Jump to content

When A "traditional" Is Not Really A "traditional"?


Followers 1

Recommended Posts

I may be a bit off cuz I was in a bad mood when I wrote this but....... :lol:

 

Does it bother anyone else when you go to find a "traditional" cache and it turns out to be a Mystery or Multi or some other type? :)

 

I know it really makes no difference to some people. But when I'm doing a drive-by cache hunt and I don't have my GPX files on my Palm, and I end up spending 45 minutes looking for a regular ol' cache box that turns out to be the start of a puzzle.... it frustrates the hell outa me :lol:

 

Don't get me wrong ! ! I do the other types as well.... Not many mind you because I am still in the learning stages of this hobby. So I am NOT against the other types by any stretch of the imagination. In fact, when in the throes of hunting them down, I prefer them.

 

Ultimately, why not just call it what it actually is when you place the cache? Isn't that why we have "types" to help differentiate them within Pocket Queries, etc?

Edited by BigBadger
Link to comment

The solution is to write to the area's cache reviewer and ask them to correct the cache type. Sometimes owners edit cache pages, sometimes reviewers overlook mis-categorized caches.

 

I have a related question. When I am traveling, I like to stick to just traditional caches. Go to the coordinates, find the container, sign the log. No need to read cache pages unless I get stumped, or can't find parking. Last week, I found 22 caches in one day that way, solo, driving from park to park and trailhead to trailhead in an area unfamiliar to me because it was 2000 miles from home. Great fun!

 

So anyways, I get back home and log my finds, using a script that jumps me directly to the log a find page. Again, I never read the cache page. A few days later I get an e-mail from the owner of one of the caches from that day of solo finds. I was informed that my log would be deleted because it did not comply with the "special logging requirements." To preserve my smiley, I needed to write a little essay that was on-topic to the owner's theme. I did that, but mainly because I didn't want to mess up my find count for the trip, which ended with a milestone find.

 

So should caches with extra logging requirements (write a story, logs must rhyme, post a photo, etc.) be listed as traditional caches? Or should these be under Mystery/Unknown because the "?" flags the need to read the cache page? For me, that cache type would've filtered this cache out from my pocket query which is the right result for me.

Link to comment

I haven't had that happen yet. Is it common in your area?

 

I can't say that it is common. I can say however, that I have had at least 5 instances out of the 30 or so that I have looked for... that would make it about 16%.

 

Maybe I am incorrect about how to determine the types. I understood "Traditional" as being a container set at the coordinates posted.... no muss, no fuss. I am a little confused as the "Letterbox" type as they have been identical to the "Traditional" ones .... so far.

 

If I go to a "Traditional" and find out that I have to go 40 paces bearing 221°, then 35 meters at 180° ... I would say it is a mystery.... am I wrong?

 

Or, I end up at a comemmorative plaque that has answers to a series of questions, that would be a virtual.

 

Granted, many people have many different perceptions of a given definition. This is very evident in the Terrain and Difficulty ratings. I have no problem with that.

Link to comment

 

So should caches with extra logging requirements (write a story, logs must rhyme, post a photo, etc.) be listed as traditional caches? Or should these be under Mystery/Unknown because the "?" flags the need to read the cache page? For me, that cache type would've filtered this cache out from my pocket query which is the right result for me.

 

Everything you state is EXACTLY how I have been thinking ! ! ! To the letter ! !

 

Are you from a parallel universe? :lol:

Link to comment

i think any cache that requires a thesis, poem, or anything that requires the cacher to embellish their log should not be listed as traditional.

 

i am not an author, nor do i play one on TV. :lol:

 

in spite of my ridiculously high post count, i hate composing long logs. i once had the owner of a locationless cache email me to "do better" on a log. they even sent me links to add. maybe if a close family member hadn't almost died the day after finding the locationless, i would have been able to, but i really wasn't in the mood. the cache owner didn't know the circumstances, but it was still annoying.

Link to comment
So should caches with extra logging requirements (write a story, logs must rhyme, post a photo, etc.) be listed as traditional caches? Or should these be under Mystery/Unknown because the "?" flags the need to read the cache page? For me, that cache type would've filtered this cache out from my pocket query which is the right result for me.

 

I've seen reviewers go both ways on this, but I would very much like to see "traditional" strictly mean "go to the coords at the top of the page, find a container, sign book, log a find" for very much the reasons you cite. When travelling on short notice, following the arrow may be all you have. If I've done the due dilligence of setting "traditional" on the PQ, once I sign the logbook I'd like to consider my part done.

