Placement too close to puzzle cache final locations

[+XD1]

Yesterday I decided to place a couple of caches not far from my new home.

 

After searching for good spots, rejecting one for being too close to another traditional cache, avoiding muggles, concocting names and prepping the caches, hiding them and returning to create pages and submit, both were rejected for being too close to the final locations of seperate puzzle caches. The reveiwer claimed that although I had checked the box saying I'd read the guidelines re placement, I had missed the 'fundamental placement guidelines'.

 

How can you know the location of a puzzle cache without having solved them???

[Pup Patrol]

Yesterday I decided to place a couple of caches not far from my new home.

 

After searching for good spots, rejecting one for being too close to another traditional cache, avoiding muggles, concocting names and prepping the caches, hiding them and returning to create pages and submit, both were rejected for being too close to the final locations of seperate puzzle caches. The reveiwer claimed that although I had checked the box saying I'd read the guidelines re placement, I had missed the 'fundamental placement guidelines'.

 

How can you know the location of a puzzle cache without having solved them???

 

It's pretty amazing that you've managed to avoid this situation with your previous hides.

 

In addition to the Guidelines, you should check out the Help Center. The section titled "Hiding a Geocache" has some good information for you, particularly 1.9 Checking for Geocache Saturation

 

Help Center → Hiding a Geocache

http://support.Groundspeak.com/index.php?pg=kb.book&id=19

 

 

B.

Edited October 5, 2013 by Pup Patrol

[+Dame Deco]

The easiest thing to do is just solve the puzzles. How many are there, are they especially hard ones?

[jholly]

Yesterday I decided to place a couple of caches not far from my new home.

 

After searching for good spots, rejecting one for being too close to another traditional cache, avoiding muggles, concocting names and prepping the caches, hiding them and returning to create pages and submit, both were rejected for being too close to the final locations of seperate puzzle caches. The reveiwer claimed that although I had checked the box saying I'd read the guidelines re placement, I had missed the 'fundamental placement guidelines'.

 

How can you know the location of a puzzle cache without having solved them???

 

The easiest, as has been pointed out, is to solve them. Lacking that you might email the CO's and see if they would be willing to suggest another place nearby that you could hide your caches. Lacking that, it is play battleships with the reviewer.

[+lamoracke]

Just part of the reality of trying to hide caches in areas where other non-traditionals could be....wherigos, puzzles, even multis or letterbox hybrids. You can either try to hide one and be told by the reviewer (if they tell you) which puzzle(s) or caches are blocking you and then you can either solve that one or ask the CO where it is, or just solve all caches in the vicinity of an area you want to hide caches. Its why I almost never try to hide caches in areas I do not have cleared out, all those non-traditionals. I like to know my area inside and out before I hide stuff.

[jholly]

Just part of the reality of trying to hide caches in areas where other non-traditionals could be....wherigos, puzzles, even multis or letterbox hybrids. You can either try to hide one and be told by the reviewer (if they tell you) which puzzle(s) or caches are blocking you and then you can either solve that one or ask the CO where it is, or just solve all caches in the vicinity of an area you want to hide caches. Its why I almost never try to hide caches in areas I do not have cleared out, all those non-traditionals. I like to know my area inside and out before I hide stuff.

 

Letterbox hybrids? I always thought they were at the listed coordinates. At least that seems to work for me when I go looking for one. I would be surprised and disappointed that a reviewer would not tell you which puzzle is blocking you.

[+wimseyguy]

If you see any puzzles within 2 miles of your desired location, there is a chance you might bump into the hidden waypoint. The more puzzles there are, and the closer they are, the greater that chance is. You cannot be expected to know where hidden waypoints are unless you have found the puzzles or multis that they belong to. Most of the time the reviewers will either tell you which listing has blocked you, or suggest a direction and distance to shift in order to clear that other cache. Did your reviewer try to help you, or just deny the placement without any offer of assistance?

[+smoke69]

Puzzles is a two miles radius and you could solve them . What is more difficult and you will run into is Multi which have no distance limitations to them.

[+The_Incredibles_]

I feel your pain. I just had 2 caches rejected due to proximity (I had solved the puzzle, but got it wrong). You need to solve those puzzles or find them by searching the area for a likely spot.

[+ngrrfan]

Puzzles is a two miles radius and you could solve them . What is more difficult and you will run into is Multi which have no distance limitations to them.

Not if the puzzle is an older one. There didn't used to be a distance limit.

 

The best way is to make a cache listing with the name "COORDS CHECK PLEASE" and put in the coords where you want to hide a cache and submit it for review with a note not to publish. Once you get an OK back then you go hide your cache.

Edited October 6, 2013 by ngrrfan

[+XD1]

Puzzles is a two miles radius and you could solve them . What is more difficult and you will run into is Multi which have no distance limitations to them.

Not if the puzzle is an older one. There didn't used to be a distance limit.

 

The best way is to make a cache listing with the name "COORDS CHECK PLEASE" and put in the coords where you want to hide a cache and submit it for review with a note not to publish. Once you get an OK back then you go hide your cache.

 

I think this is probably the best option, although I had considered having a crack at the puzzles, although, I'm not the shapest knife in the drawer when it comes to them

 

I understand this rule is to avoid someone seeking the puzzle cache from inadvertantly discovering mine, and vice versa, but if they are both different cache containers, or sizes or whatever, with at least several metres separating them, or even my traditional clearly marked 'NOT PUZZLE CACHE (insert name here)" perhaps some leeway might be possible? Like most, I like my hides to be in interesting spots, not just placed in the only position available to them.

[+jellis]

It happens. I usually just contact the our reviewer. We have 3.5 reviewers. One of them not only tell you which one is blocking you but sometimes makes suggestions where you can place a cache that won't interfere. It won't hurt to ask.

[+lamoracke]

Just part of the reality of trying to hide caches in areas where other non-traditionals could be....wherigos, puzzles, even multis or letterbox hybrids. You can either try to hide one and be told by the reviewer (if they tell you) which puzzle(s) or caches are blocking you and then you can either solve that one or ask the CO where it is, or just solve all caches in the vicinity of an area you want to hide caches. Its why I almost never try to hide caches in areas I do not have cleared out, all those non-traditionals. I like to know my area inside and out before I hide stuff.

