Who else thinks theres a need for some sort of online co-ord checker?

[+keeweechris]

Hi all,

 

When planning to hide a cache, perhaps the hardest part is finding a viable spot to plant it. Among other restrictions, there's the 161m rule, which stops you hiding a cache within 161m of another physical waypoint, whether it be the final container of a cache, or a physical waypoint to a multi/puzzle cache. Even if the spot looks good from GC.com maps, there may be a cache in the vicinity.

 

Following a previous struggle to hide my cache, I was told by my reviewer to always check with him before I starting work on hiding a cache. He said I should create a "skeleton" cache on gc.com, with "**CHECK**" as the name, and the proposed coordinates. He would then be able to easily see if it interfered with any existing hides.

 

But to take this chore away from the already overworked reviewers, how about Groundspeak adds some sort of online tool on gc.com, where you could enter your co-ords, it would do a lookup, and it tell you if it was ok to proceed or not?

 

Does anyone else think this is a good idea?

 

If not, maybe some mention of the **CHECK** technique in the guidelines would be good.

 

Regards

Chris

[GOF and Bacall]

Please keep you arms and hands inside the car at all time and thank you for riding the forum coaster.

 

Popcorn anyone?

[+Casting Crowns]

I guess GOF is saying that this topic has been covered before. I would recommend Google Earth as you can get even more detailed info by zooming in than what's available on geocaching.com. Also, look at some caches that ARE close to one another and you can get an idea of where you can hide another cache.

[+sTeamTraen]

As the owner of several Mystery caches who does not want people to be able to find the final box by "playing Battleship", I say "no thanks".

 

Ooh, popcorn!

[+keeweechris]

Oh, thought GOF was on drugs :-)

 

OK, so its been covered before... I'll go searching.

 

But what I'm getting at, is that for example Finals to multi-caches are not going to show up on any map... so you may think you have a valid cache spot, but its within 161m of a "invisible" cache.

[+keeweechris]

As the owner of several Mystery caches who does not want people to be able to find the final box by "playing Battleship", I say "no thanks".

 

Ooh, popcorn!

 

It doesn't have to tell you WHERE the existing waypoint is, or what the name of the waypoint is, just that you're within 161m of an existing wp, and to try again.

Edited May 13, 2009 by ccoutts

[+sTeamTraen]

It doesn't have to tell you WHERE the existing waypoint is, just that you're within 161m, and to try again.

Yep. Try again. And again. Too close? Move East a bit. Not too close any more? Move West a couple of metres. When you hit the point where a 1-metre change makes the difference, you're 161 metres away. Now repeat from another start point. Two 161-metre radii and you've only got two possible locations for that pesky Mystery cache. You can visit both, or add a third start point to narrow it down to one.

 

People actually try to do this with real live reviewers, so think what it would be like if they only had a computer to be shamed by.

[jholly]

As the owner of several Mystery caches who does not want people to be able to find the final box by "playing Battleship", I say "no thanks".

 

Ooh, popcorn!

 

It doesn't have to tell you WHERE the existing waypoint is, or what the name of the waypoint is, just that you're within 161m of an existing wp, and to try again.

 

and after a few tries you have that final for that nasty mystery cache pretty well nailed.

 

This topic has been beat to death at least a half dozen times in the last three months. The answer is always no. I don't see it changing any time soon.

 

But perhaps you can come up with a grand idea nobody else has managed to formulate.

 

I'll take some of that popcorn. Did anyone bring beer?

 

Jim

[+keeweechris]

Hmmm, very true.

 

End of topic I guess.

[GOF and Bacall]

Oh, thought GOF was on drugs :-)

 

Well, that's a new one. Usually they accuse me of being OFF my meds.

[GOF and Bacall]

Stick around for a year. You'll be eating popcorn with the rest of us.

 

Jim, it's Canadian. Care for a cold blue?

[+keeweechris]

Unless the tool tells you "that coord is within 150-170m of an existing wp". You get the idea it is close to something, and to either try again elsewhere, or ask a reviewer for further clarification.

 

So if the cheating ahem-geocacher-ahem did his homework, I guess he could still get a 40m circle the wp is in, but he'll only know that something physical is there, not the name of the cache.

 

I mean, if someone wants to do that, they're not really geocachers, or honest people. This seems like just another case of the dishonest minority making it hard for the honest majority. I'm not really in favour of them winning to tell you the truth.

[+ArcherDragoon]

Stick around for a year. You'll be eating popcorn with the rest of us.

