+Rick345 Posted July 6, 2015 Share Posted July 6, 2015 I was thinking about set out a little geoart, and using offset or mystery caches to make the design. Is it permissible to have three or so mystery caches direct the cacher to the same spot? For example lets say I have a mystery cache A at 30° 51.006'N 88° 7.403'W, B at 30° 51.353'N 88° 7.348'W, and C at 30° 51.352'N 88° 7.485'W. Once any one of these 3 puzzles is solved the answer is the same of each 30° 51.976'N 88° 7.811'W which is where the actually physical caches is hidden. In other words A, B, C gives the same answer... At the physical cache it would say the finder is permitted to claim A, B, C as a find by finding this single physical cache. The reason I'd like to do it this way is one the entire piece of geoart would take 40 caches if a cache were placed for each ? Mark on the map. This causes problems for everyone. The seekers have to use a lot more gas and time. The caches themselves would stake out a lot more area given the 528 feet rule, limiting other caches from being hidden by people other than myself, and it would cause me a lot more maintenance issues. Allowing people to claim three ? Marks per physical find would allow me to place only 14 physical caches to gives other the enjoyment of completing a piece of geoart. Presently there is no geoart in my area. Quote Link to comment
Pup Patrol Posted July 6, 2015 Share Posted July 6, 2015 (edited) I was thinking about set out a little geoart, and using offset or mystery caches to make the design. Is it permissible to have three or so mystery caches direct the cacher to the same spot? For example lets say I have a mystery cache A at 30° 51.006'N 88° 7.403'W, B at 30° 51.353'N 88° 7.348'W, and C at 30° 51.352'N 88° 7.485'W. Once any one of these 3 puzzles is solved the answer is the same of each 30° 51.976'N 88° 7.811'W which is where the actually physical caches is hidden. In other words A, B, C gives the same answer... At the physical cache it would say the finder is permitted to claim A, B, C as a find by finding this single physical cache. The reason I'd like to do it this way is one the entire piece of geoart would take 40 caches if a cache were placed for each ? Mark on the map. This causes problems for everyone. The seekers have to use a lot more gas and time. The caches themselves would stake out a lot more area given the 528 feet rule, limiting other caches from being hidden by people other than myself, and it would cause me a lot more maintenance issues. Allowing people to claim three ? Marks per physical find would allow me to place only 14 physical caches to gives other the enjoyment of completing a piece of geoart. Presently there is no geoart in my area. Good grief, I certainly hope this is not allowed under the Saturation Guideline. A fundamental guideline of geocaching is that physical elements/stages of a geocache should be at least 0.1 miles (528ft or 161m) from the physical elements/stages of any other geocache. Below is a longer explanation of that guideline. In your cache page submission, you have to include the final location coordinates for mystery caches. You can't do that more than once. If you put the same final location coordinates in for a 2nd cache, then the Saturation Guideline kicks in, no? GS has put a moratorium on Challenge Caches. Maybe it's time they do the same thing with power trails and "geo art". You've been a member since 2007, and have a number of cache hides, so I don't think this qualifies as a "Getting Started" topic. B. Edited July 6, 2015 by Pup Patrol Quote Link to comment
+Manville Possum Posted July 6, 2015 Share Posted July 6, 2015 GS has put a moratorium on Challenge Caches. Maybe it's time they do the same thing with power trails and "geo art". I support that idea. Quote Link to comment
+ChileHead Posted July 6, 2015 Share Posted July 6, 2015 Is it permissible to have three or so mystery caches direct the cacher to the same spot? No, it is not. The seekers have to use a lot more gas and time. Well by that logic why not put out 10000 caches that all lead to the same cache in a parking lot? This way I only have to drive to one cache, and instantly bump up my now even more meaningless find count. Quote Link to comment
+niraD Posted July 6, 2015 Share Posted July 6, 2015 I've seen tutorial-style puzzle caches where multiple puzzles all produced the same solution. But in that case, there was only one mystery/puzzle cache listing involved, there was only one final location involved, and all the puzzles were part of that one mystery/puzzle cache. As indicated above, the final location of the first mystery/puzzle cache will conflict with any other mystery/puzzle caches that try to use the same final location. Or for that matter, with any physical stage of any other cache that anyone tries to place within 528ft/161m. Quote Link to comment
