Solution checker for more cache types

[+sernikk]

Hello,

I just want to ask a question regarding the in-built solution checker. Are there any plans of letting people add these checker to other cache types than "Mysteries"? If yes, why it hasn't been done yet? If not, then what is the reasoning behind that decision?

 

Thank you

Edited June 5, 2021 by sernikk
typo

[+Hügh]

I think that part of the reason is that, for example, how would a solution checker work on a five-stage Multi? Does the checker only work for the final? Are there five different checkers, one for each waypoint? Is there one checker that handles all waypoints? What if some stages don't need a checker, but others do?

 

Either way, I doubt that it is as simple as allowing Multis/Letterboxes/etc. to use solution checkers. It will require some work by the engineers to make it all work properly.

Edited June 5, 2021 by Hügh

[+mustakorppi]

59 minutes ago, Hügh said:

how would a solution checker work on a five-stage Multi?

Same as it would on a five-stage mystery.

[+Hügh]

46 minutes ago, mustakorppi said:

Same as it would on a five-stage mystery.

 

Fair enough. Those are rarer, though. I can only think of one mystery in my area like that, compared to the numerous multi-stage Multis.

 

Still, the explanation that it would probably require technical effort stands.

Edited June 5, 2021 by Hügh

[+sernikk]

Of course I'm talking about the final checker - the same as it is right now in Mystery Caches. Letterbox caches are pretty often the same as a Mystery and they have no checker, because... I don't know why?

 

Confirming final coordinates which are in the system is very important the moment you try to hide something in a high dense area. It would just be useful to "be sure" - sometimes even a small difference is changing everything.

 

2 hours ago, Hügh said:

It will require some work by the engineers to make it all work properly

 

The exact same work as with Mystery Caches I suppose?

Edited June 5, 2021 by sernikk

[+barefootjeff]

I suspect it's partly because the inbuilt checker doesn't appear in the app and multis are meant to be solved in the field as opposed to mysteries that are solved at home. In any case, you can still use a third party checker like Certitude or Geocheck in a multi or LBH.

[+Hügh]

38 minutes ago, sernikk said:

Of course I'm talking about the final checker - the same as it is right now in Mystery Caches.

 

If the final waypoint is all that you're interested in verifying, then of course, the problem should be easy to fix.

 

However, if I were cache owner, I would want people to be able to verify to stages of a Multi-cache. What if the next stage is hundreds of kilometres away? Having to use the built-in checker for the final but Certitude for the stages is annoying.  

 

For that reason, until the checker is able to support waypoints, I don't think that there's any benefit in Geocaching HQ allowing the checker on other cache types. 

 

38 minutes ago, sernikk said:

Confirming final coordinates which are in the system is very important the moment you try to hide something in a high dense area. It would just be useful to "be sure" - sometimes even a small difference is changing everything.

 

Physical Multi-cache/Mystery/Letterbox/Wherigo stages are also subject to the 161m saturation guideline. Are you not interested in ensuring proper distance from those?

 

38 minutes ago, sernikk said:

The exact same work as with Mystery Caches I suppose?

 

With a Mystery cache, it is (usually — see above) just the final waypoint. So, the code is "as simple as" "user coordinates == final coordinates."

 

But with a Multi-cache, to ensure that it works for the stages, you have to add additional checks. What if two waypoints are at the same coordinates? What if some waypoints are (intentionally) not supposed to work in the checker? etc, etc, etc. 

Edited June 5, 2021 by Hügh

[+sernikk]

11 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

I suspect it's partly because the inbuilt checker doesn't appear in the app and multis are meant to be solved in the field as opposed to mysteries that are solved at home. In any case, you can still use a third party checker like Certitude or Geocheck in a multi or LBH.

 

Just saying, but my android app (GCDroid) supports the HQ checker. I guess on iOS Cachly is also making that move, or have already made. I wouldn't relate to the official app as the HQ itself says that there are features not available in their app, but available in Cachly for example (reactions to logs as an example).

 

Of course you are right - we all can use 3rd party checkers, but the point of the in-built checker is:
100% availability, without having to depend on other sources,

easy access,

and of course the confirmation of the coordinates being in the system.

 

7 minutes ago, Hügh said:

Physical Multi-cache stages are also subject to the 161m saturation guideline. Are you not interested in ensuring proper distance from those?

 

7 minutes ago, Hügh said:

But with a Multi-cache, to ensure that it works for the stages, you have to add additional checks. What if two waypoints are at the same coordinates? etc, etc, etc. 

 

Yeah I see your point
Haven't actually thought about those, as in my area these multi-caches are pretty rare. More often it is an offset multi, with a virtual stage at the beginning. But as said by mustakorppi - there are already mystery caches with multiple physical stages. Nobody says that there needs to be a checker on those, but it is an option.

