Puzzle cache not solvable.

[+JohnE5]

What do you do, besides hit "ignore cache", when there is a puzzle cache that has NEVER been found for a few years?

 

There is a fairly straight forward puzzle that several people have emailed the owner asking for confimation on coordinates or clues. He never emails back. One time he actually did email back and told them that he made a mistake in the puzzle because he didn't know how to create the puzzle in the first place.

 

It's not like the cache is really tough or witty and it is just stumping everyone because the CO is a really great puzzle maker. It's gone unfound for so long because he didn't get it right.

 

So I guess my main question is how do you handle a puzzle cache that can not be confirmed that the puzzle even works and the CO refuse to communitcate with anyone?

[+fizzymagic]

So I guess my main question is how do you handle a puzzle cache that can not be confirmed that the puzzle even works and the CO refuse to communitcate with anyone?

Ignore it.

 

Or, if it's blocking a cache you want to place, SBA.

 

You could do like we did in our area when there was an unsolvable puzzle and mock the hider. That can be entertaining.

 

But under no circumstances would I get my undies in a bunch over it.

[Pajaholic]

Post a "needs maintenance" log? If you publish your evidence of the error, at least others would know of the issue and maybe the CO would either fix it or archive it if it couldn't be fixed.

[+Col. Flagg]

Log it as a find, if he never had a solution and it got published, I think you should be able to log it and not find it. It'd be funny.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Just kidding.....maybe.

[CoyoteRed]

It's gone unfound for so long because he didn't get it right.

Technically, I believe that is a violation of the guidelines. If you can't complete the hunt from the information provided on the cache page, then it shouldn't be published. This apparently isn't about an extremely high difficulty puzzle, but a bad puzzle. If order to find you pretty much have to get the coordinates from the cache owner or brute force several several square miles. I'd SBA. This will either get the cache archived or force the owner to fix the puzzle.

[+bittsen]

Maybe a puzzle cache could be made that simply says "If you can guess what I'm thinking, you will have the coordinates".

 

Thats every bit as good as a bad puzzle.

[GOF and Bacall]

I puzzle should be solvable. If it isn't then it should be archived.

[+Skyjuggler]

Post the GC number... Let us all have a go and send a mail to the bloke. Apply a bit of pressure

[+kunarion]

how do you handle a puzzle cache that can not be confirmed that the puzzle even works and the CO refuse to communitcate with anyone?

 

Many cache puzzles are unsolvable without external information (which may be found in other caches, etc.). An especially deceptive cache page might have a puzzle that appears to be poorly made, but actually has nothing to do with the answer. The Cache Owner would need to keep up the ruse when he emails you.

 

Supposing that the CO deliberately maintains a puzzle that nobody can ever solve, and if you want to find it anyway, you need to go beyond the puzzle.

 

How close can you get to the cache with only the info you have? Can you narrow it down? In a pinch, you can live without the 3rd decimal place in the lat/lon "seconds". And you my be able to guess the "minutes". If, for example, you know it's in a city park, all you may need is the lattitude OR longitude. If you don't know for sure it's in a public park, but your line goes through a park, that's your destination. It's a very rough estimate, but just might work.

 

Good luck!

[GOF and Bacall]

how do you handle a puzzle cache that can not be confirmed that the puzzle even works and the CO refuse to communitcate with anyone?

 

Many cache puzzles are unsolvable without external information (which may be found in other caches, etc.). An especially deceptive cache page might have a puzzle that appears to be poorly made, but actually has nothing to do with the answer. The Cache Owner would need to keep up the ruse when he emails you.

 

Supposing that the CO deliberately maintains a puzzle that nobody can ever solve, and if you want to find it anyway, you need to go beyond the puzzle.

 

How close can you get to the cache with only the info you have? Can you narrow it down? In a pinch, you can live without the 3rd decimal place in the lat/lon "seconds". And you my be able to guess the "minutes". If, for example, you know it's in a city park, all you may need is the lattitude OR longitude. If you don't know for sure it's in a public park, but your line goes through a park, that's your destination. It's a very rough estimate, but just might work.

 

Good luck!

 

I think the point with this cache is that the owner even admitted that there was a problem with the puzzle.

[+Harry Dolphin]

I think the point with this cache is that the owner even admitted that there was a problem with the puzzle.

 

The question there is whether anyone has that in writing? Maybe he's just harassing the slackers?

[+kunarion]

I think the point with this cache is that the owner even admitted that there was a problem with the puzzle.