 

That said, Mystery/Unknown is becoming kind of a dumping ground. Splitting it up may not be a bad idea, but I'm not going to rock that boat right now.

Link to comment

The solution is to write to the area's cache reviewer and ask them to correct the cache type. Sometimes owners edit cache pages, sometimes reviewers overlook mis-categorized caches.

 

I have a related question. When I am traveling, I like to stick to just traditional caches. Go to the coordinates, find the container, sign the log. No need to read cache pages unless I get stumped, or can't find parking. Last week, I found 22 caches in one day that way, solo, driving from park to park and trailhead to trailhead in an area unfamiliar to me because it was 2000 miles from home. Great fun!

 

So anyways, I get back home and log my finds, using a script that jumps me directly to the log a find page. Again, I never read the cache page. A few days later I get an e-mail from the owner of one of the caches from that day of solo finds. I was informed that my log would be deleted because it did not comply with the "special logging requirements." To preserve my smiley, I needed to write a little essay that was on-topic to the owner's theme. I did that, but mainly because I didn't want to mess up my find count for the trip, which ended with a milestone find.

 

So should caches with extra logging requirements (write a story, logs must rhyme, post a photo, etc.) be listed as traditional caches? Or should these be under Mystery/Unknown because the "?" flags the need to read the cache page? For me, that cache type would've filtered this cache out from my pocket query which is the right result for me.

I agree that the cache should have been marked as a Mystery/Unknown. I also think that the difficulty level should be raised because the extra requirements make logging the cache more difficult than simply finding a container.

However...

I believe that you should have read the cache page. Not only could it avoid problems while searching for the cache, but I think you owe it to the cache owner. We've all seen cache pages that obviously took quite a bit of effort to research and write. Some give the history of the area. Some will tell you to go a little further and check out a monument or a view when the hider couldn't place the cache there.

The minute that you spend reading the cache page could not only solve problems before they come up, and could make the find more fulfilling, but it's a sign of respect and appreciation for the hider's effort.

Link to comment

As much as I dislike additional logging requirements, I can't see separating them out of the traditional category, as long as the cache hunt itself is cache=coords. I too have had a cache owner email me and ask me for whatever hoop he was wanting me to jump through - so I jumped. At least he didn't just delete my log. If the owner will email and ask, as they did with you Lep, you can't complain too much.

I have failed to notice that there was a codeword in the log - I've yet to have an owner delete a log over that, but I've had them query my not knowing. My feeling about this is, if they want proof, I SIGNED the LOG. I thought that was the point.

Link to comment

 

That said, Mystery/Unknown is becoming kind of a dumping ground. Splitting it up may not be a bad idea, but I'm not going to rock that boat right now.

 

You already got the boat rocking, so I will chime in on this too. I agree that the mystery cache type needs to be split up into at least two cache types: Puzzle and All Other Mystery types.

 

I think that many (if not most) cachers now associate the "?" type cache with puzzles even though it is not just for puzzle caches and with the plethora of puzzle caches out there, I think that there should be a cache type just for puzzles. RM

Link to comment

As much as I dislike additional logging requirements, I can't see separating them out of the traditional category, as long as the cache hunt itself is cache=coords. I too have had a cache owner email me and ask me for whatever hoop he was wanting me to jump through - so I jumped. At least he didn't just delete my log. If the owner will email and ask, as they did with you Lep, you can't complain too much.

I have failed to notice that there was a codeword in the log - I've yet to have an owner delete a log over that, but I've had them query my not knowing. My feeling about this is, if they want proof, I SIGNED the LOG. I thought that was the point.

Yes, I can still complain. It's in my nature!

 

The logging requirement was to share an example of a tragic loss in your life, and a good memory that you had of that person. I'm sorry, but part of my geocaching vacation was to recover and get away from all that. Instead I wound up having to write a story about it. I would've skipped the cache in a heartbeat had I read about this in advance.

 

To Richard Moore's point, that I should have read the cache page: generally, I do -- except when finding lots of caches at once. This was the third of four caches along a half mile stretch of trail in a powerline right of way. I read the first page to figure out where to park, then I walked to the other three. I really didn't need four cache pages to all tell me how nice the trail was. The cache page for the cache with the additional logging requirements has only this to say about the location: "A short hike about a quarter of mile from the parking lot. About 3 steps off the trail. Cache is in paintball tube." The remaining text has absolutely nothing to do with the geocache.

Link to comment

One reason this may happen is because the cache types have changed over the years. Several of my older caches are not really categorized correctly any more, according to the latest list of cache types, but were correct and approved as such when they were placed.

