Release Notes (Website: Solution Checker) - October 19, 2017

[+Geocaching HQ 164]

Release Notes (Website: Solution Checker) - October 19, 2017

With today’s release, we are introducing a basic solution checker (aka geochecker) for Mystery Caches.

The solution checker will appear on Mystery Cache pages viewed on Geocaching.com only if the cache owner has turned it on. (The default is off. Also, the solution checker is not currently visible when viewing caches in the Geocaching® app.) COs can continue using approved third-party checkers for their Mystery Caches if they wish.

To add the new solution checker to a cache page, the CO can check a box on the Edit Page:
 

A Mystery Cache’s final coordinates are tied to the solution checker. If the finder submits the correct coordinates to the checker, it will automatically update the corrected coordinates on the cache page for that finder. Of course, corrected coordinates are also synced with the Geocaching® app. For more information about the solution checker, see the Help Center.

Jason K. (MNofMind) and Sean B. (bootron) from HQ’s Web team are watching this thread to answer questions whenever possible.

 

Any posts in this thread should relate to features in this release. Comments unrelated to the release may be removed. Please direct unrelated comments to other appropriate threads. Thanks!
 

[+The A-Team 1559]

Very nice! I recently realized I never added a checker to one of my puzzles that probably should have one, so I just turned this on.

Question: Are there any limits on the number of attempts someone can make in a period of time? For example, some of the third-party checkers only allow 10 attempts in a 10 minute period. Never mind, I see that this is answered in the Help Center: 10 attempts in 10 minutes.

[+The A-Team 1559]

Some third-party checkers provide a one-field option, so you can work out the puzzle separately and then just copy-and-paste the entire coordinates into one field. Is this something you can look at adding in the future? It can be a pain to copy-and-paste portions of coordinates into the separate fields.

[MNofMind 7]

6 minutes ago, The A-Team said:

Some third-party checkers provide a one-field option, so you can work out the puzzle separately and then just copy-and-paste the entire coordinates into one field. Is this something you can look at adding in the future? It can be a pain to copy-and-paste portions of coordinates into the separate fields.

I think we are definitely open to those changes and want to hear what people prefer. The thought was that normally the degrees don't change so we would leave it separate.

[+anpefi 62]

12 minutes ago, MNofMind said:

I think we are definitely open to those changes and want to hear what people prefer. The thought was that normally the degrees don't change so we would leave it separate.

IMHO it should be one field just like it is now when you manually correct the coordinates.

[+thebruce0 1615]

Yes, two things:

1. What A-Team said, being able to copy/paste coordinate solutions into a single box, or type them as desired, would be wonderful. Even geochecker.org (was that the one?) went from separate fields to one field. Script can reduce characters to acceptable NSEW# and then validate the content to parse it.  ie, whether I enter "N 20 01.234, W 069 59.999" or "n20 01234 w69 59999", the script could parse "n2001234w6959999" (which can also allow for 2 or 3 digit W degrees). Doing that reduction allows for typos and regional variations, as long as the necessary digits are correct.   Having one field also means less tabbing or clicking between fields.  You do have at least one or two fields like that on gc.com already, such as when publishing a cache via the wizard, the initial coordinate lookup is a single field.

2. re: "If the finder submits the correct coordinates to the checker, it will automatically update the corrected coordinates on the cache page for that finder." Can this be a sticky option? I actually don't use corrected coordinates, I correct them manually in my mobile app so I can keep track of posted and additional/final waypoints distinctly.  Maybe have it on by default, but let us disable the auto-correction of the coordinates?

 

Thanks for this, it was a nice surprise, and a good example of how suggestions and discussions in the forum are heard even if there's no immediate or direct response to suggestions. If it's good and desireable, GS will consider it; it just takes some time.

[+thebruce0 1615]

13 minutes ago, MNofMind said:

I think we are definitely open to those changes and want to hear what people prefer. The thought was that normally the degrees don't change so we would leave it separate.

