Jump to content

Letterbox Hybrids


sTeamTraen
Followers 3

Recommended Posts

 

Letterbox hybrid is a traditional cache with a letterbox stamp in it. The cache page can have clues on how to get there from a particular spot but the coords would be listed as the actual container.

 

 

I'm not sure if I understand the basis for such a strong declaration. The Tallest is a letterbox hybrid. Using coordinates and a pretty standard 'get info from a sign' puzzle you find the container a short distance away. The letterbox version uses clues to get folks to the starting location, and then also makes use of the sign to the lead folks to the box in a traditional letterboxing manner.

 

I would call this a multicache if there was no letterbox hybrid option, but I think the latter is a much better designation in this instance.

Link to comment

 

Letterbox hybrid is a traditional cache with a letterbox stamp in it. The cache page can have clues on how to get there from a particular spot but the coords would be listed as the actual container.

 

It makes no sense, however, to restrict the cache type to traditionals. It appears to me that the wording "traditional cache" in the description of letterbox hybrids date back to a time when there were no (or hardly any) multi caches and no puzzle caches. Since almost all letterbox hybrid caches I know, consist of multiple stages, I am apparently not the only one who thinks that letterbox hybrids match well with the multi-cache type.

From my personal point of view, a letterbox hybrid that is a traditional cache is very boring (in particular for persons who are engaged into both activities).

 

It would make much more sense to define a letterbox hybrid as a geocache that contains a stamp (and of course a log book) and can

be found with the help of a GPS and alternatively, by following letterbox clues.

 

Cezanne

Link to comment
Letterbox hybrid is a traditional cache with a letterbox stamp in it. The cache page can have clues on how to get there from a particular spot but the coords would be listed as the actual container.

 

I'm not sure if I understand the basis for such a strong declaration. The Tallest is a letterbox hybrid. Using coordinates and a pretty standard 'get info from a sign' puzzle you find the container a short distance away. The letterbox version uses clues to get folks to the starting location, and then also makes use of the sign to the lead folks to the box in a traditional letterboxing manner.

 

I would call this a multicache if there was no letterbox hybrid option, but I think the latter is a much better designation in this instance.

 

So the basis for that one being listed as a LB hybrid is the fact that it's cross-listed?

Link to comment

 

Letterbox hybrid is a traditional cache with a letterbox stamp in it. The cache page can have clues on how to get there from a particular spot but the coords would be listed as the actual container.

 

 

I'm not sure if I understand the basis for such a strong declaration. The Tallest is a letterbox hybrid. Using coordinates and a pretty standard 'get info from a sign' puzzle you find the container a short distance away. The letterbox version uses clues to get folks to the starting location, and then also makes use of the sign to the lead folks to the box in a traditional letterboxing manner.

 

I would call this a multicache if there was no letterbox hybrid option, but I think the latter is a much better designation in this instance.

 

That is more of a letterbox hybrid hybrid.

Link to comment

So the basis for that one being listed as a LB hybrid is the fact that it's cross-listed?

 

Well sure, if you conveniently ignore everything everyone else posted.

 

But even in case someone carefully takes into account everything that has been posted, I am still

asking myself whether the LB hybrid cache referred to above (along with almost all LB hybrids I am aware of) is a legitimate LB hybrid cache.

 

I tried to ask the question several times, but so far I never received a satisfactory answer. Maybe you can be so kind and clarify the issue once and for ever now. Are LB hybrids that are multi caches or mystery caches (when viewed from the point of view of geocaching) legimitate LB hybrid caches at gc.com? If so, why does the guideline talk of traditional caches. In the negative case, I am asking myself why LB hybrids that are multi/mystery caches are approved on a routine basis.

 

I am trying hard to understand the concept of LB hybrids at gc.com, but I need to admit that I failed so far. What I mentioned above appears a severe contradiction to me.

 

Cezanne

Link to comment

It's not rocket science. If it has a stamp, feel free to call it a letterbox hybrid. Some of these could be called a multi or offset, instead. Others could have been called a trad, instead. Going with 'letterbox hybrid' might keep your stamp from walking off.

Edited by sbell111
Link to comment

I guess I'm trying to understand why you are asking for a solution that is seeking a problem. Is there a particular issue that is vexing you?

 

Probably this special contradiction, to give just one of the many examples of inconsistences:

they must conform to the guidelines for traditional caches
Link to comment

I guess I'm trying to understand why you are asking for a solution that is seeking a problem. Is there a particular issue that is vexing you?

