Mr Indoorsman

Yes it feels like that ship has sailed and couldn't be done now. Too many issues. However not sure what would have been gained by doing it, I don't know that it really solves a problem. I'm not even sure Letterboxes are a problem to be solved tbh. They work fine in my view, and importantly, add something to the hobby, something that is a nice nod towards the historical origins of geocaching. They're no more an obstacle to the OPs activities than say a mystery Wherigo or multi, it would just be nice to get a thought-through rationale on why they can't be bonus caches.

Yes thats why I like the cache type. it's a bit more versatile than some others, and what you've done is a good intelligent use of that flexibility. Nothing wrong with that.

I don't know if that should be a letterbox or not tbh, but as challenge caches are often at the published coords or at disclosed waypoint coordinates, it's difficult to envisage one being a 'proper' letterbox in that respect (none of my LHB caches are at the published coords, that's just a personal preference not an obligation). But my point is a lot simpler than that, it's about getting a rationale. I kinda envisage a discussion in HQ where a bunch of intelligent folks who know the hobby are sitting around discussing rule changes and rationalising why things should change in a particular area. Then they announce a rule change or issue new reviewer guidance, and seek to embed that change in their customer base by explaining why the rules were changed. That doesn't seem a ridiculous expectation, changes work best when the people involved know why the change is happening.

Yes the rules do need to be consistent, but it's a bit of circular logic to say letterboxes can't be bonuses just because that is the rule, mainly because it just takes a simple 'unless' statement in the rules to make that option seemingly workable, in much the same way as the rule 'any cache type plus stamp equals letterbox' rule had the 'unless it's a bonus' statement added to it at some point. You can make the rules do anything really, it just needs to be rationalised as to why it is either a good or bad idea to do so. My question is simply what is that ratiionale behind the decision, not what does the rule say.

Last time I posted on the forums about this topic you accused me of being upset by your response. This time you are accusing me of "angst". Both, quite baffling responses in the circumstances. As a moderator I'd like to think you are capable of responding in a factual and balanced manner, rather than reverting straight away to speculations on someone's emotional state just because you don't agree with them. There is no angst here, I'm just asking a simple question, so that sort of comment is a bit inappropriate really. And the fact is that the existence of so many letterboxes that are bonus caches (and in a variety of countries, over an extended range of publication dates) indicates either a large degree of confusion on this point, or mass serial errors by COs and their reviewers. If a nice logical explanation of why letterboxes can't be bonus caches were provided it might cement people's understanding and stop any more confusion. That's in all our interests. The point about attributes and cache types is a bit misleading because there are probably other cache types that could have been addressed by using attributes I guess. Besides, not sure an attribute would stop stamps going missing, any more than using a cache type would. As a CO with 70+ letterboxes published, it looks to me like this is just a risk you have to accept of creating these style of caches - cache contents of any type can go awol.

Is that a mandatory rule somehwere for geocaches? If you could help by linking to that, it might help understand this a bit better. Edit: and I think your original comment on this topic when we last debated it is still relevant, if original letterboxing could have bonus caches, why can't hybrids, particularly if the feeder caches are supplying clues that are not just straight 'here are bonus coords' info, and are a bit more 'letterboxy' in style.

Is it really being 'too invested' when someone asks for a bit more of a logical explanation for something? I find that an unusual perspective, but I guess it's a view, and you are entitled to it. Anyhoo, my understanding is that there are already many letterbox caches which are bonus caches, I certainly have some, and a quick look through earlier discussions on the forums on this point leads to many more being evidenced, all over. Then, when the new bonus attribute arrived that changed. and I think either the online guidelines were updated, and/or reviewers were given additional steers on this point, and caches like that started to be rejected, in multiple countries based on previous forum discussions. So, fair to assume that there was some sort of steer from HQ on that point either in updating the online rules or guidance to reviewers....I'm ruling out large scale international coincidence, or an epidemic of errors by reviewers across the globe over several years . At it simplest, this is just a question of 'why' this is the rule, not 'is that now the rule or is it not', that's all I want to know. Not an unreasonable request, for a customer paying for a service. So far all points (bar arisoft's comment above, which has separate limitations) seem to centre on 'the rules say that because that is what the rules say', and without sounding too interested in this topic (god forbid), I am just asking why the rules say that and why Letterboxes have been decided as not appropriate to be bonus caches. There must have been some sort of thought process there, so let's hear it.

If in order to explain why a rule changed, you have to invent a new concept - 'ALR-like' - that doesn't exist in the rules before or after that change, then we can't say that is a consistent and logical argument, now can we. The rules should make sense in themselves. The 'stick a stamp in a container and it's absolutely a letterbox' rule.....except when it's not (sometimes), is a good example of an inconsistent rule that doesn't align with other existing rules. What you have said above is just that an LBH is not a bonus cache. However, 'just cos' isn't a reason, more a baseless assertion. Reasoned argument needs reasons. If it could be explained why the rule changed, without having to ad hoc invent concepts that don't exist, (say if it were a logical consequence of other rules), then it would be obvious that the change had been thought through. In the absence of reasons, it just appears like a HQ mistake, and one that we don't need to slavishly defend. If it is a mistake then no harm no foul, someone just had a bad day at the office and that needs to be corrected and move on.

