+Old Cavendish Posted August 22, 2005 Share Posted August 22, 2005 I am wanting to setup a cache that has very little if any information about the cache. There will be a clue in the name of the cache, but the difficulty will be high for the sheer fact of trying to find it with no clues. Mainly a warning or two and the coordinates, that's it. The point is to have it take a couple of attempts before getting to it or sheer determination to get it the first time. What do you think? The rules that I have read don't really say anything about this. I would put a disclaimer on it explaining that the difficulty would be in finding it without a lot of clues. Quote Link to comment
+The Leprechauns Posted August 22, 2005 Share Posted August 22, 2005 It would be a good idea to explain what you're doing in a "Note to Reviewer." Quote Link to comment
geo_boy_2001 Posted August 22, 2005 Share Posted August 22, 2005 you could call it "clueless" Quote Link to comment
+briansnat Posted August 22, 2005 Share Posted August 22, 2005 I think its fine. It gets back to the roots of geocaching, just a set of coordinates. Some of my own cache pages are like that and some geocachers actually prefer it. Quote Link to comment
+Miragee Posted August 22, 2005 Share Posted August 22, 2005 Just as long as it isn't a micro in the woods with less-than-perfect coordinates. You don't want people tearing up the area trying to find it without a clue . . . Quote Link to comment
+Old Cavendish Posted August 22, 2005 Author Share Posted August 22, 2005 I think its fine. It gets back to the roots of geocaching, just a set of coordinates. Some of my own cache pages are like that and some geocachers actually prefer it. Yeah, I have found I really don't need my GPS for some caches because the clues are so easy and I know the area. I just thought it would be fun to post a picture of the cache as the clue and post what the FTF prize is. Or after someone finds it, put in another tempting prize. Dated prizes, like hockey tickets and stuff like that. Quote Link to comment
+Old Cavendish Posted August 22, 2005 Author Share Posted August 22, 2005 Just as long as it isn't a micro in the woods with less-than-perfect coordinates. You don't want people tearing up the area trying to find it without a clue . . . No, not a micro. A nalgene bottle or a bit bigger. And a picture of what the cache looks like, just to tempt them. Quote Link to comment
+edscott Posted August 22, 2005 Share Posted August 22, 2005 Just as long as it isn't a micro in the woods with less-than-perfect coordinates. You don't want people tearing up the area trying to find it without a clue . . . here here.. lets cheer for perfect coordinates. If we have them the clues are not necessary. Quote Link to comment
+Jeep_Dog Posted August 22, 2005 Share Posted August 22, 2005 (edited) The point is to have it take a couple of attempts before getting to it or sheer determination to get it the first time. I attempted last weekend (as did a couple of others) a cache that DID have information, and still got the same results you listed. I guess my point is that there are many ways to create a challenging cache that requires multiple visits or a lot of physical/intellectual/emotional stamina to complete the first visit. I agree with another poster's opinion- if you apply your suggested technique, a note to the reviewer would probably be helpful in getting the cache approved. Oh, by the way, be sure to include an encrypted hint that says something like "No clues here, that is the point of the cache." Edited August 22, 2005 by Jeep_Dog Quote Link to comment
+fauxSteve Posted August 22, 2005 Share Posted August 22, 2005 Why not? A lot of caches don't give much information or have clues. You can even take the minimalist approach to another level. This cache has been a local favorite for many and remains one of my favorite caching puzzles to date. But I guess a lot depends on your community of cachers and their expectations. Quote Link to comment
+sbell111 Posted August 22, 2005 Share Posted August 22, 2005 (edited) Coordinates, cache type and ratings, what more is there? Edited August 22, 2005 by sbell111 Quote Link to comment
+VegasCacheHounds Posted August 22, 2005 Share Posted August 22, 2005 Kinda like THIS? All I did was make sure that the entire cache was outlined in the Note to the Reviewer, including final coords and how to solve, and it was apporved without a hitch. Well, one hitch, but that was due to the fact that the reviewer had a question as to why a VegasCacheHound was hiding caches in Texas Quote Link to comment
