Cache Types

[+tozainamboku]

Given the number of threads on this topic, it may be a good time to review the definitions of cache types and perhaps make some changes. Here are my thoughts:

 

Traditional the most straight forward. Go to the posted coordinates and find the cache.

 

Multi Go to the posted coordinates, find the coordinates for the next stage, continue until the final cache. Variations include having to calcuate the next stage based on information found at prior stages and listing the coordinates of all stages except the final and having to calculate the final stage based on information found at these stages.

 

Mystery/Puzzle Posted coordinates are bogus. You need to solve puzzle to get the final cache. Variation: find other caches to get information needed to compute the coordinate for this cache.

 

Letterbox Hybrid This is defined as cache that can also be listed as a letterbox. Since it must also be one of the other types, I suggest getting rid of this type. An attribute could be used to indicate that this can also be done as a letterbox.

 

I would like to propose a new cache type of Offset. Here in So. California, I've seen Letterbox Hybrid used sometimes for this. In other areas these get listed today as Multis or Mystery caches. An offset cache is one where you begin by going to the posted coordinates, but there is nothing to find there. You use clues or hints to get to the final cache. This includes the ever popular night cache, where you follow reflective tacks to the cache, and caches that use letterbox style clues.

[Keystone]

The definitive summary of the available cache types can be found in this section of the Geocache Listing Requirements/Guidelines. A somewhat friendlier version can be found on the Cache Types page. (Click on any cache type icon, and it links you to this page.)

 

Both of these reference documents were just updated yesterday in order to keep current with changes to the site, and the launch of Waymarking.com.

[+ODragon]

A somewhat friendlier version can be found on the Cache Types page. (Click on any cache type icon, and it links you to this page.)

For what it's worth, CITO events were left off this list.

[+Miragee]

Slightly different question.

 

Because I have a really hard time doing puzzles, I deselect them from my PQs so I never have to see them.

 

However, there is a Multi-cache in my area that can only be solved after completing four Puzzle caches.

 

Shouldn't that one also have a "Mystery/Puzzle" icon? I cache using my PDA and my GPSr and often don't read the cache description until I have arrived at the location.

 

That "Multi" designation could have been very frustrating if I had hiked from one cache on that trail to the "Next Nearest" in my GPSr and only then found out I had to have completed four puzzles . . .

[+tozainamboku]

The definitive summary of the available cache types can be found in this section of the Geocache Listing Requirements/Guidelines. A somewhat friendlier version can be found on the Cache Types page. (Click on any cache type icon, and it links you to this page.)

 

Both of these reference documents were just updated yesterday in order to keep current with changes to the site, and the launch of Waymarking.com.

Thank You, Keystone. The new guidelines are much clearer. So perhaps this topic isn't really that urgent.

 

I do want to point out that the guidelines do describe offset caches pretty much as I envisioned them but go on to say that offset caches are listed as a multi-cache when selecting a cache type. The examples given for offset caches here are what I considered multi cache anyhow as they imply that you can compute the coordinates of the actual cache and thus enter them into your GPSr. I was thinking more in terms of caches where you need to use clues to find the final cache.

 

The guidelines for letterbox hybrids state that they must conform to the guidelines for traditional caches. I'm not sure if this is really what is intended. It seems that a multi or mystery/unknown could also be a letterbox hybrid and perhaps what is intended is that in order to be listed on geocaching.com a letterbox hybrid must have a logbook that can be used by geocachers (i.e. it should not require the use of a stamp).

[+Lil Devil]

After reading this thread, I fail to see what changes are being suggested. The first post seems to state the current description of all the cache types. What, exactly, is the suggestion?

[+budd-rdc]

I think we might be splitting hairs with an Offset type.

 

I've encountered an offset cache that required brute-forcing to the final stage, which I consider a puzzle/mystery, since it requires "solving" on the field. It was listed appropriately as such.

 

I've also encountered an offset cache which was quite specific in where to go next, whether by bearing/distance or by "plaque math." They were listed appropriate as multis.

 

I can see how Offset type can help cachers who meticulously plan their trips in advance, but hopefully, the future attributes PQ and GPX <wp> add-on will catch these.

[+tozainamboku]

After reading this thread, I fail to see what changes are being suggested. The first post seems to state the current description of all the cache types. What, exactly, is the suggestion?

