Asking for coords on puzzle cache

[+WarNinjas]

I would have just asked you to archive your puzzle so my cache could be published!

[+justintim1999]

I'd offer help with the puzzle, or help with distance/direction if they provided cordinates for their cache...

If your presumption is that they're trying to game you by getting the coordinates and finding your cache without solving the puzzle, surely you can imagine why they'd be worried about sending you the coordinates of their as yet unpublished cache least you sneak over there and sign the log before it's made public.

 

(Edited to correct the wrong attribution.)

 

I guess if you tend to leap to the negative this is the first thing that would jump to your mind. My presumption is that they are looking for help.

 

I don't need to know where the final will be to help them. How hard would it be to tell them to continue up the trail another 200 feet and start looking for a spot there?

[+Alkhalikoi]

Ask him where he means to place his new cache, check the distance yourself, and tell him if he moves it XX feet to the West (say) he'll be good, with "XX" having a number with a bit of cushion. It's enough to let him place a cache without giving anything away.

[+MartyBartfast]

Ask him where he means to place his new cache, check the distance yourself, and tell him if he moves it XX feet to the West (say) he'll be good, with "XX" having a number with a bit of cushion. It's enough to let him place a cache without giving anything away.

 

I would agree with everyone saying find out roughly where he wants to put it, and then suggest where he could move it to. If you want to be even more vague you could suggest some co-ords that are well away from yours and say "place it within xx feet of this spot" once you've confirmed that the area covered by that circle is free.

[+rovers3]

Thanks for all of the replies.

To date I haven't had an answer to the message that I sent him March 30th (see post #22)

FYI there are two other caches in the park the closest being 150m from my cache final and there are no other stages to my cache.

I'll just bide my time and see what happens.

[+dprovan]

If your presumption is that they're trying to game you by getting the coordinates and finding your cache without solving the puzzle, surely you can imagine why they'd be worried about sending you the coordinates of their as yet unpublished cache least you sneak over there and sign the log before it's made public.

I guess if you tend to leap to the negative this is the first thing that would jump to your mind. My presumption is that they are looking for help.

If you're presumption is really that they're just looking for help, wouldn't you just send them the coordinates?

[+narcissa]

Is solving a puzzle cache a requirement to place a cache?

Not at all. It is perfectly acceptable for the CO to retrieve the cache container and place it at a completely different location if the first attempt conflicts with the saturation guideline.

 

But I Want to place it here, I like it here. Do I keep moving it 20 feet and re-submitting it until I get it far enough from your hidden waypoint? Or can you simply give me an Idea of how far is far enough.

 

If you like the spot, then moving it 20 feet doesn't work either unless you plan to lie about your coordinates.

[+justintim1999]

If your presumption is that they're trying to game you by getting the coordinates and finding your cache without solving the puzzle, surely you can imagine why they'd be worried about sending you the coordinates of their as yet unpublished cache least you sneak over there and sign the log before it's made public.

I guess if you tend to leap to the negative this is the first thing that would jump to your mind. My presumption is that they are looking for help.

If you're presumption is really that they're just looking for help, wouldn't you just send them the coordinates?

 

I'd help them one way or the other.

[+justintim1999]

Is solving a puzzle cache a requirement to place a cache?

Not at all. It is perfectly acceptable for the CO to retrieve the cache container and place it at a completely different location if the first attempt conflicts with the saturation guideline.

 

But I Want to place it here, I like it here. Do I keep moving it 20 feet and re-submitting it until I get it far enough from your hidden waypoint? Or can you simply give me an Idea of how far is far enough.

 

If you like the spot, then moving it 20 feet doesn't work either unless you plan to lie about your coordinates.

 

How about 40 feet?

[+narcissa]

Is solving a puzzle cache a requirement to place a cache?

Not at all. It is perfectly acceptable for the CO to retrieve the cache container and place it at a completely different location if the first attempt conflicts with the saturation guideline.

 

But I Want to place it here, I like it here. Do I keep moving it 20 feet and re-submitting it until I get it far enough from your hidden waypoint? Or can you simply give me an Idea of how far is far enough.

 

If you like the spot, then moving it 20 feet doesn't work either unless you plan to lie about your coordinates.

 

How about 40 feet?

 

Again, unless you're going to lie about the coordinates, you're finding an entirely new spot whether it's 20 feet or 2 miles from the original spot you selected. If your cache is an unremarkable container that you plan to wire to any old thing, and your reviewer is willing to play battleship with you, then go right ahead and bug the reviewer with dozens of coordinates. Let us know how that pans out.

[+J Grouchy]

Is solving a puzzle cache a requirement to place a cache?

Not at all. It is perfectly acceptable for the CO to retrieve the cache container and place it at a completely different location if the first attempt conflicts with the saturation guideline.

