Where are the boundaries of the Brute Force?

[+martavohnoutova]

I have a cache with D5 which require some riddling. It means that there is the code locker and the user must find the code to unlock it. In reality the cachers do not solve the code but bring a screwdriver and take screws out, log in and take the screw back. From my point of view they cheats and also after several such attempts with a screwdriver the cache will be destroyed. But the cachers told me that this way how to log it not against geocaching rules. I stress there is a code locker and it is necessary to know the code (it is D5 because of it, work with screwdriver is definitely not D5). So the question is this behavior really according to geocaching rules? Where are the boundaries of the Brute Force?

Thanks for your opinion

Marta

[+kunarion]

If it's possible to open the container by removing screws, that's a legitimate way to solve a puzzle. Some caches require removal of fasteners. It's not ideal, since there is the problem of some people not putting the screws back properly. I'm making a birdhouse cache, and filled all the screw slots with epoxy so that they... remain secured.

 

As for how much damage will some “Geocachers” do to log a find, lets just say some are very enthusiastic. You may add reminders on the cache page and on the container and see if that helps. But if people are destroying things, you may reconsider who you are attracting to that property. There aren't specific “Geocaching rules”, but the people who do such things invent their own “rules”, within the game or not.

 

It is unfortunate, but if the damage becomes more like vandalism, it's a good idea to remove that container. Maybe place a waypoint instead, with a similar puzzle, that leads to an easy to open container.

Edited September 15, 2015 by kunarion

[+cerberus1]

I don't believe there are rules about this behavior, maybe a mail to Groundspeak if you caught 'em in the act, but it sure isn't playing fair.

Names must be on that log to claim a find. Any way possible seems to be the norm today.

 

We saw one once, a puzzle with pipes in loops, needing some time to get to the coords inside.

The CO met us there, as he heard the puzzle was now broken.

Wouldn't have worked for us the way it was put back together, and luckily he had a replacement.

- Turned out the last finder even brought pipe glue...

 

You can count to ten, or archive it, but you can't fix stupid.

[+kunarion]

you can't fix stupid.

There's a “D5” Traditional ammo can cache in a forest nature area, and Geocachers had plenty of trouble finding it. In an effort to find it, the entire area around GZ was cleared and razed to the dirt, boulders were pushed around, the CO's name was carved into a tree, various throwdowns were made and claimed as finds. Ask me again about what's allowed. Um, wait. Don't ask.

[+Touchstone]

Where are the boundaries of the Brute Force?

 

There are none. What you describe is what I would characterize as a design failure. Asking people to solve it *your* way, is nothing more than an Additional Logging Requirement. Your job, as a cache owner, is to design your caches so that alternatives are too painful to contemplate. People will ALWAYS take the path of least resistance.

[+J Grouchy]

Where are the boundaries of the Brute Force?

 

There are none. What you describe is what I would characterize as a design failure. Asking people to solve it *your* way, is nothing more than an Additional Logging Requirement. Your job, as a cache owner, is to design your caches so that alternatives are too painful to contemplate. People will ALWAYS take the path of least resistance.

 

Exactly. Consider a different style of container, or perhaps a better method of securing the cover. Perhaps odd-shaped screw heads or tamper resistant (or one-way) screws.

 

[+Team Microdot]

If it's possible to open the container by removing screws, that's a legitimate way to solve a puzzle.

 

Rubbish. It's cheating - plain and simple.

 

What you describe is what I would characterize as a design failure. Asking people to solve it *your* way, is nothing more than an Additional Logging Requirement. Your job, as a cache owner, is to design your caches so that alternatives are too painful to contemplate. People will ALWAYS take the path of least resistance.

 

These seem like fair comments.

 

They also remind me why I don't bother trying to come up with anything novel or inventive any more.

[+kunarion]

If it's possible to open the container by removing screws, that's a legitimate way to solve a puzzle.

 

Rubbish. It's cheating - plain and simple.