 

Yes, there is such an issue and I tried to communicate it already several times. The issue is also connected to the question of the OP.

 

Here my question Q comes again:

 

Does the guideline for LB hybrid caches at gc.com require that the coordinates listed at the cache page are the

coordinates of the hideout of the cache box? (Only in that case, the guidelines for traditional caches can be fulfilled.)

 

If the answer to Q is yes, then I am wondering why the number of LB hybrids which are multi caches/mystery caches (i.e. cache coordinates in the listing are not the coordinates of the final) do exist.

 

If the answer to Q is no, then I am wondering why the word traditional is used in the section of the guidelines explaning LB hybrid caches and suggest to delete it.

 

Personally, I'd love to see the answer to be "no" because I regard LB hybrids that are not traditional caches as more interesting. I had some vague plans a while ago to hide a LB hybrid, but as long as I do not know whether I need to make the cache a traditional one (I do not like that cache type), I am going to invest further energy in this project.

 

 

Cezanne

Edited by cezanne
Link to comment

Clearly I'm slow from lack of caffeine, but why is that inconsistant?

 

Because the coordinates of a traditional cache need to be the exact coordinates of the cache.

A LB hybrid for which the cache coordinates are just the starting point of the hunt or a parking lot (as is the case for multi-caches and mystery caches) *cannot* fulfill the guidelines for *traditional* caches.

 

So it needs to be decided whether or not LB hybrids need to be traditional caches (from the point of view of the geocacher - ignore the letterbox view). Depending on this decision, either the guidelines need to be reformulated (delete the word "traditional"), or the policy of approving LB hybrids needs to be adapted. The present situation is unfortunate. On the one hand, LB hybrids that are not traditionals are approved and on the other hand, a group of cachers complain about those caches arguing that the guidelines require a LB hybrid to be a traditional cache. For me this is a bit like sitting between two chairs. A a hider of caches, I would like to hide a LB hybrid which is also something special for geocachers (not possible when it is a traditional cache), but I also would like to comply to the guidelines and avoid lengthy discussions with other cachers who point to the guidelines. What solution do you suggest?

 

 

 

Cezanne

Link to comment

It's not rocket science. If it has a stamp, feel free to call it a letterbox hybrid. Some of these could be called a multi, instead. Others could have been called a trad, instead. Going with 'letterbox hybrid' might keep your stamp from walking off.

 

I would very much like to do so. That's why I already suggested several times to remove the word traditional from the description of letterbox hybrids in the guidelines.

 

Do you really think that it can be compared to rocket science when I am confused by the fact that

the guidelines require a letterbox hybrid to be a traditional cache, but many reviewers and cachers seem to share my (and apparently also your opinion) that a letterbox hybrid can also be a multi-cache (provided that the other requirements, like the existence of a stamp in the box, are fulfilled).

 

Cezanne

Link to comment

... What solution do you suggest?

Running it by your reviewer and bringing it here if your not happy with his response.

 

I know that "my" reviewer will approve a letterbox hybrid regardless of whether it is a traditional, multi or mystery cache. So that's not the issue.

 

I do want to avoid, however, discussions with other cachers who point to the guidelines (like the OP in this thread) and who argue that a letterbox hybrid which is not a traditional cache does not meet the guidelines.

 

BTW, by taking your argument to the extreme, we do not need any guidelines: Anyone just sends his cache proposal to a reviewer and waits for the response ...........

 

Cezanne

Link to comment

If it has a stamp, feel free to call it a letterbox hybrid. Some of these could be called a multi, instead. Others could have been called a trad, instead. Going with 'letterbox hybrid' might keep your stamp from walking off.

That's how I see it. If it has a stamp call it a letterbox hybrid so the stamp doesn't walk off.

 

I want to cachers to know that:

  • there's stamp in the box
  • don't trade-out the stamp
  • the box doesn't contain trinkets (although some hybrids do, mine don't in order to decrease confusion)

I have 11 letterbox hybrids (well actually 12 but it's a multi and I couldn't use a letterbox icon for a multi).

  • 3/11 hybrids are off-set i.e. they take you close via coords then you use directions to get to the box.
    One just takes you to the trailhead because it would be tooooo easy if I posted the coords to the box.
  • 8/11 the co-ords take you to the box

It works for me. I'm glad that I can use coords to the box or directions to the box. :ph34r:

 

JARS

Link to comment

 

I have 11 letterbox hybrids (well actually 12 but it's a multi and I couldn't use a letterbox icon for a multi).

