Caches that involve extra cost

[+2000wu6]

Hi,

 

I have just set up a new cache which involves calling an automated system to get coordinates and answer question at waypoints in order to "win" the game and finally get the coordinates to the physical cache. I received an inquiry from a local reviewer, stating that "caches must not cost anything" and how requiring cachers to call a number would fit in with that.

 

Now, the number you need to call is a regular land line, no premium number or anything. I do not gain any financial benefits from calls. Also, many cachers in Germany will nowadays have either flat rates, or the cost involved is rather negligible compared to all the other cost involved in getting a cache (I estimate the typical phone cost to be something around or less than $1. Also, the cache description clearly states the requirements, so anybody attempting the cache would have the clear information about the calling being required).

 

Anyway, I also believe that the statement about the cache not being allowed to cost anything is a rather abbreviated interpretation of the GC rules, which read:

 

"Commercial caches will not be published on geocaching.com without prior approval from Groundspeak. A commercial cache is a geocache listing or geocache which is perceived by Groundspeak, Groundspeak's employees, or the Volunteer Geocache Reviewers as having been submitted to geocaching.com with the principal or substantial intent of soliciting customers or generating commercial gain. The geocache is presumed to be commercial if the finder is required to go inside a business, interact with employees, and/or purchase a product or service, or if the cache listing has overtones of advertising, marketing, or promotion."

 

As for the main goal, "with the principal or substantial intent of soliciting customers or generating commercial gain", this is clearly not the case, as the cache is in no way connected to a business, or causes any gain to me or any business (apart of course the phone providers). No cacher is required to enter any shop and purchase any items or services. Also, as far as the cost goes, the estimated cost for the calls equals something like half a quart of fuel ... so anybody driving to the cache will most likely pay more for the transportation than for the cache itself.

 

If one would interpret the guidelines in a way that rejected any cost, even the attribute "park or entrance fee" would clearly designate any non-confirming caches. Or caches that require extensive (and expensive) equipment not readily available, as e.g. climbing gear, would not be permissable.

 

What's other cachers' experiences with caches incurring some kind of cost? Or is there any clarification as for the "no cost" rules?

[+G & C]

Seems a little ridiculous to me that they wouldn't publish it. It isn't any different than a cache that requires you to use a UV light for coords, or say a Garmin Chirp cache. You'd have to pay money for items to find those. Or even more blatant, a cache in a garden or museum that has a fee at the door. Plenty of those around here. A phone call? Please. You have to use the internet just to get on the GS website. Wouldn't that require that you pay an internet fee somewhere along the line?

 

I don't have many complaints about GS, but the inconsistencies in the "guidelines" would definitely be one that comes up with me.

[+2000wu6]

I don't have many complaints about GS, but the inconsistencies in the "guidelines" would definitely be one that comes up with me.

I believe at the moment it might just be based on an "oversimplification" of the guidelines, projecting the large paragraph about commercial caches to "caches must not cost money" ... I've already explained the whole concept of the cache, and my understanding of the rules to the reviewer ... got to see how that goes ... I reckon with such a new kind of cache idea, I was bound for some discussion anyway Apart from that, I must say our local reviewers are pretty reasonable, so I hope this whole issue can be resolved soon

[+keehotee]

I don't have many complaints about GS, but the inconsistencies in the "guidelines" would definitely be one that comes up with me.

I believe at the moment it might just be based on an "oversimplification" of the guidelines, projecting the large paragraph about commercial caches to "caches must not cost money" ... I've already explained the whole concept of the cache, and my understanding of the rules to the reviewer ... got to see how that goes ... I reckon with such a new kind of cache idea, I was bound for some discussion anyway Apart from that, I must say our local reviewers are pretty reasonable, so I hope this whole issue can be resolved soon

 

There was a similar cache in the UK called Stop the Clock that relied on a similar method - but unfortunately has been archived for a little while now

[+Smurf]

I don't have many complaints about GS, but the inconsistencies in the "guidelines" would definitely be one that comes up with me.

I believe at the moment it might just be based on an "oversimplification" of the guidelines, projecting the large paragraph about commercial caches to "caches must not cost money" ... I've already explained the whole concept of the cache, and my understanding of the rules to the reviewer ... got to see how that goes ... I reckon with such a new kind of cache idea, I was bound for some discussion anyway Apart from that, I must say our local reviewers are pretty reasonable, so I hope this whole issue can be resolved soon

 

There was a similar cache in the UK called Stop the Clock that relied on a similar method - but unfortunately has been archived for a little while now

 

There is a multi in my area themed on Charlies Angels one stage of that involves phoning "Charlie" for instructions ,, It's briliant and I have never heard a bad word about it.