 

Not sure I understand this comment. What do you mean the cache types have changed? If it was a tupperware container under a rock at x and y coord's .. it was and would still be a traditional. And as an afterthought, if types have changed over time, does that not mean that changing of types is still an option?

 

If you moved it 20 feet to accomodate a new park feature such as a new walkway or garden (etc.) that may have interfered with your cache it would become an offset cache, no? and at that point would not you or a reviewer change it's type appropriately?

 

I suppose if you had a hundred or so caches... then it would definitely be a pain to change them as I'm sure they must be altered slightly as time passes.

Edited by BigBadger
Link to comment

I've been caching since 2001. During that time, the number of cache types has grown. For example, look up one of my early cache hides:

 

GC5138

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...88-eb87e3c8a447

 

It's listed as a "Traditional Cache" and that was correct in 2002 when it was hidden, but I believe if it was hidden as a new cache now it would be classified as a mystery cache.

Link to comment

I've been caching since 2001. During that time, the number of cache types has grown. For example, look up one of my early cache hides:

 

GC5138

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...88-eb87e3c8a447

 

It's listed as a "Traditional Cache" and that was correct in 2002 when it was hidden, but I believe if it was hidden as a new cache now it would be classified as a mystery cache.

 

Okay, i get it. Fewer choices when it all started meant wider pigeonholes. I incorrectly assumed there were a similar amount of types then.

 

Thanks ^_^

Link to comment

I like suprises so I would have to say it does not bother me much.

 

You like going to coordinates and then looking around for a cache only to find out the cache isn't actually at the coordinates listed?

 

We found 2 caches yesterday which were listed as traditional but the coordinates were simply for parking. Our group spent time looking for the cache until someone pulled out the cache page and read it closely to find out the "traditional" was a multi-.

 

Team Misguided is correct, just e-mail the local approver and hopefully they'll fix the mis-typed cache. I've had good luck getting most of the mis-typed caches I find fixed.

Link to comment
I believe that you should have read the cache page. Not only could it avoid problems while searching for the cache, but I think you owe it to the cache owner. We've all seen cache pages that obviously took quite a bit of effort to research and write. Some give the history of the area. Some will tell you to go a little further and check out a monument or a view when the hider couldn't place the cache there.

The minute that you spend reading the cache page could not only solve problems before they come up, and could make the find more fulfilling, but it's a sign of respect and appreciation for the hider's effort.

Couldn't have said it better myself, Richard.

 

I've actually had a few finders here and there get upset about my first hide, a poetry themed cache called Roses Are Red. People fail to read the description, log without meeting the requirement, then get cranked at me when I ask them to change their log -- no matter how diplomatically I handle it. Check out the Feb 27th log for example. The email I sent that guy was in the form of a fun little poem which gently reminded him about the rule.

 

It hasn't happend very often, but I don't understand why it ever happens at all. How hard is it to read the cache page? Or, if you're going to go out caching based on some paperless system, then why not simply accept the risk that obviously comes with choosing not to read the posted descriptions?

 

I once went out caching with a big stack of printouts that I hadn't yet read. The first stop was a virtual that required posting a photo when logging. Having not done my homework I didn't know I was supposed bring a camera. With no photo I was unable to log the find. Who did I blame? Myself. I learned to either read up ahead of time, or risk wasting my time on the trail. Still -- I enjoyed the walk that day!

 

 

 

I agree that the cache should have been marked as a Mystery/Unknown. I also think that the difficulty level should be raised because the extra requirements make logging the cache more difficult than simply finding a container....
So should caches with extra logging requirements (write a story, logs must rhyme, post a photo, etc.) be listed as traditional caches? Or should these be under Mystery/Unknown because the "?" flags the need to read the cache page?

Mystery/Unknown? In the examples Leprechauns mentioned (writing essays, making rhymes, posting photos) there is no 'mystery;' nothing is 'unknown' about the logging requirements. It's all spelled out right there on the cache page, therefore how can they be considered 'Mystery/Unknown' hides? If this really is a big problem, my inclination would be to go instead with a new category, although that solution is not without its own problems.

 

So I think I'll stick with: "Either read the cache page -- or accept the consequences."

 

 

As for the original question...

 

Does it bother anyone else when you go to find a "traditional" cache and it turns out to be a Mystery or Multi or some other type? ^_^

... I say: Yes. It's annoying.

Link to comment

It hasn't happend very often, but I don't understand why it ever happens at all. How hard is it to read the cache page? Or, if you're going to go out caching based on some paperless system, then why not simply accept the risk that obviously comes with choosing not to read the posted descriptions?

