Puzzle cache found without solving puzzle

February 7, 2017

I have cache that involves finding physical puzzle pieces that need to be collected in order to find the final cache: https://coord.info/GC25ZEM

I’ve made it as accessible as possible, and always happy to provide clues when asked.

At the weekend it was "found" without any of the pieces being found.

Apparently the guy downloaded a photo of a successful find from the cache’s gallery and used the geo-data embedded in the jpeg to calculate the location. Not exactly in the spirit of the game!

Would it be possible for the web site to strip all uploaded images of their metadata in order to stop this being possible?

Thoughts anyone?

1.9k · February 7, 2017

I think it should definitely strip it for everything except traditionals, I think the onus is placed on COs to watch their caches though. We inadvertently posted some pics that were geotagged once, the CO had them deleted, sent us a message, and we reposted them - but I added my own coords to the images....

February 7, 2017

I have cache that involves finding physical puzzle pieces that need to be collected in order to find the final cache: https://coord.info/GC25ZEM

I’ve made it as accessible as possible, and always happy to provide clues when asked.

At the weekend it was "found" without any of the pieces being found.

Apparently the guy downloaded a photo of a successful find from the cache’s gallery and used the geo-data embedded in the jpeg to calculate the location. Not exactly in the spirit of the game!

Would it be possible for the web site to strip all uploaded images of their metadata in order to stop this being possible?

Thoughts anyone?

please leave the geotag data in the photos. I've been using this for years to keep up with family adventures, and it's really nice to have, for the date/time/location. the location and found status of a cache is pretty insignificant, to me.

7.3k · February 7, 2017

You can delete spoiler logs and spoiler photos. Now you know to be aware of photo tagging.

Stripping meta data from photos would ruin a lot of existing puzzle caches.

Not exactly in the spirit of the game!

To me, your public log on the cache calling out, "the validity of that last 'find'", is a more egregious violation of the "spirit of the game" - a game which is a light fun activity - than is a find based on working out the final by a means unforeseen by you.

6.8k · February 7, 2017

You can delete spoiler logs and spoiler photos. Now you know to be aware of photo tagging.

Even if one is aware of phototagging it does not solve the issue. First, photos can be uploaded much later and a cache owner can hardly revisit all cache pages permanently.

Furthermore, the watchers get sent information anyway and deleting it later will not help that much.

Stripping meta data from photos would ruin a lot of existing puzzle caches.

They could treat owner provided photos differently.

Not exactly in the spirit of the game!

To me, your public log on the cache calling out, "the validity of that last 'find'", is a more egregious violation of the "spirit of the game" - a game which is a light fun activity - than is a find based on working out the final by a means unforeseen by you.

I rather read the log as reaction to the find it log written at a point of time where the cache owner has not been aware of the phototagging and wondered how anyone could solve this cache from at home.

It's then the natural question to plan to have a look at the log book. There is no mention of log deletion due to having found the cache in a different manner.

As to means unforeseen by the cache hider: How should cache owner protect themselves against this geotagging issues? It not only affects puzzle caches but also multi caches and other caches with multiple stages.

I'd say it is against the spirit that such photo uploads are allowed. It's clear that once coordinates become known this will be exploited by individual cachers. In my opinion it's the system that is to blame.

In my opinion much less would be lost if puzzles that rely on picture info on gc.com and has not been posted by the cache owner were not possible than what happens at present which punishes the owners

of all caches with unknown final coordinates including long multi caches.

If geocaching is said to be a fun activity, you can also argue that it is not desirable to ruin the work of cache hiders which often invested a huge amount of work into a cache and not desirable to ruin their fun.

4.8k · February 7, 2017

Don't worry, if it doesn't get posted on this website, it will make the rounds on social media. I don't think it's possible to get the toothpaste back in the tube regarding this issue.

7.4k · February 7, 2017

I have cache that involves finding physical puzzle pieces that need to be collected in order to find the final cache: https://coord.info/GC25ZEM

I’ve made it as accessible as possible, and always happy to provide clues when asked.

