bogus coordinates for mystery cache

[toczygroszek]

If you place ordinary mystery/puzzle geocache you set bogus coordinates in general area where cache is. Guidelines says about 2-3 km from final location. Sometimes it is parking or trailhead, sometimes middle of sea/lake/river, "nice" round coordinates e.g. N50 50.000 W020.20.000 or interesting object what is not accessible. You don't have to visit this waypoint, because it's completely fake, it's just point on GoogleMap.

My question is - are any off-limits (except distance to final cache) for this type of waypoint? Especially: can owner/manager of this land demand to remove this waypoint "from his land"? Actually, is nothing placed on his ground, and is not required visit this spot, it's just dot on a map, but owner of land doesn't own area on map or aerial photo.

[Deceangi]

The issue is currently being discussed by the Reviewer Community as you have been advised by the Reviewer involved so as to provide impartial opinions

 

The Land in question is Private Property, and not a location "open to all". And it is this person who requested you to relocate the coordinates to a location off his property, one which is "open to all". He suggested the beach which is adjacent to his property as a suitable alternative.

 

Even with Puzzles having false coordinates, there are still those who will visit the location of those coordinates. Believing that this will give them information to solve the puzzle. Or on the off chance that the container is actually at the Posted coordinates [i personally have published several like this]. The Landowner clearly does not wish to take this chance.

 

Deceangi Volunteer UK Reviewer

[+Tobias & Petronella]

I have a problem with this.

 

If the cache page states that the coords are bogus and not to go there, and someone does go there, then its the finder's fault for not reading the page correctly.

 

If this becomes a new rule then one other thing should also change. All puzzle caches should have a way of checking to see if you have solved the puzzle correctly by using a geo-checker, check sum or some other way. I'm not very good at solving most puzzles. There have been times that my answer to a puzzle has put GZ on Private Property. At that point I have two choices, 1. To believe I have the correct answer and permission has been granted to search the property or 2. I made an error in the puzzle. But not being very good at most puzzles there is no way for me to know I made a mistake. My thought has always been, if I made a mistake by not reading the cache page correctly, entered the wrong coords in to my GPSr (which I have done) or did the puzzle wrong and it put me some where I should not have been, then its my fault and not the cache owner or Groundspeak.

 

By adding too many rules, this will take away some of the mystery, thrill and aggravation of this game. I understand the "wanting to play nice" with non-geocachers, but at the same time you can't stop stupid (or mistakes) from happening.

[Clan Riffster]

I'll have to put my faith in the reviewers, knowing that they will come up with an answer which is in the best interest of the game. If it were my call, I would make the posted coords of a puzzle adhere to the same guidelines as those of a traditional cache, in regards to private property, as some folks will visit that spot. While it's easy to blame the seeker for not reading the cache page, it is also possible to blame the hider for selecting posted coords that are on private property.

 

To the hider: Why go through all this trouble?

Why not just change the posted coords?

[+Stargazer22]

I would happily change the posted coordinates as requested.

I would not have chosen privately owned land for the bogus coordinates to begin with.

It is well known that some cachers do not read cache pages before going out to hunt. Is it their fault for not reading? Absolutely.

 

Knowing that some people will search without reading, is it the CO's fault if people go looking at the bogus coordinates? Absolutely. Some people believe they will find clues to the final location at the bogus coordinates, and in fact, there are some mystery caches out there that do have clues at the bogus coordinates.

 

Is there any good reason to not change the coordinates? It is a small request to help our game keep a good reputation.

[Keystone]

I have a problem with this.

 

If the cache page states that the coords are bogus and not to go there, and someone does go there, then its the finder's fault for not reading the page correctly.

Ahhhh, but what if the cache page doesn't say this, but rather says that the posted coords are "pointing" to the "general area" of the cache? Does that change your answer?

[+Whiteboy47]

I would like to know how the land owner knew about the cords before they were published.Did you already talk to the land owner and he said no and you went ahead anyways thinking your point was right.It seems that the land owner did try to be helpful by suggesting to use the beach instead of his land where he could have just said move it.seems pretty simple move your cords it's not like you have to go move the cache

[+Touchstone]

My question is - are any off-limits (except distance to final cache) for this type of waypoint?

 

I could foresee some land managers having the fictitious coordinates placed, say, on a sensitive archeological site. Even if fictitious, I would probably respect the request.

 

I could foresee fictitious coordinates inside a military installation, and the commanding officer interpreting that as targeting some sensitive site. Even if fictitious, I would probably respect the request.

 

I could foresee fictitious coordinates on someone's home or property that could be construed as harassment or stalking. Even if fictitious, I would probably respect the request.

 

In the interest of keeping the game/sport fun and open for all, it doesn't seem worth it to anger folks. Not off limits perhaps, but I would categorize it as respectful and common sense.

[+Tobias & Petronella]

I have a problem with this.

 

If the cache page states that the coords are bogus and not to go there, and someone does go there, then its the finder's fault for not reading the page correctly.

