Jump to content

3 Dimensional Caching?


snowfrog

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

Hypothetical levels for lack of a better term, of cache hides, which allows some overlapping of 528' placements. The difference being varying levels of placements and difficulty. Say for example: you must log all finds placed by calendar year (Level 1) within a square mile, with Level 2 not even being revealed to you until you log all Level 1. Hence, Level 2's can overlap Level 1's.Now before you flame me for denying you access to all caches, let's say participation is voluntary. At least we could keep the old and enjoy some new in same areas. Say one level 2 allowed to overlap each level 1 within 528'.More challenging hides within close proximity of level 1's. More ultra camo opportunities.....Obviously Level 2's have to be clearly identified as being that in case they are found by level 1 seekers. How fun would that be, trying to foil other level seekers?

Edited by snowfrog
Posted
Hypothetical levels for lack of a better term, of cache hides, which allows some overlapping of 528' placements. The difference being varying levels of placements and difficulty. Say for example: you must log all finds placed by calendar year (Level 1) within a square mile, with Level 2 not even being revealed to you until you log all Level 1. Hence, Level 2's can overlap Level 1's.Now before you flame me for denying you access to all caches, let's say participation is voluntary. At least we could keep the old and enjoy some new in same areas. Say one level 2 allowed to overlap each level 1 within 528'.More challenging hides within close proximity of level 1's. More ultra camo opportunities.....
Would we use these to get the caches at the higher levels?

Jetpack%201%2010%206-15-4.jpg

Posted
Hypothetical levels for lack of a better term, of cache hides, which allows some overlapping of 528' placements. The difference being varying levels of placements and difficulty. Say for example: you must log all finds placed by calendar year (Level 1) within a square mile, with Level 2 not even being revealed to you until you log all Level 1. Hence, Level 2's can overlap Level 1's.Now before you flame me for denying you access to all caches, let's say participation is voluntary. At least we could keep the old and enjoy some new in same areas. Say one level 2 allowed to overlap each level 1 within 528'.More challenging hides within close proximity of level 1's. More ultra camo opportunities.....
Would we use these to get the caches at the higher levels?

Jetpack%201%2010%206-15-4.jpg

If allowed by original hider, it is within 528' of 1st hide and would therefore become a new level cache.

Posted

Thats an interesting concept but some details need to be worked out.

 

What happens if when hunting a Level 1 cache someone accidentally finds a Level 2 cache? Will they be able to log a find on the Level 2 cache or will they have to wait until they find all the Level 1 caches first?

 

You say that when you find all the Level 1 caches that the Level 2 cache will be reviled. They only way I see this happening is thru find logs. I am part of a geocaching team and we have a team account. When I find caches by myself I log those finds with my personal account. When I find caches with the team we log make one find log with the team account. This doesn't seem to team friendly unless all the team members also log the cache find on their personal accounts.

 

I'd also be concerned that this would encourage some people to make fake find log entries on caches, particularly those with high terrain ratings, just so that they can see the Level 2 caches. There are cachers that make fake find log entries now when making fake entries doesn't do anything except increase their find count. I imagine the incidents of fake find logs will increase if it means that they get to see another Level of caches.

Posted (edited)
Thats an interesting concept but some details need to be worked out.

 

What happens if when hunting a Level 1 cache someone accidentally finds a Level 2 cache? Will they be able to log a find on the Level 2 cache or will they have to wait until they find all the Level 1 caches first?

 

You say that when you find all the Level 1 caches that the Level 2 cache will be reviled. They only way I see this happening is thru find logs. I am part of a geocaching team and we have a team account. When I find caches by myself I log those finds with my personal account. When I find caches with the team we log make one find log with the team account. This doesn't seem to team friendly unless all the team members also log the cache find on their personal accounts.

 

I'd also be concerned that this would encourage some people to make fake find log entries on caches, particularly those with high terrain ratings, just so that they can see the Level 2 caches. There are cachers that make fake find log entries now when making fake entries doesn't do anything except increase their find count. I imagine the incidents of fake find logs will increase if it means that they get to see another Level of caches.

