How to solve this type

[+VinnieX]

44,895,334 (7)

11,436,870 (8)

 

Not looking for the answer, just completely lost as where to start, could be million of different things those numbers refer to. Solving this gives you the coordinates.

Is there a guide to point a new cacher in the right direction?

Google results in nothing on solving this type puzzle.

 

there are others like 11.8742, same deal, completely lost.

 

Thanks, Kevin

New to GPS and Geocaching

[+Touchstone]

Few have said it better than niraD:

 

Puzzle Help

 

Sometimes clues can be hidden in background images, the Title, and so forth. Sometimes it helps just to give a rest and let things percolate a bit.

 

Good luck!

Edited February 12, 2015 by Touchstone

[+T.D.M.22]

First off, telling you how to solve that is giving you the answer, since it seems you took it right from the cache page. Second, even though I have an idea, it's hard to tell without seeing the cache page, and the whole puzzle. But don't tell us which page, someone will come and just give the answer.

[+niraD]

I'll skip the copy-paste answer that I usually post, since Touchstone provided a link to it. But I did want to comment on one thing:

 

could be million of different things those numbers refer to.

Yep. That's it exactly. There are any number of ways to encode the solution coordinates for a puzzle cache. And many puzzles include red herrings of various sorts, so you may not even be focusing on the actual puzzle.

 

Around here, cache owners have hidden puzzle caches based on things they tried on an unsuccessful attempt to solve someone else's puzzle. So Alice comes up with a great idea while working on Brian's puzzle cache, but it doesn't work. So Alice decides to hide her own puzzle cache that uses the great idea that didn't work on Brian's puzzle cache.

 

That increases the number of possibilities dramatically.

 

But most puzzle cache owners do provide hints that can help seekers figure out the theme of a cache, and from that, the solution. So follow the link provided by Touchstone, then take advantages of some of the resources provided in that post. Start with some of the easier puzzle caches around you, and then work your way up to some of the harder ones.

 

And remember that this is supposed to be fun.

[+JustJackMN]

I find the easiest way to solve a puzzle is to ask someone who solved it. I give answers all the time, and if able will take them to the cache. It beats working yourself into a frenzy and you get outside faster.

[+T.D.M.22]

I find the easiest way to solve a puzzle is to ask someone who solved it. I give answers all the time, and if able will take them to the cache. It beats working yourself into a frenzy and you get outside faster.

 

To be fair, that person wouldn't have solved it...

[+NYPaddleCacher]

I find the easiest way to solve a puzzle is to ask someone who solved it. I give answers all the time, and if able will take them to the cache. It beats working yourself into a frenzy and you get outside faster.

 

I find that the easiest way to solve a puzzle the puzzle is to ask the person that created it.

[+JustJackMN]

To be fair, that person wouldn't have solved it...

 

The idea of caching is to get out and find them not sit at the computer and get a bad headache.

[+ecanderson]

To be fair, that person wouldn't have solved it...

 

The idea of caching is to get out and find them not sit at the computer and get a bad headache.

Given where you live, I can't imagine you're a stranger to days where looking for caches just isn't very practical. There's just so many with 'Available in Winter' icons. It's days like that for which solving puzzles were made.

[+Team Microdot]

To be fair, that person wouldn't have solved it...

 

The idea of caching is to get out and find them not sit at the computer and get a bad headache.

 

So go out and find the caches you like to find - and leave the puzzles for the people who like puzzles and everyone's happy

[+GeoLog81]

So go out and find the caches you like to find - and leave the puzzles for the people who like puzzles and everyone's happy

 

If so, why the puzzles are blocking locations for traditionals and multis?

 

If they were a separate portal, everyone would have the chance to be happy

[+Team Microdot]

So go out and find the caches you like to find - and leave the puzzles for the people who like puzzles and everyone's happy

 

If so, why the puzzles are blocking locations for traditionals and multis?

 

If they were a separate portal, everyone would have the chance to be happy

 

I'll assume you're referring simply to the 161m proximity guideline that applies to ALL cache types - not just puzzles in which case - I don't see your point.

