This topic contains 39 replies, has 16 voices, and was last updated by 
-
Posts
-
Since this only comes up on puzzle caches…
Typically we have tried to put “dummy” coordinates in different spots from each other. However, we now have a few ? caches with the same set of bogus coordinates.
This practice seems to be quite prevalent in some areas, such as Appleton where the Zoe Bro soduku series stacks 10 on top of each other.
I can see the beneift of this practice being that it doesn’t clutter up the maps with so many dummy waypoints. But that also seems to be the key drawback because you can’t immediately see there are multiple caches in the general vicinity if you are doing a map-based search, rather than a text search or PQ.
Thoughts?
On the Left Side of the Road...I know there have been a couple times we missed out on a cache because of this. At the time, I was looking at the map rather than the nearby list.
I suppose it’s up to the cache owners to do as works best. Some of us have this weird habit of zooming out on a map to see smileys, and 10 stacked up looks like just one, but maybe that’s a plus in this case. It’s a weird habit, anyway! 🙄
Having six or seven caches stacked created some very high cache densites that messed up my first attempts of creating the cache density map posted in another thread. I took a closer look to see what was causing the anomolies and found a bunch of puzzles that I hadn’t seen before.
I don’t see any real problem with stacking the puzzles, especially in areas like Appleton that would turn into a sea of blue question marks if they weren’t stacked.
Stack away…
I see no problem with it. In fact I have stacked upon others fake coords.
@Team Hemisphere Dancer wrote:
I see no problem with it. In fact I have stacked upon others fake coords.
ditto ……….
I can tell you that when we review caches, doing this generates an instant “red flag” on the cache, immediately placing the cache under extra scrutiny before publication. If that is your objective, go for it.
please explain why this is a “red flag”
I have looked at areas for puzzles and missed puzzles because of this as others have mentioned. One area that stands out was a while back when I was planning a trip to Green Bay there were a bunch of them that were stacked up on the southeast side of the city that I missed (and were solvable for me) because they were stacked. I only found out they were there after I got serious about trying to solve puzzles and ran a pq for the area. I was disappointed to find I missed them.
Stacking doesn’t seem like a problem when it is in an area you regularly cache in close to home, but to me I really think it causes problems when you are traveling to an area and using the google maps feature to create a pocket query for the trip.
However, you start to run out of places to put bogus coords in certain areas when the reviewers require you to put those coords over water and other “unsearchable places”.
I am still curious on why stacking coordinates raises a “red flag” for reviewing and approving new listings.
Considering reviewers have to “review and approve” bogus coordinates and very often temporarily disable asking to move them to non-searchable locations or what have you, you would think stacking them in already “approved” bogus unsearchable locations would be preferred as it saves time and effort on the approvals…
I do see some people’s valid point about not seeing them all on a map and missing them. However, you can very quickly learn how to use the system Groundspeak has given us. Most have PQ and if not, there are other links and options for viewing nearby caches and nearby caches of this type. What I almost always do when I am traveling to someplace and want to review the caches in the area is I search to get a traditional cache in the area and then use the nearby caches and scroll through looking for puzzles to see what’s around and if I can solve any of them. I love to find puzzles outside my home caching area. Because I know bogus coords are not an indication of where the cache “is”, I have grown accostumed to not using the maps to find nearby puzzle caches even when I am traveling. This use method was not really developed because of “stacking”.
Another twist in the map concern is the LCG map. If they are stacked, you might miss a few lonely points 😉
@-cheeto- wrote:
If they are stacked, you might miss a few lonely points.
There’s always next month…
On the Left Side of the Road...@-cheeto- wrote:
I am still curious on why stacking coordinates raises a “red flag” for reviewing and approving new listings.
I’m just guessing here, but I would think any proximity problems with submitted coords (actual or not) would trigger a “red flag”.
There’s always next month…
But are there any left for you to find? 😉
@tyedyeskyguy wrote:
@-cheeto- wrote:
I am still curious on why stacking coordinates raises a “red flag” for reviewing and approving new listings.
I’m just guessing here, but I would think any proximity problems with submitted coords (actual or not) would trigger a “red flag”.
Correct. And remember that not every “mystery cache” has bogus coordinates, just like the start of every multi isn’t a physical container. This means that every stacked cache has to be reviewed to make sure it isn’t some sort of ALR cache, monkey puzzle cache, combination lock cache, etc. Basically, it wastes our time.
Of course, you could just try not putting all your caches in close proximity to one another. Just a thought.
When there is a series like “Zoe Bro Coup”, I like that this links them all together–they all come up on the same page. Of course, we choose caches by listings, not maps, and we don’t go for a whole lot at one time, so if we miss some, that calls for another visit to an area, which can be a good thing.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.