 

That's apparently already debatable. I know several letterbox hybrids that are multi caches, and they have been approved without any problems.

 

8/11 the co-ords take you to the box

 

That's quite a high proportion. Question: How many letterboxers are active in your area?

In my country, letterboxing does not exist (there is a single letterbox listed on the German letterboxing site,

but that has been placed by a foreigner and had no visits when I checked the status last time).

 

Letterbox hybrids with coordinates leading the cachers directly to the cache are just boring under the conditions I explained above - the only reason for hiding such caches would be to get the letterbox hybrid icon as hider or offer others the opportunity to get that icon as searchers.

 

Letterbox hybrids that allow geocachers to experience the fun it can be to hunt for a cache not uniquely based on a GPS, but partially based on clues, are the type of letterbox hybrids that are interesting in areas where classical letterboxing does hardly exist or does not exist at all.

 

 

Cezanne

Edited by cezanne
Link to comment

We have a few Letterbox Hybrids here in Germany, and all of them are Multis actually. In fact, I would miss that type of "cache" very much. The owners place them for one of the following two reasons (or both of it):

- The way is not suitable for receiving a signal (narrow valleys in a forested area)

- The way is simply to nicely to gaze on your GPS- display all the time

 

Kicking out the Letterboxes would just trigger the owners to add a formal but stupid stage to their multies over here. That would do no good and spoil the idea of their caches at the same time. But I know, geocaching here in Germany is pretty different from the US, with Multis of 5 -10 stages and 1-4 hours walking to be enjoyed by a lot of people. You might have your own (bad) experience with Letterboxes in the US...

Link to comment

It seems like Cezanne and I agree on one thing here at least: the guidelines are not being applied consistently. They say "a letterbox hybrid must conform to the guidelines for traditional caches".

 

Cezanne would presumably argue for a change in the guidelines; but both he and I would seem to agree that they should at least be enforced coherently.

 

Personally I don't like the kind of hunt where a GPSr is more or less superfluous - there are also one or two of those near me which are described as multis, with instructions like "park at GCxxxx; then go down the path until you see a big tree, take the left fork, after a while you'll come to a bench, turn right, cross the stream, find the red sign, cache is very nearby under twigs". A nice walk, yes, an interesting treasure hunt, sure, but it's not geocaching. There are 14,000 cistes in France for me to search for if I want to leave my GPSr at home.

 

Bottom line: what really irritates is when the reviewers seem to be enforcing the guidelines inconsistently (especially, of course, when they seem to apply to me but not to other people! :unsure:).

Link to comment

It seems like Cezanne and I agree on one thing here at least: the guidelines are not being applied consistently. They say "a letterbox hybrid must conform to the guidelines for traditional caches".

 

Cezanne would presumably argue for a change in the guidelines; but both he and I would seem to agree that they should at least be enforced coherently.

 

I am not even sure whether the term "traditional" is part of the description on purpose, or whether it's just something that stayed in the text dating back to a time where particularly in the US the standard non-virtual cache type was the type "traditional cache".

 

I asked already many times whether the guidelines intend to require that a letterbox hybrid needs to be listed with the coordinates of the cache box. So far I never received any response to that very question.

 

Personally I don't like the kind of hunt where a GPSr is more or less superfluous - there are also one or two of those near me which are described as multis, with instructions like "park at GCxxxx; then go down the path until you see a big tree, take the left fork, after a while you'll come to a bench, turn right, cross the stream, find the red sign, cache is very nearby under twigs".

 

I agree that examples like that would better fit as letterbox hybrids.

On the other hand, it is often more difficult to find the starting point of a cache without GPS information (often even the coordinates are not enough to find the location without many detours, only car navigation systems will make life easier) than finding traditional caches in cities that are hidden at well-known objects. Consequently, it depends on the case, and I cannot imagine a reasonable set of rules distinguishing between caches where a GPS is necessary and those were it is not.

 

A nice walk, yes, an interesting treasure hunt, sure, but it's not geocaching. There are 14,000 cistes in France for me to search for if I want to leave my GPSr at home.

