Feature Request: Show Me Conflicts

[+Cryptosporidium-623]

When placing a cache that is conflicting with a waypoint for someone's puzzle cache, it becomes a royal pain to get in touch with the owner to verify the waypoint (since the reviewer can't / won't tell you what the conflict is exactly) or solving it yourself, either of which slows you down when all you're trying to do is get your cache out there.

 

Why can't there be a feature on geocaching.com where I can enter potential GPS coordinates for a hide and have it tell me if it conflicts with any hides or waypoints and approximate distance and direction. That would REALLY speed up the process of resolving issues.

[+KoosKoos]

Except that it's been suggested many times and people will point out that it would also enable folks to deduct unknown final coordinates through trial-and-error.

 

The best solution today is to email your local reviewer with proposed locations to see if things are clear. (or find all the multis and puzzle caches)

[+Cryptosporidium-623]

Except that it's been suggested many times and people will point out that it would also enable folks to deduct unknown final coordinates through trial-and-error.

 

The best solution today is to email your local reviewer with proposed locations to see if things are clear. (or find all the multis and puzzle caches)

 

Not if the service didn't give specifics about what the cache or waypoint was that you were conflicting with. It just said "there is a cache or waypoint less then .1 miles SW of your coordinates".

 

That's a pretty wide area to search! []

[+fizzymagic]

Except that it's been suggested many times and people will point out that it would also enable folks to deduct unknown final coordinates through trial-and-error.

 

Not if the service didn't give specifics about what the cache or waypoint was that you were conflicting with. It just said "there is a cache or waypoint less then .1 miles SW of your coordinates".

 

That's a pretty wide area to search! []

No, unfortunately it is not. With a total of about 7-10 queries I can locate the final of a puzzle given that information to within 20 feet. I know. I have done it.

 

Come to think of it, that's a good idea for a puzzle.

[+Kit Fox]

When placing a cache that is conflicting with a waypoint for someone's puzzle cache, it becomes a royal pain to get in touch with the owner to verify the waypoint (since the reviewer can't / won't tell you what the conflict is exactly) or solving it yourself, either of which slows you down when all you're trying to do is get your cache out there.

 

Why can't there be a feature on geocaching.com where I can enter potential GPS coordinates for a hide and have it tell me if it conflicts with any hides or waypoints and approximate distance and direction. That would REALLY speed up the process of resolving issues.

 

Coordinate Proximity Check, I Wanna Know... Where Your Cache Is

 

Add - Check Proximity Of Additional Waypoints

 

Feature Request: Final Coordinate Verification

[+Prime Suspect]

Every man has a scheme that will not work. - Howe's Law

[+Cryptosporidium-623]

No, unfortunately it is not. With a total of about 7-10 queries I can locate the final of a puzzle given that information to within 20 feet. I know. I have done it.

 

Come to think of it, that's a good idea for a puzzle.

 

And so, some people cheating the system (which clearly they will try to do no matter what) overrides the need for legitimate functionality that could be used by cache hiders? That's like saying to the city, don't bother putting up stop signs, because some people will right through them every single time...

Edited March 8, 2009 by daschpeeg

[+Rockin Roddy]

No, unfortunately it is not. With a total of about 7-10 queries I can locate the final of a puzzle given that information to within 20 feet. I know. I have done it.

 

Come to think of it, that's a good idea for a puzzle.

 

And so, some people cheating the system (which clearly they will try to do no matter what) overrides the need for legitimate functionality that could be used by cache hiders? That's like saying to the city, don't bother putting up stop signs, because some people will right through them every single time...

 

Actually, it's more like putting locks on doors.

[+flask]

 

And so, some people cheating the system (which clearly they will try to do no matter what) overrides the need for legitimate functionality that could be used by cache hiders? That's like saying to the city, don't bother putting up stop signs, because some people will right through them every single time...

 

well, first it's not a need.

 

in order for your stop sign analogy to be correct, there would have to be some significant OTHER traffic violation that is made possible or even made easier because the stop signs are there.

 

you are asking for a new and dubious functionality that won't just allow people to cheat multis and puzzles, but it will give them an additional and easy-to-use tool with which to do so. if you know people will try to cheat the system, why would you want to create a new way to make that easy for them?

 

it's like saying to the state "i'm too impatient to go through procedures when i come in and out of the prison. we you need to do is put a big open door over there. of course the inmates will try to escape, but they're going to do that anyway, so you might as well give me the door i'm entitled to."