 

But even without the possibility to check each stage, this would still be a good thing overall. Just to have it as an option. Because an additional option is always welcome, in the opposite to lack of some functionality. I think with time we will get the HQ checker in other geocaching apps too, not only the ones that I mentioned, and it would be very, very handy to have the checker in other cache types!

Edited June 5, 2021 by sernikk

[+Hügh]

1 minute ago, sernikk said:

But even without the possibility to check each stage, this would still be a good thing overall.

 

I don't disagree with you; it would be a very useful feature for both owners and finders. It can be (er; is) annoying to have to set up a Certitude/GeoCheck on a simple Multi that could have just used the built-in checker. 

 

I'm simply (trying to) provide reasons for why this isn't the case. Geocaching HQ must have some reason why they haven't enabled this, right?

[+arisoft]

4 hours ago, sernikk said:

Hello,

I just want to ask a question regarding the in-built solution checker. Are there any plans of letting people add these checker to other cache types than "Mysteries"? If yes, why it hasn't been done yet? If not, then what is the reasoning behind that decision?

 

Thank you

 

I have one reason why I think it is not good. I have played some multi-caches with a checker. They tend to be ambiguous because the CO used the checker to "fix" this problem.

 

Multi-caches are basically caches that do not need online support like using Google to solve the task. The task should be doable using a GPS receiver and a notebook.

 

[+thebruce0]

5 hours ago, arisoft said:

Multi-caches are basically caches that do not need online support like using Google to solve the task. The task should be doable using a GPS receiver and a notebook.

I've seen plenty of multis with "calculations" so obscure and complicated without a checker that it's been frustrating, or a big risk, to assume you have the correct answer and go for the search. I know the original "purists" will say that was the way things used to be before any checker, but we have them now, and they certainly help assuage that angst of having to decide whether the trip is worth the 'risk' of being wrong. 

Even projections - long projections off by a degree typo could be awful; the checker that provides a margin of error for those types of checks is also extremely beneficial.

 

I do prefer if COs who don't add a checker do add some form of checksum so you can at least be fairly confident you're correct in your answer. There are many options COs can use. So I'm on the fence about providing the native checker for multis, but it would certainly have benefits despite the basic structure of a multi being different than a mystery.

[+cerberus1]

6 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

I suspect it's partly because the inbuilt checker doesn't appear in the app and multis are meant to be solved in the field as opposed to mysteries that are solved at home.

 

That's how we see it too.  A multi's in the field.  If we could do multis at home like these adventure lab things maybe it'd be different...

Maybe it's just me, but even mysteries are a whole lot easier now that you can "check" each one before you ever leave the house.

We started well-before it was mandatory, and some reason didn't mind heading back, the rare time that we "erred".  

It's like having a stage in a multi go missing.  Back to the drawing board.  Simple.    And I don't consider myself a "purist".   

[+thebruce0]

Again, just because they're meant to be done "in the field" doesn't mean the puzzles or tasks are fundamentally easier (or would benefit less) and thus don't need a checker. I think the best argument against it is... hm, IMO there are a bunch of 'well okay' arguments, but nothing smoking gun. HQ just decided that the Mystery's more-likely single puzzle-to-final structure would be served better with the checker than the multi's more-likely field-work and multiple-stages structure.

That doesn't mean the multi type can't benefit from it, but it probably just wasn't that big of an issue when they added the function.

[+sernikk]

6 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

Again, just because they're meant to be done "in the field" doesn't mean the puzzles or tasks are fundamentally

Exactly. As said, if the checker would be available, nobody forces the owner to use it. A bad multi can be bad with or without the checker, the checker may help. Exactly like with a Mystery Cache which is done in-field (yeah, they are a thing too!).

 

Overall we have 3 other cache types that may require a checker: Multi-Cache, Wherigo, Letterbox.

Let's say the first two are not a big deal. Wherigo is giving you the final zone (sometimes not the coordinates, but ok), and nobody wants a checker in a multi-cache (that is your wish ). But what about letterboxes?
In the beginning they were supposed to involve a small riddle, lead you a path or something like this, but let's be honest times have changed. I see now multiple letterboxes which are done exactly like a Mystery Cache, but there can't be a HQ checker. But why really? Because I see here the exact same case as with Mystery Caches.

Edited June 6, 2021 by sernikk

[+arisoft]

6 hours ago, sernikk said:

But what about letterboxes?

 

You are right. Letterbox hybrid is practically a stamp attribute of an unknown cache. But there is a possibility that a letterbox hybrid cache is based on a multi-cache. This returns back to the original question why multi-caches can not have a checker. (Wherigo caches have already an integrated checker.)

 

[+sernikk]

1 hour ago, arisoft said:

This returns back to the original question why multi-caches can not have a checker.

