Jump to content

THE COORDS ABOVE ARE BOGUS!.......Comments???


erik88l-r
Followers 0

Recommended Posts

This is a thread to explore the ramifications of caches that have posted coords nowhere near the cache.

 

Nearly a year ago I posted this cache with coords far from the actual cache. I snickered when the first to log a note on it was an Aussie somewhat miffed that it showed up near him, and then I became a bit more concerned when a travel bug owner complained about what it did to his bug's route map. I added "NO BUGS" to the cache page and thought no more about it.

 

I also enjoy hunting caches that make you think before you head out - geometric puzzles to solve and internet research to do, so I can understand the need at times for the posted coords not to actually be the coords for the cache or even the starting coords for a multistage hunt.

 

Recently though, as a cache approver, I've recieved e-mails from geocachers complaining about caches that show up near the top of their "nearest cache" list that will never drop off because they are in reality too far away to be found by them. They see this as very discourteous to them. Though tempted to say "get over it", I can see that if done in excess it can be a real pain. At least one other cache approver has run into this, so I'm not alone. It can also cause confusion for the cache approver who has no idea if what he's approving is in a National Park or other area that prohibits physical caches.

 

What I've started asking people who submit such caches to do is to post coords that are within at least a mile or so of reality. That wouldn't make the puzzle any easier to solve or the cache easier to find, but will address the problems with travel bugs and "nearest cache lists". Posting the coords of the parking lot of the park the cache is really in would make sense to me.

 

Before being accused of heaping on more needless rules I wanted to solicit comments from those who'd be affected. Thanks!

 

erik - geocaching.com admin

Link to comment

I think I have to agree, in principle. I suppose there are some cases where even having the coordinates accurate to the minute might give away part of the puzzle, but those cases would seem to be rare. One other possible solution to the "faraway cache in my back yard" problem, of course, is for the ignore lists to get finished, but it seems likely that we'll see those within a few months anyway.

 

I have one cache with bogus coordinates, and there are several more in the area. I managed to convince one of the other cache owners to edit his coords to point to an area near the actual cache, but the other one hasn't come around yet and still has three caches in exactly the same random location miles from the actual cache locations. That's not as bad as it could be, but in one case it does mean that one of our travel bugs whose goals stipulate that it say within 15 miles of downtown Fort Wayne might in fact be further away than that. Still, not a big deal. But it'd be nice if the posted coords were closer to reality.

 

Now, I didn't post coordinates for the parking area on my cache, because it seemed to me that discovering the mere existence of the park in which the cache is hidden was part of the joy of getting the coordinates. But I did carefully set up the coordinates so they were in the dead center of a large drainage pond at a mall less than a mile away, where they'll be totally inaccessible and won't cause anyone to tear up the area searching for a cache.

 

warm.gif

Link to comment

I have to admit, I'm driven by the caches that pop up on my nearest list. Something like this would frustrate me if it was in my area.

 

I hate to suggest this, but maybe there ought to be another classification for caches. "Crypto-location" caches would be a fun name, and more descriptive to this example than "offset cache."

 

It seems to me that the real trouble would be getting them to pop up on the lists of those who are actually near enough to hunt them.

 

Bret

 

"The kingdom of heaven is like treasure hidden in a field.

When a man found it, he hid it again." Mt. 13:44

Link to comment

We have a lot of those kind of caches in our area, and I do think good judgement should be used on the initial coords. Having just put in a lot of effort to clear my 200 closest caches, I would be supremely pissed to have one pop up in the list that would require airfare to find. This doesn't stop some of the evil cachers in my area from driving over near ground zero (my house) and placing 5* difficulty caches. You know who you are, you evil, evil people. icon_wink.gif

 

--Marky

"All of us get lost in the darkness, dreamers learn to steer with a backlit GPSr"

Link to comment

Although maybe the 1 mile rule shouldn't be hard and fast, either. I like Fuzzy's idea of putting the bogus waypoint in a spot that is obviously not where the cache is. This way people that just download and go will not be wasting time looking for a cache that isnt there. The other way I've seen done is to zero the seconds, ie N39°44.000 W074°53.000 if you round them up or down, whichever is closer to th real coodinates, you really arent far enough away to make any real different in TB mileage or in how far away they are on the nearest caches list. It will also be pretty obvious to all but the newest of cachers that they are probably bogus. I also disagree with requiring using the parking coordinates. By their very nature, a puzzle cache is harder to find then a regular cache. I like the idea of not having any clue where the cache may be until I figure out the puzzle.