[+paleolith]

Seems to me it's already too quick and easy to put out caches. Needs to be made more difficult and time-consuming so people will put more effort into it.

 

In any case, keep at least a mile from posted coordinates of puzzles and multis and usually you will be OK. Not always, but usually. However, if you've found a really great spot just begging for a cache, you'd be well advised to email the reviewer first to see if there's a reason no cache is there already. (Failure to consider reasons for lack of caches seems to commonly lead to people putting caches on NPS lands.)

Every man has a scheme that will not work. - Howe's Law

Or: Inside every complex problem there's a solution waiting to get out -- a solution which is simple, elegant, and totally wrong. (source unknown)

 

Edward

[+Cryptosporidium-623]

 

well, first it's not a need.

 

you are asking for a new and dubious functionality that won't just allow people to cheat multis and puzzles, but it will give them an additional and easy-to-use tool with which to do so. if you know people will try to cheat the system, why would you want to create a new way to make that easy for them?

 

it's like saying to the state "i'm too impatient to go through procedures when i come in and out of the prison. we you need to do is put a big open door over there. of course the inmates will try to escape, but they're going to do that anyway, so you might as well give me the door i'm entitled to."

 

Except in your version, everyone is already guilty. and ok maybe it isn't a "need" for everyone, but golly gosh gee, it should would be nice after driving 35 minutes to an area with no caches to get hit by a waypoint belonging to some puzzle cache 10 miles away...

 

Anyway, I still contend that there can be ways to implement such a feature that do not easily permit this to happen. For example:

 

1. Only allow access to it from the New cache reporting form

2. Only give access to a certain number of times per day/week/whatever

3. Don't give out too many specifics (don't mention the cache or waypoint you conflict with, the exact number of feet, heck, if you really want to be a butt about it, don't even give them a direction).

4. Maybe it's only accessible by paid members.

 

Personally, I don't feel this type of implementation certainly wouldn't be any "WORSE" than when the reviewer tells you what cache you're conflicting with but at least it would be a bit more automated.

 

Now, can we have a positive and constructive discussion of how such a thing might be doable and limiting the "cheaters" instead of jumping on the old negative-nelly/change is bad/pee in the cornflakes of the poster bandwagon? Sheesh.

 

 

Edited March 8, 2009 by daschpeeg

[+Lil Devil]

it should would be nice after driving 35 minutes to an area with no caches to get hit by a waypoint belonging to some puzzle cache 10 miles away...

If it's that far away that you don't want to go back and move it, then it was too far for you to maintain anyway. Stick to hiding caches closer to home.

 

Finals have to be within 2 miles of the false coords, not 10. I accept your apology

 

I guess I just don't see where the existing system is broken.

[jholly]

 

well, first it's not a need.

 

you are asking for a new and dubious functionality that won't just allow people to cheat multis and puzzles, but it will give them an additional and easy-to-use tool with which to do so. if you know people will try to cheat the system, why would you want to create a new way to make that easy for them?

 

it's like saying to the state "i'm too impatient to go through procedures when i come in and out of the prison. we you need to do is put a big open door over there. of course the inmates will try to escape, but they're going to do that anyway, so you might as well give me the door i'm entitled to."

 

Except in your version, everyone is already guilty. and ok maybe it isn't a "need" for everyone, but golly gosh gee, it should would be nice after driving 35 minutes to an area with no caches to get hit by a waypoint belonging to some puzzle cache 10 miles away...

 

Anyway, I still contend that there can be ways to implement such a feature that do not easily permit this to happen. For example:

 

1. Only allow access to it from the New cache reporting form

2. Only give access to a certain number of times per day/week/whatever

3. Don't give out too many specifics (don't mention the cache or waypoint you conflict with, the exact number of feet, heck, if you really want to be a butt about it, don't even give them a direction).

4. Maybe it's only accessible by paid members.

 

Personally, I don't feel this type of implementation certainly wouldn't be any "WORSE" than when the reviewer tells you what cache you're conflicting with but at least it would be a bit more automated.

 

Now, can we have a positive and constructive discussion of how such a thing might be doable and limiting the "cheaters" instead of jumping on the old negative-nelly/change is bad/pee in the cornflakes of the poster bandwagon? Sheesh.

