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

[Curious George]

Fizzy

 

There is no need to be rude to other cachers - not all of the info pertaining to the current situation is available in the forum postings. There have been a lot of communications between the local cachers on this issue. There have also been a number of communications directly between Admin and the Team to which we are not privy.

 

If you were to study some of the Teams caches, such as this one We are the Champions you would realize that by posting co-ordinates which are within one mile of the final cache location(s) a lot of the challenge would be taken out of the hunt.

 

Please take the time to plot the positions and you will understand what I mean. This cache actually consisted of 5 caches requring the collection of clues which covered and area of several hundred miles. If we knew the general area of the final cache up front it would have been a whole different experience.

[+eroyd]

Geeze Fizzymagic. You'd fit right in up here. Have you been drinking our bottled water?

[+Loonie Easter Bunnies]

This forum topic originally asked for comments on the ramifications of placing some restrictions on approval of bogus coordinates. Here is a point of view that hasn't been expressed yet.

 

I am a non-ambitious geocacher who has got a great deal of enjoyment out of caching for almost a year now. When I first heard about it and went on to geocaching.com to check it out, I got hooked on this web site the very first time. If the area where I live had been dominated by dozens of "ignore coordinates and start calculating complex navigation problems" caches that are not located anywhere near where they are posted, as is now the case, I might never have come back to the site a second time or even own a gps unit.

 

I should add, though, that this situation seems to be resolving itself, as the caching team who place these caches are very responsive to the concerns of other users.

 

PS: If interested in seeing what my experience is, please add all but five of "The Mystery Cachers" found caches as well as their hidden ones to those listed for Loonie Easter Bunnies (still comes out way less than 100) - thank-you.~

 

[This message was edited by Loonie Easter Bunnies on February 04, 2003 at 08:09 PM.]

[+Loonie Easter Bunnies]

Since the original question on this forum topic mentioned ramifications, here is a point that no-one else has brought up.

 

I am a non-ambitious geocacher who has got a great deal of enjoyment out of caching for almost a year now. When I first heard about it and went on to geocaching.com to check it out, I got hooked on this web site the very first time. If I had found dozens and dozens of "ignore coordinates and start calculating complex navigation problems" caches that are not located anywhere near where they are posted, completely dominating the area near where I live as is now the case, I probably never would have come back to the site a second time and would not own a gps unit.

 

PS: If interested in seeing what my experience is, please add all but five of "The Mystery Cachers" found caches as well as their hidden ones to those listed for Loonie Easter Bunnies (still comes out to less than 100) á - thank-you.

[+canadazuuk]

I am dreading now that I ever introduced 'fuzzy logic' to the flat world beyond caching... whilst it is true that it was ME who *flooded* the forums with topics related to TEAM KFWB GPS caches, it turns out that CALIFORNIA has one already, and more pending... so I really think we should just switch from 'FM' to 'AM', and dial in another station, rather than prolong this agonizing and dreary off topic debate...

 

DEAR TEAM- make your caches subscriber only so only those that want to read them can. $3.00 USD per month is all it takes for someone to subscribe. PLUS- YOU'LL BE ABLE TO SEE WHO HAS VIEWED YOUR CACHES, AND HOW MANY TIMES.

 

DEAR GEO.CACHING.COM- who really knows what is or isn't exactly going on here, but obviously, you are faced with some challenges, and might I say ***OPPORTUNITIES***.

 

I am going to freak out again if this keeps on going in circles.

 

canadazuuk

 

[This message was edited by canadazuuk on February 04, 2003 at 06:55 AM.]

[+Loonie Easter Bunnies]

Oops - see below (accidentally posted twice).é

 

[This message was edited by Loonie Easter Bunnies on February 03, 2003 at 11:12 PM.]

[+Loonie Easter Bunnies]

Oops - see below (accidentally posted twice).

 

[This message was edited by Loonie Easter Bunnies on February 04, 2003 at 10:56 AM.]

