Why not require a coordinate checker for puzzle caches?

[+Harry Dolphin]

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.

 

I don't know evince. The NGS Forward program works very nicely, if I choose to come home and use it on my puter, and go back in the field to hunt the final. I think I've done, or hunted, four 'project a waypoint' caches. If I stand on the exact point on which the cache hider was standing, I'm still having 17' of accuracy (on a good day). My point is that I will never be able to come up with the exact coordinates that the cache owner did. There would be hundreds or thousands of possible waypoints within those 17 feet of error. Requiring a coordinate checker would be meaningless for this sort of cache.

Another point is that I did an extremely nice mystery cache that required visiting four locations for information. (I've done a number of these, listed as either mystery or multi). Visiting (or checking Google Streets) for three of the four locations left me with four choices for the final. I visited all four possible final locations. (Easier than visiting the fourth location.) Coord Checker would have made it very easy to check for the final. Not visiting any of the locations would still have left me only having to check sixteen possible locations at Coord Checker. Requiring a coord checker would defeat the purpose of these sorts of caches.

[+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.

 

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.

 

Before responding to a thread, I would encourage you next time to read everything which has transpired after that thread. You would see that I have come around to a slightly different stand regarding coordinate checkers. I have agreed that requiring them is probably not the best idea, although my reasons are different from yours. Having them available as an integrated option within a puzzle cache submission page would go a long way towards meeting the goal I have been pursuing.

 

Your FTF philosophy seems a little warped to me. You assume that simply because I use a coordinate checker to validate my response, I'm doing so because my answer is fuzzy. Give me a break! From the sounds of it, you are a purist at heart ... I respect that, but I don't respect your superior attitude. It's a good thing that most geocachers I encounter know how to be civil to others. Evil for the sake of evil reflects nothing more than a severe character flaw. Enjoy the rest of your day!

[+flask]

 

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.

 

Enjoy the rest of your day!

 

oh, i was following the rest of the thread. i just couldn't let that one statement slip by unnoticed.

 

wanting to verify your answer doesn't make you less deserving. not being first does. if you're not first because you had to check your coordinates, that's your lookout.

 

pointing out your folly does not make me uncivil. your wishing me enjoyment for the rest of my day does, however, make you insincere.

 

edit to fix tags and to add: when i referred to "fuzzy" it was to the kind of cache puzzle where one or more digit might reasonably have a range rather than a single answer, and the checker demands a single answer rather than a range.

 

of course, it's probably more fun for you to assume it's an insult based on my "evil" "character flaws".

 

so much for civility.

Edited February 17, 2009 by flask

[CoyoteRed]

A couple of things:

• A checker doesn't have to rely on a single answer. You can create a fuzzy answer so anything within a certain distance of the actual answer would work.
  
• Most puzzles are for the beginning of the hunt--the unknown starting point--not for the final. (Unless the start is also the final.)
  

Forcing the use of a checker is still a bad idea, though.

[+greenwoodturner]

wanting to verify your answer doesn't make you less deserving. not being first does. if you're not first because you had to check your coordinates, that's your lookout.

 

pointing out your folly does not make me uncivil. your wishing me enjoyment for the rest of my day does, however, make you insincere.

 

of course, it's probably more fun for you to assume it's an insult based on my "evil" "character flaws".

 

so much for civility.

 

Hi Flask,

 

I never meant to imply that first-to-solve was the same as first-to-find. If I solve a puzzle first, but lose out on FTF because I took the time to use a coordinate checker, then I totally understand that I neither deserve nor can claim FTF honors.

 

And yes, I owe you an apology for my insincerity and my own uncivil tone; it was wrong of me to have responded that way and I would like to publically ask for your forgiveness. It was the case of me allowing my own character flaws to take control of my tongue/fingers. There was no excuse for it, and I'm sorry it happened.

 

GreenWoodTurner

[Skippermark]

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 agree. It's like parking coords. If someone wants to add them, they will. If not, it's up to the cacher to figure out where to go.

 

That said, if a cache doesn't have a checker, I always email for a confirmation of my answer before driving really far. Some write back, some don't and I have to decide if I want to take the chance of possibly being in the wrong spot.

[+Prime Suspect]

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.

 

I don't know evince.

That's apparent. evince is the original open-user coordinate checker, and the one that allowed fuzzy coordinates from day one. It allows the cache owner to define a "radius of correctness" so to speak. That handles projection problems.