Impossible Puzzle

[+JohnE5]

There is a 5/1 star puzzle in my area that was placed in August of 2007. Everyone has left a note asking for tiny hints and clues. Several have asked for it to be archived.

 

My question is what do you do when a puzzle cache has gone unfound or checked in years?

 

I have asked for help from professionals in the field that the puzzle is coded in and they can't make sense of it.

 

Would it be reasonable to contact my local reviewer and ask him to have the cache owner prove the puzzle can be solved? Not to us, the finders, but just to him. I just want to know the puzzle is solvable, not to be handed the answer. What are your thoughts?

[+BlueDeuce]

Cache

 

Well, I would think the reviewer would notice the SBA logs. Whether or not they choose to act on them is another story.

Edited April 6, 2009 by BlueDeuce

[+Tequila]

I had a puzzle that one cacher claimed was unsolvable, even though others had solved it.

 

I told him to feel free to contact Groundspeak and I would happily tell them how to solve it so he would know it could be solved.

[+Tequila]

There is a link to something called udub on that cache page. It takes you to a mortgage site.

 

I wouldn't think that is allowed.

[+JohnE5]

I had a puzzle that one cacher claimed was unsolvable, even though others had solved it.

 

I told him to feel free to contact Groundspeak and I would happily tell them how to solve it so he would know it could be solved.

The cache I refer to in this thread has never been found. Only one person has ever claimed to solve it and they live on the East coast. That seems pretty convenient if you ask me. Only a continent keeps him from proving he has solved it.

[+JohnE5]

Double Post.

Edited April 6, 2009 by JohnE5

[+fizzymagic]

There is a 5/1 star puzzle in my area that was placed in August of 2007.

 

Two comments: first, it is pretty funny that the cache hider makes fun of the intelligence of the seekers but can't manage to spell "discreet" properly.

 

Second, we had a puzzle cache in the Bay Area a few years ago that was actually never even placed by the owner. He was so confident that the puzzle would never be solved that he never even placed the container. When we actually went and solved it, the container suddenly and mysteriously "went missing." It was pretty funny, actually.

 

Unless there is some very nice spot for a cache nearby, just put it on your ignore list.

Edited April 6, 2009 by fizzymagic

[knowschad]

What makes everyone so sure that the barcodes are not simply red herrings and that the real puzzle is something else, perhaps in the text? And why the two sizes of the barcode? Why the light and dark shading of the text? Why the word, "Demo" on the barcodes? What's up with the udub link and image?

 

Seeing the clue "look beyond the stars", has anyone tried adding asterisk delimeters to the barcode as in Code3 of 9 ?

Edited April 6, 2009 by knowschad

[+JohnE5]

I started this thread to ask if I should get the reviewer to have the cache owner prove it is solvable. Not to solve it here.

 

But I have looked at all sides of it and can't find anything.

[+BlueDeuce]

It certainly wouldn't be wrong to simply ask a reviewer's opinion about the cache. But unless you can prove it's unsolvable I can't guarantee they are going to much about it.

[+markandsandy]

I don't have time to spend completely solving it, but in just a few minutes time I identified which barcode type it was, and the part I have read makes sense. My bet is that by the end of the day someone in this thread will have a solution.

[+WeightMan]

I started this thread to ask if I should get the reviewer to have the cache owner prove it is solvable. Not to solve it here.

 

But I have looked at all sides of it and can't find anything.

As I understand the guidelines for submission, the reviewer should have been told how to solve the puzzle before it was approved for listing. At least that was required for the few puzzle caches I placed after we were required to put the final coords in an additional waypoint.

[+Tequila]

I started this thread to ask if I should get the reviewer to have the cache owner prove it is solvable. Not to solve it here.

 

But I have looked at all sides of it and can't find anything.

As I understand the guidelines for submission, the reviewer should have been told how to solve the puzzle before it was approved for listing. At least that was required for the few puzzle caches I placed after we were required to put the final coords in an additional waypoint.

 

My local reviewer doesn't ask for the solution.

[+Dr. House]

I started this thread to ask if I should get the reviewer to have the cache owner prove it is solvable. Not to solve it here.

 

But I have looked at all sides of it and can't find anything.

As I understand the guidelines for submission, the reviewer should have been told how to solve the puzzle before it was approved for listing. At least that was required for the few puzzle caches I placed after we were required to put the final coords in an additional waypoint.

 

My local reviewer doesn't ask for the solution.