 

But I Want to place it here, I like it here. Do I keep moving it 20 feet and re-submitting it until I get it far enough from your hidden waypoint? Or can you simply give me an Idea of how far is far enough.

 

If you like the spot, then moving it 20 feet doesn't work either unless you plan to lie about your coordinates.

 

How about 40 feet?

 

If the spot is so remarkable you simply MUST bring cachers to it, why not just make it a virtual stage in a multi or mystery cache instead of fussing and fretting about bouncing around 20 feet at a time?

[+justintim1999]

Is solving a puzzle cache a requirement to place a cache?

Not at all. It is perfectly acceptable for the CO to retrieve the cache container and place it at a completely different location if the first attempt conflicts with the saturation guideline.

 

But I Want to place it here, I like it here. Do I keep moving it 20 feet and re-submitting it until I get it far enough from your hidden waypoint? Or can you simply give me an Idea of how far is far enough.

 

If you like the spot, then moving it 20 feet doesn't work either unless you plan to lie about your coordinates.

 

How about 40 feet?

 

Again, unless you're going to lie about the coordinates, you're finding an entirely new spot whether it's 20 feet or 2 miles from the original spot you selected. If your cache is an unremarkable container that you plan to wire to any old thing, and your reviewer is willing to play battleship with you, then go right ahead and bug the reviewer with dozens of coordinates. Let us know how that pans out.

 

That's the point. I don't want constantly bug the cache owner or the reviewer. Lets assume that there is room in the area for my cache. If I can't solve the puzzle and the cache owner won't give me an idea of where I need to be, than what else can I do? If I want to place a cache in the area I'm forced to try to solve the puzzle or harass the reviewer right? I just keep moving the location randomly and submitting the cache until I'm clear. Doesn't sound like the cache owner would be willing to help with the puzzle so if I can't solve it myself I'm stuck. Sounds like a great way to land-lock an entire area.

Edited April 4, 2016 by justintim1999

[+justintim1999]

Is solving a puzzle cache a requirement to place a cache?

Not at all. It is perfectly acceptable for the CO to retrieve the cache container and place it at a completely different location if the first attempt conflicts with the saturation guideline.

 

But I Want to place it here, I like it here. Do I keep moving it 20 feet and re-submitting it until I get it far enough from your hidden waypoint? Or can you simply give me an Idea of how far is far enough.

 

If you like the spot, then moving it 20 feet doesn't work either unless you plan to lie about your coordinates.

 

How about 40 feet?

 

If the spot is so remarkable you simply MUST bring cachers to it, why not just make it a virtual stage in a multi or mystery cache instead of fussing and fretting about bouncing around 20 feet at a time?

 

That's a great idea but one I'm not sure a new or inexperienced cacher would think of. Maybe someone could suggest it to them?

[+narcissa]

That's the point. I don't want constantly bug the cache owner or the reviewer. Lets assume that there is room in the area for my cache. If I can't solve the puzzle and the cache owner won't give me an idea of where I need to be, than what else can I do? If I want to place a cache in the area I'm forced to try to solve the puzzle or harass the reviewer right? I just keep moving the location randomly and submitting the cache until I'm clear. Doesn't sound like the cache owner would be willing to help with the puzzle so if I can't solve it myself I'm stuck. Sounds like a great way to land-lock an entire area.

 

If you're not willing to solve the puzzle yourself, the cache owner isn't inclined to help, and the reviewer won't tolerate battleship silliness, then you won't be able to hide a cache in that area. That's really okay, because there's already a cache there.

[+justintim1999]

That's the point. I don't want constantly bug the cache owner or the reviewer. Lets assume that there is room in the area for my cache. If I can't solve the puzzle and the cache owner won't give me an idea of where I need to be, than what else can I do? If I want to place a cache in the area I'm forced to try to solve the puzzle or harass the reviewer right? I just keep moving the location randomly and submitting the cache until I'm clear. Doesn't sound like the cache owner would be willing to help with the puzzle so if I can't solve it myself I'm stuck. Sounds like a great way to land-lock an entire area.

 

If you're not willing to solve the puzzle yourself, the cache owner isn't inclined to help, and the reviewer won't tolerate battleship silliness, then you won't be able to hide a cache in that area. That's really okay, because there's already a cache there.

 

What if I'm willing but unable?

 

Your right the cache owner is under no obligation to help.

 

I wouldn't blame the reviewer, they have better things to do.

 

Is it really okay?

[+narcissa]

That's the point. I don't want constantly bug the cache owner or the reviewer. Lets assume that there is room in the area for my cache. If I can't solve the puzzle and the cache owner won't give me an idea of where I need to be, than what else can I do? If I want to place a cache in the area I'm forced to try to solve the puzzle or harass the reviewer right? I just keep moving the location randomly and submitting the cache until I'm clear. Doesn't sound like the cache owner would be willing to help with the puzzle so if I can't solve it myself I'm stuck. Sounds like a great way to land-lock an entire area.