Yeah I think this depends more on the puzzle and how it's solved. Sometimes the solution is a straightforward coordinate set, and having to either c/p individual segments or type numbers across multiple boxes is less convenient than just c/p the whole coordinate string (again in whatever format it is, as long as the primary digits are valid)

[MNofMind 7]

21 minutes ago, anpefi said:

IMHO it should be one field just like it is now when you manually correct the coordinates.

 

19 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

Yes, two things:

1. What A-Team said, being able to copy/paste coordinate solutions into a single box, or type them as desired, would be wonderful. Even geochecker.org (was that the one?) went from separate fields to one field. Script can reduce characters to acceptable NSEW# and then validate the content to parse it.  ie, whether I enter "N 20 01.234, W 069 59.999" or "n20 01234 w69 59999", the script could parse "n2001234w6959999" (which can also allow for 2 or 3 digit W degrees). Doing that reduction allows for typos and regional variations, as long as the necessary digits are correct.   Having one field also means less tabbing or clicking between fields.  You do have at least one or two fields like that on gc.com already, such as when publishing a cache via the wizard, the initial coordinate lookup is a single field.

2. re: "If the finder submits the correct coordinates to the checker, it will automatically update the corrected coordinates on the cache page for that finder." Can this be a sticky option? I actually don't use corrected coordinates, I correct them manually in my mobile app so I can keep track of posted and additional/final waypoints distinctly.  Maybe have it on by default, but let us disable the auto-correction of the coordinates?

 

Thanks for this, it was a nice surprise, and a good example of how suggestions and discussions in the forum are heard even if there's no immediate or direct response to suggestions. If it's good and desireable, GS will consider it; it just takes some time.

Thanks for the feedback!

[+dprovan 1109]

I'm actually sorry to see this since it will almost certainly kill off the 3rd party checkers even though some of them are way more mature and have a lot more features.

I agree about one field: I've solved a lot of puzzles, and it's almost always the case that I have the entire number assembled somewhere else and want to move it with a single copy and paste. When the input is split into fields, it becomes so hard to do copy and paste that I'm forced to type it in digit by digit, and that introduces an unnecessary opportunity for typos. This isn't just hypothetical: it would happen to me regularly on that one popular checker until they finally added the single field option a few years ago.

I also don't like the cache coordinates being correctedd. I don't like or use the corrected coordinate feature, so I'll be pretty annoyed if I'm forced to use it based on the CO's decision to use the GS checker.

[ChileHead 23]

Nice to see this native!  I know a lot of people have wanted this for years, and this will solve the problems people have had with copying/pasting HTML, forgetting to update final coords on the puzzle or site or both.  This should work great for the bulk of the puzzles where the puzzle solution is coordinates, and there is a single physical stage.

If it's not too early to ask for new features:

• Some mysteries have multiple stages.  It would be nice to be able to mark 1 or more hidden stages as needing a coordinate checker, and they would all appear on the cache page.  You might in fact have stage 1 have the coord checker, but not the final, if the cache is set up as a multi after the puzzle has been solved.
• Add a new field on hidden waypoints to allow entry of a keyword or phrases that is used in the checker instead of coords, that reveals the coords.  These are becoming more popular around my area.

Even without these features (and others!) the coord checker could be used in a large percentage of caches.  Nice to have the auto update of corrected coordinates too, that's a nice bonus.

Is the "10 tries in 10 minutes" set up per account or per IP address?

[+niraD 2091]

17 minutes ago, dprovan said:

I'm actually sorry to see this since it will almost certainly kill off the 3rd party checkers even though some of them are way more mature and have a lot more features.

FWIW, while I'm looking forward to seeing this built-in checker maturing over time, I'm going to stick with my previous plan to add a Certitude checker to my puzzle cache before I replace the container and re-enable it.

[MNofMind 7]

18 minutes ago, ChileHead said:

Nice to see this native!  I know a lot of people have wanted this for years, and this will solve the problems people have had with copying/pasting HTML, forgetting to update final coords on the puzzle or site or both.  This should work great for the bulk of the puzzles where the puzzle solution is coordinates, and there is a single physical stage.

