Puzzle cache found without solving puzzle

[+Team DEMP]

I don't agree that using that kind of language makes anything better, though it is illuminating.

 

It may not make it better but it's more accurate.

It's certainly not a "clever" way to circumvent a puzzle. The clever way is to just solve it (and if that's not possible, ignore it).

 

It was clever enough to get the cacher to the final location, wasn't it? Certainly no need to use vicious language over something so insignificant.

 

And another relevant discussion topic unnecessarily derailed.

[+Team DEMP]

Thoughts anyone?

 

I would email the finder and alert him to the reason you are deleting the photo. The finder could edit his photo stripping the EXIF and re-upload or just not upload the picture again. For the user that leveraged the EXIF based on spotting it from another picture, I'd let the log stand.

 

I don't think relying on the site doing anything to resolve this is an option you'd want to hold your breathe on.

[+MartyBartfast]

Thoughts anyone?

 

I would email the finder and alert him to the reason you are deleting the photo. The finder could edit his photo stripping the EXIF and re-upload or just not upload the picture again. For the user that leveraged the EXIF based on spotting it from another picture, I'd let the log stand.

 

I don't think relying on the site doing anything to resolve this is an option you'd want to hold your breathe on.

 

+1

[+Team Microdot]

It is interesting to view individual attitudes to this thread in the context of the amount of effort expended by individual posters in puzzle creation.

[cezanne]

I would email the finder and alert him to the reason you are deleting the photo. The finder could edit his photo stripping the EXIF and re-upload or just not upload the picture again. For the user that leveraged the EXIF based on spotting it from another picture, I'd let the log stand.

 

In my opinion it is beyond any debate that the log has to stand in such a case.

 

As for the rest, there are two levels involved. The one is how to address such cases when they have already happened. I would delete a spoiler log immediately after becoming aware of it. In case of a photo with exif data which got exploited by someone but has been present already for a while I would not delete the photo but ask the poster to replace the photo with a new one without exif data and looking exactly the same. In this manner I would hope that the smallest number of cachers possible becomes aware of what happened.

 

I don't think relying on the site doing anything to resolve this is an option you'd want to hold your breathe on.

 

Unfortunately, I have to agree. However by getting rid of the geotagged photo the real issue is not resolved. The coordinates got leaked anyhow which can cause a number of issues.

 

For example, when asking for permission for a cache or when considering maintenance plans and other aspects it makes a huge difference how many people will likely visit a cache. It is realistic to assume that for a very long hiking multi cache gets visited only a few times per year at maximum. The visitors will typically not share the final coordinates deliberately. It can however easily happen by mistake if they post geotagged photos without of even being aware what their photos contain. If geotagged photos lead to a situation where a cache suddenly gets visited by many cachers, archival of the cache will be the only possible way out in many situations which then causes a loss for those who would have loved to visit the cache in the intended manner.

 

The issue here are neither controlling cache owners nor cachers that exploit exif data if they become aware of them - the key issue is that the site lets cachers do something most of them would not do if they were aware of what they are doing. That's a different sort of discussion and much beyond the usual discussion about which ways of visiting a cache match the spirit of the game which is something else for everyone anyhow. There are so many cachers out there who are not technology-affine. They own smartphones and post photos and know nothing at all about exif data etc.

 

In my opinion it would not be necessary to strip off all exif data. While cachers can use also other fields and not only the coordinate fields for entering cache locations, this is going to happen only for those who really intent to post coordinates while most cases happen without the cachers who post the photos even being aware of they are doing.

 

I stick with my opinion that stripping off the coordinate info from photos uploaded to cache logs (not photos uploaded by cache owners on their cache page) would be both easy to do and would help a lot.

[+Team DEMP]

I would email the finder and alert him to the reason you are deleting the photo. The finder could edit his photo stripping the EXIF and re-upload or just not upload the picture again. For the user that leveraged the EXIF based on spotting it from another picture, I'd let the log stand.

I would delete a spoiler log immediately after becoming aware of it. In case of a photo with exif data which got exploited by someone but has been present already for a while I would not delete the photo but ask the poster to replace the photo with a new one without exif data and looking exactly the same. In this manner I would hope that the smallest number of cachers possible becomes aware of what happened.

What's the rationale on not deleting the picture with EXIF data exposing the final coordinates? How is that different from posting the final coordinates in a log or posting a spoiler of the cache container?

The longer the EXIF data on the picture is there, the more it can be exploited.

[+palmetto]

cezanne may be thinking that the delete photo message is sent to all watchers on a cache, and includes a link to the image.

 

It was done that way when the feature was new, actually drawing MORE attention to a spoiler photo than simply letting it remain on site.

 

That was fixed a while back. Only the photo owner is notified of image deletion these days.

[+Team Microdot]

cezanne may be thinking that the delete photo message is sent to all watchers on a cache, and includes a link to the image.

 

It was done that way when the feature was new, actually drawing MORE attention to a spoiler photo than simply letting it remain on site.

 

That was fixed a while back. Only the photo owner is notified of image deletion these days.

 

I can corroborate those facts as I remember dismay at the fact that that which should be unseen was in fact circulated to precisely those who would benefit from seeing it - and remember it being fixed.

[cezanne]

cezanne may be thinking that the delete photo message is sent to all watchers on a cache, and includes a link to the image.

 

It was done that way when the feature was new, actually drawing MORE attention to a spoiler photo than simply letting it remain on site.