 

I do not know which GPS-receiver you own. I can tell you, however, that I experienced already many cases where I found it much too boring to wait for a good satellite fix (or in narrow streets in cities and in narrow gorges any fix at all) - it was much faster to use maps and intuition. I wish to go for a nice walk/hike and not spend most of the time with waiting and searching around for needles in haystacks. That's why I prefer caches that are hidden at locations which are somewhat logical once you arrive in the target area and where a hint is available. Under these conditions, however, almost all caches become easily findable also without GPS-usage.

 

Personally, I like the great variety geocaching offers. I do not want to use a separate site for each possible variation. If a particular cache, e.g. is based on a treasure map approach, I am more than happy to be able to search for such a cache regardless of how many cachers will decide to search for the cache with or without GPS. Note that one can aalways artificially turn a cache of the type you mention above into one that strictly satisfies the GPS-requirement by adding a useless and boring stage to the cache which is referenced by coordinates and where you need to collect some number ..... Is this the type of cache you would like to hunt for? My answer is no.

 

 

Cezanne

Link to comment

Personally, I like the great variety geocaching offers. I do not want to use a separate site for each possible variation.

 

I second that.

 

Personally, I found the separation of searches for objects and places that do not contain a logbook to Waymarking.com very logically. However, I would not appreciate any further splitting off of searches along the "GPS-use is a must"-line that is currently layed out by the guidelines.

 

Most of all, as cezanne already explained, it is not at all perfectly clear what "uses GPS coordinates" really means. "GPS and coordinates can be used to locate the cache." - In this generality, it is true for all caches I ever heard of. For some Traditionals, coordinates are required in the sense that everybody must use them to find the cache. For other traditional caches they are not required at all (use of maps in urban areas) but if you prefer to use a GPS, you can do it. However, the same holds true for any multi-cache as well. But so far, the rule has only been applied to mysteries and multi-caches but not to traditionals - and that makes it really confusing. This one-sidedness of the rule interpretation clearly conflicts with the logic of the statement as such, as the rule does not really separate trads from the other types but rather draws a line through all categories. Confusion and inconsistancy is the inevitable result of that.

 

Where exactly is the line between "GPS coordinates can be used but can also be solved without. Fits the guidelines." and "does not require use of GPS coordinates, you could if you wanted, though. Does not fit the guidelines" - the first being said to an urban traditional, the second being said to a letterbox-style multi? The only difference that appears to me is for the trad it's about the cache itself for the multi about the starting point. GPS use possible seems really vague to me. I understand that given coordinates should be fairly precise, as this has been mentioned as one reason why the rule was created. However, the rule seems to go much farer as that. But why? Is it really the goal that people add a coordinate waypoint to certain multis just to meet this guideline? Is this really an improvement?

 

Having to look at three different sites (Waymarking, geocaching, letterboxing) with unrelated databases to find available hunts in an area is IMHO not really making things more user-friendly. For me, splitting off multis that are close to letterbox-style would really take away a big part of my geocaching fun. I like my GPS and I like using it. But I thought geocaching was about "where you are the search engine" and the GPS is just one tool. If it is considered so essential for the sport, we should maybe call it gpscaching instead of geocaching then... I do hope that this sport is not only about GPS-reading but about searching and hunting boxes in the outdoors, with coordinates and GPS just being a means of pointing people to certain places, a means among others which are often just as interesting.

 

Just my personal opinion,

HoPri

 

Edit: typos and hopefully more precise expressions.

Edited by HoPri
Link to comment

Hopri, I totally agree with you.

 

I remember multis with stages within buildings like museums or old castles. GPS not working in there - but itsn't it still Geocaching? I also used my Geko during the letterbox multis, because tracking the distance by that was much more relaxing than counting for the next stage "appearing about 250 steps away". Again GPS as a tool, but not a hike according to Geocaching rules?

From my ponit of view, satellite navigation is a tool, not the core of Geocaching. If GSP in particular would be declared as such, a lot of us will get into deep trouble once Galileo does work. Not to mention a cache over here which required an EGNOS signal ( I guess any caches relying on WAAS signals to be evil, too :) )

 

To me it seems like a lot of letterboxes in North America are considered to be unattractive. Such a discussion would never have been started in Western Europe. But please: The problem is one of specific caches, not of a whole cache category calles Letterbox Hybrids.

Edited by Frazer
Link to comment

Gotta couple questions:

 

1) When is the tenitive date that this next Groundspeak game will take off

 

2) Is the current LB's on GC.com going to go down like Virtuals, and earthcaches did where none are approved anymore?