I think having a "puzzle cache" option would help alot especially as more people move to third party software processing after getting the waypoints from GC.com. They can then filter these as they see fit, or assign a different icon in their GPS.

The ignore a cache option would also help those who will never hunt these types, either because of no desire, or because current ones are not that close.

 

Tae-Kwon-Leap is not a path to a door, but a road leading forever towards the horizon.

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Marky:

Having just put in a lot of effort to clear my 200 closest caches, I would be supremely pissed to have one pop up in the list that would require airfare to find.


 

Why? What's the difference if there is one cache a cacher knows s/he won't/can't be doing before 10 (or 20, or 30 ...) pages of caches they've already found?

 

I mean, we still have to go past just as many pages of found caches to get to anything new ...

Link to comment

George pointed out that if the fake coordinates are too far off, the cache will rarely be found. Thuse near the bogud coords won't likely go get it, those near the real coords won't know that it's there.

One option is to use coords in the middle of a nearby body of water. Reasonable people would quickly notice that those aren't real coords and the rest of you, don't forget your towel.

 

Mickey

Max Entropy

More than just a name, a lifestyle.

Link to comment

I like using obviously wrong places that are relatively nearby (<3M), or someplace that has significance to the cache which is also nearby.

 

The idea is to keep it close but hopefully make it clear there's no cache there to someone who just loaded the coordinates without noticing its a puzzle cache.

 

So far I have used a mall, a post office and an old building as bogus coordinates.

 

This should not throw off TB mileage significantly and at least gets you in the right general area.

 

I have a 5/5 sitting up near the top of my closest list, but I can't say that it bother's me. Although I have heard from a few people that they don't care for puzzle caches. Maybe a separate category would be nice. Could the existing ? category work for this though?

 

Something hidden. Go and find it. Go, and look behind the Ranges -- Something lost behind the Ranges. Lost and waiting for you . . . Go!

- Rudyard Kipling "The Explorer"

Link to comment

Here's my take on the problem.

 

First, there are at least two types of offset caches as it relates to this issue, caches that are meant to show up on the Nearest List and those that aren't.

 

The above posters have issued perfectly good solutions to posting beginning coordinates of caches that are meant to show up on a Nearest List. I really like the idea of posting coordinates that are in the middle of a pond. (Though, after reading Homeless Bathtub, I'm not so sure!) Maybe, right in the middle of a huge parking lot.

 

Anyway, any obviously wrong spot should alert most people to the nearness of the cache without giving anything away.

 

The other type of offset cache--the one that shouldn't be showing up on anyone's list--can be zeroed out (0º 00.000 0º 00.000) or any other place in the middle of the ocean. I plan on a couple of "mystery" caches that, though are listed on GC.com, don't show up on anyone's list. You have to discover them from clues in other caches.

 

BTW, the middle of the Indian Ocean holds a little bit of fondness in my heart as I was stationed on Diego Garcia BIOT for 14 months. It's about as far from the US you can get and still be on dry land.

 

So, in conclusion, I think you have to consider the type of offset you trying to create and be mindful of were the listed waypoint ends up. If you're wanting a cache that is not listed, zero out the coordinates or use someother means of getting in the middle of the ocean. If you want it listed nearby, list coordinates in the middle of a mall parking lot, the middle of an active landfill, or some other obviously wrong spot.

