Category For Night Caches

[+Dgwphotos]

I think we should have a specific category for night caches. Categorizing them as mystery caches is a clumsy way of dealing with them . You have to look at the cache page to figure out that they are night caches. They don't really qualify as mystery caches because there is no puzzle to solve. The only reason that they are categorized as mystery caches is because they are not at the stated corrds. The perfect symbol would be a moon and stars.

[wandat24]

I think we should have a specific category for night caches. Categorizing them as mystery caches is a clumsy way of dealing with them . You have to look at the cache page to figure out that they are night caches. They don't really qualify as mystery caches because there is no puzzle to solve. The only reason that they are categorized as mystery caches is because they are not at the stated corrds. The perfect symbol would be a moon and stars.

 

I think that would be a great idea. I have a couple around here that are marked at a regular one, and after reading through it you see it's a night one.

[+TheAprilFools]

There already is a "Recommended At Night" attribute.

[+Dgwphotos]

We are talking about caches designed for night caching in which you follow reflective markers to the cache. Attributes do not show up in searches. That is diffrent than what is being suggested here. Normal caches can be marked with the same attribute but are not designed for night caching.

[+budd-rdc]

We are talking about caches designed for night caching in which you follow reflective markers to the cache. Attributes do not show up in searches. That is diffrent than what is being suggested here. Normal caches can be marked with the same attribute but are not designed for night caching.

If you are a Premium Member, then you can use the "Recommended at Night" attribute as a search criteria.

 

I don't know how many night-only caches you have in your area, but we have 12 in 200 mile radius from where I am in Northern California. That would include two major regions near San Francisco and Sacramento.

 

Rather than ask for a new type, it's probably quicker to go to the forum for your local region (Northwest?) and just ask. I have not seen Groundspeak create a new type for as long as I've been caching, which would be since 2004.

 

FYI: of the 12, 6 are mystery/puzzles, 1 is a multi, 2 are letterboxes, and 3 are traditionals. I think listing them appropriately as OTHER THAN traditionals will work, since you are supposed to read the descriptions for those types anyway.

[Mushtang]

I think listing them appropriately as OTHER THAN traditionals will work, since you are supposed to read the descriptions for those types anyway.

You're not supposed to read the descriptions for traditionals?

Edited May 7, 2006 by Mushtang

[+Markwell]

If it's a night only cache, something would make it so that you can only find it at night, right? That would mean that it's probably not at the posted coordinates, right? Otherwise, what would stop people from finding it in the day time?

 

A night-reflector cache would be a great example.

 

So it would be a multi-stage cache or a mystery/unknown, not traditional. And THEN it would be a recommended at night cache.

 

There are 142 caches in Washington State that are recommended at night.

 

Here's the setup for the pocket query I used - although I use this for ad hoc queries and I may change it soon, it will work for at least a week.

[+budd-rdc]

I think listing them appropriately as OTHER THAN traditionals will work, since you are supposed to read the descriptions for those types anyway.

You're not supposed to read the descriptions for traditionals?

 

I carry my PDA in case I have to, but sometimes I don't.

 

I tried to present my case in the OP's context. This is a different thread.

[+Dgwphotos]

I am not a premium member. I read the description, but it would be simpler to have them designated as such in conventional searches (i.e. searches available to non premium members).

[markandlynn]

Recommended at night is used for lots of caches not just reflector type caches or night only caches.

If it was consistently coupled with Not available 24 hours the attribute search might just work but that means we need to police the setting of attributes (any volunteers ) as they are not used thgis way at present.

A few new types of cache would make things easier in the search department.

[+Markwell]

I carry my PDA in case I have to, but sometimes I don't.I tried to present my case in the OP's context. This is a different thread.

 

You do know that PDAs aren't just for PQs, right?

[Mushtang]

I think listing them appropriately as OTHER THAN traditionals will work, since you are supposed to read the descriptions for those types anyway.

You're not supposed to read the descriptions for traditionals?

 

I carry my PDA in case I have to, but sometimes I don't.

 

I tried to present my case in the OP's context. This is a different thread.

 

No, you said it in this thread. You said that a night cache should be listed as something other than a traditional as a means to insure that the description gets read, because you're supposed to read descriptions for cache types other than traditionals.

 

Giving me an example of a choice you make not to read a description of a specific type because of the way you use your PDA does not explain why you think that cachers are not supposed to read the description of traditionals. Please elaborate.

[CoyoteRed]

I think we should have a specific category for night caches.

 

I disagree.

 

As already mentioned the attribute is sufficient.

 

Another angle of why it wouldn't be a good idea is when you think of how the categories (types) are divided up. The categories are "cache at the coordinates," "cache not at the coords, but the starting point is," "cache not at the coordinates and neither is the starting point (or I don't want to say what it is, or it doesn't fit in another category)," and "people gatherings." We used to have other types, but "points of interest" have been moved to another website.

 

Now, how does "cache you can only hunt at night" fit in the above scheme? It's like those "what doesn't fit" puzzles.

 

Night caches are a sub-set of categories and it is best handled with attributes. Otherwise, we'd need a category of "Submerged caches," "Aqua cache," "Submerged Aqua caches," Submerged Puzzle Night 4x4 Fee Aqua caches," and the list goes on.