There is something fishy about that. The original post is about a Cache Owner who "never emails back", yet who emailed an admission that the puzzle is not solvable. Whoever got that email should have done a cache log at that time. Yes, and what Harry said.

 

If I were that CO, and had admitted that the cache puzzle is defective, I'd disable the cache -- with a log note mentioning the puzzle problem. Otherwise, it just invites more emails.

 

But if I deliberately made the puzzle "unsolvable", it would be important to maintain the ruse. I can't imagine why I'd need to do that, but it's a red-herring type of evil cache page, probably one-of-a-kind, very clever and devious. I don't like trying to find that kind.

Edited October 19, 2009 by kunarion

[GOF and Bacall]

I'll give you that at this point it is all speculation.

 

I still feel that a cache should be solvable. What is the point of listing a cache if the answer is go out and wander around blindly until you stumble on the cache?

[+kunarion]

What is the point of listing a cache if the answer is go out and wander around blindly until you stumble on the cache?

 

That describes most every cache I've searched for

Edited October 19, 2009 by kunarion

[GOF and Bacall]

What is the point of listing a cache if the answer is go out and wander around blindly until you stumble on the cache?

 

That describes most every cache I've searched for

 

Might I recommend you try using a GPS?

[John E Cache]

removed as per OP

Edited October 19, 2009 by John E Cache

[+DarkZen]

What do you do, besides hit "ignore cache", when there is a puzzle cache that has NEVER been found for a few years?

 

There is a fairly straight forward puzzle that several people have emailed the owner asking for confimation on coordinates or clues. He never emails back. One time he actually did email back and told them that he made a mistake in the puzzle because he didn't know how to create the puzzle in the first place.

 

It's not like the cache is really tough or witty and it is just stumping everyone because the CO is a really great puzzle maker. It's gone unfound for so long because he didn't get it right.

 

So I guess my main question is how do you handle a puzzle cache that can not be confirmed that the puzzle even works and the CO refuse to communitcate with anyone?

This is the third time JohnE5 has brought this complaint to the boards that I can remember. This is the cache in question. I would like to see proof that this cache owner has declared it unsolvable. I believe this is a ruse by the OP to force this issue. I have spoken to someone who claims to have solved this puzzle (and had it confirmed by the CO). I believe them because I have worked on it a bit and got the first numbers and they matched. The problem with this cache is that the puzzle maker did a poor job uploading the graphic. However there are several forums on the internet dedicated to this type of thing and specifics of what you need to solve this can be had by signing up and simply asking (as I did). There are any number of apps to 'clean up' the graphics (all free) and make them 'read-able'.

 

My guess is that the cache owner won't communicate with the OP because he tried to have this cache archived because he couldn't solve it (there is a thread to that effect for those who care to search). This cache is solvable IMHO.

[+Chrysalides]

This is the third time JohnE5 has brought this complaint to the boards that I can remember.

That was the first thing that came to my mind too. He seems rather obsessed with it.

[GOF and Bacall]

Well then, perhaps the OP needs to learn how to use the ignore feature.

[+JohnE5]

Please take down that GC code.

I don't want to call out any certain cache. Just asking for advice on the SITUATION.

 

If you needed proof that the CO admitted it here it is.

 

[+Chrysalides]

If you needed proof that the CO admitted it here it is.

That's not exactly hard proof in my books. And I don't see why anyone is "suffering" from this, unless it is blocking a potential hide.

 

A SBA has been posted, but the local reviewer obviously declined to do something about it. If you're curious you could e-mail your reviewer for his / her opinion. Other than that... I'd ignore it, but you're obviously looking for a different answer.

[+fizzymagic]

Please take down that GC code.

I don't want to call out any certain cache. Just asking for advice on the SITUATION.

 

If you needed proof that the CO admitted it here it is.

 

That is in no way proof that the cache is unsolvable. It just indicates that it is unsolvable using off-the-shelf barcode-reader commercial software. My guess, after looking at the cache page, is that it can indeed be solved.

[Pajaholic]

Not in caching perhaps, but I have seen fake barcodes used to encode information in a way that requires some lateral thinking to extract. Without seeing the actual "barcode", I can't say whether the method I've seen applies to this particular cache. However, I can say that the "barcodes" I'm thinking of merely look like normal barcodes until you view them laterally, and they're not machine-readable. So, perhaps the OP assumes more than he should. After all, there are a lot of caches out there that are hidden by appearing to be something else!

