This Really Gets Me

December 14, 2005

As some of you know many of my caches are supposed to be challenging to get to and some to find. I just got an interesting log on one of my caches today and it left me thinking, first let me share the log:

XXX and YYYY dragged me around a big loop finding caches. YYYY had spent many hours solving the puzzle. I did some work on the translation, but when YYYY said he had the solution, I went along for the ride. I hate to whine, but these, somewhat dated, hides are very difficult to find now. Lots of vegetation now guards the location of this cache. It has been a year and two days since the last find. We had to break young trees and limbs to get close enough to grab the cache. Thanks for the adventure Trogdor.

A couple of things:

First by this cacher’s own admission he did not solve the puzzle so why shouldn’t I delete the log??

Secondly, this bit about breaking down young trees to get at a cache really disturbs me. The cache was placed fairly soon after a large fire and there has been a lot of re-growth, is this cacher suggesting that I should be responsible to maintain a “Geo-trail” to the cache?

I have never met this person, but from what I’ve seen he is a fairly well respected cacher. However the attitude projected (its all about logging the find and screw the solving the puzzle and the habitat) in his log makes me mad enough that I’m thinking seriously of giving up and pulling all of my caches to prevent this from occurring again.

38.2k · December 14, 2005

He apparently helped with the puzzle, found the cache and signed the logobook, so I see no reason to delete the log. Its a legit find.

Regarding the trees, have you been to the site recenly? Perhaps the growth was so thick there was no way to reach it without breaking a few branches.

5.3k · December 14, 2005

I looked up your cache, 1st I would not have disabled it and I would not even think about removing the caches by some one who admits to destroying new groth threes, IMO this person is a digrace to geocaching, and posting such a log show the he/she is not the brightest bulb on the christmass tree. Just because someone has a little over 1,700 finds it does not mean they know what they are talking about. In there log they mentioned they did not figure out the puzzle so unless they were ridding on some one shirth tales thet would have not put the efort ito finding there cache.

I would delete there log and send them an e-mail telling them that someone that admits to the destruction of the flora to find a cache may want to find some other way to spend their time.

This is the type of clown that can only do harm the geocaching community.

I also did a search usig your cache coordinates and daw that there are 7,758 for people to find in the area. Being your cache is rated a four for Difficulty it is not surprising to see that there can be long periods of time with no finds listed.

I have one cache that requires about a 3 mile round trip hike to find and only gets loged about onse or twice a year, but like your cache there are many many cache to find in the area that require a very short hike or no real hike to find.

December 14, 2005

Well, overlooking the whole tree issue, I don't see why you would delete the find. He signed the logbook, right?

Its a puzzle cache....does it matter how he solved it? If someone manages to use a different method to solve one of my puzzle caches, more power to them, as long as they actually find the cache and sign the logbook its a Find.

December 14, 2005

Trogdor the Burninator,

I feel your pain. I had a similar experience that left me frustrated and ready to pull the cache because a finder did some damage to the area (and wrote about it in the log). I emailed the cacher, fixed some of the damage, read a bunch of happy "found it, love this place" logs, and I feel much better.

If your cache doesn't have many visits, the cumulative damage might not be all that great, right? I think that most cachers are pretty responsible.

Good luck and thanks for hiding!

Edited to add- Go with what you like on deleting the log. I stumbled on a puzzle cache while doing trail maintenance, and the whole crew signed the paper log.

Edited December 14, 2005 by Map Only

December 14, 2005

I was the most notorious puzzle cache hider in Austin for a few years while I lived and cached there. I made some puzzles so hard they hurt my head to think about, even now. I put one guy in the hospital with a headache so bad, to this day he is still on meds, walking around mumbling "Voin Itch, Voin Itch, Voin Itch," or some such unintelligible syllables.

It really chapped my hide when someone who didn't work at the puzzle at all would just tag along with someone who spent weeks and a bottle of Advil solving the puzzle. When I brought up the issue here in the forums, the concensus was always "if they signed the log, it's a find."