So is creative clipping of my reply. But whatcha gonna do.

[+Team Microdot]

If it's possible to open the container by removing screws, that's a legitimate way to solve a puzzle.

 

Rubbish. It's cheating - plain and simple.

So is creative clipping of my reply. But whatcha gonna do.

 

I never considered responding to the first complete statement as creative in any way

[+Touchstone]

If it's possible to open the container by removing screws, that's a legitimate way to solve a puzzle.

 

Rubbish. It's cheating - plain and simple.

 

What you describe is what I would characterize as a design failure. Asking people to solve it *your* way, is nothing more than an Additional Logging Requirement. Your job, as a cache owner, is to design your caches so that alternatives are too painful to contemplate. People will ALWAYS take the path of least resistance.

 

These seem like fair comments.

 

They also remind me why I don't bother trying to come up with anything novel or inventive any more.

Neither novel or inventive if a simple screwdriver hack can defeat the cache design.

[+Team Microdot]

If it's possible to open the container by removing screws, that's a legitimate way to solve a puzzle.

 

Rubbish. It's cheating - plain and simple.

 

What you describe is what I would characterize as a design failure. Asking people to solve it *your* way, is nothing more than an Additional Logging Requirement. Your job, as a cache owner, is to design your caches so that alternatives are too painful to contemplate. People will ALWAYS take the path of least resistance.

 

These seem like fair comments.

 

They also remind me why I don't bother trying to come up with anything novel or inventive any more.

Neither novel or inventive if a simple screwdriver hack can defeat the cache design.

 

Well that might make it less secure but it doesn't follow that a novel or inventive idea will be any less so.

[+dprovan]

So the question is this behavior really according to geocaching rules?

The geocaching rules only require they return it as found, so it's allowed as long as they don't break anything.

 

It is cheating, of course, but only in the way cheating at solitaire is cheating. GS rules forbid you from maligning anyone specific, but it's OK to put a general statement about how pitiful it would be for someone to bypass the intended challenge. And I think you could get away with some good-natured ribbing of individuals that admit they didn't play by your rules.

 

But the important thing is to not let people that are only in it for the count to diminish the pride and pleasure you get from the people that did fully enjoy the experience you designed for them. Presumably you put the cache out for people that would enjoy it, so it doesn't really matter what the people that don't enjoy it do.

 

One more thing though: if you haven't already, you might want to talk to some of the cheaters so they can tell you why they cheated. We're assuming they were just lazy, but there have been a time or two when I bypassed the CO's intentions because the required effort was too tedious to be reasonable. It's possible there's an actual or merely perceived problem with your riddling that they could point out to you.

[+J Grouchy]

There is a gizmo cache that requires a 9V battery to activate a mechanism that opens the container. I was FTF, but when I got there I didn't know what was required. I thought perhaps a magnet, but none that I had worked. I ended up doing the "slim jim" approach with a multi-tool I have which popped the latch (with no damage, of course). Even after opening it and logging it I had no idea about the battery method. It took the CO emailing me to confirm how I opened it for me to understand it. If I had known, I would have gone out and come back with the proper tool.

 

Moral of the story? I think most folks will play along. Those that don't either don't understand the rules or don't want to play along no matter what. In my case (and I suspect most others) it was the former. The latter happens often, though, and there is almost nothing to be done about it.

Edited September 15, 2015 by J Grouchy

[+larryc43230]

Many of these posts assume that cachers actually read and pay attention to cache descriptions that give hints as to how to access the cache. I know quite a few cachers who pride themselves on never reading cache descriptions or much of anything else on the cache page. They somehow think it makes for more of a challenge.

 

Cachers of this ilk will quickly figure out that all they need to get to your cache is a screwdriver, and that's what they'll use. And I doubt if there's anything much you can do about it, other than trying to build more "tamper-proof" caches.

