Pre-checking coordinates for a cache you'd like to place

[+Max and 99]

My reviewer asked me to follow these guidelines for pre-checking coordinates. I had a very good reason to NOT use this method, but as always he was polite and requested I use it.

 

The instructions are below. One thing stumped me. I can't find an "enable" button. Only "submit for review". I hope they are one and the same because that's what I clicked.

 

Ask a reviewer to check coordinates

If you’re still unsure if your location is available, ask a local reviewer to confirm.

Tip: It’s a good idea to do this before you place your geocache.

1. Create a cache page with a title like "Coordinate Check".
2. Add locations as waypoints if you'd like the reviewer to check more than one location. This is similar to adding stages for a Multi-Cache.
3. Add a Reviewer Note to make sure that the reviewer does not publish the cache page. For example, “Do not publish, this is a coordinate check."
4. Enable the cache page and wait for your reviewer to reply.

Many thanks to Volunteer Geocache Reviewer palmetto for initially developing this article.

 

[+Touchstone]

Submit for review = Enable. Just make sure it's clear you're submitting a listing page for a coordinate check. 

[+Max and 99]

3 minutes ago, Touchstone said:

Submit for review = Enable. Just make sure it's clear you're submitting a listing page for a coordinate check. 

Thank goodness. I'm glad I did it right!

[+GrateBear]

I just enter the coordinates of where I want to place the cache in the search box on Geocaching's main page, and that will tell you how close the nearest cache is.  Has worked very well, so far.

[+Max and 99]

36 minutes ago, GrateBear said:

I just enter the coordinates of where I want to place the cache in the search box on Geocaching's main page, and that will tell you how close the nearest cache is.  Has worked very well, so far.

LOL. I'll have to give that a try.

Edited June 29, 2018 by Max and 99

[+coachstahly]

48 minutes ago, GrateBear said:

I just enter the coordinates of where I want to place the cache in the search box on Geocaching's main page, and that will tell you how close the nearest cache is.  Has worked very well, so far.

 

Problem with that is it won't show you final stages of puzzles or multis, as well as other stages of multis that might conflict with the .10 guideline.

[+coachstahly]

On 6/26/2018 at 9:18 PM, Max and 99 said:

My reviewer asked me to follow these guidelines for pre-checking coordinates. I had a very good reason to NOT use this method, but as always he was polite and requested I use it.

 

The instructions are below. One thing stumped me. I can't find an "enable" button. Only "submit for review". I hope they are one and the same because that's what I clicked.

 

Ask a reviewer to check coordinates

If you’re still unsure if your location is available, ask a local reviewer to confirm.

Tip: It’s a good idea to do this before you place your geocache.

1. Create a cache page with a title like "Coordinate Check".
2. Add locations as waypoints if you'd like the reviewer to check more than one location. This is similar to adding stages for a Multi-Cache.
3. Add a Reviewer Note to make sure that the reviewer does not publish the cache page. For example, “Do not publish, this is a coordinate check."
4. Enable the cache page and wait for your reviewer to reply.

Many thanks to Volunteer Geocache Reviewer palmetto for initially developing this article.

 

 

That's great, but couldn't it result in an archived cache on the CO's end if the coordinates are no good?  My reviewer, in the past, has been OK with me sending him a personal email to his reviewer account, to check that way, rather than create a new cache page.

[+EggsTheBest]

7 minutes ago, coachstahly said:

 

That's great, but couldn't it result in an archived cache on the CO's end if the coordinates are no good?  My reviewer, in the past, has been OK with me sending him a personal email to his reviewer account, to check that way, rather than create a new cache page.

I don't think reviewer will just throw the listing to the archives. It will be temporarily disabled so CO can fix the coords and resubmit for approval.

[+Max and 99]

17 minutes ago, coachstahly said:

 

That's great, but couldn't it result in an archived cache on the CO's end if the coordinates are no good?  My reviewer, in the past, has been OK with me sending him a personal email to his reviewer account, to check that way, rather than create a new cache page.

My reviewer asked me to do it the Help Center way, which I respected. I did have a good reason for not wanting to send the cache page, but this was what I needed to do to get the coords checked.

[+noncentric]

34 minutes ago, Max and 99 said:

53 minutes ago, coachstahly said:

 

That's great, but couldn't it result in an archived cache on the CO's end if the coordinates are no good?  My reviewer, in the past, has been OK with me sending him a personal email to his reviewer account, to check that way, rather than create a new cache page.

My reviewer asked me to do it the Help Center way, which I respected. I did have a good reason for not wanting to send the cache page, but this was what I needed to do to get the coords checked.

I've also used the method described in the Help Center to check coords before moving too far along with a placement.  I've even included multiple coords in one "COORD CHECK ONLY" cache page, when I was looking to place a couple different caches around the same time.