Ahhhh, but what if the cache page doesn't say this, but rather says that the posted coords are "pointing" to the "general area" of the cache? Does that change your answer?

 

No, not really. Terms like "pointing" to the "general area" tells me that GZ is near that area but is not at that area. So why would I go to a place that is only close to but not at GZ?

 

For me the "general area" can range from a few square feet to many square miles. It would all depend on if its in the "general area" of a bench, shopping center, hill top or a large state park.

[+terrkan78]

I'm surprised the landowner ever found out about the bogus "?". Couldn't the CO add a line in the description (bolded, big font) to the effect of, "The posted coords are NOT where the cache is. There are NO clues there. DO NOT GO THERE!" Etc. I've seen admonishments like that on many puzzle caches. Surely the landowner has no legal recourse to require that you move the "?" off his property lines on a map? Even if the landowner were some military base? They don't own the map. I guess the question is whether a landowner (even a powerful landowner, like the military) has any right to exercise control over what's placed on a public map? It's an interesting question. Could I put a "?" on top of Disneyland on the map and get away with it even if Disney became aware of it and hated it?

 

In the interests of not ticking off the landowner, I would move the "?" were it my cache (because it bothers me to have people ticked at me). But I think you'd have a valid argument to leave the "?" where it is if you really wanted to. Is the location of the "?" integral to some portion of the puzzle? (So that moving the "?" will hurt the quality of the puzzle in some way?)

[Clan Riffster]

I would argue that this issue is less about legal prescedent and more about perception. Does Groundspeak, through the publication of the cache page, want to have a role in folks who neglect to read cache pages, tromping around where they are not wanted?

[GOF and Bacall]

I'd be interested in hearing the rest of the story. But that is just my curious nature.

 

Would it really be a big deal to move the bogus coordinates? You could make your bonus coordinates the same as someone else's final coordinates. That should make for an interesting forum thread.

[+Tobias & Petronella]

For me this is right up there with needing a permit for earthcaches for a mountain just because it is in a National Park or on other controlled land. At some point you just need to say "That is stupid" and do what you want. Perception is one thing and being a doormat is another.

Edited December 8, 2009 by Tobias & Petronella

[+frinklabs]

All puzzle caches should have a way of checking to see if you have solved the puzzle correctly by using a geo-checker, check sum or some other way. I'm not very good at solving most puzzles. There have been times that my answer to a puzzle has put GZ on Private Property.

 

I have had the same experience with GC1ANQH which isn't even listed as a puzzle cache but requires you to derive coordinates with no way to verify. I have visited there twice - FAIL. The coordinates I derived the first time were incorrect and would have put me in a cemetery - which I didn't enter because it was closed at 3AM. Since the cache is attributed as 24/7 and recommended at night, I figured these coordinates were not the right ones. As noted in my DNF log entry, I probably wouldn't go back without a way to verify that I have the right coordinates.

 

On topic, wouldn't GS being responsible for bogus posted puzzle cache coordinates on their site also, by extension, make them responsible for bogus coordinates derived from information on their site? If so, shouldn't they require the inclusion of a coordinate verification service?

[+wimseyguy]

I think it's just common sense to not post bogus coords that could lead an unsuspecting cacher into trouble or harms way. Or to unnecessarily raise alerts when there isn't even a cache placed there.

 

Sure, if a cacher doesn't read the page carefully and simply follows the arrow into trouble they are responsible for their own actions. But if your cache causes that trouble for a brand new cacher would you still say-not my problem and not feel anything else at all?

 

Posting bogus coords on military bases, airports, places like the Pentagon or Buckingham Palace just isn't wise. There are plenty of locations out there to park the bogus coords without antagonizing someone.

 

Edited to add that I looked and see that the VA Delorme Challenge is posted at the Pentagon. Not only do I think it's a poor choice because of the security issues, but I think that Delorme Challenges should be posted in a central location for their state.

Edited December 8, 2009 by wimseyguy

[+DanOCan]

I have a problem with this.

 

If the cache page states that the coords are bogus and not to go there, and someone does go there, then its the finder's fault for not reading the page correctly.

 

Regardless of who is at fault, it is the entire Geocaching community that gets the black eye.

[+sTeamTraen]

Not everybody who looks at the cache/Google mashup will appreciate that "?" means that the cache isn't there, especially since there are plenty of "?" caches which are, in fact, there. And not everybody who might look at a cache listing is necessarily interested in finding the cache.

 

If someone mentioned Geocaching to me and I decided to check out the site ("it's free!") and found - perhaps while surfing on the page of a nearby cache - the "?" sitting on my land, I might well be sending angry messages to Groundspeak and/or local law enforcement, before I discovered the subtleties of the "?" icon.

 

So, while I don't think that there should be a general guideline about this, it would seem to be a matter of both common sense and elementary politeness to change the bogus coordinates, if the owner of that part of the world asks you to. In the rare event where the exact numbers are critical to the puzzle, perhaps it might be possible to explain to the landowner why his location is particularly cool and appeal to his sense of pride, but otherwise, I can't quite understand what the problem is.