 

If you're not willing to solve the puzzle yourself, the cache owner isn't inclined to help, and the reviewer won't tolerate battleship silliness, then you won't be able to hide a cache in that area. That's really okay, because there's already a cache there.

 

What if I'm willing but unable?

 

Your right the cache owner is under no obligation to help.

 

I wouldn't blame the reviewer, they have better things to do.

 

Is it really okay?

 

Yes, it's really okay.

 

In an area that is really saturated with caches, someone who is more motivated will solve the puzzle and wedge a cache into the available space.

 

In an area that isn't really saturated with caches, there is no reason to get hung up on wedging a cache into one particular spot because there is plenty of space available in other places nearby.

[+J Grouchy]

Is solving a puzzle cache a requirement to place a cache?

Not at all. It is perfectly acceptable for the CO to retrieve the cache container and place it at a completely different location if the first attempt conflicts with the saturation guideline.

 

But I Want to place it here, I like it here. Do I keep moving it 20 feet and re-submitting it until I get it far enough from your hidden waypoint? Or can you simply give me an Idea of how far is far enough.

 

If you like the spot, then moving it 20 feet doesn't work either unless you plan to lie about your coordinates.

 

How about 40 feet?

 

If the spot is so remarkable you simply MUST bring cachers to it, why not just make it a virtual stage in a multi or mystery cache instead of fussing and fretting about bouncing around 20 feet at a time?

 

That's a great idea but one I'm not sure a new or inexperienced cacher would think of. Maybe someone could suggest it to them?

 

I'm sure I would if anyone ever asked me.

[+justintim1999]

Is solving a puzzle cache a requirement to place a cache?

Not at all. It is perfectly acceptable for the CO to retrieve the cache container and place it at a completely different location if the first attempt conflicts with the saturation guideline.

 

But I Want to place it here, I like it here. Do I keep moving it 20 feet and re-submitting it until I get it far enough from your hidden waypoint? Or can you simply give me an Idea of how far is far enough.

 

If you like the spot, then moving it 20 feet doesn't work either unless you plan to lie about your coordinates.

 

How about 40 feet?

 

If the spot is so remarkable you simply MUST bring cachers to it, why not just make it a virtual stage in a multi or mystery cache instead of fussing and fretting about bouncing around 20 feet at a time?

 

That's a great idea but one I'm not sure a new or inexperienced cacher would think of. Maybe someone could suggest it to them?

 

I'm sure I would if anyone ever asked me.

 

[+niraD]

In an area that is really saturated with caches, someone who is more motivated will solve the puzzle and wedge a cache into the available space.

 

In an area that isn't really saturated with caches, there is no reason to get hung up on wedging a cache into one particular spot because there is plenty of space available in other places nearby.

+1

 

Once upon a time, the saturation guideline included the stated goal "to encourage you to seek out new places to hide caches rather than putting them in areas where caches already exist". Seeking out new places to hide caches, places that are not already saturated with caches, is a good thing.

[+justintim1999]

In an area that is really saturated with caches, someone who is more motivated will solve the puzzle and wedge a cache into the available space.

 

In an area that isn't really saturated with caches, there is no reason to get hung up on wedging a cache into one particular spot because there is plenty of space available in other places nearby.

+1

 

Once upon a time, the saturation guideline included the stated goal "to encourage you to seek out new places to hide caches rather than putting them in areas where caches already exist". Seeking out new places to hide caches, places that are not already saturated with caches, is a good thing.

 

A new cache will bring back people who have already found caches in the area.

 

Also, with many more people playing, it's a catch 22. We all want new caches to find but the availability of new places to hide them isn't what it use to be.

[+narcissa]

In an area that is really saturated with caches, someone who is more motivated will solve the puzzle and wedge a cache into the available space.

 

In an area that isn't really saturated with caches, there is no reason to get hung up on wedging a cache into one particular spot because there is plenty of space available in other places nearby.

+1

 

Once upon a time, the saturation guideline included the stated goal "to encourage you to seek out new places to hide caches rather than putting them in areas where caches already exist". Seeking out new places to hide caches, places that are not already saturated with caches, is a good thing.

 

A new cache will bring back people who have already found caches in the area.

 

Also, with many more people playing, it's a catch 22. We all want new caches to find but the availability of new places to hide them isn't what it use to be.

 

Which is why motivated cache owners consistently find novel ways to fit new caches into available spaces. Some people get down to work to solve puzzles so they know where the spaces are, some people watch archive listings and jump on openings, some people work with community organizations to get access to land that was previously off-limits for geocaching.

 

It's a pretty big planet covered with millions of geocaches. I'm not terribly concerned that I'll run out of new caches to find. I wouldn't mind seeing fewer new caches, really, because the news ones are so often uninspired traditionals that people have placed just because there's an empty space.