I didn't want to go through the permission process with a specific department for locations that might turn out to be unavailable. I figured that wouldn't seem 'professional' to ask about placing something somewhere and then say "nevermind", so I checked that the coords for those locations were okay before pursuing permission.

 

[+Touchstone]

2 hours ago, coachstahly said:

My reviewer, in the past, has been OK with me sending him a personal email to his reviewer account, to check that way, rather than create a new cache page.

I tend to get a faster response doing it the Help Center way. YMMV.

[+niraD]

5 minutes ago, Touchstone said:

2 hours ago, coachstahly said:

My reviewer, in the past, has been OK with me sending him a personal email to his reviewer account, to check that way, rather than create a new cache page.

I tend to get a faster response doing it the Help Center way. YMMV.

I recall reading an explanation that the volunteer reviewers have tools to check waypoints in cache listings for the saturation guidelines, so they can just check those coordinates. But if they get coordinates some other way, then they first have to copy-paste those coordinates into a spare cache listing before they can actually check them.

[+GrateBear]

True, this isn't a fail safe method--I find it's most useful in an area with a lot of caches, where the odds of there being a stage of a multi not very high.  

[+Vooruit!]

3 hours ago, EggsTheBest said:

I don't think reviewer will just throw the listing to the archives. It will be temporarily disabled so CO can fix the coords and resubmit for approval.

That is indeed how it works.

[+Max and 99]

36 minutes ago, GrateBear said:

True, this isn't a fail safe method--I find it's most useful in an area with a lot of caches, where the odds of there being a stage of a multi not very high.  

I don't understand the logic. Do you mean a lot of traditionals make the method most useful?

[+Touchstone]

1 minute ago, Max and 99 said:

I don't understand the logic. Do you mean a lot of traditionals make the method most useful?

Or it could be that you've merely found the gap in the Traditionals where there is a Puzzle Final placed.  I've seen Puzzle caches constructed using this technique, so I'm not sure it's  reliable to assume the spot is available.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

18 hours ago, EggsTheBest said:

I don't think reviewer will just throw the listing to the archives. It will be temporarily disabled so CO can fix the coords and resubmit for approval.

 

The listing can also be used for a different cache at a location where one can be placed. 

[+MNTA]

I just started a thread on this on the website board. It is completely frustrating that the map does not contain all the information required to place a cache. Just because this is the way it always has been does not mean that the process should not be improved.

 

 

[+Touchstone]

1 hour ago, MNTA said:

I just started a thread on this on the website board. It is completely frustrating that the map does not contain all the information required to place a cache. Just because this is the way it always has been does not mean that the process should not be improved.

 

 

I agree, but would you concede that it should be a solution that we can all agree on?

[+coachstahly]

10 hours ago, MNTA said:

I just started a thread on this on the website board. It is completely frustrating that the map does not contain all the information required to place a cache. Just because this is the way it always has been does not mean that the process should not be improved.

 

 

 

Would you rather see a system that shows where every multi stage, multi final, puzzle final, Wherigo final, LBH final, or any other final has been placed when attempting to place a cache?  That would virtually eliminate multis, puzzles, wherigos, and LBHs, or at least the challenge in figuring out where they are placed.  I can't see a way to improve the method without revealing those spots taken by the cache types listed above.  How would you improve it without giving away the locations of these places?

[+MNTA]

I would like some sort of feedback from the database what ever that may entail. Most folks used to the status quo and are resistant to any change at all. i disagree this would harm other types of caches.

 

Yes some would cheat, however those folks are already cheating. Does it hurt you? No. Is working on a D5 puzzle with a group or sharing hints with other cachers cheating. To some the answer is yes. There will never  be a solution that all agree up that is why having a discussion with the actual owners of the system is needed. Look how much flack GCHQ get for adding a promotion or changes the user interface.

 

I'm tired of reading logs and blogs of folks complaining about cheaters. Battleshipping is a new term I just learned who knew. To me they solved the puzzle, just not the way you had planned on it. Again does it hurt you? No. Unless you enjoy having a difficult puzzle that no one can solve on their own. A lot of cachers don't feel comfortable with messaging folks to ask for help so they skip them altogether. Most cache owners including puzzle owners I have come to know truly want their caches found and puzzles solved. Fear of cheating should not be the reason to not improve things. 

[Keystone]

You can get the desired feedback by submitting a coordinate check page to your reviewer.  No, it's not instantaneous, but it safeguards against people gaming the system.  A significant portion of the geocaching community wishes that Geocaching HQ would do MORE to clamp down on "cheaters," rather than implementing features that would facilitate cheating.