 

Geoff

Edited October 19, 2009 by Pajaholic

[Andronicus]

The text of the description looks suspicious. I have seen a few that had a normal sounding but the description was actualy the puzzle. Maybe the barcode is a red-herring, and the actual solution is in the description. I have never solved one of those types though, so I can not realy help, but that is my opinion.

 

If a cache was truly unsolvable, and the CO knew it, it should be fixed or arcived.

Edited October 19, 2009 by Andronicus

[Dinoprophet]

You don't need a bar code reader to read barcodes. Just because it would be easier with one doesn't make it impossible to solve.

 

While I wish puzzle caches always had coordinate checkers, this one seems to get enough ire that someone brute-forcing it seems likely, so I don't really blame the hider there.

[knowschad]

As I recall, last time this was brought up, somebody pointed to another cache that was done in the same way... even to the point of having that wierd faded piece of text.

[+Castle Mischief]

As I recall, last time this was brought up, somebody pointed to another cache that was done in the same way... even to the point of having that wierd faded piece of text.

 

I remember this too.

[+DarkZen]

As I recall, last time this was brought up, somebody pointed to another cache that was done in the same way... even to the point of having that wierd faded piece of text.

Yep. And that one was the inspiration for this one according to the CO. The other one was solved decoding the bar codes. As pointed out above, you don't need a scanner to do that.

[+Vater_Araignee]

I'm trying to figure out how "Not readable by a scanner" equates to "Unsolvable by a human".

I'm having a hard time finding an admission of unsolveability in the posted mail or even an accusation.

[knowschad]

I'm trying to figure out how "Not readable by a scanner" equates to "Unsolvable by a human".

I'm having a hard time finding an admission of unsolveability in the posted mail or even an accusation.

 

 

Actually, in the previous thread about this cache (linked to in Post #17), there were many attempts to read the barcodes, by machine, by websites, and by brain power.

[+kunarion]

So I guess my main question is how do you handle a puzzle cache that can not be confirmed that the puzzle even works and the CO refuse to communitcate with anyone?

I set it aside, in the huge stack of puzzles that I won’t solve in about 500 million years. If I’ve heard third-hand that the puzzle is not solvable, it goes to the bottom of that pile.

 

And that’s it. I’ve never asked a CO for a hint.

 

Mind you, I have ended up with hints anyway a couple of times, when cache owners so wracked with guilt over how much torture their obscure puzzle is, write to give me a clue. But that's different, right?

[GOF and Bacall]

So I guess my main question is how do you handle a puzzle cache that can not be confirmed that the puzzle even works and the CO refuse to communitcate with anyone?

I set it aside, in the huge stack of puzzles that I won’t solve in about 500 million years. If I’ve heard third-hand that the puzzle is not solvable, it goes to the bottom of that pile.

 

And that’s it. I’ve never asked a CO for a hint.

 

Mind you, I have ended up with hints anyway a couple of times, when cache owners so wracked with guilt over how much torture their obscure puzzle is, write to give me a clue. But that's different, right?

That's pretty much how I do puzzles. I used to look at some of them every once in a while. If I could see how they were solved in a quick glance I might have taken the time. Then I'd jot down the solved coordinates for the next time I was headed in that direction. Invariably I'd loose the scrap I had made the notes on resulting in my never finding the cache. Eventually I just started to skip puzzles all together.

[RedRazorNick]

I'm trying to figure out how "Not readable by a scanner" equates to "Unsolvable by a human".

I'm having a hard time finding an admission of unsolveability in the posted mail or even an accusation.

 

Actually, in the previous thread about this cache (linked to in Post #17), there were many attempts to read the barcodes, by machine, by websites, and by brain power.

Hmmm... I don't know. Since this thread was started I began working on this puzzle. It took me less that 5 minutes to determine the type of code and method needed to decipher it (hello Google!). If I had Photoshop I'm guessing I could break it.

[+Lil Devil]

If I had Photoshop I'm guessing I could break it.

Try The Gimp, a free alternative to Photoshop.

[+rob3k]

Local reviewer has posted a note to the page. Sounds fair to me.

[+DarkZen]

Hmmm... I don't know. Since this thread was started I began working on this puzzle. It took me less that 5 minutes to determine the type of code and method needed to decipher it (hello Google!). If I had Photoshop I'm guessing I could break it.

You don't need no stinkin' Photoshop!

 

We breathlessly await your smilie.

 

ETA: Beaten to it!