 

Ditto. I think that as a reviewer, I wouldn't want to miss out on the fun that a good puzzler can bring me. Knowing how to solve it would take away from the challenge.

 

That being said, once I received a couple of SBA's, I may wish to question the CO for that answer. I wouldn't be surprised if this is the case in this scenario.

 

BTW, that does seem like a good one, so good luck to you in figuring it out.

[knowschad]

 

Ditto. I think that as a reviewer, I wouldn't want to miss out on the fun that a good puzzler can bring me. Knowing how to solve it would take away from the challenge.

 

Puzzle caches and multis are not much of a challenge to reviewers. They already know exactly where the final is.

[+JohnE5]

I don't have time to spend completely solving it, but in just a few minutes time I identified which barcode type it was, and the part I have read makes sense. My bet is that by the end of the day someone in this thread will have a solution.

Your doing something better than the people that make barcode reading software then. I sent the pics to three companies. None could read it. They told me it looks like a mix of two types of barcodes.

 

What software were you using?

[+Dr. House]

 

Ditto. I think that as a reviewer, I wouldn't want to miss out on the fun that a good puzzler can bring me. Knowing how to solve it would take away from the challenge.

 

Puzzle caches and multis are not much of a challenge to reviewers. They already know exactly where the final is.

 

Absolutely agreed! FWIW, I'd obviously still prefer to say that I found it by the intended means rather than opening the waypoints.

[+BlueDeuce]

What software were you using?

 

I started this thread to ask if I should get the reviewer to have the cache owner prove it is solvable. Not to solve it here.

 

tsk, tsk.

[Clan Riffster]

What I find bizarre is that some entitlement junkie actually filed an SBA on the cache.

The owner is still an active cacher, and they have no evidence that the cache is in place.

Just because they, (as well as me), aren't bright enough to solve a puzzle doesn't warrant the posting of an SBA, in my book.

I can just see their justification:

"Dear Groundspeak. I are dumber than a bag of hammers. Can you plees arkive any puzzel caches harder than a 2?

Thank you!

-Clan Riffster"

[+JohnE5]

What I find bizarre is that some entitlement junkie actually filed an SBA on the cache.

The owner is still an active cacher, and they have no evidence that the cache is in place.

Just because they, (as well as me), aren't bright enough to solve a puzzle doesn't warrant the posting of an SBA, in my book.

I can just see their justification:

"Dear Groundspeak. I are dumber than a bag of hammers. Can you plees arkive any puzzel caches harder than a 2?

Thank you!

-Clan Riffster"

I believe finding the cache the way it's meant to be found is the only way to do it. I can't believe that there are hundreds of thousands of people within 60 miles of the cache and not one could figure it out.

 

Isn't the point of placing to have it found?

 

If someone placed a traditional in your area and no one could find it and all the SBAs would come rolling in, the reviewer asks for it to be checked and the if owner never does, it get archived.

 

Why do puzzle caches become exempt from that rule on the puzzle side of it? If the puzzle doesn't work, it needs to be checked.

[+Search4Lancer]

Why the word, "Demo" on the barcodes?

Because the CO obviously used demo software to create the barcode.

[+JohnE5]

What software were you using?

 

I started this thread to ask if I should get the reviewer to have the cache owner prove it is solvable. Not to solve it here.

 

tsk, tsk.

busted. You guys started it! I was just asking about the reviewer checking it.

[+erik88l-r]

Puzzle caches and multis are not much of a challenge to reviewers. They already know exactly where the final is.

 

We know at the time the cache is reviewed, but I don't want to know how to solve the puzzle, and sure won't remember where it is when I get around to trying to solve the puzzle.

 

As I get older my short term memory is starting to go.

 

Also, as I age my short term memory is not what it once was.

 

 

~erik~

[srskas]

What I find bizarre is that some entitlement junkie actually filed an SBA on the cache.

The owner is still an active cacher, and they have no evidence that the cache is in place.

Just because they, (as well as me), aren't bright enough to solve a puzzle doesn't warrant the posting of an SBA, in my book.

I can just see their justification:

"Dear Groundspeak. I are dumber than a bag of hammers. Can you plees arkive any puzzel caches harder than a 2?

Thank you!

-Clan Riffster"

I believe finding the cache the way it's meant to be found is the only way to do it. I can't believe that there are hundreds of thousands of people within 60 miles of the cache and not one could figure it out.

 

Isn't the point of placing to have it found?

 

If someone placed a traditional in your area and no one could find it and all the SBAs would come rolling in, the reviewer asks for it to be checked and the if owner never does, it get archived.