 

I was the reviewer for the earliest publicly known example of battleshipping.  I did not want to be an accessory to cheating.  So, when the people hiding caches within a two mile radius of an impossibly difficult puzzle cache scored a "hit" (their cache was less than 528 feet from the puzzle final), I published their cache anyways.  That's the value of the human factor.*

 

*Many reviewers are dogs.

[+NanCycle]

2 hours ago, coachstahly said:

 

Would you rather see a system that shows where every multi stage, multi final, puzzle final, Wherigo final, LBH final, or any other final has been placed when attempting to place a cache?  That would virtually eliminate multis, puzzles, wherigos, and LBHs, or at least the challenge in figuring out where they are placed.  I can't see a way to improve the method without revealing those spots taken by the cache types listed above.  How would you improve it without giving away the locations of these places?

 

That seems to be exactly what s/he wants.  "Make my life easier, no matter how it inconveniences or upsets others."

[+arisoft]

43 minutes ago, MNTA said:

To me they solved the puzzle, just not the way you had planned on it. Again does it hurt you?

 

How much is hurt you to wait some days for the answer to your saturation check? Start solving puzzles to know, where you can plan new ones, as I do.

Edited July 5, 2018 by arisoft

[+GeoTrekker26]

2 hours ago, MNTA said:

I'm tired of reading logs and blogs of folks complaining about cheaters. Battleshipping is a new term I just learned who knew. To me they solved the puzzle, just not the way you had planned on it. Again does it hurt you? No. Unless you enjoy having a difficult puzzle that no one can solve on their own. A lot of cachers don't feel comfortable with messaging folks to ask for help so they skip them altogether. Most cache owners including puzzle owners I have come to know truly want their caches found and puzzles solved. Fear of cheating should not be the reason to not improve things. 

 

By your logic someone using bolt cutters to open a puzzle involving a padlock has solved the puzzle, just not the way the setter planned it.  Really?

[+coachstahly]

3 hours ago, MNTA said:

I would like some sort of feedback from the database what ever that may entail. Most folks used to the status quo and are resistant to any change at all. i disagree this would harm other types of caches.

 

You didn't answer the question or provide any means to improve the situation, as it currently stands.  I"m not averse to change but I'm not for change that simplifies things so much that hidden stages/finals are revealed when submitting a new cache.  I'll ask again.  How would you improve it without giving away the locations of these places?

 

[+cerberus1]

2 hours ago, MNTA said:

I would like some sort of feedback from the database what ever that may entail. Most folks used to the status quo and are resistant to any change at all. i disagree this would harm other types of caches.

 

Yes some would cheat, however those folks are already cheating. Does it hurt you? No. Is working on a D5 puzzle with a group or sharing hints with other cachers cheating. To some the answer is yes. There will never  be a solution that all agree up that is why having a discussion with the actual owners of the system is needed. Look how much flack GCHQ get for adding a promotion or changes the user interface.

 

I'm tired of reading logs and blogs of folks complaining about cheaters. Battleshipping is a new term I just learned who knew. To me they solved the puzzle, just not the way you had planned on it. Again does it hurt you? No. Unless you enjoy having a difficult puzzle that no one can solve on their own. A lot of cachers don't feel comfortable with messaging folks to ask for help so they skip them altogether. Most cache owners including puzzle owners I have come to know truly want their caches found and puzzles solved. Fear of cheating should not be the reason to not improve things. 

 

I don't mind change if there was a true reason for it.  Removing "Find newest" from my profile is one I didn't get...

"Cheating" issues seem to come n go, usually when one found the new "creative" method to log a find. 

 - I thought PAF was bad for the hobby. 

If folks truly had any real issue with "cheating" becoming a problem, I'm sure Groundspeak would nip that in the bud like they did with double logging, logging your own caches, and "moving caches" that were just brought to events like a trackable.

 

We had a lengthy series that could be battleshipped after a couple placed a power trail in-between our hides after/while doing it.

It didn't affect me personally, but when the "bare spot on the trail" was accurate enough to be part of that PT, we didn't think it fair to the others who actually found each beforehand, and archived 'em.   By emails, there were a lot who understood...

[+Touchstone]

MNTA's post has made me reflect on the issue of "cheating" a bit, and for that, I thank them.

 

From personal experience, I've had people find novel ways around ways of logging my caches in unexpected ways, and to be honest, it didn't bother me in the least.  It doesn't seem like cheating to me, to find some out of the box way of solving a problem.

 

The kind of things I consider in the "unfair" category, are things like throwdowns, just to log a Find, or getting solutions to a Puzzle on social media (although ironically, getting groups together to solve Puzzles doesn't seem inherently unfair to me for some odd reason).  It seems like chopping down a tree, just to log that pesky T5 climbing cache.