If it's not too early to ask for new features:

• Some mysteries have multiple stages.  It would be nice to be able to mark 1 or more hidden stages as needing a coordinate checker, and they would all appear on the cache page.  You might in fact have stage 1 have the coord checker, but not the final, if the cache is set up as a multi after the puzzle has been solved.
• Add a new field on hidden waypoints to allow entry of a keyword or phrases that is used in the checker instead of coords, that reveals the coords.  These are becoming more popular around my area.

Even without these features (and others!) the coord checker could be used in a large percentage of caches.  Nice to have the auto update of corrected coordinates too, that's a nice bonus.

Is the "10 tries in 10 minutes" set up per account or per IP address?

It's never too early to ask, we definitely are aware of features that are desired that this first, basic checker won't solve. The attempts is set up on the account with some other checks to see if it's being abused. IP address may come in to play if it's deemed necessary.

[MNofMind 7]

9 minutes ago, niraD said:

FWIW, while I'm looking forward to seeing this built-in checker maturing over time, I'm going to stick with my previous plan to add a Certitude checker to my puzzle cache before I replace the container and re-enable it.

I think that is a perfectly acceptable option! This is not meant to replace all the existing checkers that have some great features but to provide an in house one that can help protect against the risk of third party checkers deciding to shut down their servers. 

[+R 1]

I think it looks way too big. I would like it to be just a button with text "Check your answer" or something and on click it would expand to the size it is now.

Also, please consider using Invisible reCAPTCHA. 

Edited October 20, 2017 by +R

[+RangerDoc 1]

Now all we have to do is make it mandatory.  All unknowns should have some way of verifying correct solutions instead of wasting cachers time.  Geocaches were meant to be found by Geocachers.

[+Viajero Perdido 520]

Could it be collapsed by default?  Click the little gizmo to expand?

It sure takes a lot of space when I'm not ready to look at it.

[+niraD 2091]

13 minutes ago, RangerDoc said:

Now all we have to do is make it mandatory.  All unknowns should have some way of verifying correct solutions instead of wasting cachers time.  Geocaches were meant to be found by Geocachers.

Coordinates checkers don't make sense for all mystery/puzzle/unknown caches.

[MNofMind 7]

48 minutes ago, Viajero Perdido said:

Could it be collapsed by default?  Click the little gizmo to expand?

It sure takes a lot of space when I'm not ready to look at it.

I will add this to list of feature requests, thanks for the feedback!

[MNofMind 7]

46 minutes ago, niraD said:

Coordinates checkers don't make sense for all mystery/puzzle/unknown caches.

Agreed, the challenge caches aren't hiding their final location and wouldn't necessarily need/want it.

[+niraD 2091]

12 minutes ago, MNofMind said:

58 minutes ago, niraD said:

Coordinates checkers don't make sense for all mystery/puzzle/unknown caches.

Agreed, the challenge caches aren't hiding their final location and wouldn't necessarily need/want it.

Even ignoring challenge caches and other mystery/puzzle caches that are located at the posted coordinates, coordinates checkers don't make sense for all the remaining mystery/puzzle caches.

[+Xira 5]

Nice feature!

To respond to some comments:
- Keep the checker optional.
- One field entry of full coordinates is preferred.
- I don't use corrected coordinates so please make it optional. I'm fine with it on by default just so long as I can turn it off.

[+mm&i 1]

5 hours ago, MNofMind said:

I think we are definitely open to those changes and want to hear what people prefer. The thought was that normally the degrees don't change so we would leave it separate.

Yes, please provide a 'single field' option. Preferably as the default. Current 3rd-party checkers that have the option also remember your choice for subsequent visits which is a simple yet fantastic feature.

Edited October 20, 2017 by mm&i
deleted an superfluous word

[+nextlogicalstep 10]

Will there be any ability for cache owners to see what solutions have been attempted? Or even basic stats like number of correct solutions and incorrect solutions? If not, I'll stick to using third-party ones that can provide that.

That said, I'm happy to see this feature be added. 