[+J Grouchy]

The idea of caching is to get out and find them not sit at the computer.

 

The two aren't mutually exclusive, you know. One CAN actually sit at the computer for a while and actually enjoy solving puzzles...then they can get up, go out and search for the caches. After all, they ARE puzzle caches. There's no shortage of places to go to find puzzles to solve. It's the cache part that makes puzzle caches interesting.

[+GeoLog81]

I'll assume you're referring simply to the 161m proximity guideline that applies to ALL cache types - not just puzzles in which case - I don't see your point.

 

Puzzle caches blocking the whole area so there's almost nothing other to search for, for example...

 

It's to make the point, that puzzles are not so easy to ignore, because they do affect you event if you ignore them

[+Team Microdot]

they do affect you event if you ignore them

 

No, they don't

[+GeoTrekker26]

they do affect you event if you ignore them

 

No, they don't

 

I think GeoLog81 has a valid point. If he cannot place a cache or has to move it to a less desirable location, I would say the unseen puzzle cache is affecting him. You ignore a cache when searching for a cache but have no such option when placing a cache. Or are you suggesting he ignore the puzzle, place his cache and publish it elsewhere?

[+L0ne.R]

they do affect you even if you ignore them

 

No, they don't

 

I think GeoLog81 has a valid point. If he cannot place a cache or has to move it to a less desirable location, I would say the unseen puzzle cache is affecting him. You ignore a cache when searching for a cache but have no such option when placing a cache. Or are you suggesting he ignore the puzzle, place his cache and publish it elsewhere?

 

I agree, and I've got 2 puzzle hides. It is a fact that puzzle caches (and multis, any cache that is not at the posted location) affect cachers who want to hide a cache. There's no easy answer, but GeoTrekker26 has a valid point.

[+Team Microdot]

they do affect you event if you ignore them

 

No, they don't

 

I think GeoLog81 has a valid point. If he cannot place a cache or has to move it to a less desirable location, I would say the unseen puzzle cache is affecting him. You ignore a cache when searching for a cache but have no such option when placing a cache. Or are you suggesting he ignore the puzzle, place his cache and publish it elsewhere?

 

And I think GeoLog81 might have had a valid point had he worded differently.

 

As it was he was stating that caches affect ME even if I do ignore them - and they don't.

 

Also I wasn't aware that the subject of this thread or the OP's question had anything to do with placing caches.

 

Small but important points.

 

As for the argument re placement - let's imagine for a second that raises a valid point - that cache (A)- puzzle cache - is blocking the placement of cache B. If cache A were a trad, physical part of a multi, physical part of a lettebox hybrid cache or of a Wherigo cache then cache B would still be blocked - and yet it's the poor old puzzle cache that gets the bad press

[+Team Microdot]

Or are you suggesting he ignore the puzzle, place his cache and publish it elsewhere?

 

At the risk of taking this thread even further off topic...

 

No, I wasn't suggesting that. I don't recall suggesting anything to GeoLog81.

 

Simple fact is that all physical caches are subject to the 161m proximity guideline - not just puzzles - it's just a fact we have to live with.

 

If GeoLog81 thinks Groundspeak should operate multiple portals just so he doesn't have to suffer proximity issues then I would suggest that he puts that idea to GS directly - although I highly doubt anything will come of it and in the meantime, someone might just scupper the whole thing by placing a traditional cache at the hallowed location and it's back to the drawing board

[+GeoLog81]

I was just, in a bit ironical way, pointing out that sometimes there's a problem with too much mysteries. I've seen regions (I mean, part of the city, or the forest) where there are more mysteries than other caches. Most of that mysteries are so hard, that you have no slightest idea even where to start... Of course, if you solve 100 easy mysteries, than 100 medium, than 300 a bit harder, than the next 500 may require from you less than an hour each.. but if you're not a mystery lover, you can get lost with that amount. And yes, 1000 mysteries placed in some vicinity are effectively reducing the number of other caches.