[+Loonie Easter Bunnies]

My suggestions apply to a situation in Victoria BC Canada where about 100 caches have been placed by a single geocacher team in about four months, many of which are "Ignore coordinates" caches actually located many kilometers away from where the coordinates are posted. Some of what I'm suggesting is already being done, but might be useful in other situations as well.

 

1) If the cache is out on the logging roads by Jordan River or between Port Renfrew and Shawnigan, place the bogus coordinates out there. If the cache is on Saturna Island, place the bogus coordinates there. If the cache is on Christmas Hill or other park in town, place the bogus coordinates within the same park. The closer the cache is to a heavily populated area, the nearer the coordinates should be to the cache's actual location.

 

2) If the first suggestion gives away more than the hider would like, then find a particular remote location where they can all be posted--somewhere out in the clearcuts away from where anyone else would want to put a cache (but in the same part of the world), or a little ways out in the strait, are two suggestions that have been made.

 

3) If it's a multicache and you need to actually go to the first location rather than just mapping or calculating it, then it seems fair enough to post the cache at that location even if the final cache ends up elsewhere. (This of course wouldn't come under the category of "bogus coordinates".)

 

4) To me it would seem fair enough for a hider of many caches to have a single "information cache" posted in town to attract new cachers who don't already know how to find all these cache pages.Û

[+Loonie Easter Bunnies]

My suggestions stem from a situation in Victoria BC Canada where about 70 or 80 caches were posted by a single geocacher team in a three- or four-month period, many of which were "ignore coordinates" caches actually located many kilometers away from where the coordinates are posted. Some of what I'm suggesting is now being done here, but might be useful in other situations as well.

 

1) If the cache is out on the logging roads by Jordan River or between Port Renfrew and Shawnigan, place the bogus coordinates out there. If the cache is on Saturna Island, place the bogus coordinates there. If the cache is on Christmas Hill or other park in town, place the bogus coordinates within the same park. The closer the cache is to a heavily populated area, the nearer the coordinates should be to the cache's actual location.

 

2) If the first suggestion gives away more than the hider would like, then find a particular remote location where they can all be posted. Somewhere out in the clearcuts away from where anyone else would want to put a cache (but in the same part of the world), or a little ways out in the strait, are two suggestions that have been made.

 

3) If it's a multicache and you need to actually go to the first location rather than just mapping or calculating it, then it seems fair enough to post the cache at that location even if the final cache ends up elsewhere. (This of course wouldn't come under the category of "bogus coordinates".)

 

4) To me it would seem fair enough for a hider of many caches to have a single "information cache" posted in town to attract new cachers who don't already know how to find all these cache pages.

 

[This message was edited by Loonie Easter Bunnies on February 04, 2003 at 10:55 AM.]

[+Zartimus]

I'm glad you posted this thread Erik. There are many offshoot problems with TB's and un-doable caches in people's 100m radiuses, etc..

 

I first learned of this new wrinkle when you were approving a new cache of mine which has bogus coords 10 miles away. When I choose bogus coords they are chosen for a reason and I have no problem sharing them with the appover. Hopefully as before the common sense of the approvers should entail that this will not affect me in a negative way.

 

I think we have too many rules already. If a rule turns more people off than it does people good, get rid of it. Or modify the site as people have suggested to placate both parties, and fix problems by using ignore lists, or hidden REAL co-ords for offset caches for TB's.

 

Also the idea about the new cache types "Puzzle" etc. is a suggestion that should have been implemented long ago.

 

Hopefully the Rock and Roll version 2 of the site will have it!

 

Cheers!

[+Team Spoonhead]

I posted a virtual location type cache (Google cache) with bogus coordinates within 10 miles so that potential cachers would have an idea how far they would have to travel to solve it. After all, if I know the bogus coords are 50 miles from where I live then the cache itself is at least 40 miles and I would have to decide it this is too far. Ten miles seems reasonable. Any closer would give away the final location and the entire cache could be done on a home computer.