 

I guess when it comes down to it, it's not so much the cheating that bothers me, it's the laziness.

 

Having all the Hidden Waypoints available on the maps, so people could take short cuts if they were so inclined, or some method of battleshiping the Finals with repeated attempts, doesn't strike me as clever at all.

 

In the end, MNTA asserts the usual refrain of such arguments, "who's it hurting?", and to be honest, not anybody really, but it does feel a bit like the person that cuts in line in front of me, or the car that runs the stop sign as I'm trying to cross the road.  It just comes across as lazy and rude, and what kind of world would it be if everyone did that?

[+niraD]

3 hours ago, Touchstone said:

In the end, MNTA asserts the usual refrain of such arguments, "who's it hurting?", and to be honest, not anybody really, but it does feel a bit like the person that cuts in line in front of me, or the car that runs the stop sign as I'm trying to cross the road.  It just comes across as lazy and rude, and what kind of world would it be if everyone did that?

Who is it hurting when stats-oriented geocachers get the final locations for challenging caches from social media? When copy-paste "thanks for the statistics" logs discourage the owners of such challenging caches to the point that they stop hiding them, or worse, to the point that they give up and archive the ones they've hidden, then I think it hurts everyone who enjoys such caches.

 

I think having the geocaching.com site facilitate battleshipping would hurt those who enjoy such challenging caches in a similar way.

[+barefootjeff]

One improvement that could help a little bit would be to show circles around the hidden waypoints of caches I own and of caches I've solved or found.

 

Edit: Oops, I've just realised "caches I've found" would open a loophole that could be exploited by just logging a fake "found it" log. For caches I've solved, where my corrected coordinates match the hidden GZ, I think that'd be safe.

Edited July 6, 2018 by barefootjeff

[+niraD]

11 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

For caches I've solved, where my corrected coordinates match the hidden GZ, I think that'd be safe.

Actually, I think it would be safer to include all your corrected coordinates, whether they match the hidden final waypoint or not.

[+MNTA]

Just curious to your thoughts on the following:

 

A puzzle cache with a validation checker attached. I solve the puzzle for 14/15 coordinates. For the last one there is two possible solutions. I try the first, nope. I try the second, that does the trick. Did I fully solve the puzzle? No but I got the solution. Is there a problem here? I find my problem.

 

Now expand this to not knowing the 15th digit at all. Most checkers allow for multiple attempts before timing out. So if they pound on the checker till they get that last digit is that a problem. They obviously got almost all the way there. How is this different from asking for help from the CO? I recall doing this once as the CO was no longer active the puzzle intrigued me enough that I could not let it go. I then took the solution and figured out my mistake. How is this different from asking the previous finder?

 

Now if I use google maps to look at the area and click through where it might make sense. Nope in a building, nope in the river. Ah here is one possibility. Try the checker.

 

To some the first example is cheating. To a lot the second is cheating. Third is way out there definitely outside of the box thinking, but how would you know. My point is unless you can control every aspect of the game, which you can't and why does it matter, then the software tools for improving the overall enjoyment and ongoing development should continue to evolve. Worry about the things you can control, like creating a kick a** puzzle rather than how folks game the system.

 

BTW my favorite puzzle was a crazy version of the old mastermind game. It had me up till 2 in the morning the day it was published. 

 

Another local puzzle was a video game balancing blocks, was impossible to get a high enough score to reveal the solution. Finally after three months one cacher hacked the java script and got the solution. This annoyed the CO but he acknowledged the outside of the box thinking and changed the puzzle setting to make it easier. To date no one else has found this guy five months later.

[+Max and 99]

You have some valid points.

[+MNTA]

10 hours ago, coachstahly said:

 

You didn't answer the question or provide any means to improve the situation, as it currently stands.  I"m not averse to change but I'm not for change that simplifies things so much that hidden stages/finals are revealed when submitting a new cache.  I'll ask again.  How would you improve it without giving away the locations of these places?

 

 

Off the top of my head you could implement this many ways so this is just a thought experiment pros and cons would have to be thought out and weighed so to start the conversation.

 

 - Ideally this would be implemented in the very first stage of "hide a geocache"  You have two options here. Search Locations or Already know a location.

Possible ideas:

   1) Improve the map to be more interactive. Have a propose site button. If hiding the data of unknown caches is important, which I do not agree with but let's say this is still the case. The proposed location could be checked against the same reviewer database. The website could give a warning of some type that says a hidden location may be nearby please confirm with reviewer prior to proceeding. Possibly the 0.1 mile bubble could be expanded to warn the placer of a proximity.

2) To avoid "cheating" Limit the number of checks in a small area.

3) show a randomized bubble on the map to indicate the presence of final caches in the area. To allow the person to confirm with the reviewer prior to proceeding.