 

CR

 

72057_2000.gif

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Sissy-n-CR:

 

The other type of offset cache--the one that shouldn't be showing up on _any_one's list--can be zeroed out (0º 00.000 0º 00.000) or any other place in the middle of the ocean. I plan on a couple of "mystery" caches that, though are listed on GC.com, don't show up on anyone's list. You have to discover them from clues in other caches.


These are the ones that totally throw off a TB's mileage though.

You "mystery" cache might only be 5 miles from the cache I picked up the TB in, but if I leave it in your cache, I add 10,000 miles onto the bug. Then, when the next person take it, and moves it 10 miles north, it shows another 10,000 miles traveled.

 

Tae-Kwon-Leap is not a path to a door, but a road leading forever towards the horizon.

Link to comment

I can't be bothered to read all the posts in this thread, so feel free to flame me if this has already been said.

 

The cache system could be modified to have two sets of coords, one which is shown to users (and exported in GPX/pocketquery etc), and the other which is used only internally by Groundspeak for travelbug logic. The second set would be the actual cache container location.

 

This way, cachers don't know where the location is until they complete the cache, and Groundspeak knows where it is so that it can handle the travelbug math and map correctly.

 

Thoughts?

 

Actually, forget I asked for thoughts. Most of you will automatically state why this wouldn't be a Good Thing. Is it because I have less than 100 finds?

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Mopar:

These are the ones that totally throw off a TB's mileage though.

You "mystery" cache might only be 5 miles from the cache I picked up the TB in, but if I leave it in your cache, I add 10,000 miles onto the bug. Then, when the next person take it, and moves it 10 miles north, it shows another 10,000 miles traveled.


 

Most certainly true, but like Erik has, you'd want to mark it as "No Bugs." Plus, you'd really not want to put a bug in there anyway. People wouldn't be able to see it's nearby and because the cache is not likely to be visited often the bug would be there for a while.

 

Does raise the issue of personal TB's, though. Some people track their adventures with a TB. There would be no way around it then. But that's an issue with TB's, not really with caches. The only way to keep a cache a mystery at the moment is to place the listing coordinates far, far away.

 

Maybe, TPTB can come up with a solution. Maybe the ability to make a cache invisible, or the ability to change the coordinates of what the TB sees as it's location. Changing the TB side might be better as there are a LOT of caches out there with bogus coordinates already.

 

CR

 

72057_2000.gif

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Mrs. Nazz:

The cache system could be modified to have _two_ sets of coords, one which is shown to users (and exported in GPX/pocketquery etc), and the other which is used only internally by Groundspeak for travelbug logic. The second set would be the actual cache container location.


Actually, and I HATE to say this, but that's not a bad idea for someone with less then 100 finds. BTW, it seems the mark has moved up to 500 finds, according to this post.

It's probably too involved to ever get added, but besides fixing the TB tracking issue, it would also make it alot easier for the cache approvers, and give Groundspeak some record of where the cache is actually located, in case there are any problems.

 

Tae-Kwon-Leap is not a path to a door, but a road leading forever towards the horizon.

Link to comment

It appears many of the "bogus coord's" caches are really just glorified multi-caches and actually involve going to designated coord's. Why not, in these cases, just use one of those coords.

 

Perhaps a designated spot, a little 'out of the way' could be designated as a coord to be used for the 'puzzle' caches. Each caching community could probably come to a consensus as to where in their own locality.

Link to comment

As one who has posted a lot of caches with bogus coordinates, I agree with Erik, mostly.

 

I try to put my coordinates within a mile unless there's a very good reason not to do so. And even then, I put them as close to the actual cache position as I can.

 

The "good reason" I have in mind occurred on my IQ Test #2 cache, where the finder has to project a waypoint about 7 miles at a bearing that is the root of the problem. I didn't want to put the coordinates too close to the answer because they could lead to a false sense of correctness. So the coordinates are about 4 miles from the actual cache location, I think.

 

As an additional thought: I think we need to establish a method to inform the approvers of the actual coordinates of this kind of cache. A second set of coordinates, as suggested by Mr. Snazz, is a good way to do this. In addition to providing correct TB mileage, this solution will also allow the approvers to check to make sure that the actual cache is not in a National Park or some other prohibited area.