In response to the request to make it mandatory, I think that's very much unreasonable. It's not something that's applicable to all caches of this type. Although I use geocheckers for my own mystery caches, the ones I've found relied on solutions others than coordinates. I've also seen a lot of mystery caches with multiple choice questions where there are only three possible answers. You wouldn't even have to make a real attempt to answer the questions if having a geochecker were mandatory, as you could just try them all. Why make a new feature mandatory that would ruin existing caches that have nothing wrong with them? If you don't like a cache, you always have the option of simply not going after it. There are lots of caches that I've decided are not for me.

[+cerberus1 2073]

Agree with others on keeping checkers optional, thanks. 

When we had a (no longer allowed) mystery series, a mandatory checker would have no purpose.

I agree that geocaches are meant to be found, but there is a D/T rating for a reason...

 

 

[+thebruce0 1615]

5 hours ago, dprovan said:

I'm actually sorry to see this since it will almost certainly kill off the 3rd party checkers even though some of them are way more mature and have a lot more features.

Interestingly, if the features are desireable, the CO can still easily opt to use a third party checker and not the basic native checker. If all a CO wants to do is a basic check, then one might view it as the CO no longer being "required" to use a third party checker with all the bells and whistles. Another way to look at it is it could make 3rd party checkers more competitive.

[+noncentric 801]

New question:

Can this feature be made available for Multi caches?  As an optional feature, of course.

 

My thoughts about previous comments:

Keep checkers optional. There are plenty of mystery type caches where a checker does not make sense.  The one cacher that requested they be mandatory had published two mystery caches and neither of them had any validation method, not even a checksum.

Single field entry would be good.

Automatically updating 'corrected coords' doesn't bother me too much.  It seems easy enough for cachers to restore original coords using the "Restore" button. If it's easy to make the auto-update optional, then great.

[+on4bam 727]

Making it mandatory is a bad idea. CO's should have the choice if or what checker to use especially when this gc checker is still beta.

Automatic update of corrected coordinates is also a bad idea given that PQs and API give different results when importing caches into GSAK for the "has corrected coordinates" flag.

 

[+StefandD 62]

I know it's a simple checker, but some useful features would be:

- Display a message (e.g. an extra hint and/or picture) when coordinates are correct.
- Add an option to allow a small deviation (for projections or intersection calculations).

[+boisestate 18]

Just for fun i tried this new feature on our puzzle cache which is at the posted coords. It is giving me an error message when i run it: "Solution checker failed. Please try again later".

no worries, just an fyi

 

Edited October 20, 2017 by boisestate
Figured out how to delete the photo

[+Viajero Perdido 520]

"Solution checker failed" sounds a lot like "internal server error".

Clarity please: what exactly failed?

@boisestate

Are you sure the website thinks your final == posted? It didn't used to allow that. I had to offset it by 0.001 when I did the same thing.  Did you do that too and forgot?

 

[+fraggle_[DE] 28]

8 hours ago, MNofMind said:

The attempts is set up on the account with some other checks to see if it's being abused.

In case the attempts are connected with the account names: can the CO see who used the checker?

If not, it's perfectly fine, because I do not want such a feature.

[+fraggle_[DE] 28]

10 hours ago, Geocaching HQ said:

The solution checker will appear on Mystery Cache pages viewed on Geocaching.com only if the cache owner has turned it on.

I've just gave it short try on one of my myserties. I know it's a first basic version, but I've noted two things not mentioned up to now:

• Firstly: the checker is very huge and its design cannot be changed. So it looks like being out of place compared to the rest of my listing. It doesn't even center if the rest of the listing text is centered. (or is there a way to do this which I don't know yet?)
• And secondly: the captchas. I don't like them. They are used so often, and I always have to solve several pages of picture puzzles of roads, road signs, roads with cars, roads without cars, cars without roads, .. *grumble* .. summarized: they are annoying.

It would be interesting to hear more opinions, especially about the second point.

[+arisoft 633]

59 minutes ago, StefandD said:

I know it's a simple checker, but some useful features would be:

- Display a message (e.g. an extra hint and/or picture) when coordinates are correct.
- Add an option to allow a small deviation (for projections or intersection calculations).

The best feature in this checker is that the result is the final coordinate. I'm tired of guessing what exactly is desired a solution. The solution should always be a physical cache. Final or intermediate, but not a bogus.Other checkers can be used to make such tricks.