[+2000wu6]

There is a multi in my area themed on Charlies Angels one stage of that involves phoning "Charlie" for instructions ,, It's briliant and I have never heard a bad word about it.

Happen to have a GC-number?

[+BCandMsKitty]

Don't most caches need a vehicle to get to them? Gotta buy the car and gas to do this? The cost of calling at each waypoint shouldn't enter into any problem with publishing.

Edited February 1, 2011 by BC & MsKitty

[+Geoscouts.eu]

A workaround might be to offer an alternative. If somebody really doesn't want to pay the small cost of a call then allow them to email you for the relevant information but strongly advise against it as it will spoil the theme of the cache. I doubt anybody will take you up on it but it should keep the reviewer happy. Personally, I've done some paid caches where I had to use the motorway to access services where the cache was placed and had to pay a toll for the motorway. The alternative offered was a long treck on foot across fields. I didn't mind in the least paying the 2 euros. The most expensive cache we did was on an island off the West coast of France. Had to get the ferry which cost us over €40. Again it was part of the adventure. Good luck!

[+2000wu6]

A workaround might be to offer an alternative. If somebody really doesn't want to pay the small cost of a call then allow them to email you for the relevant information

Wouldn't work, as it's sort of an interactive cache - you get the next location (which is picked randomly from a set of 14 different locations), as well as a random question (from a set of 3-7 questions per location) and have to answer the question within a given time ... the only way to get around it would be to give out the final location ...

[+keehotee]

A workaround might be to offer an alternative. If somebody really doesn't want to pay the small cost of a call then allow them to email you for the relevant information but strongly advise against it as it will spoil the theme of the cache.

 

I wouldn't have thought that would be allowed under the current guidelines...

 

For example, a puzzle that requires research on public websites in order to determine the coordinates may be acceptable, while a puzzle that requires sending an email to the cache owner with the solution in order to obtain the coordinates may not be.

[+Castle Mischief]

A workaround might be to offer an alternative. If somebody really doesn't want to pay the small cost of a call then allow them to email you for the relevant information but strongly advise against it as it will spoil the theme of the cache.

 

I wouldn't have thought that would be allowed under the current guidelines...

 

For example, a puzzle that requires research on public websites in order to determine the coordinates may be acceptable, while a puzzle that requires sending an email to the cache owner with the solution in order to obtain the coordinates may not be.

 

Note the key word. It's always a good idea to work out the details of caches that deviate from the norm with the reviewer before you do the leg work and sometimes the guidelines can be wiggled.

 

Having said that, I don't see the problem with the concept as the OP has presented it. I hope you're able to work it out with your reviewer.

[+Touchstone]

A workaround might be to offer an alternative. If somebody really doesn't want to pay the small cost of a call then allow them to email you for the relevant information

Wouldn't work, as it's sort of an interactive cache - you get the next location (which is picked randomly from a set of 14 different locations), as well as a random question (from a set of 3-7 questions per location) and have to answer the question within a given time ... the only way to get around it would be to give out the final location ...

 

A very simple Wherigo Cartridge with a built in timer function could serve the same purpose as a workaround, or alternative, to the phone aspects of this cache concept.

[Clan Riffster]

While it won't help today, some advice for the future:

If you are setting up a cache that is fairly complicated, run it by your Reviewer first.

[+dfx]

I've done at least one cache that required you to call a phone number in the past. Lots of other caches also cost something, usually in the form of an access or parking fee:

 

I don't see anything commercial about such a setup since it's an unrelated 3rd party (or rather, one of several 3rd parties) who's potentially benefiting from it. However, it's always a good idea to tell cachers about it ahead of time (in the description), as you may also get visitors who came from abroad and thus would have to pay hefty roaming charges on their cells.

Edited February 1, 2011 by dfx

[+Ecylram]

I'm always a bit leery whenever we get a second-hand story of what "the reviewer said".

 

The guidelines and general policies, as I understand them, require that cachers should not have to pay an additional fee to complete a cache. This is generally aimed a pay websites, but could apply to fee-per-minute phone calls. (900 & 976 numbers in the US for example). Admission fees to an area are generally excepted from this policy.