[toczygroszek]

My intention is not talking on the forum about my cache. I think is just before me, land owner and reviewer. For some reasons whole that situation is little bit uncomfortable to me. It's strange, because land owner knows me, knows about "?" on his ground but never asked me about move this waypoint. I'm friendly person and is not a problem for me move waypoint at owner request. But if I received official note from reviewer, I ask about official regulations for this.

What I only ask - is that common practice for reviewers asking land owner how he feel with "?" on his ground? Is any regulation for this?

[+Harry Dolphin]

What I only ask - is that common practice for reviewers asking land owner how he feel with "?" on his ground? Is any regulation for this?

 

I only have one of twenty mystery caches with the coords on private property. A short distance off the road, on a lawn, but that was necessary for the puzzle. That one is four years old, so maybe the guidelines have changed since. I never had a problem with it. For the rest of mine, the '?' is located in a park, or at a suggested parking area, or in a public area.

I helped my sister hide a mystery cache. Not to give away anything, we put the location in the middle of the river. A few people logged that they had searched both sides of the river, and not found anything. I have had people search everything searchable on a sidewalk, when the cache was several hundred feet away. They had not solved the puzzle, and were searching out of desperation. So, I would avoid putting the location in any private area, just to prevent people searching that area.

[+Okiebryan]

One of my puzzles has the bogus coords in the middle of the lake. Am I responsible of someone drowns looking for clues that don't exist?

[4wheelin_fool]

If you place ordinary mystery/puzzle geocache you set bogus coordinates in general area where cache is. Guidelines says about 2-3 km from final location. Sometimes it is parking or trailhead, sometimes middle of sea/lake/river, "nice" round coordinates e.g. N50 50.000 W020.20.000 or interesting object what is not accessible. You don't have to visit this waypoint, because it's completely fake, it's just point on GoogleMap.

My question is - are any off-limits (except distance to final cache) for this type of waypoint? Especially: can owner/manager of this land demand to remove this waypoint "from his land"? Actually, is nothing placed on his ground, and is not required visit this spot, it's just dot on a map, but owner of land doesn't own area on map or aerial photo.

 

I dont see a problem with it normally.

 

However if

owner/manager of this land demand to remove this waypoint "from his land"?

 

Then move it! Why would you want to force an issue as silly as that? There is no "waypoint rights" written into any geoconstitution.

[+beejay&esskay]

I don't see a necessity of checking that the bogus coordinates would be a legal location for a cache in every case...

 

but in this case the landowner has complained. Why not change the coordinates?

[toczygroszek]

So is no official regulation for this - thanks. So now this is only between me and owner. End of story.

[+sssss]

Whilst it does not say you cannot have waypoints on private land it does say

 

For all physical caches and waypoints, think carefully about how your container and the actions of geocachers will be perceived by the public. Be respectful when considering cache and waypoint placements in areas which are highly sensitive to the extra traffic that would be caused by vehicles and humans

 

To me that would suggest that if the waypoint you must consider how geocachers may deal with that waypoint but also perceived by the public and be respectful with your waypoint placement. In which case a reviewer should get involved.

 

Personally I would not be best please if some one put a waypoint in my garden/property without asking, I would also be bringing it up with a reviewer.

[+fizzymagic]

Why is it that people seem to think that every unique situation that the reviewers deal with has to be dealt with in the the guidelines?

 

There will always be uncommon situations in which reviewers use their best judgment. That doesn't mean every one of these situations is some big precedent that embodies a new rule.

 

Chill, people.

[Deceangi]

 

What I only ask - is that common practice for reviewers asking land owner how he feel with "?" on his ground? Is any regulation for this?

 

Just to clear up this point! The Reviewer involved did not at any time make contact with the Landowner (who is a Geocacher) to ask how he felt about the Coordinates of the puzzle being on his land. Rather the Landowner brought it up in a conversation with the Reviewer, as he was uncomfortable about the coordinates being on his land, and asked the Reviewer to action his request on his behalf.

 

It is interesting to note that Google who have a lot more commercial and political clout than Groundspeak. And who intend indexing Map Pins on Google Maps, will if a Landowner contacts them and requests so, remove any Map Pin on the land owned by that person.

 

So is it wrong for Groundspeak or one of the Site Volunteers as a courtesy to any Landowner, who has requested that any Waypoint on their land whether physical or virtual be removed. That Groundspeak or a Site Volunteer requests that the owner of that waypoint, relocates it off the persons land.

 

Deceangi Volunteer UK Reviewer

[+sbell111]

... So is it wrong for Groundspeak or one of the Site Volunteers as a courtesy to any Landowner, who has requested that any Waypoint on their land whether physical or virtual be removed. ...

Maybe.

 

Isn't that the primary issue in this thread?

 

Personally, I don't have a problem with a bogus waypoint being anywhere in the general area (within a few miles) of the actual cache. I don't understand why a geocacher would have a problem with this and I wouldn't change it if a geocacher complained.

