Geocheckers on puzzle caches

[+Krystal Tipps]

Can we please have the requirement that all puzzle caches have to have a geochecker on the page to check cordinates? I have many puzzles solved that I haven't gone to find due to not being certain I have the correct co ords, no geochecker on the page and no response from the CO. I am sure I'm no the only one who has an issue with this! Well I know I'm not

[+Touchstone]

A few Puzzle Cache Owners have some strong feelings on the subject, and no doubt they will be along shortly to express themselves.  A couple of strategies that sometimes works for me:

1. Occasionally, the solution is so obvious, that you have that "aha!" moment.

2. Checking the maps, the solution makes sense. 

3. If the solution is on private property, it's probably not correct (unless the Description mentions permission aspects of the placement).

4. Email the cache owner and/or previous Finders that you may know, to verify the solution.

Just my 0.02.

[+badlands]

32 minutes ago, Krystal Tipps said:

Can we please have the requirement that all puzzle caches have to have a geochecker on the page to check cordinates?

A spell checker maybe, a coordinate checker no.

I will usually add a coordinate checker after the first-to-find has been claimed but not before unless it's integral to the puzzle solution.

[+niraD]

I've found puzzle caches where a coordinate checker wouldn't make sense. I've found other puzzle caches where a coordinate checker would be a spoiler for part of the puzzle. I'm in the "keep it optional" camp.

[+*GeoPunx*]

Just to throw another personal opinion in on this:

I usually put a coordinate checker on my puzzles. Sometimes I don't. Most CO's around here put coordinate checkers on their puzzles. Some don't. 

I am in the camp of keeping it optional.

[+J Grouchy]

A - sometimes the solution gives no room for doubt, no need for a checker.

B - sometimes the solution may vary by a small amount.  I've worked on a number of puzzles that involved using math that may give varying results because of the sources of information being slightly different, or math that maybe has certain tolerances built in.  Checkers aren't always practical in those cases.

[+Max and 99]

1 hour ago, Krystal Tipps said:

Can we please have the requirement that all puzzle caches have to have a geochecker on the page to check cordinates? I have many puzzles solved that I haven't gone to find due to not being certain I have the correct co ords, no geochecker on the page and no response from the CO. I am sure I'm no the only one who has an issue with this! Well I know I'm not

I vote no.  It's so much more fun going to find a puzzle cache without knowing if your coords are correct!

Yeah I know that having a checker on the page doesn't mean I have to use it.

Edited April 9, 2018 by Max and 99

[+dprovan]

Checkers are nice. I like when I know I have the right answer.

But keep in mind that the ultimate checker is finding the cache. My advice when the puzzle has no checker is to relax and go look for the cache. Maybe you're right, maybe you're wrong. Maybe you're right and you don't find the cache. It's not that big a deal. But I am assuming you've checked to make sure your location matches the cache description, particularly the ratings. If the cache is rated T1.5 and you're solution calls for a 5 mile hike, then reconsider.

By the way, years ago I ran into one CO that didn't use checkers, but for one reason or another, I wanted confirmation, so I send him some mail asking if I was right and suggesting he add a checker. This particular CO was eager to confirm my solution, and he explained that he doesn't use checkers because he likes to interact with people solving his puzzles. Not many people solved puzzles back then, particularly in his area, so it made sense for him to want to meet other puzzle lovers. Nowadays he provides certitude confirmation on every puzzle since it would be an undo burden to require every solver to contact him personally now that puzzles have become more popular.

Speaking of certitude: if a checker were required, I can easily imagine that it would be the GS checker specifically that's required. That be the last nail in the coffin of the other much better checkers from third parties, and I'd hate to see them die off.

[+The A-Team]

You can also count me in the "optional" group. To add to what the others have already posted, here are some cache styles that are often (or always) listed as the Unknown/Mystery/Puzzle type, and for which a checker wouldn't be useful or make sense:

• Night caches
• Challenge caches (which are generally at the posted coordinates)
• A field puzzle where a gadget needs to be solved to open the container at the posted coordinates

[+arisoft]

6 hours ago, Krystal Tipps said:

I have many puzzles solved that I haven't gone to find due to not being certain I have the correct co ords

Today I tried to find a puzzle cache which did not have checker. When I arrived to the GZ, I decided that my solution must be wrong. I earned a DNF-point because I tried.