So finding stages to get the cache is an 'ALR'? Really? Bad news for Multis then... Plus plenty of Letterboxes take you to multiple locations before the find, that's kinda the original idea of what a Letterbox is. Think you have over-reached a bit there and are trying to brand a long-standing core part of the game as an ALR in order to try to justify what is just a poorly thought-through decision by HQ. It isn't consistent with other rules of the game, and serves no useful purpose in terms of advancing people's enjoyment of geocaching.

What is a myst based game? Is this a type of home built adventure/point an click game you have created to bolt on to a cache? Sounds interesting.

Not really, stick a stamp in mystery bonus cache and it becomes....still a mystery bonus -a piece of uniquely twisted thinking by HQ that was folded into other changes on bonus caches a couple of years back. Starved of logic, and yet, there it is.

Although I don't necessarily agree with the entirety of this argument, this is the closest thing I have read in this thread (or in HQ's reply to me) to attempt a logical explanation of WHY LBHs can't be Bonuses. I think it has been reasonably countered by mustakorppi and others above, but at least it showed coherent thought on the topic, based on rules that we can all agree as a starting point. Shame HQ didn't take the time to do similar, but thanks to thebruce0 for this.

This and the post by mustakopi above exactly covers what I mean by my rationale challenge - Letterboxes can have all sorts of requirements on them to find the cache other than GPS, that's well within the rules and very consistent with the cache type, in fact it's kinda the point of them. So it is not correct to say this is a rationale - that would be inconsistent with the idea of Letterboxes.

I appreciate your point but you haven't said why that is - the rationale? - plenty of people on this thread have given examples of how LBHs can operate as Bonus caches and it doesn't break anything to do with Mysteries or LBHs. And you can still give non coordinate clues at each of the stages in the run up to the bonus, which is the precise circumstance that I was attempting to do when this issue first arose recently. So, not mutually exclusive to do LBHs type clues and build them into a Bonus.

Yup, and to paraphrase the response I got from HQ staff - 'the rules just are'. When I went back to ask for a rationale, I never got a response.

Not necessary but neither is it prohibited...

Agree. I also think the LBH criteria is a bit loose (just chuck in a stamp and it's an LBH....). Hence why I take a different approach in my caches like: https://coord.info/GC8PCA5, using custom stamps rather than the generic ones. I have messaged HQ and their initial response again fails to explain the rationale (again).

This makes a lot of sense. That diagram is the one I remember. Looks fairly clear to me, and there is no indication of how/why the bonus cache rule 'overules it'.

Not sure why you think I am upset, but rest-assured I am not. So please do press on with your explanations as it seems there are now a few people on this thread interested in hearing them. Importantly it is the rationale that needs explained. 'Why' - that is all I am asking, and have been asking. And IceColdUK has nailed it - no one has actually explained why my example can't be a LBH, which suggests it is probably an oversight that lacks a rationale. I will also email Geocaching HQ about this but I know in the current environment they may not be responding.

Quite correct. It is easily remedied, with a change to the code and an update to reviewer guidance. So what's the problem HQ folks....? And to TriciaG's point - I'm trying to find out the reasoning behind that decision, so the mod telling me 'the rules are the rules', isn't helping with that. 'Why?' is the real question here, and without that being addressed, it looks like a mistake being cloaked in a reaffirmation that the rules just are, and don't need to be reasoned. I would like to think that when dealing with a paid service, we could expect a little better than that. Hit me with your logic HQ/Mod folks, I can take it.

I already have several LBHs (which are not bonuses) which have puzzle elements to them (all published in the last 18 months), so I can't see how your statement above is correct. As Ice Cold UK says, it couldn't be more like a LBH if I tried. Could someone from HQ/ a Moderator please respond to my question about what the logic of this decision is?

DProvan - My cache is a bonus cache because there are clue words in 4 earlier trads in the same numbered series - those words (and the order they are found in the series) enable you to interpret a treasure map done in slightly coded/;pictogram fashion, by steering you round the junctions of the formal gardens of a Manorial estate, telling you (in coded fashion by interpreting the words) which direction to turn at each junction. On the cache page there are further instructions on natural landmarks to follow when you get to that last junction, and these lead to the container. Other than the fact that I like LBH caches, I thought letterbox hybrid would be a reasonable classification because coordinates are not used to get to gz, either to the actual container or round the path network of the estate. And of course, the cache has a stamp... On the basis of the above, the logic of this rule continues to be...well...a mystery

That has possibilities as an idea, Thanks

Not sure I totally follow, but are you saying I could use this as a workaround to make it a LB anyway? If so, I'd like to subscribe to your newsletter.

I already have a Bonus cache that is a Letterbox and from reading other threads on the forum so do loads of other people. Plus the rules on the site may read like they do today - but I'm not sure they have always done - I think they just changed that when the bonus cache attribute came in a couple of months ago. Else, why would there be so many letterbox bonuses out there? Looked at in isolation the current rules quoted above may seem clear, however they are not - they don't state precedence over other rules on the site, such as the type hierarchy, where it basically says that if you stick a stamp in the container that trumps all other classification rules, and it is a letterbox. Doesn't add up. More to the point - I asked about the logic of that rule. Why?