Jump to content

Separate puzzle caches from mystery caches


Followers 1

Recommended Posts

ALRs get largely ignored because most people think mystery caches are puzzles. This is why I wish they would create a separate puzzle cache type from the mystery type.

 

Right now there is no quick way to load just ALRs and not puzzles from the mystery caches. So it would be great if mystery caches were ALRs and puzzles had their own separate new category! They could use a something like this for the puzzle cache icon: 13500.gif

 

If they did this you could pull out your Palm and read what you have to do on mystery caches when you are out in the field and not worry about having to solve a puzzle. Then the ALRs wouldn't get ignored and could really be fun!

 

What do you think?

Link to comment
I'd rather see a cache type started for the ALRs, leaving the mystery/puzzle cache type as is. The ALRs were added in to the current type after the fact.

 

And no, I don't have a fancy icon to post.

No icon? :laughing: Puzzles are what many people ignore so why anchor non-puzzles to them? That's really the reason I thought it would be nice if puzzles were all by themselves....
Link to comment

I agree that a cache that requires a picture or a story in the log or something like that is much different from a cache with a puzzle to solve to get the coordinates, and I was surprised to learn recently that these caches are now being lumped together. I often don't bother to read the "blue question mark" caches not because I have anything against them, but I seem to have such a hard time solving them that I only check them out when I'm in a puzzle-solving mood. I hope there aren't any good caches I've overlooked just because they required a picture.

Link to comment
I was thinking more of the puzzles and mysterys seemed to get along fine without the ALRs. Either way it would be an improvement to split them up. Perhaps three types?
The main thing that needs to be accomplished is knowing which caches you can load into your GPS and which ones you can't because there is some prior homework that is required before you can find the cache. Edited by TrailGators
Link to comment

I agree that a cache that requires a picture or a story in the log or something like that is much different from a cache with a puzzle to solve to get the coordinates, and I was surprised to learn recently that these caches are now being lumped together. I often don't bother to read the "blue question mark" caches not because I have anything against them, but I seem to have such a hard time solving them that I only check them out when I'm in a puzzle-solving mood. I hope there aren't any good caches I've overlooked just because they required a picture.

 

I know what you mean. I filter out the puzzles and micros on most of my PQs. I know I'll miss a couple of good micros and perhaps a couple of ALRs but it seems worth it when I still have lots of good caches left on the list.

 

I was thinking more of the puzzles and mysterys seemed to get along fine without the ALRs. Either way it would be an improvement to split them up. Perhaps three types?
The main thing that needs to be accomplished is knowing which caches you can load into your GPS and which ones you can't because there is some prior homework that is required before you can find the cache.

 

Can't argue with you there.

Link to comment

The mystery/unknown was always a "catch-all" for caches that didn't fit in other types or where the hider wanted it to be a mystery as to what would be involved until you actually went to search for a cache. It also became the type for when the cache (or the first stage of a multi) is not at the posted coordinates. The most popular type was always the puzzle to figure out the coordinates of the cache. But it was also used for a bonus cache where you found a series of cache with information in them that could be used to compute the coordinates of the bonus. The type has also been used when the cache is at the coordinates but there is a mental or physical puzzle to solve in order to retrieve or open the cache, and for multi-caches where getting the coordinates for the next stage involves some kind of calculation or puzzle to solve. More recently the mystery/unknown type has been used for challenge caches, where the cacher must email proof that he has met some challenge involving other caches in order to get the coordinates for a cache. ALRs are in a way another problem or challenge to solve but only in order to log the find online. In some cases a ALR may even be providing proof that you found the cache or solved a puzzle needed to find the cache in the proper way. It may be hard to separate ALR and puzzle caches because a cache could be both.

 

When this topic comes up, I always question which caches would count as puzzles. Do you limit it to caches where you figure out the final coordinates from information on the cache page before you leave home? Would it include mental and physical problems that have to be solved to retrieve or open the cache? Would it include mutli-caches with a puzzle component? How about where the problem is simply to use information you found in other caches to compute the coordinates?

 

Instead of puzzles and ALRs, I think there should be separate cache type for caches that are not at the posted coordinates. This would include most puzzles, challenge caches, and bonus caches for finders of a series of caches. There would also be a catch-all category that would include other kinds of puzzles and ALR caches as well as multis with a puzzle component. This may not seem useful at first glance, but it would be helpful for me. I use the corrected coordinates field in GSAK to indicate when I have the real coordinates for a mystery cache, whether I have solved a traditional puzzle, found the caches in a series, or have completed a challenge. I can then load these "solved" caches into my GPSr so I can look for them. The catch-all would be for caches where I would still need to look at the cache description to know what I might need to do at the cache or during the hunt, whether it be solve additional problems in the field, bring the combination to open the cache, or take a picture of myself standing on my head.