Why should you be certain before you go to get a new experience?

[+Team Microdot]

I used to enjoy setting puzzle caches but that fun has largely evaporated over the years for various reasons. I do though have a few designs that I've had up my sleeve for years that I might be tempted to put out if I come across a decent location that's free. Never say never

If geocheckers become mandatory though that would be the final nail in the coffin for me. it's really not worth investing the time and effort to put a decent puzzle together only to be forced to provide a tool for the battleshippers.

[+Wet Pancake Touring Club]

29 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:

I used to enjoy setting puzzle caches but that fun has largely evaporated over the years for various reasons. I do though have a few designs that I've had up my sleeve for years that I might be tempted to put out if I come across a decent location that's free. Never say never

If geocheckers become mandatory though that would be the final nail in the coffin for me. it's really not worth investing the time and effort to put a decent puzzle together only to be forced to provide a tool for the battleshippers.

How about putting out a puzzle cache that can only be solved by battleshipping? I did one puzzle that had a number of right answers. I had to use the checker to determine which one was right.

[+niraD]

13 minutes ago, Wet Pancake Touring Club said:

How about putting out a puzzle cache that can only be solved by battleshipping? I did one puzzle that had a number of right answers. I had to use the checker to determine which one was right.

One of my Favorites is a puzzle that was intended to be found via brute force. That is, find the 528ft hole that is within 2 miles of the posted coordinates, that doesn't already have a cache, and that matches the other information/hints available to you. IMHO, a mandatory checker would ruin that one.

[+Harry Dolphin]

Many of my mystery caches were hidden before checkers were common.  For some, a checker would not be helpful.  For some, the answer is obvious if you've solved the puzzle.  First stage gives you the coords for the final.  What would I put in for the checker?  The first stage?  Had one where, if you solved the puzzle, the answer was 'one mile due west'.  Set up the checker to 25'.  Good for most.  Would not work with the Geocaching Checker.  Six stage mystery/multi.  Each stage give you a hint and the coords for the next stage.  Set out before cell-phone caching was common.  If you've found all the clues, you should have the answer.  You need the cell phone (if it works here) to check the final?  Three cache mystery.  Find the first stage and get the north coords for the final.  Find the second cache and get the west coords for the final.  You need  checker for this?!?  Required checker just would not work with some.  And is superfluous for many.  I voter no.

"Why isn't there  checker for this puzzle?"  I hid it in 2006.  And if you've solved the puzzle, you know that you have solved it.

[+arisoft]

7 hours ago, Team Microdot said:

If geocheckers become mandatory though that would be the final nail in the coffin for me. it's really not worth investing the time and effort to put a decent puzzle together only to be forced to provide a tool for the battleshippers.

Not mainly for battleshippers. The main reason for requesting unnecessary geocheckers is only to get tool to verify coordinates which are received from the third party. This is also remarkable reason for cache owners to make checkers which gives right final coordinates when user enters the correct solution somewhere else.

[+Team Microdot]

2 hours ago, arisoft said:

Not mainly for battleshippers. The main reason for requesting unnecessary geocheckers is only to get tool to verify coordinates which are received from the third party. This is also remarkable reason for cache owners to make checkers which gives right final coordinates when user enters the correct solution somewhere else.

I don't understand why anyone who had been given the coordinates would need a geochecker - they already have the coordinates

[+arisoft]

31 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:

I don't understand why anyone who had been given the coordinates would need a geochecker - they already have the coordinates

If you ever start searching puzzle caches with coordinates from unknown source, you will find the reason. I have a puzzle cache which explicitely states that geochecker will give the right final coordinates. Some geocachers asks, why the geochecker do not accept their "solution".