I agree with that philosophy. What if the guy had been just out hiking and stumbled on the cache? Does the fact that it's listed as a puzzle cache mean he doesn't get a smiley? He found it. However he found it, he signed the log. Unfortunately this also means if he looked up the puzzle coords on a cheater website, he also gets a find.

As for breaking trees, I'm not a tree hugger by any means, but there's usually always a better way besides "scorching the earth" to find the cache. If nothing else, it shows muggles where the cache is.

I'd say his log stays but would I want to go caching with this individual?

Probably not.

5.7k · December 14, 2005

I looked up your cache, 1st I would not have disabled it and I would not even think about removing the caches by some one who admits to destroying new groth threes, IMO this person is a digrace to geocaching, and posting such a log show the he/she is not the brightest bulb on the christmass tree. Just because someone has a little over 1,700 finds it does not mean they know what they are talking about. In there log they mentioned they did not figure out the puzzle so unless they were ridding on some one shirth tales thet would have not put the efort ito finding there cache.

I would delete there log and send them an e-mail telling them that someone that admits to the destruction of the flora to find a cache may want to find some other way to spend their time.

This is the type of clown that can only do harm the geocaching community.

I also did a search usig your cache coordinates and daw that there are 7,758 for people to find in the area. Being your cache is rated a four for Difficulty it is not surprising to see that there can be long periods of time with no finds listed.

I have one cache that requires about a 3 mile round trip hike to find and only gets loged about onse or twice a year, but like your cache there are many many cache to find in the area that require a very short hike or no real hike to find.

That sounds like a pretty rational recommendation up until you take into account that it might have been necessary to 'remove' a few intrussive pieces of nature's growth for the sake of getting to ground zero. Achieving that objective, in most instances, trumps all other considerations. Usually nature will recover such slight 'damage' within a year or two any way. No harm, no foul.......eh?

1.8k · December 14, 2005

by some one who admits to destroying new groth threes, IMO this person is a digrace to geocaching

I have to agree ... anyone who destroys numbers is an enemy to geocaching. :wacko:

December 14, 2005

I'm going to agree with briansnat--

This guy found the cache and likely signed the logbook. So what if he didn't solve the puzzle--does every person in a group have to solve it for their finds to be valid? What if Team X and Y search a cache. X solved the puzzle, but Y found the cache--who gets to log it? If I go caching with my brother in law, the first one to find the cache pulls it out and we sign the log and log online each.

Sure, you can commit geo-cide and pull up all your caches and archive them all because someone broke a few branches on the way to a cache--that you ADMIT has likely gone through great changes in vegetation in the last few years. Sounds to me like you need to make a maintenance run on this cache and examine whether it is even feasable to reach it without damaging surrounding foliage, and if not, relocate it.

This brings up another question...you admit to placing this cache AFTER a large fire--did you or did you not realize this area would be environmentally sensitive after a fire? When was the last time you checked on it? Isn't that part of cache ownership, periodically checking up on the cache to make sure it's still there and not causing--or potentially causing--any damage to the environment?

Edit to add...from the cache listing REQUIREMENTS/GUIDELINES:

As the cache owner, you are also responsible for physically checking your cache periodically, and especially when someone reports a problem with the cache (missing, damaged, wet, etc.)

Just in case it's not clear yet, I personally find very little fault with the cacher who admitted to having to break a few small branches to get to the cache. Guess what? Animals do it all the time, either on the way to food, or actually EATING the vegetation. Now, if they log said "had to pull out my machete and bushwhack a path to the cache" that would be different.

Those that want to crucify this guy for slightly damaging a few trees...do you also walk backwards out from a cache and loosen the soil you've compacted on the walk in?

Edited December 14, 2005 by dkwolf

9.4k · December 14, 2005

It doesn't matter if you solved the puzzle correctly or not, if you found the cache you get to claim the find. What would you do if a muggle had stumbled across it and logged a find? Delete it and turn them off to geocaching? Sheesh.

December 14, 2005

He apparently helped with the puzzle, found the cache and signed the logobook, so I see no reason to delete the log. Its a legit find.

Regarding the trees, have you been to the site recenly? Perhaps the growth was so thick there was no way to reach it without breaking a few branches.