 

Letterbox hybrids? I always thought they were at the listed coordinates. At least that seems to work for me when I go looking for one. I would be surprised and disappointed that a reviewer would not tell you which puzzle is blocking you.

 

Just did a letterbox hybrid today that was listed last week that was not at listed coordinates but the final coordinates were in the description. Nowadays you pretty much have to do it at the listed coordinates or list the coordinates somewhere, but a lot of the older LBHs are not that way. Look at the LBH at the north end of Guemes Island jholly for example, that one takes solving, or some other ones where you have to solve something on site. Its usually not the LBHs that are the big problems though the OP could have, but once in a while.

[+Don_J]

The easiest thing to do is just solve the puzzles. How many are there, are they especially hard ones?

 

For some of us, it would be easier to climb Mt. Everest.

[cezanne]

It happens. I usually just contact the our reviewer. We have 3.5 reviewers. One of them not only tell you which one is blocking you but sometimes makes suggestions where you can place a cache that won't interfere. It won't hurt to ask.

 

Actually, I'm annoyed if a reviewer tells the hider of a cache conflicting with a difficult puzzle cache which caches interferes with the new placement. Together with the additional information for example move 100m to the North, the puzzle cache en easily attacked by brute force in particular if a spoiler photo and/or a good hint are available.

 

I prefer the approach where in case of difficult puzzle caches and long hiking multi caches that sometimes span 100km and more,

the name of the cache is not given out and the distance where the hide could move is not given in a way such that bruteforcing becomes very simple.

 

There are so many caches out there already. For me it is more important to protect difficult puzzle caches and long hiking multi caches (even if some of them are out of my reach) than to increase the number of existing caches by 1.

 

Cezanne

[+palmetto]

Hi XD1

My sympathies. As a reviewer the #1 note I write by far is saturation, "cache too near an existing cache". It's especially painful when that existing cache is the stage of a multi, puzzle, Wherigo LBH. And truly brutal when the new hider is a basic member and the hide that blocks theirs is PMO. They can't even see the listing to try to find the thing.

 

I think you took a bit of offense at the reviewer note; I hope you understand that it's a cut-and-paste note, with some personalizing at the end.

On on of them that I opened, you were offered the GC Code of the blocking hide and a even a "move this far" distance. That's the most a reviewer can do, and more than some will do.

 

See cezanne's post above mine, "I'm annoyed if a reviewer tells the hider of a cache conflicting with a difficult puzzle cache which caches interferes with the new placement. Together with the additional information for example move 100m to the North, the puzzle cache en easily attacked by brute force..."

This is a serious issue for some caches in some areas - even providing the new hider with the GC Code of the blocking cache can allow them to "battleship" that location. In my area of review, I've seen this only once, and I routinely provide the GC Code of the blocking cache and sometimes (rarely now) suggest a distance or direction to move their hide.

 

I understand this rule is to avoid someone seeking the puzzle cache from inadvertantly discovering mine, and vice versa, but if they are both different cache containers, or sizes or whatever, with at least several metres separating them, or even my traditional clearly marked 'NOT PUZZLE CACHE (insert name here)" perhaps some leeway might be possible?

 

I occasionally do publish a new hide a tad too near the hidden stage of an existing cache. Other reviewers do as well, but how close is variable and depends on a lot of factors. I wouldn't have published the one of yours that I opened.

[+lamoracke]

Yeah, once I was trying to hide a cache and was told what cache was blocking me and was told it was 216 feet away. Now in this case, it was a cache I found years back so I just forgot about it, but that was pretty specific information, could have easily brute forced finding that cache given the local area. Personally I did not like being told where a puzzle was, but perhaps the reviewer realized I had already found it and was even more specific as usual. I did not ask that.

[Keystone]

Yes, I always check in cases of conflicts with puzzles and multicaches, to see if the hider of the new cache has found the blocking cache. If they do, then I provide the cache identity and exact distance, along with a reminder of the month and year when the hider found the blocking cache.

 

If the hider of the new cache has NOT found the blocking puzzle cache or multicache, then I provide just a fuzzy rounded-up distance, an indication of whether it's a puzzle or multi, and a link to the Knowledge Book articles. If I offer up the details about the location of the hidden waypoint, I'm subject to criticism from the owner of the existing cache for giving away classified secrets. This could lead to owners falsifying waypoint information, deleting waypoints after publication, etc., to "protect" challenging caches -- something already happening in certain parts of the world. I wish to avoid such things. If that approach violates jholly's expectations of good service, I can live with that.

[jholly]

Yes, I always check in cases of conflicts with puzzles and multicaches, to see if the hider of the new cache has found the blocking cache. If they do, then I provide the cache identity and exact distance, along with a reminder of the month and year when the hider found the blocking cache.

 

If the hider of the new cache has NOT found the blocking puzzle cache or multicache, then I provide just a fuzzy rounded-up distance, an indication of whether it's a puzzle or multi, and a link to the Knowledge Book articles. If I offer up the details about the location of the hidden waypoint, I'm subject to criticism from the owner of the existing cache for giving away classified secrets. This could lead to owners falsifying waypoint information, deleting waypoints after publication, etc., to "protect" challenging caches -- something already happening in certain parts of the world. I wish to avoid such things. If that approach violates jholly's expectations of good service, I can live with that.

I can live with your definition of good service.

[Cascade Reviewer]

It happens. I usually just contact the our reviewer. We have 3.5 reviewers. One of them not only tell you which one is blocking you but sometimes makes suggestions where you can place a cache that won't interfere. It won't hurt to ask.

 

Actually, I'm annoyed if a reviewer tells the hider of a cache conflicting with a difficult puzzle cache which caches interferes with the new placement. Together with the additional information for example move 100m to the North, the puzzle cache en easily attacked by brute force in particular if a spoiler photo and/or a good hint are available.

 

I prefer the approach where in case of difficult puzzle caches and long hiking multi caches that sometimes span 100km and more,

the name of the cache is not given out and the distance where the hide could move is not given in a way such that bruteforcing becomes very simple.

 

There are so many caches out there already. For me it is more important to protect difficult puzzle caches and long hiking multi caches (even if some of them are out of my reach) than to increase the number of existing caches by 1.