 

Jim, it's Canadian. Care for a cold blue?

A year??? According to the schedule...it is up for discussion sooner than that...

[+keeweechris]

Well seeing as people bring the topic up regularly, maybe thats a sign that it should be addressed...?

[+gof1]

Stick around for a year. You'll be eating popcorn with the rest of us.

 

Jim, it's Canadian. Care for a cold blue?

A year??? According to the schedule...it is up for discussion sooner than that...

 

Is my past coming back to haunt me?

[+mrbort]

Stick around for a year. You'll be eating popcorn with the rest of us.

 

Jim, it's Canadian. Care for a cold blue?

A year??? According to the schedule...it is up for discussion sooner than that...

 

Pretty sure the year meant that if the OP stays on the forums for that long he/she will have a much better idea about what topics are constantly rehashed...

 

to the point: I don't see much of a way around it being used for cheating unless: Perhaps such a checker could be limited to 1) premium accounts AND 2) number of tries within either a geographic area, from an IP address or, like PQs number of attempts per day/week/month/year. Probably a reasonable person wanting to hide a cache who bumps up against the area restriction for cache placement purposes would want to rethink the cache location altogether rather than fiddling with the thing to get to that minimum distance and would only need a few checks. The other restriction the site could put on such a checker would be to disable checking for that IP/account/radius of a mile etc if the same mystery cache waypoint was routinely falling into the search results... just my thoughts...

 

edited for grammar

Edited May 13, 2009 by mrbort

[+keeweechris]

Thanks for your idea's mrbort.

 

I like the premium member one! Its easy, and would filter out 99% of ungenuine geocachers.

[+tozainamboku]

Since a reviewer has already responded here that they are against the idea, my guess is that the reviewers don't mind the extra work of checking for someone.

 

The advantage of the reviewer doing the check is that they can often find problems besides the proximity guideline which might keep the cache from being enabled (e.g., too near a railroad track, in a area that doesn't permit caches, in an area where the land manager has stricter proximity rules than 161m, etc.). The reviewer can also tell you if an exception might be granted (e.g., river or other obstacle between the caches). An automated tool can't tell you this. It will tell you the cache is OK when the reviewer knows it can't be published, and it will tell a location is not good where the reviewer may have actually published a cache there.

[+gof1]

I know better but I'm gonna do it anyway.

 

Ungenuine geocachers? What is an ungenuine geocacher?

[+mrbort]

Since a reviewer has already responded here that they are against the idea, my guess is that the reviewers don't mind the extra work of checking for someone.

 

The advantage of the reviewer doing the check is that they can often find problems besides the proximity guideline which might keep the cache from being enabled (e.g., too near a railroad track, in a area that doesn't permit caches, in an area where the land manager has stricter proximity rules than 161m, etc.). The reviewer can also tell you if an exception might be granted (e.g., river or other obstacle between the caches). An automated tool can't tell you this. It will tell you the cache is OK when the reviewer knows it can't be published, and it will tell a location is not good where the reviewer may have actually published a cache there.

 

If the reviewers don't mind the work that's great. Also, you make great points in the second paragraph. I just don't see in this thread where a reviewer mentions that they don't mind doing the checking (not being contentious -- just genuinely curious). The advantage of a checker would be the expediency of a plug and chug yes or no checker. You made great points about the advantages of reviewer checking though.

 

edited for clarity (actually saying what I meant rather than the opposite O_o)

Edited May 13, 2009 by mrbort

[+keeweechris]

Since a reviewer has already responded here that they are against the idea, my guess is that the reviewers don't mind the extra work of checking for someone.

 

The advantage of the reviewer doing the check is that they can often find problems besides the proximity guideline which might keep the cache from being enabled (e.g., too near a railroad track, in a area that doesn't permit caches, in an area where the land manager has stricter proximity rules than 161m, etc.). The reviewer can also tell you if an exception might be granted (e.g., river or other obstacle between the caches). An automated tool can't tell you this. It will tell you the cache is OK when the reviewer knows it can't be published, and it will tell a location is not good where the reviewer may have actually published a cache there.

 

The reviewer would still have ultimate say when you publish the cache for approval (to incorporate the technicalities you mention above), but it would cut down on the time taken to get a potentially viable spot. I mean, in my experience a reviewer will reply once a day, which I've heard is a good response time. This means that it would prob take a good few weeks, when finding a spot in a city or popular place. If there was some way to automate and reduce the time to find un un-used hiding place, thats good for everyone.