 

I'd bet your cache will get approved if you meet all other guidelines and the phone calls are not any more expensive than a call to your neighbor would be.

[+2000wu6]

My intention at this point is not directed towards the reviewer, whom I'm in contact with in order to explain the cache and game-flow, but to see mainly whether I actually misunderstand the guidelines (though both original and "official" translation in German do not seem to contradict my cache listing), and to see if there are caches that require something like phone calls ... I fully understand support any rule that is aimed at preventing monetary gain by premium numbers (or other commercial interests) as written down in the guidelines. But without any commercial interest, and negligible cost to the cacher (if any at all), I don't really see anything that would go against the cache at the moment ...

[+StarBrand]

I'm thinking there must be a little more going on here with the reviewer's thinking. As presented thus far - the cache idea really doesn't sound like a big deal to me. However, I'll reserve any judgement and watch this thread for a bit.

[+joranda]

Just apeal it to GS. I am sure they will publish your cache. I have done many caches that you have to pay a park fee to get into the area to find the caches. It also helps if you can find a cache that is already published to show it is the same style of cache.

[+Smurf]

There is a multi in my area themed on Charlies Angels one stage of that involves phoning "Charlie" for instructions ,, It's briliant and I have never heard a bad word about it.

Happen to have a GC-number?

 

First stage - - - http://coord.info/GC123EE

 

BUT because it has been done before doesn't mean it will be allowed again

Edited February 1, 2011 by Smurf

[+Coldgears]

My favorite puzzle cache of all time made you call up a number. After you call, you have to enter a password [found by searching the area for a clue].

 

The number is on the cache page. I wouldn't suggest calling it though, he used a prepaid-card and it would suck if strangers on the internet drained the last few minutes.

Edited June 15, 2011 by Keystone
Spoiler information and cache ID removed by moderator.

[neduet]

dont have an idea...

[+niraD]

FWIW, I've seen a few caches that involved calling a specific number to get more information. They used toll-free numbers, so there was no charge to those seeking the cache. (One also used caller ID and provided the information only if you were calling from a specific pay phone.)

[+hzoi]

I've found at least one multi in Germany, Mission to M.A.R.S., that required a phone call to get the coordinates for the final. (And then you had to decrypt the Morse code.) Can't remember the specifics on the others.

 

24, a highly rated puzzle cache in Frankfurt am Main, requires a team of geocachers with three Handys to find the cache. Two of the reviewers in Hessen have allowed this cache to continue (and one enjoyed finding it with his player account).

 

I've found many a cache in Germany that gave the owner's Handy number for a Telefonjoker.

 

Nearly every webcam cache requires the cachers to call someone to get the photo taken, or to use a smart phone to take it themself.

 

I think this is an overly strict reading of the rules. I would appeal it to Groundspeak. Or you could ask one of the other Hessen reviewers, they might be able to help resolve the situation.

 

edit: I suggested two local reviewers to contact, but now that I look at your other published caches, chances are that one of the reviewers I named is the reviewer in question.

Edited February 1, 2011 by hzoi

[+sseegars]

FWIW, I've seen a few caches that involved calling a specific number to get more information. They used toll-free numbers, so there was no charge to those seeking the cache. (One also used caller ID and provided the information only if you were calling from a specific pay phone.)

 

What is FWIW?

[+dfx]

What is FWIW?

 

http://tinyurl.com/cbu7sq

[+NYPaddleCacher]

Just apeal it to GS. I am sure they will publish your cache. I have done many caches that you have to pay a park fee to get into the area to find the caches. It also helps if you can find a cache that is already published to show it is the same style of cache.

 

That's not true.

 

In the third paragraph of the guidelines it reads"

 

"First and foremost please be advised there is no precedent for placing caches. This means that the past listing of a similar cache in and of itself is not a valid justification for the listing of a new cache."

 

If you cite another cache as a justification for why a reviewer should publish a new cache, if and that cache is in violation of the guidelines, the most likely outcome is that the cited cache will get archived.

[+sseegars]

What is FWIW?

 

http://tinyurl.com/cbu7sq

 

Awwww. ya ruined it! LOL

[+hzoi]

Found two other German caches that require a cell phone to complete:

 

Hamburger Telefonjoker

 

Telefonjoker does not technically require a phone call, but according to the description, it is very difficult to find without using a "TJ."

[+SwineFlew]

What about this cache?

 

I dont have a problem with a cache that will cost me something as long it doesnt go to the CO.