 

I've heard that there is a giant muggle up in the clouds that hates geocachers and likes to say "Fe Fi Fo Fum!" The caches near his castle should be rated at least a 4 for difficulty! :huh: Edited by TrailGators
Posted

Thats an interesting concept but some details need to be worked out.

 

What happens if when hunting a Level 1 cache someone accidentally finds a Level 2 cache? Will they be able to log a find on the Level 2 cache or will they have to wait until they find all the Level 1 caches first?

 

You say that when you find all the Level 1 caches that the Level 2 cache will be reviled. They only way I see this happening is thru find logs. I am part of a geocaching team and we have a team account. When I find caches by myself I log those finds with my personal account. When I find caches with the team we log make one find log with the team account. This doesn't seem to team friendly unless all the team members also log the cache find on their personal accounts.

 

I'd also be concerned that this would encourage some people to make fake find log entries on caches, particularly those with high terrain ratings, just so that they can see the Level 2 caches. There are cachers that make fake find log entries now when making fake entries doesn't do anything except increase their find count. I imagine the incidents of fake find logs will increase if it means that they get to see another Level of caches.

That's a very good point, higher level finds may be logged but "parked" in limbo, for lack of a better term, and would not appear on the cache page or increase your find total until later. But in all reality, it's just a game and if you choose to not be honest or follow guidelines, that on you, and no harm done anyway.

Posted (edited)

:huh: So, the level two caches have to be placed 528' higher than the level one caches? :(

Geez, so the 3 dimensional is a play on words.How about we call it "a secret higher level of other hidden, more challenging, and really hard to find nearby, that you're probably standing next to and don't know it" caches. Or how about "layered", or cloked, or ninja, or parasite, or whatever.

Edited by snowfrog
Posted

Yeah, I was just kidding, actually.

 

The point behind the current limit is to avoid having so many out there that we become a public nuisance. In one sense, a gnat is an amazing work of engineering. A cloud of gnats is just an annoyance. In some ways I think that one cache every mile is plenty. The powers that be think it should be 0.1 miles. Good enough. If a gardener starts picking these things out of his hedge every 250 feet....it's a hypothetical scenario, I know, but I'd rather not have geocaches be perceived as litter out of control.

Posted

We already have a system like that in place. If you feel that your great hiding spot is already taken up by a lesser quality geocaching.com listing, simply list it on terracaching.com. :)

 

But seriously that is a poor idea, but I will give you points for originality.

One of the greatest aspects of geocaching is the variety and options to get out of it whatever you want on a particular day. Some days I might want to tackle a really hard cache, some days a pile of PnG's might be what I'm in the mood for. Why should I have to find a bunch of easier or older caches before I can seek the other ones I want to look for? :)

Posted
Some days I might want to tackle a really hard cache, some days a pile of PnG's might be what I'm in the mood for. Why should I have to find a bunch of easier or older caches before I can seek the other ones I want to look for? :)

Then I would ask you why you voluntarily chose to eliminate the ones you want to look for since participation is voluntary for this type of caching.

 

Go read the original post, and specifically the bold words.

 

I like the idea, I think it would add an aspect to the game that doesn't exist. It could almost be played now with using the difficulty ratings as the levels, and just filter to those with your PQs. You wouldn't have the overlap as suggested (within 528') but it would still be a neat way to play.

Posted

Couldn't you accomplish the same thing today using a multi? Basically find the caches in the multi which contain a clue/coordinates to another which leads to another, etc. The 'level 2' caches would be listed as mystery with bogus coordinates.

Posted (edited)
Some days I might want to tackle a really hard cache, some days a pile of PnG's might be what I'm in the mood for. Why should I have to find a bunch of easier or older caches before I can seek the other ones I want to look for? B)

Then I would ask you why you voluntarily chose to eliminate the ones you want to look for since participation is voluntary for this type of caching.

 

Go read the original post, and specifically the bold words.

 

I like the idea, I think it would add an aspect to the game that doesn't exist. It could almost be played now with using the difficulty ratings as the levels, and just filter to those with your PQs. You wouldn't have the overlap as suggested (within 528') but it would still be a neat way to play.