So then in your mind, if you can't find a way to get to a cache without bulldozing your way to the cache it makes it ok to distroy new re-growth? So the local fauna suffers due to your lack of patience and resoucefullness to find a way around/through?

This sort of thinking is exactly why I'm thinking of pulling my caches, I know how I think my caches should be approached, I wouldn't want my caches to cause damage due to how others approach them.

As far as being able to log the find due to his shirt-tailing his buddy. The listing of the cache specifically requires that the cacher e-mails me with the correct answer to the puzzle. This was not done by this cacher, only by his buddy.

8k · December 14, 2005

I think you should lighten up. The group that found your cache often cache together. As with many groups, often one will solve the puzzle and the others go along for the find. I have no objections to groups finding my puzzles this way.

Second, there has been a lot of growth in the area, especially with all the rains last winter. The cache had not been found in over a year. The log simply states that in order to reach the cache they had to break some young twigs. I hope they rehid the cache to make it more assessible. When I looked a year and half ago I DNF it. After talking with other cachers that found it it was probably because it was already far under the bush then. These hiking caches are difficult to maintain, not because they get muggled but because over time the terrain and vegitation can change.

If you want to commit geocide and pull all your caches, go ahead. I'll be disappointed because I was planning to get back to Las Llejas in the next few weeks to find the caches I missed a year and half ago.

Edited December 14, 2005 by tozainamboku

18.9k · December 14, 2005

I just can't solve puzzles. Part genetic I think. Crossword Puzzles scare me. Maybe it is just a mental block.......but digress.

The 1 puzzle cache I found was solved by my wife. But we go caching together - just the way it is. I don't feel bad about logging it.

22k · December 14, 2005

So then in your mind, if you can't find a way to get to a cache without bulldozing your way to the cache it makes it ok to distroy new re-growth? So the local fauna suffers due to your lack of patience and resoucefullness to find a way around/through?

Well, it seems the guy wants to complain (it is the angst season ya know) so I would check out the site before I assumed he ripped trees out by their roots.

When we complain we tend to exaggerate the impact of our issues. For all we know he had to move some braches out of the way and some dead branches broke off.

He just trying to blame someone for his bad attitude. Just happened to be you this time.

1.3k · December 14, 2005

He found the cache, the log should stand. As for the comments about having to break a few trees to get there, I believe he was just reporting what he encountered at the cache site. He could have been a little more tactful about it, but if the overgrowth has gotten too thick, maybe it's time to move/remove the cache.

24.7k · December 14, 2005

I agree with the B's BlueDeuce and Briansnat.

They solved your puzzle as proved by the fact that they signed the log. Yeah, not how you intended but hey, we seldome cache alone. In my group I'm the one who gets stuck solving the puzzles and doing the math. That's reality.

We also do exxagerate our impact. I don't hike to the cache, I bushwack. A scratch is leaving blood behind. A single leaf of poison ivy is a forest. It's not a skiff of snow barely hiding the cache it's burried and I needed snowshoes...Oh and I doubt he was dragged, I'll bet he came willingly and just liked griping about it.

Yes the guy is a grumpus in his log. It takes all kinds and we all have bad days.

December 14, 2005

I would suggest emailing the person who posted the log, and asking him the conditions of the cache, if you don't feel like going out there yourself. Maybe he did exagerate a little, we all have at some point. A friendly little email may be better than deleting it without contact. If you still don't like what they have to say, then simply ask them to edit the parts you don't like out of the log.

As far as not actually being the one to "solve" the puzzle...I agree with the others...if they signed it...it is a find. We have 6 people in our team...I don't expect all 6 of us to solve a puzzle in order for us to be able to find it. I would be glad that cachers got together and found one of my caches...that is one of the best part of caching IMO...the fact that it gets people together...in the outdoors...enjoying my cache, as well as each others company!

December 14, 2005

He apparently helped with the puzzle, found the cache and signed the logobook, so I see no reason to delete the log. Its a legit find.