+niraD Posted July 6, 2015 Share Posted July 6, 2015 The reason I'd like to do it this way is one the entire piece of geoart would take 40 caches if a cache were placed for each ? Mark on the map.If all you care about are marks on the map, then perhaps you could place a single cache, and that single cache could include as many Reference Point waypoints as you desire. The Reference Point waypoints can be anywhere you want, can draw any image on the map you want, and don't affect the saturation guideline in any way. Quote Link to comment
+Rick345 Posted July 6, 2015 Author Share Posted July 6, 2015 (edited) I didn't know were to put my question... There is a section for Geocache types but, traditional, mystery, and multi aren't included in that section... I figered it would get an answer more quickly here than anywhere else. Saturation is exactly what I was trying to avoid... Geoart is fun and creative but, it does take up far more real-estate than it should, I was trying to figure out a way to lessen that problem.. Your right the three or four offsets pointing to the same coords would rejected by the software. I should have thought of that. So much for creative solutions... Edited July 6, 2015 by Rick345 Quote Link to comment
+Rick345 Posted July 6, 2015 Author Share Posted July 6, 2015 (edited) Good grief, I certainly hope this is not allowed under the Saturation Guideline. A fundamental guideline of geocaching is that physical elements/stages of a geocache should be at least 0.1 miles (528ft or 161m) from the physical elements/stages of any other geocache. Below is a longer explanation of that guideline. It would be allowed under the saturation guidelines the caches are a mile apart and their are few other caches in the area... Being 528ft from anyone else wouldn't be a problem, the closest caches are about 3,000 ft away. There are 7 caches in that area, of about 130 square miles. However I do get your point about once I place the same final in more than one page it wouldn't be allowed. As I stated before no other section seems to address this very basic question, I knew I could get an answer here.. And I did. Thank you. I still think my idea is still a good idea for easing the saturation problem. Edited July 6, 2015 by Rick345 Quote Link to comment
+T.D.M.22 Posted July 6, 2015 Share Posted July 6, 2015 Good grief, I certainly hope this is not allowed under the Saturation Guideline. A fundamental guideline of geocaching is that physical elements/stages of a geocache should be at least 0.1 miles (528ft or 161m) from the physical elements/stages of any other geocache. Below is a longer explanation of that guideline. It would be allowed under the saturation guidelines the caches are a mile apart and their are few other caches in the area... Being 528ft from anyone else wouldn't be a problem, the closest caches are about 3,000 ft away. There are 7 caches in that area, of about ten square miles. However I do get your point about once I place the same final in more than one page it wouldn't be allowed. As I stated before no other section seems to address this very basic question, I knew I could get an answer here.. And I did. Thank you. I still think my idea is still a good idea for easing the saturation problem. No it wouldn't be allowed. Because each of those cache you want is a separate cache. And the final is at the same spot, so you would have 6 (or however many) caches in one spot. Zero is less than 161m. Quote Link to comment
Pup Patrol Posted July 6, 2015 Share Posted July 6, 2015 Getting Started New to the game? Ask questions here; your fellow geocachers are happy to help. Geocaching Topics Discuss geocaching and related topics here. http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showforum=6 B. Quote Link to comment
+Touchstone Posted July 6, 2015 Share Posted July 6, 2015 So much for creative solutions... I prefer, "back to the drawing board" Quote Link to comment
+K13 Posted July 7, 2015 Share Posted July 7, 2015 So much for creative solutions... I prefer, "back to the drawing board" Or... so much for a solution to a non-existent problem. Quote Link to comment