 

I understand and agree with you on many points. However, when driving down a road and realizing you are driving by a cache that you had not planned on..... AND... when you try only to do the basic 'Traditional' (read - point and shoot) cache, you must admit that there is no way to know that you may have had to respond in poetry or scientific parrabollah (read - cynicism... kinda tongue-in-cheek style).

 

I eventually read the cache pages. I read them in less detail when I've done a whole pile in a day and the kids are screaming for dinner and the fridge is broken and my car has just died in the driveway.... It's easy to prioritize time away from frivolity and onto necessity whilst still attempting to finish your BASIC day.

 

My initial point was just that if the cache is NOT at the posted coordinates, It should not be considerred "Traditional" :mad:

 

I, Bigbadger, do hereby and with full comprehension and understanding, undertake the responsibility of having buggered up someones effort of placing any TYPE of cache by not complying with their conditions set forth upon the GCXXXX pages, will immediately and with full humility offer 5 seconds of silence.

 

:o

Edited by BigBadger
Link to comment

It hasn't happend very often, but I don't understand why it ever happens at all. How hard is it to read the cache page? Or, if you're going to go out caching based on some paperless system, then why not simply accept the risk that obviously comes with choosing not to read the posted descriptions?

I understand and agree with you on many points. However, when driving down a road and realizing you are driving by a cache that you had not planned on..... AND... when you try only to do the basic 'Traditional' (read - point and shoot) cache, you must admit that there is no way to know that you may have had to respond in poetry or scientific parrabollah (read - cynicism... kinda tongue-in-cheek style).

Yes, I admit that. I already addressed it.

 

Therefore, now YOU must admit that, when driving down a road and realizing you are driving by a cache that you had not planned on..... AND... when you try only to do the basic 'Traditional' (read - point and shoot) cache ... AND ... you realize that you do not have on-the-spot access to the posted cache description ... you must admit that YOU are the one who CHOSE to hunt the cache without said description, and therefore must deal with the resulting consequences.

 

Paperless caching is a convenience. It does not remove the basic responsibilities and etiquette of Geocaching.

 

Again, it seems the only other solution is for a new category to be created, one that means something like "Paperless Friendly." Like I said, though, there would be at least a few problems with that idea. It would add complexity (How many categories must we eventually have?), and I would speculate that such a category would only encourage the kind of cookie-cutter lameness that so many cachers complain about already.

 

 

 

I eventually read the cache pages. I read them in less detail when I've done a whole pile in a day and the kids are screaming for dinner and the fridge is broken and my car has just died in the driveway.... It's easy to prioritize time away from frivolity and onto necessity whilst still attempting to finish your BASIC day.

Are you suggesting that you should be excused from the logging requirements for a given cache simply because you hunted so many that day that it was inconvenient for you to read the relevant cache pages in detail? Are you suggesting that you should be excused from the logging requirements for a given cache simply because your busy day left you a little frazzled?

 

Are you suggesting that if, for example, you found and signed my poetry cache during a hectic numbers run that was followed by screaming kids, a broken fridge, and a stalled car ... that you should be allowed to post "TNLN, TFTC" even though everyone else gets held to the posted rule?

 

If I were you in that situation I would see two choices:

  1. Respond with the required poetry or scientific parabola, or
  2. Simply don't log the cache online.

There's no rule that says you have to log the cache.

Link to comment

 

Paperless caching is a convenience.

 

Complete Rubbish. Paperless caching is a RESPONSIBILITY.

 

And on that note, I was using my PALM for everything in my hectic life.... and it died. It died while looking for a cache. So the rest of my day offered no clue as to what I was looking for, or how I should behave, respond, reply or continue to look.

 

3 of the 4 caches I had on my Garmin were supposed to be Traditional but were not, and the final was a micro that had me completely bewildered. I really enjoyed that one, but as it turned out I was supposed to do something there. Which I went back and did. The web info did not indicate what I had to do it was log that had a requirement.

Edited by BigBadger
Link to comment

Paperless caching is a convenience.

Complete Rubbish. Paperless caching is a RESPONSIBILITY.

:ph34r: Huh? :P

 

What is that supposed to mean? Where does it say I have to go spend a pile of money on a laptop or a PDA to do this hobby?

 

That doesn't make any sense.

 

 

And on that note, I was using my PALM for everything in my hectic life.... and it died. It died while looking for a cache. So the rest of my day offered no clue as to what I was looking for, or how I should behave, respond, reply or continue to look.

Complete rubbish. So your Palm died. How is that the fault of the cache owner? I would never even THINK of using such a lame reason as an excuse not to comply with logging requirements.