Regarding the trees, have you been to the site recenly? Perhaps the growth was so thick there was no way to reach it without breaking a few branches.

So then in your mind, if you can't find a way to get to a cache without bulldozing your way to the cache it makes it ok to distroy new re-growth? So the local fauna suffers due to your lack of patience and resoucefullness to find a way around/through?

This sort of thinking is exactly why I'm thinking of pulling my caches, I know how I think my caches should be approached, I wouldn't want my caches to cause damage due to how others approach them.

As far as being able to log the find due to his shirt-tailing his buddy. The listing of the cache specifically requires that the cacher e-mails me with the correct answer to the puzzle. This was not done by this cacher, only by his buddy.

I think a good piece of information to know in this argument is when is the last time YOU were physically AT THE ACTUAL CACHE SITE. You know how you intended it to be approached when you placed it; has the re-growth made that impossible without *gasp* breaking a few twigs?

And as for the 'codeword' part of your cache, he did help with the translation, but even if he didn't, he found the cache didn't he? Or do they have to follow your rules EXACTLY as you state them? Little bit of a power trip, huh? Maybe I'll make an urban cache with a logging requirement of wearing a pink tutu while singing "I'm a little teapot" and juggling malibu stacey dolls and delete any log where a cacher cannot definitively prove he/she did as such. Or maybe I'll just play the game. Lighten up man.

3.5k · December 14, 2005

He apparently helped with the puzzle, found the cache and signed the logobook, so I see no reason to delete the log. Its a legit find.

Regarding the trees, have you been to the site recenly? Perhaps the growth was so thick there was no way to reach it without breaking a few branches.

So then in your mind, if you can't find a way to get to a cache without bulldozing your way to the cache it makes it ok to distroy new re-growth? So the local fauna suffers due to your lack of patience and resoucefullness to find a way around/through?

This sort of thinking is exactly why I'm thinking of pulling my caches, I know how I think my caches should be approached, I wouldn't want my caches to cause damage due to how others approach them.

As far as being able to log the find due to his shirt-tailing his buddy. The listing of the cache specifically requires that the cacher e-mails me with the correct answer to the puzzle. This was not done by this cacher, only by his buddy.

"Bulldozing" is kind of harsh compared to the wording in the actual log, don't you think?

Slightly off topic, but I"m confused here. If your puzzle doesn't give people the final coordinates to the cache, what does it give them?

Bret

3.9k · December 14, 2005

It really chapped my hide when someone who didn't work at the puzzle at all would just tag along with someone who spent weeks and a bottle of Advil solving the puzzle.

That would seem to be purely a matter between Lazy Guy and Advil Man.

8k · December 14, 2005

In Trogdor!'s defense - this puzzle is very fun to solve. I don't want to give anything away, but I can see why he wants everyone to solve it. I hope that person who solved the puzzle shared the experience of how he got the solution with the others in the team.

In defense of the logger. This group of cachers are known for their volunteer work maintaining the trails in the Santa Monica Mountains Recreation Area. I suspect that they are all Sierra Club members. I don't believe they would do unneccessary harm to the enviroment. They probably cut down a lot of new growth when they are maintaining the trails. I believe the log was stating that the cache may have been harder to find than when it was originally hidden because of all the new growth and that some tree limbs may had to be broken to reach the cache. It did not seem to me to be a criticism of the cache owner.

December 14, 2005

Put me on the side of "not a problem".

Keep the log.

Check up on your cache to determine the extent of the overgrowth.

Calm down.

This is much ado about nothing. If people don't do your cache the way you expected them to, so what? I've got a cache with a recommended hiking route that is rather strenuous. One of the first finders described how he drove up a different way and had an easy .1 mile amble to the cache. Delete his log? Of course not! He used his ingenuity to reduce the necessary effort. Signed the log, got his smilie. End of discussion.