 

The categories are just fine the way they are.

[+budd-rdc]

I think listing them appropriately as OTHER THAN traditionals will work, since you are supposed to read the descriptions for those types anyway.

You're not supposed to read the descriptions for traditionals?

 

I carry my PDA in case I have to, but sometimes I don't.

 

I tried to present my case in the OP's context. This is a different thread.

 

No, you said it in this thread. You said that a night cache should be listed as something other than a traditional as a means to insure that the description gets read, because you're supposed to read descriptions for cache types other than traditionals.

 

Giving me an example of a choice you make not to read a description of a specific type because of the way you use your PDA does not explain why you think that cachers are not supposed to read the description of traditionals. Please elaborate.

 

I leverage the two years of experience I have caching, so for Traditional types, I sometime guess the location and style of the hide with waypoints only, so I choose not to read the description before the hunt.

 

If I come up empty, or something seems amiss, I read the cache description via CacheMate on my PDA, so I always have that as insurance.

 

For non-traditional caches, it's expected the container is NOT located at the posted coordinates (with exceptions, of course), so reading the description is often necessary before for the hunt. This includes Mystery/puzzle, Letterbox Hybrids, and Multicaches. This also applies to the grandfathered types, Virtuals and Earthcaches.

 

So my point earlier was that having night caches listed as OTHER THAN traditionals is a workable solution, since cachers should read the description before the hunt and know what to expect.

[CoyoteRed]

So my point earlier was that having night caches listed as OTHER THAN traditionals is a workable solution, since cachers should read the description before the hunt and know what to expect.

 

While I can't think of a scenario at the moment where a nighttime only cache could be a traditional, I think it is best to just list the cache using whatever type fits best. That would be as a multi if the listing coords are at the beginning of the hunt, but not at the cache; or as a puzzle if the coords are bogus.

 

Still, someone might still come up with a way for a cache which you can only hunt at night, but the listing coords are at the cache and you don't need to figure out any clue, solve any puzzle, or go anywhere else to open the cache and sign the logbook.

 

Oh, I just thought of one: an evil, needle is a haystack, deviously camouflaged cache that is black light active. The hint is "370nm." Of course, like plenty of nighttime caches, you could find it during the day, but it is designed to found at night.

 

I figure if the cache is properly rated and categorized then nothing special should be required.

[+RJFerret]

I figure if the cache is properly rated and categorized then nothing special should be required.

 

Since this request has come up repeatedly all the years I've been caching... (And attributes haven't helped...)

 

Thankfully someone in my neck of the woods maintains a bookmark list so when new ones pop up he can be notified.

 

There are 100 caches in CT w/'recommended at night' and 'avail 24/7'.

24 w/just 'recommended at night'.

 

Any guess how many actual night caches???

 

Another option instead of a night cache category (instead of "cache at the coordinates," "cache not at the coords, but the starting point is," and "cache not at coords, but starting point is in dark") would be for EVERYONE to include "night" in the name and sort the keyword search by distance from home coords!

 

-Randy

 

PS: 9

 

PPS: That being said, that's 0.6% of the total caches in CT, hardly warranting a new category. However a keyword search sorted by distance would resolve this and other problems.

[+sTeamTraen]

While I can't think of a scenario at the moment where a nighttime only cache could be a traditional

 

Here's one: Kleiner Nachtfuchs

 

The idea is that there are two reflectors on trees, each about 50 metres from the cache. These have been designed so that you can see them with a 4 or 5 degree angle from 90º, but if you are *exactly* in front of them (90 degrees plus or minus 0.1 or so), you get a brilliant reflection. So you know you are standing right on top of the cache, when you have both reflections "full on".

 

The cache itself is small, almost a micro, and it's in a hole in the ground in the middle of a featureless forest floor, which is covered with small stones and pine needles. It would take forever to find it by trial and error, even if the reported local GPS accuracy was better than 30 feet, which it isn't.

[Mushtang]

 

I leverage the two years of experience I have caching, so for Traditional types, I sometime guess the location and style of the hide with waypoints only, so I choose not to read the description before the hunt.

 

If I come up empty, or something seems amiss, I read the cache description via CacheMate on my PDA, so I always have that as insurance

 

This sounds like the same argument that's going on in another thread at the moment.

 

I totally agree that choosing to not read a cache description can make the find more difficult, thus increasing the enjoyment level. But I also realize that in doing so I'm also accepting the fact that there might be something in the description that the owner put there, that I'd need to know. Have you never read a description that included a warning such as, "Don't cross the fence, it's private property", or, "Do not try to open the metal box, it's a real electrical junction and not a camo'd hide", or, "This cache can only be done at night"?

 

Choosing to not read the descriptions can definitely add to the fun, but it can also keep you from being able to find it at all. I've done this on many occasions myself to add to my fun. I've had Finds and DNFs both. I don't blame the cache owner for my DNF, and I don't think that caches listed as Traditional should all be findable wihtout reading the description.

[+Geovius]

If night-cache is accepted as gatecory then there should be also others like summer-cache, winter-cache, daisy-cache etc.

 

So I think that this is merely attribute than different category.