[+joranda]

Just apeal it to GS. I am sure they will publish your cache. I have done many caches that you have to pay a park fee to get into the area to find the caches. It also helps if you can find a cache that is already published to show it is the same style of cache.

 

That's not true.

 

In the third paragraph of the guidelines it reads"

 

"First and foremost please be advised there is no precedent for placing caches. This means that the past listing of a similar cache in and of itself is not a valid justification for the listing of a new cache."

 

If you cite another cache as a justification for why a reviewer should publish a new cache, if and that cache is in violation of the guidelines, the most likely outcome is that the cited cache will get archived.

 

A caching friend of mine appealed a submited cache that got turned down. Showed a cache that was like it and GS published it that day. So it does work.

[GOF and Bacall]

Just apeal it to GS. I am sure they will publish your cache. I have done many caches that you have to pay a park fee to get into the area to find the caches. It also helps if you can find a cache that is already published to show it is the same style of cache.

 

That's not true.

 

In the third paragraph of the guidelines it reads"

 

"First and foremost please be advised there is no precedent for placing caches. This means that the past listing of a similar cache in and of itself is not a valid justification for the listing of a new cache."

 

If you cite another cache as a justification for why a reviewer should publish a new cache, if and that cache is in violation of the guidelines, the most likely outcome is that the cited cache will get archived.

 

A caching friend of mine appealed a submited cache that got turned down. Showed a cache that was like it and GS published it that day. So it does work.

 

That doesn't prove the premise that citing an existing cache helps. It only shows the GS will, on occasion, overturn a reviewers decision.

[+Harry Dolphin]

Like others, I get the impression that we are not hearing the entire story. Something is not being understood or is being misconstrued.

Money, per se, is not an issue, if the money is being paid to a state park, or non-profit organization. I paid $10 to enter Stokes State Forest. More than that for the Bronx Botanical Garden. Not commercial, because the are government/non-profit. But you cannot hide one in Disneyland. That's for profit. You cannot hide one in a newspaper box that charges money. (Hey. I was willing to, and did, pay 50 cents for that cache! But it was archived as commercial) Tolls on the turnpike for a cache at the rest stop? No problem. $15 ferry ride to the island? No problem. Non-commercial/non-profit. So, costing some money is not the problem.

I have heard of problems with requiring telephone calls. (Not sure if it was a temporary problem.) It had to do more with non-permanence (I think) than the price of a phone call.

Perhaps I am not understanding something here. But it does not sound like a commercial problem.

[+Walts Hunting]

There is a multi in my area themed on Charlies Angels one stage of that involves phoning "Charlie" for instructions ,, It's briliant and I have never heard a bad word about it.

Happen to have a GC-number?

 

GC number wouldn't matter. If it hasn't been published only the hider and GC reviewers can see it.

[+2000wu6]

From what the reviewer mentioned, there have been some caches before that were published, with some discussion afterwards or changed listings once they had been published, which is why he's currently hesitant to publish it ... And yes I know that I can't get a cache that doesn't follow the guidelines "forced" through by referencing another cache that breaks the same rules ... that's not what I want anyway ...

[+Coldgears]

Like others, I get the impression that we are not hearing the entire story. Something is not being understood or is being misconstrued.

Money, per se, is not an issue, if the money is being paid to a state park, or non-profit organization. I paid $10 to enter Stokes State Forest. More than that for the Bronx Botanical Garden. Not commercial, because the are government/non-profit. But you cannot hide one in Disneyland. That's for profit. You cannot hide one in a newspaper box that charges money. (Hey. I was willing to, and did, pay 50 cents for that cache! But it was archived as commercial) Tolls on the turnpike for a cache at the rest stop? No problem. $15 ferry ride to the island? No problem. Non-commercial/non-profit. So, costing some money is not the problem.

I have heard of problems with requiring telephone calls. (Not sure if it was a temporary problem.) It had to do more with non-permanence (I think) than the price of a phone call.

Perhaps I am not understanding something here. But it does not sound like a commercial problem.

My reviewer published a cache that requires visiting the Philadelphia Zoo. That's completely commercial and for profit. So, I don't think that really applies to places you have to pay to get in.

 

http://coord.info/GC1ABNK

[GOF and Bacall]

Like others, I get the impression that we are not hearing the entire story. Something is not being understood or is being misconstrued.