[+Team Microdot]

2 minutes ago, arisoft said:

If you ever start searching puzzle caches with coordinates from unknown source, you will find the reason. I have a puzzle cache which explicitely states that geochecker will give the right final coordinates. Some geocachers asks, why the geochecker do not accept their "solution".

Sorry - still do not understand.

What do you mean by unknown source ?

 

[+niraD]

7 hours ago, Team Microdot said:

What do you mean by unknown source ?

I assume arisoft is referring to the various spoiler sites, FB groups, etc., that provide solutions (or what are claimed to be solutions) to puzzle caches so people can find them without having to actually solve them.

[+Team Microdot]

15 hours ago, niraD said:

23 hours ago, Team Microdot said:

What do you mean by unknown source ?

I assume arisoft is referring to the various spoiler sites, FB groups, etc., that provide solutions (or what are claimed to be solutions) to puzzle caches so people can find them without having to actually solve them.

Ah - I think I understand. People who ask other people to solve puzzles for them like to have a geochecker because it allows the coordinates to be verified so that they know they have the right solution.

Because, why expend any energy at all, right?

[+thebruce0]

Optional. All the reasons I can think of have been mentioned above.

If you're worried about losing the unverified coordinates for caches without a checker, you can save them in the personal note field.

I don't personal make use of corrected coordinates at all, so if I have to use the checker, I edit back to the posted and use the personal note field (I do all my waypoints and coord correction in my app).

[+K13]

Probably related to the fact that some geochecker websites will keep track of who submitted the coordinates. If my account submitted the coords, I MUST have solved the puzzle, right?

The lengths that some folks go to cover their 'cheating ways'. SMH

[+Clongo_Rongo]

On 09/04/2018 at 2:38 PM, Krystal Tipps said:

Can we please have the requirement that all puzzle caches have to have a geochecker on the page to check cordinates? I have many puzzles solved that I haven't gone to find due to not being certain I have the correct co ords, no geochecker on the page and no response from the CO. I am sure I'm no the only one who has an issue with this! Well I know I'm not

I sort of agree, but I think having a checker would only help the arm chair logging situation, happy to post a solved note, but not go and find it.

 

 

[+The Magna Defender]

On 10/04/2018 at 6:36 AM, arisoft said:

Not mainly for battleshippers. The main reason for requesting unnecessary geocheckers is only to get tool to verify coordinates which are received from the third party. This is also remarkable reason for cache owners to make checkers which gives right final coordinates when user enters the correct solution somewhere else.

Nothing wrong with battleshipping. Groundspeak guidelines dictate I only need to sign a log. If I am able to find a puzzle through alternative means, then why does that make me the criminal? 

I'm happy as a finder to not solve a puzzle and log a cache. That's how I play the game. 

[+LFC4eva]

On 4/9/2018 at 2:38 PM, Krystal Tipps said:

Can we please have the requirement that all puzzle caches have to have a geochecker on the page to check cordinates? I have many puzzles solved that I haven't gone to find due to not being certain I have the correct co ords, no geochecker on the page and no response from the CO. I am sure I'm no the only one who has an issue with this! Well I know I'm not

I have mixed feelings. 

On the one hand I enjoy the EUREKA moment when seeing Geochecker say Yippeee, Woohoo.. Go Get It..  but I don't like that some will use it as a means to battleship a solution.

That said, all my puzzles either have a geochecker or one is not required (i.e. when you have solved the puzzle you will have confirmation by other means - a cipher decode which reads the numbers / a url which leads to a webpage giving the final coordinates etc.)

11 minutes ago, CHEZRASCALS said:

I sort of agree, but I think having a checker would only help the arm chair logging situation, happy to post a solved note, but not go and find it.

 

 

Armchair logging situation?

I'm happy for anyone to post solve notes on my puzzles - especially when they are new.  It gives me confirmation that my puzzle works and is solvable by someone other than me and my beta tester.

I love solving puzzles too.. and some of the best ones have been miles away which may not be picked up any time soon, so I might post a solved note to a) let the CO know their puzzle is solvable  and (b)  thank them for the effort they have gone to in providing an enjoyable puzzle.