 

None of this changes the basic fact that puzzle cache owners are under no obligation to help with their puzzles. Some choose to be helpful, others do not. It's a personal choice on the part of the cache owner.

[+justintim1999]

In an area that is really saturated with caches, someone who is more motivated will solve the puzzle and wedge a cache into the available space.

 

In an area that isn't really saturated with caches, there is no reason to get hung up on wedging a cache into one particular spot because there is plenty of space available in other places nearby.

+1

 

Once upon a time, the saturation guideline included the stated goal "to encourage you to seek out new places to hide caches rather than putting them in areas where caches already exist". Seeking out new places to hide caches, places that are not already saturated with caches, is a good thing.

 

A new cache will bring back people who have already found caches in the area.

 

Also, with many more people playing, it's a catch 22. We all want new caches to find but the availability of new places to hide them isn't what it use to be.

 

Which is why motivated cache owners consistently find novel ways to fit new caches into available spaces. Some people get down to work to solve puzzles so they know where the spaces are, some people watch archive listings and jump on openings, some people work with community organizations to get access to land that was previously off-limits for geocaching.

 

It's a pretty big planet covered with millions of geocaches. I'm not terribly concerned that I'll run out of new caches to find. I wouldn't mind seeing fewer new caches, really, because the news ones are so often uninspired traditionals that people have placed just because there's an empty space.

 

None of this changes the basic fact that puzzle cache owners are under no obligation to help with their puzzles. Some choose to be helpful, others do not. It's a personal choice on the part of the cache owner.

 

I agree with the owners right not to offer help.

 

The "new uninspired traditionals" not so much.

 

Plenty of caches (that are still being maintained) out there to find no doubt.

New locations that don't already have a cache or two that allow caching and are close enough to maintain.... Not as easy as the good ole days.

[+narcissa]

In an area that is really saturated with caches, someone who is more motivated will solve the puzzle and wedge a cache into the available space.

 

In an area that isn't really saturated with caches, there is no reason to get hung up on wedging a cache into one particular spot because there is plenty of space available in other places nearby.

+1

 

Once upon a time, the saturation guideline included the stated goal "to encourage you to seek out new places to hide caches rather than putting them in areas where caches already exist". Seeking out new places to hide caches, places that are not already saturated with caches, is a good thing.

 

A new cache will bring back people who have already found caches in the area.

 

Also, with many more people playing, it's a catch 22. We all want new caches to find but the availability of new places to hide them isn't what it use to be.

 

Which is why motivated cache owners consistently find novel ways to fit new caches into available spaces. Some people get down to work to solve puzzles so they know where the spaces are, some people watch archive listings and jump on openings, some people work with community organizations to get access to land that was previously off-limits for geocaching.

 

It's a pretty big planet covered with millions of geocaches. I'm not terribly concerned that I'll run out of new caches to find. I wouldn't mind seeing fewer new caches, really, because the news ones are so often uninspired traditionals that people have placed just because there's an empty space.

 

None of this changes the basic fact that puzzle cache owners are under no obligation to help with their puzzles. Some choose to be helpful, others do not. It's a personal choice on the part of the cache owner.

 

I agree with the owners right not to offer help.

 

The "new uninspired traditionals" not so much.

 

Plenty of caches (that are still being maintained) out there to find no doubt.

New locations that don't already have a cache or two that allow caching and are close enough to maintain.... Not as easy as the good ole days.

 

Again, that goes back to the point that when an area is already well-served by geocaches, there's no need to place more. If there's no space within reasonable maintenance distance for you, then there are enough caches where you are. You are under no obligation to place more.

 

The number of cachers who honestly "run out" of caches to find close to home is pretty small, and you'll find that cachers like that have the means and the motivation to travel further to find new caches. These prolific cachers are not likely to be terribly impressed at a film can tossed into the nearest empty space in a park they've already visited.

 

If your reason for cache placement is about racking up numbers and filling in every space, then you have every reason to expect owners of quality caches, like difficult puzzles, to take a dim view of demands for coordinates.

[+justintim1999]

In an area that is really saturated with caches, someone who is more motivated will solve the puzzle and wedge a cache into the available space.

 

In an area that isn't really saturated with caches, there is no reason to get hung up on wedging a cache into one particular spot because there is plenty of space available in other places nearby.

+1

 

Once upon a time, the saturation guideline included the stated goal "to encourage you to seek out new places to hide caches rather than putting them in areas where caches already exist". Seeking out new places to hide caches, places that are not already saturated with caches, is a good thing.

 

A new cache will bring back people who have already found caches in the area.

 

Also, with many more people playing, it's a catch 22. We all want new caches to find but the availability of new places to hide them isn't what it use to be.

 

Which is why motivated cache owners consistently find novel ways to fit new caches into available spaces. Some people get down to work to solve puzzles so they know where the spaces are, some people watch archive listings and jump on openings, some people work with community organizations to get access to land that was previously off-limits for geocaching.