 

It's just a matter of common sense. Do we really need 100 nearby mysteries that are based on the same concept?

 

If the mystery finals are high quality containers, and others are more or less weak, than non-mystery lovers may feel excluded in a way...

[+niraD]

Do we really need 100 nearby mysteries that are based on the same concept?

Well, we don't really need any geocaches, so...

 

But at some point, people wanted to hide these 100 nearby mystery/puzzle caches, and the locations were available, so they did. If others had taken the opportunity to hide 100 traditional caches with killer 4-star camouflage, then we'd get complaints about that. If others had taken the opportunity to hide 100 multi-caches that involved walking tours of historical monuments, then we'd get complaints about that. It's a fact of life in any area that is getting saturated.

 

The solution for hiders is to find new places to hide caches that aren't so saturated. At one point, that was explicitly stated as one of the goals of the saturation guideline.

 

The solution for seekers is to find new places with caches of the type they're interested in finding. Obviously, the more picky you are about the caches you want to seek, and the less your preferences match those of the local cache owners, the harder that is going to be.

[+Team Microdot]

And yes, 1000 mysteries placed in some vicinity are effectively reducing the number of other caches.

 

Not necessarily true. Let's say I'm the only person in that vicinity hiding caches and I place 1000 mysteries - I haven't reduced the number of other caches at all You see - it's possible to imagine a hypothetical scenario to prove just about any point that takes one's fancy

 

In fact regardless of the number of people hiding caches in a particular vicinity, the hiding of 1000 mystery caches in and of itself does not reduce the number of other caches at all either. You might argue that the placing of those 1000 mystery caches reduces the number of places where caches of other types COULD be hidden (I suspect this is the point you were actually trying to make) but that's just a case of first come, first served and if people cared enough they'd be out there filling spaces with cache types other than mystery rather than complaining when it was too late.

 

It's just a matter of common sense. Do we really need 100 nearby mysteries that are based on the same concept?

 

So what now? These 1000 theoretical mystery caches are all based on the same concept? Just sounds like a power trail of trads - some people dislike those too, others like them. Which should take precendence?

 

It's just a matter of common sense - if the caches you like to find can't be found in one area - search in a different area.

 

If the mystery finals are high quality containers, and others are more or less weak, than non-mystery lovers may feel excluded in a way...

 

What now?

 

So the owners of those mystery caches who have chosen to use quality containers should feel bad because the owners of other types have chosen to use poor quality containers? Now we really are straying into the realms of the ridiculous

[+L0ne.R]

I was just, in a bit ironical way, pointing out that sometimes there's a problem with too much mysteries. I've seen regions (I mean, part of the city, or the forest) where there are more mysteries than other caches. Most of that mysteries are so hard, that you have no slightest idea even where to start... Of course, if you solve 100 easy mysteries, than 100 medium, than 300 a bit harder, than the next 500 may require from you less than an hour each.. but if you're not a mystery lover, you can get lost with that amount. And yes, 1000 mysteries placed in some vicinity are effectively reducing the number of other caches.

 

It's just a matter of common sense. Do we really need 100 nearby mysteries that are based on the same concept?

 

If the mystery finals are high quality containers, and others are more or less weak, than non-mystery lovers may feel excluded in a way...

 

I agree.

 

Variety is a good thing, but sometimes the balance gets way out of whack. And sometimes owners seem to enjoy creating puzzles to exclude most people.

[+niraD]

If the mystery finals are high quality containers, and others are more or less weak, than non-mystery lovers may feel excluded in a way...

Well, there's nothing stopping owners of non-mystery caches from using high quality containers.

 

But here's a pattern that I've seen in urban/suburban areas where cache density is high:

 

Newbie cache owners hide poorly chosen containers. These containers are poor quality and/or too large for the location, and they don't last.

 

More experienced cache owners hide caches that will last. These containers may be better quality, or they may be cheap enough (e.g., centrifuge tubes) that they can be replaced easily. These containers are also smaller, often micro and nano size. And to reduce the risk of exposure due to traffic to the cache, they may be puzzles or other non-traditional cache types.