Link to comment

I'd rather see ALR caches have their own separate icon, or at least have a searchable attribute.

 

After all, the whole principle of these is very different from any other type of cache: all others can be completed by finding a cache and signing the log.

You may do this on an ALR cache but then later discover that you can't log a "find" as you didn't perform some task at the site.

Link to comment

To me the mystery caches all have one thing in common: You must actually read the cache description before attempting the cache.

 

The description may tell you that you have to figure out a puzzle before attempting the cache, or that you'll get information at the location that you will use to find the final location, or that you have to take a picture to claim the find, or that you must trade something specific, or that jumping jacks are in your future. As such, it is appropriate for ALRs to be in the '?' category.

 

If you are like me and are horrible at puzzles, you can put all the 'mystery' caches in their own PQ with a lower difficulty rating. That will leave you with most ALRs and the easier puzzles.

Link to comment

I'd rather see a cache type started for the ALRs, leaving the mystery/puzzle cache type as is. The ALRs were added in to the current type after the fact.

 

And no, I don't have a fancy icon to post.

I agree with gof1. While I thinks that TrailGator's suggestion has a lot of merit, I believe that the slightly variant solution proposed by gof1 is more practical, pragmatic and easier to implement.

Link to comment

I have mixed feelings on this. If a new cache type was created for ALRs, it might drive more ALR creation.

I'm not a fan of ALRs generally (irony and disclosure, I own one, and will likely plant another this week - challenge type ALR).

An attribute might be useful. Attribute = cache at coords with ALR. That way you could download ?mystery separately, then filter on the attribute.

Link to comment

To me the mystery caches all have one thing in common: You must actually read the cache description before attempting the cache.

:laughing: You should do that with all caches. That's the problem with many cachers. They don't want to take the extra seconds it takes to make sure they haven't missed anything. :lol:;)

The description may tell you that you have to figure out a puzzle before attempting the cache, or that you'll get information at the location that you will use to find the final location, or that you have to take a picture to claim the find, or that you must trade something specific, or that jumping jacks are in your future. As such, it is appropriate for ALRs to be in the '?' category.

 

If you are like me and are horrible at puzzles, you can put all the 'mystery' caches in their own PQ with a lower difficulty rating. That will leave you with most ALRs and the easier puzzles.

I do have too agree that they can be separated out now, but I don't see how another category would hurt.

 

For my vote....

 

I abstain.

Link to comment

To me the mystery caches all have one thing in common: You must actually read the cache description before attempting the cache.

:laughing: You should do that with all caches. That's the problem with many cachers. They don't want to take the extra seconds it takes to make sure they haven't missed anything. :lol:;)

I completely agree, but in the old ALR thread (and the more recent 'lame' threads), it was made clear that many people didn't wish to read the descriptions. They wanted to load up the caches into their GPSrs and have it automatically take them to a cache that they would enjoy.
Link to comment

If you loaded your GPS and went to a mystery cache, you already know that you have to read the cache description on your Palm/Pocket PC before looking for it. This is no different than what you have to do now. The difference is that you could filter out just the puzzle mysterys with bogus coords (unless you had solved them and fixed the coords). The bogus coords are useless, so they have to be filtered out anyhow.

Link to comment
To me the mystery caches all have one thing in common: You must actually read the cache description before attempting the cache.

 

The description may tell you that you have to figure out a puzzle before attempting the cache, or that you'll get information at the location that you will use to find the final location,

 

That's a great description. It also add full to the fire that off-set caches should be listed as "?" instead of multi-caches.

 

If you are like me and are horrible at puzzles, you can put all the 'mystery' caches in their own PQ with a lower difficulty rating. That will leave you with most ALRs and the easier puzzles.

 

That's a very good solution to this issue.

 

The whole "icon" think is ridiculous anyway. I have a cache that should be listed as a "?" but when it was published is was listed as a multi. The admins wont change it because it will "mess up" other users' stats.

Not that their total find count will go down, just that they will have one more "?" and on less multi.

That's one of the silliest thing I've heard and suggest that it's better to promote misinformation and protect a insignificant stat, than to get it right and be informative to future seekers.

 

So, if a new icon was added, how would the migration of cacher "history" take place.

Can we opt out so our stats don't get messed up?