 

That was fixed a while back. Only the photo owner is notified of image deletion these days.

 

I'm aware of the fact that this has been changed. However there are people who have databases with the logs and photos and if they realize that something has changed

they will have a motivation to look at the data they have.

 

project-gc does something similar on a large scale to inform cache owners that something has changed on a cache page (logs, photos etc).

 

In my opinion, the only approach that would resonably fix the issue is if coordinates were stripped off when photos are uploaded to logs.

[cezanne]

I would email the finder and alert him to the reason you are deleting the photo. The finder could edit his photo stripping the EXIF and re-upload or just not upload the picture again. For the user that leveraged the EXIF based on spotting it from another picture, I'd let the log stand.

I would delete a spoiler log immediately after becoming aware of it. In case of a photo with exif data which got exploited by someone but has been present already for a while I would not delete the photo but ask the poster to replace the photo with a new one without exif data and looking exactly the same. In this manner I would hope that the smallest number of cachers possible becomes aware of what happened.

What's the rationale on not deleting the picture with EXIF data exposing the final coordinates? How is that different from posting the final coordinates in a log or posting a spoiler of the cache container?

The longer the EXIF data on the picture is there, the more it can be exploited.

 

It's a borderline issue when deciding how to proceed. In the cases I experienced it worked out that the cachers who posted such photos reacted quickly within at most a few hours. If they would need days, then deletion would be the better way. The difference to posting final coordinates or a spoiler picture is that only a certain group of cachers is aware of exif information and an even smaller groups checks for exif data regularly on caches pages which are not owned by them unless they have a specific reason making them focus on a particular cache.

[+Team Microdot]

please leave the geotag data in the photos. I've been using this for years to keep up with family adventures, and it's really nice to have, for the date/time/location. the location and found status of a cache is pretty insignificant, to me.

 

If the location and found status of the cache is insignificant to you why upload your photographs to geocaching.com at all?

 

Why not simply store them elsewhere where you're not reliant on the storage owner keeping your EXIF data intact?

[ohgood]

man if this new hack hits social media...

millions of people are going Google what Geo caching is, install an app, leave work early today, hike to the final waypoints, and in the process ruin the puzzles forever!

 

OK, maybe ten people?

 

OK really, maybe three, in a couple of weekends from now, if they remember.

[+Team Microdot]

man if this new hack hits social media...

millions of people are going Google what Geo caching is, install an app, leave work early today, hike to the final waypoints, and in the process ruin the puzzles forever!

 

OK, maybe ten people?

 

OK really, maybe three, in a couple of weekends from now, if they remember.

 

I think I must be missing your point

[+hzoi]

The CO created a puzzle, and the person finding it only used 10% of it. The CO's disappointed the seeker didn't take advantage of the other 90%.

This leads back to my point that the CO would have to let a log stand for someone who stumbled across the cache by accident and thereby used 0% of the puzzle.

 

If the most recent photo in the gallery is the one at issue, apparently the CO hasn't felt strongly enough about it to delete the photo, which they are well within their rights to do. Nor, for that matter, have they felt strongly enough to return to this discussion. Not that any of this prevents the apparently inevitable circular conversations that take place in the forums these days, of course.

[cezanne]

Not that any of this prevents the apparently inevitable circular conversations that take place in the forums these days, of course.

 

At least for me I can say that I feel strongly about the topic which concerns all cache types where the final coordinates are not known.

This specific thread was just an example case which again brought up something which I find very annoying both as a cache hider and as a cache searcher

and I really wished that Groundspeak were willing to process the photos. That would end this sort of dicussion quickly.

[+hzoi]

I really wished that Groundspeak were willing to process the photos. That would end this sort of dicussion quickly.

I think we have our answer there already. For a time, the site apparently stripped EXIF data, such as geolocation tags; whether that was intentional or not, I can't say. Now it does not, and this data appears on user photos.

 

If you want Groundspeak to add that function back, there is a forum for feature requests and bug reports, but this isn't it.

 

edit to add: I'm willing to bet that enough cachers out there rely on this data for puzzles that this issue will be disputed, so perhaps add a backup feature request that geocaching.com offer the same service as project-gc.com, that is, to alert cache owners when photos are uploaded with location data.

Edited February 8, 2017 by hzoi

[cezanne]

edit to add: I'm willing to bet that enough cachers out there rely on this data for puzzles that this issue will be disputed,

 

Are there that many puzzle caches where the cache owners rely on photos posted in logs to caches they do not own?

 

I was not talking about stripping off all exif data and also not about stripping off exif data for all photos uploaded to the site.

 

At the very least they could offer something like a message that is sent to cachers uploading photos to logs like "Your photo contains coordinate data. Do you really wish to upload the photo?" where one also

could offer a switch to turn off this default message.

 

There are many ways to deal with the issue that are better than doing nothing.

 

I will not create a thread in the feature forum as I have lost all hope that requests there which have any appeal to me will be realized.

 

so perhaps add a backup feature request that geocaching.com offer the same service as project-gc.com, that is, to alert cache owners when photos are uploaded with location data.

 

That would not help me - I could just as well pay project-gc and have this service but it would not solve the problem as the data has already been exposed at that point of time to the public.

[+Team Microdot]

edit to add: I'm willing to bet that enough cachers out there rely on this data for puzzles that this issue will be disputed, so perhaps add a backup feature request that geocaching.com offer the same service as project-gc.com, that is, to alert cache owners when photos are uploaded with location data.