If a few branches were cut away because the foliage has "exploded" as the area recovers from a fire, so what? After a year of not-founds I can easily see how the brush could have overwhelmed the cache site and forced the finders to clear a way in. How else would they get to the cache container? Do you need to maintain a path to your cache? No, but it seems then that you should expect some aggressive bushwacking to occur if you don't keep the cache in an accessible condition. And I'd take a look at the site before jumping to conclusions about the extent of the damage. Here in CT there was a small brouhaha about "destroyed stone walls" near a cache. People got upset and accusations were made. Then somebody posted pictures - oops! just a couple of rocks out of place, stone wall looks fine.

Relax.

December 14, 2005

Maybe I'll make an urban cache with a logging requirement of wearing a pink tutu while singing "I'm a little teapot" and juggling malibu stacey dolls

<sigh>

Could you at least allow for pink longjohns? I get tired of going out in my tutu in this winter weather. :wacko:

7.2k · December 14, 2005

Unfortunately this also means if he looked up the puzzle coords on a cheater website, he also gets a find.

Negative.

Anyone who admits cheating on any of our caches in such a fashion will forever be barred from logging that cache.

It's one thing to tag along, to stumble upon, be part of a team, get a life-line hint, or myriad of other ways, but to flat out cheat in this manner will not stand. Period. The line has been drawn. End of story.

9.5k · December 14, 2005

Achieving that objective, in most instances, trumps all other considerations. Usually nature will recover such slight 'damage' within a year or two any way. No harm, no foul.......eh?

That's the kind of thinking that jerks the wrong strings on Land Managers. You get enough people out there doing that and you'll have a whole lot more than a state or two considering banning geocaching from their parks.

We should be advocating treading lightly as well as leave no trace to minimize damage as much as possible and not go "oh well, it'll be back in a couple of years..."

9.1k · December 14, 2005

Well, it seems the guy wants to complain (it is the angst season ya know) so I would check out the site before I assumed he ripped trees out by their roots.

When we complain we tend to exaggerate the impact of our issues. For all we know he had to move some braches out of the way and some dead branches broke off.

Of all the statements in the thread, this is the one with which I agree most strongly. We are all speculating to some extent about what the actual conditions were.

I've broken down some brush to access a cache; probably everyone has if they've ventured past the parking lots to find caches out in the woods. I try to do so in the least intrusive manner possible. Going *around* the obstacle is in my best interest as well as the best interests of the thorn bush. :wacko: But sometimes it cannot be avoided.

I've placed some caches in the springtime at innocent-looking spots, then gone back to check on them in July after reading complaints in the logs about an evil trek through a thicket of thorns and poison ivy. Visiting the site to monitor for changed conditions and any effects which my cache might be having on the environment, I've been shocked to see the changes made by Mother Nature -- not geocachers -- in the landscape at ground zero. I've DNF'd my own caches twice, and had great difficulty finding them on a good handful of occasions. In some cases I've boosted the difficulty rating; in others, I've moved the cache to a friendlier spot a short distance away from the clump of jungle I had selected in March.

I rely on the logs and e-mails from finders to know when I need to perform cache maintenance. From visiting my cache sites at various times of the year, I've come to appreciate the changes that naturally occur.

I would not be troubled by anything in this log until I saw pictures or visited the site myself. I'd be curious to know the date of the owner's last visit to this cache. I visit each of my caches once or twice a year even if they're ammo boxes 2 miles down the trail with no reported issues, and others far more frequently.

Edited December 14, 2005 by The Leprechauns

December 14, 2005

quietly sheathing my machete and walking to the back of the room... :wacko:

December 14, 2005

I think that if you are worried about damaging such a fragile area, you would not put a cache there in the first place.

December 14, 2005

I was last at the cache 2 months ago. I specifically did not blaze a trail to the cache as it would take muggglers straight to the cache.

After reading your responses, I now formed the opinion that it’s my cache, and if I decide to delete this guys log so be it. If he doesn't like it, he doesn't have to tag along with his bud to any more of my caches.

I've also decided that I will enable the cache until his bud logs the find, delete his log and then remove the cache today so it won't be a problem.

Thanks for the input both positive and negative.

9.1k · December 14, 2005

I was last at the cache 2 months ago. I specifically did not blaze a trail to the cache as it would take muggglers straight to the cache.

Thank you for being a conscientious cache maintainer. (I am being sincere.)