Edited October 19, 2009 by DarkZen and Beautiful

[Dinoprophet]

Local reviewer has posted a note to the page. Sounds fair to me.

It's a decent way to get the owner to comment, but I wouldn't call it fair exactly. There have been caches that have gone longer without being found. And so far, I still haven't seen any evidence that this puzzle is unsolvable.

[+tekkguy]

I'm trying to figure out how "Not readable by a scanner" equates to "Unsolvable by a human".

I'm having a hard time finding an admission of unsolveability in the posted mail or even an accusation.

 

Actually, in the previous thread about this cache (linked to in Post #17), there were many attempts to read the barcodes, by machine, by websites, and by brain power.

Hmmm... I don't know. Since this thread was started I began working on this puzzle. It took me less that 5 minutes to determine the type of code and method needed to decipher it (hello Google!). If I had Photoshop I'm guessing I could break it.

 

What's interesting is that the start and stop symbols on the barcode are correct, and the format is correct for a specific type of barcode ... but after doing the needed Photoshop work on it (well, on the first bar), the barcode doesn't seem to be readable by machine in the format that the start and stop symbols indicate.

[+Hemlock]

but I wouldn't call it fair exactly.

Maybe the reviewer is privy to other information not in this thread.

 

Besides, he offered an out if the owner explains that it really is solvable

Edited October 19, 2009 by Hemlock

[Dinoprophet]

but I wouldn't call it fair exactly.

Maybe the reviewer is privy to other information not in this thread.

 

Besides, he offered an out if the owner explains that it really is solvable

I agree the out is fair. And like I said, it does compel him to verify it is solvable. My comments are based on what is in the thread.

 

I tried something that made sense, even matched the clue, but didn't get an answer.

[+Renegade Knight]

It's gone unfound for so long because he didn't get it right.

Technically, I believe that is a violation of the guidelines. If you can't complete the hunt from the information provided on the cache page, then it shouldn't be published. ...

 

True. Puzzles need to be solveable to be listed. I would email the owner about their admission and ask them about fixing it before I hit the SBA to invoke the reviewer apprasial of the situation.

[+Renegade Knight]

I'm trying to figure out how "Not readable by a scanner" equates to "Unsolvable by a human".

I'm having a hard time finding an admission of unsolveability in the posted mail or even an accusation.

With no admission, then it would appear that the reviewer did their homework at the time and the cache is good.

[+rob3k]

Local reviewer has posted a note to the page. Sounds fair to me.

It's a decent way to get the owner to comment, but I wouldn't call it fair exactly. There have been caches that have gone longer without being found. And so far, I still haven't seen any evidence that this puzzle is unsolvable.

All the CO has to do is explain to Hemlock how one would solve for the coordinates. I don't see the problem.

[+Cedar Grove Seekers]

We're past the two year point now, so it's time for some divine intervention.

Caches are meant to be found. This puzzle is apparently not solvable, and thus the cache is not findable.

 

4chin seeker,

Please fix the puzzle so it is solvable. I've heard that several people have emailed you and offered to help you. Please take one of them up on the offer.

If I am incorrect, and everyone is just going about it the wrong way, then please email me and explain.

 

I'm going to give this cache until the end of the year, and if there are still no finds, it will be archived.

 

Thanks for your understanding,

Hemlock

Volunteer Cache Reviewer

 

The reviewer's note is posted above. I certainly hope the reviewer has additional information and is making these comments based on actual knowledge and not merely on assumptions. Otherwise I personally think it's too bad that it has come to this. Sure, the reviewer is giving the owner a chance to explain (actually requiring it), but ony after concluding the puzzle is not solvable and needs to be fixed.

 

In this thread I have seen no evidence that the cache owner has admitted it is not solvable.

 

It is possible the owner once commented that the bar codes are not scanable, but it doesn't mean they can't be interpreted. Maybe they're just a red herring. At first glance I thought the bar codes were intended to be the hint and not the answer - not even sure you need them. I have some thoughts on what they are hinting at, and if I'm correct then one does not even need to scan them.

 

As for adding a geochecker, what about going to the location and searching for the cache instead? I would also suggest that puzzles like these often have a solution that is obvious once you figure it out, so rarely need for a geochecker. However geocheckers can be used to brute force a solution.

 

Finally, are there not other 5 star caches out there that took a long time to be found, or have still not been found? Are they being threatened to be archived? What's wrong with the occasional difficult cache that requires a lot of effort to be found? Wouldn't it be better for someone to legitimately solve and find this (maybe not for another couple of years) than to force it to be archived because people don't want to admit to themselves that they couldn't do it.

