Automated proximity checker within submit facility

[+Beach_hut]

Hi,

 

I've seen a lot of threads asking for a map of caches with a 0.1 mile radius drawn around them so that hiders can see where they hide new caches, and I totally agree with the retort to such threads, which is that it would need to include multi/puzzle final cache locations and would thus give them away to anyone who hadn't solved the puzzle/multi, which speaking as a puzzle cache setter I would not appreciate.

 

I think I've thought of a way round it: when the hider fills out the cache submission wizard, at the point they enter the co-ords, there is a button they can click which will do an automated check to see if those co-ords are within 0.1 miles of an existing cache/multi stage etc.

 

It would literally say Yes or No, not how far and which cache etc.

 

To prevent abuse, and the function being used as a brute force geocheck substitute, you could put a limit on it which would cap the number of times you could click the button, say 3 times in a 24 hour period.

 

I would propose this as optional, so that if you were writing out a bunch of cache listings, you wouldn't be obliged to check the proximity on each one (plus sometimes you might know darn well there isn't a cache nearby, and again you wouldn't be obliged to click a button to prove it)

 

When it gets to the reviewer, they would naturally still need to check the location itself is suitable/legal etc, and the cache meets all the guidelines, but if the hider had clicked the button and got a green light on the proximity checker, a marker would show up for the benefit of the reviewer telling them the proximity had been checked, and they wouldn't need to do so, saving the reviewer time.

 

Perhaps as a safeguard to reduce errors, if you were a hider and the proximity checker said no, and you couldn't see why, there would be a button next to where it said no, allowing you to push these co-ords to a reviewer and then they could scrutinize and make sure the system wasn't throwing false positives.

 

I dare say there are holes in my plan, but what do you think?

[+chillypenguin]

Love the idea, I was doing a puzzle cache and only had 1/2 the co-ords. With this and an educated guess (which was right) within 3 tries I would have had the missing co-ords!!

[+niraD]

See also:

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=294311

[+Beach_hut]

Love the idea, I was doing a puzzle cache and only had 1/2 the co-ords. With this and an educated guess (which was right) within 3 tries I would have had the missing co-ords!!

 

That's not the idea... LOL

[cezanne]

Love the idea, I was doing a puzzle cache and only had 1/2 the co-ords. With this and an educated guess (which was right) within 3 tries I would have had the missing co-ords!!

 

That's not the idea... LOL

 

Yet it would be a common use and is the reason why I strictly object such a system.

 

Cezanne

[+Beach_hut]

See also:

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=294311

 

Thanks for the link. That post has many of the issues I was trying to address, but I can see there's no easy answer, as you can never underestimate the tenacity of someone who wants to cheat.

 

As a puzzle cache setter I would prefer people to find my caches by solving the puzzle, but if they went to that much effort to solve it, I sort of don't begrudge them it (much - lol)

[+stijnhommes]

Excellent idea. I especially like the idea of capping it to avoid abuse.

[+Beach_hut]

How about one go per 24 hours instead of three?

[cezanne]

How about one go per 24 hours instead of three?

 

That still will not help to eliminate my concerns and moreover several accounts can work together and for a really hard or long cache investing a few days waiting time does not make a big difference.

 

It is not only about mystery caches, but also about long multi caches (in my area there are caches where 100km and more have to be walked, but where the target area is more or less known). My goal as a cache owner is not to get many find logs, but a high rate of interesting logs. Those who obtain the coordinates via short cuts tend to write logs which are not interesting. So for me the argument that I am not losing anything and that just the cheaters lose something is not true.

 

I could have abused such an automated proximity checker in several cases. If one has visited almost all caches in a dense area and only very few are missing, even a small number of requests can be used to circumvent what a cache is really about.

 

Cezanne

[+The A-Team]

When it gets to the reviewer, they would naturally still need to check the location itself is suitable/legal etc, and the cache meets all the guidelines, but if the hider had clicked the button and got a green light on the proximity checker, a marker would show up for the benefit of the reviewer telling them the proximity had been checked, and they wouldn't need to do so, saving the reviewer time.

Actually, the reviewer would still need to do a proximity check. Not many people think about it, but unpublished caches also come into play with the proximity guideline. Sometimes an unpublished cache is just an old, unused listing that a cacher has left in an inconvenient spot and doesn't plan on submitting at that time. Other times it's a cache that's actively being developed. An automated system wouldn't be able to tell the difference between these two scenarios, so the automatic proximity checker would either give a false positive (yes, that spot is available, only to be later told an unpublished cache is blocking the spot), or a false negative (no that spot isn't available because there's an unpublished cache, even though that cache may not be under active development), depending on which way the system is designed.

 

Imagine the grief reviewers would get when the proximity checker gives someone a green light, only for them to have to tell the cacher that an unpublished cache is actually blocking their spot. It always come back to the fact that only the reviewers can see the big picture. Any automated system will have blind spots, which would lead to confusion and angst.

 

Thinking of placing a cache, and you're wondering if the spot is available? Ask a reviewer.