 

Are you referring to the cachers who rely on EXIF data in images to be able to find mystery caches without actually solving the associated puzzle or to cache owners who intentionally embed solution relevant EXIF data in images as part of the puzzle itself?

 

If it's the second I would suggest that automatically stripping EXIF data from images added to logs while allowing EXIF data to remain in gallery images uploaded by the CO would be a reasonable resolution.

[+J Grouchy]

I will not create a thread in the feature forum as I have lost all hope that requests there which have any appeal to me will be realized.

 

 

Truth...

[+JohnCNA]

The whole point of a puzzle cache is the additional layer of rules to follow in order to determine the final coordinates.

 

There are no different rules for puzzle caches. Find the container, sign the log=smiley. Same as any other cache.

[+dprovan]

The CO created a puzzle, and the person finding it only used 10% of it. The CO's disappointed the seeker didn't take advantage of the other 90%.

This leads back to my point that the CO would have to let a log stand for someone who stumbled across the cache by accident and thereby used 0% of the puzzle.

Well, the 10% I was talking about was the finding of the cache, so that's equivalent to the case I was talking about. Absolutely I agree that it makes no sense for the CO to try to deny the find -- even if they could -- because of their disappointment, but I think it makes perfect sense for them to express their disappointment.

 

The whole point of a puzzle cache is the additional layer of rules to follow in order to determine the final coordinates.

There are no different rules for puzzle caches. Find the container, sign the log=smiley. Same as any other cache.

Again, there are geocaching rules, and I agree those dictate the the CO cannot delete the log. But to repeat -- and I really don't understand why this is so hard for people to understand -- a puzzle cache is, by its very nature, adding additional rules. The geocaching rules say a seeker doesn't have to follow those additional rules, but it's silly to pretend they aren't rules even though the CO cannot enforce them. Hence my chess example: I can't stop you from reaching over and knocking over my king and saying "I win", but naturally I won't think you've actually won, and I'll likely say so.

[+bflentje]

You can delete spoiler logs and spoiler photos. Now you know to be aware of photo tagging.

 

Stripping meta data from photos would ruin a lot of existing puzzle caches.

 

Not exactly in the spirit of the game!

 

To me, your public log on the cache calling out, "the validity of that last 'find'", is a more egregious violation of the "spirit of the game" - a game which is a light fun activity - than is a find based on working out the final by a means unforeseen by you.

 

This. A puzzle solved by either conventional means or unconventional means is still a puzzle solved. Solving a puzzle requires any ingenuity available to you at the time.

[+bflentje]

This leads back to my point that the CO would have to let a log stand for someone who stumbled across the cache by accident and thereby used 0% of the puzzle.

 

This. If the signature is on the log, the find stands. Period.

Edited February 8, 2017 by bflentje

[+Team Microdot]

You can delete spoiler logs and spoiler photos. Now you know to be aware of photo tagging.

 

Stripping meta data from photos would ruin a lot of existing puzzle caches.

 

Not exactly in the spirit of the game!

 

To me, your public log on the cache calling out, "the validity of that last 'find'", is a more egregious violation of the "spirit of the game" - a game which is a light fun activity - than is a find based on working out the final by a means unforeseen by you.

 

This. A puzzle solved by either conventional means or unconventional means is still a puzzle solved. Solving a puzzle requires any ingenuity available to you at the time.

 

As the bus pulled up I could see there was only one empty seat so I pushed past the octogenarian in front of me in line and grabbed the seat and sat down for the whole journey.

 

I could tell that all the other passengers were really impressed at the way I'd used the ingenuity available to me at the time.

[+J Grouchy]

You can delete spoiler logs and spoiler photos. Now you know to be aware of photo tagging.

 

Stripping meta data from photos would ruin a lot of existing puzzle caches.

 

Not exactly in the spirit of the game!

 

To me, your public log on the cache calling out, "the validity of that last 'find'", is a more egregious violation of the "spirit of the game" - a game which is a light fun activity - than is a find based on working out the final by a means unforeseen by you.

 

This. A puzzle solved by either conventional means or unconventional means is still a puzzle solved. Solving a puzzle requires any ingenuity available to you at the time.

 

As the bus pulled up I could see there was only one empty seat so I pushed past the octogenarian in front of me in line and grabbed the seat and sat down for the whole journey.

 

I could tell that all the other passengers were really impressed at the way I'd used the ingenuity available to me at the time.

 

Great analogy, except there is no line and you're not inconveniencing anyone else by skirting the imaginary "rules" of the puzzle. So actually...it's not a great analogy at all.

[+narcissa]

 

Again, there are geocaching rules, and I agree those dictate the the CO cannot delete the log. But to repeat -- and I really don't understand why this is so hard for people to understand -- a puzzle cache is, by its very nature, adding additional rules. The geocaching rules say a seeker doesn't have to follow those additional rules, but it's silly to pretend they aren't rules even though the CO cannot enforce them. Hence my chess example: I can't stop you from reaching over and knocking over my king and saying "I win", but naturally I won't think you've actually won, and I'll likely say so.

 

This is like saying the instructions for Ikea furniture or on a cake mix are rules.

[+niraD]

Hence my chess example: I can't stop you from reaching over and knocking over my king and saying "I win", but naturally I won't think you've actually won, and I'll likely say so.

If you're making a chess example, I think a better one would be a player who deviates from the standard moves of an opening in an attempt to get his opponent out of book.