Money, per se, is not an issue, if the money is being paid to a state park, or non-profit organization. I paid $10 to enter Stokes State Forest. More than that for the Bronx Botanical Garden. Not commercial, because the are government/non-profit. But you cannot hide one in Disneyland. That's for profit. You cannot hide one in a newspaper box that charges money. (Hey. I was willing to, and did, pay 50 cents for that cache! But it was archived as commercial) Tolls on the turnpike for a cache at the rest stop? No problem. $15 ferry ride to the island? No problem. Non-commercial/non-profit. So, costing some money is not the problem.

I have heard of problems with requiring telephone calls. (Not sure if it was a temporary problem.) It had to do more with non-permanence (I think) than the price of a phone call.

Perhaps I am not understanding something here. But it does not sound like a commercial problem.

My reviewer published a cache that requires visiting the Philadelphia Zoo. That's completely commercial and for profit. So, I don't think that really applies to places you have to pay to get in.

 

http://coord.info/GC1ABNK

 

I'll bet that the Zoo is a not for profit corporation.

[+Touchstone]

From the Philidelphia Zoo website:

 

As a nonprofit organization, we rely heavily on membership and attendance for support.

 

Typically non profits and lands managed by government agencies have been granted a bit more leeway in terms of the Commercial portion of the Guidelines in the past.

[+2000wu6]

What really bugs me in this whole ordeal is that IMHO there is no part of the guidelines that forbids any of what I'm trying to do here, and that are loads and loads of caches (both old and new) that also use calls ... coming across more and more as I do research ... apart from Wherigo, I do not see any other way of implementing an interactive cache the way I intend to ... and given the more than mixed results I've personally seen with the quality of WIG implementations, I don't see where this is an improvement over a simple phone call. WIG is only implemented on a small number of Garmin GPSRs (and not even on some brand new models like the 62), or require smart phones (which not everybody has, and which also cost money ). Add to that the instabilities of the interpreters (on one WIG I did, my GPS would crash about twice per stage ...). So is this really adding to the experience?

Guess all that's really left is contacting GS for clarification of the rules ...

[+hzoi]

I'm curious as to which of the Hessische reviewers you're working with. Can you please send me an email?

[+chartinael]

 

There is a multi in my area themed on Charlies Angels one stage of that involves phoning "Charlie" for instructions ,, It's briliant and I have never heard a bad word about it.

 

Nice Multi in my area as well - also requires to call in for final coords. GC1DVFW. Managed to get a few favorite points too.

 

Edit: Oh, it has been mentioned already (Hamburger Telefonjoker).

Edited February 8, 2011 by chartinael

[Georgia Dreamer]

Hi,

 

I have just set up a new cache which involves calling an automated system to get coordinates and answer question at waypoints in order to "win" the game and finally get the coordinates to the physical cache. I received an inquiry from a local reviewer, stating that "caches must not cost anything" and how requiring cachers to call a number would fit in with that.

 

Now, the number you need to call is a regular land line, no premium number or anything. I do not gain any financial benefits from calls. Also, many cachers in Germany will nowadays have either flat rates, or the cost involved is rather negligible compared to all the other cost involved in getting a cache (I estimate the typical phone cost to be something around or less than $1. Also, the cache description clearly states the requirements, so anybody attempting the cache would have the clear information about the calling being required).

 

Anyway, I also believe that the statement about the cache not being allowed to cost anything is a rather abbreviated interpretation of the GC rules, which read:

 

"Commercial caches will not be published on geocaching.com without prior approval from Groundspeak. A commercial cache is a geocache listing or geocache which is perceived by Groundspeak, Groundspeak's employees, or the Volunteer Geocache Reviewers as having been submitted to geocaching.com with the principal or substantial intent of soliciting customers or generating commercial gain. The geocache is presumed to be commercial if the finder is required to go inside a business, interact with employees, and/or purchase a product or service, or if the cache listing has overtones of advertising, marketing, or promotion."

 

As for the main goal, "with the principal or substantial intent of soliciting customers or generating commercial gain", this is clearly not the case, as the cache is in no way connected to a business, or causes any gain to me or any business (apart of course the phone providers). No cacher is required to enter any shop and purchase any items or services. Also, as far as the cost goes, the estimated cost for the calls equals something like half a quart of fuel ... so anybody driving to the cache will most likely pay more for the transportation than for the cache itself.

 

If one would interpret the guidelines in a way that rejected any cost, even the attribute "park or entrance fee" would clearly designate any non-confirming caches. Or caches that require extensive (and expensive) equipment not readily available, as e.g. climbing gear, would not be permissable.