 

If you want to find and log a cache, reading the cache page is YOUR responsibility.

 

 

You still haven't answered my questions from April 30th, so let me re-word them for you:

 

1. Are you suggesting that you should be excused from following clearly posted cache page instructions even thought you (1) chose not to read the posted description on a cache page, or (2) realized later that for whatever reason you no longer had access to the information, yet you chose to look for the cache anyway?

 

2. Are you suggesting that you should be excused from following clearly posted cache page instructions just because your day was "hectic?"

 

 

If you hunt a cache without reading ANY or ALL of the information the owner provided in the description, then you must take responsibility for the consequences. I happily follow this rule myself. Is it too much to ask to expect others to do the same?

 

 

 

3 of the 4 caches I had on my Garmin were supposed to be Traditional but were not, and the final was a micro that had me completely bewildered. I really enjoyed that one, but as it turned out I was supposed to do something there. Which I went back and did.

Again, I'm not philosophically opposed to a new cache type/category. I just think such a thing should first be carefully considered by TPTB. Does the increase in value warrant the increase in complexity?

 

 

The web info did not indicate what I had to do it was log that had a requirement.

I've read that sentence five times -- I give up.

Link to comment

One time I was trying to find a restaurant where an event cache was being held. I had skimmed the page a week before and knew it was at a pizza place near a particular intersection. Having had a hectic day I didn't bother to follow the GPS very closely, and I turned into the wrong pizza place. It was near the other restaurant, but I'd failed to read the cache page closely.

 

Should I have gone inside, ordered food, assumed nobody else showed up, and logged my "find" after I got home? After all, it's not MY fault I didn't get all the necessary information (the coordinates) off of the cache page, right?

Link to comment

i think any cache that requires a thesis, poem, or anything that requires the cacher to embellish their log should not be listed as traditional.

 

i am not an author, nor do i play one on TV. :rolleyes:

 

in spite of my ridiculously high post count, i hate composing long logs. i once had the owner of a locationless cache email me to "do better" on a log. they even sent me links to add. maybe if a close family member hadn't almost died the day after finding the locationless, i would have been able to, but i really wasn't in the mood. the cache owner didn't know the circumstances, but it was still annoying.

 

Perhaps an 'additional logging requirements' attribute icon is in order?

Link to comment

While we digress and get more and more off-topic. I will neither concede, nor will I fight my points ad infinitum. It seems obvious that both you and I share an equal and strong passion for this enjoyable pastime. And just as 2 opposing political parties have an equal passion for their country, they will also have vastly different views on any given subject. In a way they can both be right and wrong based upon ones perspective.

 

I will answer your questions with a question. Have you ever been to a cache that the contents were supposed to be of a theme that reflected the owners original plan only to find that in contained a bunch of plastic crappy toys and nothing at all even remotely resembling the theme? Yes, it is annoying and yes, it is uncontrollable. That's people for you. Is it worth getting uptight over? :) How is that any different than not writing in poetry?

 

The web info did not indicate what I had to do it was log that had a requirement.

 

I've read that sentence five times -- I give up.

 

I should have stated that it was the log-BOOK within the cache that indicated a requirement. My bad.

Edited by BigBadger
Link to comment
I've read that sentence five times -- I give up.

I should have stated that it was the log-BOOK within the cache that indicated a requirement. My bad.

Now I see it -- now the sentence makes sense. Thanks.

 

In that case I guess I would agree with you that what you'd found was a badly designed, poorly thought-out cache. I would be frustrated as well.

 

 

 

While we digress and get more and more off-topic...

Hey, it's your thread. If there's some relevant tangent here that YOU want to talk about, then in my opinion that makes it on-topic. :)

 

 

 

I will neither concede, nor will I fight my points ad infinitum. It seems obvious that both you and I share an equal and strong passion for this enjoyable pastime. And just as 2 opposing political parties have an equal passion for their country, they will also have vastly different views on any given subject. In a way they can both be right and wrong based upon ones perspective.

No offense, but that's just the kind of fluffy, meaningless politician-speak people use when they've run out of logical responses with which to defend their position. Frankly I would have much preferred something like "yes, those are valid points, I'll think about it," or even "KBI, you're a clueless idiot and here's why -- get comfortable because this is going to take a while."

 

I have a thick skin. I promise. This is all :D friendly :D as far as I'm concerned. If you still disagree, I'd be very interested to hear exactly why you still disagree.