 

It's a pretty big planet covered with millions of geocaches. I'm not terribly concerned that I'll run out of new caches to find. I wouldn't mind seeing fewer new caches, really, because the news ones are so often uninspired traditionals that people have placed just because there's an empty space.

 

None of this changes the basic fact that puzzle cache owners are under no obligation to help with their puzzles. Some choose to be helpful, others do not. It's a personal choice on the part of the cache owner.

 

I agree with the owners right not to offer help.

 

The "new uninspired traditionals" not so much.

 

Plenty of caches (that are still being maintained) out there to find no doubt.

New locations that don't already have a cache or two that allow caching and are close enough to maintain.... Not as easy as the good ole days.

 

Again, that goes back to the point that when an area is already well-served by geocaches, there's no need to place more. If there's no space within reasonable maintenance distance for you, then there are enough caches where you are. You are under no obligation to place more.

 

The number of cachers who honestly "run out" of caches to find close to home is pretty small, and you'll find that cachers like that have the means and the motivation to travel further to find new caches. These prolific cachers are not likely to be terribly impressed at a film can tossed into the nearest empty space in a park they've already visited.

 

If your reason for cache placement is about racking up numbers and filling in every space, then you have every reason to expect owners of quality caches, like difficult puzzles, to take a dim view of demands for coordinates.

 

Has anyone ever been obligated to place a cache? I thought you did because you wanted to be a cache owner and give back to the community.

[+justintim1999]

I think I've been pulled off the track here. I have a high tolerance for pain but after reading back through this even I'm beginning to get queasy.

 

Here it is in a nut shell

 

Based on the original post I assume that the party in question is simply looking to hide a cache. I'll assume by the mere fact that they openly asked for the hidden cords that they probably are somewhat new to caching.

 

I would either help them solve my puzzle or help guide them on where they could move there cache to.

 

Feeling better already.

[+narcissa]

Has anyone ever been obligated to place a cache? I thought you did because you wanted to be a cache owner and give back to the community.

 

People often feel obligated to place caches. There are some cachers who insist that there is some sort of acceptable ratio of finds:hides. It's misguided but it happens.

 

The desire to "give back" to the community is a good one, but bugging cache owners for coordinates and insisting on some sort of "right" to place a cache isn't really giving back.

[+justintim1999]

See post #43. replace demanding anything with bugging anyone.

[+The Magna Defender]

I'd be tempted to say no logging of the Puzzle cache, if extra 'help' is offered...

 

Unfortunately that wouldn't stick - log signed = found = smiley.

 

And that's how it should be ?

[+justintim1999]

I'd be tempted to say no logging of the Puzzle cache, if extra 'help' is offered...

 

Unfortunately that wouldn't stick - log signed = found = smiley.

 

And that's how it should be ?

 

If you ask for help with the puzzle and were willingly given help by the cache owner than good find.

 

If you asked for the cords because you are hiding a cache and you make the find. No find.

[+Team Microdot]

I'd be tempted to say no logging of the Puzzle cache, if extra 'help' is offered...

 

Unfortunately that wouldn't stick - log signed = found = smiley.

 

And that's how it should be ?

 

That's how what should be?

[+Team Microdot]

I'd be tempted to say no logging of the Puzzle cache, if extra 'help' is offered...

 

Unfortunately that wouldn't stick - log signed = found = smiley.

 

And that's how it should be ?

 

If you ask for help with the puzzle and were willingly given help by the cache owner than good find.

 

If you asked for the cords because you are hiding a cache and you make the find. No find.

 

+ If you're wasting the reviewer's valuable time carpet-bombing a particular area with (cough) possible cache locations in order to battleship another puzzle - no find.

[+narcissa]

I'd be tempted to say no logging of the Puzzle cache, if extra 'help' is offered...

 

Unfortunately that wouldn't stick - log signed = found = smiley.

 

And that's how it should be ?

 

If you ask for help with the puzzle and were willingly given help by the cache owner than good find.

 

If you asked for the cords because you are hiding a cache and you make the find. No find.

 

Unfortunately, that's not how it works. You can't hand someone coordinates to a cache and then punish them for logging a find on it.

[+justintim1999]

I'd be tempted to say no logging of the Puzzle cache, if extra 'help' is offered...

 

Unfortunately that wouldn't stick - log signed = found = smiley.

 

And that's how it should be ?

 

If you ask for help with the puzzle and were willingly given help by the cache owner than good find.

 

If you asked for the cords because you are hiding a cache and you make the find. No find.

 

Unfortunately, that's not how it works. You can't hand someone coordinates to a cache and then punish them for logging a find on it.

 

Why not if they misrepresented the reasons for needing the information. If push came to shove would Groundspeak side with the finder in this situation?