At the weekend it was "found" without any of the pieces being found.

Apparently the guy downloaded a photo of a successful find from the cache’s gallery and used the geo-data embedded in the jpeg to calculate the location. Not exactly in the spirit of the game!

Would it be possible for the web site to strip all uploaded images of their metadata in order to stop this being possible?

Thoughts anyone?

No matter what you do, people will always find clever ways to circumvent puzzles.

Did this geocacher sign the logbook and replace the cache for the next finder?

Did this geocacher enjoy the experience, even though it wasn't the conventional way of finding it?

If the answer to both of those questions is yes, what's the problem? Did you put out the cache for other people to enjoy, or did you put it out to control people?

5.7k · February 7, 2017

Delete the photo.

As for the find, however, I don't think you have much of a leg to stand on to delete the log. It would be a valid find if a geocacher accidentally stumbled across the container in the woods and signed the log. While that situation presents a finder with cleaner hands than the one at issue, at the end of the day, they found the container and signed the log.

I can't predict with 100% accuracy w how Groundspeak would rule on an appeal if you deleted their log; I suppose if you feel strongly enough about it, you can try it and find out.

For what it's worth, I have signed up for email alerts on photos added to cache logs through project-gc.com; the emails also warn me if user photos are tagged with location data.

Edited February 7, 2017 by hzoi

6.1k · February 7, 2017

For what it's worth, I have signed up for email alerts on photos added to cache logs through project-gc.com; the emails also warn me if user photos are tagged with location data.

Is that a Project-GC Premium (i.e. paid subscription) feature?

3.7k · February 7, 2017

For what it's worth, I have signed up for email alerts on photos added to cache logs through project-gc.com; the emails also warn me if user photos are tagged with location data.

Is that a Project-GC Premium (i.e. paid subscription) feature?

Yes.

4.6k · February 7, 2017

No matter what you do, people will always find clever lame ways to circumvent puzzles.

This covers the practice better.

6.8k · February 7, 2017

For what it's worth, I have signed up for email alerts on photos added to cache logs through project-gc.com; the emails also warn me if user photos are tagged with location data.

When the photo has been uploaded, the damage has already happened.

Edited February 7, 2017 by cezanne

7.4k · February 7, 2017

No matter what you do, people will always find clever lame ways to circumvent puzzles.

This covers the practice better.

I don't agree that using that kind of language makes anything better, though it is illuminating.

4.6k · February 7, 2017

I don't agree that using that kind of language makes anything better, though it is illuminating.

It may not make it better but it's more accurate.

It's certainly not a "clever" way to circumvent a puzzle. The clever way is to just solve it (and if that's not possible, ignore it).

7.4k · February 7, 2017

I don't agree that using that kind of language makes anything better, though it is illuminating.

It may not make it better but it's more accurate.

It's certainly not a "clever" way to circumvent a puzzle. The clever way is to just solve it (and if that's not possible, ignore it).

It was clever enough to get the cacher to the final location, wasn't it? Certainly no need to use vicious language over something so insignificant.

7.5k · February 7, 2017

First, yes, the finder was lame, but don't worry about it. Some people can't help being lame. You can't reject the find as long as he did find the cache. (Just from your description, there's no particular reason for me to think he physically found the cache since everything else about the find says "armchair", but that's another matter, so let's assume he did sign the log.) Me, I'd probably post a note in the log humorously giving him a bad time for being so lame, but that's not because I expect him to see the note, just so other people reading the log understand how I feel about it.

Definitely delete the picture, then send the person that posted the picture a note explaining why it was a problem and, if you know, suggest how they can strip the metadata in the future. This is a teaching moment.

7.5k · February 7, 2017

It was clever enough to get the cacher to the final location, wasn't it? Certainly no need to use vicious language over something so insignificant.

Are you seriously saying that "lame" is vicious language?

Anyway, this is like saying that reaching across the chessboard to knock over your opponent's king while shouting "checkmate" is a clever way to win a game of chess. Sure, it's insignificant, but that just makes it all the more lame.