 

 

 

I will answer your questions with a question. Have you ever been to a cache that the contents were supposed to be of a theme that reflected the owners original plan only to find that in contained a bunch of plastic crappy toys and nothing at all even remotely resembling the theme? Yes, it is annoying and yes, it is uncontrollable. That's people for you. Is it worth getting uptight over? :D

Yes, it is annoying and yes, it is uncontrollable. No, it's not worth getting uptight over. Unfortunately, your question-in-answer-to-a-question doesn't answer my questions at all – so, as I believe my questions are fair and still relevant, I'll repeat them again:

 

1. Are you suggesting that you should be excused from following clearly posted cache page instructions even thought you (1) chose not to read the posted description on a cache page, or (2) realized later that for whatever reason you no longer had access to the information, yet you chose to look for the cache anyway?

 

2. Are you suggesting that you should be excused from following clearly posted cache page instructions just because your day was "hectic?"

 

 

 

How is that any different than not writing in poetry?

How is the trade-item theme different? You said it yourself: it is uncontrollable.

 

I can NOT enforce a rule that requires people to place only themed trade items in a cache. I CAN, however, enforce a rule about how a cache is logged online. If the rule is clearly spelled out on the cache page, yet the finder choses not to read the cache page before hunting the cache, then the finder has no excuse for not knowing the rule. You still haven't convinced me that your excuses are valid, which is why I'm still interested in your responses to those two questions.

 

Keep in mind that my poetry cache is not intended to cause annoyance – the rule is there only in the interest of fun. By making the poetry thing mandatory, everybody (who chooses to do the cache) has to take a crack at a little creativity, which in turn entertains everybody else. If I had made it voluntary, all it would take is two or three consecutive “TNLN” logs -- and nobody thereafter would have the nerve to attempt a rhyme!

 

Like I said before, I consider this to be a friendly, meaningful and useful discussion. I look forward to your response, BigBadger! :D

Link to comment

(dadgum quote thing never seems to work out right for me. Don't judge my response by the lack of ability to quote properly)

 

 

I have a thick skin. I promise. This is all :) friendly :D as far as I'm concerned. If you still disagree, I'd be very interested to hear exactly why you still disagree.

 

Oh, Good. It's tough through these writings not to know one way or the other if one is being adversarially pissy or trying earnestly to make a point.

 

1. Are you suggesting that you should be excused from following clearly posted cache page instructions even thought you (1) chose not to read the posted description on a cache page, or (2) realized later that for whatever reason you no longer had access to the information, yet you chose to look for the cache anyway?

 

2. Are you suggesting that you should be excused from following clearly posted cache page instructions just because your day was "hectic?"

 

1. I live on an island and I travel around areas I am completely unfamiliar with, plus I always carry my GPSr with me and may not know when or where I may be able to use it. To limit my PQ's so that my GPSr which limits out at 500, I stick solely to "Traditional" caches (hence my original topic). I do NOT have access to a computer when I travel, roam, etc so I try to use my palm as backup information on the 500 that I have in my Garmin. Paper would be ridiculously overkill, am I right? (following a personal phylosophy of Reduce, Re-use and Recycle). ...so.... if I look for a 'traditional' cache and I find it, regardless of the instructions which probably should not be overlooked but may be none-the-less, I'm going to log it online.

 

2. Yes, absolutely. Come on, who really cares? If one or 2 people don't do it, will it really change things? I don't think so. In fact I think most people will follow your instructions anyway. Rules? I think guidelines is a better term. Geocaching has few RULES. see below:

 

Step 4 – The Find

Huzzah! You found the cache! Congratulations! Now what?

 

Usually you take an item and leave an item, and enter your name and experience you had into the log book. Some people prefer to just enter their name into the log book. It’s an accomplishment enough to locate the cache.

Make sure to seal the cache and place it back where you found it. If it had some rocks covering it, please replace them. It’s pretty straightforward.

Remember that waypoint we suggested you create where your car/trail was located? Use that now to get back! You’ll be glad you had it.

When you get home, email the person who hid the cache and let them know you found it! They’re always happy to know the condition of their cache and it’s nice to know that people are looking for them.

 

How is that any different than not writing in poetry?

How is the trade-item theme different? You said it yourself: it is uncontrollable.

 

I can NOT enforce a rule that requires people to place only themed trade items in a cache. I CAN, however, enforce a rule about how a cache is logged online.

 

I don't understand. How does one enforce the logging requirements? Does owning a cache offer more options?

 

My limited experience has indicated that many owners simply place and forget. many state that they will re-stock, etc. but little evidence through online logs or the more obvious cache contents show any sign of upkeep or even reviewing.