[+HaLuMa 1]

In PQ GPX yopu not know, if coordinates are original or corrected. Can you add this one flag to PQ GPX?

Or better, leave orifinal coordinates as is, and add CO as standard final waypoint. (This not need to change PQ GPX format and it is compatible with existing software.)

[+d-n 1]

This feature is something I wished for a long time. Good job! Here is some feedback from me

-Why only unknown caches? It would be great to have opportunity to check a solution of multi-cache, letterbox or other cache types in terrain.

-Sometimes the solution are not exact coordinates of final waypoint. There should be possibility to add tolerance to the checker.

-Since it is optional, only a few owners will add this to their listings. Especially those who are now active anymore or have deliberately wrong FP by their cache due to collisions. I think it should be mandatory for all caches that are not on starting coordinates. Or at least default on. Sure there are a few caches where checker makes no sense but it can be simply ignored then.

-What happens when I successfully check a FP and it is moved before I go to find the cache? It would be great if once the cache is solved and checked, the corrected coordinates would move with each change the CO makes. Or at least remove the corrected coordinates when the FP is moved. Sometimes it happens that I search on wrong coordinates when cache is moved after solving it.

[+on4bam 727]

27 minutes ago, arisoft said:

The best feature in this checker is that the result is the final coordinate. I'm tired of guessing what exactly is desired a solution. The solution should always be a physical cache. Final or intermediate, but not a bogus.Other checkers can be used to make such tricks.

I'm working on such a series of mysteries at the moment. Solve an initial puzzle, check coordinates and if correct (for some) additional questions are in the checker. When solved the second solution are bogus coordinates that, when checked give the correct location for the cache. These are fun to solve and it would be a bad idea to not allow that. If someone hates this kind of puzzles there's always an ignore list. Don't force "the solution should always be.... " onto others.

 

6 minutes ago, d-n said:

This feature is something I wished for a long time. Good job! Here is some feedback from me

-Why only unknown caches? It would be great to have opportunity to check a solution of multi-cache, letterbox or other cache types in terrain.

-Sometimes the solution are not exact coordinates of final waypoint. There should be possibility to add tolerance to the checker.

-Since it is optional, only a few owners will add this to their listings. Especially those who are now active anymore or have deliberately wrong FP by their cache due to collisions. I think it should be mandatory for all caches that are not on starting coordinates. Or at least default on. Sure there are a few caches where checker makes no sense but it can be simply ignored then.

-What happens when I successfully check a FP and it is moved before I go to find the cache? It would be great if once the cache is solved and checked, the corrected coordinates would move with each change the CO makes. Or at least remove the corrected coordinates when the FP is moved. Sometimes it happens that I search on wrong coordinates when cache is moved after solving it.

1. Because other types have known coordinates. For multi's you go from WP to WP, why would you need to check if you read the tag correctly? If fieldpuzzle, do you really always need to be sure? For most multi solutions just looking at the map will tell you if you're right, if not, walk the extra distance.

2. Other checkers already have that or can have keywords as a solution. Since this one is beta (or even alfa) it could/should be added.

3. Nope. No mandatory use. GS already has a (near)monopoly on geocaching, they should not have one on checkers too.

4. You read listings before heading out. If anything changes it's mentioned on the cache page. For me, I keep all info in my GSAK database, worst case scenario I just use a new formula with the already found values. In the unlikely event something changes between the evening I load caches onto my GPS and going out the next day, though luck but that would happen if corrected coordinates change in between those times too.

 

[+verturin 2]

You can not check secondary coordinates at this time. is this planned?

[+noncentric 801]

49 minutes ago, on4bam said:

1. Because other types have known coordinates. For multi's you go from WP to WP, why would you need to check if you read the tag correctly? If fieldpuzzle, do you really always need to be sure? For most multi solutions just looking at the map will tell you if you're right, if not, walk the extra distance.