7.4k · February 7, 2017

It was clever enough to get the cacher to the final location, wasn't it? Certainly no need to use vicious language over something so insignificant.

Are you seriously saying that "lame" is vicious language?

Anyway, this is like saying that reaching across the chessboard to knock over your opponent's king while shouting "checkmate" is a clever way to win a game of chess. Sure, it's insignificant, but that just makes it all the more lame.

It's totally needless, and of all the wrongs being committed here, it's far more alarming that geocachers are scrutinizing each other's finds and denigrating people in this manner.

In the scenario that you've described, would that count as a win in a chess tournament? I don't think it would, so I don't see how it is in any way equivalent to someone finding a cache in a slightly different way than the cache owner originally envisioned.

7.5k · February 7, 2017

please leave the geotag data in the photos. I've been using this for years to keep up with family adventures, and it's really nice to have, for the date/time/location. the location and found status of a cache is pretty insignificant, to me.

I hope you don't find puzzles. Leaving the geotag on a picture taken at a puzzle final is as impolite as putting the puzzle answer in your find log. Yes, it is significant because it spoils the puzzle. When you post a picture on a puzzle cache, you should strip the geotag yourself, but if you don't, expect the picture to be deleted entirely because the CO can't delete the geotag alone.

7.4k · February 7, 2017

Some people can't help being lame.

Apparently some people can't help equating things they don't like to physical disabilities.

15.3k · February 7, 2017

Some people can't help being lame.
Apparently some people can't help equating things they don't like to physical disabilities.

I thought they were equating things with fabric woven with metallic fibers...

2.6k · February 7, 2017

Interesting. I checked my puzzle caches, and I found (just) one of them had a photo with location information in it. It had been there for years. I removed the photo. Though it was 200 feet from the cache, so wouldn't help too much.

I'm not hung up on how people find my puzzle caches, but I don't really want photos tagged with the location on the cache page. And I'm sure the person who posted it had no idea that their photo had location info. I also now worry if I've accidentally done similar posting photos on others puzzles myself.

Would be nice if there was a warning if posting a location tagged image.. I guess that's one for the new feature request forum. I like the idea of being notified when someone posts a location tagged photo on a cache of mine.. shame that needs a subscription on a partner website.

7.5k · February 7, 2017

It's totally needless, and of all the wrongs being committed here, it's far more alarming that geocachers are scrutinizing each other's finds and denigrating people in this manner.

It's not denigrating, it's simply observing the facts.

In the scenario that you've described, would that count as a win in a chess tournament?

We're not playing in a tournament.

I don't think it would, so I don't see how it is in any way equivalent to someone finding a cache in a slightly different way than the cache owner originally envisioned.

My scenario is a "slightly different" way to win a chess game, so you can obviously both understand my example and see how it applies here. Anyway, you make it sound like pointing out that someone's being lame is itself a crime. It's not as if I'm saying they shouldn't be allowed to have the find. Yes, they followed the geocaching rules -- we're assuming -- so the find can't be contested, but they violated the CO's rules, which is lame.

7.5k · February 7, 2017

Some people can't help being lame.

Apparently some people can't help equating things they don't like to physical disabilities.

Apparently some people pretend to not understand vernacular.

6.8k · February 7, 2017

so I don't see how it is in any way equivalent to someone finding a cache in a slightly different way than the cache owner originally envisioned.

I would not say that if for example someone walks to the final of a 500 km hiking cache because a finder happened to post a photo of the final without even being aware of the geotagging can be seen as finding a cache in a *slightly* different manner than envisioned by the cache owner. For sharing final coordinates it needs the active and conscious participation of cachers who want to trick the system which is typically not the case for geotagged photos in cache logs. There are so many cachers out there who take photos with their smartphones and are not even aware of that they post coordinates along with their photos.

7.4k · February 7, 2017

It's totally needless, and of all the wrongs being committed here, it's far more alarming that geocachers are scrutinizing each other's finds and denigrating people in this manner.

