Cache Placement Etiquette

[EastVillageFamily]

I think that GC.com recognized what a powerful tool Google Earth was for their Admins early on. Their version of "selective availability" was introduced with their kml file, shortly after Google made Google earth available. I think it was an effort to disguise cache locations. But by the time they re-worked their cache listings to include google maps, they seem to have recognized that the geocacher of 2009 is going to use all tools available to them.
In the end I think the spirit of geocaching is such that we should be using Google products to carefully check our cache placements, but rely on our GPSr to find them.
As I write this, I am carefully checking that a new cache is carefully tucked under trees when viewed in Google Earth...

[peeves79]

[BLAA]

[EastVillageFamily]

[EastVillageFamily]

[addisonbr]

[gerkmax]

That sucks. I wanted to construct a puzzle cache where you had to orient yourself via visual/physical clues found at the location. Could that be used at all in a puzzle? Say half & half?

[addisonbr]

[BLAA]

[EastVillageFamily]

[EastVillageFamily]

[addisonbr]

Hmm. That's a bummer - I haven't had that experience at all. There are multiple caches in the greater Metro area that don't always deliver the instructions for the final via coordinates (or a waypoint projection). As near as I can tell, the guidelines require GPS usage to be an "integral" part of the hunt. What "integral" means is left open to interpretation by the reviewer... I can see how UO might fall short, but IMO SV should have been totally fine.

At least some reviewers have allowed that using GPS coordinates in a relevant way at the beginning of the hunt is sufficient... But it may be like a lot of other groundspeak guidelines - how your local reviewer navigates the gray areas on any given day is just what's it's going to be. (Some reviewers are extremely strict about the 528-foot guideline, for example, while other reviewers can be flexible given a good reason - and sometimes even that reviewer may take a different tack on different days.)

It's good to know what happened with those listings regardless... I'll know not to forget to emphasize how GPS coordinates come into play in my puzzles (especially if it's not at the very end). And my revised advice to Gerk is that in directing people to those initial coordinates, make sure that they are relevant to the puzzle in some way. Can't hurt, might help.

[lekogm]

My GPSr has a compass built into it. Also I don't see how hard it is or would be to determine a direction via your GPSr. I think some admins just have a few sticks up their butts.

[EastVillageFamily]

I do wonder if the emphasis on using a GPSr hasn't been replaced by the more recent insistence by NY Admin that I walk them through how to solve the puzzle and how the results will get the geocacher to GZ. Recently I have been asked to go into much more specific detail about how I expect cachers to get there, with the Admin asking me to re-explain several times sometimes.

[addisonbr]

Another problem I haven't yet run into on my puzzles - I got in the habit of explaining how my puzzles work in the reviewer notes way back on my first mystery cache and so far I haven't gotten any pushback. But it's an observation I've heard from others, that NYA has shown an increased interest in understanding the puzzles before publication... I don't really mind it, all things considered, if it raises the likelihood that an error will be caught.