 

I may or may not change it if the landowner wasn't a geocacher. It certainly would not be my first choice. Intitially, I would try to educate the individual.

[+Castle Mischief]

... So is it wrong for Groundspeak or one of the Site Volunteers as a courtesy to any Landowner, who has requested that any Waypoint on their land whether physical or virtual be removed. ...

Maybe.

 

Isn't that the primary issue in this thread?

 

Personally, I don't have a problem with a bogus waypoint being anywhere in the general area (within a few miles) of the actual cache. I don't understand why a geocacher would have a problem with this and I wouldn't change it if a geocacher complained.

 

I may or may not change it if the landowner wasn't a geocacher. It certainly would not be my first choice. Intitially, I would try to educate the individual.

 

I'm not trying to debate your opinion, I'm just curious: would you ask GS to remove a puzzle cache waypoint if it resulted in multiple cachers hunting on your front lawn?

[+Prime Suspect]

If you place ordinary mystery/puzzle geocache you set bogus coordinates in general area where cache is. Guidelines says about 2-3 km from final location. Sometimes it is parking or trailhead, sometimes middle of sea/lake/river, "nice" round coordinates e.g. N50 50.000 W020.20.000 or interesting object what is not accessible. You don't have to visit this waypoint, because it's completely fake, it's just point on GoogleMap.

My question is - are any off-limits (except distance to final cache) for this type of waypoint? Especially: can owner/manager of this land demand to remove this waypoint "from his land"? Actually, is nothing placed on his ground, and is not required visit this spot, it's just dot on a map, but owner of land doesn't own area on map or aerial photo.

There are puzzle caches that require you to go to the posted coordinates. If there are people showing up at your bogus coordinates (which, I assume, is the reason you started this thread), then the problem seems to be with the way your cache page is written.

[+Tobias & Petronella]

So is no official regulation for this - thanks. So now this is only between me and owner. End of story.

 

It is not that simple. For you it may be "end of story", however this is part of a bigger problem that should be talked about.

 

In any large group there will be the "very smart" and the "very dumb", the "skilled" and the "unskilled", the "very lucky" and the "very unlucky", the "lawful" and the "unlawful" and so on. Most people (but not all) fall somewhere in the middle of each group. This is basic human nature. We should not change what we do because of the "very dumb" or "very unlucky" or anyone at one else that is at either extreme end of the human condition.

 

When I was growing up, nobody wore a bicycle helmet because there was no need to and most everyone would have thought it to be foolish. Now where I live (like it or not) it is the law, and bicyclist must wear one. Today nobody wears safety equipment when going out for a simple day hike because there was no need to and most everyone thinks this is also foolish. However since people have been hurt and even killed while hiking, I believe that someone somewhere will want to make it a law that any time you are out on a trail you will need to wear a helmet, knee pads and more for your own protection.

 

At what point do you stop letting others control what you do because of what they "believe might happen" or what they believe others "might think of you". I know someone that believes that all "good people" stay inside after 9pm and only the "bad people" are out late. There is no way that I can change her mind. There are people that play this game that believe that we should keep on changing what we do every time a non-geocacher does not like something about this game. Rule 1 of life: You can not please everyone.

 

Here's what I believe on this topic.

1. Should all "?" be moved to neutral areas of a map: No, it's just a spot on a few maps that only a few people will every see.

2. If Groundspeak made a rule that stated new "?" should be placed in safe/neutral areas of a map unless it was needed for the cache, would I have a problem with that: No I would not. Again it is just a spot on a map and it does not effect how I play the game.

3. Should Groundspeak make such a rule: It's their game, they can do what ever they want. But I also can choose (like everyone else) to play their game, someone else's game, or start my own.

 

So for all of you that want a dot on a map moved (for whatever reason), you should also what to fix what I see as the bigger problem that does cause cachers to search in areas that they should not be.

 

As I brought up in my first post in this thread, if the real concern is to stop cachers from going into areas that they should not go, then all "?" should have a way of checking the coordinates. I have heard of more problems that have happen because a group of cachers had some bad information and search the wrong area more than anything else. By myself and with other cachers I have made mistakes on puzzles that put GZ in very wrong spots. Sometimes we searched sometimes we didn't. In most cases the problem would have never happened if we had a way of checking our answers to the puzzle.

 

If you do not want to change both of these "problems", then I say leave both of them alone and stop worrying about what others may think or feel.

Edited December 9, 2009 by Tobias & Petronella

[Clan Riffster]

If you do not want to change both of these "problems", then I say leave both of them alone

It's good that you can recognize that both are issues of concern for some. However, I am bothered by your notion that, if both cannot be solved, neither should be solved. That speaks of spite, which is never a good platform to argue from. If both really are problems, then we shouldn't make solving one dependent upon solving the other. If, for whatever reason, Groundspeak was only able to solve one of these problems, shouldn't they do so?

