yelnuh

My $0.02: The Mystery Cache category is intended as a catch-all, where various ideas can be developed that don't fit into the other established categories. I think that implies that from time to time, some of those ideas will become developed to the point that they should be defined as new categories. I think at least the following types of caches could be candidates for their own category: - Challenge Caches. There are certainly enough of them and they are unique enough and the concept is well-defined. - Field Puzzles. This is also a well-defined concept that some people might want to specialize in and others might want to avoid. Having a separate category facilitates that. - "Home" Puzzles. I just made this term up, but it's meant to describe the type of puzzle cache where you have to solve the puzzle first (at home), before you know where to go. I also think the following cache types which are currently part of the multi category could be spun off: - Offset caches, where the coordinates of the final are computed by applying a given offset to the published coordinates, could become their own new type. - Offset caches, where some information at the published coordinates is used to calculate the offset, would fall into the Field Puzzles category described above. This would leave the multi category as only those caches where there are two or more physical containers, each (but the last) containing the coordinates of the next. While I'm on my soapbox, there are a few existing cache types I wish would go away: Wherigo caches, which require special software that's currently only available on Pocket PCs and two models of Garmin GPSs, and which are more of an adventure game than a cache hunt. I think these should go the way of Waymarking and benchmarking; that is, become an independent sport rather than be a part of geocaching. Events are not caches at all. I think it's great that we have them, and it's fine that we recognize attendance in some way, but not as a cache find. Virtual, reverse, and webcam caches all went away because there was no container to find, and the guidelines for hiding caches emphasize that "geocaches are placed for the long term." Why do these philosophies not also apply to events? The "10-year event" type obviously needs to go away, since there can never be any more such caches placed or found. The "APE" type is another relic of the past that should have long ago been mothballed. I know, there's still one left to find, but there's nothing any more special about it than any other cache that old. Make it a Traditional and get rid of the special type.

Personally, if I had stated in the description that the published coordinates were bogus, I would then make them point to something VERY geo-typical, such as a light pole at a nearby Wal-Mart. Or better yet, a highway bank covered with rocks the same size as a fake-rock-key-holder. Best way in the world to teach a newbie to read the description.

I had a diff 5 cache that I had searched for several times and couldn't find it (and logged a DNF every time). It was one of those that becomes a mission. I finally called the CO while I was at the cache site, and he offered to come by and make sure it was still there (he hadn't checked on it for a while). Well, he shows up, gets out of the car, and walks directly to the very area I'd searched many times and starts digging with his pocket knife. After a few minutes, he says, "Yep, it's gone." and we start talking geocaching. After a minute, he starts digging again, and uncovers the cache about four inches from where he had dug before. "Oh, here it is" he says as he hands it to me. Now we could have a whole nother discussion about buried caches. The top of this one had apparently been at ground level when initially hidden, but wind and weather had caused it to sink down and become covered with a layer of dirt, so it was actually buried, even under the "old" rules. My question in this thread is, can I log that as a find? I really didn't want to, because I didn't find it - the CO did, and only after several minutes of searching. The way the cache was buried, I don't think I would have ever found it on my own. In fact, the CO had emailed me previously, telling me exactly what the container looked like and where it was hidden, and I still DNF'd it twice after that. I did, however, sign the log and had the CO's permission to log it as a find, so I did. Of course, after having watched him find it, I could never really "find" it myself. I suppose that if a group of cachers can go hunting together, and all of them sign the log when one person in the group finds it, this is no different. But I still like to be the one to personally find the container before logging it as a find. Maybe that's why I don't like to cache in a group.