 

But yeah, I'm easy, it was just an idea I had.

Edited May 13, 2009 by ccoutts

[Keystone]

My "real live Battleship" story is hereby incorporated in this thread by this reference as fully as if set forth herein in its entirety.

[jholly]

Jim, it's Canadian. Care for a cold blue?

 

That will work just fine. But it looks like this one is going to last a while, perhaps I should consider something from Tennessee.

 

Jim

[+gof1]

Jim, it's Canadian. Care for a cold blue?

 

That will work just fine. But it looks like this one is going to last a while, perhaps I should consider something from Tennessee.

 

Jim

 

How would you feel about both?

[+keeweechris]

Jim, it's Canadian. Care for a cold blue?

 

That will work just fine. But it looks like this one is going to last a while, perhaps I should consider something from Tennessee.

 

Jim

 

How would you feel about both?

 

I can now see why you guys have over a thousand posts!

[+gof1]

Jim, it's Canadian. Care for a cold blue?

 

That will work just fine. But it looks like this one is going to last a while, perhaps I should consider something from Tennessee.

 

Jim

 

How would you feel about both?

 

I can now see why you guys have over a thousand posts!

Hard to believe ain't it? Especially with how bad the forums have been running.

[+StarBrand]

The few reviewers I know personally, wish folks could adhere to the .1 mile guideline on newly submitted caches that anybody can see with a free account. They get far more violations of those than the few requests from cachers to check if coords are ok or bumping into hidden waypoint caches.

[jholly]

Jim, it's Canadian. Care for a cold blue?

 

That will work just fine. But it looks like this one is going to last a while, perhaps I should consider something from Tennessee.

 

Jim

 

How would you feel about both?

 

Hey great idea! Cold blue with a GJ chaser.

 

Jim

[jholly]

Jim, it's Canadian. Care for a cold blue?

 

That will work just fine. But it looks like this one is going to last a while, perhaps I should consider something from Tennessee.

 

Jim

 

How would you feel about both?

 

I can now see why you guys have over a thousand posts!

 

When you drag out the dead beaten horses it is bit hard not to go a bit OT. But most are helping folks.

 

Jim

[+mrbort]

Jim, it's Canadian. Care for a cold blue?

 

That will work just fine. But it looks like this one is going to last a while, perhaps I should consider something from Tennessee.

 

Jim

 

How would you feel about both?

 

I can now see why you guys have over a thousand posts!

 

When you drag out the dead beaten horses it is bit hard not to go a bit OT. But most are helping folks.

 

Jim

 

I am seriously confused as to why one would even continue to post in a topic considered by that individual a dead horse. Really, is it done to make the boards more lively or because people are bored or some other reason? I generally don't post unless I feel like I have something to contribute to the thread; it seems like there is an angst on one hand for topics that the members with more longevity have seen hashed out over and over combined with a cynical, cackling joy when they're brought up again. If you're really disappointed to see a topic brought up for the nth time, I am baffled by the decision to post in the topic and even bump the topic up repeatedly even though others have pointed out the fact that its been debated many times and never had a satisfactory resolution. This isn't meant to be an attack at all; I am just seriously curious why one would derisively refer to a dead horse yet drag said horse out repeatedly. Is it just the fun banter of the forums? If so, it would seem more constructive and convivial to do it in another place without deriding a topic that you've revived.

 

Yes, I revived this topic but it seems to be watched so I thought I'd just pose my question here... Again, I am not meaning to be antagonistic here but more just hoping to understand these forums better so that I can contribute in a more positive fashion.

 

I realize that the majority of posts on these forums (some of the most civil yet at the same time most impatient with repeated ideas that I've ever seen) are intended to be helpful and constructive. I just see things like popcorn being brought out in a topic and wonder "why does this person think that this is a constructive way to confront a topic they obviously consider hashed and repeatedly rehashed?"

 

Sorry for what may be considered as a rude post but I am just confused as to the forum culture here and would love to understand it better.

[+keeweechris]

 

I am seriously confused as to why one would even continue to post in a topic considered by that individual a dead horse. Really, is it done to make the boards more lively or because people are bored or some other reason? I generally don't post unless I feel like I have something to contribute to the thread; it seems like there is an angst on one hand for topics that the members with more longevity have seen hashed out over and over combined with a cynical, cackling joy when they're brought up again. If you're really disappointed to see a topic brought up for the nth time, I am baffled by the decision to post in the topic and even bump the topic up repeatedly even though others have pointed out the fact that its been debated many times and never had a satisfactory resolution. This isn't meant to be an attack at all; I am just seriously curious why one would derisively refer to a dead horse yet drag said horse out repeatedly. Is it just the fun banter of the forums? If so, it would seem more constructive and convivial to do it in another place without deriding a topic that you've revived.