 

What's other cachers' experiences with caches incurring some kind of cost? Or is there any clarification as for the "no cost" rules?

[Georgia Dreamer]

 

I don't think $1-2 is too much to pay, but some caches in Quintana Roo (CANCUN) Mexico are costly, or inaccessble. Recently I tried to get to a couple of these caches, only to discover that there's an entrance fee (up to $60), or you are required to leave an ID card, or you simply cannot enter unless you are registered guest at the resort (a guest pass costs about $80/day). This means that only rich tourists can access them. In addition, many of these sites are shameless destroyers of a fragile ecosystem--dynamiting, holding captive dolphins (see the video "the cove" to see where your dolphins come from), and more. I object so strongly to these caches that I want to stop Geocaching. Geocaching should be free, respectful of the environment. Surely vetting these caches should exclude those that are destructive and exclusionary.

[+Spraginator]

My favorite puzzle cache of all time made you call up a number. After you call, you have to enter a password, the only way to get the password is by finding a serial number on a pay-phone.

 

LINK NOT SHOWN TO AVOID SPREADING

 

The number is on the cache page. I wouldn't suggest calling it though, he used a prepaid-card and it would suck if strangers on the internet drained the last few minutes.

 

Coldgears,

 

You can't post the solution to a puzzle cache and the link to the cache here. That's completely underminding the CO. If they wanted the solution in the forums, they would have put it here. You really should remove or edit above post.

[+Sol seaker]

 

I don't think $1-2 is too much to pay, but some caches in Quintana Roo (CANCUN) Mexico are costly, or inaccessble. Recently I tried to get to a couple of these caches, only to discover that there's an entrance fee (up to $60), or you are required to leave an ID card, or you simply cannot enter unless you are registered guest at the resort (a guest pass costs about $80/day). This means that only rich tourists can access them. In addition, many of these sites are shameless destroyers of a fragile ecosystem--dynamiting, holding captive dolphins (see the video "the cove" to see where your dolphins come from), and more. I object so strongly to these caches that I want to stop Geocaching. Geocaching should be free, respectful of the environment. Surely vetting these caches should exclude those that are destructive and exclusionary.

 

If you have objections about a cache, you can always write to the local reviewer about it. They will decide what to do from there.

[+Manville Possum]

Like this :mad:cache? http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?guid=d88163f8-e51a-4bde-937b-ff973e249270

I like to be told up front about the cost to log a cache.

[+t4e]

My favorite puzzle cache of all time made you call up a number. After you call, you have to enter a password, the only way to get the password is by finding a serial number on a pay-phone.

 

LINK NOT SHOWN TO AVOID SPREADING

 

The number is on the cache page. I wouldn't suggest calling it though, he used a prepaid-card and it would suck if strangers on the internet drained the last few minutes.

 

Coldgears,

 

You can't post the solution to a puzzle cache and the link to the cache here. That's completely underminding the CO. If they wanted the solution in the forums, they would have put it here. You really should remove or edit above post.

 

not to mention that is against TOU

 

You agree not to:

(m) Publish, in any form of media, the solutions, hints, spoilers, or any hidden coordinates for any geocache without consent from the cache owner.

 

http://www.geocaching.com/about/termsofuse.aspx

[+Ambient_Skater]

Coldgears,

 

You can't post the solution to a puzzle cache and the link to the cache here. That's completely underminding the CO. If they wanted the solution in the forums, they would have put it here. You really should remove or edit above post.

Where was the solution? He didn't provide the password or the serial number of the phone booth.

[+t4e]

Coldgears,

 

You can't post the solution to a puzzle cache and the link to the cache here. That's completely underminding the CO. If they wanted the solution in the forums, they would have put it here. You really should remove or edit above post.

Where was the solution? He didn't provide the password or the serial number of the phone booth.

 

do you really need it all that spelled out?...part of the challenge was to figure out what you need to do and he just gave it away

Edited June 15, 2011 by t4e

[+Ambient_Skater]

do you really need it all that spelled out?...part of the challenge was to figure out what you need to do and he just gave it away

That wasn't the solution.

[+Spraginator]

do you really need it all that spelled out?...part of the challenge was to figure out what you need to do and he just gave it away

That wasn't the solution.

 

No, but it was a step by step guide on how to get the solution. Part of the puzzle in puzzle caches is just exactly what you have to do. What he posted significantly decreased the difficulty of the puzzle.