Groundspeak including it as an option, and having it tied in with the already-provided final waypoint. But then there should be a box to check on the submission form (or the final waypoint itself) to "provide coordinate checker" and perhaps another one to make it "fuzzy" for those where a waypoint is thrown or other inexact solution.

A better option would be a checkbox on every additional waypoint to aumatically enable a coordinate-checker on that waypoint.

We do have some Mysteries here in which you have to puzzle your way to the first coordinate, after which follows a 'normal'multi cache. Set the coordinatechecker on on WP1, and everything runs automatic.

 

This also allows for some strange puzzles where you calculate 3 or 4 intermediate wp's before getting the first WP of the Multi []

[+flask]

 

When I solve a puzzle, I typically want to know ASAP if my answer is correct, especially if I'm trying to get FTF.

 

if you are racing for FTF i especially want to leave you hanging, and allow the guys who risks the trip to the unknown spot to get the FTF he deserves.

 

I guess that I have to humbly disagree with you. If I solve the puzzle, but wish to verify my answer, I am no less deserving of the FTF honors than someone who doesn't verify their answer.

 

ah, but no. the one who deserves the FTF is not the first to solve the puzzle; that's why it's called "first to find". if you are not the first one to find the cache, you are much, much less deserving of the FTF honors than the guy who actually IS the first to find it.

 

you may sit at home waiting to try more little numbers in the box, especially if the puzzle is fuzzy and the checker is not. my money and my hopes are on the guy with enough brass to go into the field without getting his hand held.

 

that's the guy who's deserving of the honor.

 

a required checker is a bad idea.

 

if one should be required in the future, here's a good way to queer the results: purposely make the last digit wrong. the stay-at-home-until-i-get-verification types will be humbly sitting behind their desks while the first finders are at the cache laughing, every blessed time.