It's not denigrating, it's simply observing the facts.

In the scenario that you've described, would that count as a win in a chess tournament?

We're not playing in a tournament.

I don't think it would, so I don't see how it is in any way equivalent to someone finding a cache in a slightly different way than the cache owner originally envisioned.

My scenario is a "slightly different" way to win a chess game, so you can obviously both understand my example and see how it applies here. Anyway, you make it sound like pointing out that someone's being lame is itself a crime. It's not as if I'm saying they shouldn't be allowed to have the find. Yes, they followed the geocaching rules -- we're assuming -- so the find can't be contested, but they violated the CO's rules, which is lame.

Your example doesn't make any sense and is therefore not illustrative or helpful. There is no equivalency.

Cache owners who choose to publish caches on this site are limited in the "rules" they are permitted to impose on other geocachers. Any "rules" about a particular way to solve a puzzle are not valid.

I understand that some individuals have strong emotions about people finding other ways to find puzzle caches, but that has nothing to do with rules, and certainly is not equivalent to being physically disabled, and does not warrant the derogatory remarks being made in this thread.

7.4k · February 7, 2017

so I don't see how it is in any way equivalent to someone finding a cache in a slightly different way than the cache owner originally envisioned.

I would not say that if for example someone walks to the final of a 500 km hiking cache because a finder happened to post a photo of the final without even being aware of the geotagging can be seen as finding a cache in a *slightly* different manner than envisioned by the cache owner. For sharing final coordinates it needs the active and conscious participation of cachers who want to trick the system which is typically not the case for geotagged photos in cache logs. There are so many cachers out there who take photos with their smartphones and are not even aware of that they post coordinates along with their photos.

I assume the cache owner means for the cache to be found. What is the harm here? In your example it just sounds like the cacher saved themselves some time and found the cache in a way that was fun for them.

6.8k · February 7, 2017

Cache owners who choose to publish caches on this site are limited in the "rules" they are permitted to impose on other geocachers. Any "rules" about a particular way to solve a puzzle are not valid.

But cache owners who choose to publish caches on this site can be of the opinion that Groundspeak's approach of not stripping coordinates from photos uploaded for cache logs is wrong.

7.4k · February 7, 2017

Some people can't help being lame.
Apparently some people can't help equating things they don't like to physical disabilities.
I thought they were equating things with fabric woven with metallic fibers...

This is why accents are important!

7.4k · February 7, 2017

Cache owners who choose to publish caches on this site are limited in the "rules" they are permitted to impose on other geocachers. Any "rules" about a particular way to solve a puzzle are not valid.

But cache owners who choose to publish caches on this site can be of the opinion that Groundspeak's approach of not stripping coordinates from photos uploaded for cache logs is wrong.

And as others have pointed out, this action would have a negative impact on other cache owners' ability to create certain kinds of puzzles.

Overall, it's a needless overreaction to a total non-issue.

6.8k · February 7, 2017

Cache owners who choose to publish caches on this site are limited in the "rules" they are permitted to impose on other geocachers. Any "rules" about a particular way to solve a puzzle are not valid.

But cache owners who choose to publish caches on this site can be of the opinion that Groundspeak's approach of not stripping coordinates from photos uploaded for cache logs is wrong.

And as others have pointed out, this action would have a negative impact on other cache owners' ability to create certain kinds of puzzles.

No it would not as using logs of some arbitrary caches owned by someone else is not really an elegant kind of puzzle and I did not say that they should strip coordinates from every photo upload. There are intelligent ways to deal with this issue.

Edited February 7, 2017 by cezanne

7.4k · February 7, 2017

Cache owners who choose to publish caches on this site are limited in the "rules" they are permitted to impose on other geocachers. Any "rules" about a particular way to solve a puzzle are not valid.

But cache owners who choose to publish caches on this site can be of the opinion that Groundspeak's approach of not stripping coordinates from photos uploaded for cache logs is wrong.