Like you said, it's your cache. Others are free to reach different decisions for their caches.

2.1k · December 14, 2005

I think you should pack it in, quit the sport, take your caches, and go home. If you do choose to stay, any future hides you make should be on pavement.

That will solve all of your dilemmas and allow other people to hide caches in your area. Hopefully these new people will bring more realistic expectations for how a few hundred other people might choose to find their caches.

Of course, I'm all about improving the sport and not about coddling you when a cacher's log rubs you the wrong way...so take my suggestions with a grain of salt since you came here for a back-patting rah-rah session instead of good advice.

December 14, 2005

In Norway there is another problem regarding overgrowth. As the number of small farms deminish, more and more areas of cultivated fields are overgrown. And this happens fast. After two to three years the area may be fully overgrown. Not good that eigther.

My 2cents. :wacko:

December 14, 2005

I specifically did not blaze a trail to the cache as it would take muggglers straight to the cache.

Wouldn't that create more damage to the local flora and fauna, you know by not taking an established trail? :wacko:

Edited December 14, 2005 by Homestar Runner

9.4k · December 14, 2005

I specifically did not blaze a trail to the cache as it would take muggglers straight to the cache.

Wouldn't that create more damage to the local flora and fauna?

Quite the opposite. Repeated traffic along a path can cause permanent damage (ruts, erosion, etc), while random approaches do not (as much).

3.9k · December 14, 2005

I was last at the cache 2 months ago. I specifically did not blaze a trail to the cache as it would take muggglers straight to the cache.

After reading your responses, I now formed the opinion that it’s my cache, and if I decide to delete this guys log so be it. If he doesn't like it, he doesn't have to tag along with his bud to any more of my caches.

I've also decided that I will enable the cache until his bud logs the find, delete his log and then remove the cache today so it won't be a problem.

Thanks for the input both positive and negative.

It sounds like the guy was a bit grumpy because his buddies woke him up too early.

1.5k · December 14, 2005

I just hiked over there and the tree looks ok... at least from where I sit.

December 14, 2005

After reading your responses, I now formed the opinion that it’s my cache, and if I decide to delete this guys log so be it. If he doesn't like it, he doesn't have to tag along with his bud to any more of my caches.

I've also decided that I will enable the cache until his bud logs the find, delete his log and then remove the cache today so it won't be a problem.

Yes, please take your marbles and go home. How blessedly free we all are to do that very thing in this activity. I too wish every 'find' of my caches was arrived at independently. Toward that end, I only count group finders as 1 in my own personal accounting. As for damage to the environs, by all means it is your obligation to remove or recommend archiving any cache therein resulting. However, blame not the seeker for causing the damage, blame the hider for not anticipating and thereby preventing it.

December 14, 2005

This cache was designed for all those who had ever worked on solving Judge Crater caches, including the Judge himself. For someone to "shirt tail in" and log a find with out solving the puzzle and traveling the path of the puzzle is an insult.

As far as my opinion on puzzle caches, I think that only those of you who have actually taken the simple but mulitple steps required to solve the puzzle should speak out as to who should or shouldn't get to log it. The rest of you are free to log as many other peoples puzzle caches you stumble upon.

I just got back from pulling the cache container. There was little to no bush-wacking required, and was no reason to be breaking any limbs or small trees. There was a pretty good Geo-trail going around the tree, and a very poor job of re-hiding the container! Complaining about the condition of a cache because no one had found it in along time is absurd and insulting. Most of my caches are not supposed to be found by everyone.

I will keep my Judge Trogdor cache enabled until YYY logs his find (if he chooses to as he was the only one from this group to supply the answer). I have deleted logs of those who did not solve the puzzle.

22k · December 14, 2005

There was little to no bush-wacking required, and was no reason to be breaking any limbs or small trees.

Then that's a good reason just to ignore the whole thing and let people enjoy finding your cache. Ya can't please everyone.

Just between you and me, so what if he logged your cache? It's easier to let him make the claim and never deal with it again.

3.5k · December 14, 2005

Wait...it's enabled....but you pulled the container?