 

3) Should us cachers that like icons go out this weekend and hide a GC.com LB so that we can have the icon before they (the icons) will no longer be available?

Link to comment

Gotta couple questions:

...

2) Is the current LB's on GC.com going to go down like Virtuals, and earthcaches did where none are approved anymore?

 

3) Should us cachers that like icons go out this weekend and hide a GC.com LB so that we can have the icon before they (the icons) will no longer be available?

 

There have been several posts like this in this thread. Did you guys miss this post by Jeremy?

 

Sorry. I missed the point. No, letterboxing hybrids will remain on the site. As indicated before a letterboxing hybrid is merely a geocache that has a stamp and a logbook instead of tradable items. It's a way for people to understand not to, for example, take the stamp.

 

The other project is more letterboxer centric.

Link to comment

The other project is more letterboxer centric.

I should have clicked on this link earlier. For some reason I went to http://www.letterboxing.com instead of http://www.letterboxer.com More "letterboxer centric" has peaked my interest. How's the project going? Got a general date set for a launch?

 

What's with letterboxing.com? It's got me confused. Is it actually a site or is it more like a place-holder i.e. the domain name is up for sale.

 

JARS

Link to comment

What's with letterboxing.com? It's got me confused. Is it actually a site or is it more like a place-holder i.e. the domain name is up for sale.

It looks like somebody snagged the site with ideas of either building a letterboxing site or selling it for a profit.

Link to comment

I can't wait for letterboxer.com to be up and running. I think my wife would like letterboxing more than she does geocaching.

If you want to go letterboxing, stop waiting.

Been there, did that, didn't care for it. I imagine that Jeremy will set up letterboxer.com in the same mold as geocaching.com. For one thing, I think logs are very much needed. Plus, there will probably be cool member benefits that make it worthwhile (ie PQs).

 

If you are the least bit technical, you won't care for letterboxer.com. AtlasQuest.com is probably more your style (and they listen to feature enhancements!)

Cathy's not the least bit technical.

Link to comment

 

BS/2

Appropriate initials.

 

I'd love to see an answer to the question I have asked by now already several times and which fits the

topic of this thread much better than postings like the above one.

 

I am not the only one here you wants to know if the coordinates of letterbox hybrid caches need to be the coordinates of the cache container (making them traditional caches).

 

Why is it so hard to answer this question by Yes or No?

 

On the one hand, Groundspeak and the reviewers like to point to the guidelines when it comes to approval of caches, and on the other hand, questions on how the guidelines are to be understood, are often ignored. I thought that it would be in the interest of all cachers that the guidelines can be understood by as many cachers as possible.

 

As also others like STeamTraen (a PM and native speaker of English) is interested into the issue, it can't be that the fact that no answer is offered to the question above, is connected to my person (not being a PM, being not able to compete with the level of language proficiency with the majority of writers in this thread who write in their mother tongue).

 

Cezanne

Link to comment

The final location should be a letterbox.

 

First, thank you very much for taking the effort to answer.

I am glad to hear that it suffices that the final location corresponds to a letterbox, thus e.g. also allowing letterbox hybrids which are multi-caches.

 

So here comes then my second question:

 

Would it not be better to remove the word "traditional" from the description of the letterbox hybrid type?

(You might want to replace it by something else, e.g. physical, although virtual caches do not exist any longer anyway and events are by now the only caches where logbooks are not required).

 

As long as the word traditional is used in the explanation of letterbox hybrids, a lot of confusion will be caused which can easily be avoided. As you can see from several of the postings in this thread, many cachers believe that a letterbox hybrid which is not a traditional cache violates the guidelines.

 

Cezanne

Link to comment

 

If you want to go letterboxing, stop waiting.

 

Greetings,

Tobias

 

Sadly, letterboxing.org is of limited use to me since I cannot access my account any longer. Attempts to contact the folks running the site have been lost or ignored.

 

While it is popular to rip apart geocaching.com, its staff or its volunteers, folks with issues can at least communicate with people who will answer their questions. Presuming that this will be the case with letterboxer.com as well, I can't wait...

Link to comment
Would it not be better to remove the word "traditional" from the description of the letterbox hybrid type?

(You might want to replace it by something else, e.g. physical, although virtual caches do not exist any longer anyway and events are by now the only caches where logbooks are not required).

 

As long as the word traditional is used in the explanation of letterbox hybrids, a lot of confusion will be caused which can easily be avoided. As you can see from several of the postings in this thread, many cachers believe that a letterbox hybrid which is not a traditional cache violates the guidelines.