 

 

 

Every thing you mention exists today as a person submits a cache for review. Only available from a new cache form, only available a few times a week, no specifics given out, paid members? won't happen. If people can play battleships with the reviewer to find a location of puzzle final, how can automating the process put an end to it? At least with the reviewer in the loop he/she can approve a cache that "violates" the 528 foot rule to put an end to the game and protect the final. Your system won't.

 

Jim

[+tozainamboku]

Personally, I don't feel this type of implementation certainly wouldn't be any "WORSE" than when the reviewer tells you what cache you're conflicting with but at least it would be a bit more automated.

But it would be far worse. An automated system can never know what the review knows, or work out problems with a cache placement the way a reviewer can. The .1 mile guideline is a rule of thumb. Reviews can and often do allow placement of cache closer than .1 miles from a puzzle final or a stage of multi. Often they will allow caches that are only 500 ft apart. If there are obstacles between the two caches they might allow them even a little closer. On the other hand they may know that the cache is in a park where the land manager has asked for stricter limits. The cache may be more than .1 mile from any other caches but still not allowed in that location. Automated systems will fail. People will get caches denied and complain that the automated system says there are no conflicts; others will decide not to place a cache because the automated system says there is a conflict here, and then complain when someone else gets a cache approved in the same location. The only system that works is to ask a reviewer. If you are considering hiding a cache that you do want to have to move later, email your local reviewer before hand. Sure you have to do this far enough in advance for the reviewer to get you an answer. An automated system gives you instant feed back. But which would you prefer - instant feedback that may be wrong and is no guarantee your cache will be published or having to wait but getting an answer that in much more likely to be right. (Reviewers sometimes make mistakes so no prechecking system will be perfect).

[+Prime Suspect]

Anyway, I still contend that there can be ways to implement such a feature that do not easily permit this to happen. For example:

 

1. Only allow access to it from the New cache reporting form

2. Only give access to a certain number of times per day/week/whatever

3. Don't give out too many specifics (don't mention the cache or waypoint you conflict with, the exact number of feet, heck, if you really want to be a butt about it, don't even give them a direction).

4. Maybe it's only accessible by paid members.

Well, there are 4 things that will do absolutely nothing to deter cheaters.

 

1. So what if it's only available from the New Cache form? That accomplishes nothing, since anyone can create an unlimited number of them.

 

2. People will create sock puppet accounts, just for this purpose.

 

3. Specifics are not needed. A simple Yes or No is all that's required to pinpoint a location with a few thought-out guesses (hint: binary trees are your evil friend)

 

4. That just creates a special "cheater" class. Pay $3 a month, and you too can solve puzzles the easy way!

[+Parabola]

I have to jump on the no bandwagon.

[+StarBrand]

This is much discussed and just is not a practical solution. The reviewers really are firendly and can usually spot the difference between somebody playing battleship and somebody trying to place a new cache honestly.

[+DanOCan]

Every time this comes up I am in the minority who feel it is a great idea.

 

I believe our reviewers do a great job and I don't see the issue in implementing something this simple to take some load off of them. What do I care if someone wants to "play battleship" to solve one of my puzzles? It's no skin off my nose.

 

Anyway, as I say, people with my viewpoint are normally in the minority and this isn't a democracy anyway.

[+tozainamboku]

Every time this comes up I am in the minority who feel it is a great idea.

 

I believe our reviewers do a great job and I don't see the issue in implementing something this simple to take some load off of them. What do I care if someone wants to "play battleship" to solve one of my puzzles? It's no skin off my nose.

 

Anyway, as I say, people with my viewpoint are normally in the minority and this isn't a democracy anyway.

The battleship argument isn't the real reason for not implementing this idea. There are ways to make it harder to use for that purpose. The real problem is that .1 miles is a rule of thumb. Reviewers routinely allow caches closer than .1 miles if there is a good reason for an exception - opposite sides of a river with no place to cross, top and bottom of a cliff with no direct trail up or down. They also deny caches that are more than .1 miles from other caches - powertrails or stricter requirements from the land manager. Even when the cache passes the cache saturation guideline, reviewers can deny caches for other reasons - on land they know doesn't allow caches, too close to active railroad tracks, etc. Imagine a cacher who submits a cache to the system and it reports no conflicts. He submits the cache and it gets turned down. The forums will be full of complaints that reviewers are denying legitimate caches - no matter what the reason a review gives for denying a cache. Suppose someone else submits a cache to this system and it gets turned down. A few day later someone else will submit a cache a the same location with a reviewer note explaining why it should be allowed even though the puzzle is nearby (of course to know this they would have had to solve the puzzle). This cache is approved. The person who was turned down by the automatic system will complain that the review is unfair and is allowing caches that should be turned down. The reviewers are likely going to opposed to an automated system because it will either take away from their discretion when they approve caches or will result in in angry forum posts about how the reviewers are arbitrary. In the end it will probably not save the reviewers much time.