Link to comment

I understand that it could be really frustrating to have caches show up on your nearest cache page when they aren't really there or you have no intention of going after them. Here's two options that come to mind right away:

 

- create a separate category for these caches that does not populate the nearest cache list but does include the ability to search by location - also list somewhere on the cache page what the general vicinity of the cache is

 

- add the ability to delete (remove) caches from your nearest cache page. I'm not a programmer but I can't imagine that this would be too difficult.

 

For some of these caches, if you post a position which is within a mile or two of the final location then you will in effect be giving the location, and a big part of the challenge, away.

Link to comment

I think it's been brought up before about an invisible section for owners and approvers only to be able to see. This could help out the approvers with:

 

Decrypted hints. Saves the extra mouse click to get the decrypted hint. I think Elias was talking about that, though I could be wrong.Special instructions to the approver that the general population can't see.

 

For these types of offset caches, you could put the "real" coordinates in the "listed" place and the bogus ones in the hidden field. This would help the approver see exactly where the physical cache is located. Then before final approval, the listed coordinates and the bogus coordinates in the hidden field could be swapped.

 

I don't know if it would be more trouble than it's worth, but it's a suggestion.

 

CR

 

PS: didn't someone, maybe ClayJar, figure out there's a type of log entry called "Archived, don't show" or something to that effect? Is that something that only approvers can see? If so, then the hidden field is already built in. ~CR

 

72057_2000.gif

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Sissy-n-CR:

 

PS: didn't someone, maybe ClayJar, figure out there's a type of log entry called "Archived, don't show" or something to that effect? Is that something that only approvers can see? If so, then the hidden field is already built in.


 

Admins are able to archive a cache in one way that keeps it visible to users (the "standard" archival used for caches that had been accepted), or another way that hides the cache from viewing (used for illegal, inappropriate, etc. caches). This "archived, don't show" method currently only operates on caches that never got approved.

 

Since this "don't show" method of archiving is only available to admins, and effectively removes the cache from everybody's radar (an archived cache won't show up in the admin approval queue), it unfortunately won't work for the purposes of sending a "hidden" message to approvers.

 

icon_geocachingwa.gif

Link to comment

Maybe there's something I'm not getting:

 

Why would you purposely put the wrong coordinates of a cache, who's sole purpose is to be located by people using a device to help them home in on a set of coordinates you gave them?

 

If you're gonna put the wrong coords then why not just let me leave my GPSr at home and walk around blindly?

 

Opinions based on experiences with eTrex Vista...

Link to comment

I haven't read this entire thread yet but this thought occurs to me... What about one of these bogus lat/lon's causing a new cache to be rejected because it is to close to one of these?

 

If you just round to the nearest minute it may be in a great area for a cache. I was scanning the mapping program last night for some possible places just like that. Haven't found one I like yet but I might. icon_smile.gif

 

$1000 Bill geocaching is living in a 30 foot circle

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Mr. Snazz:

The cache system could be modified to have _two_ sets of coords, one which is shown to users (and exported in GPX/pocketquery etc), and the other which is used only internally by Groundspeak for travelbug logic. The second set would be the actual cache container location.

 

This way, cachers don't know where the location is until they complete the cache, and Groundspeak knows where it is so that it can handle the travelbug math and map correctly.


This is actually a good idea for more than this issue. If Groundspeak knows of the actual cache location, if it needs to be removed for some reason (and the cache placer is unavailable) then the coords to the physical cache are available.

 

--Marky

"All of us get lost in the darkness, dreamers learn to steer with a backlit GPSr"

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Buttons Brigade:

Maybe there's something I'm not getting:

 

Why would you purposely put the wrong coordinates of a cache, who's sole purpose is to be located by people using a device to help them home in on a set of coordinates you gave them?

 

If you're gonna put the wrong coords then why not just let me leave my GPSr at home and walk around blindly?

 

Opinions based on experiences with eTrex Vista...