 

[+arisoft]

12 minutes ago, The Magna Defender said:

Nothing wrong with battleshipping. Groundspeak guidelines dictate I only need to sign a log. If I am able to find a puzzle through alternative means, then why does that make me the criminal? 

I did not mentioned that you are criminal but now I think that you feel like you are a criminal. It is ok to cheat in this game, do not feel guilty.

[+Team Microdot]

7 minutes ago, arisoft said:

It is ok pointless and detrimental to cheat in this game

Fixed

[+The Magna Defender]

31 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:

Fixed

It's a game isn't it? How I play my  game is up to me and I am happy to log puzzles I havent solved. 

[+L0ne.R]

2 minutes ago, The Magna Defender said:

It's a game isn't it?

No.

 

[+cerberus1]

No you're not the only one, but boy, times sure have changed...  When we started  with an already-outdated GPSr, there were no parking coordinates to caches, and no favorite points to see "if we'd like it" as well.   What is one to DO?   

Well, similar to the Finned One's post above, we went to the cache and if it wasn't correct, we attempted another time... 

I'm with the "leave it optional" group.  I don't have a desire to spoon-feed all who stop by...    Our favorite hider has puzzles that are ridiculously easy to solve (dyslexic old farts appreciate that).  He has his own reasons why he made them puzzles, though he still gets those "DNF - cache not here" logs (the cache page coordinates...) by the weekend n done kids on them as well.      

Edited April 13, 2018 by cerberus1

[+EggsTheBest]

Don't forget that there are mystery caches where the final coordinates are already provided. Challenge caches or hides with a lock (where the puzzle is to solve the lock combination), you don't need a checker for them. So an idea of making a checker obligatory will probably never be implemented.

However, every time I solve a mystery cache with a checker, I feel more confident leaving the house because I know I won't be looking at the wrong place. And I feel less motivated to go look for a cache when I'm not 100% sure I got the right solution. 

[+arisoft]

7 minutes ago, EggsTheBest said:

However, every time I solve a mystery cache with a checker, I feel more confident leaving the house because I know I won't be looking at the wrong place. And I feel less motivated to go look for a cache when I'm not 100% sure I got the right solution. 

You could be 200% happier when you find the cache without verification from the checker - you never know. When the CO decides to leave puzzle with or without a checker this kind of things will be considered. Sometimes the CO wants to motivate you by using the checker and sometimes not.

[+Max and 99]

1 minute ago, arisoft said:

You could be 200% happier when you find the cache without verification from the checker 

Yep!

[+NYPaddleCacher]

16 hours ago, The Magna Defender said:

Nothing wrong with battleshipping. Groundspeak guidelines dictate I only need to sign a log. If I am able to find a puzzle through alternative means, then why does that make me the criminal? 

I'm happy as a finder to not solve a puzzle and log a cache. That's how I play the game. 

If that's how you play the game there really isn't anything anyone can do to change that.  I will point out though that I think you're just taking advantage of a loophole in the guidelines and that a cache owner that has created a puzzle cache chose that type with the intent of having finders of the cache solve the puzzle.  If they didn't care if finders solved the puzzle they would have chosen a different cache type.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

15 hours ago, EggsTheBest said:

Don't forget that there are mystery caches where the final coordinates are already provided. Challenge caches or hides with a lock (where the puzzle is to solve the lock combination), you don't need a checker for them. So an idea of making a checker obligatory will probably never be implemented.

I have solved quite a few puzzle caches where upon solving it the final coordinates where displayed right there on my computer screen.  There's no ambiguity about the final location because the puzzle displays the lat/long coordinates.  There's always the chance that one will fumble finger the solution when entering them into a GPS but that's not different when reading "Success" on a coordinate checker that displays the correct coordinates.