 

Cezanne

It used to be that I would not tell a cache hider the name of the conflicting Mystery/Puzzle/Multi, because I was worried about battleshipping. This is how I was taught, and what I did for years. But really, I don't think battleshipping is hugely prevalent (even though I know it does happen), and after a discussion with other reviewers about the issue, I decided to be more upfront with cache hiders. I think that battleshipping is less likely to happen than frustrating cache hiders is. I've been doing tis for about a year or so.

 

Now, I'll say the name of the nearby Mystery/Puzzle/Multi, although not the GC#. I don't mention distances, and I only tell them that they are within .1 miles from the final/physical stage. If the cache hider asks for more help, I'll look things over and suggest a soft distance for them to move their cache to (which has always been my practice). So far, I haven't had any issues with this new practice, and it makes me feel like the cache hiding process is a little bit more friendly.

[+redsox_mark]

Just did a letterbox hybrid today that was listed last week that was not at listed coordinates but the final coordinates were in the description. Nowadays you pretty much have to do it at the listed coordinates or list the coordinates somewhere, but a lot of the older LBHs are not that way. Look at the LBH at the north end of Guemes Island jholly for example, that one takes solving, or some other ones where you have to solve something on site. Its usually not the LBHs that are the big problems though the OP could have, but once in a while.

 

You are right there aren't many Letterbox Hybrids. But I believe a LBH can also be a multi cache or a puzzle too. I.e. a cache which otherwise would be listed as a Multi-cache; if it contains a stamp it can be listed as a LBH.

 

I like doing multis and puzzles so I try to find them in an area before I hide a cache. But I did get caught out once; there were (and still are) two difficulty 5 puzzles I've not been able to solve. My first attempt clashed with one of them, my next attempt clashed with the other! My reviewer was helpful; they nudged me to an area to consider, and eventually I found a spot.

[Cascade Reviewer]

Puzzles is a two miles radius and you could solve them . What is more difficult and you will run into is Multi which have no distance limitations to them.

Not if the puzzle is an older one. There didn't used to be a distance limit.

 

The best way is to make a cache listing with the name "COORDS CHECK PLEASE" and put in the coords where you want to hide a cache and submit it for review with a note not to publish. Once you get an OK back then you go hide your cache.

 

It happens. I usually just contact the our reviewer. We have 3.5 reviewers. One of them not only tell you which one is blocking you but sometimes makes suggestions where you can place a cache that won't interfere. It won't hurt to ask.

I'm sure that different Reviewers prefer different ways of checking on cache placements. I prefer that the cache hider create the cache page, not submit it, and then email me with the GC#. That way, I can check on proximity right away, and not have the cache page clutter up the queue.

[cezanne]

It used to be that I would not tell a cache hider the name of the conflicting Mystery/Puzzle/Multi, because I was worried about battleshipping. This is how I was taught, and what I did for years. But really, I don't think battleshipping is hugely prevalent (even though I know it does happen), and after a discussion with other reviewers about the issue, I decided to be more upfront with cache hiders. I think that battleshipping is less likely to happen than frustrating cache hiders is. I've been doing tis for about a year or so.

 

Actually, I did not have battleshipping specifically in mind. It also can happen easily in cache-dense areas that someone who has found a lot of caches gets too much information if you provide the information you provide now. The conflict can easily turn by coincidence - it must not have been part of a strategic plan.

 

It of course depends on the conflicting cache. There are easy mystery caches almost everyone can solve and there are short and easy offset multi caches.

The situation changes for D4+ mysteries or multi caches which span 20km or sometimes even 100km and more. For such caches the information you provide is too much and if one of my caches would be effected, I would archive it right away and make those very unhappy which still would like to go for it in the intended way.

 

Now, I'll say the name of the nearby Mystery/Puzzle/Multi, although not the GC#. I don't mention distances, and I only tell them that they are within .1 miles from the final/physical stage. If the cache hider asks for more help, I'll look things over and suggest a soft distance for them to move their cache to (which has always been my practice). So far, I haven't had any issues with this new practice, and it makes me feel like the cache hiding process is a little bit more friendly.

 

If you do not give away the distance and direction to move, this helps a bit, but certainly there are cases where even knowing which cache is effected tells too much.

Such cases might however be rare in your area. I do own at least one cache (my last one and probably also other caches) that would heavily be effected and would get destroyed.

By knowing all the other caches around, one can easily narrow down the location and find it by brute-forcing, and yes, I would end up very annoyed by that and would not take it as "someone ruins it own fun", but as someone ruins my fun. So there is no easy solution. By trying to be friendly to some hiders, you might end up to annoy hiders like myself and if something like that happens more than once to me, I's probably archive all my caches (some of which are older than 10 years).

 

 

Cezanne

[+giddeanx]

It used to be that I would not tell a cache hider the name of the conflicting Mystery/Puzzle/Multi, because I was worried about battleshipping. This is how I was taught, and what I did for years. But really, I don't think battleshipping is hugely prevalent (even though I know it does happen), and after a discussion with other reviewers about the issue, I decided to be more upfront with cache hiders. I think that battleshipping is less likely to happen than frustrating cache hiders is. I've been doing tis for about a year or so.

 

Actually, I did not have battleshipping specifically in mind. It also can happen easily in cache-dense areas that someone who has found a lot of caches gets too much information if you provide the information you provide now. The conflict can easily turn by coincidence - it must not have been part of a strategic plan.

 

It of course depends on the conflicting cache. There are easy mystery caches almost everyone can solve and there are short and easy offset multi caches.

The situation changes for D4+ mysteries or multi caches which span 20km or sometimes even 100km and more. For such caches the information you provide is too much and if one of my caches would be effected, I would archive it right away and make those very unhappy which still would like to go for it in the intended way.

 

Now, I'll say the name of the nearby Mystery/Puzzle/Multi, although not the GC#. I don't mention distances, and I only tell them that they are within .1 miles from the final/physical stage. If the cache hider asks for more help, I'll look things over and suggest a soft distance for them to move their cache to (which has always been my practice). So far, I haven't had any issues with this new practice, and it makes me feel like the cache hiding process is a little bit more friendly.