 

Take listed bogus coordinates, bear Xdegrees Ykm, where X and Y can be found ... A little contrived, but doable.

 

Usually, my "bogus" coordinates are very relevant.

 

Take IT22. As mentionned, the listed coordinates are not needed to finding the cache, but are related to its location by being 1.02km from another related site one must find in a picture using a trick similar to that which is used to deriving the cache coordinates from the picture location coordinates.

 

Admittedly, I do wonder why you would want to use bogus coords that are so far away from your cache that no one in the area would know to look for it. As for keeping its existance secret as part of a bonus cache for finding one or more regular cache(s) but allowing people to register a find ... people are going to find out about it by logs in other caches, by looking at people's find lists, local email lists, personal emails, etc. Better to just keep the cache as a "no-credit" bonus, or to list bogus coordinates that are local (such as the Town Hall or famous local landmark.)

Link to comment

I agree that bogus coordinates should be in the correct general area.

 

I'm not so sure about being within 1 mile, however. There are some puzzle/mathematical caches where knowing for sure the posted coordinates are within 1 mile might provide a very large clue. I think maybe a 10-mile range might be OK. Anyone who is worried about a cache with bogus coords showing up on their first page probably hunts quite a few caches, so finding one 10 miles from the posted coords isn't going to require them to go too far from their normal range.

 

ntga_button.gifweb-lingbutton.gif

Link to comment

quote:
I agree that bogus coordinates should be in the correct general area.

I'm not so sure about being within 1 mile, however. There are some puzzle/mathematical caches where knowing for sure the posted coordinates are within 1 mile might provide a very large clue.


Well, I have to agree with Web-ling in the case of some caches.

 

In my Latitude and Longitude cache calculating the latitude is simple. If you knew what park the cache was in it would be a simple matter of skipping the difficult longitude calculation and walking along the latitude line until you found the cache.

 

I guess there are bogus coords and there are "bogus coords" that aren't bogus. In the example that I started this thread with the coords are actually not bogus in the sense of being wrong or being random. They are very precise and the cache could not be found without them.

 

However, in cases where the coords are random and have nothing to do with where the cache is they may as well be close enough. Close enough to prevent the problems detailed above, but not so close as to give it away. In most cases a mile would probably work, in a few maybe 10 miles would be more appropriate.

 

I guess what we need are guidelines, but not inflexible rules.

 

~erik~

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by malak:

As for keeping its existance secret as part of a bonus cache...


 

I my case, it's not meant to be secret, just obscure. Or your could look at it like this, "it's not on the radar screen." The "commando" types wouldn't be trying to hunt a cache that has absolutely no clues at the listed coords.

 

Besides, if I wanted it to be secret, people wouldn't know about it at all and that kinda defeats the purpose. icon_wink.gif

 

A way to help keep it obscure is to request that the finders do not post any logs that link the bonus cache to the caches that got them there. Because you can look at the owner's hidden list and a finder's found list, you can kind of link together what caches lead to what cache. But with logs not mentioning what caches got them there...

 

Plus, whose gonna be looking for secret caches, anyway?

 

Oops! I guess the cat's out of the bag, now!

 

CR

 

72057_2000.gif

Link to comment

As a cache approver, don't you know when you read a submission that the co-ords are the type to possibly cause these problems? If the hider has no better reason than random numbers for far away co-ords, just suggest a closer set before approval.

 

Perhaps a universally recognized bogus location (like a 555 phone number) might work too.

 

just my sub 100 thought

Link to comment

I don't really care what shows up on my nearest page, because I can't read anyway. It has been brought to my attention however, by others near here, that they really got choked about having the caches that they would never do on the nearest page. Get over it, I thought.

 

Then, I went looking for approval for my own cache, which was 3 kilometers from the posted coords. The cache approver asked me to place it within one mile of the actual ( as it turned out, first stage)cache. Now, I'm a little steamed. A group here who places great caches, very often places them many ***'s away from the first or final site. What gives, I asked? Why can they have coords anywhere, and I have to follow a different set of rules? It was explained to me about the nearest pages. I got over my mad, and changed to within half a mile of stage 1. I was actually more pleased at the way it turned out anyway. I think we have to respect the wishes of others.