[+narcissa]

I'd be tempted to say no logging of the Puzzle cache, if extra 'help' is offered...

 

Unfortunately that wouldn't stick - log signed = found = smiley.

 

And that's how it should be ?

 

If you ask for help with the puzzle and were willingly given help by the cache owner than good find.

 

If you asked for the cords because you are hiding a cache and you make the find. No find.

 

Unfortunately, that's not how it works. You can't hand someone coordinates to a cache and then punish them for logging a find on it.

 

Why not if they misrepresented the reasons for needing the information. If push came to shove would Groundspeak side with the finder in this situation?

 

Yes, if you willingly give someone coordinates to your puzzle cache and someone logs a find on your puzzle cache, I expect that Groundspeak would side with the finder. Demanding that someone solve the puzzle is considered an "Additional Logging Requirement" and it's against the guidelines.

[+J Grouchy]

I'd be tempted to say no logging of the Puzzle cache, if extra 'help' is offered...

 

Unfortunately that wouldn't stick - log signed = found = smiley.

 

And that's how it should be ?

 

If you ask for help with the puzzle and were willingly given help by the cache owner than good find.

 

If you asked for the cords because you are hiding a cache and you make the find. No find.

 

Unfortunately, that's not how it works. You can't hand someone coordinates to a cache and then punish them for logging a find on it.

 

Why not if they misrepresented the reasons for needing the information. If push came to shove would Groundspeak side with the finder in this situation?

 

Yes, if you willingly give someone coordinates to your puzzle cache and someone logs a find on your puzzle cache, I expect that Groundspeak would side with the finder. Demanding that someone solve the puzzle is considered an "Additional Logging Requirement" and it's against the guidelines.

 

Additionally, I suspect GS would probably tell you not to bother them with such silly disputes. Well...maybe not tell you, but they'd probably all have a good laugh about it amongst themselves.

[+justintim1999]

I'd be tempted to say no logging of the Puzzle cache, if extra 'help' is offered...

 

Unfortunately that wouldn't stick - log signed = found = smiley.

 

And that's how it should be ?

 

If you ask for help with the puzzle and were willingly given help by the cache owner than good find.

 

If you asked for the cords because you are hiding a cache and you make the find. No find.

 

Unfortunately, that's not how it works. You can't hand someone coordinates to a cache and then punish them for logging a find on it.

 

Why not if they misrepresented the reasons for needing the information. If push came to shove would Groundspeak side with the finder in this situation?

 

Yes, if you willingly give someone coordinates to your puzzle cache and someone logs a find on your puzzle cache, I expect that Groundspeak would side with the finder. Demanding that someone solve the puzzle is considered an "Additional Logging Requirement" and it's against the guidelines.

 

Additionally, I suspect GS would probably tell you not to bother them with such silly disputes. Well...maybe not tell you, but they'd probably all have a good laugh about it amongst themselves.

 

So they would laugh at my gullibility and reward the liar. Fair enough. I've been forewarned.

[+bflentje]

I recently received the following message asking for the coords on my puzzle cache that has only been found 32 times in 6 years and those that have solved it often need hints from me which I gladly provide.

 

"Hello! I am trying to place a cache in ***** park and was informed by a reviewer that my cache is not 161 metres away from a hidden stage in your mystery cache "***********" . I was hoping to get the coordinates from you so I could move my cache the appropriate distance to make 161 metres in distance between the two. Thanks so much!!"

 

I found it a strange request and was wondering if others had ever received this type of request and how you would handle this type of request?

 

1) Tell the sender to solve the puzzle - I am leaning towards this

2) Ignore the request

3) Give him/her the coords

4) Other

 

Thanks

 

Option 1 for sure but I think creating a puzzle that only 32 people can solve in six years is more obnoxious than having the gall to ask for the coordinates. That's just MY opinion, and it isn't worth anything.. so if you like crazy puzzles, have at it.

[+Team Microdot]

I think creating a puzzle that only 32 people can solve in six years is more obnoxious than having the gall to ask for the coordinates.

 

What's obnoxious about a difficult puzzle?

 

Were I one of the solvers - under my own steam, without hand-holding by the CO or stooping to nefarious means to get my hands on the coordinates - I'd be very pleased and feel like I'd achieved something

[+bflentje]

I think creating a puzzle that only 32 people can solve in six years is more obnoxious than having the gall to ask for the coordinates.

 

What's obnoxious about a difficult puzzle?

 

Were I one of the solvers - under my own steam, without hand-holding by the CO or stooping to nefarious means to get my hands on the coordinates - I'd be very pleased and feel like I'd achieved something

 

Nothing is obnoxious about it if that's your cup of tea. I clearly qualified my statement as being MY opinion for me. Just because I personally think it's obnoxious, I would NEVER suggest they shouldn't be hidden. On the contrary, I think there are too many restrictions (see my position on challenge debate).

