Making people wander from a Waypoint

[+NHAnimator]

I've only created a few caches so far and have had mixed reviews from a very small sample size. But one comment I received got me thinking that maybe I'm doing things a little differently and I wanted to run it by the group. My intent is to have people reach a WP, then from there look for information that will move them forward.

 

So an example has people start in a (approx 50x50yd) public park with WP coords set to near the middle. I reference a sort of "welcome to the park" and then "gather information here by searching for X, Y, and Z". The question I have is whether or not I need to tell people that they should wander around the park to find X, Y, and Z? Or are cachers going to assume that they can find X, Y, and Z standing at the coordinates directly?

 

My primary cache of concern: http://coord.info/GC6EWZH

 

Some users seem to enjoy these types of field puzzles. Others seem to have a world of trouble. I wonder if this is simply just going to be the case as I develop these, or if I need to revise my MO.

 

Thanks much,

NHAnimator

[+The A-Team]

The question I have is whether or not I need to tell people that they should wander around the park to find X, Y, and Z? Or are cachers going to assume that they can find X, Y, and Z standing at the coordinates directly?

My gut feeling is that if the description doesn't say anything about how far I need to expand my search to find the information, I'd expect it to be fairly close and/or visible from GZ. How close is "fairly close", you say? I'm not sure, but within 30-50 yards feels about right. If I had to search all over a park, I'd like to know that in advance, because it will change the way I search for the items and let me know how much time I should budget.

 

In the case of the cache you linked, you say in the description that the information is in the park, but a quick measurement tells me the park extends over 300 yards to the southeast from GZ. Do seekers need to go that far from GZ to find the information? If it will take seekers some time to search all over a good-sized park for the information, you might want to let them know in advance so they can plan appropriately.

 

It also sounds like the first finders were confused by some of your descriptions/riddles, to the point that they never did actually solve the puzzle. What I'd do is take someone to GZ, give them the description, and watch what they do and where they run into problems. Basically, use them as a beta-tester. This will help you determine if some of your descriptions are unintentionally confusing - or maybe even incorrect - and whether you could reword things to make them more clear.

[+kunarion]

Some users seem to enjoy these types of field puzzles. Others seem to have a world of trouble. I wonder if this is simply just going to be the case as I develop these, or if I need to revise my MO.

That example cache states that people are to find numbers “that may or may not exist” and add those numbers together. It's all pretty vague (so I might wonder, “did I find the correct place with no numbers?”). The cache logs mention that the finders had trouble with the stages. So, potential finders know what to expect. I have searched places, such as an entire cemetery for a headstone. It happens. I prefer very clear info on how to compute the waypoints (maybe a disclaimer about “search for clues within X yards of the coords” wouldn't spoil the fun too much). But as you see, someone will go hunt it.

 

Anyway, I've often suggested that people hide caches they would like to find. So if the clues are real (no missing numbers, etc. ), that kind of thing should be OK as is, if you can get it published.

Edited April 11, 2016 by kunarion

[+NHAnimator]

Thanks so far for the replies.

 

Regarding the size of the park: This park has upper and lower portions which are pretty clearly delineated by fences, buildings, etc., though they are both technically the same park. I don't imagine that people would confuse having to go wandering to the lower portion, but point taken. Thank you.

 

Regarding the vagueness: I've had a number of people try to solve the puzzles without actually doing the work of visiting the waypoints. This particular clue was written to avoid people trying to solve it from non-Waypoint 2 locations. If you actually solve the first portion and get to Waypoint 2, the description of what you are seeing will make sense and it should be quite clear about whether or not the numbers exist. The three log entries which currently exist were part of a four-way FTF, so as a group, they had problems. However, they also had problems with another of my caches which other cachers found without issue. Thus, my questioning.

 

Overall, I can probably tighten up some of the language and give people an idea right up front that they may need to wander a bit to get the info they seek.

[+JL_HSTRE]

Looking at the linked cache I would probably give it a try, but could see myself possibly getting frustrated and not finishing.

 

Is the purpose of this cache to provide a tour of the park? If so then why make it so convoluted? On the other hand, if you're trying to make a challenging multi you're probably on the right track. It depends on what your goal is.

[+NHAnimator]

Is the purpose of this cache to provide a tour of the park? If so then why make it so convoluted? On the other hand, if you're trying to make a challenging multi you're probably on the right track. It depends on what your goal is.

 

The purpose is to provide a challenging puzzle. Only the beginning of this cache takes place in the park.

[+fizzymagic]

Is the purpose of this cache to provide a tour of the park? If so then why make it so convoluted? On the other hand, if you're trying to make a challenging multi you're probably on the right track. It depends on what your goal is.

 

The purpose is to provide a challenging puzzle. Only the beginning of this cache takes place in the park.

 

Incomplete and vague instructions generally do not make for a good puzzle. A good puzzle is one in which the objective is clear but may be difficult to reach.

 

Perhaps a better way to implement your puzzle would be to provide pictures of the signs or other objects with the relevant information blurred out. In that case, there is no reason to tell them they have to wander; it's implicit in the existence of the pictures.

[+narcissa]

Think about what you would enjoy finding and don't worry too much about others getting in a fuss about it. Some people just get irrationally angry about caches that aren't to their taste.

 

If someone else put out this cache for you to find, would you enjoy it? If the answer is yes, and the cache meets the guidelines, it's a good idea for a cache.

[+Pine and Poplar]

I don't mind having to wander for a cache looking for information, as long it the isn't deceptively presented as being at the posted coordinates.

 

I found this one a number of years ago but it took a couple of trips and a lot of thinking to finally come up with the container. Everything makes perfect sense when you find it but until then I was scratching my head, wondering what next quite a bit.

 

https://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC5889_garden-challenge

[+rjb43nh]

Seeing this has been brought up in the forums, and as one of the finders on these three multis, I’ll give my critique. On the specific multi referenced by the OP, two of us who found the cache have over 12,000 and 20,000 finds with several hundred multi finds and over 2,000 mystery finds each so we aren’t inexperienced finding these types of caches. One of our favorite series took us over a year to complete and we had to drive about 70 miles every time we tried to solve another step so we don’t always expect easy caches or instant gratification. However, we do expect clear unambiguous directions and I have found some of these instructions rather convoluted and confusing.

 

As others posters have said, if you solve for a waypoint and go there you expect to either be right at an object or be able to see the required information from that exact location, if you have to wander almost 200’ from one of the waypoint as we had to do on this cache, searching for some obliquely referenced object, it isn’t geocaching, it’s letterboxing. At one of the other waypoints the cache owner had us looking for something he thought served no purpose but we clearly saw the purpose and it took some time and more searching to come to the conclusion that the object we knew didn’t actually fit his description actually was what we were looking for.

 

Also, as mentioned by cachers who found some or all of these three multis, there were experienced cachers who had to backtrack and revisit some waypoints multiple times, which does lead to frustration and points to either ambiguity, imprecise wording, or poor choice of hint. There is also nothing that says you have to do the cache the way the owner set it up. If you can see a quicker legal way to solve the puzzle, take it. Checksums aren’t always the best way to improve verifying an answer to a waypoint question and in the latest multi that added check definitely made one waypoint a giveaway.

 

A case where experience helped was at the final where we couldn’t get the numbers to make any sense but we could guess the general area within several hundred feet. We search likely spots when I remembered an archived cache from a few years back that was hidden here and found the cache container in the exact same spot.

 

My suggestion for NHAnimator is to read the post from The A-Team and carefully follow his advice which will improve these caches and make cachers searching for his future multis much happier.

Edited April 14, 2016 by rjb43nh