Link to comment

That would be a cool idea, but my systems also works fine for me, I just mark the coordinates as corrected in GSAK, then I can load all unknowns with corrected coordinates and that gets "ALR's and solved puzzles" ... bytheway, what's an ALR? I've never heard/seen that one before, I knew what it meant based on context but can someone tell me what it stands for?

Link to comment

That would be a cool idea, but my systems also works fine for me, I just mark the coordinates as corrected in GSAK, then I can load all unknowns with corrected coordinates and that gets "ALR's and solved puzzles" ... bytheway, what's an ALR? I've never heard/seen that one before, I knew what it meant based on context but can someone tell me what it stands for?

Additional Logging Requirement

Link to comment
I think separating caches with bogus coords from caches that don't would a nice additional for reasons you mention. Only reservation is not forcing puzzles into the puzzle category and continue to allow any cache the owner wants to be listed as an unknown.
That would work. I'm just curious, what's the aversion to a puzzle category? I have solved a ton of puzzles and my personal preference would be to see my stats for those separated from ALRs and other non-puzzles. Right now it's all mixed together. Also puzzles always have bogus coords so separating puzzles helps that. I keep a Mapsource file with all my solved puzzle coords and load that separately. The Mapsource file lets me quickly see if I have any solved puzzles near an area that I'm headed to. Edited by TrailGators
Link to comment

That would be a cool idea, but my systems also works fine for me, I just mark the coordinates as corrected in GSAK, then I can load all unknowns with corrected coordinates and that gets "ALR's and solved puzzles" ... bytheway, what's an ALR? I've never heard/seen that one before, I knew what it meant based on context but can someone tell me what it stands for?

Additional Logging Requirement

 

Thanks!

Link to comment
I'm just curious, what's the aversion to a puzzle category?

Well, because it wouldn't fit into the scheme of categories. A traditional is basically one stage; you get to the posted coordinates and find the cache. A multi is where you go to the posted coordinates and then you have to go to one or more other locations to find the cache. I'd probably call the new category "mystery" in that where you start the hunt is a mystery. If you don't want to tell folks what kind of cache it is, then call it an "Unknown." Why we got away from that I don't know.

 

I'd probably not call the new category "puzzle" as you can have a puzzle in a multi. It would be confusing and there would be all kinds of angst about how caches are mis-categorized. "Why don't you put a puzzle that has a posted starting point in the puzzle category? It is a puzzle after all."

Link to comment
I'm just curious, what's the aversion to a puzzle category?

Well, because it wouldn't fit into the scheme of categories. A traditional is basically one stage; you get to the posted coordinates and find the cache. A multi is where you go to the posted coordinates and then you have to go to one or more other locations to find the cache. I'd probably call the new category "mystery" in that where you start the hunt is a mystery. If you don't want to tell folks what kind of cache it is, then call it an "Unknown." Why we got away from that I don't know.

 

I'd probably not call the new category "puzzle" as you can have a puzzle in a multi. It would be confusing and there would be all kinds of angst about how caches are mis-categorized. "Why don't you put a puzzle that has a posted starting point in the puzzle category? It is a puzzle after all."

You get that puzzles and multies are already two different cache types, right?

 

Vinnie, is that you?

Edited by sbell111
Link to comment

ALRs get largely ignored because most people think mystery caches are puzzles. This is why I wish they would create a separate puzzle cache type from the mystery type.

 

Right now there is no quick way to load just ALRs and not puzzles from the mystery caches. So it would be great if mystery caches were ALRs and puzzles had their own separate new category! They could use a something like this for the puzzle cache icon: 13500.gif

 

If they did this you could pull out your Palm and read what you have to do on mystery caches when you are out in the field and not worry about having to solve a puzzle. Then the ALRs wouldn't get ignored and could really be fun!

 

What do you think?

 

I think this is a good idea, but in my experience, I think many folks would log the cache and ignore the "additional requirements" anyway (at least that's what I've seen locally).

 

DCC

Link to comment
I'm just curious, what's the aversion to a puzzle category?

Well, because it wouldn't fit into the scheme of categories. A traditional is basically one stage; you get to the posted coordinates and find the cache. A multi is where you go to the posted coordinates and then you have to go to one or more other locations to find the cache. I'd probably call the new category "mystery" in that where you start the hunt is a mystery. If you don't want to tell folks what kind of cache it is, then call it an "Unknown." Why we got away from that I don't know.

 

I'd probably not call the new category "puzzle" as you can have a puzzle in a multi. It would be confusing and there would be all kinds of angst about how caches are mis-categorized. "Why don't you put a puzzle that has a posted starting point in the puzzle category? It is a puzzle after all."