 

Except that I thought that geocaching didn't have opponents, and that the CO isn't your enemy.

 

I occasionally prepare initiative tests for the kids at church. I give them an objective, and a set of restrictions, and a set of resources. Sometimes they achieve the objective in a way I didn't anticipate, in a way that was much easier than any of the ways I did anticipate. I don't complain that they cheated. I congratulate them, then offer them a new initiative test with different objectives, restrictions, and/or resources.

[cezanne]

I occasionally prepare initiative tests for the kids at church. I give them an objective, and a set of restrictions, and a set of resources. Sometimes they achieve the objective in a way I didn't anticipate, in a way that was much easier than any of the ways I did anticipate. I don't complain that they cheated. I congratulate them, then offer them a new initiative test with different objectives, restrictions, and/or resources.

 

I would do the same in such a situation. Your example is comparable to puzzle caches where cachers find a different way to obtain the solution than the intended one by exploiting something the puzzle designer has overlooked.

That's however something very different than if cacher A hides say a 500km hiking multi cache, cacher B logs a find and uploads a photo with coordinates without knowing that the photo contains coordinates and cacher C visiting the final using the coordinates from the photo of cacher B.

 

Of course a log in such a case has to stand but that does not mean that we need to welcome that many cachers end up with spoilering caches in a massive way without even being aware of it.

Edited February 8, 2017 by cezanne

[+Twinklekitkat]

Maybe all puzzle owners should upload their own decoy pics, with coords purposefully altered to send 'lame' puzzle photo-sniffers off on wild goose chases....

 

I LOVE this idea!! May have to make a puzzle soon and do this.

 

Hopefully, the OP has learned something from this experience. I also did not know about geo-tagging in photos until a CO specifically mentioned that users not upload them in the logs or they would be deleted. All my photos are geo-tagged but I am now way more careful about posting photos, especially on mystery caches.

 

Personally, I think there are many cachers out there who just don't know about geo-tagging in photos and how it can be used to solve a puzzle. Good for the finder that they were able to figure that out. If I were the CO and didn't want anyone else to solve my puzzle this way, I would probably take steps to try and delete the photo(s). Starting with asking the original poster of it to delete it or re-post it without the info. Maybe add a line in the write up to please not post spoiler photos or they will be deleted?

 

Unfortunately for the OP, I don't think you have any grounds to delete their found log. I'm sure you will find that they did indeed sign the log book and at this point there is nothing you can do about it except try and take steps to keep it from happening again as suggested in this thread.

[+Team Microdot]

You can delete spoiler logs and spoiler photos. Now you know to be aware of photo tagging.

 

Stripping meta data from photos would ruin a lot of existing puzzle caches.

 

Not exactly in the spirit of the game!

 

To me, your public log on the cache calling out, "the validity of that last 'find'", is a more egregious violation of the "spirit of the game" - a game which is a light fun activity - than is a find based on working out the final by a means unforeseen by you.

 

This. A puzzle solved by either conventional means or unconventional means is still a puzzle solved. Solving a puzzle requires any ingenuity available to you at the time.

 

As the bus pulled up I could see there was only one empty seat so I pushed past the octogenarian in front of me in line and grabbed the seat and sat down for the whole journey.

 

I could tell that all the other passengers were really impressed at the way I'd used the ingenuity available to me at the time.

 

Great analogy, except there is no line and you're not inconveniencing anyone else by skirting the imaginary "rules" of the puzzle. So actually...it's not a great analogy at all.

 

I can only apologise for my lack of ability in the composition of convincing analogies - it seems to have made you grouchy I must confess that there are posters here who are much betterer at analogies than I.

 

On the other hand though it is important to remember that an anology isn't required to be a complete facsimile - but then of course you already knew that

 

For clarity, you might also care to note that the line isn't important and nor is the inconvenience you've latched onto.

 

The main points of the story are:

 

• Everyone on the bus knows that the polite thing to is give the seat up to the octagenarian
  
• While I'm busy congratulating myself on using the ingenuity available to me at the time everyone else on the bus, probably without exception, will see the truth - that my behaviour is outside the expectations of polite society
  
• If I wised up and met with those expectations everyone would be a lot happier
  
• None of these expectations are subject to written rules or laws - and nor do they need to be
  
• People tend to focus on things which support their viewpoint / assumptions / assertions - to the exclusion of that which disproves those things
  

 

It's also interesting to note that despite everyone else on the bus taking a dim view of my stealing the octagenarian's seat - nobody says anything - reinforcing my mistaken conviction that my usurpation is acceptable.

 

The story does have a happy ending though - one of the other people on the bus did the decent thing by meeting the expectations of of polite society and standing so that the elderly passenger could sit down

 

I carried on thinking I was doing great while everyone else on the bus was thinking how lame my behaviour was

 

THE END.

[+J Grouchy]

You can delete spoiler logs and spoiler photos. Now you know to be aware of photo tagging.

 

Stripping meta data from photos would ruin a lot of existing puzzle caches.

 

Not exactly in the spirit of the game!

 

To me, your public log on the cache calling out, "the validity of that last 'find'", is a more egregious violation of the "spirit of the game" - a game which is a light fun activity - than is a find based on working out the final by a means unforeseen by you.

 

This. A puzzle solved by either conventional means or unconventional means is still a puzzle solved. Solving a puzzle requires any ingenuity available to you at the time.