[+Tobias & Petronella]

It's good that you can recognize that both are issues of concern for some. However, I am bothered by your notion that, if both cannot be solved, neither should be solved. That speaks of spite, which is never a good platform to argue from. If both really are problems, then we shouldn't make solving one dependent upon solving the other. If, for whatever reason, Groundspeak was only able to solve one of these problems, shouldn't they do so?

 

Too many times I've seen where someone wants to help or try to solve a problem and only does it half way, then thinks they did a good job just because they did something. Solving half of a problem still leaves a problem. For me these are two sides of the same coin: Stopping people from going where they should not go just because they have incorrect information.

 

The reason for the "all or nothing" is to either fix this issue or just accepted it as part of the game.

 

This game that we enjoy still has a lot of things wrong with it. Compared with other sports, hobbies or outdoor games, geocaching is still "The new kid on the block". Braking problems down to the smallest level is a good way of understanding each part of the bigger issue. But to solve the big issue/problem it needs to be treated as the whole with simple basic changes, not as smaller parts that require many small changes. Fine tuning should only be done after the major changes have been done first.

 

As far as Groundspeak only being able to solve one of these problems, I don't believe that. If Groundspeak wanted to rebuild this game from the ground up, they could do that. It might take awhile and cost a lot, and they might loose some players while the are doing it, but they could still do it. So as a business, they might not want to work on what we see as "problems" for many reasons. One reason could be that the problem is too small to worry about. But as players if we go to them and show them the bigger issue I believe there is a better chance that they might work on it.

Edited December 9, 2009 by Tobias & Petronella

[+DENelson83]

You know those puzzle caches where at the top of the description it says "ignore the above coordinates, the cache is not there" or something to that effect? Well, why not update the geocaching website to allow the cache owner to set the posted coordinates to "not given" or "not available" or something to that effect? The true coordinates would still be in the database to enable trackable travel distances to remain accurate, but hidden and embellished in a way that they'd still show up in search results as being within a certain distance of the centre coordinates for a given search, but to within a degraded accuracy to discourage brute-forcing, like cloaking the coordinates in our own version of "selective availability"?

Edited December 9, 2009 by DENelson83

[CoyoteRed]

I think the underlying issue is not the bogus coordinates or lack of coords checker. It's the cacher who doesn't pay attention to his surroundings and blindly walks where ever the little compass on the screen tells him. New cachers aren't taught there at times where you don't simply follow the arrow.

 

Bad puzzle solutions don't just happen from a puzzle on the cache page. What about manual entries in the field from bad solutions of puzzles, or simply flubbing the entries of the correct solutions or simply an offset?

 

What folks need to fix is the idea that if it gets into our little electronic gadget then it's okay to go there.

[+The Jester]

You know those puzzle caches where at the top of the description it says "ignore the above coordinates, the cache is not there" or something to that effect? Well, why not update the geocaching website to allow the cache owner to set the posted coordinates to "not given" or "not available" or something to that effect? The true coordinates would still be in the database to enable trackable travel distances to remain accurate, but hidden and embellished in a way that they'd still show up in search results as being within a certain distance of the centre coordinates for a given search, but to within a degraded accuracy to discourage brute-forcing, like cloaking the coordinates in our own version of "selective availability"?

The problem I can see with that solution, is where do you place the cache on the map? How would you know there is a puzzle cache in your area if there are no co-ords given?

[+The Jester]

... all "?" should have a way of checking the coordinates. ...

While this might seem like a solution, there are puzzle caches where this would spoil the puzzle. I know of one puzzle cache that has multiple solutions - one leads to the cache, the others are dead ends/red herrings. It took the hider a lot of effort to make this multi-level puzzle and would not be please if they were forced to put a checker on the page.

 

There are other puzzle caches where no checker is needed - the co-ords are obvious when found (there's a current thread about one such).

 

And, then, there are the "?" caches that are located at co-ords, they aren't puzzles but don't fit the other categories of caches. They don't need checkers as there is no question where the cache is located.

[+flask]

there is a puzzle cache near where i live for which the bogus given coordinates are on private land. by coincidence, the bogus coordinates are in the middle of a well-marked near the margin of property that requires purchase of a trail pass.

 

in winter the trail is used by VAST, our state's snowmobile trail network. many cachers consider VAST trails to be fair game as public trails, but in many cases landowners grant permission ONLY for VAST use.

 

what bothers me is that some people may consider these bogus coordinates to be a nice backdoor onto the trail system. i've checked with the cache owner who assures me that the cache is not near the private land. the landowner has specifically not given permission for caching. so far i have not mentioned it to the reviewer.

 

i am unsure of how to proceed, but i keep an eye on it.

 

so far there doesn't appear to have been a problem.

 

and before you-all write in to tell me not to worry about cache placements that are none of my business, i am actually engaged by the landowner to patrol those trails.

[+DENelson83]

The problem I can see with that solution, is where do you place the cache on the map? How would you know there is a puzzle cache in your area if there are no co-ords given?

You then add a shaded circle on the map centred on a coordinate estimate which randomly changes with each search and having a random radius in a range given by the CO. The final coordinates are guaranteed to be in that circle. On the search page, it would say "within (radius) of (centre coordinates)".