And as others have pointed out, this action would have a negative impact on other cache owners' ability to create certain kinds of puzzles.

No it would not as using logs of some arbitrary caches owned by someone else is not really an elegant kind of puzzle and I did not say that they should strip coordinates from every photo upload. There are intelligent ways to deal with this issue.

Your subjective assessment of the value of someone else's puzzle is not relevant. The most intelligent way to deal with this issue is to dismiss it.

2.6k · February 7, 2017

It should be noted the OP didn't call anyone "lame". Ok, he/she did make a comment about it not being in the spirit of the game.. but I see nothing wrong with saying that. The OP was more about how to avoid the situation.

Geocaching.com already has guidelines about not putting spoilers in a log. So posting a photo with geo-tagged information isn't good/right as it is a spoiler. But it is easily done accidentally, and hard for COs to notice. That to me seems a valid concern.

Once coordinates for a puzzle are spoiled (by any method), some will use them to find the cache. Nothing one can do about that.

7.5k · February 7, 2017

Once coordinates for a puzzle are spoiled (by any method), some will use them to find the cache. Nothing one can do about that.

Sure they can: they can call it "lame".

7.5k · February 7, 2017

Cache owners who choose to publish caches on this site are limited in the "rules" they are permitted to impose on other geocachers. Any "rules" about a particular way to solve a puzzle are not valid.

I see we're having the same argument we have on most threads. If you see geocaching as a combat between enemies, the official rules are all that matters and anything else is insignificant.

If you recognize this situation as one friend offering another friend a challenge, then the CO's rules become interesting. Ignoring the rules set out by the friend is allowed by geocaching rules, but it rejects the friendly gesture intended to enhance the seeker's experience. That's lame, but some people are only into the numbers, so what can you do?

Furthermore, when the CO is your enemy, you make sure to take offensive to whatever reaction the CO has. If the CO is your friend, you recognize "lame" as a lighthearted expression of his disappointment that you didn't want to take advantage of the challenge he offered you for your pleasure.

(Naturally, under no circumstances does it make sense to imagine that the CO is saying your limped up to the cache...)

February 7, 2017

Refreshing to see the same forum contributors battling the meaning of words again. You really don't grow tired of it do you?

The REAL fracking issues here are

(1) the OP can not delete the log of someone who finds a cache. Even if they are taken to the cache by someone else, they found it. That's that.

(2) It would not take much development time to run log images through an image library that strips EXIF information. I checked my own puzzles and see that there are photos that contain the coordinates sitting right on top of the cache. Oh joy, and here I thought EXIF data was being stripped out. Now I have to go and delete interesting photos.

Edited February 7, 2017 by fbingha

3.7k · February 7, 2017

I don't think it's "lame" at all. Cacher's can use whatever tools they have at hand and are made available on the cache page. Blame Groundspeak for not providing an option for scrubbing geotags. Blame the previous finder for posting a photo with a geotag. Blame the CO for not deleting the photo from their cache page.

Lesson learned, move on.

February 7, 2017

Looking at images in the cache gallery is how I find most of my puzzles.

1.9k · February 7, 2017

Maybe all puzzle owners should upload their own decoy pics, with coords purposefully altered to send 'lame' puzzle photo-sniffers off on wild goose chases....

7.4k · February 7, 2017

Cache owners who choose to publish caches on this site are limited in the "rules" they are permitted to impose on other geocachers. Any "rules" about a particular way to solve a puzzle are not valid.

I see we're having the same argument we have on most threads. If you see geocaching as a combat between enemies, the official rules are all that matters and anything else is insignificant.

If you recognize this situation as one friend offering another friend a challenge, then the CO's rules become interesting. Ignoring the rules set out by the friend is allowed by geocaching rules, but it rejects the friendly gesture intended to enhance the seeker's experience. That's lame, but some people are only into the numbers, so what can you do?

Furthermore, when the CO is your enemy, you make sure to take offensive to whatever reaction the CO has. If the CO is your friend, you recognize "lame" as a lighthearted expression of his disappointment that you didn't want to take advantage of the challenge he offered you for your pleasure.