 

As the bus pulled up I could see there was only one empty seat so I pushed past the octogenarian in front of me in line and grabbed the seat and sat down for the whole journey.

 

I could tell that all the other passengers were really impressed at the way I'd used the ingenuity available to me at the time.

 

Great analogy, except there is no line and you're not inconveniencing anyone else by skirting the imaginary "rules" of the puzzle. So actually...it's not a great analogy at all.

 

I can only apologise for my lack of ability in the composition of convincing analogies - it seems to have made you grouchy I must confess that there are posters here who are much betterer at analogies than I.

 

On the other hand though it is important to remember that an anology isn't required to be a complete facsimile - but then of course you already knew that

 

For clarity, you might also care to note that the line isn't important and nor is the inconvenience you've latched onto.

 

The main points of the story are:

 

• Everyone on the bus knows that the polite thing to is give the seat up to the octagenarian
  
• While I'm busy congratulating myself on using the ingenuity available to me at the time everyone else on the bus, probably without exception, will see the truth - that my behaviour is outside the expectations of polite society
  
• If I wised up and met with those expectations everyone would be a lot happier
  
• None of these expectations are subject to written rules or laws - and nor do they need to be
  
• People tend to focus on things which support their viewpoint / assumptions / assertions - to the exclusion of that which disproves those things
  

 

It's also interesting to note that despite everyone else on the bus taking a dim view of my stealing the octagenarian's seat - nobody says anything - reinforcing my mistaken conviction that my usurpation is acceptable.

 

The story does have a happy ending though - one of the other people on the bus did the decent thing by meeting the expectations of of polite society and standing so that the elderly passenger could sit down

 

I carried on thinking I was doing great while everyone else on the bus was thinking how lame my behaviour was

 

THE END.

 

You can CLAIM that line and inconvenience aren't important, but they are EVERYTHING. A mystery cache does not rely on an order or 'first come first served' arrangement. A mystery cache found in a manner that doesn't meet the intent of the person who created the mystery is in no way similar to taking a seat from a disabled, elderly or pregnant individual. It's like me claiming you are rude for posting your reply before I could post further thoughts about your poor analogy. You've made a completely nonsensical argument and then try to cover that fact by following up with a prolix post about expectations and convictions.

 

Look, the fact is, nobody cut in line, nobody took anyone else's joy, nobody broke the unspoken, yet well-known, rules of civility, courtesy or chivalry. This isn't a bus and it isn't one open seat where people let others who may be in need sit and rest their weary feet. It's a log book...in a box. Nothing more. There is no expectation from the world at large as to how one should sign that log book. The expectation exists entirely in the mind of the one person who created and implemented the puzzle.

 

(probably not the end, because you'll insist on furthering your lousy argument)

Edited February 8, 2017 by J Grouchy

[+Team Microdot]

You can delete spoiler logs and spoiler photos. Now you know to be aware of photo tagging.

 

Stripping meta data from photos would ruin a lot of existing puzzle caches.

 

Not exactly in the spirit of the game!

 

To me, your public log on the cache calling out, "the validity of that last 'find'", is a more egregious violation of the "spirit of the game" - a game which is a light fun activity - than is a find based on working out the final by a means unforeseen by you.

 

This. A puzzle solved by either conventional means or unconventional means is still a puzzle solved. Solving a puzzle requires any ingenuity available to you at the time.

 

As the bus pulled up I could see there was only one empty seat so I pushed past the octogenarian in front of me in line and grabbed the seat and sat down for the whole journey.

 

I could tell that all the other passengers were really impressed at the way I'd used the ingenuity available to me at the time.

 

Great analogy, except there is no line and you're not inconveniencing anyone else by skirting the imaginary "rules" of the puzzle. So actually...it's not a great analogy at all.

 

I can only apologise for my lack of ability in the composition of convincing analogies - it seems to have made you grouchy I must confess that there are posters here who are much betterer at analogies than I.

 

On the other hand though it is important to remember that an anology isn't required to be a complete facsimile - but then of course you already knew that

 

For clarity, you might also care to note that the line isn't important and nor is the inconvenience you've latched onto.

 

The main points of the story are:

 

• Everyone on the bus knows that the polite thing to is give the seat up to the octagenarian
  
• While I'm busy congratulating myself on using the ingenuity available to me at the time everyone else on the bus, probably without exception, will see the truth - that my behaviour is outside the expectations of polite society
  
• If I wised up and met with those expectations everyone would be a lot happier
  
• None of these expectations are subject to written rules or laws - and nor do they need to be
  
• People tend to focus on things which support their viewpoint / assumptions / assertions - to the exclusion of that which disproves those things
  

 

It's also interesting to note that despite everyone else on the bus taking a dim view of my stealing the octagenarian's seat - nobody says anything - reinforcing my mistaken conviction that my usurpation is acceptable.

 

The story does have a happy ending though - one of the other people on the bus did the decent thing by meeting the expectations of of polite society and standing so that the elderly passenger could sit down

 

I carried on thinking I was doing great while everyone else on the bus was thinking how lame my behaviour was

 

THE END.

 

You can CLAIM that line and inconvenience aren't important, but they are EVERYTHING. A mystery cache does not rely on an order or 'first come first served' arrangement. A mystery cache found in a manner that doesn't meet the intent of the person who created the mystery is in no way similar to taking a seat from a disabled, elderly or pregnant individual. It's like me claiming you are rude for posting your reply before I could post further thoughts about your poor analogy. You've made a completely nonsensical argument and then try to cover that fact by following up with a prolix post about expectations and convictions.

