Issues with Creating New Caches

[+Zaise]

Does anyone else have the issue when placing a new cache where you find a spot that's not within 0.1 miles of another cache, and it even fits outside of those little red circles when searching, and then you find out there's a multi or mystery cache within 0.1 miles? It would be nice if Groundspeak would include those so that you don't take the time to create a cache, invest in the time to make the post, place the cache, and then find out you can't have a cache there.

 

Wouldn't it make sense for Groudspeak to have a red circle where multis and mystery caches have their physical locations?

[+lee737]

Wouldn't that defeat the purpose of the mystery/multi??

[+Zaise]

Wouldn't that defeat the purpose of the mystery/multi??

 

I didn't think of that, though this would only be for placing caches, only down side to not showing on the page where you place caches (not on the regular page) is that I don't want to sit down for hours finding ALL the mystery and multi caches in the area just to place a cache (mostly because I'm bad at mystery caches).

Edited January 31, 2017 by Zaise

[+L0ne.R]

Wouldn't that defeat the purpose of the mystery/multi??

 

I didn't think of that, though this would only be for placing caches, only down side to not showing on the page where you place caches (not on the regular page) is that I don't want to sit down for hours finding ALL the mystery and multi caches in the area just to place a cache (mostly because I'm bad at mystery caches).

 

I know your frustration. I've experienced it. Now whenever I think about hiding a cache, before I go through too much effort I take some readings, submit a cache with "Cache Coordinate Check" and wait to see if the spot is free.

I even had trouble when I wanted to hide a cache on a brand new trail. Someone had already "camped" on the whole trail (I think they were planning on putting in a power trail). Thankfully the reviewer contacted them and they weren't ready to hide their own so I got the 2 spots I wanted.

[+narcissa]

Does anyone else have the issue when placing a new cache where you find a spot that's not within 0.1 miles of another cache, and it even fits outside of those little red circles when searching, and then you find out there's a multi or mystery cache within 0.1 miles? It would be nice if Groundspeak would include those so that you don't take the time to create a cache, invest in the time to make the post, place the cache, and then find out you can't have a cache there.

 

Wouldn't it make sense for Groudspeak to have a red circle where multis and mystery caches have their physical locations?

 

No, compromising the coordinates for multis and puzzles is not appropriate.

 

If it is that tricky to find a spot, the area is saturated and you should look for somewhere new to place a cache.

[+Manville Possum]

I don't want to sit down for hours finding ALL the mystery and multi caches in the area just to place a cache (mostly because I'm bad at mystery caches).

 

I normally get my coordinates then request a saturation request from the local reviewer.

[+hzoi]

Wouldn't that defeat the purpose of the mystery/multi??

 

I didn't think of that, though this would only be for placing caches, only down side to not showing on the page where you place caches (not on the regular page) is that I don't want to sit down for hours finding ALL the mystery and multi caches in the area just to place a cache (mostly because I'm bad at mystery caches).

 

You're not the first person to run into this issue, nor will you be the last. The problem is, if multi or mystery caches were visible on the map, cachers could abuse the system by pretending to hide caches, figuring out where the red circles were, and then circumvent the puzzles or multis and just go get the find. The system is working as it should.

 

As far as solving puzzle caches, if you're stuck, try asking the cache owner. Many puzzle cache owners want their caches to be found and are open to giving hints.

[+Oxford Stone]

How about solving the local multis and mysteries first, so that you know the areas to avoid?

[+NYPaddleCacher]

How about solving the local multis and mysteries first, so that you know the areas to avoid?

 

Some cachers don't care for multi-caches or puzzles. If they're unfortunate to be living in an area which has a lot of puzzles or multis, why should they have to play the game in a manner they don't like just to hid a cache of the kind they *do* like?

 

Asking the cache owners of nearby puzzles for the general area might make things easier and fortunately Reviewers will provide a "coordinate check" so that someone that doesn't like puzzle caches can hide the kind of cache that they want.

Edited January 31, 2017 by NYPaddleCacher

[+J Grouchy]

Seems like they could 'automate' it somehow and reject a location if it's too close to a physical stage without specifically showing or stating the distance to that stage. Seems like it could be done without giving it away...and maybe limit the number of attempts in that area within a given period of time to help prevent "Battleshipping".

[+Zaise]

Seems like they could 'automate' it somehow and reject a location if it's too close to a physical stage without specifically showing or stating the distance to that stage. Seems like it could be done without giving it away...and maybe limit the number of attempts in that area within a given period of time to help prevent "Battleshipping".

 

Actually automating might be the best way to go, that way I (or anyone placing a cache) automatically knows they're not going to be able to place there AND it doesn't give away a mystery or multi cache.

[cezanne]

Actually automating might be the best way to go, that way I (or anyone placing a cache) automatically knows they're not going to be able to place there AND it doesn't give away a mystery or multi cache.

 

With the exception that it often will give away enough to allow to bruteforce difficult mystery and multi caches. There does not need to be an output of the type x meter to a cache - it often already suffices to know that there is a hit at all.

[+The A-Team]

Seems like they could 'automate' it somehow and reject a location if it's too close to a physical stage without specifically showing or stating the distance to that stage. Seems like it could be done without giving it away...and maybe limit the number of attempts in that area within a given period of time to help prevent "Battleshipping".

Actually automating might be the best way to go, that way I (or anyone placing a cache) automatically knows they're not going to be able to place there AND it doesn't give away a mystery or multi cache.

Automating it does give away that there's a hidden cache in that area. Once you know that, it may be a trivial exercise to identify which one, or simply to go out and find it.

 

Limiting the rate of automated attempts doesn't help either. It just means that it will take longer for the hidden cache to be spoiled. In the end, it will still be spoiled.