Edited December 10, 2009 by DENelson83

[4wheelin_fool]

 

What I only ask - is that common practice for reviewers asking land owner how he feel with "?" on his ground? Is any regulation for this?

 

Just to clear up this point! The Reviewer involved did not at any time make contact with the Landowner (who is a Geocacher) to ask how he felt about the Coordinates of the puzzle being on his land. Rather the Landowner brought it up in a conversation with the Reviewer, as he was uncomfortable about the coordinates being on his land, and asked the Reviewer to action his request on his behalf.

 

It is interesting to note that Google who have a lot more commercial and political clout than Groundspeak. And who intend indexing Map Pins on Google Maps, will if a Landowner contacts them and requests so, remove any Map Pin on the land owned by that person.

 

So is it wrong for Groundspeak or one of the Site Volunteers as a courtesy to any Landowner, who has requested that any Waypoint on their land whether physical or virtual be removed. That Groundspeak or a Site Volunteer requests that the owner of that waypoint, relocates it off the persons land.

 

Deceangi Volunteer UK Reviewer

 

If a landowner requests it, they should honor their request. Why would it be wrong to move it? How would it hurt the owner of the puzzle? Perhaps the landowner may be too overly concerned that the waypoint represents an attractive nuisance for people who may accidently download the coords and not read or understand the cache page, but so what? Why annoy someone who knows about the game, and for what gain? They could be instigating a future cache maggot for no real reason at all.

 

Perhaps coords with no useful application in the puzzle could be coded a different color, or use a font color that is the same color as the background.

[CoyoteRed]

The problem I can see with that solution, is where do you place the cache on the map? How would you know there is a puzzle cache in your area if there are no co-ords given?

Why would need to place a mystery cache on a map when the very notion the start of the cache is unknown? The whole idea of bogus coords is a fabrication of when there was no other way to do such a thing. Before TB came around these were actually listed as traveling caches. A "better" solution was created.

 

I personally think mystery caches should not have a beginning at all. A set on anchor coords are randomly created by the system to be within a certain distance of the actual location of the start (or end) of the cache. Then the seeker can set a knob that will give them all of the mystery caches (as determined by the anchor) within a certain distance. This knob is graduated in 10 mile increments. This would provide a maximum travel distance of the seeker's selection plus the maximum anchor distance.

 

In the end you would have a simple list of mystery caches within a very fuzzy radius.

Edited December 10, 2009 by CoyoteRed

[+sbell111]

there is a puzzle cache near where i live for which the bogus given coordinates are on private land. by coincidence, the bogus coordinates are in the middle of a well-marked near the margin of property that requires purchase of a trail pass.

 

in winter the trail is used by VAST, our state's snowmobile trail network. many cachers consider VAST trails to be fair game as public trails, but in many cases landowners grant permission ONLY for VAST use.

 

what bothers me is that some people may consider these bogus coordinates to be a nice backdoor onto the trail system. i've checked with the cache owner who assures me that the cache is not near the private land. the landowner has specifically not given permission for caching. so far i have not mentioned it to the reviewer.

 

i am unsure of how to proceed, but i keep an eye on it.

 

so far there doesn't appear to have been a problem.

 

and before you-all write in to tell me not to worry about cache placements that are none of my business, i am actually engaged by the landowner to patrol those trails.

The coords are bogus and by your own admission they are not causing a problem. Why would you even consider forwarding the issue to a reviewer?

[+Tobias & Petronella]

... all "?" should have a way of checking the coordinates. ...

While this might seem like a solution, there are puzzle caches where this would spoil the puzzle. I know of one puzzle cache that has multiple solutions - one leads to the cache, the others are dead ends/red herrings. It took the hider a lot of effort to make this multi-level puzzle and would not be please if they were forced to put a checker on the page.

 

There are other puzzle caches where no checker is needed - the co-ords are obvious when found (there's a current thread about one such).

 

And, then, there are the "?" caches that are located at co-ords, they aren't puzzles but don't fit the other categories of caches. They don't need checkers as there is no question where the cache is located.

 

You bring up a very good point, which shows why "fine tuning" is so important.

 

As with cache size, we can choose "Other" or "Not Chosen". As you know this is done to hide the true size of the cache, which is needed for some hides to work better.

 

One simple solution would be when the cache page is being filled out, have a "check box", one asking the reviewer to waive the geo-checker requirement and another "check box" stating that a geo-checker is not needed. Then cache owner would write a short note to the reviewer stating why they want the waiver or why the checker is not needed. An example of a simple note would be: When the co-ords are found, its impossible to misinterpret them. Or, multiple solutions are possible, and it is part of the puzzle to find out which one is correct. Or, the cache is at posted co-ords.

 

By having a cache page that states "Geo-checker Waived", I see two good things that will come from it.

1. It lets cachers know that there is something special about this geocache. Which may get more people interested in the hide.

2. It gives cache owners something else to work towards.

Edited December 10, 2009 by Tobias & Petronella

[+Prime Suspect]

... all "?" should have a way of checking the coordinates. ...