 

- If after the initial and creating the web page phase. The second thing you do here is to input the lat/long. At this point a warning could be issued to either confer with a reviewer and/or specify a problem exists. Or flat out say yes/no. When you "confirm coordinates". Though that map does have issues that you can not zoom in and see details. But an indication of problems to come would be very nice.

- Finally prior to submission for review a simple check could query the database and say. Oh you have problems with placement. Rather than waiting days or a week for the reviewer to get back to you. An option to proceed could be given to get more details.

 

I'm sure other options could be created. Software is a beautiful thing, if you can do a task manually as the reviewers are currently doing. You can implement it in software and automate it. You can also implement as much are as little rigor you want for any aspect of the game. This is what the guys at GCHQ get paid to do. Remember the original "Stash" game was simply a static website of lat/long coordinates a lot of work has gone into improving and developing things. Like adding maps, supporting smart phones, maintaining databases, show statistics. Personally I have liked most changes, wish trail maps would load better but the fact I can see a trail is awesome.

 

Hope that answers your question

 

[+barefootjeff]

1 hour ago, niraD said:

Actually, I think it would be safer to include all your corrected coordinates, whether they match the hidden final waypoint or not.

 

Good point, otherwise it becomes a de-facto checker when the CO might not have intended there to be one.

[+niraD]

29 minutes ago, MNTA said:

At this point a warning could be issued to either confer with a reviewer and/or specify a problem exists.

You mean like this?

"The map below displays visible locations that are already taken by existing geocaches. The map does not display hidden waypoints and some other potential obstacles to hiding a geocache. Your location must still be reviewed by a community volunteer after it is submitted."

[+MNTA]

May I recommend you trying to place a cache in your urban environment. You'll see the difficulty I'm trying to offer suggestions on improving. Looking at your last physical cache, yes it was unknown, but it was placed 10 years ago. The tools and the submission process have changed greatly, as has the potential for software automation and computing performance. The guidelines you quoted are cumbersome and not very user friendly this forum is intended to help GCHQ identify aspects of the game that may be candidates for change and/or improvement. I forgot to include offer insight and ideas on improvement.

 

If things don't continue to improve and become easier and better, the next generation cachers will not materialize. So glad Pokemon Go was just a fad. GCHQ spends a lot of effort and money to continue to improve the overall geocaching experience. The message I received was that they were actively working on this aspect of the game and knew of the limitations and issues. 

[+niraD]

15 minutes ago, MNTA said:

May I recommend you trying to place a cache in your urban environment.

I recommend that if the only way you can find a place to hide a cache is to look for holes in the saturation map, then the area already has enough caches. Once upon a time, the guidelines actually said that one of the purposes of the saturation guideline was "to encourage you to seek out new places to hide caches rather than putting them in areas where caches already exist". Rather than look for holes in the saturation map, go find new places to hide caches.

[+coachstahly]

6 hours ago, MNTA said:

1) Improve the map to be more interactive. Have a propose site button. If hiding the data of unknown caches is important, which I do not agree with but let's say this is still the case. The proposed location could be checked against the same reviewer database. The website could give a warning of some type that says a hidden location may be nearby please confirm with reviewer prior to proceeding. Possibly the 0.1 mile bubble could be expanded to warn the placer of a proximity.

 

So you still need to contact the reviewer, like we do now?  You just added a step, making this a longer drawn out process.  If you expand the .1 bubble, let's say to .2, you'll have cache saturation overlap.  You'll never get clearance spots in a  high saturation area because the circles will cover the entire area.  The guideline is .1, not some other higher number.  Also, it's a circle, meaning that the center of the circle is the location that is taken.  Pretty easy to figure that out.

 

6 hours ago, MNTA said:

2) To avoid "cheating" Limit the number of checks in a small area.

 

Not a bad idea, but is that limit over a lengthy time period, forever, or just for that one day?  If one day, they'll be back at it tomorrow.  If a lengthy time period, that might work.  If forever, you'll be out of checks at some point in time and if a cache is archived, you can't run a check in that location any more because you've used them up.

 

6 hours ago, MNTA said:

3) show a randomized bubble on the map to indicate the presence of final caches in the area. To allow the person to confirm with the reviewer prior to proceeding.

 

Randomized bubble wouldn't tell you if the hidden waypoint conflicts with your coordinates or not.  You'd still need to contact the reviewer, which is what we currently do now.  You're making this more complicated, as just about everything still comes back to contacting the reviewer, which is the first step now.

 

6 hours ago, MNTA said:

If after the initial and creating the web page phase. The second thing you do here is to input the lat/long. At this point a warning could be issued to either confer with a reviewer and/or specify a problem exists.

