Bottlenecks of hiding a cache - collision checks

[Semínko]

I have been geocaching on and off for years now and the topic that always crops up, at least in my neck of the woods, is that new people don't bother creating new caches. So last year I decided I will not be one of those who just take and don't bring anything to the table, and decided to create a cache of my own.

 

But boy, oh boy, was I in for a headache.

 

Biggest offender - Collisions

I totally get why the rule (161m) is in place. Having said that, what I don't understand is why the collision check is not automated. I mean we have solution checkers for mystery caches, why can't we have the same feature for creating caches? You would create a cache listing and then have the opportunity to check whether the location you would like to hide the cache at is collision free or not.

Some people might point out that this could be abused but I mean reviewers do the same thing now, don't they? You can create an empty listing with several coords to be checked and contact a reviewer who then tells you that locations 1, 2 and 4 are colliding with other caches but location 3 is fine.

The difference between a reviewer telling you or a reCaptcha module telling you is the time saved. You'd save everyone's time which from my limited experience reviewers don't necessarily have enough.

In case of my first hidden cache, it took over two months only to get the coords checked, three months to get the cache published (despite there not being any outstanding issues). With my second cache I'm planning to hide at the moment, it's been two weeks but no reviewer reply in sight. This seems completely avoidable.

 

Would you be in favor of automating collision checks? If not, why?

 

[Keystone]

On 5/23/2019 at 6:56 PM, Keystone said:

So, suppose I tell you that your proposed location is 110m northwest of the final coordinates for "Cacher Conundrum," a five-star puzzle cache that only four people have ever solved and logged in the past three years.  Armed with that intelligence, you track down the container and sign the log at the same time when you move your cache to a spot that's 162m away.

 

What do I get for being helpful?  A flaming email from the CO of "Cacher Conundrum," who also posts to three Facebook groups, and files a complaint with Geocaching HQ that I gave away secret information and ruined the puzzle cache.  Having had that happen to us enough times, reviewers nowadays are constrained to be less forthcoming with details.  Depending on your reviewer, you may get a hint, like "you are less than 161m from "Cacher Conundrum," GCABCDE, or you may get a hint that you should strongly consider moving to the southeast, or you may not get any guidance at all.  So, that's how come.

 

In a world where people hack lab caches and share the final coordinates of puzzle caches in Facebook groups, the inevitable outcome of such a feature would be to spoil every puzzle cache, multicache and Wherigo cache, plus a fair percentage of letterbox hybrid caches.  There are people who like placing and finding these cache types.  Geocaching.com has chosen not to alienate them by ruining the ability to keep the actual locations a secret.

 

"But all I need is a distance and direction," you might say.  So, the cheater simply enters enough coordinates into the planner tool to permit them to hone in on the actual location through triangulation.  Think that can't happen?  Talk to the travel bug stalkers who watch for drops of trackables in unpublished caches so they can figure out the locations and log a pre-publication "FTF."  Talk to the group of cachers who hid traditionals in every conceivable spot within two miles of a 5-star puzzle, knowing they'd eventually "battleship" their way to a hit, and then they could do a scorched earth hunt within that area.  I foiled them by publishing their cache even though it was 200 feet away from the puzzle final.  Reviewers are smart humans*, you see, and that is better than an automated system.

 

*Many reviewers are dogs.

 

 

My post to an earlier thread on this subject applies equally here.

 

Be patient and continue working with your reviewer.  If you know that the area is dense with caches that have hidden waypoints, use the option of a "coordinate check" as you've done.

 

I love your term "collision."  I've never heard it called that, but it fits!  You know my language a lot better than I know yours.

[Keystone]

28 minutes ago, Semínko said:

With my second cache I'm planning to hide at the moment, it's been two weeks but no reviewer reply in sight. This seems completely avoidable.

 

You have no caches pending review.  I do see that you have a draft cache page, correctly named "Coords check prosím".

