Caches hidden from Search

[+RuffRidr]

I was thinking about making a signature item that basically consisted of a 4 piece wooden puzzle. Only one piece would be put in a cache at a time. So someone would have to visit caches that I have visited to collect all 4. Once the puzzle was put together it would reveal the coordinates to a seperate cache, which would be well stocked. Now I'd also like to list that new cache on Geocaching.com so that the online logs, etc. would still be there. But obviously it would not be desirable to have this cache show up on the search page. Is there currently a way to do this now? Or would it be possible to set up a new type of "hidden" cache?

 

--RuffRidr

[+Markwell]

Put in bogus coordinates. Make SURE that you indicate on the page that they're bogus, and I'd personally place them near (but not at) the actual cache. Close enough to the real spot that approvers won't allow another one nearby (0.10 miles), but far enough away so that someone couldn't find the cache.

 

BTW - I would make sure that you ask permission of the cache owners that you're placing the pieces in as well...

 

I'm a little confused on something though: Only one piece would be put in a cache at a time. I presume you mean that the four pieces would be spread out over different caches, and not that only one piece is in the wild.

 

What happens if multiple people start collecting these pieces? If I get piece 1, and JollyBGood gets piece 4, and we don't tell each other. I'll be looking around for piece 4 for a LONG time, and he'll be looking for piece 1.

 

Even if you do these as Travel Bugs that have to stay in a certain area (an interesting idea I've toyed with), TBs go missing, as do caches and their contents. The more pieces you have, the more likely it is that one will go missing.

 

I don't want to sound pessimistic on this idea. It think done correctly, it could work. But there's going to have to be an awful lot of planning involved.

 

Markwell

Chicago Geocaching

[+gnbrotz]

How about placing 4 or 5 of each identical piece in the same cache? That way, both Markwell and JollyBGood will have a chance to find the final cache.

 

Greg

N 39 54.705'

W 77 33.137'

[+RuffRidr]

Ya, I didn't word that very well. I did plan on creating many of each piece and putting them in various caches. What I meant was that there wouldn't be 2 different pieces in the same cache. Gnbrotz, I like your idea of having 4 or 5 of the same piece in a cache. I'll think about that.

 

As far as the bogus coordinates go. That does sound like it would work. Too me it seems kinda like a kludge tho. I still wish there was a better system in place to account for ideas like this. If you had a "hidden" type of cache, the approvers would still know the location of the cache and could disapprove other caches that people tried to place there.

 

Thanks for the ideas!

--RuffRidr

[+The Cheeseheads]

I have something similar to this, although the coordinate fragments are painted onto the first three containers and you need to copy them all to find the fourth.

 

The entered coordinates for the secret cache are the same as one of the other three with a prominent note that they are bogus.

 

I would have put different coordinates in, such as the coordinates for a parking area near the final, except that a clever person could figure out how to find the secret cache without having to find all three of the prelims.

 

- - - - -

I wish I could hear the soundtrack to my life. That way I'd know when to duck.

[+Renegade Knight]

It's a multi cache since you have to find the other pieces and people are going to have to track your cache visits down.

 

We had one in Boise that was similar. The Tio Woods Cache (which I NEVER got). You had to find the a travel bug to get the information you needed to find the cache. Same idea, different implemention. Your puzzle piecec would not be a travel bug and would be harder to track down.

 

=====================

Wherever you go there you are.

[+TeamVE]

Well,

 

Here's a sneaky way for you....

 

Caches that were approved and then later archived CAN be viewed by anybody, as long as you have the GCID number...... They also don't show up on any searches.... And they DO count for Stats... (Though for Dan's page, somebody muight have to make it do a refresh on that particular cache when logged....)

 

Place the cache, get it approved, then archive it....

 

Of course, the drawback is then that the listing could also be found by looking at the logs of anyone who logs the cache.... I suppose that's where bogus/parking coordinates could come in.

 

----------------------------------

----------------------------------

"The number you have reached is imaginary, please rotate your phone 90 degrees and try again... <beeeeep>"

[+erik88l-r]

quote:

---

Place the cache, get it approved, then archive it....

---

 

I think the cache approvers would rather not waste their time reviewing something that you're going to archive. That's why temporary caches are not allowed.

 

Just post a "bonus cache" and use parking lot coords. Or make it all into a five stage multicache and raise the difficulty level, especially if the seperate caches are close enough to be found on the same trip.