 

There's no malice or exclusion of non-mystery lovers intended. It's just "survival of the fittest" in an environment where many geocaches don't survive long.

[+Team Microdot]

And sometimes owners seem to enjoy creating puzzles to exclude most people.

 

I can't say I've experienced that. I have though experienced some people excluding themselves for various reasons with one being a lack of inclination to invest the required effort but that's not a phenomenon exclusive to puzzle caches.

[+GeoLog81]

 

So what now? These 1000 theoretical mystery caches are all based on the same concept? Just sounds like a power trail of trads - some people dislike those too, others like them. Which should take precendence?

 

 

I agree. Power trails are wasting many good locations too. I've experienced many times a micro placed where a regular could be.

 

It's just about the balance. You want to publish original and hard quiz? OK! You want to publish 100 ones? Maybe the geocaching is not a right place to do that...

[+JustJackMN]

Let me give you an example. Last spring our state association held its spring meeting in a county park about 20 miles from my location. Three individuals placed 25-30 new caches in the park for the event. Every cache was a mystery cache. The easier ones to solve,(there were about 3 or 4) had terrain levels of 4 or higher. Those with terrain levels of 1.5 had a difficulty of 4.5 or 5. I was going to invite a couple of friends that were interested in geocaching but didn't because I wanted them to see that geocaching is fun. The only way most of these caches had 10 or mor finds logged was because of the many tag a longs who went with the five or so who had solved them or went with COs who helped.

[+Team Microdot]

Let me give you an example. Last spring our state association held its spring meeting in a county park about 20 miles from my location. Three individuals placed 25-30 new caches in the park for the event. Every cache was a mystery cache. The easier ones to solve,(there were about 3 or 4) had terrain levels of 4 or higher. Those with terrain levels of 1.5 had a difficulty of 4.5 or 5. I was going to invite a couple of friends that were interested in geocaching but didn't because I wanted them to see that geocaching is fun. The only way most of these caches had 10 or mor finds logged was because of the many tag a longs who went with the five or so who had solved them or went with COs who helped.

 

What is this an example of?

[+Team Microdot]

 

So what now? These 1000 theoretical mystery caches are all based on the same concept? Just sounds like a power trail of trads - some people dislike those too, others like them. Which should take precendence?

 

 

I agree. Power trails are wasting many good locations too. I've experienced many times a micro placed where a regular could be.

 

It's just about the balance. You want to publish original and hard quiz? OK! You want to publish 100 ones? Maybe the geocaching is not a right place to do that...

 

So those who enjoy placing puzzle caches and those who enjoy solving and finding them should sacrifice their enjoyment in favour of your own?

 

In my experience the number of traditional caches already far outweighs the number of puzzle caches - and now you want to tip that balance even further?

 

Does this sound like balance to you? It doesn't to me.

[+L0ne.R]

Let me give you an example. Last spring our state association held its spring meeting in a county park about 20 miles from my location. Three individuals placed 25-30 new caches in the park for the event. Every cache was a mystery cache. The easier ones to solve,(there were about 3 or 4) had terrain levels of 4 or higher. Those with terrain levels of 1.5 had a difficulty of 4.5 or 5. I was going to invite a couple of friends that were interested in geocaching but didn't because I wanted them to see that geocaching is fun. The only way most of these caches had 10 or mor finds logged was because of the many tag a longs who went with the five or so who had solved them or went with COs who helped.

 

These are usually set up to qualify for challenges (and they are happening more and more often). People need lots of caches with D/T extremes e.g. 1.5/5, 5/1.5 and lots of puzzle caches.

[+K13]

Let me give you an example. Last spring our state association held its spring meeting in a county park about 20 miles from my location. Three individuals placed 25-30 new caches in the park for the event. Every cache was a mystery cache. The easier ones to solve,(there were about 3 or 4) had terrain levels of 4 or higher. Those with terrain levels of 1.5 had a difficulty of 4.5 or 5. I was going to invite a couple of friends that were interested in geocaching but didn't because I wanted them to see that geocaching is fun. The only way most of these caches had 10 or mor finds logged was because of the many tag a longs who went with the five or so who had solved them or went with COs who helped.