 

So I can only look for 1* rated caches on a particular day, and then I have to return to that area to seek the 2* rated caches? B) No thanks, when I travel I want to be able to seek anything that I want to in that area. But I_suppose_it might work, once you get everyone on the same page and have all the caches rated correctly. B) Especially those events. B)

 

And as a hider, there is no way I would want to permit a 1* hide to encroach on my 4* camo job. There is still a very good chance that someone would accidentally find it,

 

But why do we need to increase the saturation beyond where it already is? Do you really need to walk less than 500' before you want to look for another cache? Nope, I'll stand by my statement. It's a poor idea. There are plenty of places for new caches. No reason to relax the saturation, and plenty of reasons in some places to increase it.

Edited by wimseyguy
Posted
So I can only look for 1* rated caches on a particular day, and then I have to return to that area to seek the 2* rated caches? B) No thanks

I'm guessing you didn't go back and read the original post and pay attention to the words in bold. Nobody is saying that you can only do it this way. He's only suggesting that there be a new option for people to play different if they want to.

 

If you don't want to, you don't have to.

Posted

On one hand, it sounds like it could be a neat idea...

 

On the other hand, it sounds like an avenue for numbers hunters to get around the cache saturation dilemma.

Posted

On one hand, it sounds like it could be a neat idea...

 

On the other hand, it sounds like an avenue for numbers hunters to get around the cache saturation dilemma.

I agree. I'd think this would only work if it were in addition to the existing guidelines, and things like the proximity rule would still apply.

Posted

Over-all, it is an interesting idea, having new opportunities open up after having achieved a certain level. It might need some vetting-out, in case there are some unintended consequences, like too many second-level caches and not enough first-level caches.

Posted
He's only suggesting that there be a new option for people to play different if they want to.

 

So, we could have two different games going on at once with the same game pieces (or at least some of the same pieces)?

 

What's the point of having a rule "if you want to"? Seems you could try this on your own geocaching listing site.

 

Although the idea of having "another level" actually sound like a good addition to the game, it seems that it would have to be the game across the board to be accepted on this site.

Posted
He's only suggesting that there be a new option for people to play different if they want to.

 

So, we could have two different games going on at once with the same game pieces (or at least some of the same pieces)?

 

What's the point of having a rule "if you want to"? Seems you could try this on your own geocaching listing site.

 

Although the idea of having "another level" actually sound like a good addition to the game, it seems that it would have to be the game across the board to be accepted on this site.

Not at all.

Some people prefer to find ALL caches within a 10 mile radius, and keep that area clear.

Some people really try to be FTF while others prefer a cache be found a few times before going after it.

Some people exclude micros from their PQs and never hunt for them, ever.

Some people are in a wheelchair and some of them only go for terrain 1 caches.

Etcetera.

 

So, if some people want to find all the difficulty 1 caches in a zone before finding any level 2's, and then follow up by finding the 3's, and so on, why does everyone "across the board" have to participate for it to be "accepted on this site"?

Posted

What's the point of having a rule "if you want to"? Seems you could try this on your own geocaching listing site.

 

I don't know that it was a rule so much as it was a distinction knowing the obvious tendency people have to voice their distaste with these types of ideas.

 

That's purely my speculation.

Posted

Interesting concept.

 

One spin on it is the "Delorme Challenge" Find or place acache in each map zone before you can log the challenge cache. The one thing missing is that you can see the challenge cache before hand. Call it motivation.

Posted (edited)
So, if some people want to find all the difficulty 1 caches in a zone before finding any level 2's, and then follow up by finding the 3's, and so on, why does everyone "across the board" have to participate for it to be "accepted on this site"?

 

So people can go and find "level" 2 and 3's without finding 1's?

 

From what I read, you either play the 1, 2, 3 game, or you don't access to the "higher" caches. Seems like it's a different game.

 

Not the same thing as having access to ALL of the game pieces and DECIDING which ones to find (your examples).

 

If I'm incorrect (and it is possible), why not just find difficulty 1's before 2's and 3's......seems like the game is already there.....