While this might seem like a solution, there are puzzle caches where this would spoil the puzzle. I know of one puzzle cache that has multiple solutions - one leads to the cache, the others are dead ends/red herrings. It took the hider a lot of effort to make this multi-level puzzle and would not be please if they were forced to put a checker on the page.

 

There are other puzzle caches where no checker is needed - the co-ords are obvious when found (there's a current thread about one such).

 

And, then, there are the "?" caches that are located at co-ords, they aren't puzzles but don't fit the other categories of caches. They don't need checkers as there is no question where the cache is located.

 

You bring up a very good point, which shows why "fine tuning" is so important.

 

As with cache size, we can choose "Other" or "Not Chosen". As you know this is done to hide the true size of the cache, which is needed for some hides to work better.

 

One simple solution would be when the cache page is being filled out, have a "check box", one asking the reviewer to waive the geo-checker requirement and another "check box" stating that a geo-checker is not needed. Then cache owner would write a short note to the reviewer stating why they want the waiver or why the checker is not needed. An example of a simple note would be: When the co-ords are found, its impossible to misinterpret them. Or, multiple solutions are possible, and it is part of the puzzle to find out which one is correct. Or, the cache is at posted co-ords.

 

By having a cache page that states "Geo-checker Waived", I see two good things that will come from it.

1. It lets cachers know that there is something special about this geocache. Which may get more people interested in the hide.

2. It gives cache owners something else to work towards.

That's on opt-out system.

 

opt-out = bad

opt-in = good

[+Prime Suspect]

The problem I can see with that solution, is where do you place the cache on the map? How would you know there is a puzzle cache in your area if there are no co-ords given?

You then add a shaded circle on the map centred on a coordinate estimate which randomly changes with each search and having a random radius in a range given by the CO. The final coordinates are guaranteed to be in that circle. On the search page, it would say "within (radius) of (centre coordinates)".

A complicated system to fix something that isn't broken.

[+wimseyguy]

The problem I can see with that solution, is where do you place the cache on the map? How would you know there is a puzzle cache in your area if there are no co-ords given?

Why would need to place a mystery cache on a map when the very notion the start of the cache is unknown? The whole idea of bogus coords is a fabrication of when there was no other way to do such a thing. Before TB came around these were actually listed as traveling caches. A "better" solution was created.

 

I personally think mystery caches should not have a beginning at all. A set on anchor coords are randomly created by the system to be within a certain distance of the actual location of the start (or end) of the cache. Then the seeker can set a knob that will give them all of the mystery caches (as determined by the anchor) within a certain distance. This knob is graduated in 10 mile increments. This would provide a maximum travel distance of the seeker's selection plus the maximum anchor distance.

 

In the end you would have a simple list of mystery caches within a very fuzzy radius.

 

Except that some puzzles solve to an offset of the posted coords and do not provide the actual location's coords. Your suggestion would make those puzzles stand out like a shiny bison tube on a deciduous tree in the dead of winter.

 

Another complicated solution to a system that isn't really broken. The only issues I see are created by older puzzle caches that were listed before the guideline was edited to keep the bogus coords within 2 miles and those that don't have additional waypoints added.

[CoyoteRed]

Except that some puzzles solve to an offset of the posted coords and do not provide the actual location's coords.

I would make a distinction between unknown and mystery caches, and make puzzle an attribute. Mystery caches would be so because they have no starting point. Your example does, in fact, have a starting point: the posted coordinates.

 

Another complicated solution to a system that isn't really broken.

Hasn't stopped Groundspeak before.

 

The only issues I see are created by older puzzle caches that were listed before the guideline was edited to keep the bogus coords within 2 miles and those that don't have additional waypoints added.

Personally, I despise the 2 mile limit. This was a solution to folks listing cache in New York City and posting the coords in Dallas, TX. This was a problem because folks could solve a puzzle, but never be able to find the cache, thus the cache would forever stay on their nearest list. (Though the Ignore Feature soon solved that.) The reason the limit is so small is because of the sub-game of TBs. "Gotta keep the mileage correct!" Except the mileage is going to be off as soon as the TB goes through a large multi. A solution that was put into place for something that wasn't broken. (The accurate TB mileage, not 1,500 mile offsets.) That's not to mention that a sub-game should not limit the main hobby.

[toczygroszek]

 

Just to clear up this point! The Reviewer involved did not at any time make contact with the Landowner (who is a Geocacher) to ask how he felt about the Coordinates of the puzzle being on his land. Rather the Landowner brought it up in a conversation with the Reviewer, as he was uncomfortable about the coordinates being on his land, and asked the Reviewer to action his request on his behalf.

 

First thing - I gave theoretical question on this forum, because this was interesting and strange experience for me. Tell me why did you turn up this question to thread about my cache? I don't want discuss on public forum about my cache, reviewer and owner. Now everybody knows what is that cache, which one reviewer, and where is that private geocacher's land that was your intention? And worse thing - now you ashamed me saying, that reviewer didn't contact owner first, but owner. So now I should publish email from reviewer, is that right?

