SUBMITTED (28547) - [FEATURE] Warn at 528 Guideline when Submitting Cache

[+GeoKeeper]

I am currently trying to hide a cache in an area that is pretty congested. I'm new to the hiding, so I took other instances in the area to draw my conclusions about how puzzle caches/multi stage caches were approved.

 

Every time I have submitted my puzzle cache, the reviewer has come back and told me there is a final stage to a puzzle cache within the 528 foot guideline, or stages to a multi cache. At first I didn't understand because we have several in the area where puzzle final cache locations are 100 feet or less from other traditional caches. If the 528 is a guideline, why can't the website warn you before you submit a new cache that it is within 528 feet of any physical cache/stage out there? It doesn't have to give details or coords, just a warning like:

 

"You may be too close to (x) physical stages of caches nearby".

 

It might take some work off of the reviewers, and make the submitting of new caches easier in congested areas. I've had to change my puzzle three times and each attempt was met with the same result (I have not gotten all the caches in the area, so I was not aware). If the system could warn you when submitting, then COs would be able to leave caches disabled and find new coords without having to do a bunch of work each time in hopes they had finally found a good spot.

[+BBosman]

If a system like that was put in place people would be able to play "battleship" to determine the exact location of those waypoints. This would make "solving" those very hard Mystery and Multi caches a breeze.

 

Not that I'm against a system like this, but there is a lot of potential for abuse here.

[+Lil Devil]

At first I didn't understand because we have several in the area where puzzle final cache locations are 100 feet or less from other traditional caches.

I'm betting in all of those cases, either the puzzle pre-dates the Additional Waypoint feature, or the CO lied about the location of the final, in order to get his cache published.

[+niraD]

I am currently trying to hide a cache in an area that is pretty congested. I'm new to the hiding, so I took other instances in the area to draw my conclusions about how puzzle caches/multi stage caches were approved.

It might be more helpful to read the geocache listing guidelines instead. Some people even recommend that you read them more than once, because most folks don't really grasp everything the first time or two they read them.

 

At first I didn't understand because we have several in the area where puzzle final cache locations are 100 feet or less from other traditional caches.

I'm betting in all of those cases, either the puzzle pre-dates the Additional Waypoint feature, or the CO lied about the location of the final, in order to get his cache published.

It is also possible for cache owners to move their caches a short distance after the listings have been published. If two caches start about 550' apart, and each owner moves his cache 250' towards the other (which is a big move, but still acceptable), then they can end up 50' apart and it's all completely innocent.

 

If the 528 is a guideline, why can't the website warn you before you submit a new cache that it is within 528 feet of any physical cache/stage out there?

As BBosman indicated, if such a system were to report proximity issues with mystery/puzzle caches and multi-caches, then it would be used to "battleship" the final locations of those caches.

 

In the meantime, see the Checking for Cache Saturation article in the knowledge books, especially "Step 3". Before you invest a lot of time/money into a site-specific cache design, you can ask the reviewers to verify that the location is available. They're happy to help.

 

But it sounds like the area where you're trying to hide your cache is already pretty well saturated. I can sympathize: the area around my home is pretty well saturated too. But the stated goals of the saturation guidelines are "to encourage you to seek out new places to hide caches rather than putting them in areas where caches already exist, and to limit the number of caches hidden in a particular area". If there are already plenty of caches in the area, then perhaps it would be better to seek out new places to hide caches.

[Moun10Bike]

We have the feature in our database and work is already underway to provide basic functionality along these lines when submitting a new cache listing.

[+GeoKeeper]

There might be some that abuse the system. I can't imagine thousands of cachers trying the "battleship" method, but maybe I'm wrong. I still think it would be a nice tool to help reduce the work on reviewers. I'm glad that it's "in the works" and hope that they can do it in a way that will minimize the abuse.

[+northernpenguin]

There will need to be a way that reviewers can allow a temporary "hold" for a cache being developed (ie event cache). If there is no "on hold" then it will be easy to cause conflicts between a cacher building a multi and a cacher that drops a traditional at the last minute near one of the stages - deliberate or otherwise.