 

If you would like to have coordinates checked. submit your cache page for review with a reviewer note explaining that it is submitted for a coordinate check only.  Your Community Volunteer Reviewer will get back to you in seven days or less with an answer. (Sneak preview: there's a collision. )

Edited February 28, 2020 by Keystone

[Semínko]

Hi @Keystone, thanks for the reply.

 

Regarding my draft cache - I acted based on our local rules, which specifically state that for a coords check I should not submit the cache for review but rather send my reviewer a private message. Which I did.

 

Regarding the automation - didn't know that was a thing. So if I understand correctly, there are people who would use the proposed system to be able to triangulate the 161 circle and despite not knowing the exact location, go there and try to find the cache brute force? If that is the case I guess we would have to compare the positive and negative effects of such a change, and the ratio of benefit. To me the benefit of saving a couple of days of literally everyone who creates a cache outweights the downside of, I assume, a limited number of people abusing the system.

Also the checks can be limited. For example, you have to be logged in to use the feature. Your account has to have at least X found caches to use the feature. Your account has to be at least X months old to use the feature. If you would use the feature excessively your account would get banned. etc. That would hopefully prevent people from using the feature extensively and also creating fake accounts to do that. I guess you can also track the IPs of logins.

 

EDIT: thanks for the check

Edited February 28, 2020 by Semínko

[Keystone]

I am sorry to hear of the delay in receiving a response from your reviewer.  This is one of the advantages of submitting a "coordinate check" cache to the review queue.  If I go away on vacation, or if I'm sick, I will make arrangements for other team members to check the review queue for new cache submissions in my area.  They cannot check my email for me.  Any cache in the review queue will be looked at within seven days.

 

If by sending a "private message" you mean that you used the Message Center, the notification system for those messages is not 100% reliable.  Many reviewers, including me, strongly prefer email.  This is why there is no Message link on Reviewers' profiles.  I suggest following up with an email if you previously sent a message.

[Semínko]

1 minute ago, Keystone said:

If by sending a "private message" you mean that you used the Message Center, the notification system for those messages is not 100% reliable.  Many reviewers, including me, strongly prefer email.  This is why there is no Message link on Reviewers' profiles.  I suggest following up with an email if you previously sent a message.

 

That is good to know. I will make sure I do that once I have a new location to check.

Thanks for the advice, I appreciate it.

[+Jayeffel]

When you are entering the cache information on the Hide a cache page on Geocacxheing.com you enter the chosen coordinates. When you do enter the coordinates doesn't the system show on a map a circle that includes any caches in the circle-- the collision zone?

[+niraD]

3 minutes ago, Jayeffel said:

When you are entering the cache information on the Hide a cache page on Geocacxheing.com you enter the chosen coordinates. When you do enter the coordinates doesn't the system show on a map a circle that includes any caches in the circle-- the collision zone?

The circles shown on the map are only the public waypoints. Hidden waypoints (like puzzle finals and physical stages of multi-caches) are not shown.

[+Jayeffel]

ok, I agree there.

[+Touchstone]

12 hours ago, Semínko said:

I mean we have solution checkers for mystery caches, why can't we have the same feature for creating caches? You would create a cache listing and then have the opportunity to check whether the location you would like to hide the cache at is collision free or not.

Unlimited access to such a feature would inevitably lead people to  battleship Final cache locations.  The obvious solution is to put some sort of throttle on the number of coordinate checks you could do, to discourage such behavior so that the Puzzle Fans out there stay happy.  The only problem with that is, that I've seen people do that sort of thing in less than three guesses.  I think HQ has made the correct decision in putting that throttle number at zero, and not developing that feature in the first place.

[+MNTA]

3 hours ago, Touchstone said:

Unlimited access to such a feature would inevitably lead people to  battleship Final cache locations.  The obvious solution is to put some sort of throttle on the number of coordinate checks you could do, to discourage such behavior so that the Puzzle Fans out there stay happy.  The only problem with that is, that I've seen people do that sort of thing in less than three guesses.  I think HQ has made the correct decision in putting that throttle number at zero, and not developing that feature in the first place.