 

So back to the reviewer you go, which you could have done first, and still do first right now.  If there's a "problem" notification instead, what are you going to do about that?  Contact the reviewer?  Re-submit new coordinates and have the same issue?

 

6 hours ago, MNTA said:

Or flat out say yes/no

 

This isn't a bad idea but it probably would cause more headache than anything else.  How many times are you willing to get a no answer before you contact a reviewer?

 

6 hours ago, MNTA said:

Finally prior to submission for review a simple check could query the database and say. Oh you have problems with placement. Rather than waiting days or a week for the reviewer to get back to you. An option to proceed could be given to get more details.

 

I thought all this was to get clearance before final submission so you know there are no problems and it would get published without a problem.  If you've created the cache page to check the coordinates with a reviewer, that spot gets held for you.  If you're the first person to "claim" that spot, you get the first option for placement of a new cache.  I know because I was working on creating a puzzle and had created a cache page to hold the spot.  My reviewer contacted me, asking me if my proposed cache was going to be completed soon because someone else was interested in using the spot.  Seeing as how my idea hadn't been fully fleshed out yet, I archived the cache page and let the other person claim the area.  Waiting a few days or a week to publish a cache is no big deal.  What's the rush?  You'd still have to wait for it to actually get published.

 

6 hours ago, MNTA said:

Hope that answers your question

 

It does, but only one of those suggestions really offers up a viable solution - the limiting cache checks in a small area.  The other suggestions all fall back to checking with the reviewer, which is currently the first step.  You've added steps to a process, thereby making it more complicated, and it still causes hiders to revert to the current system we have in place.

[+IceColdUK]

6 hours ago, MNTA said:

Just curious to your thoughts on the following:

 

A puzzle cache with a validation checker attached. I solve the puzzle for 14/15 coordinates. For the last one there is two possible solutions. I try the first, nope. I try the second, that does the trick. Did I fully solve the puzzle? No but I got the solution. Is there a problem here? I find my problem.

 

Now expand this to not knowing the 15th digit at all. Most checkers allow for multiple attempts before timing out. So if they pound on the checker till they get that last digit is that a problem. They obviously got almost all the way there. How is this different from asking for help from the CO? I recall doing this once as the CO was no longer active the puzzle intrigued me enough that I could not let it go. I then took the solution and figured out my mistake. How is this different from asking the previous finder?

 

Now if I use google maps to look at the area and click through where it might make sense. Nope in a building, nope in the river. Ah here is one possibility. Try the checker.

 

To some the first example is cheating. To a lot the second is cheating. Third is way out there definitely outside of the box thinking, but how would you know. My point is unless you can control every aspect of the game, which you can't and why does it matter, then the software tools for improving the overall enjoyment and ongoing development should continue to evolve. Worry about the things you can control, like creating a kick a** puzzle rather than how folks game the system.

 

BTW my favorite puzzle was a crazy version of the old mastermind game. It had me up till 2 in the morning the day it was published. 

 

Another local puzzle was a video game balancing blocks, was impossible to get a high enough score to reveal the solution. Finally after three months one cacher hacked the java script and got the solution. This annoyed the CO but he acknowledged the outside of the box thinking and changed the puzzle setting to make it easier. To date no one else has found this guy five months later.

 

I can't speak for all puzzle-setters, but I've set quite a few, and here are my thoughts on what's 'cheating' and what's not:

• If I've left a back-door in my puzzle (e.g. coordinate calculations that only have a small number of possible solutions, that can be narrowed down by inspection on the map and/or 'battleshipping' on a checker), then that's fair game.  I might try to tighten up the puzzle, but I can't really have any complaints.
• If you've reached out to me or a previous solver, or discussed the puzzle at an event or on social media, then so long as the solution hasn't been handed out on a plate, fair enough.  (I'm happiest being contacted directly.  Of course I really can't control this, but in my experience most people play by these unwritten rules to a reasonable extent.)
• Previous logs sometimes give away subtle clues too.  Use them.  Not a problem.
• If you've worked on the puzzle as part of a team, inevitably some may have made more of a contribution to the solution than others, but at least you were part of the effort.
• Basically, I'm happy when people are prepared to spend the time and effort to try to solve my puzzles.  If you've had a go, and ideally (if pressed), you could explain roughly what the puzzle was all about, then that's absolutely fine by me.
• If somebody has just given you the final coordinates, or you found them on some puzzle-solution website, then I'm not so happy.  There's not a great deal I can do about it, but I'd rather this remained the exception rather than the rule.
• My puzzle caches aren't found very often, but I really don't mind that.  For a start, they require less maintenance.  More importantly, I really enjoy the logs - typically people will tell you how they went about solving the puzzle, how much help (if any) they needed, their relief at getting to the end!, and more often than not, they give a reasonable account of their trip to GZ.  Generally a good read, and very rewarding as a CO.
• I also have a few trads; these are found roughly 10 times more regularly than the puzzles.  If nine out of the ten the logs on my puzzles became "TFTC" that would be soul-destroying.
• Probably a whole different discussion... I understand that people cache in groups, and that I can't expect everybody that finds one of my caches to have solved the puzzle.  And I realise that essentially this is no different from being handed the final coordinates, but I am prepared to make that distinction.  Having benefited on occasions and (despite my best intentions) not gone back to solve the puzzles retrospectively, it would be hypocritical if I did not. :-)

Like I said in your other post on this topic, the chances are that the puzzle caches in the area you are concentrating on are owned by a small number of COs.  (I'm guilty of that where I live.)  And it's likely that these COs will know the locations of most of the mysteries and multis in their area.  If I was contacted, I certainly wouldn't give away the location of any caches, but I would try to help direct you to open spots.

[+coachstahly]

6 hours ago, MNTA said:

puzzle cache with a validation checker attached. I solve the puzzle for 14/15 coordinates. For the last one there is two possible solutions. I try the first, nope. I try the second, that does the trick. Did I fully solve the puzzle? No but I got the solution. Is there a problem here?

 

You solved 87-93% of the puzzle.  No problem here.  If there are two possible solutions, the CO either did it on purpose or didn't realize there were two answers that both worked.

 

6 hours ago, MNTA said:

Now expand this to not knowing the 15th digit at all. Most checkers allow for multiple attempts before timing out. So if they pound on the checker till they get that last digit is that a problem. They obviously got almost all the way there. How is this different from asking for help from the CO? I recall doing this once as the CO was no longer active the puzzle intrigued me enough that I could not let it go. I then took the solution and figured out my mistake. How is this different from asking the previous finder?

 

 

See above.  Why wouldn't you ask for help from the CO?  I have no problem doing that if I'm stuck.  I'll even ask previous solvers/finders for a nudge (I don't want the final answer, only a nudge) if the CO doesn't get back to me (or is inactive).  I've offered that same type of assistance for an inactive CO's puzzle.

 

6 hours ago, MNTA said:

Now if I use google maps to look at the area and click through where it might make sense. Nope in a building, nope in the river. Ah here is one possibility. Try the checker.

 

If you're willing to spend the time to do every permutation that yields a "Success!" screen, more power to you.  

 

As the CO of a few puzzles, I'd be more upset if GS made it easier to find my puzzles because they implemented a "new and improved" hiding process that reveals ALL hidden waypoints.  You can create the most difficult or kick a** puzzle, but that effort is all rendered worthless because GS has opted to show all the hidden waypoints, meaning a puzzle cache only becomes a puzzle by trying to figure out which circle is the final location.

 

As the CO of a few multis, I'd be more upset if GS made it easier to find my multis because they implemented a "new and improved" hiding process that reveals ALL hidden waypoints.  They could go to some random spot within the multi and either luck out by going right to the final or skip some stages and start at the halfway point.  Overlapping circles would be a dead giveaway that there's a multi there.

 

As the CO of a few wherigos, I'd be more upset if GS made it easier to find my wehrigos because they implemented a "new and improved" hiding process that reveals ALL hidden waypoints. Now you don't even need to create a cartridge for them to play the game because they can just go find the final location.

 

As the CO of a few LBHs, I'd be more upset if GS made it easier to find my LBHs because they implemented a "new and improved" hiding process that reveals ALL hidden waypoints.  All those written instructions to get to the final, rendered unnecessary because the final location is within that circle right there.

 

All of these types of caches rely on hidden waypoints to keep the cache operating in a manner the CO intended.  I KNOW that not every cache of mine is going to be found in the manner that I intended, but I would prefer to limit that type of find, while encouraging the finds done in the manner in which I intended.  I also know that if GS did end up revealing the hidden waypoints in the cache placement process, all my efforts for these types of caches would be rendered, in essence, unimportant because the final location is revealed, whether I want it revealed or not.  They turn into traditional caches, in the sense that the location is revealed to anyone who wants to spend time looking for "that" circle, rather than solving a puzzle or going out in the field to actually do the cache to find the final.

 

If you're OK with puzzle coordinates being revealed, then that means you're OK with multi coordinates being revealed, Wherigo coordinates being revealed, and LBH coordinates revealed.  You'd run into the exact same issue you have with puzzle caches - a hidden waypoint that prevents you from placing a cache.  Are you wiling to go that far?  Admit that you have no problem with any of the other cache types with hidden waypoints being exposed?