 

If you do not give away the distance and direction to move, this helps a bit, but certainly there are cases where even knowing which cache is effected tells too much.

Such cases might however be rare in your area. I do own at least one cache (my last one and probably also other caches) that would heavily be effected and would get destroyed.

By knowing all the other caches around, one can easily narrow down the location and find it by brute-forcing, and yes, I would end up very annoyed by that and would not take it as "someone ruins it own fun", but as someone ruins my fun. So there is no easy solution. By trying to be friendly to some hiders, you might end up to annoy hiders like myself and if something like that happens more than once to me, I's probably archive all my caches (some of which are older than 10 years).

 

 

Cezanne

 

Wouldn't this only effect the one cacher that was placing the new cache, because only the hider would get the distance and direction information? Or are you saying the resultant pattern from the new cache placement would out your location? Or is it that you are worried the cacher will tell all their friends? I guess I am not getting how it would ruin your cache nor why you would pull up stakes if one of your caches were compromised. Seems very drastic.

 

Also you probably wouldn't know it happened. It would just be one more find on your cache. Are you going to be suspicious whenever a new cache pops up and there is a find on your cache by the same person? How would you know that that person "battleship"ed instead of legitimately found your cache so they could hide theirs?

[cezanne]

Wouldn't this only effect the one cacher that was placing the new cache, because only the hider would get the distance and direction information?

 

In some cases, yes only a single one. In other cases more than one one as the willingness of those who never ever would complete such caches in the intended manner to provide the final coordinates to someone else is much higher than of those finders who went through all the work and effort.

 

 

Also you probably wouldn't know it happened. It would just be one more find on your cache. Are you going to be suspicious whenever a new cache pops up and there is a find on your cache by the same person? How would you know that that person "battleship"ed instead of legitimately found your cache so they could hide theirs?

 

With some cachers I would immediately recognize it. Some puzzles are far beyond the reach of most cachers and hiking 100 km is also not something many are willing to do for just one cache find. What worries me most is however what I mentioned above.

 

A single misbehaving cacher can start a whole story and I'm not willing to spend my leisure time with being exposed to logs that annoy me. The fun of those who experience the cache in the intended manner cannot compensate for that. That's certainly my fault, but it is the way it is. My message was just that the reviewers will never be able to make all hiders happy. Whatever they do, some will end up being unhappy.

 

Moreover, there is also another related issue which turned up recently and did not exist in earlier years. When a hider moves the final of a cache or stage of a multi cache waypoint and a distance conflict arises the reviewers get a notification and in that case or if the reviewers are asked to move a final waypoint some of them post openly viewable reviewer notes where one can see the old and the new coordinates. In my opinion such reviewer notes should be hidden, but they aren't as soon a cache has been published.

 

Cezanne

[+lamoracke]

Wouldn't this only effect the one cacher that was placing the new cache, because only the hider would get the distance and direction information?

 

In some cases, yes only a single one. In other cases more than one one as the willingness of those who never ever would complete such caches in the intended manner to provide the final coordinates to someone else is much higher than of those finders who went through all the work and effort.

 

 

 

I imagine if someone is sharing answers, the fact they got 1 puzzle from this method is a drop in the bucket to all the other ones they get and should not be a deterrent from a reviewer helping in this situation.

[Keystone]

Moreover, there is also another related issue which turned up recently and did not exist in earlier years. When a hider moves the final of a cache or stage of a multi cache waypoint and a distance conflict arises the reviewers get a notification and in that case or if the reviewers are asked to move a final waypoint some of them post openly viewable reviewer notes where one can see the old and the new coordinates. In my opinion such reviewer notes should be hidden, but they aren't as soon a cache has been published.

1. There is no such functionality for notifications.

2. Reviewer involvement is not needed in order to edit waypoints of active caches.

[cezanne]

Moreover, there is also another related issue which turned up recently and did not exist in earlier years. When a hider moves the final of a cache or stage of a multi cache waypoint and a distance conflict arises the reviewers get a notification and in that case or if the reviewers are asked to move a final waypoint some of them post openly viewable reviewer notes where one can see the old and the new coordinates. In my opinion such reviewer notes should be hidden, but they aren't as soon a cache has been published.

1. There is no such functionality for notifications.

2. Reviewer involvement is not needed in order to edit waypoints of active caches.

 

As 2 is concerned: At least if the distance is larger than 160m, multiple changes are required and I read somewhere (I thought erik88l-r wrote it, but I could not find it) that after a certain number of attempts a message is sent to a reviewer (to the reviewers).

 

I do not exactly know the details about 1. What happened in Austria are the following two things (each of them happened several times over the last year).

 

(i) The cacher changed coordinates of the final of an existing cache and a reviewer note was posted later on that now a conflict arose and that the cache needs to get moved again.

If the reviewers do not receive notifications I have no idea how the system works.

 

(ii) The reviewer has changed the coordinates of an existing cache per request of the cache hider.

One particularly unfortunate case happened in my home town. There a cache got published with wrong coordinates and was in conflict with an existing cache at the correct coordinates. The reviewer changed the coordinates to the corrected coordinates and then wrote in a reviewer note that a distance conflict arises and asked the hider for new coordinates. The hider then provided new coordinates and the reviewer moved the coordinates accordingly - a reviewer note was initiated.

A day later a new reviewer note was posted that again a conflict exists and that new coordinates need to be supplied which finally was done a few days later. All these reviewer notes still exist and everyone can see the coordinates that were conflicting. I was very unhappy with that situation and told the reviewer that I'd prefer if such information were not made available the public, but only to the hider and he told me that this is Groundspeak's business not his. My interpretation was that after the coordinate change, a mail is sent to the reviewers (regardless of whom is changing the coordinates), but apparently this was an misinterpretation.

 

In any case the problem with the reviewer notes that are available to the public exists in any case at least in my country.

 

Cezanne

[+Don_J]

It used to be that I would not tell a cache hider the name of the conflicting Mystery/Puzzle/Multi, because I was worried about battleshipping. This is how I was taught, and what I did for years. But really, I don't think battleshipping is hugely prevalent (even though I know it does happen), and after a discussion with other reviewers about the issue, I decided to be more upfront with cache hiders. I think that battleshipping is less likely to happen than frustrating cache hiders is. I've been doing tis for about a year or so.