 

So, if some people want to find all the difficulty 1 caches in a zone before finding any level 2's, and then follow up by finding the 3's, and so on, why does everyone "across the board" have to participate for it to be "accepted on this site"?

 

If that's all it is and it's voluntary, then that already exists, people can find whatever level of difficulty they want to. It's just like your examples.

 

why does everyone "across the board" have to participate for it to be "accepted on this site"?

 

Probably for the same reason geodashing isn't done on this site....it's a different game. The OP's idea is either 1) already a part of geocaching and can be accomplished voluntarily by anyone who wants to or 2) it is a new game that requires new rules, not to mention new coding, etc. I just don't think people, in general, want another game cluttering up this site.

 

From the recerption I've seen to this idea.....Waymarking anyone?

Edited by PhxChem
Posted
From the recerption I've seen to this idea.....Waymarking anyone?

You quoted the second part of my post 3 times, and left the first part out totally. So I'll quote it again for you which will answer the questions you have above.

 

Some people prefer to find ALL caches within a 10 mile radius, and keep that area clear.

Some people really try to be FTF while others prefer a cache be found a few times before going after it.

Some people exclude micros from their PQs and never hunt for them, ever.

Some people are in a wheelchair and some of them only go for terrain 1 caches.

Etcetera.

 

It sounds to me like a different way to play the game.

 

Completely voluntary.

Posted

From the recerption I've seen to this idea.....Waymarking anyone?

 

It's not a Waymarking animal, imo.

 

It could very well be "another" game site, but the piggy-back nature of geocaching is still inherent.

 

From a database, programming perspective...very little development really. You'd just need a column to designate what "level" a cache was and a way to only allow visibility of subsequent level caches after a level was completed.

 

Not too much to it, really.

Posted

:) So, the level two caches have to be placed 528' higher than the level one caches? :)

 

If we were allowed to dig, we could also put them multiples of 528' below the level one caches. Then you'd also have Level -1, etc. caches to find. Cool!!

Posted

:yikes: So, the level two caches have to be placed 528' higher than the level one caches? :yikes:

 

If we were allowed to dig, we could also put them multiples of 528' below the level one caches. Then you'd also have Level -1, etc. caches to find. Cool!!

 

The ultimate challenge, level -39,499!

Posted (edited)
He's only suggesting that there be a new option for people to play different if they want to.

 

So, we could have two different games going on at once with the same game pieces (or at least some of the same pieces)?

 

What's the point of having a rule "if you want to"? Seems you could try this on your own geocaching listing site.

 

Although the idea of having "another level" actually sound like a good addition to the game, it seems that it would have to be the game across the board to be accepted on this site.

Not at all.

Some people prefer to find ALL caches within a 10 mile radius, and keep that area clear.

Some people really try to be FTF while others prefer a cache be found a few times before going after it.

Some people exclude micros from their PQs and never hunt for them, ever.

Some people are in a wheelchair and some of them only go for terrain 1 caches.

Etcetera.

 

So, if some people want to find all the difficulty 1 caches in a zone before finding any level 2's, and then follow up by finding the 3's, and so on, why does everyone "across the board" have to participate for it to be "accepted on this site"?

Mushtang, you're following me, but to clarify to others, I'm not saying that a level 2 would simply be placed within 527' in any direction from a level 1, that would be too simplistic and a little boring. My intent is not to circumvent the 528' rule but rather allow a new level to the game and create an arena in which camo-masters can strut their stuff. I'm saying a level 2 must be placed within very close proximity, say 50' or less, and maybe even in such a way that level one seekers would most likely pass by it in their search for the level 1 cache. It would then require ultra camo and very creative hides. Let's admit it, some like their caches to be found easily and others like to try to foil or challenge. First, a listing for a level 2 would have to be accepted by the host cache owner before placement. Or more easily, an option for new cache submissions to express their acceptance of any level 2 placements in close proximity of the original, at the time they submit their initial listing. if you say NO, then no it is. Existing caches could be sent an invitation for a parasite placement???, and if declined, it could be reflected on the host listing page to discourage others from inquiring. It would also help with timely maintenance, as level 2 owners could also check on the host cache when checking the level 2.

Edited by snowfrog
Posted
Mushtang, you're following me, but to clarify to others...