 

Yes, I revived this topic but it seems to be watched so I thought I'd just pose my question here... Again, I am not meaning to be antagonistic here but more just hoping to understand these forums better so that I can contribute in a more positive fashion.

 

I realize that the majority of posts on these forums (some of the most civil yet at the same time most impatient with repeated ideas that I've ever seen) are intended to be helpful and constructive. I just see things like popcorn being brought out in a topic and wonder "why does this person think that this is a constructive way to confront a topic they obviously consider hashed and repeatedly rehashed?"

 

Sorry for what may be considered as a rude post but I am just confused as to the forum culture here and would love to understand it better.

 

Well said, but I could never say it first... I only have 20-something posts... I'd be flamed instantly!

 

I too felt like these guys had nothing positive to add, so made do with their own sarcastic humour. Big deal if I raised an old idea... truth being that I had no idea it had been mentioned before... it was just an idea I had. Like I said before, maybe the fact that people keep bringing it up is a sign that something positive should be done. I'm almost positive that such a tool could be inplemented, without any serious resulting problems.

[+Taoiseach]

Jim, it's Canadian. Care for a cold blue?

 

That will work just fine. But it looks like this one is going to last a while, perhaps I should consider something from Tennessee.

 

Jim

 

How would you feel about both?

 

Hey great idea! Cold blue with a GJ chaser.

 

Jim

 

I guess you need something to kill the taste of the Blue (gag)

 

How about some St Ambroise?

Edited May 14, 2009 by Taoiseach

[+gof1]

I think you miss the point. It isn't that we have anything against the topic but rather we know where it is going. Even so far as to say that someone will ask why the regulars with all their experience will bother to post. Yes, even your reply has been covered in previous threads. Some of us just partake in a bit of light banter while we wait for it all to unfold. It's sort of like watching a Shakespearean play. You know who's gonna say what and when but it's still fun.

[+gof1]

 

I am seriously confused as to why one would even continue to post in a topic considered by that individual a dead horse. Really, is it done to make the boards more lively or because people are bored or some other reason? I generally don't post unless I feel like I have something to contribute to the thread; it seems like there is an angst on one hand for topics that the members with more longevity have seen hashed out over and over combined with a cynical, cackling joy when they're brought up again. If you're really disappointed to see a topic brought up for the nth time, I am baffled by the decision to post in the topic and even bump the topic up repeatedly even though others have pointed out the fact that its been debated many times and never had a satisfactory resolution. This isn't meant to be an attack at all; I am just seriously curious why one would derisively refer to a dead horse yet drag said horse out repeatedly. Is it just the fun banter of the forums? If so, it would seem more constructive and convivial to do it in another place without deriding a topic that you've revived.

 

Yes, I revived this topic but it seems to be watched so I thought I'd just pose my question here... Again, I am not meaning to be antagonistic here but more just hoping to understand these forums better so that I can contribute in a more positive fashion.

 

I realize that the majority of posts on these forums (some of the most civil yet at the same time most impatient with repeated ideas that I've ever seen) are intended to be helpful and constructive. I just see things like popcorn being brought out in a topic and wonder "why does this person think that this is a constructive way to confront a topic they obviously consider hashed and repeatedly rehashed?"

 

Sorry for what may be considered as a rude post but I am just confused as to the forum culture here and would love to understand it better.

 

Well said, but I could never say it first... I only have 20-something posts... I'd be flamed instantly!

 

I too felt like these guys had nothing positive to add, so made do with their own sarcastic humour. Big deal if I raised an old idea... truth being that I had no idea it had been mentioned before... it was just an idea I had. Like I said before, maybe the fact that people keep bringing it up is a sign that something positive should be done. I'm almost positive that such a tool could be inplemented, without any serious resulting problems.

 

Flamed? I'll have to go back and look for the flames. I missed 'em.

[+gof1]

Jim, it's Canadian. Care for a cold blue?

 

That will work just fine. But it looks like this one is going to last a while, perhaps I should consider something from Tennessee.

 

Jim

 

How would you feel about both?

 

Hey great idea! Cold blue with a GJ chaser.