Link to comment

I believe it's obvious the the game is still new and the rules are still in flux. Everyone is going to have their own version of what they think should happen.

 

I have to agree with Web-ling on the 10 mile radius. 10 miles is practically nothing to travel unless you're on foot.

 

Maybe, when the new site is up and running, the "read description" attribute could be used to alert people to not try to use the listed coordinates.

 

CR

 

72057_2000.gif

Link to comment

I have several puzzle caches out where the coords aren't close to any part of the cache hunt, but in all cases, the coords are within a few miles and definitely in the same town. I see no reason why other similar caches can't do the same.

For a cache to appear at the top of my list that was too far away for me to ever hunt, it would have to be well over 50 miles away. I can't imagine why someone would need to set the coordinates THAT far away.

Unfortunately, since it would be impossible to enforce, I think all we can due is try to get people to use a little common sense. But this also reenforces the need for people to be able to selectively ignore those individual caches that they have no intention of ever hunting so that they don't appear on their lists or in thier pocket queries.

 

skydiver-sig.gif

---------------------------------------

"We never seek things for themselves -- what we seek is the very seeking of things."

Blaise Pascal (1623-1662)

---------------------------------------

Link to comment

New site?? I must have missed something - if there is a new site coming then we're discussing this at a good time and hopefully some of the good suggestions can be incorporated.

 

We already have a button to add caches to your Watch List - how about another button to add caches to your Ignore List? This could be programmed to remove them from your nearest caches page (if they really cause a problem) but so it in a way that they could be brought back if you wanted to go after them.

 

I'm still working on some ideas as to how to deal with the problem that bogus co-ords cause with Travel Bugs - but I like the idea of a hidden field on the approval page which shows where the cache really is located - if a special category was created for these types of caches, could it be programmed to scrape TB data from the hidden field which is not visible to everyone else?

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Curious George:

New site?? I must have missed something...


 

It's a super secret. Apparently, Jeremy has mentioned a new "super rock and roll fantastic geocaching 2 web site" HERE. However, I've found nothing in the way of a list of the new features or anything.

 

For some reason, it's fairly hush-hush.

Link to comment

I was wondering if there might be a way to set 'null' coordinates. I guess it would depend on the way the system is set up, but that might be a better solution than using a 'universally accepted' bogus coordinate.

 

If you do give coords that are close but not accurate, so that the cache will appear on listings, it would be nice if you could keep the bogus coordinates from even appearing on the cache page, to avoid confusion. I don't know what you would term these kinds of caches, but perhaps you could put some kind of label in place of the coordinates on the cache page.

 

------------------------------

You are your own worst food

Link to comment

Wow,

 

First I thought I'd have lots to contribute, but after reading the thread, I think everything's pretty well covered.

 

Using the guideline of having the pseudo-coords. as close to actual cache locale as reasonable sounds best (don't bother with a specific distance, you still can't monitor overlapping caches so it's pointless).

 

Altering the site software to keep the actual coordinates internally hidden would be the best remedy for TBs AND keeping cache's a tenth of a mile apart. (One of the first multicache's I ever did resulted within sight of a cache I had done just the previous week).

 

An "ignore" feature to block unwanted caches also eliminates other issues, such as folks who do virtuals only to take them off their list!

 

So the guideline idea is phenomenal and doesn't "cost" anything or require labor. (I use the parking--after all, if it's a puzzle cache, figuring out the parking is sorta' redundant.) Everything else offers additional benefits above and beyond your original issue.

 

Cool,

 

Randy

Link to comment

There has now been a reaction from a local group of cachers here in southwestern BC, namely that they will suspend operations because of possible new restrictions. They usually (not always though) have their starting coordinates some distance from the actual cache site, or first stage. They wish to continue this format, and the vast majority of cachers in this area (myself included) agree. Erik, can we find a compromise? Team KFWB is a HUGE part of the community here. Surely we can find a way to accomodate them.