 

These are usually set up to qualify for challenges (and they are happening more and more often). People need lots of caches with D/T extremes e.g. 1.5/5, 5/1.5 and lots of puzzle caches.

 

But that can't be. Challenge caches are not supposed to make people change the way they cache.

[+Team Microdot]

Let me give you an example. Last spring our state association held its spring meeting in a county park about 20 miles from my location. Three individuals placed 25-30 new caches in the park for the event. Every cache was a mystery cache. The easier ones to solve,(there were about 3 or 4) had terrain levels of 4 or higher. Those with terrain levels of 1.5 had a difficulty of 4.5 or 5. I was going to invite a couple of friends that were interested in geocaching but didn't because I wanted them to see that geocaching is fun. The only way most of these caches had 10 or mor finds logged was because of the many tag a longs who went with the five or so who had solved them or went with COs who helped.

 

These are usually set up to qualify for challenges (and they are happening more and more often). People need lots of caches with D/T extremes e.g. 1.5/5, 5/1.5 and lots of puzzle caches.

 

But that can't be. Challenge caches are not supposed to make people change the way they cache.

 

Requiring people to find particular caches in order to qualify for a challenge cache is disallowed under Groundspeak guidelines.

 

Placing caches which may afford an opportunity to qualify for one or more challenge caches is not disallowed.

 

Which is probably why lots of such enabling caches spring up in response to a new challenge cache. This may be classed as 'dumbing down' the challenge by making it easier than was intended. On the other hand it does provide a rather neat mechanism of self regulation.

[+JustJackMN]

Let me give you an example. Last spring our state association held its spring meeting in a county park about 20 miles from my location. Three individuals placed 25-30 new caches in the park for the event. Every cache was a mystery cache. The easier ones to solve,(there were about 3 or 4) had terrain levels of 4 or higher. Those with terrain levels of 1.5 had a difficulty of 4.5 or 5. I was going to invite a couple of friends that were interested in geocaching but didn't because I wanted them to see that geocaching is fun. The only way most of these caches had 10 or mor finds logged was because of the many tag a longs who went with the five or so who had solved them or went with COs who helped.

 

These are usually set up to qualify for challenges (and they are happening more and more often). People need lots of caches with D/T extremes e.g. 1.5/5, 5/1.5 and lots of puzzle caches.

 

But that can't be. Challenge caches are not supposed to make people change the way they cache.

 

Requiring people to find particular caches in order to qualify for a challenge cache is disallowed under Groundspeak guidelines.

 

Placing caches which may afford an opportunity to qualify for one or more challenge caches is not disallowed.

 

Which is probably why lots of such enabling caches spring up in response to a new challenge cache. This may be classed as 'dumbing down' the challenge by making it easier than was intended. On the other hand it does provide a rather neat mechanism of self regulation.

So a challenge cache where one has to find say 26 caches in one day, each one starting with a letter of the alphabet from a to z is not allowed under Groundspeak guidelines?

[+niraD]

So a challenge cache where one has to find say 26 caches in one day, each one starting with a letter of the alphabet from a to z is not allowed under Groundspeak guidelines?

No, that should be an acceptable challenge. You are not specifying which 26 caches people have to find. You're merely specifying certain characteristics that those 26 caches must have.

 

And of course, once a challenge cache like that has been created, there is a possibility that someone will find a stretch of road where they can hide caches named "A is for Alphabet Challenge" through "Z is for Alphabet Challenge".

[+JustJackMN]

To be fair, that person wouldn't have solved it...

 

The idea of caching is to get out and find them not sit at the computer and get a bad headache.

Given where you live, I can't imagine you're a stranger to days where looking for caches just isn't very practical. There's just so many with 'Available in Winter' icons. It's days like that for which solving puzzles were made.

Seeing how geocaching is not my profession, I spend most of the winter days catching up on projects I ignored in the summer.