[+BBWolf+3Pigs]

Finals have to be within 2 miles of the false coords, not 10. I accept your apology

 

Except if you have a very long multi. I have two that the finals are over 5 miles from the first stage.

[+Lil Devil]

Finals have to be within 2 miles of the false coords, not 10. I accept your apology

Except if you have a very long multi. I have two that the finals are over 5 miles from the first stage.

The post I was responding to specifically mentioned puzzles.

 

Yes, I have seen multis (and even letterboxes) dozens of miles long.

[+flask]

 

Anyway, I still contend that there can be ways to implement such a feature that do not easily permit this to happen. For example:

 

1. Only allow access to it from the New cache reporting form

2. Only give access to a certain number of times per day/week/whatever

3. Don't give out too many specifics (don't mention the cache or waypoint you conflict with, the exact number of feet, heck, if you really want to be a butt about it, don't even give them a direction).

4. Maybe it's only accessible by paid members.

 

Personally, I don't feel this type of implementation certainly wouldn't be any "WORSE" than when the reviewer tells you what cache you're conflicting with but at least it would be a bit more automated.

 

 

you don't feel it "certainly wouldn't be any worse"?

 

i could use this system to find every puzzle around me. it wouldn't be that hard. it's no trouble at all to create new cache pages or sockpuppets. additionally,if you're only going to allow access to the feature a limited number of times in order to limit cheats AND the automation doesn't give distance or direction, how useful will it be to you? you get your conflict message, but then you have to wait and play battleship for your second guess.

 

so either the "feature" makes a terrific tool for cheating, or it has such limited functionality as to be useless.

 

Now, can we have a positive and constructive discussion of how such a thing might be doable and limiting the "cheaters" instead of jumping on the old negative-nelly/change is bad/pee in the cornflakes of the poster bandwagon? Sheesh.

 

 

 

when you submit an idea to the forums for public discussion, what you're going to get is a public discussion. what you have done here is reduced legitimate concerns about your suggestion to negativism. a "constructive discussion of how such a thing might be doable" is kind of useless when the thing you want to do will be destructive in the first place.

 

the most constructive discussion of bad ideas involves quietly putting them aside.

 

if you insist on a bad idea maybe your cornflakes need to be peed in.

 

in you OP you asked

Why can't there be a feature on geocaching.com where I can enter potential GPS coordinates for a hide and have it tell me if it conflicts with any hides or waypoints and approximate distance and direction.

 

we're simply answering your question and telling you why.

[+DanOCan]

Finals have to be within 2 miles of the false coords, not 10. I accept your apology

 

Except if you have a very long multi. I have two that the finals are over 5 miles from the first stage.

 

And, let's not overlook old puzzle caches which came into being before the distance guideline was created.

[+DanOCan]

The real problem is that .1 miles is a rule of thumb. Reviewers routinely allow caches closer than .1 miles if there is a good reason for an exception - opposite sides of a river with no place to cross, top and bottom of a cliff with no direct trail up or down. They also deny caches that are more than .1 miles from other caches - powertrails or stricter requirements from the land manager. Even when the cache passes the cache saturation guideline, reviewers can deny caches for other reasons - on land they know doesn't allow caches, too close to active railroad tracks, etc.

 

Enough people have suggested this idea in the past that makes me think there must be at least some merit to the idea from a user perspective. Whether or not email requests to reviewers is enough of a workload to justify this sort of system is something I do not know. However, for purposes of discussion, I am going to operate under the assumption that this idea would reduce workloads for reviewers, at least enough to make it worthwhile to implement.

 

Now, comes the fundamental question: "What problem are we trying to solve?"

 

I don't see anyone advocating for an automated approval system. All that has been asked for is a system that allows a simple "Am I violating a known proximity rule if I place a cache at these coordinates?" As you mentioned, there are many other factors that have to be considered before a cache is approved and listed, and a system such as this wouldn't take any of those away from the reviewer -- not even the proximity issue itself. Just because a cache passed the proximity check doesn't mean it won't be denied because it is part of a power trail, just like you mentioned.