 

--Larry

[+kunarion]

There is a gizmo cache that requires a 9V battery to activate a mechanism that opens the container. I was FTF, but when I got there I didn't know what was required. I thought perhaps a magnet, but none that I had worked. I ended up doing the "slim jim" approach with a multi-tool I have which popped the latch (with no damage, of course). Even after opening it and logging it I had no idea about the battery method. It took the CO emailing me to confirm how I opened it for me to understand it. If I had known, I would have gone out and come back with the proper tool.

 

Moral of the story? I think most folks will play along. Those that don't either don't understand the rules or don't want to play along no matter what. In my case (and I suspect most others) it was the former. The latter happens often, though, and there is almost nothing to be done about it.

By the time I arrive at such a cache, it's been pried, the screws are gone, the container's barely held together at all. The lock tends to have been opened and left open. Location may be a factor as much as the container is. I would like to see Groundspeak, when they say "Don't dig holes", also say "And no Scorched Earth cache hunts, destruction is not Geocaching". But if you actually had to say that, that says a lot more than maybe you want to say.

 

If I instead found an intact puzzle box, I might try a few ideas. But before I unscrew the box, I'd write to the CO and ask, “Do I actually open the combination lock?” It never even dawns on me to break into it, and I find out months later that, yeah, the idea is to remove two simple screws. So if unscrewing is not an option, please use tamper-proof screws like JGrouchy mentioned. Or at least use screws that are like 5 inches long. Ten of them, cross-point. And strip the heads a little.

 

And now the CO is on notice. That hide must be re-evaluated. Maybe even placed in a selected spot where it's less likely for people to be unscrewing code lockers.

Edited September 16, 2015 by kunarion

[+briansnat]

Not a getting started issue, moving to the appropriate forum

[+Team Microdot]

:EVILPLOTHATCHING: Make a cache that has screws which look like they will provide easy entry to the container - but fix them so that they just spin and spin and spin and spin and spin for as long as they are turned

[+JL_HSTRE]

Geocaches that involve unscrewing anything are probably a bad idea. Most things screwed together that will be encountered while caching not only aren't the cache, but are things that really should not be unscrewed or disassembled. Screwdriver caches just a few steps short of buried caches in terms of "things that are bad for the big picture, especially in the mind of land owners".

 

(I understand the OP was not intended to be a screwdriver cache; I'm talking about in general. It's a bad mentality for cachers to have.)

Edited September 15, 2015 by Joshism

[+fizzymagic]

:EVILPLOTHATCHING: Make a cache that has screws which look like they will provide easy entry to the container - but fix them so that they just spin and spin and spin and spin and spin for as long as they are turned

 

I have seen that done.

 

Well-designed "puzzle-box" caches can be made that resist most reversible tampering, but I have yet to see a cache that could withstand a serious attack with a sledgehammer and an axe. Just sayin'!

 

My solution to the problem, for that kind of cache, is to make getting the cache coordinates sufficiently difficult that the numbers cachers ignore my caches. Then I can be clever with the container and people will generally play along nicely.

[+niraD]

My solution to the problem, for that kind of cache, is to make getting the cache coordinates sufficiently difficult that the numbers cachers ignore my caches. Then I can be clever with the container and people will generally play along nicely.

Another approach I've seen work is for the puzzle-box cache to be hidden at the owner's home. That cache wasn't vulnerable to being unscrewed and then reassembled, but it would have been vulnerable to the axe/sledgehammer form of brute force. Still, knowing that you were at the owner's home probably kept that kind of vandalism in check.

[+Ambrosia]

I did a cache that involved having to unscrew screws, with no hints on the cache page. It was at the owner's home, and if he hadn't have been standing right next to me as I was trying to solve the container I never would have done it.

[+Tassie_Boy]

It doesn't really matter what road blocks you put up, the puzzle is to get into the container and whether they are doing it the way you intended or not they are getting into the container.