 

erik - geocaching.com admin

[+Sissy-n-CR]

If you want people to search for the game pieces, then use nearby, but bogus, coordinates. However, if don't want the cache to show up in searches, then you can use all zeros in the coordinates. Archiving can appear as though it's no longer available.

 

Either way, there is no way, at present, to completely hide a cache on GC.com from prying eyes.

 

CR

 

[+erik88l-r]

quote:

---

However, if don't want the cache to show up in searches, then you can use all zeros in the coordinates.

---

 

'though fine in theory, using all zeros can cause some problems with travel bugs and the like. That's why the cache approvers ask that coords within a mile or two be posted unless that totally screws up the cache concept. I have an antipodal cache that requires coords on the other side of the earth for example, but that's unusual. There is another forum thread that goes into this in greater detail, but I can't markwell you.

 

The geocaching FAQ states:

quote:

---

A logbook might contain information about nearby attractions, coordinates to other unpublished caches....

---

 

Which invites you to do what's being discussed w/o creating a seperate cache page for the bonus cache. If a smilie is required that can be gained thru logging a second find on one of the preliminary caches. That way the bonus cache would be totally invisible to all.

 

erik - geocaching.com admin

[+Sissy-n-CR]

quote:

---

Originally posted by ~erik~:

Which invites you to do what's being discussed w/o creating a seperate cache page for the bonus cache. If a smilie is required that can be gained thru logging a second find on one of the preliminary caches. That way the bonus cache would be totally invisible to all.

---

 

Ah, ha!

 

You just gave me an even sneakier way to hide a cache discription. That was the problem, the online cache discription. But, now, with what you just said, combined with some other techniques for verification, you could have a cache discription buried within the discriptions of one or more other caches.

 

CR

 

[+erik88l-r]

quote:

---

You just gave me an even sneakier way to hide a cache discription. That was the problem, the online cache discription. But, now, with what you just said, combined with some other techniques for verification, you could have a cache discription buried within the discriptions of one or more other caches.

---

 

Yeah, but if you get too sneaky no one would ever know to look for the cache.

 

You could put a coded message within the text of a cache description that lead someone to a second cache but it would be kind of pointless if only you knew it was there. If you publicized it's existance then it wouldn't be secret anymore. It would just be hidden, like in the case of this cache I recently found.

 

What I meant was putting coords to the bonus cache in a posted cache itself, not in the description.

 

~erik~

[+Sissy-n-CR]

See, what I was thinking was letting someone find a piece in a cache. They could either leave the piece or move it to another cache. Heck, even keep it, but with a request to release it when the final cache is found. No two pieces could occupy one cache. Multiple pieces of the same clue or overlaping clues could/would exist. Plus, on each gamepiece are hints to clues online. Therefore, by finding partial clues in the wild and combining them with clues online, you get the whole picture. Plus, some clues could lead to other caches that hold more clues.

 

In the beginning the only way to know the cache even exists is finding a clue in another cache. Then as is becomes clear how it works cachers might start emailing each other for trading clues and collaborating.

 

Credit for the find would be like you said, logging the find on another, existing cache. Most importantly, a particular cache.

 

Heck, people might even discover this particular cache when they see people logging one cache multiple times and wondering why.

 

Conceivability, because the clues are moving around, a cacher might have to visit the same cache multiple times in order to find enough clues. What a pain in the butt! ...and evil!

 

CR

 

[+erik88l-r]

Well, about half of what you descibe is already being done by having cache coords on a travel bug, like with this cache.

 

The rest of it would sort of work for the first few finders, but then the word would get out and the cache's existance would no longer be a secret. At that point some might consider it to be elitist - wherein those in the know would hunt for something newbies are unaware of.

 

It's an interesting concept to consider though.....

 

~erik~

[+Sissy-n-CR]

I hope they don't consider me too elitist as I've put out a number of easier caches and even two designed specifically for beginners.

 

CR

 

[+erik88l-r]

quote:

---

I hope they don't consider me too elitist as I've put out a number of easier caches and even two designed specifically for beginners.

---

 

I was just being flippant with that remark.

 

The only time I've ever considered a cache to be elitist was when one was submitted with the names of those invited to participate. What you propose is nowhere near that.

 

erik - geocaching.com adminion