Mislabeling cache listing

[+nikcap]

<snip>

 

I feel it's a courtesy to your fellow cachers to list any cache that can't be found with only the coordinates as a Mystery/Puzzle/Surprise cache.

 

If I walk to a plaque and get some numbers from it to put into my GPSr according to the instructions on the cache page and those new coordinates lead me to another plaque, or sign, or the final container, that is not a Puzzle. That is a Multi-cache. So is a cache where I walk to a place and get the actual coordinates of the next waypoint.

 

I agree, as gathering some numbers from a plaque isn't particularly difficult. Such and activity, doesn't fit the dictionary definition of "cache". Perhaps it fits GC.com definition of a virtual cache, but now in your example it seems that in order to find the logbook and sign it, you need to complete more then one type of cache. Classifying it with the mystery/surprise (catch all) icon might be a little more appropriate.

 

A Multi cache is completely different from a Mystery/Puzzle cache. I don't understand why that is a hard concept to grasp . . .

 

The concept is not hard to grasp, although my opinion is that GC.com policy on labeling mystery caches can be improved. I'm sorry you cannot appreciate my view point (and dozens of other cachers) regarding this.

 

What I find even more silly, is once a cache is published and found, the reviewers will not correct mis-labled cache types.

 

As for your comment about Reviewers not correcting mis-labled caches, that has not been my experience. Once, when I requested that a cache, listed as a Traditional,be changed to a Multi, especially since it required driving more than six miles, the Reveiwer changed it. I even requested that one of my caches, which had been listed as a Puzzle, be changed to a Multi, and it was.

 

Several years ago, I didn't have a problem changing the cache type myself. Then the cache types where locked down, and I had to ask a reviewer to change the cache type, still no problem.

After the latest installment of the guidelines, I wanted to correct the cache type of two caches that should now be listed as differently. One would become a mystery, the other a multi. I contacted the reviewer and asked her to change it. She said it couldn't be done. Unless something has changed since then, I've just assumed it can't be done.

 

Anyway, back on topic. Personally, I really enjoy off-set caches, so I try to seek them out.

I find most of them in my area listed as Mystery caches, but a good portion are listed as multi's and traditional. Personally, I would love a separate icon for Off-Set caches, but I can survive with my hand cooked method of identifying the types of caches I like to find.

Edited June 29, 2007 by ekitt10

[4wheelin_fool]

Offset caches should have a separate icon, as to make it easier to identify when loading waypoints quickly. Night caches are not traditional caches either, but some type of easy puzzle and can confuse a newbie who may be looking for a cache at the coords, rather than a firetack.

 

This ancient archived cache is an interesting example of a mslabled cache:

http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_detai...de-a4df61504769

 

It's a multi with a puzzle icon with the size being a virtual

Edited June 30, 2007 by 4wheelin_fool

[+Miragee]

<snip>

I feel it's a courtesy to your fellow cachers to list any cache that can't be found with only the coordinates as a Mystery/Puzzle/Surprise cache.

If I walk to a plaque and get some numbers from it to put into my GPSr according to the instructions on the cache page and those new coordinates lead me to another plaque, or sign, or the final container, that is not a Puzzle. That is a Multi-cache. So is a cache where I walk to a place and get the actual coordinates of the next waypoint.

I agree, as gathering some numbers from a plaque isn't particularly difficult. Such and activity, doesn't fit the dictionary definition of "cache". Perhaps it fits GC.com definition of a virtual cache, but now in your example it seems that in order to find the logbook and sign it, you need to complete more then one type of cache. Classifying it with the mystery/surprise (catch all) icon might be a little more appropriate.

<snip>

The type of Multi cache that takes me to a plaque, or permanent sign, or numbers embedded in concrete on a bridge, is the type I prefer, compared to the ones where I have to search for a cammoed-container to get the waypoints for the next waypoint.

 

If you cannot find the container with the information for the next waypoint, or the final container, or if one of the containers for a long Multi goes missing, you cannot finish the Multi cache. With the other type of Multi-cache, unless some major renovation of the area occurs, the Multi-cache can have a long life, with little maintenance by the cache owner, except for checking on the final container.

 

I would be very disappointed if that type of Multi-cache was listed as a Puzzle because I would miss out on it, as would many other people who filter out the Puzzle caches. When I travel, I filter out the Puzzle caches because I don't want to arrive at coordinates and read the cache description to see that it says, "The cache is not at these coordinates." I don't filter out Multi-caches, because when I arrive at the coordinates, there is something to find to get me to the next waypoint, or to the final container.

 

That is the difference I see between Puzzle caches and Multi caches.

[+nikcap]

The type of Multi cache that takes me to a plaque, or permanent sign, or numbers embedded in concrete on a bridge, is the type I prefer, compared to the ones where I have to search for a cammoed-container to get the waypoints for the next waypoint.

 

If you cannot find the container with the information for the next waypoint, or the final container, or if one of the containers for a long Multi goes missing, you cannot finish the Multi cache. With the other type of Multi-cache, unless some major renovation of the area occurs, the Multi-cache can have a long life, with little maintenance by the cache owner, except for checking on the final container.

 

I would be very disappointed if that type of Multi-cache was listed as a Puzzle because I would miss out on it, as would many other people who filter out the Puzzle caches. When I travel, I filter out the Puzzle caches because I don't want to arrive at coordinates and read the cache description to see that it says, "The cache is not at these coordinates." I don't filter out Multi-caches, because when I arrive at the coordinates, there is something to find to get me to the next waypoint, or to the final container.

 

That is the difference I see between Puzzle caches and Multi caches.

 

I agree, nothing is more frustrating then looking for something that is not there.

A off-set multi cache were you are required to count the number of tires in a playground or add the dates from a plaque can be fun, but for those that cache blind can be completely frustrating and potentially destructive to the enviorment.

 

A seperate cache type for off-sets sounds like the best thing GC.com could do as that solution would make both of us happy in finding the caches we like to hunt.

[+Miragee]

The type of Multi cache that takes me to a plaque, or permanent sign, or numbers embedded in concrete on a bridge, is the type I prefer, compared to the ones where I have to search for a cammoed-container to get the waypoints for the next waypoint.

 

If you cannot find the container with the information for the next waypoint, or the final container, or if one of the containers for a long Multi goes missing, you cannot finish the Multi cache. With the other type of Multi-cache, unless some major renovation of the area occurs, the Multi-cache can have a long life, with little maintenance by the cache owner, except for checking on the final container.

 

I would be very disappointed if that type of Multi-cache was listed as a Puzzle because I would miss out on it, as would many other people who filter out the Puzzle caches. When I travel, I filter out the Puzzle caches because I don't want to arrive at coordinates and read the cache description to see that it says, "The cache is not at these coordinates." I don't filter out Multi-caches, because when I arrive at the coordinates, there is something to find to get me to the next waypoint, or to the final container.

 

That is the difference I see between Puzzle caches and Multi caches.

 

I agree, nothing is more frustrating then looking for something that is not there.

A off-set multi cache were you are required to count the number of tires in a playground or add the dates from a plaque can be fun, but for those that cache blind can be completely frustrating and potentially destructive to the enviorment.

 

A seperate cache type for off-sets sounds like the best thing GC.com could do as that solution would make both of us happy in finding the caches we like to hunt.

Are you serious? "Destructive to the environment" because you don't want to read the cache page . . .

 

And . . . those type of caches already have the correct designation. They are listed as Multi-caches. If you insist on "caching blind," you should at least use GSAK and its "smart name" feature, so you have information in the waypoint name. The "smart name" will tell you what kind of cache you are looking for. The GSAK waypoint tells me whether it is a Multi (M), a Virtual (V), or a Traditional (T). If I have corrected coordinates for a Puzzle, it is also noted in the waypoint (Y).

 

A quick glance at the GPSr will tell you whether it is a Traditional or a Multi. If it is a Multi, you can either refer to the cache page and read the instructions, or pass it by. Easy peasy! No environmental destruction.

 

Since it seems so many people don't want to read the cache description, I sometimes wonder why I take the time to write detailed descriptions, with instructions, often including photographs to show off the location, on my cache pages . . .

[+wildchld97]

 

I agree, nothing is more frustrating then looking for something that is not there.

A off-set multi cache were you are required to count the number of tires in a playground or add the dates from a plaque can be fun, but for those that cache blind can be completely frustrating and potentially destructive to the enviorment.

 

A seperate cache type for off-sets sounds like the best thing GC.com could do as that solution would make both of us happy in finding the caches we like to hunt.

Are you serious? "Destructive to the environment" because you don't want to read the cache page . . .

 

And . . . those type of caches already have the correct designation. They are listed as Multi-caches. If you insist on "caching blind," you should at least use GSAK and its "smart name" feature, so you have information in the waypoint name. The "smart name" will tell you what kind of cache you are looking for. The GSAK waypoint tells me whether it is a Multi (M), a Virtual (V), or a Traditional (T). If I have corrected coordinates for a Puzzle, it is also noted in the waypoint (Y).

 

A quick glance at the GPSr will tell you whether it is a Traditional or a Multi. If it is a Multi, you can either refer to the cache page and read the instructions, or pass it by. Easy peasy! No environmental destruction.

 

Since it seems so many people don't want to read the cache description, I sometimes wonder why I take the time to write detailed descriptions, with instructions, often including photographs to show off the location, on my cache pages . . .

 

You're right. Why should I bother researching information, writing it down in an easy to read format, and care whether or not somebody learns something from the experience?

 

In any case, it's not my fault if someone is too lazy, semi illiterate, or chooses to use other formats instead of actually READING what the cache is supposed to be before they leave the house. Thems are the breaks.

[+nikcap]

... for those that cache blind can be completely frustrating and potentially destructive to the enviorment....

Are you serious? "Destructive to the environment" because you don't want to read the cache page . . .

 

You say that like you've never seen this happen before.

 

And . . . those type of caches already have the correct designation. They are listed as Multi-caches. If you insist on "caching blind," you should at least use GSAK and its "smart name" feature, so you have information in the waypoint name. The "smart name" will tell you what kind of cache you are looking for. The GSAK waypoint tells me whether it is a Multi (M), a Virtual (V), or a Traditional (T). If I have corrected coordinates for a Puzzle, it is also noted in the waypoint (Y).

 

A quick glance at the GPSr will tell you whether it is a Traditional or a Multi. If it is a Multi, you can either refer to the cache page and read the instructions, or pass it by. Easy peasy! No environmental destruction.

 

Do it. I also designate micros so I know to avoid those too.

 

Since it seems so many people don't want to read the cache description, I sometimes wonder why I take the time to write detailed descriptions, with instructions, often including photographs to show off the location, on my cache pages . . .

 

You're assuming every cacher is as tech savvy we are and takes time to read the cache descriptions.

Some cache just want to find every cache that's out there and will do just about whatever it takes to get there.

 

Don't stop writing good cache pages. Those that read them and enjoy the caches are what it's all about.

 

I almost aways read the cache description and look at local maps. How else am I to determine if the cache in question is a cache I want to seek.

 

You seem surprised that some cachers "cache blind".

 

It just seems that an informative icon or cache attribute would provide a heads that a cache is a series of physical containers, contains some virtual waypoints, may contain math or substitution would be a nice thing.

 

I think the OP is 100% right in their opinion, and that the pragmatics of GC.com cache listing type should be changed. Whether or not at "puzzle" is easy because it's simple math or substitution doesn't matter. I'll nail any Physics/Trig/Mathematics/Trick/Cipher puzzle, but I'll struggle with every crossword and word search puzzle and I'm almost guaranteed to butcher any basic addition or subtraction in the field, and my dyslexia makes any substitution problem tricky.

Edited June 30, 2007 by ekitt10

[+Miragee]

<snip>

It just seems that an informative icon or cache attribute would provide a heads that a cache is a series of physical containers, contains some virtual waypoints, may contain math or substitution would be a nice thing.

A Multi-cache is one with at least one additional waypoint before arriving at the Final container. The intermediate stages can either be "Virtual" stages or physical containers or objects with the coordinates for the final location. I have found Multi-caches that incorporate both Virtual stages and objects with the coordinates written on them.

 

Knowing a cache is a Multi should be enough warning for anyone that they need to read the cache page.

 

If someone isn't going to read the cache pages, they need to filter out all the Puzzles and Multi caches from their searches instead of trying to convince TPTB to add a new category to the cache types . . .

[+tozainamboku]

... for those that cache blind can be completely frustrating and potentially destructive to the enviorment....

Are you serious? "Destructive to the environment" because you don't want to read the cache page . . .

 

You say that like you've never seen this happen before.

 

So you're saying that if you choose to cache without reading the cache page its the cache owner's fault that you tore up the environment looking for something that was not there What if is was a evil traditional hide and the cache page said "no need to take apart anything to find this cache". Who's fault is that you took apart the sprinkler system or the disconnected someone's utilities looking for the cache?

1) Cachers should never tear up the environment or destroy any property when looking a cache under any circumstance

2) Cachers who choose to look for a cache without reading the cache page should remember that #1 still applies to them.

Edited July 1, 2007 by tozainamboku