 

Look, the fact is, nobody cut in line, nobody took anyone else's joy, nobody broke the unspoken, yet well-known, rules of civility, courtesy or chivalry. This isn't a bus and it isn't one open seat where people let others who may be in need sit and rest their weary feet. It's a log book...in a box. Nothing more. There is no expectation from the world at large as to how one should sign that log book. The expectation exists entirely in the mind of the one person who created and implemented the puzzle.

 

(probably not the end, because you'll insist on furthering your lousy argument)

 

QED

[+dprovan]

I occasionally prepare initiative tests for the kids at church. I give them an objective, and a set of restrictions, and a set of resources. Sometimes they achieve the objective in a way I didn't anticipate, in a way that was much easier than any of the ways I did anticipate. I don't complain that they cheated. I congratulate them, then offer them a new initiative test with different objectives, restrictions, and/or resources.

Would you congratulate them if their solution was to turn to the person next to them, say "we're doing this together", and then go outside and play for the rest of the time?

 

Honestly, this is so simple. Can the CO reject the find? No. Can the CO be disappointed? Yes.

[+niraD]

I occasionally prepare initiative tests for the kids at church. I give them an objective, and a set of restrictions, and a set of resources. Sometimes they achieve the objective in a way I didn't anticipate, in a way that was much easier than any of the ways I did anticipate. I don't complain that they cheated. I congratulate them, then offer them a new initiative test with different objectives, restrictions, and/or resources.

Would you congratulate them if their solution was to turn to the person next to them, say "we're doing this together", and then go outside and play for the rest of the time?

Not at all. But the initiative tests are designed to be done by a group of kids working together, not by individuals working alone.

[+dprovan]

I occasionally prepare initiative tests for the kids at church. I give them an objective, and a set of restrictions, and a set of resources. Sometimes they achieve the objective in a way I didn't anticipate, in a way that was much easier than any of the ways I did anticipate. I don't complain that they cheated. I congratulate them, then offer them a new initiative test with different objectives, restrictions, and/or resources.

Would you congratulate them if their solution was to turn to the person next to them, say "we're doing this together", and then go outside and play for the rest of the time?

Not at all. But the initiative tests are designed to be done by a group of kids working together, not by individuals working alone.

Exactly. "Not at all." Similarly, a puzzle is designed to be done by the seeker.

 

Does anyone's attitude change if instead of the "clever" approach of using EXIF info, the seeker had gotten the coordinates from a website that publishes puzzle coordinates? To me, the two are equivalent, but I suppose someone unfamiliar with EXIF might consider that approach clever enough to be considered praiseworthy.

[+narcissa]

I occasionally prepare initiative tests for the kids at church. I give them an objective, and a set of restrictions, and a set of resources. Sometimes they achieve the objective in a way I didn't anticipate, in a way that was much easier than any of the ways I did anticipate. I don't complain that they cheated. I congratulate them, then offer them a new initiative test with different objectives, restrictions, and/or resources.

Would you congratulate them if their solution was to turn to the person next to them, say "we're doing this together", and then go outside and play for the rest of the time?

Not at all. But the initiative tests are designed to be done by a group of kids working together, not by individuals working alone.

Exactly. "Not at all." Similarly, a puzzle is designed to be done by the seeker.

 

Does anyone's attitude change if instead of the "clever" approach of using EXIF info, the seeker had gotten the coordinates from a website that publishes puzzle coordinates? To me, the two are equivalent, but I suppose someone unfamiliar with EXIF might consider that approach clever enough to be considered praiseworthy.

 

Why would anyone's attitude change? As long as the cache is put back in place it has no impact on me as an owner or a finder.

 

The fun as an owner is in designing the cache to begin with. If people choose not to take interest in it and find it a different way, I presume they're still enjoying the cache and that's what it was designed for.

 

As a finder, it has even less impact on me. The only reason I would even notice someone else's log is if I was scanning the logs for help and they openly admitted finding it through unconventional means. The puzzle doesn't cease to exist for my enjoyment because somebody else found the coordinates in EXIF data, found it by accident, found it with a friend, or looked it up on one of these puzzle websites. I am still free to chip away the way I always have. It doesn't matter.

 

There's no reason to praise or denigrate someone else's legitimate geocache find as long as the cache has been signed and replaced as found. I'm not competing with anybody. Why should I care how they find caches?

[cezanne]

 

Unfortunately for the OP, I don't think you have any grounds to delete their found log. I'm sure you will find that they did indeed sign the log book and at this point there is nothing you can do about it except try and take steps to keep it from happening again as suggested in this thread.

 

If I had 50 free wishes that Groundspeak were going to fulfill, the option to delete such found it logs would not be included.

If such a find has happened, it has happened and moreover any rule (let's ignore for the moment whether it would be enforcable) that restricts finds to more than having been at the final and having signed the log would cause more problems than it would solve.

 

My point in this thread is just that by stripping off coordinate data from photos posted to logs of caches one does not own would be very helpful and could avoid the issue discussed here and for all sorts of caches not only puzzle caches. This approach would also help those who unintentionally uploaded geotagged photos and feel extremely bad once someone took advantage of this and they become aware of what they have done.

[+dprovan]

Does anyone's attitude change if instead of the "clever" approach of using EXIF info, the seeker had gotten the coordinates from a website that publishes puzzle coordinates? To me, the two are equivalent, but I suppose someone unfamiliar with EXIF might consider that approach clever enough to be considered praiseworthy.