 

I'm seriously tired of this argument. Battleshipping! Seriously I too got frustrated with the hiding process that I haven't hidden another one in over a year since my last hiding experience. I could care less about the mystery hide that was preventing me from placing a cache next to a dog park I frequented and was able to find an area of the parking lot to use but it was a horrible horrible experience. 

 

I want to be walking down the street and say holly cow that spot would be an awesome spot for a cache. I want to open up the app insert the coordinates and be told yes or no if it is open. It truly is that simple. I don't want to go through a huge process and have a discussion with a reviewer at that point. I'm fine with discussions of property rights, rules and regulations etc. later in the process. I did try to hide a cache under a highway overpass glad we avoided the bomb squad. Actually the ease of placement checking should be a single button no filling out forms on the web page, that can come later.

 

Seriously software is amazing code can be written to help minimize battleshipping and what ever nefarious behavior you are worried about. A class of caches and cache owners seem to be so worried about cheating. Seriously what's the point there is no award for finding all 3 million caches out there let alone one cache. This is a hobby and entertainment and needs to modernize or become obsolete. I am glad GS seems to get this and despite all the endless complaints they keep innovating and yes modernizing the hobby. Did I say despite the complaints. Yes. Otherwise a couple hundred people would still be walking around with paper printouts of the handful of caches remaining using their antique handheld gps devices. Sorry to be harsh and no offense to folks who like that but you got to look at it from the kids perspective they are not excited to see a dot on a screen and number counting down anymore let alone jumping through hoops to place a cache . Not saying GS should implement a battle zone and have to fight for the smiley I'm just asking for a better system then sticking your head in the sand and plugging your fingers in your ears.

 

I've said this many times cheating does happen, but what is the harm to you. If that is how they want to play the game they won't be playing it for long. How is it any different than group solving of a puzzle, or a family that one solved but the three other accounts all logged. Everyone plays this game differently and that should be fine. 

 

Descend soap box now.

 

 

Edited February 29, 2020 by MNTA

[+Touchstone]

39 minutes ago, MNTA said:

I'm seriously tired of this argument.

Thanks for sharing your point of view.  My comments were merely directed at the current system, but my sense tells me that if it were as easy to make a single button as you say, they probably would have done it by now.  I cannot think of a bigger waste of time for both the Community and the Reviewers, than having to kick back Listings for Proximity.

[+arisoft]

4 hours ago, MNTA said:

Seriously software is amazing code can be written to help minimize battleshipping

 

Seriously, it can not be solved automatically. Even the current manual system is used for battleshipping. Automated system should be build based on different saturation rules.

Edited February 29, 2020 by arisoft

[+fizzymagic]

4 hours ago, MNTA said:

Seriously software is amazing code can be written to help minimize battleshipping and what ever nefarious behavior you are worried about.

 

Mathematics is not so forgiving.  I had a point in my career where a manager told us that we should just write better code to get the false positive rate for statistical detection of something down to zero.  It was (in their mind) just a matter of better code and more CPU time.

 

Sadly, the world doesn't work that way.  I understand your desire that puzzle hiders quit hiding puzzles in order to make your process of hiding a geocache easier, and I sympathize with your frustration that the entire world doesn't organize itself around your desires.

 

It's not a matter of puzzle hiders being concerned with "cheating;" the issue is whether puzzle caches have any meaning at all.

Edited February 29, 2020 by fizzymagic

[Semínko]

59 minutes ago, fizzymagic said:

It's not a matter of puzzle hiders being concerned with "cheating;" the issue is whether puzzle caches have any meaning at all.

I disagree. This is a very black and white view of the issue, basically saying that if we can't be close to absolutely sure people are not abusing the system the whole concept is meaningless.

 

What I'm interested in is why you feel puzzle caches wouldn't have any meaning at all if a miniscule minority of people cheated to find them. How does that affect me or others who want to find the cache without cheating? How does that affect the cache owner?

 

I'm not anywhere close to your guys' cache counts so I'm genuinly interested in your opinions.

