Puzzle caches - Am I being resourceful, or cheating?

[pwags]

I'd like to hear your opinion on this issue. Lately I've been able to solve a few puzzle caches through "alternative" means, i.e. not as the hider intended. An example of this is Mission Impossible in Victoria, where the hider expected people to go "trainspotting" to find the clue to GZ. A couple of minutes on Google revealed the answer, and the cache was quickly found, much more quickly than the Difficulty 4.5 rating given to the cache. So far all six finders of this recently listed cache have used alternative means to find it, without going trainspotting!
<p>
I have solved and found other puzzle caches that required clues to be collected by "driving by" a location, without ever going near the place, and instead using Google "Street View".
<p>
So, my question... am I being resourceful, or are tactics such as the above considered "cheating"?

[covert]

Not cheating, being resourceful and not doing the cache in the spirit of the cache. Calling a friend to get the co-ords for GZ, now thats cheating.

[pprass]

It is upto the person who creates the cache to make sure that it is "tamper proof" And it is not necessary to mention in your log that you worked out the puzzle using "other" means.

However we believe that the correct etiquette for receiving the final co-ords, or even a hint for a puzzle (or for any other type of cache for that matter) from another cacher, is to declare it in your log. Taking credit for someone elses work is pretty poor as far as we are concerned.

[oldfella]

I have found a few puzzle caches. Most of those I have found have involved a bit of thought, a bit of looking on the internet then interpretation. Only one I have found where I used google earth, google maps and a bit of guess and turned up at the area I thought was where GZ was supposed to be and through pure luck or good fortune there it was. I do not think it is cheating as a lot of work goes into using the internet and finding the clues. If the owner really wants you to put in the leg work then the clues have to be so that the internet is virtually useless. Also think about those caches where they sound interesting but just might be too far away for the intial drive or time. The one I used the internet for would have involved a round trip of 700k and a day just to find one cache.

[caughtatwork]

I was number 3 who solved the same puzzle in the same manner as the OP. GabGab got dragged along with me (she's now 9 years old) and didn't solve the puzzle.

I wouldn't have thought to solve the puzzle in that manner had I not read the OPs log during the week. It was their comment about the previous '"train-themed puzzle cache" that prompted me along the same lines. Sometimes inncocent comments are picked apart by those more ruthless (i.e. me)

I wrote to the cache owner and explained what I had done and the manner in which I did it, then showed them exactly where the information could be obtained.

Team_Ninja was appreciative of the contact and they were going to look to see if there was a way to rejig the cache to avoid this type of solution as even though they knew of the site in question, they didn't know about the page that had the answers.

Remember that the cache only has 5 possible solutions. You could just visit each one and see if it's the one. The hint and the comments in the cache (short walk to a railway line) could eliminate most of the ground work by way of Google Maps. So you don't even need to Google the results, just use the information available to eliminate certain places and visit one or two.

To answer the OP directly, any means, foul or fair are the order of the day for some puzzles for me. I have asked the owners directly. I have listened at events for the often dropped word / hint from side conversations (although if they just blatently "blab" the solution I'll tell them to STFU ) I have come across comments in logs that have headed me in the right direction. In one case I found the co-ordinates for a puzzle cache by someone inadvertently dropping them into a cache log.

If I don't find the solution by fair means, I will most likely drop a comment into the log indicating that they were gained by less than fair means, but it won't stop me from finding and logging the cache.

I enjoy caching for the box at the end so if I find the box, I get to sign the log and mark it as found regardless of the means.

On the other hand, if someone is struggling on one of my puzzle caches, all they have to do is ask me and I'll either give them the solution or the direct answer of the co-ords. The game is about fun and annoyance not driving someone "postal".

[pwags]

Many thanks for the comments - my conscience is now much clearer!

<p>I do agree that getting the coords from someone else who has solved the puzzle is cheating, but my original question relates primarily to using Google etc to find information that the person who set the puzzle didn't realise was available.

<p>As pprass says, a good puzzle-creator will check all of the sneaky means available, and ensure that their clues are effectively tamper-proof. Maybe a second part to the question in Mission Impossible would have made it a little more difficult, ensuring the train had actually been sighted by the finder, e.g. "what colour is the graffiti on the carriage in question?"

[zactyl]

I've had a puzzle cache found by someone who just went to the gorge where the cache was hidden and started looking! Found it in the third place he looked apparently, remarkable!
Use any means necessary, just don't spoil it for others, or yourself.

[Papa Bear_Left]

I've been on both sides of this question, and like many things, "it depends"!

Where I've had one of my puzzles bypassed, I shrug and, if it seems like an obvious method that I've missed, I'll fix the puzzle to make it harder to get around. If the bypass method seems like as much work as the intended solution, or if it's at least as much fun, I'll leave it. As with any work of art, the experience of a geocache is as much about the finder as it is about the creator.

I've bypassed my share of puzzles, often with Mama Bear's persistance at the problem, but I've occasionally then gone and done the 'hard yards' to find the waypoints and such if the approved method looked like being fun! (Having made sure that the owner knew that we'd "beaten" his puzzle!)

There were one or two that we bypassed because the puzzle itself was boring or frustratingly repetitive (and annoyed the owner in the process!)

I think it's courteous to mention in the log that you didn't do it the way the owner probably intended, but not to spell out the method.
If the owner wants to contact you to see how his puzzle was circumvented, then telling her how seems only polite.

[Keeper of Time]

I too had the cache mentioned worked out in a few mins by looking on google although I am yet to go and find it. I agree with the general rule that if you did not complete the requested tasks you should at least point it out in the log without giving away too much of the details. I have a couple of puzzle caches and whilst some may find a clue or too on google I tried very hard to make sure that such methods would not work by googling it myself first.

At the end of the day it is the challenge of getting to the cache and signing the log that counts, how you do that does not really matter.

[pprass]

.... In one case I found the co-ordinates for a puzzle cache by someone inadvertently dropping them into a cache log.....

That does it - we're going to forget about GAFF2's from now on and read every log written

[pprass]

.......At the end of the day it is the challenge of getting to the cache and signing the log that counts, how you do that does not really matter.

You listening Rhinogeo (re FWDAJ)

[rhinogeo]

.......At the end of the day it is the challenge of getting to the cache and signing the log that counts, how you do that does not really matter.

You listening Rhinogeo (re FWDAJ)

The challenges of puzzle caches are twofold ... the challenge of solving the puzzle and finding the cache and the challenge to the hider of creating a puzzle that's difficult to solve

[Richary]

On the other hand, some of us in Sydney have recently been finding a long archived puzzle cache (the people lost interest and the web page with the solution went missing). Being found because someone has placed a new traditional within a few metres.

[pirate 63]

aaarrgh!

pirates you can't trust em' Zactyl!

[Damo.]

On the other hand, some of us in Sydney have recently been finding a long archived puzzle cache (the people lost interest and the web page with the solution went missing). Being found because someone has placed a new traditional within a few metres.

That wasn't a real puzzle though. Just had the coords "hidden" on the web page in the same colour as the background.