[+m0bean]

I think the part that bothers me most about opening a door to 'cheating' through a cache placement map that reveals hidden waypoints is that it would work for every hidden waypoint.  It's true that there are lots of different ways to 'cheat' (solve the puzzle in an unintended way), but the manner in which to do this varies from puzzle to puzzle, and one has to cobble together bits of information or clues to solve or partially solve the puzzle.  If I knew there was a hidden backdoor that would hand me puzzle coordinates, I know I would not have the self-control to resist opening it after banging my head against a wall on a puzzle until 2 in the morning.  That means I would also be deprived of the satisfaction of finally solving a puzzle.  To me, one of the great things about Geocaching puzzles is that there are no answers at the back of the book.

[+IceColdUK]

Just now, m0bean said:

If I knew there was a hidden backdoor that would hand me puzzle coordinates, I know I would not have the self-control to resist opening it after banging my head against a wall on a puzzle until 2 in the morning.  That means I would also be deprived of the satisfaction of finally solving a puzzle.  To me, one of the great things about Geocaching puzzles is that there are no answers at the back of the book.

+1

[+Touchstone]

8 hours ago, MNTA said:

 - Ideally this would be implemented in the very first stage of "hide a geocache"  You have two options here. Search Locations or Already know a location.

 

Even before you get to this stage of the submission process, you always have the following option:

 

 

Now, I must say, confronted with this kind of picture, I probably wouldn't even attempt finding a location in the densest areas of saturation, but I understand that hope springs eternal, and some people will certainly do their utmost to fill every available gap.  Maybe the visual above doesn't really spell out the prospects of finding a location, and a different visual is needed to crush all hope of finding a location.  One popular tracking site has heat maps, which gives a different kind of picture of activity, which might be applied to this topic :

 

 

Maybe something like this could be made available in order to determine the amount of effort required to find open spots in urban areas?

[+Crow-T-Robot]

I'm not sure what kind of "kick a** puzzle" I'd be able to create (or be willing to create) if any/all of the hidden waypoints would be given away just by someone starting a cache submission page to get the coordinates. If you think that only "cheaters" would go this route for puzzle/multi/Wherigo caches, you haven't been around long enough.

 

If hidden waypoints were revealed on the cache submission page, it would become the de-facto way to solve puzzles. I like solving puzzles but there are so many that are either beyond my skill level to solve or just don't interest me enough to put the effort into solving. Would I take advantage of seeing the hidden waypoints if I had the chance? I'm not saying I wouldn't. I'd give the puzzle an honest try, sure but in the end, I'd be curious just to know what the solution was.

[+niraD]

Of course, one way a CO could preserve the mystery would be to create multiple waypoints to block off an entire area. If my waypoints block an area half a mile in diameter, then I could put the final anywhere in that area, and not have to worry about saturation conflicts, or about people using the saturation map to identify the final location. The saturation map might fill up really quickly if this caught on though.

 

Be careful what you wish for.

[+niraD]

8 hours ago, MNTA said:

The guidelines you quoted

What guidelines? I quoted from the cache submission page.

8 hours ago, niraD said:

9 hours ago, MNTA said:

At this point a warning could be issued to either confer with a reviewer and/or specify a problem exists.

You mean like this?

"The map below displays visible locations that are already taken by existing geocaches. The map does not display hidden waypoints and some other potential obstacles to hiding a geocache. Your location must still be reviewed by a community volunteer after it is submitted."

 

[+arisoft]

1 hour ago, Crow-T-Robot said:

Would I take advantage of seeing the hidden waypoints if I had the chance?

 

I would  of course if I can.  

 

You can test easily yourself, would you take advantage? If you have ever guessed coordinates to any geochecker to find the solution by trial and error, you would also take advantage of seeing hidden waypoints without hesitation.

 

Edited July 6, 2018 by arisoft

[+redsox_mark]

On 06/07/2018 at 7:43 AM, MNTA said:

May I recommend you trying to place a cache in your urban environment. You'll see the difficulty I'm trying to offer suggestions on improving. Looking at your last physical cache, yes it was unknown, but it was placed 10 years ago. The tools and the submission process have changed greatly, as has the potential for software automation and computing performance. The guidelines you quoted are cumbersome and not very user friendly this forum is intended to help GCHQ identify aspects of the game that may be candidates for change and/or improvement. I forgot to include offer insight and ideas on improvement.

 

 

I can understand the frustration.   It has happened to me, but not much, as I tend to have found most of the caches nearby areas where I look to place a cache.

 

I would not call use of an automated proximity checker to solve a puzzle "cheating".    But I'm not in favor of making it easy to "battleship" to solve the puzzle.   I know cachers will use all sorts of ways to get the coordinates, and I can't control that.    But don't make it easier to avoid solving the puzzle.   

 

If there is a way to improve the current tool without opening it to "battleship" abuse I'm not against it.