If the container is gone you should go ahead and disable it. It can still be logged if it's disabled.

I have one puzzle cache that's particularly puzzling. Those who have come by the answer honestly have (for the most part) put in hours upon hours of work and feel the reward for their labor. Yes, there have been others who have simply "ridden in on their coattails" as the expression goes, but ultimately, if the person who really solved the puzzle let them....well...who's to blame? And if the person who put the hours and hours of work into the solving the puzzle doesn't mind the "coattail riders", why should I?

Been there...done that...didn't delete the log.

Bret

Edited December 14, 2005 by CYBret

4.8k · December 14, 2005

I would have checked the cache and left it in place if there were no issues about difficulty getting it or damage to the area. I would not have deleted logs and would have just ignored that stuff. Some people are grumpy, it happens. I prefer to ignore them rather than get all worked up myself. I tend to see such things as not worth starting a battle over.

December 14, 2005

Well, ultimately its up to you to decide what counts as a find on your cache. So if you say its not a find, its not a find.

I have a similar tale on one of my caches. A find got logged, and that log basically said that they found it while out off-roading with another cacher that had previously solved the puzzle and found the cache. Basically, he was chauffered to the cache, never having even attempting the puzzle.

Now, my first reaction was "That Cheater! I'll delete both their finds!", but before I did, I stopped and thought about it. What good would that do? He did find the cache and sign the log, he just found an alterntive method. If I deleted his find, it would surely cause a rift between me and a fellow cacher (or a bunch of fellow cachers, thats how these things ofter play out). In the end I decided to let the find stand, and I'm glad I did, expecially since one of those cachers is now a forum mod :wacko:

December 14, 2005

I will keep my Judge Trogdor cache enabled until YYY logs his find (if he chooses to as he was the only one from this group to supply the answer). I have deleted logs of those who did not solve the puzzle.

I didn't think the "I'll email you the coordinates" type of puzzle was even approvable anymore anyway.

My interpretation of the puzzle cache submission guidelines

is that the coordinates had to be determinable from the information provided on the cache page -- not at the whim of someone emailing them after the fact.

9.1k · December 14, 2005

I didn't think the "I'll email you the coordinates" type of puzzle was even approvable anymore anyway.

My interpretation of the puzzle cache submission guidelines

is that the coordinates had to be determinable from the information provided on the cache page -- not at the whim of someone emailing them after the fact.

If you read the logs, the puzzle provides information helpful for the original location of the cache. But then that hiding spot was damaged by Mother Nature, so the owner moved the container to a new spot. Rather than re-doing the puzzle, the owner asked for finders to e-mail the answer to the puzzle in order to receive the coordinates for the new location.

So, that was all added after the review process, if I'm reading the history correctly. (Note: I did not attempt to solve the puzzle.)

December 14, 2005

Wait...it's enabled....but you pulled the container?

If the container is gone you should go ahead and disable it. It can still be logged if it's disabled.

I didn't know that.

I just wanted to give the one who had solved the puzzle and taken the trip down the path solving it took you on, to have the chance to log it.

If indeed what you say is true than I will disable it.

December 14, 2005

I didn't think the "I'll email you the coordinates" type of puzzle was even approvable anymore anyway.

My interpretation of the puzzle cache submission guidelines

is that the coordinates had to be determinable from the information provided on the cache page -- not at the whim of someone emailing them after the fact.

If you read the logs, the puzzle provides information helpful for the original location of the cache. But then that hiding spot was damaged by Mother Nature, so the owner moved the container to a new spot. Rather than re-doing the puzzle, the owner asked for finders to e-mail the answer to the puzzle in order to receive the coordinates for the new location.

So, that was all added after the review process, if I'm reading the history correctly. (Note: I did not attempt to solve the puzzle.)

Yes, you actually read and interpreted what happened accurately.

The Cow seemed to have skimmed over and did not fully understand the history before mooing about whims.

2.1k · December 14, 2005

I didn't think the "I'll email you the coordinates" type of puzzle was even approvable anymore anyway.