 

Actually, I did not have battleshipping specifically in mind. It also can happen easily in cache-dense areas that someone who has found a lot of caches gets too much information if you provide the information you provide now. The conflict can easily turn by coincidence - it must not have been part of a strategic plan.

 

It of course depends on the conflicting cache. There are easy mystery caches almost everyone can solve and there are short and easy offset multi caches.

The situation changes for D4+ mysteries or multi caches which span 20km or sometimes even 100km and more. For such caches the information you provide is too much and if one of my caches would be effected, I would archive it right away and make those very unhappy which still would like to go for it in the intended way.

 

Now, I'll say the name of the nearby Mystery/Puzzle/Multi, although not the GC#. I don't mention distances, and I only tell them that they are within .1 miles from the final/physical stage. If the cache hider asks for more help, I'll look things over and suggest a soft distance for them to move their cache to (which has always been my practice). So far, I haven't had any issues with this new practice, and it makes me feel like the cache hiding process is a little bit more friendly.

 

If you do not give away the distance and direction to move, this helps a bit, but certainly there are cases where even knowing which cache is effected tells too much.

Such cases might however be rare in your area. I do own at least one cache (my last one and probably also other caches) that would heavily be effected and would get destroyed.

By knowing all the other caches around, one can easily narrow down the location and find it by brute-forcing, and yes, I would end up very annoyed by that and would not take it as "someone ruins it own fun", but as someone ruins my fun. So there is no easy solution. By trying to be friendly to some hiders, you might end up to annoy hiders like myself and if something like that happens more than once to me, I's probably archive all my caches (some of which are older than 10 years).

 

 

Cezanne

 

Interesting. Which gives me more information about the location of your hidden waypoint? I give the reviewer one set of coordinates which are 400' N/E of your puzzle final and he says "Go 250' north and you'll be fine", or my reviewer simply says "No", and I get persistent and have him say "No" to fifteen sets of coordinates until I finally get clear. It seems to me that the later case gives me more information and creates more work for me and the reviewer.

Edited October 7, 2013 by Don_J

[cezanne]

Interesting. Which gives me more information about the location of your hidden waypoint? I give the reviewer one set of coordinates which are 400' N/E of your puzzle final and he says "Go 250' north and you'll be fine", or my reviewer simply says "No", and I get persistent and have him say "No" to fifteen sets of coordinates until I finally get clear. It seems to me that the later case gives me more information and creates more work for me and the reviewer.

 

It of course depends on the specific situation. I do not mind some hints for finding a free location, but I'm against too specific ones that allow for brute forcing.

 

If someone comes up with 15 tries, it is not about the location anyway, but just about hiding a cache that also could by 1km away for example. Then it is not necessary tp provide information on the minimum distamnce required to end up without conflict. I would prefer if a reviewer could reply to a series of 15 tries that amount to battleshipping that the hider should look for another area to hide his/her cache. I know that this will never happen, but it's my preference.

 

 

Cezanne

[+Don_J]

Interesting. Which gives me more information about the location of your hidden waypoint? I give the reviewer one set of coordinates which are 400' N/E of your puzzle final and he says "Go 250' north and you'll be fine", or my reviewer simply says "No", and I get persistent and have him say "No" to fifteen sets of coordinates until I finally get clear. It seems to me that the later case gives me more information and creates more work for me and the reviewer.

 

It of course depends on the specific situation. I do not mind some hints for finding a free location, but I'm against too specific ones that allow for brute forcing.

 

If someone comes up with 15 tries, it is not about the location anyway, but just about hiding a cache that also could by 1km away for example. Then it is not necessary tp provide information on the minimum distamnce required to end up without conflict. I would prefer if a reviewer could reply to a series of 15 tries that amount to battleshipping that the hider should look for another area to hide his/her cache. I know that this will never happen, but it's my preference.

 

 

Cezanne

 

But, if the reviewer says "go 200' north", and I next give him a set of coordinates that are 200' south, he can suspect that I'm up to no good.

[jholly]

Interesting. Which gives me more information about the location of your hidden waypoint? I give the reviewer one set of coordinates which are 400' N/E of your puzzle final and he says "Go 250' north and you'll be fine", or my reviewer simply says "No", and I get persistent and have him say "No" to fifteen sets of coordinates until I finally get clear. It seems to me that the later case gives me more information and creates more work for me and the reviewer.

 

It of course depends on the specific situation. I do not mind some hints for finding a free location, but I'm against too specific ones that allow for brute forcing.

 

If someone comes up with 15 tries, it is not about the location anyway, but just about hiding a cache that also could by 1km away for example. Then it is not necessary tp provide information on the minimum distamnce required to end up without conflict. I would prefer if a reviewer could reply to a series of 15 tries that amount to battleshipping that the hider should look for another area to hide his/her cache. I know that this will never happen, but it's my preference.

 

 

Cezanne

 

But, if the reviewer says "go 200' north", and I next give him a set of coordinates that are 200' south, he can suspect that I'm up to no good.

 

And then there are those reviewers that recognize your battleshiping a tough puzzle final and will just go ahead and publish your cache even though it is to close. Sort of puts and end to the game.

[+Harry Dolphin]

Oddly, I have never run into this problem! I have over a hundred cache hides. Maybe I have too many hiking caches? Maybe I keep check on caches in the areas where I hide caches? Maybe I find new and interesting areas to hide caches? Dunno. But in 9 plus years, I've never run into this problem. (Well, there was the cache I think of as Ping. But, with the cliffs, that didn't help...)

Go find a new area, without the mystery caches. Lots of places available!

[+cheech gang]

(Well, there was the cache I think of as Ping. But, with the cliffs, that didn't help...)

 

Attemting to parse this statement is like trying to place a cache when you don't know the location of a nearby puzzle final.

[+WarNinjas]

We just look at it as part of the game and keep on playing.

[+Crow-T-Robot]

Moreover, there is also another related issue which turned up recently and did not exist in earlier years. When a hider moves the final of a cache or stage of a multi cache waypoint and a distance conflict arises the reviewers get a notification and in that case or if the reviewers are asked to move a final waypoint some of them post openly viewable reviewer notes where one can see the old and the new coordinates. In my opinion such reviewer notes should be hidden, but they aren't as soon a cache has been published.

1. There is no such functionality for notifications.

2. Reviewer involvement is not needed in order to edit waypoints of active caches.

 

As 2 is concerned: At least if the distance is larger than 160m, multiple changes are required and I read somewhere (I thought erik88l-r wrote it, but I could not find it) that after a certain number of attempts a message is sent to a reviewer (to the reviewers).

 

I do not exactly know the details about 1. What happened in Austria are the following two things (each of them happened several times over the last year).

 

(i) The cacher changed coordinates of the final of an existing cache and a reviewer note was posted later on that now a conflict arose and that the cache needs to get moved again.

If the reviewers do not receive notifications I have no idea how the system works.

 

(ii) The reviewer has changed the coordinates of an existing cache per request of the cache hider.

One particularly unfortunate case happened in my home town. There a cache got published with wrong coordinates and was in conflict with an existing cache at the correct coordinates. The reviewer changed the coordinates to the corrected coordinates and then wrote in a reviewer note that a distance conflict arises and asked the hider for new coordinates. The hider then provided new coordinates and the reviewer moved the coordinates accordingly - a reviewer note was initiated.

A day later a new reviewer note was posted that again a conflict exists and that new coordinates need to be supplied which finally was done a few days later. All these reviewer notes still exist and everyone can see the coordinates that were conflicting. I was very unhappy with that situation and told the reviewer that I'd prefer if such information were not made available the public, but only to the hider and he told me that this is Groundspeak's business not his. My interpretation was that after the coordinate change, a mail is sent to the reviewers (regardless of whom is changing the coordinates), but apparently this was an misinterpretation.

 

In any case the problem with the reviewer notes that are available to the public exists in any case at least in my country.

 

Cezanne

 

I think you can move any additional waypoint or the final for a multi any distance you want without reviewer involvement. The posted coordinates, if moved further than 160m, requires a reviewer to update the coordinates. As for (i), maybe the reviewer gets a notification if the new coordinates creates a conflict? I don't know but I don't think they get a notification if you just update any hidden coordinates, including final locations. Maybe they do.

 

I wouldn't want to speak for a reviewer, but it sounds like (ii) was handled wrong. It sounds like the listing should've been retracted and then all the reviewer notes would've been deleted before it was published again.

[+Don_J]

Moreover, there is also another related issue which turned up recently and did not exist in earlier years. When a hider moves the final of a cache or stage of a multi cache waypoint and a distance conflict arises the reviewers get a notification and in that case or if the reviewers are asked to move a final waypoint some of them post openly viewable reviewer notes where one can see the old and the new coordinates. In my opinion such reviewer notes should be hidden, but they aren't as soon a cache has been published.

1. There is no such functionality for notifications.

2. Reviewer involvement is not needed in order to edit waypoints of active caches.

 

As 2 is concerned: At least if the distance is larger than 160m, multiple changes are required and I read somewhere (I thought erik88l-r wrote it, but I could not find it) that after a certain number of attempts a message is sent to a reviewer (to the reviewers).

 

I do not exactly know the details about 1. What happened in Austria are the following two things (each of them happened several times over the last year).

 

(i) The cacher changed coordinates of the final of an existing cache and a reviewer note was posted later on that now a conflict arose and that the cache needs to get moved again.

If the reviewers do not receive notifications I have no idea how the system works.

 

(ii) The reviewer has changed the coordinates of an existing cache per request of the cache hider.

One particularly unfortunate case happened in my home town. There a cache got published with wrong coordinates and was in conflict with an existing cache at the correct coordinates. The reviewer changed the coordinates to the corrected coordinates and then wrote in a reviewer note that a distance conflict arises and asked the hider for new coordinates. The hider then provided new coordinates and the reviewer moved the coordinates accordingly - a reviewer note was initiated.

A day later a new reviewer note was posted that again a conflict exists and that new coordinates need to be supplied which finally was done a few days later. All these reviewer notes still exist and everyone can see the coordinates that were conflicting. I was very unhappy with that situation and told the reviewer that I'd prefer if such information were not made available the public, but only to the hider and he told me that this is Groundspeak's business not his. My interpretation was that after the coordinate change, a mail is sent to the reviewers (regardless of whom is changing the coordinates), but apparently this was an misinterpretation.

 

In any case the problem with the reviewer notes that are available to the public exists in any case at least in my country.

 

Cezanne

 

I think you can move any additional waypoint or the final for a multi any distance you want without reviewer involvement. The posted coordinates, if moved further than 160m, requires a reviewer to update the coordinates. As for (i), maybe the reviewer gets a notification if the new coordinates creates a conflict? I don't know but I don't think they get a notification if you just update any hidden coordinates, including final locations. Maybe they do.

 

I wouldn't want to speak for a reviewer, but it sounds like (ii) was handled wrong. It sounds like the listing should've been retracted and then all the reviewer notes would've been deleted before it was published again.

 

Not a solution. Once a cache is retracted, all logs still get sent to those that are watching or have it bookmarked. The only solution is to take it to email. Also, if an additional waypoint is a physical item that I have placed and I move it, it still has to be 528' away from any other physical container that is not part of the same multi. I can't just arbitrarily place it on top of someone elses traditional cache.

[cezanne]

I think you can move any additional waypoint or the final for a multi any distance you want without reviewer involvement. The posted coordinates, if moved further than 160m, requires a reviewer to update the coordinates.

 

That's true. What appears to be possible however is to apply several shifts by less than 161m and apparently the reviewers now get a message if someone applies a certain number of these shifts, but I do not know any details.

 

I also do not know how a reviewer who is asked to perform a coordinate change, gets to know that there is a conflict.

From the pattern that I observed I ended up with the conjecture that probably the reviewer issues a change coordinate log and receives a message of a conflict by mail.

 

In that case it could happen that the reviewer reads this mail a day later (or several hours after the change) and so the situation can happen that for a day a cache is hidden 5m from another cache and everyone who goes for the moved cache by chance can find the other cache as well (which can be the final of a very hard cache).