+Rick345 Posted July 7, 2015 Author Share Posted July 7, 2015 Or... so much for a solution to a non-existent problem. I think its time to put this one to bed, I did find out what I wanted to know. However, there is a problem and the problem is how do we lessen the impact on the environment, on resources and and reduce saturation while allowing the most freedom of expression and creativity? Just because there's room for forty geocaches doesn't mean one should place forty. At present it is a problem without a solution, but it is a problem worthy of a solution. As it has already been pointed out if you allow one physical cache to represent several smilies someone is sure to abuse that just to boost their already inflated numbers. To be honest someone using my purposed suggestion just to boost their numbers never entered my mind, as one can see from my stats boosting my numbers isn't how I play the play I'm been caching since 2007 and have less than 1000 finds. Plus people who want to boost their numbers will find other ways to do so. For example right after I archive a cache I have several persons trying to log it, saying I found it months ago but forgot to log it. When I archive a cache I go out and collect the container and logs. 95% of the time the "late" logger has never signed the log and in my my book if you don't sign you don't get to claim it as a find. When I find a cache and can't sign the log I don't claim the find. Inflating one's numbers wasn't on my worry list, what I was worried about was saturation. Placing forty caches just to make a picture or a trail wastes a lot of real-estate, which lessens the chance for someone else to place a very creative cache... I was looking for a solution to that problem. Anyhow thanks everyone for your help, even though the answer should have been obvious in my defense I haven't placed a cache in maybe two years so I'm out practice... Quote Link to comment
+niraD Posted July 7, 2015 Share Posted July 7, 2015 Placing forty caches just to make a picture or a trail wastes a lot of real-estateDid you see the suggestion I posted earlier? If all you care about are marks on the map, then perhaps you could place a single cache, and that single cache could include as many Reference Point waypoints as you desire. The Reference Point waypoints can be anywhere you want, can draw any image on the map you want, and don't affect the saturation guideline in any way. Quote Link to comment
+thebruce0 Posted July 7, 2015 Share Posted July 7, 2015 If all you care about are marks on the map, then perhaps you could place a single cache, and that single cache could include as many Reference Point waypoints as you desire. The Reference Point waypoints can be anywhere you want, can draw any image on the map you want, and don't affect the saturation guideline in any way. Ah, but then the 'art' wouldn't be visible on the map! (I'm w/you btw, just being snarky) Quote Link to comment
Pup Patrol Posted July 7, 2015 Share Posted July 7, 2015 (I'm w/you btw, just being snarky) Careful there...snark is not allowed in the Getting Started forum. B. Quote Link to comment
+niraD Posted July 7, 2015 Share Posted July 7, 2015 Ah, but then the 'art' wouldn't be visible on the map! Sure it would. Admittedly, a simple square isn't very impressive geoart, but it demonstrates the concept. Quote Link to comment
+Rick345 Posted July 7, 2015 Author Share Posted July 7, 2015 (edited) Ah, but then the 'art' wouldn't be visible on the map! Sure it would. Admittedly, a simple square isn't very impressive geoart, but it demonstrates the concept. That's interesting and something I hadn't thought of but it wouldn't give the finder a smilie and at the end of the day that is what counts for many people. However, I think you maybe on to something, I wonder if it would fly? That is to say I wonder if people would like the idea? When you first suggested waymarks as points on a map I didn't quite catch what you were getting at, but your illustration makes it clear. Thanks... I've used waymarks to marking suggested parking places and trail heads but never thought of using them to design art... It would certainly solve the saturation problem.. Edited July 7, 2015 by Rick345 Quote Link to comment
+Rick345 Posted July 7, 2015 Author Share Posted July 7, 2015 Ah, but then the 'art' wouldn't be visible on the map! Sure it would. Admittedly, a simple square isn't very impressive geoart, but it demonstrates the concept. That's interesting and something I hadn't thought of but it wouldn't give the finder a smilie and at the end of the day that is what counts for many people. However, I think you maybe on to something, I wonder if it would fly? That is to say I wonder if people would like the idea? When you first suggested waymark as points on a map I didn't quite catch what you were getting at, but your illustration makes it clear. Thanks... Quote Link to comment