[+fizzymagic]

9 minutes ago, Semínko said:

I disagree. This is a very black and white view of the issue, basically saying that if we can't be close to absolutely sure people are not abusing the system the whole concept is meaningless.

 

What I'm interested in is why you feel puzzle caches wouldn't have any meaning at all if a miniscule minority of people cheated to find them. How does that affect me or others who want to find the cache without cheating? How does that affect the cache owner?

 

I'm not anywhere close to your guys' cache counts so I'm genuinly interested in your opinions.

 

Because if there is absolutely no need to solve the puzzle, not just some, but most people would not do so.  Imagine an automated tool at GeocachingToolbox.com where you give it fake coords and it finds the real coords instantly.  I don't consider it "cheating" to use all available tools.  I'm happy when people discover unintended ways to solve my puzzles.  I just don't want that particular tool available.

Edited February 29, 2020 by fizzymagic

[Semínko]

14 minutes ago, fizzymagic said:

Because if there is absolutely no need to solve the puzzle, not just some, but most people would not do so.  Imagine an automated tool at GeocachingToolbox.com where you give it fake coords and it finds the real coords instantly.  I don't consider it "cheating" to use all available tools.  I'm happy when people discover unintended ways to solve my puzzles.  I just don't want that particular tool available.

 

Well, it's not like there would be no need to solve the puzzle. You'd have to abuse the system, risking a ban and after all this hustle be left with a 161 meter circle you would have to go in and brute force your way to get the cache. This seems like too much work for most people just to get one particularly difficult puzzle cache.

 

I mean even now there are websites that can, apparently, give you the final locations of puzzle caches. Do those puzzle caches listed there have any meaning? Of course they do! Sure, there will be people who will pay for those final coords just to be able to log the cache, but I'm asking again - how does that affect me as a person who wants to find the cache the normal way or you as the cache owner who, presumably, wants the same thing?

Edited February 29, 2020 by Semínko

[+fizzymagic]

2 hours ago, Semínko said:

Well, it's not like there would be no need to solve the puzzle. You'd have to abuse the system, risking a ban and after all this hustle be left with a 161 meter circle you would have to go in and brute force your way to get the cache. This seems like too much work for most people just to get one particularly difficult puzzle cache.

I don't think you understand how the math works.  If there is a tool that will tell you that you are too close to another cache, you can locate that cache to within a foot.  I have no idea where you got that "161 meter circle" thing.

 

People would also not be risking a ban, as doing these checks would be completely legal.

 

Since you don't understand the math and you don't understand the TOS, I am going to go out an a limb and say that your opinion here is uninformed.

[+JL_HSTRE]

I wonder how much of this is concern for server hits? Also, Reviewer can give you a general direction ("nothing available in that area" or "try 100 feet north") whereas an automated system could lead to seemingly endless fiddling with coords without getting anywhere, if multiple hidden waypoints are involved. 

 

Keep in mind this problem of hidden waypoints tends to be very regionalized. In many areas there aren't many non-Traditionals.

 

Also, hidden physical waypoints aren't just puzzle finals. They're also Wherigo finals and Multi stages/finals.

Edited February 29, 2020 by JL_HSTRE

[+MNTA]

7 hours ago, fizzymagic said:

 

Mathematics is not so forgiving.  I had a point in my career where a manager told us that we should just write better code to get the false positive rate for statistical detection of something down to zero.  It was (in their mind) just a matter of better code and more CPU time.

 

Sadly, the world doesn't work that way.  I understand your desire that puzzle hiders quit hiding puzzles in order to make your process of hiding a geocache easier, and I sympathize with your frustration that the entire world doesn't organize itself around your desires.

 

It's not a matter of puzzle hiders being concerned with "cheating;" the issue is whether puzzle caches have any meaning at all.

 

I disagree completely here. We are not talking about advanced mathematics which I agree with you is not easy. We are talking about linear distances and a circle, yes we are on a surface of a sphere but for the sake of a checker maybe this could be relaxed. High school mathematics. Besides the reviewers have the math algorithms when approving  placement so no development is needed. Just app access to the database and some for of cheating counter measures. 