I'm all for innovation and new ways to play the game, but I wouldn't support any idea that allowed caches to be placed closer than the 528' rule. In my understanding, that rule isn't in place in an attempt to keep the number of caches down, or to keep creativity to some level, or reasons like that. It's only to keep one cache from being mistaken for another.

 

Placing a Level 2 cache 50 feet from a Level 1 cache will not result in having players "pass right by it" on their way to the level 1 cache. Instead, you'll have players signing the field log for the Level 2 cache, and then logging online on the Level 1 cache page that they'd found it.

 

A better way to play the game would be to keep the Level 2 and higher caches as separate caches that anyone is allowed to find whenever they want, but people that want to cache in Levels can choose to find them in order.

Posted
Mushtang, you're following me, but to clarify to others...

I'm all for innovation and new ways to play the game, but I wouldn't support any idea that allowed caches to be placed closer than the 528' rule. In my understanding, that rule isn't in place in an attempt to keep the number of caches down, or to keep creativity to some level, or reasons like that. It's only to keep one cache from being mistaken for another.

 

Placing a Level 2 cache 50 feet from a Level 1 cache will not result in having players "pass right by it" on their way to the level 1 cache. Instead, you'll have players signing the field log for the Level 2 cache, and then logging online on the Level 1 cache page that they'd found it.

 

A better way to play the game would be to keep the Level 2 and higher caches as separate caches that anyone is allowed to find whenever they want, but people that want to cache in Levels can choose to find them in order.

I mentioned before that level 2's would have to be clearly indentified. I never proposed that they should be on the same listing, just contain links to each other, that you can view or not. Mistaken identity would of course be a concern, but fake logs already are, the difference being one is unintentional and the other perhaps not, but both are equally inaccurate. There is no log police, and I certainly would not want to confuse seekers or skew the numbers or logs of other placements. I think the best way to put this is that you are simply asking permission to turn a cache into a multi, but with different cache listings of varying difficulty, and most likely unknown to seekers of the host cache, kind of like another category of multi. The mistaken indentity thing could be ironed out.

Posted

It seems to me that you are just complicating and confounding the concept of a multi.

 

Without necessitating a rule change + extra coding + mountains of extra work for approvers + extra storage/bandwidth on GC etc. one can do the following with a multi:

 

1) You can place stages of the multi as close to one another as you'd like.

2) You can make the initial stages (LEVEL ONE) as easy to find as you'd like.

3) You can make camo-mastered stages (LEVEL TWO et al) as hard to find as you'd like and (see 1)

 

Just those three features seem to satisfy your parameters. One need merely place the information needed to find LEVEL TWO caches in the LEVEL ONE caches. Understand, not complete information in each, but partial so that the seeker would need to find ALL the LEVEL ONE caches in order to graduate to finding the LEVEL TWO caches which could, in turn, contain each partial information for LEVEL THREE caches... ad infinitum. Each of these levels can be stacked right on top of one another spatially, plus - one cannot log a bogus find on a lower level to attain a higher level since the information needed is in the lower level cache itself (but I may be misunderstanding that part of your "dimensions").

 

The only thing missing are the extra listing pages and extra logging (and extra work for everyone invovled).

 

Here's a sample: In Merinelli's 4 x 4, one must find the extremely easy initial (LEVEL ONE) micro which contains the coordinates for FIVE "not so expertly cammo-mastered" (LEVEL TWO) containers each of which contains partial information (one must find them all) for deciphering the location of the very well hidden final (LEVEL THREE) cache and the booty. (I think this one gave Keystone a headache).

 

Another sample: The Pair 'o Dice series (the link is for only the final, you can search for the other stages some archived tho): One must find Botanical, Outdoor, Jogger's, Fisherman's, Farmer's, Racer's, Bird Watchers, Educational, Eternal, and Industrial in order to find the final - Almost in a Pair o' Dice. Differing here only in that one will travel nearly 200 miles to finish.

 

Another sample: B & B for TB's (archived) which has six stops (each is a domino) for the final all within a 3/8 mile radius.