(Naturally, under no circumstances does it make sense to imagine that the CO is saying your limped up to the cache...)

I tend to see the forum as a uniform hive mind with numerous indistinct nodes, so you'll have to forgive me for not tracking past conversations or taking a personal interest in individual users.

A CO who puts out a cache for the purpose of inventing and enforcing arbitrary rules is not behaving like a friend.

A CO who scrutinizes someone's finds and makes nasty remarks about other geocachers is not behaving like a friend.

I don't expect or want all other geocachers to be my friends. I expect cache owners to place and maintain caches in accordance with the guidelines, and I expect cache finders to sign the logbook, put the cache back where they found it, and report their experience online when they have time. If we place a puzzle cache and someone finds an unconventional way to get to it, that action has zero impact on us as long as the cache is put back, intact, where it belongs. There is simply no reason to see it as anything other than benign geocaching behaviour. There is no reason to comment on it, and there's certainly no reason to call people names over it.

February 7, 2017

Relevant thread about the state of EXIF data: http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=342263

15.3k · February 7, 2017

If you recognize this situation as one friend offering another friend a challenge, then the CO's rules become interesting.

That is an... interesting choice of words.

I've known puzzlers who brute-force puzzle finals specifically when the puzzle presented by the CO is not interesting to them. When the puzzle is interesting, they'll go to great lengths to solve it. But when the puzzle is tedious or otherwise uninteresting, the way they create a more entertaining experience from a lackluster puzzle is to brute-force the puzzle final, essentially creating an interesting challenge when there wasn't one beforehand.

7.4k · February 7, 2017

If you recognize this situation as one friend offering another friend a challenge, then the CO's rules become interesting.
That is an... interesting choice of words.

I've known puzzlers who brute-force puzzle finals specifically when the puzzle presented by the CO is not interesting to them. When the puzzle is interesting, they'll go to great lengths to solve it. But when the puzzle is tedious or otherwise uninteresting, the way they create a more entertaining experience from a lackluster puzzle is to brute-force the puzzle final, essentially creating an interesting challenge when there wasn't one beforehand.

I think this is true of several prolific puzzle solvers around here.

And never mind data in the uploaded photos, I know many geocachers who have proudly solved a doozy of a puzzle because of a landmark visible in the photos. If someone's got sharp enough eyes to know which tree they're looking at behind someone's head in a picture, good for them.

There will always be cache owners who take their toys and go home in a huff, but most just seem to laugh when this sort of thing happens. It's supposed to be fun, after all.

10.1k · February 7, 2017

If you recognize this situation as one friend offering another friend a challenge, then the CO's rules become interesting.
That is an... interesting choice of words.

I've known puzzlers who brute-force puzzle finals specifically when the puzzle presented by the CO is not interesting to them. When the puzzle is interesting, they'll go to great lengths to solve it. But when the puzzle is tedious or otherwise uninteresting, the way they create a more entertaining experience from a lackluster puzzle is to brute-force the puzzle final, essentially creating an interesting challenge when there wasn't one beforehand.

I think this is true of several prolific puzzle solvers around here.

And never mind data in the uploaded photos, I know many geocachers who have proudly solved a doozy of a puzzle because of a landmark visible in the photos. If someone's got sharp enough eyes to know which tree they're looking at behind someone's head in a picture, good for them.

There will always be cache owners who take their toys and go home in a huff, but most just seem to laugh when this sort of thing happens. It's supposed to be fun, after all.

As I have mentioned before, I had a geoart series. I was happy to put out a 5/1 puzzle in the series. Some cachers solved most of the puzzles and noted that there was a .24 gap between two of the puzzles. And brute forced the find. Go for it! Good work. But, when the solution appeared on someone's Tough Puzzle Solutions Facebook, I did get rather miffed! For other reasons, the series did not last much longer. But if the log were signed, it qualified as a find.