 

I have 631/3528 finds being unknown. 490 of those are challenges. 141 non-challenge finds I admit that's not a lot compared to the 2400 traditional finds. Most of those are the more traditional Sunday newspaper type logic puzzles, sudoku etc I enjoy those and at times do seek those out. I have a handful of those challenging puzzles that have caught my eye. I am also proud of a FTF on one puzzle cache though I did have to get help once I figured out the trick to translate oral Korean. My point is there is meaning people play the game differently all the time but cheating should not be the reason to make one aspect of the game more challenging.

 

I'll give you one last example. Last night I was looking at lonely caches in the Bay Area. I clicked on a few of the unknowns. Two of the five caught my eye as anyone could log them if they wanted to cheat. 1) there was no checker (no proof I got the coordinates) 2) The COs hadn't logged into the system in two to three years. Just saying if I had wanted to I could have logged those, but I choose to not. Cheating can happen in many forms. Personally I'd love the app to use location presence to allow for logging, but that is another thread and a lot of algorithm details would need to be worked out.

 

Time to stop chatting and get out of the house and find a few caches today. Have fun!

 

 

 

 

[Semínko]

 

3 hours ago, fizzymagic said:

I don't think you understand how the math works.  If there is a tool that will tell you that you are too close to another cache, you can locate that cache to within a foot.  I have no idea where you got that "161 meter circle" thing.

 

Yup, you are right. For some reason I though the cache radiuses cannot intersect, which would make the minimum distance for another cache to be placed 322m. Despite me literally placing a cache cca 165 meter from another cache .

 

I still think it would be doable, detecting shady behavior I mean, but yea, I see your guys' point a bit better now...

 

[+cerberus1]

6 hours ago, Semínko said:

I disagree. This is a very black and white view of the issue, basically saying that if we can't be close to absolutely sure people are not abusing the system the whole concept is meaningless.

What I'm interested in is why you feel puzzle caches wouldn't have any meaning at all if a miniscule minority of people cheated to find them.

 

How does that affect me or others who want to find the cache without cheating? How does that affect the cache owner?

I'm not anywhere close to your guys' cache counts so I'm genuinly interested in your opinions.

 

I'm dyslexic.     If I can figure a cache without doing any of the steps involved I will, especially if it involves math.   

That's not the same as creating a way to cheat the system though, and have never cheated for a find.

I've met a fair share of humans over the years.  I'd bet that most would take that easy route as well if it was presented...    

We're seeing people with finds over ten thousand "finding" caches not even there.   "Minuscule" I feel,  is reaching...

 

If everyone could solve 'em without any thought,  I'd archive them (and did).   

We had a bike trail mystery series that took us months of planning with multiple townships to create.

It was spaced apart enough that you actually peddled a while before stopping again. Folks liked that as well.

 Another came along and placed a "power trail" in-between all those caches. 

We knew they didn't ask.  The Owners kept us up-to-date in mail on maintenance, new hides, or any other issues.

It was accurate enough that anyone who wanted to find ours simply had to look within 10-20' at that 528' mark (or directly in-between their hides).

 - They were the only blank spots on the map...

"Battleship"  was easy on a trail, and we didn't feel it was fair to the many who earned their finds by doing them as intended, so archived 'em.

I liked those hides.  The ride was fun for all ages, and each cache was unique.  Took us months of meetings to get it approved.

They were placed well-before Favorite Points came out, but probably would have done well.   I was affected by that...         

 Maybe if I was placing nondescript 1.5 pill bottles at road side I would have felt differently.

 

 

[Semínko]

@cerberus1, thanks for the comment. This helps me understand where you guys are coming from.

[+kunarion]

3 hours ago, Semínko said:

@cerberus1, thanks for the comment. This helps me understand where you guys are coming from.

 

People can already “battleship” for caches, so I'd prefer it not be made even more convenient to do so. Some of my cache ideas could be pretty much in only one spot on Earth, and the idea is that you enjoy my puzzle to find it. Not use an automatic button to find it.