Many multi's that I've done direct the cacher to a specific location(s) where they have to collect information from plaques/signs/etc and then calculate the final coords using that information.  Sometimes, those multi's have a 3rd party geochecker or checksum so cachers can be double-check that they're headed to the correct place.  Having a way to double-check their coords can help prevent them from searching an incorrect place, which could upset property owners and/or cast a bad light on geocaching.

I'm not sure why you would object to having this "optional" feature added to Multi caches?

Admittedly, I don't see the need for Wherigo's because the ones I've seen give the exact final coords when the cartridge is completed, so I don't know why a checker would be needed - but maybe there are Wherigo's out there that do not provide the final coords so explicitly.

[+arisoft 633]

1 hour ago, on4bam said:

I'm working on such a series of mysteries at the moment. Solve an initial puzzle, check coordinates and if correct (for some) additional questions are in the checker. When solved the second solution are bogus coordinates that, when checked give the correct location for the cache. These are fun to solve and it would be a bad idea to not allow that. If someone hates this kind of puzzles there's always an ignore list. Don't force "the solution should always be.... " onto others.

It may be fun at some point and there are plenty of tools to achieve this kind of tricks. The strength of this official solution is that the position information is always up to date. The player can easily verify (on field) that the GZ is correct without any doubt. No other checker can do this.

Edited October 20, 2017 by arisoft

[+on4bam 727]

13 minutes ago, noncentric said:

I'm not sure why you would object to having this "optional" feature added to Multi caches?

I don't object at all. I just think that "always being sure" is not a necessity.Just look at how many non-trads have checkers now. With >1200 multi's done I don't think I ever saw or needed a checker, I don't go online during caching anyway except for the occasional lookup of a leaf, bird, tree or Latin plantname anyway.

As for looking at the wrong place, a checker is no guarantee for that, I've mistyped coordinates enough time to know that what you see or calculate is not always what you type into the GPS

 

[+arisoft 633]

1 hour ago, d-n said:

-Why only unknown caches? It would be great to have opportunity to check a solution of multi-cache, letterbox or other cache types in terrain.

The use of geocheckers in mysteries has led to solutions where the task is not so much to solve the mystery but to guess the solution. The same will happen again with multi caches if the use of the geocheckers is favored. Multi caches should be found without use of mobile technology. I would suggest that if a multi cache has an online checker, it should be classified to a mystery cache.

Edited October 20, 2017 by arisoft

[+noncentric 801]

14 minutes ago, on4bam said:

I don't object at all. I just think that "always being sure" is not a necessity.Just look at how many non-trads have checkers now. With >1200 multi's done I don't think I ever saw or needed a checker, I don't go online during caching anyway except for the occasional lookup of a leaf, bird, tree or Latin plantname anyway.

Ah, okay.  I thought you were objecting to having the feature available for Multi caches.  However, I will say that "being sure" is just as important or not important for Multi caches as it is for Mystery caches.  So, if someone were to think geocheckers are important for Mystery caches, then the same importance could extend to Multi caches. In many cases, these two cache types are similar and some caches could arguably be classified as either type.  My point being, if it's available for Mystery caches, then why not make it available for Multi caches.

I don't think that a checker, either native or 3rd party, should be 'required' for any type of cache.  As I said above, I think the new checker should remain 'optional'.

 

9 minutes ago, arisoft said:

The use of geocheckers in mysteries has led to solutions where the task is not so much to solve the mystery but to guess the solution. The same will happen again with multi caches if the use of the geocheckers is favored. Multi caches should be found without use of mobile technology. I would suggest that if a multi cache has a online checker, it should be classified to a mystery cache.

Huh?  I'm pretty sure that "use of mobile technology" is not one of the deciding factors between mystery vs multi caches.  I think that whether a geochecker is appropriate for a cache depends on that specific cache and the method for solving it, not on what cache type it is.

[+IceColdUK 551]

I have about 50 puzzles, and a majority have a coordinate checker (GeoCheck.org) - this has the advantage of being able to display a little more information about the puzzle theme and solution, as well as additional hints and waypoints.  For these puzzles I can't see myself moving over to the 'native' checker anytime soon.