 

Why do puzzle caches become exempt from that rule on the puzzle side of it? If the puzzle doesn't work, it needs to be checked.

 

In theory, I would agree with you, however nobody has ever logged a DNF. Why would anybody want to SBA a cache that nobody has solved and a find has never been attempted. I don't agree with an SBA on a cache that hasn't been solved. As long as it is rated appropriately, I say it's cool. Personally, i think the SBAs are just sour grapes from people that can't get a for an open cache in their bubble. Good luck, I hope you (or somebody) does find it.

[greenworldfeather]

How about you put the GC code on the thread so that if there is someone who might be able to solve it they may be able to offer some tips or pointers. I have several cachers in my area who put out puzzles, some of them extremely hard. Put it on here, and we can see what we can do with this. Perhaps it will help to get a few more smilies on this cache. Who knows, sometimes cachers use the same type of code on more than one of their puzzles. We may just have a cacher here who may be able to crack the code and offer a few pointers on the subject You never know. Let's try it and see what happens. Who is with me? Thanks and have a great week. gwf

[+Dr. House]

How about you put the GC code on the thread so that if there is someone who might be able to solve it they may be able to offer some tips or pointers. I have several cachers in my area who put out puzzles, some of them extremely hard. Put it on here, and we can see what we can do with this. Perhaps it will help to get a few more smilies on this cache. Who knows, sometimes cachers use the same type of code on more than one of their puzzles. We may just have a cacher here who may be able to crack the code and offer a few pointers on the subject You never know. Let's try it and see what happens. Who is with me? Thanks and have a great week. gwf

 

Post #2 provides a direct link.

[+JohnE5]

What I find bizarre is that some entitlement junkie actually filed an SBA on the cache.

The owner is still an active cacher, and they have no evidence that the cache is in place.

Just because they, (as well as me), aren't bright enough to solve a puzzle doesn't warrant the posting of an SBA, in my book.

I can just see their justification:

"Dear Groundspeak. I are dumber than a bag of hammers. Can you plees arkive any puzzel caches harder than a 2?

Thank you!

-Clan Riffster"

I believe finding the cache the way it's meant to be found is the only way to do it. I can't believe that there are hundreds of thousands of people within 60 miles of the cache and not one could figure it out.

 

Isn't the point of placing to have it found?

 

If someone placed a traditional in your area and no one could find it and all the SBAs would come rolling in, the reviewer asks for it to be checked and the if owner never does, it get archived.

 

Why do puzzle caches become exempt from that rule on the puzzle side of it? If the puzzle doesn't work, it needs to be checked.

 

In theory, I would agree with you, however nobody has ever logged a DNF. Why would anybody want to SBA a cache that nobody has solved and a find has never been attempted. I don't agree with an SBA on a cache that hasn't been solved. As long as it is rated appropriately, I say it's cool. Personally, i think the SBAs are just sour grapes from people that can't get a for an open cache in their bubble. Good luck, I hope you (or somebody) does find it.

 

I agree that it is a 5 star so it is going to be hard. And logging a "Should be archived" is jacked up if you can't solve the puzzle. But I think the guy that did that wasn't getting a response from the cache owner.

 

Maybe Groundspeak should create a log for the puzzle itself should be changed?!

[+Star*Hopper]

WOAH! I must be missing something here!

"Dear Mr. Police Man, there's a Ferrari legally parked on my street with a touchpad lock on it. I want to sit inside it but I can't figure out the combination. Would you please make the owner either give up the code or get rid of the car?"

 

Is this more of that 'entitlement' thing? What does the word "owner" actually mean to these people?

And what is wrong with their 'Ignore' button?

~*

Edited April 6, 2009 by Star*Hopper

[Clan Riffster]

But I think the guy that did that wasn't getting a response from the cache owner.

A viable cache with an active owner, and no noted issues should not be the recipient of an SBA log.

Frankly, I got the impression that the owner was not fond of giving out clues just by reading the cache page.

[+Harry Dolphin]

The Fox and the Grapes, by Aesop

 

One hot summer’s day a Fox was strolling through an orchard till he came to a bunch of Grapes just ripening on a vine which had been trained over a lofty branch. “Just the things to quench my thirst,” quoth he. Drawing back a few paces, he took a run and a jump, and just missed the bunch. Turning round again with a One, Two, Three, he jumped up, but with no greater success. Again and again he tried after the tempting morsel, but at last had to give it up, and walked away with his nose in the air, saying: “I am sure they are sour.”