 

Will the forums be filled with people complaining that their cache isn't violating a proximity rule but it still was denied publication? Sure, but those same people typically come here now to complain that they were turned down for some reason -- and are promptly shown that their cache violates some guideline that they are supposed to have read BEFORE submitting a cache. Heck, if someone is actually taking enough time to try and verify their intended hiding spot they are more likely to have a grasp of the guidelines than many cache hiders.

 

Maybe it is because I work in I.T. I am always looking for ways to allow users to perform self-service tasks so they don't need to bother someone. Account management is one example: While I may spin up an application that allows users to reset a password on their account without calling the Help Desk [check a set of coordinates for known proximity issues], I'm not going to allow that same user the ability to create an account whenever they want [have a cache approved] without some form of verification from a manager or director [volunteer approver].

Edited March 10, 2009 by DanOCan

[+Team Black-Cat]

Whether or not email requests to reviewers is enough of a workload to justify this sort of system is something I do not know. However, for purposes of discussion, I am going to operate under the assumption that this idea would reduce workloads for reviewers, at least enough to make it worthwhile to implement.

 

 

Don't forget about the workload of the website developers. There are many other more worthwhile functions, additions and improvments to GC that they are spending their time on.

 

While everyone knows that reviewers probably have quite a workload, I have yet to hear one of them complain. Besides, reviewers are cheap labor. If things get too busy, just add another reviewer.

 

I also don't see how this feature would have saved the OP from having to go back to the site to move the cache.

 

 

 

Note to reviewers: I, in no way, think reviewers are cheap as in miserly, penny-pinching or stingy. Just cheap as in low cost to GC.

Edited March 10, 2009 by Team Black-Cat

[+tozainamboku]

Maybe it is because I work in I.T. I am always looking for ways to allow users to perform self-service tasks so they don't need to bother someone. Account management is one example: While I may spin up an application that allows users to reset a password on their account without calling the Help Desk [check a set of coordinates for known proximity issues], I'm not going to allow that same user the ability to create an account whenever they want [have a cache approved] without some form of verification from a manager or director [volunteer approver].

For some reason this reminds of a friend of mine who was hired by a very large mortgage firm and given the title of Vice President of New Technology. One of his jobs was to develop a website where users could submit online loan applications. The site used all kinds of advanced artificial intelligence to guide the user in filling out the application correctly and checking for certain errors. I'm not blaming this site for all the bad loans that company made that famously led to its failure. The applications were ultimately reviewed by a human loan officer before being approved or denied. But perhaps letting the IT guys trying to make it so that users could perform some task that might have been better done by an expert wasn't the best place to put their effort at the time.

 

Your example is also ironic (perhaps not the correct use of the word). At one time, users could change their usernames on geocaching.com by themselves. TPTB decided to take that capability away for some reason. For awhile you couldn't change your username at all, short of creating a new account. When they brought it back they decided that username change would be done by contacting GC.com via email and then having an admin make the change.

[+Prime Suspect]

Enough people have suggested this idea in the past that makes me think there must be at least some merit to the idea from a user perspective.

No, it just means that a lot of people don't have an understanding of the ramifications such a system would have. There's a difference between a bad idea, and an unworkable idea.

 

Whether or not email requests to reviewers is enough of a workload to justify this sort of system is something I do not know. However, for purposes of discussion, I am going to operate under the assumption that this idea would reduce workloads for reviewers, at least enough to make it worthwhile to implement.

I'm betting that's a false assumption. I'd be surprised if any reviewer gets more than a couple a week on average.

 

I don't see anyone advocating for an automated approval system. All that has been asked for is a system that allows a simple "Am I violating a known proximity rule if I place a cache at these coordinates?"

Which is all that's required to reveal hidden puzzle and multi locations.

[+flask]

 

I don't see anyone advocating for an automated approval system. All that has been asked for is a system that allows a simple "Am I violating a known proximity rule if I place a cache at these coordinates?"

Which is all that's required to reveal hidden puzzle and multi locations.

 

i've found caches based on less than that.

 

show of hands? everybody else who knows how to do that? c'mon. don't be shy. i'd invite you all over to my house, but i don't think i have enough room in my whole neighborhood.

Edited March 11, 2009 by flask

[+StarBrand]

I know a few reviewers and they mostly tell me that they only get a few requests per week about "hidden" waypoints that may conflict. What they see MUCH MUCH more of is confilcts with caches that are easily searchable on the site as is!!