 

I feel that you are trying to argument something, which would deny the current state. I understand the easy association: multi-cache - > multiple stages - > can't have a checker (still could, but I understand some people may be confused), but we could easily do the same with mysteries.

 

Mystery Caches have checkers - fact.

There are no-stage, one-stage, multi-stage mysteries - fact.

Other cache types don't have checkers - fact.

There are no-stage, one-stage, multi-stage letterboxes - fact.

 

Do you see what I mean?

 

I don't think it makes much sense to find a logic in here. There is some reasoning for sure, which I don't know, and that is what I would love to hear from the HQ, or someone who has a different idea maybe?

 

Edit:

1 hour ago, arisoft said:

(Wherigo caches have already an integrated checker.)

I don't understand, I just checked and they don't? Am I not seeing something?

Edited June 6, 2021 by sernikk

[+arisoft]

2 hours ago, sernikk said:

 

3 hours ago, arisoft said:

(Wherigo caches have already an integrated checker.)

I don't understand, I just checked and they don't? Am I not seeing something?

 

You may have tried with a Wherigo where owner have opted out the checker part. Just try some "Reverse Wherigo" it will tell you when you have correct coordinates.

[+IceColdUK]

4 hours ago, sernikk said:

I don't think it makes much sense to find a logic in here.

I agree.  It seems to me that if a cache has a final location waypoint then the CO ought to have the option of enabling the solution checker regardless of cache type.

[+mustakorppi]

On 6/6/2021 at 7:17 AM, thebruce0 said:

I've seen plenty of multis with "calculations" so obscure and complicated without a checker that it's been frustrating

I wouldn't count on the COs of this kind of multis including a checker even if they could. There's a reason they made the "calculations" that way... 

 

11 hours ago, sernikk said:

I don't think it makes much sense to find a logic in here.

The same could be said for why only mystery caches have a maximum distance from posted coordinates, but mysteries with a stamp or a stage involving a Wherigo cassette don't. Or why I can't add corrected coordinates to the latter two in the app.

 

My best guess is that GS considers other cache types as some kind of relics they won't touch.

 

[+arisoft]

54 minutes ago, mustakorppi said:

The same could be said for why only mystery caches have a maximum distance from posted coordinates, but mysteries with a stamp or a stage involving a Wherigo cassette don't.

 

If your letterbox hybrid is based on a mystery cache the 2 mile range applies. If it is based on multi-cache then there is no limit.

 

"guidelines for the underlying cache type still apply"

[+mustakorppi]

6 hours ago, arisoft said:

If your letterbox hybrid is based on a mystery cache the 2 mile range applies. If it is based on multi-cache then there is no limit.

 

"guidelines for the underlying cache type still apply"

I did not realize that. Is this rule actually enforced somehow? How does it apply for LBH caches that have alternative multi or mystery type solutions? I guess that would still follow multi’s rules since the mystery is optional?

[+arisoft]

1 hour ago, mustakorppi said:

How does it apply for LBH caches that have alternative multi or mystery type solutions?

 

Mystery and multi-caches are not always interchangeable. You must decide which way your cache is constructed and act accordingly.

[+thebruce0]

12 hours ago, mustakorppi said:

On 6/6/2021 at 12:17 AM, thebruce0 said:

I've seen plenty of multis with "calculations" so obscure and complicated without a checker that it's been frustrating

I wouldn't count on the COs of this kind of multis including a checker even if they could. There's a reason they made the "calculations" that way... 

Oh I know, but there's two types of COs here: The CO who wants people to do crazy work and NOT to be certain of their answer, and the CO who wants people to do crazy work, but be able to verify their solution. It's the latter who'd include the checker.

[+OusKonNé & Cétyla]

On 6/5/2021 at 5:04 PM, sernikk said:

Letterbox caches are pretty often the same as a Mystery and they have no checker, because... I don't know why?

 

I was just asking myself the same question.

 

There is a series of Letterbox Hybrid caches that interests me.  But I don't want to start the series until I am 100% sure that all the final coordinates are correct.

 

The possibility of having a Solution Checkers on Letterbox Hybrid would be so appreciated.

[+arisoft]

5 minutes ago, OusKonNé & Cétyla said:

But I don't want to start the series until I am 100% sure that all the final coordinates are correct.

 

Why?  Some of them may be missing despite that you have checked coordinates to every cache in the series.

[+MartyBartfast]

1 hour ago, OusKonNé & Cétyla said:

The possibility of having a Solution Checkers on Letterbox Hybrid would be so appreciated.

The possibility is there, the CO could use a 3rd party checker (geocheck.org or certitude) if they wanted to. If they haven't chosen to use one of those then there's a strong likelyhood they wouldn't choose to use the Groundspeak one if it was available...