[+Team Microdot]

I think creating a puzzle that only 32 people can solve in six years is more obnoxious than having the gall to ask for the coordinates.

 

What's obnoxious about a difficult puzzle?

 

Were I one of the solvers - under my own steam, without hand-holding by the CO or stooping to nefarious means to get my hands on the coordinates - I'd be very pleased and feel like I'd achieved something

 

Nothing is obnoxious about it if that's your cup of tea. I clearly qualified my statement as being MY opinion for me. Just because I personally think it's obnoxious, I would NEVER suggest they shouldn't be hidden. On the contrary, I think there are too many restrictions (see my position on challenge debate).

 

It being just your personal opinion and not a statement of fact or sweeping generalisation doesn't make me any less curious about why you find them obnoxious

[+J Grouchy]

I think creating a puzzle that only 32 people can solve in six years is more obnoxious than having the gall to ask for the coordinates.

 

What's obnoxious about a difficult puzzle?

 

Were I one of the solvers - under my own steam, without hand-holding by the CO or stooping to nefarious means to get my hands on the coordinates - I'd be very pleased and feel like I'd achieved something

 

Nothing is obnoxious about it if that's your cup of tea. I clearly qualified my statement as being MY opinion for me. Just because I personally think it's obnoxious, I would NEVER suggest they shouldn't be hidden. On the contrary, I think there are too many restrictions (see my position on challenge debate).

 

It being just your personal opinion and not a statement of fact or sweeping generalisation doesn't make me any less curious about why you find them obnoxious

 

My impression of that statement is that some people find the fact that other people can solve a puzzle that they themselves cannot to be "unpleasant in a way that makes people feel offended, annoyed, or disgusted".

 

Personally, I would think the term "frustrating", "irksome" or "vexing" to be more appropriate. I'm quite often frustrated when I am unable to solve a puzzle. I can't say that I think the CO should be ashamed for making them so difficult, though. If anything, I am more frustrated with myself for not 'getting it'.

Edited April 6, 2016 by J Grouchy

[+Team Microdot]

I think creating a puzzle that only 32 people can solve in six years is more obnoxious than having the gall to ask for the coordinates.

 

What's obnoxious about a difficult puzzle?

 

Were I one of the solvers - under my own steam, without hand-holding by the CO or stooping to nefarious means to get my hands on the coordinates - I'd be very pleased and feel like I'd achieved something

 

Nothing is obnoxious about it if that's your cup of tea. I clearly qualified my statement as being MY opinion for me. Just because I personally think it's obnoxious, I would NEVER suggest they shouldn't be hidden. On the contrary, I think there are too many restrictions (see my position on challenge debate).

 

It being just your personal opinion and not a statement of fact or sweeping generalisation doesn't make me any less curious about why you find them obnoxious

 

My impression of that statement is that some people find the fact that other people can solve a puzzle that they themselves cannot to be "unpleasant in a way that makes people feel offended, annoyed, or disgusted".

 

Personally, I would think the term "frustrating", "irksome" or "vexing" to be more appropriate. I'm quite often frustrated when I am unable to solve a puzzle. I can't say that I think the CO should be ashamed for making them so difficult, though. If anything, I am more frustrated with myself for not 'getting it'.

 

I'm largely with you on this one - except for those puzzles which, even when you know how you were meant to solve it, you realise that what you were in fact dealing with was a guessing game with no logic, rhyme or reason as to how to identify the final coordinates even remotely involved.

 

I've even seen perfectly good, logical puzzles adulterated and put out as new puzzles by people who added a unique (cough) twist which completely broke that great puzzle, resulting in a hopeless kludge of the original work of art I expect most people find those obnoxious.

[+bflentje]

I think creating a puzzle that only 32 people can solve in six years is more obnoxious than having the gall to ask for the coordinates.

 

What's obnoxious about a difficult puzzle?

 

Were I one of the solvers - under my own steam, without hand-holding by the CO or stooping to nefarious means to get my hands on the coordinates - I'd be very pleased and feel like I'd achieved something

 

Nothing is obnoxious about it if that's your cup of tea. I clearly qualified my statement as being MY opinion for me. Just because I personally think it's obnoxious, I would NEVER suggest they shouldn't be hidden. On the contrary, I think there are too many restrictions (see my position on challenge debate).

 

It being just your personal opinion and not a statement of fact or sweeping generalisation doesn't make me any less curious about why you find them obnoxious

 

My impression of that statement is that some people find the fact that other people can solve a puzzle that they themselves cannot to be "unpleasant in a way that makes people feel offended, annoyed, or disgusted".

 

Personally, I would think the term "frustrating", "irksome" or "vexing" to be more appropriate. I'm quite often frustrated when I am unable to solve a puzzle. I can't say that I think the CO should be ashamed for making them so difficult, though. If anything, I am more frustrated with myself for not 'getting it'.