I have another puzzle that was found by a letter boxer. She thought it was a great spot for a letter box, but did not hide one there after finding my puzzle cache. She did not actually sign the log, but I let her log stand, since she took the time to create an account to log the find.

The basic guidelines are that if the log is signed, it is a find. Anything else is an ALR.

As to using EXIF data: if that leads one to the cache, and the log is signed, it is a find. If the CO is concerned about cachers using EXIF date (I have to figure out how to do that sometime!), the the CO can delete any photos that give that information. It would be nice if Groundspeak did that. They did for a short while. But GS is not required to do that. It's up to the CO to check on such things.

7.5k · February 7, 2017

A CO who puts out a cache for the purpose of inventing and enforcing arbitrary rules is not behaving like a friend.

Have you forgotten this is a puzzle cache? The whole point of a puzzle cache is the additional layer of rules to follow in order to determine the final coordinates. Sheesh. If you don't want to do a puzzle cache, then don't do a puzzle cache. Don't accuse the person that invented the puzzle cache for you of being unfriendly for doing it.

February 8, 2017

... what's the problem? Did you put out the cache for other people to enjoy, or did you put it out to control people?

brilliant!!!

that's a tough one for some people to answer truthfully. good job.

February 8, 2017

A CO who puts out a cache for the purpose of inventing and enforcing arbitrary rules is not behaving like a friend.

Have you forgotten this is a puzzle cache? The whole point of a puzzle cache is the additional layer of rules to follow in order to determine the final coordinates. Sheesh. If you don't want to do a puzzle cache, then don't do a puzzle cache. Don't accuse the person that invented the puzzle cache for you of being unfriendly for doing it.

it shouldn't be embarrassing for a puzzle maker to realize a new way of breaking their puzzle... it should lead to a better understanding of puzzles. ;-)

7.5k · February 8, 2017

it shouldn't be embarrassing for a puzzle maker to realize a new way of breaking their puzzle... it should lead to a better understanding of puzzles. ;-)

Huh? Who's embarrassed? The CO created a puzzle, and the person finding it only used 10% of it. The CO's disappointed the seeker didn't take advantage of the other 90%. He's not embarrassed about it. (*shrug*)

(Just to be clear: I'm talking about the hypothetical CO that reacted by saying "that's lame". This is somewhat unrelated to the OP who was only asking about the specific idea of stripping the metadata off pictures. The OP didn't really express any emotion. He just pointed out the seeker's actions were "not exactly in the spirit of the game.")

7.4k · February 8, 2017

A CO who puts out a cache for the purpose of inventing and enforcing arbitrary rules is not behaving like a friend.

Have you forgotten this is a puzzle cache? The whole point of a puzzle cache is the additional layer of rules to follow in order to determine the final coordinates. Sheesh. If you don't want to do a puzzle cache, then don't do a puzzle cache. Don't accuse the person that invented the puzzle cache for you of being unfriendly for doing it.

Placing the cache for the enjoyment of others is friendly.

A puzzle is a puzzle. It isn't a set of rules.

Denigrating people who figure out alternative ways to reach the cache is not friendly.

Threatening to delete valid logs is not friendly.

Otherwise behaving in a nasty and controlling fashion toward other geocachers is not friendly.

Edited February 8, 2017 by narcissa

7.4k · February 8, 2017

it shouldn't be embarrassing for a puzzle maker to realize a new way of breaking their puzzle... it should lead to a better understanding of puzzles. ;-)

Huh? Who's embarrassed? The CO created a puzzle, and the person finding it only used 10% of it. The CO's disappointed the seeker didn't take advantage of the other 90%. He's not embarrassed about it. (*shrug*)

(Just to be clear: I'm talking about the hypothetical CO that reacted by saying "that's lame". This is somewhat unrelated to the OP who was only asking about the specific idea of stripping the metadata off pictures. The OP didn't really express any emotion. He just pointed out the seeker's actions were "not exactly in the spirit of the game.")

Which is incorrect. The spirit of the game is to find geocaches.

Puzzle cache found without solving puzzle

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