Why would anyone's attitude change? As long as the cache is put back in place it has no impact on me as an owner or a finder.

My impression from various posts here in the forums is that many people think getting answers off the web is almost as slimy as posting answers to the web, so the additional degree of sliminess was what I was thinking might cause people to see the two cases differently.

 

There's no reason to praise or denigrate someone else's legitimate geocache find as long as the cache has been signed and replaced as found. I'm not competing with anybody. Why should I care how they find caches?

There are many reasons to have opinions about someone's actions other than because of some imagined competition. For example, I'm sure you've seen the same posts I have by CO's saying they've stopped putting out puzzle caches because so many people find them using distributed answers instead of by solving them. Can you really not see why I would have an opinion about that?

[+on4bam]

I got a crossword puzzle booklet, 1 to 5 star difficulty. As I picked it up I saw the solutions were printed on the last pages so I just flipped pages as I completed one crossword after another. An hour later all crossword puzzles were completed, and I'm happy to add them all to my list of completed puzzles. If I would have solved them on my own I wouldn't be able to up my count by more than two per day but this way my numbers are skyrocketing

I really feel I accomplished something.

 

As Dprovan wrote, CO's might just archive their mysteries and/or not publish new ones. A loss for those who like them but I guess the ones who were "clever" to solve them just don't care about that.

[+Team Microdot]

I got a crossword puzzle booklet, 1 to 5 star difficulty. As I picked it up I saw the solutions were printed on the last pages so I just flipped pages as I completed one crossword after another. An hour later all crossword puzzles were completed, and I'm happy to add them all to my list of completed puzzles. If I would have solved them on my own I wouldn't be able to up my count by more than two per day but this way my numbers are skyrocketing

I really feel I accomplished something.

 

As Dprovan wrote, CO's might just archive their mysteries and/or not publish new ones. A loss for those who like them but I guess the ones who were "clever" to solve them just don't care about that.

 

Let's hope your analogy is considered more palatable than mine was

[+on4bam]

Let's hope your analogy is considered more palatable than mine was

 

Probably not as some go to extreme lengths to make excuses why it's OK to just "find" solutions instead of making an effort themselves.

[+narcissa]

Does anyone's attitude change if instead of the "clever" approach of using EXIF info, the seeker had gotten the coordinates from a website that publishes puzzle coordinates? To me, the two are equivalent, but I suppose someone unfamiliar with EXIF might consider that approach clever enough to be considered praiseworthy.

Why would anyone's attitude change? As long as the cache is put back in place it has no impact on me as an owner or a finder.

My impression from various posts here in the forums is that many people think getting answers off the web is almost as slimy as posting answers to the web, so the additional degree of sliminess was what I was thinking might cause people to see the two cases differently.

 

There's no reason to praise or denigrate someone else's legitimate geocache find as long as the cache has been signed and replaced as found. I'm not competing with anybody. Why should I care how they find caches?

There are many reasons to have opinions about someone's actions other than because of some imagined competition. For example, I'm sure you've seen the same posts I have by CO's saying they've stopped putting out puzzle caches because so many people find them using distributed answers instead of by solving them. Can you really not see why I would have an opinion about that?

 

Good puzzle concepts can be easily replicated by less sensitive cache owners. I don't see it as much of a loss. If a cache owner wants to focus on being negative instead of appreciating all the people who did complete and enjoy the cache as it was designed, there's really not much anyone can do to appease someone with that sort of attitude problem. If a cache owner can only enjoy cache ownership when each and every finder is in lockstep with their arbitrary rules, that's just kind of sad.

 

My greater concern is that these cache owners often end up bitterly and viciously accusing people of "cheating" when they actually did find the cache the way the cache owner intended.

 

I just don't see the value in being suspicious and hateful. There is no benefit to treating other geocachers so badly.

[+Team Microdot]

If a cache owner wants to focus on being negative instead of appreciating all the people who did complete and enjoy the cache as it was designed, there's really not much anyone can do to appease someone

 

Not mutually exclusive.

[+narcissa]

I got a crossword puzzle booklet, 1 to 5 star difficulty. As I picked it up I saw the solutions were printed on the last pages so I just flipped pages as I completed one crossword after another. An hour later all crossword puzzles were completed, and I'm happy to add them all to my list of completed puzzles. If I would have solved them on my own I wouldn't be able to up my count by more than two per day but this way my numbers are skyrocketing

I really feel I accomplished something.

 

As Dprovan wrote, CO's might just archive their mysteries and/or not publish new ones. A loss for those who like them but I guess the ones who were "clever" to solve them just don't care about that.

 

Did the crossword book company stop publishing, or have they settled on accepting the possibility that people will occasionally use their books in a weird way?

[+Team Microdot]

I got a crossword puzzle booklet, 1 to 5 star difficulty. As I picked it up I saw the solutions were printed on the last pages so I just flipped pages as I completed one crossword after another. An hour later all crossword puzzles were completed, and I'm happy to add them all to my list of completed puzzles. If I would have solved them on my own I wouldn't be able to up my count by more than two per day but this way my numbers are skyrocketing

I really feel I accomplished something.

 

As Dprovan wrote, CO's might just archive their mysteries and/or not publish new ones. A loss for those who like them but I guess the ones who were "clever" to solve them just don't care about that.