 

I don't think that I have this opinion because of things like "frustrating", "irksome" or "vexing". I mean after all, the PAF network is so vast here that you can get the solution to anything with the right connections. I just wonder why you'd want a puzzle so difficult that only a small minority of those are able to solve it (without help).

 

Of course though I AM being a hypocrite here, because I think challenges should be as challenging as you want to make them to be (so long as they're one-dimensional).

 

Because of this, I would never suggest there should be a rule about difficulty..

[+narcissa]

So they would laugh at my gullibility and reward the liar. Fair enough. I've been forewarned.

 

I don't think anyone would laugh at you. Upholding the guidelines isn't a "reward." Cache owners have to confirm that they are following the guidelines every time they submit a cache for publication.

[cezanne]

I just wonder why you'd want a puzzle so difficult that only a small minority of those are able to solve it (without help).

 

A very short and simple multi cache of the same owner has also less than 60 finds in 6 years - the same cache would have that many finds in less than 2 months in my area and even more in say Vienna.

32 finds in 6 years does not necessarily mean that the puzzle must be hard. It depends a lot on the area and one needs to be careful not to interpret the number of finds without knowing an area well.

 

Moreover, there are certainly very hard (but not tiresome) puzzles that are well done and designed for a special group of cachers who really enjoy them and I think that such caches like any other type of extreme cache (e.g. very hard climbing caches, caches that require multi day extreme hikes etc) have a right to exist. For example, there is a multi hiking cache that starts in my home town which will certainly not be found often (so far it is still unfound): It requires >100 days of hiking, involves roughly 2000 km and 100000 height meters. What is sure however is that those who do the hike, will end up with a special experience.

There are enough caches for the majority anyway. Why not have some caches that target towards minorities?

[+Team Microdot]

I just wonder why you'd want a puzzle so difficult that only a small minority of those are able to solve it (without help).

 

The knowledge of the high level of enjoyment that small minority will get from the process - a reward for all the hard work they will have invested to get there.

[+bflentje]

I just wonder why you'd want a puzzle so difficult that only a small minority of those are able to solve it (without help).

 

A very short and simple multi cache of the same owner has also less than 60 finds in 6 years - the same cache would have that many finds in less than 2 months in my area and even more in say Vienna.

32 finds in 6 years does not necessarily mean that the puzzle must be hard. It depends a lot on the area and one needs to be careful not to interpret the number of finds without knowing an area well.

 

Moreover, there are certainly very hard (but not tiresome) puzzles that are well done and designed for a special group of cachers who really enjoy them and I think that such caches like any other type of extreme cache (e.g. very hard climbing caches, caches that require multi day extreme hikes etc) have a right to exist. For example, there is a multi hiking cache that starts in my home town which will certainly not be found often (so far it is still unfound): It requires >100 days of hiking, involves roughly 2000 km and 100000 height meters. What is sure however is that those who do the hike, will end up with a special experience.

There are enough caches for the majority anyway. Why not have some caches that target towards minorities?

 

When you use the word moreover, I immediately stop reading your replies. My apologies to the OP for railroading this thread.

[+bflentje]

I just wonder why you'd want a puzzle so difficult that only a small minority of those are able to solve it (without help).

 

The knowledge of the high level of enjoyment that small minority will get from the process - a reward for all the hard work they will have invested to get there.

 

From a finder's perspective, I agree. But from a hider's perspective, not my cup of tea.. to clarify, to hide something out of the ordinary, LIKE. To hide something for the sole purpose of stumping the masses, UNLIKE. But like or unlike, I am not suggesting limiting anything.

[+OReviewer]

I would say whatever you do, don't do #2. At least tell them you got the message.

 

As a puzzle cache owner, I understand completely why you wouldn't want to give them the answer, and it is your prerogative not to give them.

 

In helping with building community I would suggest you ask them for a 5 sets of coordinates and give let them know if one (or more) of them work. This way they can put out a cache and you can still have your puzzle in that area.

[+Team Microdot]

I just wonder why you'd want a puzzle so difficult that only a small minority of those are able to solve it (without help).

 

The knowledge of the high level of enjoyment that small minority will get from the process - a reward for all the hard work they will have invested to get there.

 

From a finder's perspective, I agree. But from a hider's perspective, not my cup of tea.. to clarify, to hide something out of the ordinary, LIKE. To hide something for the sole purpose of stumping the masses, UNLIKE. But like or unlike, I am not suggesting limiting anything.

 

I get where you're coming from and I think we're looking at opposite sides of the coin.

 

Given that I've hidden a good number of caches that just about anybody can find I certainly don't feel like I owe anybody anything or that I'm doing anyone a disservice if I choose to publish a puzzle at the more difficult end of the spectrum which caters to the tastes at true puzzle connoisseurs.