[+barefootjeff]

29 minutes ago, NYPaddleCacher said:

If that's how you play the game there really isn't anything anyone can do to change that.  I will point out though that I think you're just taking advantage of a loophole in the guidelines and that a cache owner that has created a puzzle cache chose that type with the intent of having finders of the cache solve the puzzle.  If they didn't care if finders solved the puzzle they would have chosen a different cache type.

I can't speak for anyone else, but I set my puzzle caches because I think (hope?) people might enjoy them. But not everyone enjoys doing things the same way I do, and on occasions some have employed "workarounds" to get to the cache, often which I find quite amusing. As long as they enjoy the cache, I don't particularly care how they get there, and I'm more than happy to give out extra hints to anyone who asks, or for previous finders to give out hints to anyone who asks them. My non-traditionals get few enough finds as it is to be worried about how someone makes the find, as long as there's a signature in the logbook that's all I want.

[+thebruce0]

I live by the 'do unto others' mentality, and that's informed what I expect when I publish puzzles and when I find puzzles.  I used to want people to solve my puzzles, but as a finder I know that I can't solve every puzzle. I want to be able to find caches I've found if I ahven't solved puzzles, so as a CO I know that not everyone who logs it will have solved it.

So now, as a CO I want to make challenging but fun or interesting puzzles, and will gladly help someone if they have questions, and hope that people will at least make attempt to learn or solve a puzzle - but I realize there will be groups where 1 person solves and everyone finds; or coordinates will be just handed out willy nilly by people who've found it (even if not solved themselves).  Incredibly frustrating but I won't make a fuss over it any more.

As a finder, I consider COs putting out puzzles like I do, with the hopes of interesting me or giving me a fun time, whether I can solve it or not. So I'll try; or I'll for tips (hopefully not solutions) but if at any point I get coordinates without a solution or I'm with a group, I won't not log it found, but I will mark it as found/unsolved, so that at some point I can come back and try, or learn about the puzzle. I won't go asking around for solutions without caring about the puzzle, no matter how hard or annoying or impossible it seems to me.

'Do unto others' works the best for community, and for your own sanity.  Think of others before yourself, even if you don't have to. It makes for a much better social atmosphere.

[+The Magna Defender]

23 hours ago, L0ne.R said:

No.

 

If its not a game or hobby? What is it? A cult? A religion? A method of ego boosting? It's certainly not a professional sport. 

[+The Magna Defender]

9 hours ago, NYPaddleCacher said:

If that's how you play the game there really isn't anything anyone can do to change that.  I will point out though that I think you're just taking advantage of a loophole in the guidelines and that a cache owner that has created a puzzle cache chose that type with the intent of having finders of the cache solve the puzzle.  If they didn't care if finders solved the puzzle they would have chosen a different cache type.

I'm more than happy to take advantage.

[+Harry Dolphin]

9 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

I live by the 'do unto others' mentality, and that's informed what I expect when I publish puzzles and when I find puzzles.  I used to want people to solve my puzzles, but as a finder I know that I can't solve every puzzle. I want to be able to find caches I've found if I ahven't solved puzzles, so as a CO I know that not everyone who logs it will have solved it.

So now, as a CO I want to make challenging but fun or interesting puzzles, and will gladly help someone if they have questions, and hope that people will at least make attempt to learn or solve a puzzle - but I realize there will be groups where 1 person solves and everyone finds; or coordinates will be just handed out willy nilly by people who've found it (even if not solved themselves).  Incredibly frustrating but I won't make a fuss over it any more.

As a finder, I consider COs putting out puzzles like I do, with the hopes of interesting me or giving me a fun time, whether I can solve it or not. So I'll try; or I'll for tips (hopefully not solutions) but if at any point I get coordinates without a solution or I'm with a group, I won't not log it found, but I will mark it as found/unsolved, so that at some point I can come back and try, or learn about the puzzle. I won't go asking around for solutions without caring about the puzzle, no matter how hard or annoying or impossible it seems to me.

'Do unto others' works the best for community, and for your own sanity.  Think of others before yourself, even if you don't have to. It makes for a much better social atmosphere.