 

One note: these type caches are hard to maintain as illustrated by the archivals of the latter two. Multi's can easily be made "dimensional" and there are probably thousands of samples like those mentioned here on GC.com.

 

This is probably not relevant, but I think VERTICAL distance should count toward the 528 foot requirement.

Posted (edited)

It seems to me that you are just complicating and confounding the concept of a multi.

 

Without necessitating a rule change + extra coding + mountains of extra work for approvers + extra storage/bandwidth on GC etc. one can do the following with a multi:

 

1) You can place stages of the multi as close to one another as you'd like.

2) You can make the initial stages (LEVEL ONE) as easy to find as you'd like.

3) You can make camo-mastered stages (LEVEL TWO et al) as hard to find as you'd like and (see 1)

 

Just those three features seem to satisfy your parameters. One need merely place the information needed to find LEVEL TWO caches in the LEVEL ONE caches. Understand, not complete information in each, but partial so that the seeker would need to find ALL the LEVEL ONE caches in order to graduate to finding the LEVEL TWO caches which could, in turn, contain each partial information for LEVEL THREE caches... ad infinitum. Each of these levels can be stacked right on top of one another spatially, plus - one cannot log a bogus find on a lower level to attain a higher level since the information needed is in the lower level cache itself (but I may be misunderstanding that part of your "dimensions").

 

The only thing missing are the extra listing pages and extra logging (and extra work for everyone invovled).

 

Here's a sample: In Merinelli's 4 x 4, one must find the extremely easy initial (LEVEL ONE) micro which contains the coordinates for FIVE "not so expertly cammo-mastered" (LEVEL TWO) containers each of which contains partial information (one must find them all) for deciphering the location of the very well hidden final (LEVEL THREE) cache and the booty. (I think this one gave Keystone a headache).

 

Another sample: The Pair 'o Dice series (the link is for only the final, you can search for the other stages some archived tho): One must find Botanical, Outdoor, Jogger's, Fisherman's, Farmer's, Racer's, Bird Watchers, Educational, Eternal, and Industrial in order to find the final - Almost in a Pair o' Dice. Differing here only in that one will travel nearly 200 miles to finish.

 

Another sample: B & B for TB's (archived) which has six stops (each is a domino) for the final all within a 3/8 mile radius.

 

One note: these type caches are hard to maintain as illustrated by the archivals of the latter two. Multi's can easily be made "dimensional" and there are probably thousands of samples like those mentioned here on GC.com.

 

This is probably not relevant, but I think VERTICAL distance should count toward the 528 foot requirement.

I realize that anything other than status quo is sure to be unpopular, aside from politics in which change is welcomed with open arms. The "don't fix what ain't broke" mentality is the path of least resistance but also does little to encourage new innovations or challenges. Your points, though stated ever so eloquently, would have allowed no transition from the early days to the game we have today. Very early on if the charter members had resisted the evolution of the sport because.....more paperwork for approvers, necessitated rule changes, extra storage/band width, multiple containers, or for that matter the suggestion that we.....god forbid.....allow different shapes and sizes of containers, and the madness of camouflaging them, then where would be? I would hardly consider a multi, complicated or cumbersome, and I also disagree that the type of cache contributes to the lack of maintenance. Slightly more time involved yes, but maintenance is a committment or choice, the owner makes, to do or not. It's the attitude not the containers. Furthermore, yes the concept of multi's already exists that satisfy my parameters, no big headline there, and you can choose to prefer that any new hides must fit into pre-established definitions or.....it's too cumbersome.But this discussion is an attempt to present the idea of, something new or at least that the game can still continue to evolve. If you have been around for a few years, you have seen changes to the game.....right? What you see as extra work, others may see as new challenges. So you prefer to make the cache fit the game, and there is certainly nothing wrong with that, but I prefer to see the possibility that the game might accomodate a new type of cache.

 

If you would persuade, you must appeal to interest rather than intellect.......Ben Franklin

Edited by snowfrog
Posted

I won't quote you because it would be ever so cumbersome, but your arguments about "the evolution of the game" are IMHO specious. The ability to do what you have proposed (unless I have completely mis-read) already exists and the addition of the "extras" proposed would be a waste of time and effort.

