More help for publishing new caches

[+yxza]

When I create a new cache and enter the coordinates I either get an OK or that it collides with an existing one. Of course the cache circles show collisions only with published coordinates. Or with unknown caches already solved. It would be very nice if I also was told that "your cache interferes with an existing". No need for more information, like circles, just the message of conflict. it would not reveal information about unknowns/unsolved but ease the placement of new ones.

[+lee737]

12 minutes ago, yxza said:

it would not reveal information about unknowns/unsolved

Yes it would..... have you ever played Battleships??

[+kunarion]

17 minutes ago, lee737 said:

Yes it would..... have you ever played Battleships??

+1
 

I found an impossible cache when there was a conflict with a cache I was trying to activate.  This was a bonus cache, and a cache with part of the coords was archived.  With all the info I had gathered over the years, all I needed was that unexpected cache conflict to narrow my possibilities to a line 1/4 mile long.

 

If the battleship suggestions were ever implemented, I’d be able to find a lot of caches from the bottom of my mystery pile.  For some, all I need is to ask about one point on Earth, yes or no.  

The Help Center has a process to check saturation.  Another idea is to ask locals who’ve found caches in the area.

Edited November 9, 2021 by kunarion

[+yxza]

well. it depends on how keen you are on playing battleship. ok, some are, but let them. some like to cheet in this game. for me, in an area already full of all kinds of caches it would make it a lot easier to find an empty spot for a new cache.

[+Max and 99]

7 minutes ago, yxza said:

for me, in an area already full of all kinds of caches it would make it a lot easier to find an empty spot for a new cache.

Yes it would. And it would also make it easier for people to find caches they have not yet solved. 

[+barefootjeff]

14 minutes ago, yxza said:

for me, in an area already full of all kinds of caches it would make it a lot easier to find an empty spot for a new cache.

 

Maybe I'm a heretic for saying this, but if the area is already full of all kinds of caches, does it really need another one? Perhaps it might be better to look for hiding places a bit further afield.

[+lee737]

I know of one D5 puzzle near me, from tid bits of info in logs and nearby caches, I reckon 6 guesses and I could have it....

[+kunarion]

5 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

 

Maybe I'm a heretic for saying this, but if the area is already full of all kinds of caches, does it really need another one? Perhaps it might be better to look for hiding places a bit further afield.

Also, that open spot is pretty suspect.  I find caches because of nice 528-foot cache-footprint sized spots.  The cache being right there in the center of it.  Don’t tell anybody.  

 

So when my proposed cache conflicted with a hard to acquire bonus cache, as you mention I then didn’t place more caches around it that would make the “empty” spot stand out.

[+niraD]

17 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

Maybe I'm a heretic for saying this, but if the area is already full of all kinds of caches, does it really need another one? Perhaps it might be better to look for hiding places a bit further afield.

Exactly.

 

Once upon a time, the guidelines even stated 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". If the only way you can find a spot to hide a new cache is to look for holes in the saturation map, then it's time to seek out new places to hide caches.

Edited November 10, 2021 by niraD
typo

[+barefootjeff]

32 minutes ago, lee737 said:

I know of one D5 puzzle near me, from tid bits of info in logs and nearby caches, I reckon 6 guesses and I could have it....

 

One of my multis has three virtual stages where you have to match the waterfall there with one of four photos, thus giving 64 possible sets of coordinates for the final. One of the local cachers, who decided she didn't want to go clambering around on the falls, instead looked at each of those 64 possibilities, eliminated the ones that were on water or private property or within 161 metres of another cache, and narrowed it down to about half a dozen possibilities. She then went and looked in each of those, most of which were infested with lantana and other obnoxious and unpleasant undergrowth, until she finally found it at the last one on her list. It's a pretty easy walk in from the road with very little undergrowth to battle with, if you come at it from the right direction, but even then I think she took the hard way in. After that it became a standing joke between us at events as it would have been much less effort for her to have just visited the waterfalls.

[+baer2006]

1 hour ago, kunarion said:

+1
 

I found an impossible cache when there was a conflict with a cache I was trying to activate.  This was a bonus cache, and a cache with part of the coords was archived.  With all the info I had gathered over the years, all I needed was that unexpected cache conflict to narrow my possibilities to a line 1/4 mile long.

Congratulations !

 

Nearly two years ago I tried to narrow down the location of an "impossible" mystery cache by placing a multi with several physical stages in the area, where I suspected the mystery final. A win-win situation - either I got my own multi published, or I had narrowed down the mystery final to an area suitable for a brute-force search (it's a "Small" with a useful hint). Well, my multi was published without issues   . A few months later, someone else took the idea one step further by creating a multi with 15(!) stages - he still got no distance conflicts. As of now, the "impossible" mystery is still unfound, almost 3 years after publication.

 

Anyway ... my point is, if such shenanigans were possible with a purely online tool, I could "battleship" my way to any unsolvable cache easily. Therefore I really hope that automated distance checks will never be implemented.

[+Isonzo Karst]

17 hours ago, yxza said:

circles show collisions only with published coordinates. Or with unknown caches already solved.

 

No? I'm seeing the planning map offering exactly what it says ->  visible locations that are already taken by existing geocaches. 

 

Curious about your statement I went to the planning map

https://www.geocaching.com/hide/planning.aspx

and entered the coords of a mystery  I've found   and on the listing I've updated the coords. Planning map shows nothing, as I'd expect.  You may be getting tripped up by supposing that the map responds to your "already solved"?   You have to keep track of those on your own.  

 

As others have said, an oracle style response from the planning map is terribly hackable. It doesn't matter if you can't write the script, someone can and will and it would be all over the web PDA.  It would  kill all cache types with hidden stages. 

 

[+ReToddy]

When I first started placing caches I got mad because I found a few really good spots, scouted them, made the container, wrote up the description, hid the container then submitted to cache only to be told it conflicted with a mystery cache placement.  AARGH!

 

So now I get the coords then send in a "Coordinate Check" cache request to see if it conflicts before I do a bunch more leg work.  Its still work but worth it to save the aggravation.

 

I agree that 95% of the time it would be useful, but apparently the game is so worried about a few people using unusual methods or 'cheating' to find a cache that they don't make it an option.