So please, continue this topic as it's interesting thing, but stop talking about me and my cache - OK? I will solve that problem, don't worry. And I will send to you private email. As I said - END OF STORY. Thanks.

[+The Jester]

... all "?" should have a way of checking the coordinates. ...

While this might seem like a solution, there are puzzle caches where this would spoil the puzzle. I know of one puzzle cache that has multiple solutions - one leads to the cache, the others are dead ends/red herrings. It took the hider a lot of effort to make this multi-level puzzle and would not be please if they were forced to put a checker on the page.

 

There are other puzzle caches where no checker is needed - the co-ords are obvious when found (there's a current thread about one such).

 

And, then, there are the "?" caches that are located at co-ords, they aren't puzzles but don't fit the other categories of caches. They don't need checkers as there is no question where the cache is located.

 

You bring up a very good point, which shows why "fine tuning" is so important.

 

As with cache size, we can choose "Other" or "Not Chosen". As you know this is done to hide the true size of the cache, which is needed for some hides to work better.

 

One simple solution would be when the cache page is being filled out, have a "check box", one asking the reviewer to waive the geo-checker requirement and another "check box" stating that a geo-checker is not needed. Then cache owner would write a short note to the reviewer stating why they want the waiver or why the checker is not needed. An example of a simple note would be: When the co-ords are found, its impossible to misinterpret them. Or, multiple solutions are possible, and it is part of the puzzle to find out which one is correct. Or, the cache is at posted co-ords.

 

By having a cache page that states "Geo-checker Waived", I see two good things that will come from it.

1. It lets cachers know that there is something special about this geocache. Which may get more people interested in the hide.

2. It gives cache owners something else to work towards.

Um, I thought that's what the "?" type is for. There's something 'special' about the cache (puzzle, containier, etc.) so look at it before hunting it.

[+The Jester]

 

Personally, I despise the 2 mile limit. This was a solution to folks listing cache in New York City and posting the coords in Dallas, TX. This was a problem because folks could solve a puzzle, but never be able to find the cache, thus the cache would forever stay on their nearest list. (Though the Ignore Feature soon solved that.) The reason the limit is so small is because of the sub-game of TBs. "Gotta keep the mileage correct!" Except the mileage is going to be off as soon as the TB goes through a large multi. A solution that was put into place for something that wasn't broken. (The accurate TB mileage, not 1,500 mile offsets.) That's not to mention that a sub-game should not limit the main hobby.

It's not that hard to 'get around' the limit, if you have a good reason. I did on one cache, I was questioned about it, explained why I choose where I choose, and it was published.

[+Tobias & Petronella]

Um, I thought that's what the "?" type is for. There's something 'special' about the cache (puzzle, containier, etc.) so look at it before hunting it.

 

Because the "?" is used as the "catch-all" of cache types, I'm going to focus just on puzzles caches for now.

 

Must (but not all) puzzle caches turn in to a basic Traditional Cache once the puzzle is solved. If you don't solve the puzzle correctly or guess correctly you will end up with a set of co-ords that will have you searching in the wrong spot. In most cases this is not because the cache owner was clever, its just that someone like myself didn't know how to solve it or didn't know that I got it wrong. So when you have bad co-ords how are you to know this unless there is a way a checking. This becomes worse that a Nano in the woods with no clue. At least with the nano there is a chance of finding it. Looking for a cache using bad co-ords means its impossible to find it. So as you search do you quit because you might have bad co-ords, do you quit because the cache might have been muggled, or do you keep looking because the cache is hidden very well? There is no way of knowing.

 

Without looking this up, I'm willing to guess that in every major city there are a large number of puzzle caches that each only have maybe a couple dozen of finds over the past few years. Not only is there no way to know if you have solved it correctly (unless you specialize in that style of puzzle), it takes up space that could be used for something more popular. A cache that 20 will do verses a cache that 200 will do, I know which one I would pick.

 

I'm not saying to get rid of puzzles (that is for another thread ), what I am saying is that if there was a way to check the co-ords fewer people would go in to and search places that they should not go. If someone knew that there was a way to check their answer I believe more people would try to solve some of these puzzles. Also if for some reason using a geo-checker or check sum would lessen the hide, then with the approval from a reviewer the checker should be waived.

 

And when I wrote "It lets cachers know that there is something special about this geocache" in regards to having the checker waived, I meant that would show that the cache is more than a Traditional Cache with extra paper work. After all, to solve most puzzles you either spend an hour or two looking things up on the Internet, trying to figure out which one out of several thousand different codes or ciphers it might, or try to guess what the cache owner was thinking. As I stated earlier, it can become worse than a nano in the woods to solve an find with out a checker of some type.

 

Again, the reason for the checker is to let the cacher know they're looking in the right place and to stop them from search in front of the wrong house, or behind the wrong store or to keep them out of the wrong field. The idea was to stop cachers from going where they should not go and a checker will help.