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by marinerBC:

There has now been a reaction from a local group of cachers here in southwestern BC,...


 

I'm not so sure anyone is trying to make a hard and fast rule that bogus coords have to be within a certain distance. I think what most of us are getting at is to not use just any arbitrary coords. Erik's example, if I understand correctly, was a cache here in the South of the US and the coords ended up being in Australia! That's a tad far to travel for a cache.

 

I think it should be just far enough for the cache coords to work, but not so far that nobody is/can going to go after them. "Mystery" caches excepted, of course.

 

The 1 mile or 10 miles thing is so the milage for TBs aren't completely out of whack with reality.

 

CR

 

72057_2000.gif

Link to comment

I dunno.. seems like a pretty minor issue to me... maybe some people are neurotic and need to have their local cache list cleared, but I can't see it being a big concern.

I think you need to read some of the caches that I think probably started most of this controversy.. If we took the suggestions to post the coords at the nearest parking lot or something, then the challene would be gone. All the work is finding where that parking lot is!

The only real problem I can see is with the travel bugs. Maybe we should list caches of this nature as unknowns, or letterboxes, or virtuals - presumably then people couldn't log items into them, and thus travel bugs couldn't get into them, and it would no longer be a problem. It would even be pretty easy for us all to agree not to but TBs in these caches if it is such a problem.

 

Overall - seems like a pretty petty issue to screw over alot of people with.

 

If you want something wild, maybe we should all just agreee to post starting coords for puzzles like this at the north or south pole. Then it would also be easy to do a search to find this type of cache.

Link to comment

after reading this post for the last couple of days and realizing right away the effects locally will be detrimental to my caching.i would like the cache approvers to reconsider a bogus cord nogo..if the hider gave the approver the exact cords to be x-referanced(to protect the 1st cache in the said area)..i beleive this rule was created to lesson the local impact around caches...which i am for(because i have seen some which are placed in areas which dont stand up well to heavy traffic)as well as one of the original reasons to place a cache,view,history,or other reasons to share a site with our caching buddies.

on the other hand if bogus cords are no longer allowed then how are we going to continue to challenge our minds(and make errors on paper or putor) when the values of the error will be so small as to allow us to find the cache regardless as to whether or not we did the calculations or proceedures correctly.

recently the caches in my area have gotten very complex as well as challenging, all to arrive at the same goal,making a find,discovering new area's and meeting differant people.

perhaps a seperate page per/state/province which allows bogus cords only.that way users would have to work at them on their own rather than having them show on a nearest list.

still respecting the 1/10 mile......which would appear to be the biggest set back at this time...

THANX FOR A GREAT SITE AND A GREAT TIME........Gg

Link to comment

I wouldn't consider .1 mile seperation a set back. I was recently scoping out an area and ended up standing in one place and being able to see the other two places I had previously scoped out! All had the .1 mile seperation and a different challenge in the hide. .1 mile seperation is plenty, IMHO.

 

I'm starting to see more and more places to hide caches!

 

CR

 

72057_2000.gif

Link to comment

Great site. Thanks for the great memories.

 

There will be more S-T-R-E-T-C-H-I-N-G in times to come.

 

The biggest issue for me is that I feel that the database should be opened up more to allow a more refined experience.

 

I for one, am willing to pay a few extra $$$ to get more options on this site.

 

It seems to really boil down to the database search engine, which if it allowed for a few more user controlled options, would alleviate the entire problem...

 

canadazuuk

Link to comment

quote:
Originally posted by Goldguru:

after reading this post for the last couple of days and realizing right away the effects locally will be detrimental to my caching.i would like the cache approvers to reconsider a bogus cord nogo.


 

Are you on crack or something? Could you point out a post from this thread where anybody said that bogus coordinates would not be allowed?

 

It really doesn't help the conversation move along when you don't read the thread to which you are responding.

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Followers 0
×
×
  • Create New...