 

Jim

 

I guess you need something to kill the taste of the Blue (gag)

 

How about some St Ambroise?

 

I even knew that one of the beer snobs would chime in. I am surprised it took so long.

[+Taoiseach]

Jim, it's Canadian. Care for a cold blue?

 

That will work just fine. But it looks like this one is going to last a while, perhaps I should consider something from Tennessee.

 

Jim

 

How would you feel about both?

 

Hey great idea! Cold blue with a GJ chaser.

 

Jim

 

I guess you need something to kill the taste of the Blue (gag)

 

How about some St Ambroise?

 

I even knew that one of the beer snobs would chime in. I am surprised it took so long.

 

Ah, I had to go out and do maintenance on one of my caches...

[+gof1]

It's all good.

Here's to cache maintenance.

[+keeweechris]

Jim, it's Canadian. Care for a cold blue?

 

That will work just fine. But it looks like this one is going to last a while, perhaps I should consider something from Tennessee.

 

Jim

 

How would you feel about both?

 

Hey great idea! Cold blue with a GJ chaser.

 

Jim

 

I guess you need something to kill the taste of the Blue (gag)

 

How about some St Ambroise?

 

I even knew that one of the beer snobs would chime in. I am surprised it took so long.

 

Ah, I had to go out and do maintenance on one of my caches...

 

Can a mod please delete/move all the off topic posts... its a bit annoying to anyone taking this seriously to filter out the relevant posts.

[+keeweechris]

I think you miss the point. It isn't that we have anything against the topic but rather we know where it is going. Even so far as to say that someone will ask why the regulars with all their experience will bother to post. Yes, even your reply has been covered in previous threads. Some of us just partake in a bit of light banter while we wait for it all to unfold. It's sort of like watching a Shakespearean play. You know who's gonna say what and when but it's still fun.

 

How about you comentate from another topic?

[+mrbort]

I think you miss the point. It isn't that we have anything against the topic but rather we know where it is going. Even so far as to say that someone will ask why the regulars with all their experience will bother to post. Yes, even your reply has been covered in previous threads. Some of us just partake in a bit of light banter while we wait for it all to unfold. It's sort of like watching a Shakespearean play. You know who's gonna say what and when but it's still fun.

 

I clearly missed the point and said so in my post. Thanks for clearing it up. However, I feel compelled to point out that that fun that you old timers have tends to make people who aren't as experienced feel bad or intimidated about posting. This includes the rare truly original idea.... Any alienation of fellow cachers, in my opinion, damages the sport.

 

At best, it makes people reluctant to participate in the forums and consequently be aware of the current issues/ideas/standards the caching community is debating or on which it is in agreement. This would lead to a lower quality of caches and a degradation of the body of caches in existence, not to mention a degradation of the etiquette expected of cachers often described here.

 

At worst, it drives someone who is timidly emerging socially (into a hobby that doesn't require a lot of human interaction) away and lose their potential contributions to the sport. I'm just urging civility, patience and empathy when it comes to responding to posts. We're all human beings at the other end of the keyboard.... I think it's important to reread posts with the idea that you're saying them in front of a room full of people and if applicable directing those comments to one individual sitting in the room. For me, when I do this mental exercise, the mildest rebukes suddenly stand out as something that isn't really positive or forward moving.

 

Again, I empathize with the frustration of seeing ideas posted and reposted as people cycle in and out of the forums/hobby. I also understand the desire to have fun. However, if one is having it at the expense of someone who isn't really in on the joke, then I would imagine that it would be appropriate for one to examine whether or not it would be pleasant to be on the other end of the barb.

[+Taoiseach]

It's all good.

Here's to cache maintenance.

 

Sláinte Mhaith!

 

A toast to people will actually putting my cache back right, now that I've shortened the cord (I doubt it )

[+gof1]

 

I am seriously confused as to why one would even continue to post in a topic considered by that individual a dead horse. Really, is it done to make the boards more lively or because people are bored or some other reason? I generally don't post unless I feel like I have something to contribute to the thread; it seems like there is an angst on one hand for topics that the members with more longevity have seen hashed out over and over combined with a cynical, cackling joy when they're brought up again. If you're really disappointed to see a topic brought up for the nth time, I am baffled by the decision to post in the topic and even bump the topic up repeatedly even though others have pointed out the fact that its been debated many times and never had a satisfactory resolution. This isn't meant to be an attack at all; I am just seriously curious why one would derisively refer to a dead horse yet drag said horse out repeatedly. Is it just the fun banter of the forums? If so, it would seem more constructive and convivial to do it in another place without deriding a topic that you've revived.