 

I think it's cool that you have gone to the trouble of creating an extra little bit. But I really think that holding my find count hostage due to something as petty as neglecting to format my logging isneither necessary nor benficial. I think a better response is a gentle email request by yourself to the culprit.

Edited by BigBadger
Link to comment

(dadgum quote thing never seems to work out right for me. Don't judge my response by the lack of ability to quote properly)

Don't worry. I'm not that shallow. :laughing:

 

And I think I can help you there. I had to learn this myself the hard way. All you have to do is make sure your "

" tags are properly sequenced and nested (which you did) and that there is exactly one close-quote tag for every open-quote tag, and vice-versa. They only work in pairs, and apparently it only takes one orphan tag to confuse the whole post.

 

For example, if I counted correctly, all you needed to do was place an open quote tag in front of the line where you quote me saying "How is the trade-item theme different?"

 

When you babble as much as I do, you eventually get pretty good at it. Which reminds me, there also seems to be a limit on how many times you can use quotes in a single post. If you ever have another one that doesn't work, and it's a large, multi-quote post, try breaking it up into two or more separate posts.

Link to comment
1. Are you suggesting that you should be excused from following clearly posted cache page instructions even thought you (1) chose not to read the posted description on a cache page, or (2) realized later that for whatever reason you no longer had access to the information, yet you chose to look for the cache anyway?

1. I live on an island and I travel around areas I am completely unfamiliar with, plus I always carry my GPSr with me and may not know when or where I may be able to use it. To limit my PQ's so that my GPSr which limits out at 500, I stick solely to "Traditional" caches (hence my original topic). I do NOT have access to a computer when I travel, roam, etc so I try to use my palm as backup information on the 500 that I have in my Garmin. Paper would be ridiculously overkill, am I right? (following a personal phylosophy of Reduce, Re-use and Recycle). ...so.... if I look for a 'traditional' cache and I find it, regardless of the instructions which probably should not be overlooked but may be none-the-less, I'm going to log it online.

All of which is nothing but a long-winded way of saying "I sometimes choose to knowingly and intentionally hunt caches without first reading the cache page."

 

What you describe is exactly what I was addressing when I made the statement: "Paperless caching is a convenience. It does NOT remove the basic responsibilities and etiquette of Geocaching." Yes, I agree that it is VERY impractical to print out and carry 500 cache pages to go along with your PQ. I don’t cache paperless myself, but if I did I wouldn’t tote all that paper either – that’s why they call it paperless! As I understand it, though, aren’t there some available electronic ways to carry along the descriptions? You said you have a Palm -- doesn't it provide this function?

 

I'm like you. Given any unexpected opportunity to cache, I'm going to jump on it! I know there's a bit of a risk involved in not having read the owner's description, but at least I take responsibility for that going in. If I later get back to the Internet to log my find, only to slap my forehead and say "well crap, I didn't know I was supposed to do THAT while I was there" -- well then, I took a chance and I ended up wasting my time. Or maybe not. The hunt is almost always worth doing in itself.

 

Yet YOU say:

 

... if I look for a 'traditional' cache and I find it, regardless of the instructions which probably should not be overlooked but may be none-the-less, I'm going to log it online.

So, if I understand correctly, whereas I in that situation would say "my bad, I had no way to know, but it was worth the chance," you on the other hand would essentially say "screw you Mr Cache Owner, I'm logging your cache anyway!!"

 

 

 

2. Are you suggesting that you should be excused from following clearly posted cache page instructions just because your day was "hectic?"

2. Yes, absolutely. Come on, who really cares? If one or 2 people don't do it, will it really change things? I don't think so. In fact I think most people will follow your instructions anyway. Rules? I think guidelines is a better term. Geocaching has few RULES. see below:

 

<quoted rule clipped for brevity>

Who really cares? I care. I don't arbitrarily blow off other cache owners' requirements. Why shouldn't I expect the same courtesy?

 

I just answered a very similar question in the other thread, so I'll be lazy here and quote myself:

 

"Solving puzzles, defeating red herrings, working through stages, detecting camouflage, taking pictures, writing poems -- all are challenges created by fellow cachers purely for your entertainment. All are intended, generally, as requirements in your search for the cache -- that's what makes them challenges! Would you bother solving a tough puzzle if the description said "well, the cache IS located at the posted coords, but you really should solve the puzzle anyway" ...?

...

Cache challenges are meant to be fun. If ANY of these fun 'challenges' looks instead like an annoying hurdle to you -- then just don't do it! I'm happy to respect other cachers' right to bypass my poetry cache, as long as they respect that I never had to bother hiding the dadgum thing in the first place. :laughing: "

 

 

 

How is that any different than not writing in poetry?

