+SeventhSon Posted August 21, 2004 Share Posted August 21, 2004 I prefer puzzle caches, with a little extra work other than just going to a location. The Race is one I did a while back. My newest one, The Zone, has caused quite a stir with the local cachers, and I'm not sure what to do about it. So I came here. I would greatly appreciate anyone's opinion on this cache, good, bad or ugly I did get one email saying they liked it and they got very close to the actual cords, and, although too far to search it, I'm fairly certain they would have found it if they were in "cacher mode". But, as you can see by the logs, bad and ugly far outweigh good. Should I leave it? Archive it? "Easy" it up by changing the reference points to be closer to the cache and further from each other?? I'm open to any suggestions, because at this point I'm not sure what I should do. And, if anyone would like to try and figure it out, please feel free to email me your cords and I'll let you know how close you get. Thanks for any help 7 Link to comment
+briansnat Posted August 21, 2004 Share Posted August 21, 2004 (edited) Well people are finding it, but maybe you should up the difficulty a bit. When you get highly experienced geocachers taking 6 trips to find it, you're talking 4 stars. And is it the needle in they haystack they seem to think it is? Solving a puzzle should put you near the cache, but it doesn't seem to do it in this case...unless they were wrong. Edited August 21, 2004 by briansnat Link to comment
+ShowStop Posted August 21, 2004 Share Posted August 21, 2004 Figuring out the distance to the nearest un-found cache isn't a problem. Thats just a little math work. From that point, it seems like plotting the 3 coords on some mapping software and determining the point where the they all intersect would take a bit of work. I would hope the location would be obvious since I don't think I could be much more accurate then about 50' or so. I'll see about giving this a try later tonight. If anything, at least I can solve this puzzle unlike all the cryptology type puzzles we have out here. Link to comment
+Robespierre Posted August 21, 2004 Share Posted August 21, 2004 Since you give the area, simple geometry finds the radius. Distance between the centers of the circles comes from an internet program, the math is done for you.... There can be only one spot where all three intersect. Sounds to me like this would be good practice for people. Link to comment
+SeventhSon Posted August 21, 2004 Author Share Posted August 21, 2004 Since you give the area, simple geometry finds the radius. Distance between the centers of the circles comes from an internet program, the math is done for you....There can be only one spot where all three intersect. Sounds to me like this would be good practice for people. Yea, that's what I thought, which is why it was not rated a 4 or 4.5. But it seems most just found the radius of each circle, and then plugged the cords from Abel, Baker and Charlie into the GPS and went for a drive, checking the distances. Kinda like coming to a dead end at a river, knowing the cache is on the other side, and going for a swim instead of going around. Link to comment
+Robespierre Posted August 21, 2004 Share Posted August 21, 2004 (edited) "We're not in Kansas anymore, Toto." Maybe you should add a link to the page, like Marwell's helps. Edited August 21, 2004 by Robespierre Link to comment
+9Key Posted August 21, 2004 Share Posted August 21, 2004 Sounds like the coords for the cache container need to be redone. How long did you average them? Link to comment
+SeventhSon Posted August 22, 2004 Author Share Posted August 22, 2004 Well, the cords to the cache is where I started, and worked backwards. Those cords are right on every time I go out there. The problem seems to be in finding those cords. To me, it's just math: change acres to miles, get the radius in miles, draw the circles and get the cords where they all intersect, and then go search. One map gets me from 0 to 6 feet away. The second got me up to 30 feet away, which seems pretty acurate. From the logs, it seems most went searching without cords, trying to find "ground zero" flipping thru the A, B and C cords and checking distance while driving around. This definately made it tough, because the arcs of the circles are very close thru a long stretch. As stated at the bottom of the cache description, the toughest part is finding the cords. If you're gonna search without cords, you're definately caching in the blind. So far I get upping the difficulty rating, which I guess makes sense. Other than that, I could bring A, B and C in closer to the cache and spread them away from each other, which would "easy" the cache up, but then defeat the idea of trying to make a tough cache 7 Link to comment
+JMBella Posted August 22, 2004 Share Posted August 22, 2004 Looks like a tough one but with six finds in a week, I don't think I would change too much. Maybe bump the difficuly a star but that's it. My mapping software isn't working right now so I can't give it a shot. I'll let you know when I do. Link to comment
+Team Flying Dachshund Posted August 22, 2004 Share Posted August 22, 2004 I like the idea behind this one. I was thinking of doing something similar to this. Link to comment
+SeventhSon Posted August 23, 2004 Author Share Posted August 23, 2004 Looks like a tough one but with six finds in a week, I don't think I would change too much. Maybe bump the difficuly a star but that's it. Since 3 gave up, but then found it right after the FTF, I'm guessing info is being shared but for now I think I'm gonna leave it. Link to comment
+NightPilot Posted August 23, 2004 Share Posted August 23, 2004 You can't change acres to miles. An acre is a measure of area, and a mile is a measure of distance. You can convert acres to square miles (a measure of area, and it doesn't have to be square) or vice versa. And 'square acres', to quote your cache page, is not correct, either, it's just acres. An acre can be any shape, though, it's just a measure of area. Just to pick a few nits. Link to comment
+saso_362 Posted August 23, 2004 Share Posted August 23, 2004 Being FTF on this cache I can tell you that I did spend hours at home on the computer and paper trying to get where the three radius lines crossed. If it weren't for the 2nd hint I would never have found the cache since while standing at the cache site I was more than .04 of a mile off from the figures that I had to the reference points. I used two seperate mapping programs and neither were able to even show up with the right distances to the cache. Most of the GPS units the other cachers were using only read down to 10ths of a mile & my Rino goes to the hundreths, but that did me no good since the numbers never worked out anyhow. As far as the other cachers who found it, one was with me when I was searching and the others ended up using a lifeline... Link to comment
+CompuCash Posted August 23, 2004 Share Posted August 23, 2004 Being FTF on this cache I can tell you that I did spend hours at home on the computer and paper trying to get where the three radius lines crossed. If it weren't for the 2nd hint I would never have found the cache since while standing at the cache site I was more than .04 of a mile off from the figures that I had to the reference points. I used two seperate mapping programs and neither were able to even show up with the right distances to the cache. Most of the GPS units the other cachers were using only read down to 10ths of a mile & my Rino goes to the hundreths, but that did me no good since the numbers never worked out anyhow. As far as the other cachers who found it, one was with me when I was searching and the others ended up using a lifeline... my wife and I worked out the general math in about 10 minutes - the part that I had a hard time with was the accuracy of plotting it on a map and getting to the right spot. I sent him my numbers and I was very close on the radius - a rounding error on my part. I used an acre to sq meter conversion that popped up on google without my having to go looking further. Being in California I did not have the map to play with. This sounds like a really neat cache - and I appreciate the math and all so I am impressed that you were able to find it properly on a map - too many inaccuracies involved - even on a mapping program I think. Sure was a neat idea. Would like to see more of that thing out here (and yes I am working on a couple of my own). Link to comment
+SeventhSon Posted August 24, 2004 Author Share Posted August 24, 2004 Thanks for the feedback 7 Link to comment
Recommended Posts