 

Why would anyone post an SBA on a mystery cache that he or she has not solved? Why would anyone want to force a cache owner to prove that the mystery can be solved? It sounds like sour grapes to me. And probably an abuse of Geocaching. If you cannot solve it, then ignore it!

[Keystone]

 

Ditto. I think that as a reviewer, I wouldn't want to miss out on the fun that a good puzzler can bring me. Knowing how to solve it would take away from the challenge.

 

Puzzle caches and multis are not much of a challenge to reviewers. They already know exactly where the final is.

 

Absolutely agreed! FWIW, I'd obviously still prefer to say that I found it by the intended means rather than opening the waypoints.

One of the things that bites about being a site volunteer is having your personal ethics and integrity be the butt of jokes when the issue of hard multicaches and puzzles is raised. Fortunately we are protected by our kevlar flak jackets. To avoid any lasting angst, I'll retreat from this inhospitable discussion without posting my reply to the substantive question.

[+Kit Fox]

Requesting a cache be archived because you can't solve it is selfish at best, vindictive at the worst.

 

The Obelisk was a puzzle cache that was never found, yet archived with no explanation.

[+BBWolf+3Pigs]

What I find bizarre is that some entitlement junkie actually filed an SBA on the cache.

 

And he's not even from near where the cache is hidden!

[Clan Riffster]

The Obelisk was a puzzle cache that was never found, yet archived with no explanation.

My guess would be the language of the cache owner in communicating with the masses.

Michael stated that Otis needed to contact him about the cache. Judging by how Otis treated other cachers, I'm thinking that didn't go over real well.

Just a guess.

[+Dr. House]

 

Ditto. I think that as a reviewer, I wouldn't want to miss out on the fun that a good puzzler can bring me. Knowing how to solve it would take away from the challenge.

 

Puzzle caches and multis are not much of a challenge to reviewers. They already know exactly where the final is.

 

Absolutely agreed! FWIW, I'd obviously still prefer to say that I found it by the intended means rather than opening the waypoints.

One of the things that bites about being a site volunteer is having your personal ethics and integrity be the butt of jokes when the issue of hard multicaches and puzzles is raised. Fortunately we are protected by our kevlar flak jackets. To avoid any lasting angst, I'll retreat from this inhospitable discussion without posting my reply to the substantive question.

 

Agreed. I trust that other reviewers don't do this for the benefit of the game.

[Mag Magician]

OT, I have found a couple of ways to solve the puzzle that could prove interesting, but since no coordinate checker is posted on the listing page is provided, I am hesitant to log a note on the page.

 

It's up to the CO whether he/she wants to give out clues, not some disgruntled wannabe solver who wants to be a pain.

[+bflentje]

Cache

 

Well, I would think the reviewer would notice the SBA logs. Whether or not they choose to act on them is another story.

 

A 5 star puzzle tagged as SBA just because no one's solved it? Any response to this will get me in trouble.

 

I think it should be a valid puzzle with a valid hide. But how would you prove it's solvable without providing a solution? I would think that the reviewer would require an additional waypoint and go out (if possible) and see if a cache really exists. If it does, blow off the notion that it should be archived.

[+niraD]

I can't believe that there are hundreds of thousands of people within 60 miles of the cache and not one could figure it out.

I can.

 

Isn't the point of placing to have it found?

Well, yes. But in the case of puzzles, it is rather difficult to gauge how hard it will be for others to solve the puzzle. I logged FTF on a local puzzle cache a few days after it was published. Three months later, a second person found it. Since then, it's been found a third time. There are a lot of very capable puzzle cachers around here.

 

I know the owner. He didn't intend it to be that hard to solve, but not many of us have had the necessary "Aha!" moment to be able to figure out the puzzle.

 

I've seen the same thing happen in gimmick car rallyes. Often a rallyemaster will create a gimmick (puzzle), expecting it to be a moderate challenge. But then none of the rallyists catch the gimmick. If the rallyemaster expected it to be a difficult challenge, then it's even more likely that no one will catch the gimmick.

[+fizzymagic]

Isn't the point of placing to have it found?

Well, yes. But in the case of puzzles, it is rather difficult to gauge how hard it will be for others to solve the puzzle.

You'd think after a year or so the owner might have a better gauge of how difficult it will be for the people in the area to solve it.

 

I know the owner. He didn't intend it to be that hard to solve, but not many of us have had the necessary "Aha!" moment to be able to figure out the puzzle.