 

With the current method of submitting the attempts through a reviewer, there's a human on the other end that can recognize that someone is battleshipping and can put a stop to it, or provide intentionally misleading results like in Keystone's example below:

Let me retell my favorite "battleshipping the puzzle cache" story to rebut your speculation.

 

Many years ago, a really, really hard puzzle cache was hidden, and I was the publishing reviewer. A year or more passed, and nobody could crack it. The LEADING geocachers in that region -- people who appreciate the hobby "very much" -- knew that that the actual cache had to be within two miles of the posted "bogus" coordinates, and set about placing caches in each 528 foot circle within that two-mile range that could support a cache. After a dozen or so caches, I figured out what they were up to. When one "battleship" cache was placed less than 200 feet of the actual puzzle cache location, I published that cache without comment. The puzzle location remained a mystery, and it was never solved (though it was quite solvable). Winners: Keystone and the owner of the puzzle cache.

 

That's the benefit of having a human involved in the process instead of the automated "yes/no" system you're requesting.

[+Pond Bird]

Seems like they could 'automate' it somehow and reject a location if it's too close to a physical stage without specifically showing or stating the distance to that stage. Seems like it could be done without giving it away...and maybe limit the number of attempts in that area within a given period of time to help prevent "Battleshipping".

Actually automating might be the best way to go, that way I (or anyone placing a cache) automatically knows they're not going to be able to place there AND it doesn't give away a mystery or multi cache.

Automating it does give away that there's a hidden cache in that area. Once you know that, it may be a trivial exercise to identify which one, or simply to go out and find it.

 

Limiting the rate of automated attempts doesn't help either. It just means that it will take longer for the hidden cache to be spoiled. In the end, it will still be spoiled.

 

With the current method of submitting the attempts through a reviewer, there's a human on the other end that can recognize that someone is battleshipping and can put a stop to it, or provide intentionally misleading results like in Keystone's example below:

Let me retell my favorite "battleshipping the puzzle cache" story to rebut your speculation.

 

Many years ago, a really, really hard puzzle cache was hidden, and I was the publishing reviewer. A year or more passed, and nobody could crack it. The LEADING geocachers in that region -- people who appreciate the hobby "very much" -- knew that that the actual cache had to be within two miles of the posted "bogus" coordinates, and set about placing caches in each 528 foot circle within that two-mile range that could support a cache. After a dozen or so caches, I figured out what they were up to. When one "battleship" cache was placed less than 200 feet of the actual puzzle cache location, I published that cache without comment. The puzzle location remained a mystery, and it was never solved (though it was quite solvable). Winners: Keystone and the owner of the puzzle cache.

 

That's the benefit of having a human involved in the process instead of the automated "yes/no" system you're requesting.

 

I am wondering what puzzle cache Keystone published that people would do such thing. Also, whenever you place a cache, you should know of any multis, and puzzles with posted coords within a 10 mile radius even if you don't have all the waypoints have a general idea of where each COULD be and avoid placing caches in those spots. I have a couple caches I set out purposely in an area that I know of all the multis, I have yet to find the final to one of the multis and the puzzle caches I either own, or have solved. If you're stuck on a puzzle look to see who the CO is, they're probably the puzzle maker or related to the puzzle maker anyways and if they don't help you try to see if a finder of the cache can help.

[+geocat_]

As stated earlier, the easiest way to to check with your local reviewer. I have done this many times and they are very glad to help out.

[+Goannas]

The example citing the puzzle cache that was never solved made me wonder if this was something to aspire to. From my point of view this would defeat the purpose of setting the cache. Make it difficult - really, really difficult - by all means, but not unsolvable. I did note the comment that said it was solvable but as it was never found then how can this be so? Knowing the answer makes everything seem possible.

I set cryptic crosswords and the point of the clues is to make them devious but logical and thence solvable. I would consider caches should be the same. The more difficult, the more satisfying to solve. But too difficult to the point of impossible is just frustrating.

[+Zekester & Simon]

I don't care much for puzzle caches, as I prefer to spend the limited time I have for geocaching finding caches as opposed to coordinates. In Maryland, there are a LOT of puzzle caches, and they are very popular amongst cachers here. There are monthly events that have been running for years that are gatherings of puzzle cachers collaborating to solve very difficult puzzles. All of which is too say that I am sympathetic to your plight. I live near a reservoir, with many caches hidden around it. In the guidelines, it states that the actual hide has to be within 2 miles of the posted coordinates of a mystery cache, if it is not hidden at those published coordinates. A two mile circle is a 12 square mile area where the actual hide could be. If you draw a two mile circle around all of the puzzle caches around the local reservoir, you effectively eliminate the entire reservoir property as a place to hide caches if you are a non-puzzler. I feel your pain.

 

Solutions:

 

1 - Solve the puzzles, and save the solved coordinates in Google Earth, so you can check for yourself. Not my cup of tea.

2 - After you've done your site survey, contact all the closest puzzle and multi COs and ask them if your proposed coordinates are within 528 feet of their hides. May or may not work, the puzzlers may not want to reveal that to you.

3 - Email the local reviewer and ask if your coordinates would be allowable. This is likely the best solution given the current guidelines and state of affairs.

 

Cache saturation is also a problem here. We have cachers that go into a park and bury it with caches placed IAW the guidelines, leaving no space for others to place hides. I know of folks who have purposefully hidden 20 stage multis to create a geographic placeholder in a park so that they can later eliminate stages of the multi one by one, and be able to hide quality traditionals in their place, before the park gets overrun by the power cachers. Sad that either of these scenarios exists, but that is the world we live in.