[+ecanderson]

Just on the surface, there appear to be about, ahem, 39 different ways to solve this one. It would have been nice of the OP hadn't rendered the image in JPEG, though. Isn't the best choice for barcodes or any other line art of that type.

[+tekkguy]

Just on the surface, there appear to be about, ahem, 39 different ways to solve this one. It would have been nice of the OP hadn't rendered the image in JPEG, though. Isn't the best choice for barcodes or any other line art of that type.

 

On the surface, you appear to be correct ... but I'm afraid the lake is much deeper. Or ... the lake is a mirage, really. At least according to the hint ... if you know the 39 ways.

[+bittsen]

Just on the surface, there appear to be about, ahem, 39 different ways to solve this one. It would have been nice of the OP hadn't rendered the image in JPEG, though. Isn't the best choice for barcodes or any other line art of that type.

 

Actually, if you look closely you would see that it's not 39 different ways to solve it. It appears, on the surface to be a ITF (Interleaved 2 of 5) barcode.

There IS a mathematical way to decipher it but I don't feel like trying. My last job had me dealing with barcodes way too much and part of my job was to figure out what kind of barcode a customer used so we could duplicate it. If it was a viable barcode, you could print it out and just scan it with a barcode scanner that is capable of reading ITF barcodes (if I am correct on the encoding) and get the answer. Again, IF the barcode is viable...

[+frinklabs]

I made the puzzle option of my first cache allegedly virtually unsolvable without resorting to another option.

 

[+tekkguy]

Just on the surface, there appear to be about, ahem, 39 different ways to solve this one. It would have been nice of the OP hadn't rendered the image in JPEG, though. Isn't the best choice for barcodes or any other line art of that type.

 

Actually, if you look closely you would see that it's not 39 different ways to solve it. It appears, on the surface to be a ITF (Interleaved 2 of 5) barcode.

There IS a mathematical way to decipher it but I don't feel like trying. My last job had me dealing with barcodes way too much and part of my job was to figure out what kind of barcode a customer used so we could duplicate it. If it was a viable barcode, you could print it out and just scan it with a barcode scanner that is capable of reading ITF barcodes (if I am correct on the encoding) and get the answer. Again, IF the barcode is viable...

 

I'm not sure that's correct. Based on the hint, I think it probably is an attempt at 39. The start and stop codes are (if we're assuming it's 39) an asterisk (* or star) - then look at the hint - Other than the start and stop character, the barcode doesn't match anything about 39 - the number of bars is completely off, for one.

 

There are 580 bars in the larger barcode, which is divisible by neither 12 or 13 - which would be required for 39. Unless I'm missing something, the hint basically says "Ignore the barcodes"

Edited October 19, 2009 by tekkguy

[+bittsen]

Just on the surface, there appear to be about, ahem, 39 different ways to solve this one. It would have been nice of the OP hadn't rendered the image in JPEG, though. Isn't the best choice for barcodes or any other line art of that type.

 

Actually, if you look closely you would see that it's not 39 different ways to solve it. It appears, on the surface to be a ITF (Interleaved 2 of 5) barcode.

There IS a mathematical way to decipher it but I don't feel like trying. My last job had me dealing with barcodes way too much and part of my job was to figure out what kind of barcode a customer used so we could duplicate it. If it was a viable barcode, you could print it out and just scan it with a barcode scanner that is capable of reading ITF barcodes (if I am correct on the encoding) and get the answer. Again, IF the barcode is viable...

 

I'm not sure that's correct. Based on the hint, I think it probably is an attempt at 39. The start and stop codes are (if we're assuming it's 39) an asterisk (* or star) - then look at the hint - Other than the start and stop character, the barcode doesn't match anything about 39 - the number of bars is completely off, for one.

 

There are 580 bars in the larger barcode, which is divisible by neither 12 or 13 - which would be required for 39. Unless I'm missing something, the hint basically says "Ignore the barcodes"

 

Are you talking about code 39? Or 3 of 9? Either of which would have different start and end sentinels but don't require them unless you are using a reader.

 

As I said, it "appears" to be 2 of 5 based on the start and end sentinels alone.

 

Any way you look at it, it would appear that the reviewer should be contacted to verify that it IS a solvable puzzle.

Of course it wouldn't matter for me. I filter out ALL puzzle caches.