I haven't looked at the puzzle myself, but if he didn't intend for it to be that hard, why has he let it sit there for a year unfound?

 

Of course, maybe it has been solved by several people who just haven't had a chance to log it yet. My current backlog on solved puzzles is about 250 and it seems to keep growing.

[+eagsc7]

There is a 5/1 star puzzle in my area that was placed in August of 2007. Everyone has left a note asking for tiny hints and clues. Several have asked for it to be archived.

 

My question is what do you do when a puzzle cache has gone unfound or checked in years?

 

I have asked for help from professionals in the field that the puzzle is coded in and they can't make sense of it.

 

Would it be reasonable to contact my local reviewer and ask him to have the cache owner prove the puzzle can be solved? Not to us, the finders, but just to him. I just want to know the puzzle is solvable, not to be handed the answer. What are your thoughts?

Here is the KEY...

 

I Think...

 

The Steaks

[Clan Riffster]

If my solution direction is right on that one, the bar codes are red herrings.

[+BlueDeuce]

If my calculations are correct the cache is located 5 miles off the coast of Maine.

[+Great Scott!]

It looks similar to this cache:

 

GCK7XW

[+Vinny & Sue Team]

There is a 5/1 star puzzle in my area that was placed in August of 2007. Everyone has left a note asking for tiny hints and clues. Several have asked for it to be archived.

 

My question is what do you do when a puzzle cache has gone unfound or checked in years?

 

I have asked for help from professionals in the field that the puzzle is coded in and they can't make sense of it.

 

Would it be reasonable to contact my local reviewer and ask him to have the cache owner prove the puzzle can be solved? Not to us, the finders, but just to him. I just want to know the puzzle is solvable, not to be handed the answer. What are your thoughts?

You are making entirely unwarranted and highly arrogant assumptions about your rights and powers. Simply stated, you do NOT have the privilege, right or power to ask an owner of a puzzle cache to prove to you or to anyone else that the puzzle is solvable. If a particular puzzle cache has been bugging you, and you really cannot solve it despite your best efforts, then you are free to ignore and to move on with your life. However, your failure to decipher/decrypt the puzzle DOES NOT entitle you to give the cache owner a hard time, nor to harass her/him.

[+NotThePainter]

For all those who have looked at every possible angle and NOT found the circles, I suggest that you haven't looked at every possible angle. No, I don't know if the circles are part of the solution, and no, I won't tell you where they are. It is just that us puzzle creators can be pretty crafty at times. Write down your assumptions about the cache. To find other approaches, cross them out one by one and assume that they are wrong. Where else does this leave you?

[+markandsandy]

I don't have time to spend completely solving it, but in just a few minutes time I identified which barcode type it was, and the part I have read makes sense. My bet is that by the end of the day someone in this thread will have a solution.

Your doing something better than the people that make barcode reading software then. I sent the pics to three companies. None could read it. They told me it looks like a mix of two types of barcodes.

 

What software were you using?

Since it was pointed out later in the thread that the OT is asking whether or not to have the reviewer ask the owner to prove it's solvable, I won't give any details about my approach here. If my approach doesn't break down, and if I do complete the task, and the owner verifies my solution, I will post that it is solvable. But as someone else pointed out, just because nobody has actually found it doesn't mean that nobody has solved it. I also have a backlog of solved puzzles that I haven't found yet.

 

As far as the original topic: It's rated a 5 star difficulty, so it's not expected to be any easy solution. If you can't solve it, then you can't solve it. The owner doesn't have to prove anything to you.

[+JohnE5]

For all those who have looked at every possible angle and NOT found the circles, I suggest that you haven't looked at every possible angle. No, I don't know if the circles are part of the solution, and no, I won't tell you where they are. It is just that us puzzle creators can be pretty crafty at times. Write down your assumptions about the cache. To find other approaches, cross them out one by one and assume that they are wrong. Where else does this leave you?

I seen the circles couldn't make much else out of it.

[jholly]

If my calculations are correct the cache is located 5 miles off the coast of Maine.

 

You calculations are wrong. It's a scuba cache two miles off the Columbia bar.

 

Jim

[+BlueDeuce]

If my calculations are correct the cache is located 5 miles off the coast of Maine.

 

You calculations are wrong. It's a scuba cache two miles off the Columbia bar.

 

Jim

 

Oops, you're right. I forgot to account for DayLight Savings Time.

[+huskerrich2000]

a five by definition is supposed to be difficult and it looks like a new clue has been posted