+thebruce0 Posted July 7, 2015 Share Posted July 7, 2015 (edited) Sure it would.Admittedly, a simple square isn't very impressive geoart, but it demonstrates the concept. I of course meant the main cache map along with the rest of the smileys... The local listing map will show the 'art', but you can't change the icons to big yellow happy faces (at least without some custom 'shopping) Edited July 7, 2015 by thebruce0 Quote Link to comment
+TeamRabbitRun Posted July 7, 2015 Share Posted July 7, 2015 (edited) Some of us don't see the Saturation Guidelines as a 'problem to be solved', but rather as an important restriction to prevent overcrowding, site hijaction and cache-spew. Drawing funny pictures on a map so someone can look and say "Oh" isn't the point of the game. It's about getting out in the real world and doing something. If you want to put caches out in a pattern, then it simply has to cover a certain area. No special rules just because it's "art". You say that it wastes space that some other cacher could use, but that doesn't make any sense. What makes another CO's caches a better use of space than yours? That's an admission that your own caches are unworthy of being caches. If I find a crappy cache who's only justification is that it's Snoopy's eyeball, then it's a crappy cache. In other words, if you're going to create geo-art, create geo-art according to the rules, and to do that you have to create caches, and they should all be worthy, on their own. Edited July 7, 2015 by TeamRabbitRun Quote Link to comment
+niraD Posted July 7, 2015 Share Posted July 7, 2015 I of course meant the main cache map along with the rest of the smileys...The local listing map will show the 'art', but you can't change the icons to big yellow happy faces (at least without some custom 'shopping) Yeah, at some point, you have to decide what the point of the geoart is. Do you want to draw a picture with 40 icons? Do you want people to get 40 smileys? Do you want to hide and maintain 40 containers? Quote Link to comment
+Rick345 Posted July 7, 2015 Author Share Posted July 7, 2015 I of course meant the main cache map along with the rest of the smileys...The local listing map will show the 'art', but you can't change the icons to big yellow happy faces (at least without some custom 'shopping) Yeah, at some point, you have to decide what the point of the geoart is. Do you want to draw a picture with 40 icons? Do you want people to get 40 smileys? Do you want to hide and maintain 40 containers? The short answer is not necessary, yes, and no... and there in lies the problem... Quote Link to comment
+jellis Posted July 16, 2015 Share Posted July 16, 2015 Or... so much for a solution to a non-existent problem. I think its time to put this one to bed, I did find out what I wanted to know. However, there is a problem and the problem is how do we lessen the impact on the environment, on resources and and reduce saturation while allowing the most freedom of expression and creativity? Just because there's room for forty geocaches doesn't mean one should place forty. At present it is a problem without a solution, but it is a problem worthy of a solution. As it has already been pointed out if you allow one physical cache to represent several smilies someone is sure to abuse that just to boost their already inflated numbers. To be honest someone using my purposed suggestion just to boost their numbers never entered my mind, as one can see from my stats boosting my numbers isn't how I play the play I'm been caching since 2007 and have less than 1000 finds. Plus people who want to boost their numbers will find other ways to do so. For example right after I archive a cache I have several persons trying to log it, saying I found it months ago but forgot to log it. When I archive a cache I go out and collect the container and logs. 95% of the time the "late" logger has never signed the log and in my my book if you don't sign you don't get to claim it as a find. When I find a cache and can't sign the log I don't claim the find. Inflating one's numbers wasn't on my worry list, what I was worried about was saturation. Placing forty caches just to make a picture or a trail wastes a lot of real-estate, which lessens the chance for someone else to place a very creative cache... I was looking for a solution to that problem. Anyhow thanks everyone for your help, even though the answer should have been obvious in my defense I haven't placed a cache in maybe two years so I'm out practice... So how many caches would there be allowed to use one spot? 40? 100? 1000? And what if they were to change the proximity rules to allowed a cache for every foot how much saturation would there be? To me I wouldn't mind if they raise the distance. Quote Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.