 

If the system really works like that, it would explain the situation that on day X a reviewer posts a change coordinate log and a day later a reviewer note that the coordinates need to be changed due to a conflict. In any case, I regard this as very unfortunate. If needed I could provide several examples of such logs.

I think that one idea might be to introduce a separate log typ for reviewer communication that is not visible to the public and who are not sent to watchers etc. Reviewer notes

serve too many purposes.

 

 

As for (i), maybe the reviewer gets a notification if the new coordinates creates a conflict? I don't know but I don't think they get a notification if you just update any hidden coordinates, including final locations. Maybe they do.

 

What I meant to say is that it seems that they get a message if a conflict arises, of course not for every coordinate change.

 

In my country it happens regularly that a reviewer note pops upp saying that the changed coordinates are now in conflict and that the cache owner is asked to take care of that conflict. In some cases even further information is provided, like e.g. mentioning that the coordinates should be shifted by 100m westwards.

 

In my opinion this sort of communication should not take place in public. By now all four reviewers for my country have written such reviewer notes however.

 

I wouldn't want to speak for a reviewer, but it sounds like (ii) was handled wrong. It sounds like the listing should've been retracted and then all the reviewer notes would've been deleted before it was published again.

 

The reviewer thinks that the approach via reviewer notes is ok and that's how Groundspeak system is supposed to work.

I do not want to blame him personally. What I can say is just that I'm very unhappy with this sort of situation. In July I wrote a mail to Groundspeak regarding this issue and after waiting for two weeks (in the first days my request was still in the system, but remain unanswered) the request disappeared and I was told that similar things happened to others and I should send my inquiry again. I had not saved it and was not in the mood to retype everything. The issue came to my mind again when I saw this thread.

 

Cezanne

[+DanOCan]

Personally, I would be OK with a tool allowing cache hiders the ability to check to see if a set of coordinates are "in the clear" or not. It might not catch all the situations such as old Multis where the intermediate waypoints are not listed as additional waypoints, but it would help.

 

The number of times this happens to cache hiders makes me think such a tool would take a ton of work off the reviewers. If that comes at the cost of some cache owners who feel they should have complete control over how someone chooses to find their cache? I'm OK with that in terms of a cost/benefit analysis.

[+fizzymagic]

Personally, I would be OK with a tool allowing cache hiders the ability to check to see if a set of coordinates are "in the clear" or not. It might not catch all the situations such as old Multis where the intermediate waypoints are not listed as additional waypoints, but it would help.

 

So, in summary, you want to get rid of puzzle caches. Do I understand you correctly?

[cezanne]

If that comes at the cost of some cache owners who feel they should have complete control over how someone chooses to find their cache? I'm OK with that in terms of a cost/benefit analysis.

 

In some areas a very high proportion of challenging mysteries and long multi caches would get archived and no new such caches would be hidden.

And as a fan of such caches I would be strictly against such a change of policy.

 

I can easily do without the 20-th boring cache in a cache-dense oversaturated area where there are already too many caches anyway. If a hider of such a cache gives up and prefers to hide no cache at in instead of moving to a less cache-dense area, I would not be sad. I would miss however the challenging caches mentioned above very much.

 

Also as a cache owner for me it is not about having complete control, but about offering true challenges and about me receiving logs that are worth to be read and that cheer me up and not ending up with being frustrated about the incoming logs. If I hide a cache, the container at the end is just something I cannot avoid and is the least important part of my caches. I do not hide my caches for those for whom it is just about searching for and finding containers. There are other caches for this audience.

 

 

So for me it is completely the other way round. My personal interest is not to reduce the work load of reviewer, but to have as many caches of the type I enjoy as possible.

 

Cezanne

Edited October 8, 2013 by cezanne

[Cascade Reviewer]

 

I also do not know how a reviewer who is asked to perform a coordinate change, gets to know that there is a conflict.

From the pattern that I observed I ended up with the conjecture that probably the reviewer issues a change coordinate log and receives a message of a conflict by mail.

 

Cezanne

 

You're talking about a reviewer changing the posted coords for a cache owner, right? Whenever I do that, I make sure and check the new coordinates for any issues before changing them.

[cezanne]

 

I also do not know how a reviewer who is asked to perform a coordinate change, gets to know that there is a conflict.

From the pattern that I observed I ended up with the conjecture that probably the reviewer issues a change coordinate log and receives a message of a conflict by mail.

 

Cezanne

 

You're talking about a reviewer changing the posted coords for a cache owner, right? Whenever I do that, I make sure and check the new coordinates for any issues before changing them.

 

Yes, in most cases it was a reviewer and the fact that it occured several times that the post reviewer note that the coordinates are in conflict was posted hours later or even a day later made me believe that when coordinates are changed the reviewers cannot see a conflict immediately like when they review a listing.

 

In one of the local cases I wrote an e-mail to the reviewer and asked him why reviewer notes are used for such a purpose (a nearby cache was spoilt heavily) and why the reaction took place only one day later so that even cachers went out for the cache at the conflicting location. He told me that he does not wish to receive e-mails from me and that I could complain at Groundspeak and moreover that I have no idea how the tools that Groundspeak provides for checking work (which is true, but not my fault). It did not help that I told him that my intent was not complain, but that I just think that if it runs like it ran is unfortunate for a certain class of caches. I then wanted to contacted Groundspeak to ask them if they could provide a better tool for such cases and to ask them to provide a different form of communication for such cases than public reviewer notes.

 

In a few cases it appeared however that the cache owner changed the coordinates so that a conflict showed up and from later posted reviewer notes it appeared that the reviewers do get some notification if this happens (and more than a move by 160m were involved). Is this true or do no such notifications exist? How do you become aware of new conflicts if at all?

 

Thank you for your time. I appreciate it very much to learn something about the work of the reviewers which it also makes it easier to understand if something does not run as a cache owner would wish it.

 

Cezanne

[Cascade Reviewer]

 

I also do not know how a reviewer who is asked to perform a coordinate change, gets to know that there is a conflict.

From the pattern that I observed I ended up with the conjecture that probably the reviewer issues a change coordinate log and receives a message of a conflict by mail.

 

Cezanne

 

You're talking about a reviewer changing the posted coords for a cache owner, right? Whenever I do that, I make sure and check the new coordinates for any issues before changing them.