My interpretation of the puzzle cache submission guidelines

is that the coordinates had to be determinable from the information provided on the cache page -- not at the whim of someone emailing them after the fact.

If you read the logs, the puzzle provides information helpful for the original location of the cache. But then that hiding spot was damaged by Mother Nature, so the owner moved the container to a new spot. Rather than re-doing the puzzle, the owner asked for finders to e-mail the answer to the puzzle in order to receive the coordinates for the new location.

So, that was all added after the review process, if I'm reading the history correctly. (Note: I did not attempt to solve the puzzle.)

Yes, you actually read and interpreted what happened accurately.

The Cow seemed to have skimmed over and did not fully understand the history before mooing about whims.

Well then, your cache should have been archived a while ago then from the sounds of it.

You can't alter the location post-approval by doing an end-around on the process with e-mails of the correct coordinates. If that were the case, then why don't I go hide a "Not Buried at the RR Tracks" cache in a nearby park and then wait a while to move it to a hole 6 ft under the rails...you know, cuz the original good spot was compromised. Then I could have people e-mail me the original puzzle coordinates to send them to the RR tracks to dig.

Sorry your cache had problems, but you should feel lucky it's lasted as long as it has given your lack of attention for the site guidelines here.

Seriously, pack it up, archive it, put out a new one...but realize that the only exacting control you have over the activity of cachers seeking your cache is to place it or not.

December 14, 2005

I didn't think the "I'll email you the coordinates" type of puzzle was even approvable anymore anyway.

My interpretation of the puzzle cache submission guidelines

is that the coordinates had to be determinable from the information provided on the cache page -- not at the whim of someone emailing them after the fact.

If you read the logs, the puzzle provides information helpful for the original location of the cache. But then that hiding spot was damaged by Mother Nature, so the owner moved the container to a new spot. Rather than re-doing the puzzle, the owner asked for finders to e-mail the answer to the puzzle in order to receive the coordinates for the new location.

So, that was all added after the review process, if I'm reading the history correctly. (Note: I did not attempt to solve the puzzle.)

Yes, you actually read and interpreted what happened accurately.

The Cow seemed to have skimmed over and did not fully understand the history before mooing about whims.

An alternative would have been to provide offsets to the new location from the old solution, providing cachers with a way to get the coordinates without your input. Not having solved the puzzle, I don't know whether this is feasible, and back in 2004, the rules about emailing the coords weren't in place.

Thanks for the suggestion to more fully read your cache page. It seems you narrowly were able to provide the coordinates in a timely fashion once already. (3/27/2004 log -- after waiting a day, they went for it anyway, and luckily [for them] you SMS'd them the coordinates 4 miles into a 12 mile hike.)

I wasn't trying to judge your cache ; but this perfectly illustrates why this coordinate delivery system doesn't seem to be allowed anymore.

Moo.

8k · December 14, 2005

I didn't think the "I'll email you the coordinates" type of puzzle was even approvable anymore anyway.

My interpretation of the puzzle cache submission guidelines

is that the coordinates had to be determinable from the information provided on the cache page -- not at the whim of someone emailing them after the fact.

If you read the logs, the puzzle provides information helpful for the original location of the cache. But then that hiding spot was damaged by Mother Nature, so the owner moved the container to a new spot. Rather than re-doing the puzzle, the owner asked for finders to e-mail the answer to the puzzle in order to receive the coordinates for the new location.

So, that was all added after the review process, if I'm reading the history correctly. (Note: I did not attempt to solve the puzzle.)

If only you knew. I'm sorely tempted to post the answer here as I've solved this puzzle. When the cache was moved because of enviromental changes at the original location, it would have been very easy to change the cache page so that the puzzle still worked. In the mean time, I'm pissed because I can't go back now and find the cache which I've logged a DNF on. Maybe I should archive all of my cache too.

December 14, 2005

...but realize that the only exacting control you have over the activity of cachers seeking your cache is to place it or not.

Of course, after deleting what many consider to be a valid find, he may not have to worry about this in the futere, as the cachers in his area may just ignore his future caches. :blink:

This Really Gets Me

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment