Jump to content

Enhancement Request: New Cache Type


GenCuster

Recommended Posts

With the demise of Virtual caches and the increased usage of Nano caches, I would like to propose a new cache type.

 

A physical cache that contains a question applicable to the cache that must be emailed to the cache owner prior to logging a find.

 

Why? Paper in Nano caches is easily destroyed - particularly if it is desirable to record more than half a dozen initials / dates on it. The solution is to have a small piece of paper that is less likely to be destroyed, with just a pre-printed question on it. No requirement to sign / date it.

 

The cache owner could also then change the question regularly to ensure that the same wannabes who flit around the world in a few hours, logging virtuals, could not find out the question (from a 'real' cacher?).

 

There have been two nano-caches that I know of that have been archived recently as they contain a question like I propose. They were changed by the cache owner(s) from a 'traditional' cache due to the difficulty in maintaining the log. The 'question' works well and cachers who logged the find were receptive. The local reviewer thought differently - and of course their ruling is in line with the guidelines.

 

As this 'game' progresses, I feel that we should not remain 'traditional' but should allow some 'innovation'. After all, the types of containers are multiplying and I think the 'cache type' should evolve as well.

Edited by GenCuster
Link to comment

It's just as easy to cheat a codeword cache by sharing the codeword with others as it is to cheat a virtual to "earn" a Googlesmiley. I am imagining shared but nonpublic bookmark lists, local websites and e-mail lists where the Googlesmiley gang posts new "discoveries" -- virtuals with absent or complacent owners. It is a simple matter to add the codeword caches to those lists.

 

If log maintenance on nano's is an issue, use larger logs inside larger containers. Or, use the nanocache to contain coordinates to a larger cache in a nearby park, with trade items and a logbook. That worked for me!

Link to comment

I agree with the Lep on this one!! It's a good idea, but too many cheats out there who will soon pick up on that and make a "database" of answers.

 

I too would make it a multi and place coords to the next cache inside!! The only problem with that is the paper will likely need replaced often!! (many of us have arthritis or other problems withour hands...I can't do the nano signing, I often write the owner and tell them this. I can't unwrap and rewrap the little sliver of paper without ruining the stupid thing...most times).

Link to comment

With the demise of Virtual caches and the increased usage of Nano caches, I would like to propose a new cache type.

 

A physical cache that contains a question applicable to the cache that must be emailed to the cache owner prior to logging a find.

 

Why? Paper in Nano caches is easily destroyed - particularly if it is desirable to record more than half a dozen initials / dates on it. The solution is to have a small piece of paper that is less likely to be destroyed, with just a pre-printed question on it. No requirement to sign / date it.

 

The cache owner could also then change the question regularly to ensure that the same wannabes who flit around the world in a few hours, logging virtuals, could not find out the question (from a 'real' cacher?).

 

There have been two nano-caches that I know of that have been archived recently as they contain a question like I propose. They were changed by the cache owner(s) from a 'traditional' cache due to the difficulty in maintaining the log. The 'question' works well and cachers who logged the find were receptive. The local reviewer thought differently - and of course their ruling is in line with the guidelines.

 

As this 'game' progresses, I feel that we should not remain 'traditional' but should allow some 'innovation'. After all, the types of containers are multiplying and I think the 'cache type' should evolve as well.

Congrats on being the first person to suggest this... this year. And it's still January. :D

 

My objection to this idea is that starts out with the presumption that everyone is a cheat. Why should I have to go to the trouble of writing down some codeword, then hope I'll be able to read my handwriting when it's time to log the caches, just because of the owner's paranoia that someone may get a smilie face icon that they didn't deserve?

 

No thanks.

Link to comment

My objection to this idea is that starts out with the presumption that everyone is a cheat. Why should I have to go to the trouble of writing down some codeword, then hope I'll be able to read my handwriting when it's time to log the caches, just because of the owner's paranoia that someone may get a smilie face icon that they didn't deserve?

 

Aside from the above comment, many of us ignore ALR's anyway.

Link to comment

My objection to this idea is that starts out with the presumption that everyone is a cheat. Why should I have to go to the trouble of writing down some codeword, then hope I'll be able to read my handwriting when it's time to log the caches, just because of the owner's paranoia that someone may get a smilie face icon that they didn't deserve?

Aside from the above comment, many of us ignore ALR's anyway.

My suspicion is that codeword caches aren't allowed for the following reason:

 

Originally the rules for finding a cache were:

  1. Sign the log
  2. Take something
  3. Leave something

There was no online log to enter. Many now view the online log as the most important part of finding a cache, rather than just some added feature that the Geocaching.com site gives so that you can keep track of the caches you have found and cache owners and others can read about your caching adventure without having to go out and find the cache to read what you wrote in the logbook. The find count is given far too much importance. It has led to cache owners awarding bonus finds - for example allowing events to be attended multiple times for each temporary event cache you found - or having an additional logging requirement in order to claim a find.

 

If TPTB created a new cache type for codeword caches, that would put them in the position of accepting that the find count matters. I don't think this is something you will see happening. If you want to have a cache of this type you can always list it on one of the other cache listing sites that allows them.

Link to comment

My objection to this idea is that starts out with the presumption that everyone is a cheat. Why should I have to go to the trouble of writing down some codeword, then hope I'll be able to read my handwriting when it's time to log the caches, just because of the owner's paranoia that someone may get a smilie face icon that they didn't deserve?

 

No thanks.

 

Touchy touchy... This is just a suggestion - with a solution to an obvious problem - those of the 'virtual' cheats - because, as we all know 'real' cachers never cheat do they... Hands up every one in the forums who has never assisted someone else (or asked for help) to find a cache... It's all a matter of definition :D

 

I also suspect that most cache owners simply don't care who logs their caches. The number of cache owners who go out and check written logs against internet logs would be far far away in the minority... eg: Most cache owners assume most cache finders are not cheats. Part of the joy / fun of placing caches is reading the internet logs. This is an internet based game after all, and it is obvious that the physical signing of logs has diminished in importance.. ie: Micros & Nanos (or even magnetic sheets with a small log on the back - clever huh?!) with room for initials & date only. The real logs are often expanded upon online, using Creative Writing, while the written log (even for large notebooks) is more commonly a brief note.

 

The method of emailing an answer (or just a 'log with permission' request) is just one more step in this progression - large logs become smaller logs become online logs only. :lol:

Edited by GenCuster
Link to comment

Aside from the above comment, many of us ignore ALR's anyway.

 

ALR's?

American Law Reports?

Australian Law Reports?

Automated Lip Readers?

Associated Lighting Representatives?

American Legion Riders?

 

(With no offence intended or implied to anyone...)

 

Sorry - have to expand that one for me please :D

Link to comment

My suspicion is that codeword caches aren't allowed for the following reason:

 

Originally the rules for finding a cache were:

  1. Sign the log
  2. Take something
  3. Leave something

There was no online log to enter. Many now view the online log as the most important part of finding a cache, rather than just some added feature that the Geocaching.com site gives so that you can keep track of the caches you have found and cache owners and others can read about your caching adventure without having to go out and find the cache to read what you wrote in the logbook. The find count is given far too much importance. It has led to cache owners awarding bonus finds - for example allowing events to be attended multiple times for each temporary event cache you found - or having an additional logging requirement in order to claim a find.

 

If TPTB created a new cache type for codeword caches, that would put them in the position of accepting that the find count matters. I don't think this is something you will see happening. If you want to have a cache of this type you can always list it on one of the other cache listing sites that allows them.

 

Oops - read this log after replying to previous logs. Yes, I think you make sense. I am surprised though that temporary caches for events can be logged. Events that we have organised / attended have had 'paper' caches only. Find for fun, not a log. Local reviewers will not let a cache be created temporarily for an event. I have also noted some cachers who 'find' their own caches multiple times - should be a 'maintenance' log or similar - but (I have checked) it still only counts as 1 'find' of that cache. So does logging an event multiple times increase the 'find' count? Or am I misinterpreting?

 

Funny you should say The find count is given far too much importance. We have been discussing that point (and forum post counts) lately... I am of the opinion it is the quality of the find / post, not the quantity, that is important. :D

 

For everone's information also, most New Zealand cachers use forums within the country, not these.

 

But - it is still why people play this 'game'. To find caches is (or should be) the purpose / vehicle for getting people out and about, using their GPS, finding new places and exercising their brains (and body if it's not a drive-by cache...) They log the find, ergo a 'find' is important. So, the find count does matter - to cachers and TPTB. If no finds were logged - online - there would be no 'game'.

 

And as more people play the 'game', more ideas are expanded upon and turned into reality. I did not invent Nanos and they are here to stay. Just as the large bucket has pretty much gone... So the game has evolved and as problems / suggestions arise, they should be dealt with. Preferably within Groundspeak.

Link to comment

Aside from the above comment, many of us ignore ALR's anyway.

 

ALR's?

American Law Reports?

Australian Law Reports?

Automated Lip Readers?

Associated Lighting Representatives?

American Legion Riders?

 

(With no offence intended or implied to anyone...)

 

Sorry - have to expand that one for me please :D

 

Additional Logging Requirement - something above and beyond "find the cache and sign the logbook"

Link to comment

Aside from the above comment, many of us ignore ALR's anyway.

 

ALR's?

American Law Reports?

Australian Law Reports?

Automated Lip Readers?

Associated Lighting Representatives?

American Legion Riders?

 

(With no offence intended or implied to anyone...)

 

Sorry - have to expand that one for me please :D

 

Additional Logging Requirement - something above and beyond "find the cache and sign the logbook"

Thanks I was wondering also. And I also ignore caches with ALRs.

Link to comment

Additional Logging Requirement - something above and beyond "find the cache and sign the logbook"

 

Thanks - Duh! Obvious now :D I shall add it to the list of acronyms we have to tease people with at events....

 

Perhaps (to get back to my original point) we could just ban Nanos?

Link to comment

 

.... (or even magnetic sheets with a small log on the back - clever huh?!) ..

 

:) Clever or sad??

Somehow this doesn't seem to match my understanding of the word "cache".

The next step would be a warehouse wall that finders can tag with a spray can and log as a find (of course the placer would need permission from the walls owner to list it as a "cache") - at least they will have logged their visit at the site though.

 

:) Back on topic - I doubt that most placers of nanos see them as replacement virtual caches but rather as challenges for other cachers to try and find. Like a clever urban micro, they can also be a challenge to design and hide. Some cachers don't like them, but they have become a valid and accepted part of the game.

 

:lol: The requirement that cachers "log" their visit is also a valid and accepted part of the game - a guiding principle really, as is the need for caches to involve the use of a GPS. So is the requirement that cache placers must visit and maintain their caches - which includes a responsibility to replace or upgrade the caches log book when it needs it.

 

:) The fact is, Nanos take more maintenance than standard cachers - but that is the cache placers responsibility - they shouldn't try to shirk it by way of an "ALR".

 

:) I agree - if Nanos are too hard to maintain then people should place larger caches.

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