 

I'm certainly not afraid of challenges, but complicating an adequate existing system seems not a challenge, but foolishness.

 

I'm sure Ben had something to say about that, too.

Posted
I realize that anything other than status quo is sure to be unpopular

 

I'm not sure that's the entire reason it's not flying. I know I'm stepping out on a ledge (and on a couple of toes) but it's possible that people just don't like the idea....however innovative it may be.

 

Or, as others have stated, that it can be accomplished with the tools already available.

Posted

I realize that anything other than status quo is sure to be unpopular, aside from politics in which change is welcomed with open arms. The "don't fix what ain't broke" mentality is the path of least resisitance but also does little to encourage new innovations or challenges. Your points, though stated ever so eloquently, would have allowed no transition from the early days to the game we have today. Very early on if the charter members had resisited the evolution of the sport because.....more paperwork for approvers, necessitated rule changes, extra storage/band width, multiple containers, or for that matter the suggestion that we.....god forbid.....allow different shapes and sizes of containers, and the madness of camouflaging them, then where would be? I would hardly consider a multi, complicated or cumbersome, and I also disagree that the type of cache contributes to the lack of maintenance. Slightly more time involved yes, but maintenance is a committment or choice, the owner makes, to do or not. It's the attitude not the containers. Furthermore, yes the concept of multi's already exists that satisfy my parameters, no big headline there, and you can choose to prefer that any new hides must fit into pre-established definitions or.....it's too cumbersome.But this discussion is an attempt to present the idea of, something new or at least that the game can still continue to evolve. If you have been around for a few years, you have seen changes to the game.....right? What you see as extra work, others may see as new challenges. So you prefer to make the cache fit the game, and there is certainly nothing wrong with that, but I prefer to see the possibility that the game might accomodate a new type of cache.

 

The cache type describes the nature of the hide. I don't see how this Level 2 cache idea is different cache type. At first I thought this idea might be interesting but the more I read about it the more I get the feeling that it is meant to circumvent the 528 foot rule. So far everything you have described can be accomplished by placing either multi-caches or mystery caches (and in some areas, event caches). It seems like you are trying to turn every cache in to a multi-cache with the ability of being able to log each stage as a find.

 

I've been geocaching for a couple of years and I've seen many changes. One of those changes is the 528 foot rule. This rule has been around for years but it wasn't always a rule. The 528 rule is one of the evolutions in geocaching that you are talking about. Let's not devolve geocaching by suggesting ideas that circumvent the evolutions that have been made in geocaching.

Posted (edited)

528' is way overkill for preventing "mistaken identity." But still the "danger" of logging the wrong cache would easily exist the closer the level 2 cache was placed to an existing cache regardless of the extent of camo.

 

I don't see this idea as devolution of our existing rules, but more of a "bonus cache" idea which could be covered under the existing "unknown" cache type.

 

A typical host cache page might read: "As you find my cache, if you want a greater challenge whilst still in the area, look for GCXXXXX which is only a few yards away but VERY WELL HIDDEN." The host could provide either explicit directions, coordinates, or both inside the container- thus iensuring that finders of the level 2 must find the level 1 first.

 

The GC number would be a listed unknown cache whose page would read: "The cache is NOT at the listed coordinates." (duh!) "in order to find this cache follow the instructions in GCAAAA" (the host)

 

GC needs do nothing more than allow the listing. In fact, to my understanding of the process, the individual reviewer has the latitude to approve it already.

 

A test could easily be done with the local approver's permission and we could get feedback as to the merits of the idea and the number of mistaken identities. Or you could post a host and level 2 mystery yourself, adhering to the 528 rule in a place large enough to accommodate it.

 

The idea already fits in puzzle or multi, but these options only allow one (legitimate) smiley.

Edited by Confucius' Cat
Posted

"ensuring" - sorry, but that one just bugs me. This ain't State Farm.

 

The posit of extra smileys is definitely a consideration and I heartily agree that the .1 mile is way overkill. And, approvers can already do the override so have at it.

 

But I doubt they will be too agreeable.

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...
×
×
  • Create New...