+DocDiTTo Posted August 22, 2005 Share Posted August 22, 2005 Doesn't get much more minimal than this: Minimalist (read the logs) Quote Link to comment
+wimseyguy Posted August 23, 2005 Share Posted August 23, 2005 Actually there are 17 Minimalist titled caches listed right now. I've found a few of them, the logs are fun. But as already pointed out-you might want to put a little more info into a reviewer note. Quote Link to comment
+Old Cavendish Posted August 23, 2005 Author Share Posted August 23, 2005 Thanks. I want my caches to be hard, but worth it. With no info, would a 5/5 difficulty level be appropriate? Quote Link to comment
+fizzymagic Posted August 23, 2005 Share Posted August 23, 2005 My contribution to the genre: Here. Minimalist, yet it even has a hint. Quote Link to comment
+Miragee Posted August 23, 2005 Share Posted August 23, 2005 Thanks. I want my caches to be hard, but worth it. With no info, would a 5/5 difficulty level be appropriate? For a terrain rating of '5', the cache usually requires special equipment -- ropes, ladder, boat, scuba gear, etc. or it is at the end of a very long hike at the top of a mountain. I did one that was rated '5' but it was just 400 feet away from a 2-WD road. The cache placer must have used a jeep to get up the hill and didn't realize you could walk there . . . Quote Link to comment
+Old Cavendish Posted August 23, 2005 Author Share Posted August 23, 2005 (edited) Yup, a 4.5/5 would be a good rating. How mean is it to have someone go out and see the where the cache might be, only to not have the right equipment. Edited August 23, 2005 by saabinmike Quote Link to comment
+Miragee Posted August 23, 2005 Share Posted August 23, 2005 With the price of gas as high as it is, that would be very mean. One Terrain '5' cache I found required a 15' ladder. It is a 30-mile drive one-way to that location. The cache placer would not have endured himself to the caching community if that requirement had not been listed on the cache page. Quote Link to comment
+Old Cavendish Posted August 23, 2005 Author Share Posted August 23, 2005 I dunno, people do some stupid things to find a cache, like dive into cess-pools and crap like that. (No pun intended.) I may post some clues as to what NOT to do, but that's it. Quote Link to comment
+KoosKoos Posted August 23, 2005 Share Posted August 23, 2005 Nothing wrong with challenge...and, you don't have to be a minimalist to not include hints or obvious clues (though this one does include slight clues imbedded) Siege of Vicksburg Quote Link to comment
+Sugar Glider Sweatshop Posted August 23, 2005 Share Posted August 23, 2005 Or This one? Quote Link to comment
+VegasCacheHounds Posted August 23, 2005 Share Posted August 23, 2005 Thanks. I want my caches to be hard, but worth it. With no info, would a 5/5 difficulty level be appropriate? Well, I'd say it depends on the actual terrain and difficulty to find it. My cache that I linked to above is only rated as a 3/2, because the puzzle isn't that hard and the terrain is really tame. Quote Link to comment
Dinoprophet Posted August 24, 2005 Share Posted August 24, 2005 There used to be a series like this in my area. They got quite a reputation -- mostly negative. I loved them, but a lot of people didn't like the lack of info, and the hides were very sneaky (they were ahead of their time -- I think most people would find the same hides considerably easier today). One contained a code that decrypted into UTM coordinates -- it took me months before I realized what they were. One was simply an offset. One had coordinates seemingly in the middle of a road but was actually in a culvert twenty feet below the surface. I'm sure many people have since seen caches like there, but as I said, these were early on and ahead of their time. Only three people found them all; I found 8 of the 9 before they were archived. The listings are here, the ones named "Not Tellin'" Quote Link to comment
+Old Cavendish Posted August 24, 2005 Author Share Posted August 24, 2005 OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO Offset Co-ords. Now that is a good idea. Go here. It is 2 miles south. You do not have to bushwack. Evil. But still a good idea. Quote Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.