However, I think this is a welcome new feature.  Some thoughts:

- Of course, it should NOT be mandatory.
- Assuming it stays optional, then I don't see why it shouldn't be made available for any cache that has a 'Final Location' waypoint.  (Many Letterbox Hybrids are actually puzzles, and some Multis should be!)
- I don't think there's any need to replicate all of the functionality of existing checkers (fuzzy coordinates, dummy solutions, keyword validation, intermediate waypoint checks, etc., etc.) - keep it simple.
- The box is massive!  I think it would be nicer to implement as a popup along the lines of the 'Correct these coordinates' option, or as an expandable 'div'.
- I'd prefer to see a single field, but no big deal.
- I'm not sure about the automatic update of the coordinates, but think that it would be better to make this optional by adding an 'Update coordinates with correct solution?' checkbox.

I have a few puzzles that (once solved) provide coordinates in plain text - it didn't seem necessary to provide a checker for these.  However I know that it is useful to be able to confirm your coordinates for a long-solved puzzle ahead of a trip, so I am likely to add the native checker in these cases.

Edited October 20, 2017 by IceColdUK
Clarification

[+arisoft 633]

5 minutes ago, noncentric said:

Huh?  I'm pretty sure that "use of mobile technology" is not one of the deciding factors between mystery vs multi caches.  I think that whether a geochecker is appropriate for a cache depends on that specific cache and the method for solving it, not on what cache type it is.

I am pretty sure it is. As it is stated in guidelines. For multi cache: " The cache can be found by reading the cache page and following the instructions in the field. " it is mystery if " The cache cannot be found without research that goes beyond reading the cache page. ".

[+anpefi 62]

6 minutes ago, arisoft said:

I am pretty sure it is. As it is stated in guidelines. For multi cache: " The cache can be found by reading the cache page and following the instructions in the field. " it is mystery if " The cache cannot be found without research that goes beyond reading the cache page. ".

that's ambiguous. Instructions could include the use of some technology (that of course should be indicated in the listing). For example, it is not uncommon Multi-caches that use QR-codes that should be read using a mobile technology to get the next step coordinates.

[+noncentric 801]

11 minutes ago, arisoft said:

I am pretty sure it is. As it is stated in guidelines. For multi cache: " The cache can be found by reading the cache page and following the instructions in the field. " it is mystery if " The cache cannot be found without research that goes beyond reading the cache page. ".

Okay. I must be confused on what you meant by "use of mobile technology" then.  Did you meant that an "online checker" = "use of mobile technology"?

If so, then let me clarify that using a geochecker, or even a checksum that's within a cache description, is not 'required' to find any type of cache.  It's just a way for cachers to double-check that they applied a formula correctly or did whatever other calculation is required correctly.  I don't see why it's problematic for a Multi cache to include a geochecker, either native or 3rd party, in it's cache description.

ETA:  Okay, geocheckers are required for some Mystery caches. The ones that require you to enter a keyword or complete some other puzzle to have the coords revealed to you.  I would agree that those should be Mystery and not Multi.  Doesn't change my disagreement with arisoft's statement that " if a multi cache has a online checker, it should be classified to a mystery cache ".

 

Edited October 20, 2017 by noncentric

[+IceColdUK 551]

I think this is going a bit off topic - I'm sure there are plenty of threads discussing 'when is a multi not a multi?'.  The question here is, should it be possible to add a checker to a multi?  Well, clearly there's nothing to stop a CO adding an external checker, so what's the problem with allowing them to add a native checker?

[+pchappuis 11]

Hello.

Nice idea, but maybe it would be nice to add this into Multi and Lettertbox hybrid too.

Best regards.

[+arisoft 633]

7 minutes ago, noncentric said:

I don't see why it's problematic for a Multi cache to include a geochecker, either native or 3rd party, in it's cache description.

I think that this easy opportunity will lead to ambiguous multi caches as it has already done with mystery caches.

[+Harry Dolphin 744]

4 hours ago, StefandD said:

I know it's a simple checker, but some useful features would be:
- Add an option to allow a small deviation (for projections or intersection calculations).

Yes.  I just solved such a mystery.  (And I used to have one,)  "Go this distance in that direction."  A little leeway is necessary in the checker.