 

Did the crossword book company stop publishing, or have they settled on accepting the possibility that people will occasionally use their books in a weird way?

 

The crossword book company is motivated by profit. They don't care how their books are used so long as people keep paying for them.

[+Team DEMP]

Good puzzle concepts can be easily replicated by less sensitive cache owners. I don't see it as much of a loss. If a cache owner wants to focus on being negative instead of appreciating all the people who did complete and enjoy the cache as it was designed, there's really not much anyone can do to appease someone with that sort of attitude problem. If a cache owner can only enjoy cache ownership when each and every finder is in lockstep with their arbitrary rules, that's just kind of sad.

 

My greater concern is that these cache owners often end up bitterly and viciously accusing people of "cheating" when they actually did find the cache the way the cache owner intended.

 

I just don't see the value in being suspicious and hateful. There is no benefit to treating other geocachers so badly.

The thread is discussing data that the site exposes or can expose that the cache owner doesn't provide which eliminates solving the puzzle cache. I'm not sure why you've turned this into an attack on those that feel the answer shouldn't be exposed on the website. It's fine if you want to create your own puzzle and post the answer on the cache page so those that don't want to take the time to solve the puzzle it can just enter in the posted coordinates, but I expect you'd be in the minority of those that create puzzle caches.

 

The tangent taken isn't uncommon and this same tangent is seems to be tolerated across so many threads that go off the rail from what the poster asked, allowing others to hijack the thread for their own purpose. Is there a souvenir I'm not aware of for a high number of forum posts?

 

[cezanne]

If a cache owner can only enjoy cache ownership when each and every finder is in lockstep with their arbitrary rules, that's just kind of sad.

 

Suppose a cacher devised a very long multi cache and asked a friend for permission to place the final on the friend's property on the basis of estimated at most 5 finds per year. Then the coordinates become known by an exif accident and suddenly the majority of cachers in the area will go visit the cache which will lead to many visits in particular in the time after the coordinates got leaked. It is pretty natural to archive such a cache.

This is just one possible scenario (not made up by the way as such caches exist). Of course you can (and probably will) argue that you would not hide such a cache and would only hide caches which can tolerate hundreds of visits but then those caches that are most valuable for some among us never get hidden.

 

It's also not surprising that the average cacher who hiked say 300km for a cache will treat the cache container with more care (e.g. try to take care that the log sheet does not get wet and that the container is well closed) than cachers who do not care about this cache at all and for which it is just a "+1" like 1000 other caches they visit.

 

Asking Groundspeak to remove geotag data from uploaded photos is very far from cache owners making up arbitrary rules.

[+narcissa]

If a cache owner can only enjoy cache ownership when each and every finder is in lockstep with their arbitrary rules, that's just kind of sad.

 

Suppose a cacher devised a very long multi cache and asked a friend for permission to place the final on the friend's property on the basis of estimated at most 5 finds per year. Then the coordinates become known by an exif accident and suddenly the majority of cachers in the area will go visit the cache which will lead to many visits in particular in the time after the coordinates got leaked. It is pretty natural to archive such a cache.

This is just one possible scenario (not made up by the way as such caches exist). Of course you can (and probably will) argue that you would not hide such a cache and would only hide caches which can tolerate hundreds of visits but then those caches that are most valuable for some among us never get hidden.

 

It's also not surprising that the average cacher who hiked say 300km for a cache will treat the cache container with more care (e.g. try to take care that the log sheet does not get wet and that the container is well closed) than cachers who do not care about this cache at all and for which it is just a "+1" like 1000 other caches they visit.

 

Asking Groundspeak to remove geotag data from uploaded photos is very far from cache owners making up arbitrary rules.

 

So permission for the cache is predicated on a factor you can't control, and the final is easily accessible even though it's meant to be a long walk. Seems like a design issue more than anything.

 

Maybe it's just me, but starting a call-out thread in the Geocaching Topics section of the forum doesn't seem like an efficient way to suggest a change to the site. People have asked for this before. If it's so critical, why hasn't it been done already?

[+Team DEMP]

Maybe it's just me, but starting a call-out thread in the Geocaching Topics section of the forum doesn't seem like an efficient way to suggest a change to the site.

 

This is not a call-out thread! Another common tangent taken by some regardless of topic and maybe those tangent posters should be called out as derailing another thread!

People have asked for this before. If it's so critical, why hasn't it been done already?

Because the site developers have too deep a backlog and can't keep up with critical bugs and basic features? Another strawman comment. It doesn't mean the site behavior is appropriate or desired.

[Pup Patrol]

I have cache that involves finding physical puzzle pieces that need to be collected in order to find the final cache: https://coord.info/GC25ZEM

 

I’ve made it as accessible as possible, and always happy to provide clues when asked.

 

At the weekend it was "found" without any of the pieces being found.

 

Apparently the guy downloaded a photo of a successful find from the cache’s gallery and used the geo-data embedded in the jpeg to calculate the location. Not exactly in the spirit of the game!

 

Would it be possible for the web site to strip all uploaded images of their metadata in order to stop this being possible?

 

Thoughts anyone?

 

https://coord.info/GC25ZEM

 

Bugblatter

 

Write note

02/04/2017

 

Going to have check the validity of that last 'find'. It’s impossible to solve this puzzle without finding each individual puzzle piece hidden around the reservoir… will check the log for the last signature in the book.

 

Well...has the cache owner gone back and checked the log book?

 

B.

Edited February 9, 2017 by Pup Patrol