How is the trade-item theme different? You said it yourself: it is uncontrollable.

 

I can NOT enforce a rule that requires people to place only themed trade items in a cache. I CAN, however, enforce a rule about how a cache is logged online.

 

I don't understand. How does one enforce the logging requirements? Does owning a cache offer more options?

I see now that you are not yet a cache owner, so maybe you don't know. The web site gives cache owners the ability to either delete or permanently encrypt any postings that appear on one of their own pages. It's a responsibility most of us take quite seriously, but of course you'll run across the occasional delete-happy crank. Nothing you can really do in that case but appeal to the crank.

 

 

I think it's cool that you have gone to the trouble of creating an extra little bit. But I really think that holding my find count hostage due to something as petty as neglecting to format my logging isneither necessary nor benficial. I think a better response is a gentle email request by yourself to the culprit.

I DO send friendly emails before I delete ANYTHING. I thought I had explained that before. Anyone who posts without some kind of poem gets a rhyming email from me which re-explains the rule and offers a liberal deadline for editing the log.

 

As far as "holding your find count hostage:" I also remind you that finding the cache was voluntary in the first place. If you choose to cache without first reading the description, then you choose to risk problems. You could have simply bypassed my cache instead, had you been properly armed with an awareness of its clearly posted requirement.

 

Say you logged a smiley on someone's cache page, and they later discovered that you'd never actually visited the cache container. They threaten to delete your log. Would you consider that to be "holding your find count hostage?" He has a requirement, I have a requirement. Same same.

Link to comment

I've made a point of putting "THIS CACHE IS NOT AT THE LISTED COORDINATES" at the top of any cache listing with an offset of any kind. Yeah, the "Multi" or "Mystery" designation SHOULD be enough, but I realized that in many cases it isn't - for example my GPSr only shows the first line or two of the description. So any critical data goes in the very top of the listing.

 

Aside from that bit of "plays well with others" courtesy I've adopted, I have to agree with the other comments that point out that it's really your own responsibility to read up properly. I had my first introduction to a multi on about my fifth cache, when I went after a set of coords in my GPSr without research - and wandered around like a fool for quite some time trying to figure out how a large container was going to be found in the middle of a huge brick sidewalk. :rolleyes: Ever since then, I've been careful to read up FIRST.

 

Oh, and then there are the times that I miss the "Inactive" status... <_<

Link to comment
So should caches with extra logging requirements (write a story, logs must rhyme, post a photo, etc.) be listed as traditional caches? Or should these be under Mystery/Unknown because the "?" flags the need to read the cache page? For me, that cache type would've filtered this cache out from my pocket query which is the right result for me.

Good question! I've got a cache that requires special logging techniques, A Letter From Bjorn, although at least one person failed to follow the format. I didn't delete the log, cuz I'm not that anal about my own caches. At the time, I wondered about that log, and why they chose to ignore the logging requirements. Now I think I might know the answer. Thanx Lep!

 

By listing it as some catagory other than "Traditional", folks would know they needed more than just the starting coords. Not sure if the puzzle icon is appropriate or not. Something for the Grand Pooh-Bahs to ponder.

Link to comment

I've made a post in this thread suggesting that a new cache attribute be created specifically for caches with special logging requirements. That appears to be the proper thread for doing so according to Jeremy.

 

Anyone with an opinion yes or no might want to weigh in over there.

 

 

The debate so far in this parallel thread includes many suggestions, including a proposal to completely ban special logging requirements. Let me say that I strongly disagree with that proposal. I welcome and consider all opposing viewpoints, but anyone who supports that proposal might want to read up on both sides of the debate (six pages worth so far) before weighing in with an opinion.

Link to comment

How would you list a cache that was at the correct coordinates, but required you to trade a certain item, for instance a coin, and describe the item in your log before you were able to log that find? I don't currently have any active caches like that, but have had in the past.

 

I have also had cachers log the find without following instructions. I have sent them an email reminding them of the cache requirements and giving them a month to comply with the cache design.

 

Is this no longer a traditional cache. Don't think it would qualify as a puzzle cache.

Link to comment

The category is not called "puzzle cache," but rather "mystery/unknown." It is a catch all for caches that don't fit one of the other types.

 

Night Stalker, I think your example would fit better as a mystery/unknown than as a traditional. The special requirement is flagged, and people will pay more attention to the instructions.

Link to comment

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.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Followers 1
×
×
  • Create New...