 

Yes, in most cases it was a reviewer and the fact that it occured several times that the post reviewer note that the coordinates are in conflict was posted hours later or even a day later made me believe that when coordinates are changed the reviewers cannot see a conflict immediately like when they review a listing.

 

In one of the local cases I wrote an e-mail to the reviewer and asked him why reviewer notes are used for such a purpose (a nearby cache was spoilt heavily) and why the reaction took place only one day later so that even cachers went out for the cache at the conflicting location. He told me that he does not wish to receive e-mails from me and that I could complain at Groundspeak and moreover that I have no idea how the tools that Groundspeak provides for checking work (which is true, but not my fault). It did not help that I told him that my intent was not complain, but that I just think that if it runs like it ran is unfortunate for a certain class of caches. I then wanted to contacted Groundspeak to ask them if they could provide a better tool for such cases and to ask them to provide a different form of communication for such cases than public reviewer notes.

 

In a few cases it appeared however that the cache owner changed the coordinates so that a conflict showed up and from later posted reviewer notes it appeared that the reviewers do get some notification if this happens (and more than a move by 160m were involved). Is this true or do no such notifications exist? How do you become aware of new conflicts if at all?

 

Thank you for your time. I appreciate it very much to learn something about the work of the reviewers which it also makes it easier to understand if something does not run as a cache owner would wish it.

 

Cezanne

I cannot speak to the particular instance that you are referring to. But I do know that it is possible for a reviewer to check coordinates for any issues before changing the posted coordinates for a cache owner.

 

I do not believe there is a notice for reviewers when coordinates are changed by a co to be too close to another cache, but a lot of times those things are caught by other cachers and then reported to a reviewer.

[cezanne]

 

I cannot speak to the particular instance that you are referring to. But I do know that it is possible for a reviewer to check coordinates for any issues before changing the posted coordinates for a cache owner.

 

Of course you cannot say something about that particular instance. Actually, there are lots of examples.

It is interesting to learn that there is way to check the coordinates before changing them as this is something I was not sure about.

 

I do not believe there is a notice for reviewers when coordinates are changed by a co to be too close to another cache, but a lot of times those things are caught by other cachers and then reported to a reviewer.

 

Yes, such cases do exist and occur quite often in cache-dense areas, but somehow there are examples which made me believe that there must be something else in the background.

As both you and keystone say that no such notifications exist, it should be true - the system should work the same in different countries.

 

On a different, but related issue:

It is unfortunate that I cannot find the post I vaguely remember where someone (I still believe it was Erik) states that after a certain number of attempts to change the coordinates by less than 160m, the cache gets somehow blocked and a reviewer gets notified (but maybe it was a log and not a forum post).

 

 

Cezanne

Edited October 10, 2013 by cezanne

[Keystone]

It is unfortunate that I cannot find the post I vaguely remember where someone (I still believe it was Erik) states that after a certain number of attempts to change the coordinates by less than 160m, the cache gets somehow blocked and a reviewer gets notified (but maybe it was a log and not a forum post).

Also not true.

[cezanne]

It is unfortunate that I cannot find the post I vaguely remember where someone (I still believe it was Erik) states that after a certain number of attempts to change the coordinates by less than 160m, the cache gets somehow blocked and a reviewer gets notified (but maybe it was a log and not a forum post).

Also not true.

 

I only wrote that I vaguely remember that someone has written this. This is true. I added vaguely because I'm neither sure where nor who has written it.

 

To return to the issue, let's get more specific. Suppose someone in your reviewing area moves the coordinates of a cache (for simplicity, say a traditional) by a sequence of say 5 change coordinate logs in such a way that a conflict with a stage of a multi cache or a mystery cache arises. Will you realize this and if so how? Will you react and if so in which manner?

E.g. contact the cache owner privately or write a reviewer note that the new coordinates are in conflict with a existing cache)?

 

I do not intend to be tiring. I just would like to understand the process and what different reviewers write in different boards contradicts each other. I'm giving the reviewers the credit of being volunteers and doing hard work in their leisure time. I would like to understand whether there is a way to protect finals of involved multi caches or mystery caches against heavily be harmed by public notes that a conflict arises at certain coordinates. I do understand that this aspect does not have top priority for you as your caching preferences differ from mine, but maybe you or some of the other experienced reviewers around here is willing to help me in understanding the system.

 

Cezanne

[+DanOCan]

Personally, I would be OK with a tool allowing cache hiders the ability to check to see if a set of coordinates are "in the clear" or not. It might not catch all the situations such as old Multis where the intermediate waypoints are not listed as additional waypoints, but it would help.

 

So, in summary, you want to get rid of puzzle caches. Do I understand you correctly?

No.

 

Puzzles would exist.

- People who enjoy them can continue to enjoy them.

- People who hate them can continue to ignore them.

- People who feel playing battleship to get coordinates could do so.

 

I'm not sure why battleship should be considered any less valid a way of obtaining coordinates than simply tagging along with a friend who solved the puzzle.

[+fizzymagic]

Personally, I would be OK with a tool allowing cache hiders the ability to check to see if a set of coordinates are "in the clear" or not. It might not catch all the situations such as old Multis where the intermediate waypoints are not listed as additional waypoints, but it would help.

 

So, in summary, you want to get rid of puzzle caches. Do I understand you correctly?

No.

 

Puzzles would exist.

- People who enjoy them can continue to enjoy them.

- People who hate them can continue to ignore them.

- People who feel playing battleship to get coordinates could do so.

 

I'm not sure why battleship should be considered any less valid a way of obtaining coordinates than simply tagging along with a friend who solved the puzzle.

 

I am sure why they should be considered less valid.

[Keystone]

We're straying a bit far away from the question of how to deal with caches hidden in conflict with puzzle cache final locations. Suffice it to say that (1) there is a mechanism within the reviewer toolset whereby reviewers can learn of changes to a cache's posted coordinates (but not changes to Additional Waypoints), and (2) a reviewer's response upon learning of a change will depend on the circumstances. If someone tweaks their coords by 10 feet after feedback from the FTF, I read that and move on to the next. If someone moves their coords 200 feet right back to the location of the original submission that was rejected for being too close to another cache, that dishonesty could result in archival or even retraction.