 

I'm especially terrible at solving puzzles, so I try every idea I can to narrow down a tough one. But I know I then may need to solve it anyway, and I'm fine with that. If it were my puzzle and people were routinely finding it without solving it, that would be frustrating for me. The idea is you solve it. At that point, you know where you can place another.

 

Rather than leaving an ever more obvious hole in the saturation map, I would greatly prefer that you go find a whole new place. I've resisted placing caches when they may give away a puzzle or bonus cache's location. My saturation check plan is to ask hiders of nearby known caches, ask the CO, or ask friends, find or at least solve caches, and ride along when friends have already solved puzzles. I know where all the caches are in a saturated area before I place mine, no button necessary. Well, maybe I don't know where all of them are , but I'm close enough.

 

Here's an example of a saturated place where nobody has to even guess, nor "Saturation Check" or anything, it's all laid out on the available site map.  This place is full.  If they have a decent Geosense, cachers probably don't even need to work the "puzzles", even if the cache icon is miles away:

 

 

 

 

Edited February 29, 2020 by kunarion

[+fizzymagic]

Folks, there is a lot of history about the mathematics of the situation.  This is a situation with what is known as an "oracle."  You ask the oracle a question (i.e. does this spot conflict with an existing hide?) and the oracle returns a Yes or No answer.

 

Several very advanced cryptographic protocols have been broken by means of an inadvertent oracle, such as the padding oracle attack that worked against SSL!

 

Please believe me when I tell you that an oracle attack using the proposed convenience method of checking cache locations for collisions could give you the locations of puzzle finals in a completely automated way with very few queries.

 

The notion that only a few people would cheat is equivalent to the notion that only the most sophisticated attackers can break crypto.  On the contrary: the threat to crypto is that one sophisticated attacker automates the process and then  every script kiddie in the world can use it effortlessly.  The same situation applies here.   Only one person would need to understand and automate the algorithm, and instantly the final coordinates for every single puzzle cache in the world would be available to everybody for essentially zero effort. 

 

It's quite a different scenario from the cheater sites that are out there that some people use.  They publish the coordinates for puzzle caches that somebody solved.  But it is not every single puzzle cache, and it requires at least some effort on the part of the cheater to find and use the information.  They are not in any way comparable.

Edited February 29, 2020 by fizzymagic

[+barefootjeff]

14 hours ago, Semínko said:

What I'm interested in is why you feel puzzle caches wouldn't have any meaning at all if a miniscule minority of people cheated to find them. How does that affect me or others who want to find the cache without cheating? How does that affect the cache owner?

 

I'm not sure the number of potential cheaters would be all that miniscule. I have an out-of-the-way T4 field puzzle multi that's only had 33 finds in 4 years, yet shortly after the FTF was logged, someone did a battleship attack on the checker, eventually cracking it after two weeks on about their hundredth attempt. I later discovered that the FTF had inadvertently posted a photo with his log of an unusual ant seen near GZ and, at the time, log photos weren't being stripped of EXIF coordinates, so that's where the attacker got their starting point from. With this particular cache, solving the field puzzle and getting the coordinates was the easy bit, with the T4 hike through rugged country to GZ still ahead of them, and I don't know if the attacker ever got there and logged a find, so my response when looking at the checker logs was a good chuckle. This is probably the exception, though, as with most puzzles, solving the puzzle is the main obstacle and, once achieved, getting to GZ and signing the logbook is the easy bit.

[+MNTA]

I would like to report that this thread spurred me on to try and hide a cache today. An amazing and highly favorited cache nearby unfortunately bit the dust about 3 months ago as the cache went missing and the CO as been inactive for over a year. So I decided I'd resurrect this cache as I was impressed by it previously. I'm also not that creative to think hey that's an amazing spot.

 

The good news is the location was approved but the original container may no longer meet guidelines. A magnet with the log sheet glued to it. So working with the reviewer for container ideas as the guideline as he/she interprets it the log sheet must be replaceable. The former CO performed maintenance previously about every year which I don't see as an issue.