Getting ridiculous now...

Question

I know I've mentioned this subject before (my apologies if I'm boring anyone here) but this situation has gone from the sublime to the ridiculous!

I now have the Diamond level badge for the 'Low Altitude Cacher'. An amazing achievement considering I've gone from Bronze level to Diamond without getting off my couch!

I gather that PGC is now making use of some much more accurate topographical data, which is great, but it appears that the data for Mystery Caches might be gleaned from the posted co-ordinates rather than the far more sensible final co-ordinates.

I'm sorry if this upsets anyone but this appears to me to be the zenith of stupidity and makes a complete mockery of feeling any genuine achievement with the PGC badges.

PLEASE can we have the data based on final co-ords! If this is not possible (for whatever reason) then I'd sooner have Mystery Cachers excluded from this badge (and presumably the High Altitude Cacher badge too?) than have this ridiculous situation.

Just an opinion from an ethical cacher of course.

Comments

Thanks. I can only assume that any downvoting on this thread would be from cheats who are happy to obtain a badge they didn't earn and don't deserve.
Those people will always exist, especially as they can hide behind their veil of anonymity lol!

---

If the finalcoordinates where used there would instead be a possibility for people to get those same badges without solving the puzzle-part since a low or high elevation could be a major spoiler in some areas. :)

---

How?
The only way to know what elevation a cache would give you would be to log it, which means you'd already have had to find it first, which generally means you've already solved the puzzle or else brute-forced a solution prior to finding out the elevation.

---

@Twigz Nope. If I live in a very flat area and see that somebodys highest elevation cache is a mystery I haven't solved I now have a _much smaller area_ where it can be located. Also PGC has a script that gives you the elevation of each cache on the cachepage, that would also hint at what area a cache is placed if it used the final coordinates.

It's all theoretical discussion tho since PGC doesn't have the final coordinates and couldn't use the finalcoordinates any way.

---

Upvote, just to compensate a useless downvote...
Nobody should be downvoted for writing such a accurate formulated question / post.

---

Thank you OB

---

I have found a cache GC397JN, that is less than 10m above sea level, in a lake that is 2.5m deep, reporting as -944m, awarding me a diamond badge! Awesome! Nut no, not really.

---

Hahaha, I wondered if something like that might happen.
Same Lake as my example, but an 800+m difference in depth lol!
GC3995V was mine.

---

I checked the two mentioned caches and to me this looks more like a problem with the data or a bug in the system and not with the fact that PGC uses the posted coordinates since these locations doesn't have that elevation in other datasets I could find. Per the instructions in the FAQ I sent the info to PGC so they can investigate it if they share my opinion that this looks odd.

---

@ Pleu. Interesting example, but it smacks of a certain amount of desperation that any cacher would go to the trouble of trying to brute force a solution to a puzzle based on polling around people who have found it and checking out the elevations of their highest cache in the desperate hope that it will correlate to the particular cache you are trying to solve. That might work (and it's still a bit of a stretch) in a country like Holland but unlikely to be a viable work around for the vast majority of cachers.
At the end of the day, PGC state they do not have access to the final co-ords so it simply isn't going to happen. That (incapability) is a far more valid reason for not doing it, although I maintain that using the posted co-ords produces false results.
Still, if they are going to insist that it remain this way then I now have a plan to give an instant Diamond badge to anyone who lives in my neck of the woods.

---

@TwigNZ, All I'm saying is that there are problems with both versions here and the only way to get perfect statistics is to only log caches that are at the posted coordinates. :) As I said, you don't really need to check peoples highest elevation-caches, if you use the PGC-script the elevation is at the cachepage. If I'm trying to solve a mystery and I see that it's much higher than "normal elevations" in my area, I now have many "free numbers" in the coordinates of my solution and probably just need to figure out the last few numbers of the coordinates. That can make a puzzle much easier.

Even if it's a stretch in most countries it wouldn't be fair to the CO of the few caches affected to throw them under the bus and sure, the elevation is probably the least concern when it comes to these spoiler-problem, but of course country/region/county, distances and so on should be treated the same and now there is a bigger problem.

I assume you understand that your plan just makes you a part of the problem so I'm not gonna argue that part.

---

Actually no, the ONLY way to get perfect stats would be to have the altitude of where you actually went to find the final, not the fictitious location which can often be offshore.
However, as we know, that won't be happening.
But seriously, if you genuinely think that by pointing out the ridiculous state of the current system makes me part of the problem then I think you need to take a long hard look in the mirror!
I want a fair and equitable way of generating stats. Anyone who doesn't want that is a cheat as far as I'm concerned. Just because the best way cannot be generated does not make the current way the best way by default. Excluding Mystery caches from the altitude stats would be fairer than what we have at the moment which can so easily be skewed. But that isn't likely to happen either, so the status quo will no doubt remain. I can live with that better than being accused of being part of the problem when in fact I'm merely trying to bring the real problem to light.

Answer 1

No, since we don’t have access to the final coordinates.

Comments

OK, so thanks for the update on that.
Are you generally happy that this situation exists then, or is anything at all being done to remedy it? Genuinely curious.

---

That does not make the statistics for altitude better does it?

I accept that PCG does not have the Final Coordinates for Mysteries, Multies and a few types more, but does not mean one can have those as part of a meaningful statistic. Those cache types should be excluded.Now it is "Garbage in, Garbage out" Too bad.