 

If there is a 528 foot warning the inverse will lead people to argue if they dont automatically get that spot. Sure we can say first to submit for review wins, but that will mean people will potentially put much less effort (simple traditionals) into a cache lest they lose the spot

[+GeoKeeper]

In the meantime, see the Checking for Cache Saturation article in the knowledge books, especially "Step 3". Before you invest a lot of time/money into a site-specific cache design, you can ask the reviewers to verify that the location is available. They're happy to help.

What if the reviewer never responds? The only way I've been able to do it is to actually update the puzzle, the location and submit the cache for approval. Only then do I get the response. I doubt I would have even started this thread if I could have gotten some feedback outside of committing the form.

 

I realize I'm new at the hiding game. I've learned quite a lot by bumping into obstacles, which is how I usually learn (think bushwhacking). It just seemed in this case what I had to go on is obviously against what is put forth in the guidelines. It seems that now the guidelines are what are being followed, which I'm fine with. Just as long I understand where the obstacles are now.

[+Team Perrito Blanco]

We've all been hiking and come upon an interesting place that would be a great spot for a cache, but how can you be sure that there isn't an existing cache or cache stage close by? I certainly don't keep the coordinates of cache stages or even caches I've already found in my GPSr. It can be annoying to place a cache somewhere and have the reviewer tell you, "Sorry, but there is a stage to an existing multicache nearby." This is particularly frustrating in cache dense parks. Cache reviewers obviously have some sort of database of information as to where existing geocaches and stages of geocaches currently exist.

 

Can a routine be made available to users that checks if a spot is available based solely on it's proximity to other caches/cache stages? A cache would still have to be reviewed of course, but this feature would eliminate the need to place and then return to move/remove a cache because of its proximity to others. With current mobile internet, this could be done on the spot. A limit could be placed on usage to stop the abuse of the feature to guess puzzle cache locations.

[Moun10Bike]

We are in the middle of an overhaul of the cache submission process. One of the steps in that process will be a check of proximity to other hidden caches that will notify the cache owner if there are problems. He or she can then decide whether to continue on with submission or try a different location.

 

A lot of planning and discussion has gone into this process in order to prevent gaming of the system (e.g. "battleshipping" of a hidden cache location) and details will be revealed when the new process is released.

[Pup Patrol]

Is this basically the same as this thread:

 

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=286101

[+GeoKeeper]

Is this basically the same as this thread:

 

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=286101

 

It's the exact same thread

Edited December 1, 2011 by GeoKeeper

[+supertbone]

We are in the middle of an overhaul of the cache submission process. One of the steps in that process will be a check of proximity to other hidden caches that will notify the cache owner if there are problems. He or she can then decide whether to continue on with submission or try a different location.

 

A lot of planning and discussion has gone into this process in order to prevent gaming of the system (e.g. "battleshipping" of a hidden cache location) and details will be revealed when the new process is released.

 

I am sure the reviewers will love having this in place.

[+cache_n_out]

Hi Everyone,

 

First off this concept used to be in the "forums" where you voted on ideas. I don't see the little tab on the side of my browser window to get there. Is it gone?

 

The function of being able to check automatically if a spot was .1 mile away from existing caches was on the TO DO list. Did it happen? And if so, where is it?

 

Thanks,

 

cache_n_out

[Pup Patrol]

Hi Everyone,

 

First off this concept used to be in the "forums" where you voted on ideas. I don't see the little tab on the side of my browser window to get there. Is it gone?

Yes, the Feedback forum is no longer in service.

 

Features and Bugs are to be requested/reported here in this forum. Please read the sticky dated 01 November 2011:

 

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=284600

 

The function of being able to check automatically if a spot was .1 mile away from existing caches was on the TO DO list. Did it happen? And if so, where is it?

 

Thanks,

 

cache_n_out

 

Check out this previous thread:

 

SUBMITTED (28547) - [FEATURE] Warn at 528 Guideline when Submitting Cache

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=286101

[Moun10Bike]

I'm merging this thread into the existing one.