 

Yes, I revived this topic but it seems to be watched so I thought I'd just pose my question here... Again, I am not meaning to be antagonistic here but more just hoping to understand these forums better so that I can contribute in a more positive fashion.

 

I realize that the majority of posts on these forums (some of the most civil yet at the same time most impatient with repeated ideas that I've ever seen) are intended to be helpful and constructive. I just see things like popcorn being brought out in a topic and wonder "why does this person think that this is a constructive way to confront a topic they obviously consider hashed and repeatedly rehashed?"

 

Sorry for what may be considered as a rude post but I am just confused as to the forum culture here and would love to understand it better.

 

Well said, but I could never say it first... I only have 20-something posts... I'd be flamed instantly!

 

I too felt like these guys had nothing positive to add, so made do with their own sarcastic humour. Big deal if I raised an old idea... truth being that I had no idea it had been mentioned before... it was just an idea I had. Like I said before, maybe the fact that people keep bringing it up is a sign that something positive should be done. I'm almost positive that such a tool could be inplemented, without any serious resulting problems.

 

Flamed? I'll have to go back and look for the flames. I missed 'em.

 

Nope. I still don't see the flames. Some differing views but that isn't anything I'd call flames. Just have some fun with it. Tell me my choice in beer sucks. That one always shuts me up.

[+gof1]

It's all good.

Here's to cache maintenance.

 

Sláinte Mhaith!

 

A toast to people will actually putting my cache back right, now that I've shortened the cord (I doubt it )

 

If there are fifty right ways to do it and one wrong way there is at least one cacher that will do it that one way.

[+Taoiseach]

It's all good.

Here's to cache maintenance.

 

Sláinte Mhaith!

 

A toast to people will actually putting my cache back right, now that I've shortened the cord (I doubt it )

 

If there are fifty right ways to do it and one wrong way there is at least one cacher that will do it that one way.

 

The problem here, is that everyone who finds it seems to put it back wrong. It's partially my fault for making the cord a good foot too long, but I think that people don't realise that there's a hole that it can poke out of at the bottom. Somebody stole my disposable camera this time too! (It was an ALR cache)

 

I'm hoping that the adjustment I made will at least help with the problem... It's a good spot, but I need to come up with a better hanger, I think.

[+J-Way]

Well, the off-topic posts got a little more extreme than normal in this case (two distinct OT sub-threads, one on beer, one on cache maintenance???).

 

But in spite of the apparent insolence, 1) this topic does come up fairly regularly, usually by someone who just had a cache rejected because it's too close to a local mystery or multi container, 2) an automated function like this will NEVER be implemented because people will use it to cheat (some puzzles go unsolved for months or years, and the locals get desperate), 3) most, if not all, reviewers will gladly check coordinates for you, and 3) Keystone's real-life Battleship game (linky) usually explains things, but apparently even he was tired of repeatedly posting it.

Edited May 14, 2009 by J-Way

[+bflentje]

It doesn't have to tell you WHERE the existing waypoint is, just that you're within 161m, and to try again.

Yep. Try again. And again. Too close? Move East a bit. Not too close any more? Move West a couple of metres. When you hit the point where a 1-metre change makes the difference, you're 161 metres away. Now repeat from another start point. Two 161-metre radii and you've only got two possible locations for that pesky Mystery cache. You can visit both, or add a third start point to narrow it down to one.

 

People actually try to do this with real live reviewers, so think what it would be like if they only had a computer to be shamed by.

 

Yeah, sounds like a real efficient way to cheat the solution to a puzzle. It'd be a heck of a lot quicker just to use the PAF network.

[jholly]

It doesn't have to tell you WHERE the existing waypoint is, just that you're within 161m, and to try again.

Yep. Try again. And again. Too close? Move East a bit. Not too close any more? Move West a couple of metres. When you hit the point where a 1-metre change makes the difference, you're 161 metres away. Now repeat from another start point. Two 161-metre radii and you've only got two possible locations for that pesky Mystery cache. You can visit both, or add a third start point to narrow it down to one.

 

People actually try to do this with real live reviewers, so think what it would be like if they only had a computer to be shamed by.

 

Yeah, sounds like a real efficient way to cheat the solution to a puzzle. It'd be a heck of a lot quicker just to use the PAF network.

 

This is assuming the PAF network has the solution. Some of these puzzle caches are not in the PAF network.

 

Jim