niraD

Hmm... Does the nature of the additional logging requirements change anything? At first, I didn't think so, but I was thinking of requirements that couldn't be met by simply editing the log. Does it matter whether it's a requirement like log must be in rhyming verse must describe a favorite holiday memory in log that can be met by editing your log, or a requirement like must include photo of self juggling the three balls in the cache container must send owner email that includes the name on the monument 100 feet due east of the container that can't be met after the fact?

I agree, but the "letter of the law" of the current guidelines says that the container of a puzzle/mystery/unknown cache will not be found at the published coordinates. The owners can (and do) argue that the container is at the published coordinates, so it isn't a puzzle/mystery/unknown cache.

There are caches in my area that have additional logging requirements. That is, they are like traditional caches (a container with a log book at the posted coordinates), but the owner won't allow you to log a find until you do something extra (e.g., post a photo, send owner email). To my mind, these are more like puzzle/mystery/unknown caches than traditional caches, because you can't just go to the coordinates, find the container, sign the log, and log a find on geocaching.com. With most puzzle/mystery/unknown caches, the "something else" you need to do is to solve the puzzle to get the cache coordinates. With caches with additional logging requirements, the "something else" you need to do is whatever the owner requires. The official guidelines say that mystery/puzzle/unknown caches are the "catch-all" of cache types, but they also say that the container for mystery/puzzle/unknown caches is not at the posted coordinates. So what about caches with a container at the posted coordinates, but with additional logging requirements? Here are a few options that I see: add a new type for "additional logging requirements" caches add a new attribute for "additional logging requirements" update the official guidelines to clarify that mystery/puzzle/unknown caches are the "catch-all" of cache types, and that the container for these caches is usually not at the posted coordinates update the official guidelines to clarify that mystery/puzzle/unknown caches are not the "catch-all" of cache types, but are for caches where the container is not at the posted coordinates Any other thoughts?

I've found all but my first four caches without a GPS, using Google satellite photos. Multis usually require an extra trip for each set of coordinates, but they aren't particularly difficult if they're in an area that you're going to return to anyway. Most puzzle caches are no different from traditional caches, once you've solved the puzzle. On-site puzzles may require an extra trip (like a multi). I've found a nano cache in the "woods" along a recreational trail, and I've found difficulty 3+ caches. I don't think these types of caches are any more or less difficult with Google satellite photos than with a GPSr, as long as you have recognizable landmarks. Yep. This is the biggy. And it's a challenge when the nearest recognizable landmarks are 100+ feet away from the cache. I agree. The best guage for me is clicking the link to Google maps and switching to satellite view. I've learned what kinds of features I'll be able to recognize once I'm near the cache location.

I've never seen a useful writing utensil in a micro. I've seen a couple 1-inch pencil stubs in micros, but they weren't useful. The distinction I make is that micros generally have room for geocoins, sig tokens, and similar objects, in addition to the log, whereas nanos generally have room for only a (custom-fitted) log. Although I have found a nano that had room for one of my sig tokens (and nothing else), and I've found micros with unusually large logs that completely filled them, leaving no room for geocoins, sig tokens, etc. Maybe we don't need a new cache size, but would a new attribute help? Or should we just encourage owners to include the word "nano" in the description somewhere?