 

I think they were using "traditional" in a sense that they are not virtuals or locationless. I can see the reason it causes confusion though.

Link to comment
AtlasQuest.com is probably more your style (and they listen to feature enhancements!)

Didn't know that site before, but I like it. Are you (=letterboxer.com) going to cooperate with them or do you start with 0 Letterboxes at the beginning if you are not going to transfer the Hybrids? Or will they be crosslisted?

 

For one thing, I think logs are very much needed.

+1, I would love to have a letterbocing-site with similar usability as gc.com.

 

If you want to go letterboxing, stop waiting.

[...]

While it is popular to rip apart geocaching.com, its staff or its volunteers, folks with issues can at least communicate with people who will answer their questions. Presuming that this will be the case with letterboxer.com as well, I can't wait...

I can't see where I disrespected geocaching.com, their staff and volontuers with my answer. letterboxer.com is not running so far, so I'm not allowed to suggest to use another site for doing another hobby/sport/whatever in the meantime??? #-(

I tried to give a solution, Jeremy gave a better one right after me. Well ...

 

Greetings,

Tobias

Link to comment
AtlasQuest.com is probably more your style (and they listen to feature enhancements!)

Didn't know that site before, but I like it. Are you (=letterboxer.com) going to cooperate with them or do you start with 0 Letterboxes at the beginning if you are not going to transfer the Hybrids? Or will they be crosslisted?

 

The letterboxing community can be very vocal and quite vicious when it comes to crosslisted boxes that *they* did not choose to list elsewhere. You can bet that any box crosslisted without the planter's permission will have the clues pulled from both sites very very quickly to become WoM or email only. They already are doing the "sky is falling, world is coming to an end, letterboxing as we know it will cease to exist" with the creation of the letterboxer.com website. Let's not give them something else to moan about.

Link to comment

 

I can't see where I disrespected geocaching.com, their staff and volontuers with my answer. letterboxer.com is not running so far, so I'm not allowed to suggest to use another site for doing another hobby/sport/whatever in the meantime??? #-(

I tried to give a solution, Jeremy gave a better one right after me. Well ...

 

Greetings,

Tobias

 

You're reading too much into my post.

 

You offered a solution; I simply pointed out that it was not a valid one for everyone. It could be, if it was possible to communicate with the people running the site. But since that's not the case...

 

The rest is just a general comment on the behavior of some folks on the forums here. They whine about geocaching.com, they whine about Waymarking.com, they whine about letterboxer.com and it's not even launched yet. I'm saying in response to the whiners that in my opinion the existing letterboxing 'solutions' are lacking compared with geocaching.com, so I look forward to seeing what the same team comes up with for letterboxer.com since I enjoy the letterboxing portion of our sport and would like to be more active in it.

 

If you're not one of the whiners, that second part of my post was not directed at you. If you are a whiner, Well...

Link to comment

Would it not be better to remove the word "traditional" from the description of the letterbox hybrid type?

(You might want to replace it by something else, e.g. physical, although virtual caches do not exist any longer anyway and events are by now the only caches where logbooks are not required).

 

As long as the word traditional is used in the explanation of letterbox hybrids, a lot of confusion will be caused which can easily be avoided. As you can see from several of the postings in this thread, many cachers believe that a letterbox hybrid which is not a traditional cache violates the guidelines.

 

I've just re-read the guidelines and it seems that "Traditional" means "contains a logbook, as opposed to virtual" rather than "Cache is at GCxxxx, as opposed to multi/mystery".

 

FWIW, another similar letterbox hybrid has just been approved. Once again it seems a little rude to post it in German when the cache/letterbox is in France, but that's another thread.

 

When letterboxer.com goes "live", will letterbox hybrids on geocaching.com be grandfathered?

Link to comment

 

When letterboxer.com goes "live", will letterbox hybrids on geocaching.com be grandfathered?

 

As I said before earlier in the thread, letterboxer.com will not replace letterbox hybrids. They are still traditional caches so there would be no reason to do so.

Link to comment

Just out of curiosity, are you ever going to let this thread just wander off the page? :blink:

 

Well, as long as TPTB are here to answer and the OP's question is still unanswered (or the contradiction with the guidelines unsolved), I'd guess: not yet. :o

 

To their satisfaction anyway. But for the rest of us we've considered this resolved.

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Followers 3
×
×
  • Create New...