And after reading Keystone's response with the links to the update guidelines I posted that perhaps I was too quick with this topic. You are right that for the most part, what I suggested is not very different than the current descriptions.

 

I really have only two points to make

 

1. Letterbox Hybrids aren't really a cache type. A letterbox hybrid must already meet the guidlines for one of the other cache types the only difference is that there should be a stamp in the cache for letterboxers.

 

2. It is not clear where to put caches that are not at the coodinates listed but where you go to that coordinate and use hints or reflective material (night caches) to get to the cache (as opposed to solving a puzzle or computing the final coordinates base on infomation that can be found at the site). It may be that these can be listed as either mystery caches or multis or it may be clearer to have a separate type.

[+Prime Suspect]

Once you get beyond the Traditional cache, things can get very fuzzy, as there are so many ways to combine various attributes of the multi/puzzle/offset types. In many cases, the best you can hope for is "pretty close" to a cache type. People who think there can be rigid categories that all caches will obviously fall into, will be very frustrated.

[+Pasha]

Agreed. I like the idea of an "Offset" type to differentiate these, but the fact is that most non-"traditional" caches can fit into more than one type, and that reading the description is the only real way to determine what it's going to take to solve it.

[cezanne]

 

Both of these reference documents were just updated yesterday in order to keep current with changes to the site, and the launch of Waymarking.com.

I had a look at the "new" version, but I still feel that the descriptions contain many inconsistencies and are often inprecise.

 

Let me just come up with two examples.

 

First, take the examle of letterbox hybrid caches that has already been mentioned in this thread. If a letterbox hybrid really has to be a traditional cache, the majority of letterbox hybrids I am familiar with are not conforming to the guidelines.

 

Second, take the category puzzle/mystery cache. There are many caches in this category where no puzzle whatsoever is to be solved. Think for example of bonus caches which can only be found by finding at least one other cache, or cave caches where the coordinates point to the entrance of the cave and the way to the cache is described in words etc. As long as the ? category was named "Other", there was no

contradiction in itself, but the new name of the category does not fit the character

of many caches which have to be put into this category because they do noit fit into

other categories.

 

 

Cezanne

Edited November 4, 2005 by cezanne

[Keystone]

I'm happy with the descriptions. As for "imprecise," how long of a description would you like? It's nice to limit them to a paragraph each. Otherwise we get too many forum threads about how the rules are too long-winded.

[cezanne]

I'm happy with the descriptions.    As for "imprecise," how long of a description would you like?  It's nice to limit them to a paragraph each.  Otherwise we get too many forum threads about how the rules are too long-winded.

The descriptions need not become longer. Take the example of a letterbox hybrid cache: In case such a cache does not have to be a traditional cache, the term could be replaced by physical cache (even shorter) and in case only traditional caches are allowed, this fact should be mentioned also in the short description and the reviewers should act accordingly.

 

Changing the name of the mystery/puzzle cache category to something which reflects the contents of that category would also not make the description any longer.

 

Forgive me this comment, but it appears to me that many parts of the guideline do not make the impression of being the result of many small changes to an existing text over a long period of time while it in some cases would have been better to rewrite certain parts from scratch. (It seems likely to me that the word "traditional" in the definition of letterbox hybrid has been introduced at a time when no multi-caches existed.)

 

Moreover, the short and the long version of the description of the cache types do not match each other that well in some cases. Take again the example of a letterbox hybrid. From the short description, one gets the impression that a letterbox hybrid has to be a letterbox, i.e. has to be reachable by clues as well (and not only by coordinates and GPS-usage). From the long description, it appears that this is not necessary and that it suffices to put a stamp into a cache to make it a letterbox hybrid. I cannot see any reason why it makes sense to use two different descriptions which lead to two different types of interpretations.

 

If you wish to give the cachers a lot of flexibility in designing letterbox hybrids (I would not have a problem with that approach), then you can get along with an even shorter description. If you wish to impose more rules, the rules should be clear to anyone who takes the effort to reach the description. The clearer the description is, the smaller will be the number of questions regarding the description.

 

 

Cezanne

Edited November 4, 2005 by cezanne

[+BalkanSabranje]

What she says.