I had a mystery cache rated at 5/1.  I liked that because there are so few of them.  It had 46 finds, and 22 Solved.  A lot of cachers hunted in groups.  A large percentage brute forced it.  (Never occurred to me that they would see a gap in the GeoArt, and hunt there!)  And obviously, help was shared.  They signed the log.  They found the cache.  That's what counts.  (Should have put it where it was not on the walkway.  Oh, well.)  

I recently brute forced a mystery cache that I had not solved.  I signed the log!  Perhaps, more interestingly, I have found the finals to five multis without finding the intermediate stages.  Hmm...  That spot matched the hint for the final.  There it is!  Afterward, I searched long and hard for the first stage, but did not find it.  Signed the log!  Found it!

[+noncentric]

Back to the topic of the OP - I do not support making geocheckers a requirement on puzzle caches. As others have noted, there are plenty of puzzles where the coords are clear once solved or where the solution is not coordinates at all. Not to mention that having a geochecker allows cachers to guess numbers until they get a green light on the checker.

Honestly, I think the OP would make a stronger argument if the OP had geocheckers on all of their own puzzle caches.

[+Max and 99]

10 minutes ago, noncentric said:

Back to the topic of the OP - I do not support making geocheckers a requirement on puzzle caches. As others have noted, there are plenty of puzzles where the coords are clear once solved or where the solution is not coordinates at all. Not to mention that having a geochecker allows cachers to guess numbers until they get a green light on the checker.

Honestly, I think the OP would make a stronger argument if the OP had geocheckers on all of their own puzzle caches.

Great question. And I learned something new: UK puzzle cache finals don't need to be within 2 miles of the posted coords. 

 

[+The Magna Defender]

2 hours ago, Max and 99 said:

Great question. And I learned something new: UK puzzle cache finals don't need to be within 2 miles of the posted coords. 

 

They do have to be within 2 miles but there are some exceptions

[+Max and 99]

22 minutes ago, The Magna Defender said:

They do have to be within 2 miles but there are some exceptions

I assumed too much, based on the very first one I looked at (final is within 5 miles). Thanks for the correction.

[+niraD]

10 hours ago, The Magna Defender said:

They do have to be within 2 miles but there are some exceptions

For the record, I've seen exceptions in the US too.

[+*GeoPunx*]

51 minutes ago, niraD said:

For the record, I've seen exceptions in the US too.

This is definitely true. There's a mystery in my area where the final is approx 18 miles from stage one. And there's 4 total stages.

https://coord.info/GC1N129

[+The A-Team]

Keep in mind that before February 17, 2015, the puzzle-distance clause was only a recommendation:

Quote

The posted coordinates should be no more than 1-2 miles (2-3 km) away from the true cache location.

Starting on that date, it became a requirement:

Quote

Final coordinates must be less than 2 miles (3.2 km) from the posted coordinates.

 

[+thebruce0]

11 minutes ago, *GeoPunx* said:

This is definitely true. There's a mystery in my area where the final is approx 18 miles from stage one. And there's 4 total stages.

https://coord.info/GC1N129

Published 9 years ago

[+niraD]

1 minute ago, thebruce0 said:

12 minutes ago, *GeoPunx* said:

This is definitely true. There's a mystery in my area where the final is approx 18 miles from stage one. And there's 4 total stages.

https://coord.info/GC1N129

Published 9 years ago

Yep. And for a multi-stage puzzle cache where the final and the first stage were several miles (or more) apart, the guideline used to be interpreted as 2 miles from the first stage, not 2 miles from the final.

[+barefootjeff]

57 minutes ago, The A-Team said:

Keep in mind that before February 17, 2015, the puzzle-distance clause was only a recommendation:

Quote

The posted coordinates should be no more than 1-2 miles (2-3 km) away from the true cache location.

Starting on that date, it became a requirement:

Quote

Final coordinates must be less than 2 miles (3.2 km) from the posted coordinates.

 

I gather this is also now enforced by the new cache edit page, so any that were granted an exemption can't now be edited unless the listed or final coordinates are moved within range of each other.