If you want finders to get in using a specific method then you need to remove other options by doing away with the screws and gluing or welding the box up.

If you want to get back at them glue up the box and put the screws back in, they take them out and nothing happens.

[+edscott]

Did a puzzle not long ago that was supposed to require figuring out a specific code name to open it. The lock mechanism was visible so simply lining up the "tumblers" allowed a completely unforced opening. Puzzle solved.

[+WarNinjas]

We have out a cache you have to fill with water to make the cache float up. It is zip tied to a fence. We say in the description if for any reason you don't want to play water games please just log it as found and don't destroy the set up. Still about every 6 months to a year we find out someone cut the zip ties to dump it out. Not much you can do.

[+bflentje]

We have out a cache you have to fill with water to make the cache float up. It is zip tied to a fence. We say in the description if for any reason you don't want to play water games please just log it as found and don't destroy the set up. Still about every 6 months to a year we find out someone cut the zip ties to dump it out. Not much you can do.

 

Nylon zip ties are very susceptible to UV destruction. But I also wouldn't doubt that someone cut them.. because after all, we ARE doomed as a species.

[+J Grouchy]

We have out a cache you have to fill with water to make the cache float up. It is zip tied to a fence. We say in the description if for any reason you don't want to play water games please just log it as found and don't destroy the set up. Still about every 6 months to a year we find out someone cut the zip ties to dump it out. Not much you can do.

 

You ought to consider a more tamper-resistant hose clamp...similar to this:

 

http://www.amazon.com/Ideal-Turn-Key-Clamps-5Y00158-Carded/dp/B000JTOWN8

[+kunarion]

We have out a cache you have to fill with water to make the cache float up. It is zip tied to a fence. We say in the description if for any reason you don't want to play water games please just log it as found and don't destroy the set up. Still about every 6 months to a year we find out someone cut the zip ties to dump it out. Not much you can do.

 

Nylon zip ties are very susceptible to UV destruction. But I also wouldn't doubt that someone cut them.. because after all, we ARE doomed as a species.

At one local tube filling cache, some visitors burned the zip ties off with maybe a cigarette lighter. Lighting a fire next to a tree. Yeah, that always goes well.

[+WarNinjas]

We have out a cache you have to fill with water to make the cache float up. It is zip tied to a fence. We say in the description if for any reason you don't want to play water games please just log it as found and don't destroy the set up. Still about every 6 months to a year we find out someone cut the zip ties to dump it out. Not much you can do.

 

You ought to consider a more tamper-resistant hose clamp...similar to this:

 

http://www.amazon.com/Ideal-Turn-Key-Clamps-5Y00158-Carded/dp/B000JTOWN8

Those clamps are what I have around the tube to secure the zip ties to the tube. If I made it more secure I am not sure what those finders would do. I think it is best to let them cut them and they have always placed it back into the spot. The zip ties have always been cut and not deteriorated from the sun.

[+on4bam]

The zip ties have always been cut and not deteriorated from the sun.

 

Use black ones, they are UV resistant. They will still be cut though

[+TeamRabbitRun]

The zip ties have always been cut and not deteriorated from the sun.

 

Use black ones, they are UV resistant. They will still be cut though

 

Electrify the zipties.

 

THEN let them cut them!

[+DanOCan]

Where are the boundaries of the Brute Force?

I guess the boundary is whether or not the brute force method damages the cache or not. Sure, the continual removal and replacement of the screws will eventually damage the cache, but that's more the effect of wear and tear versus intentional "get in at all costs" damage.

 

Not too long ago I found a field puzzle that was supposed to involve decyphering some missing musical notes using a xylophone and then using the numbers to open the lock. Well, with me being tone deaf, I just picked the combination lock instead. I didn't really considering it cheating as much as simply one of those "more than one way to skin a cat" situations. Since the lock and cache was in no way damaged, I don't think I did anything wrong. Now, if I had hacksawed the lock? There's where I crossed that boundary.