You get that puzzles and multies are already two different cache types, right?

 

Vinnie, is that you?

There are some multis that require solving a puzzle to find the subsequent stages.

There are some puzzles where you solve a problem that brings you to the first stage of a multi.

There are some puzzles where the solution is the combination you need to open the cache and not the coordinates.

There may even be some puzzle that has to do only with an additional logging requirement :)

 

Puzzle does not fit in with the other cache types.

 

Some people have suggested separating out ALR caches as a new type. This is a bit like Letterbox Hybrids being a separate type. A letterbox hybrid is actually some other type caches that happens to have a letterbox stamp in the cache. An ALR type would be any other type cache that happens to have and ALR. I think a better solution for both of these would be an attribute instead of a separate type.

 

CR (and I) have suggested a new type for caches with bogus coordinates. (This may include multis where the first stage is not at the posted coordinates as well). Whether you get the coordinates via a puzzle, from another cache, or from the cache owner after completing a challenge, these all have the same property that you need to get the coordinates before you go out to look for the cache.

 

A catch-all type would still be useful for caches that don't fit in clearly in one of the other types or which the cache owner wants to remain a mystery until you start searching for the cache. It could be use for puzzles to figure out how to open the cache, multis that include puzzle components, and other case where you want to make sure that people read the cache page before starting their hunt.

Edited by tozainamboku
Link to comment
CR (and I) have suggested a new type for caches with bogus coordinates. (This may include multis where the first stage is not at the posted coordinates as well). Whether you get the coordinates via a puzzle, from another cache, or from the cache owner after completing a challenge, these all have the same property that you need to get the coordinates before you go out to look for the cache.
I also said that this was my main reason for suggesting this. I don't think an attribute would work because as we all know attributes are very inconsisently applied with the masses. Since bogus coords are predominantly used with puzzle caches this would segragate out the vast majority of caches with bogus coords. That was my logic for separating puzzle caches in the first place. I also think that a new cool puzzle cache icon would motivate many people to switch their puzzle mystery to a puzzle. It would only take me a few minutes to do it. Finally, it also makes our cache history more accurate because we'll know how many puzzle caches we've found versus other types of mystery caches.
Link to comment

Additional logging requirements have long been known to SSA in my local area. I usually log them with a simple DPM and move on.

 

IMO these caches should not be approved by TPTB unless they are listed as puzzle caches. Any other policy would lead to POG's. If you want to add an additional logging requirement to a traditional cache, you should PYHOYA and post it as a terracache or something.

 

Then again, I could just be TOMA.

Link to comment

Additional logging requirements have long been known to SSA in my local area. I usually log them with a simple DPM and move on.

 

IMO these caches should not be approved by TPTB unless they are listed as puzzle caches. Any other policy would lead to POG's. If you want to add an additional logging requirement to a traditional cache, you should PYHOYA and post it as a terracache or something.

 

Then again, I could just be TOMA.

Lucky for you, ALRs are only listed as puzzle/mystery caches (aka unknown).

 

That being said, I have no idea what SSA, POG, PYHOYA, or TOMA means. I assume that they are all a bit of smug rudeness like DPM.

Edited by sbell111
Link to comment
CR (and I) have suggested a new type for caches with bogus coordinates. (This may include multis where the first stage is not at the posted coordinates as well). Whether you get the coordinates via a puzzle, from another cache, or from the cache owner after completing a challenge, these all have the same property that you need to get the coordinates before you go out to look for the cache.
I also said that this was my main reason for suggesting this. I don't think an attribute would work because as we all know attributes are very inconsisently applied with the masses. Since bogus coords are predominantly used with puzzle caches this would segragate out the vast majority of caches with bogus coords. That was my logic for separating puzzle caches in the first place. I also think that a new cool puzzle cache icon would motivate many people to switch their puzzle mystery to a puzzle. It would only take me a few minutes to do it. Finally, it also makes our cache history more accurate because we'll know how many puzzle caches we've found versus other types of mystery caches.

Are all caches with bogus coordinates are puzzles? Are challenge caches puzzles? Are caches where I found the coordinates in another cache a puzzle? What if what I found in the other cache was something I need to solve a puzzle?

Why is cache where I need to solve a puzzle to get the combination of a lock not a puzzle? Why is a multi where I solve a puzzle to get subsequent stages not a puzzle?

If you are going to have a puzzle type your going to have to define it better.

 

Where do I list a cache where you have a puzzle to get the coordinates, it has a letterbox stamp, and I have additional logging requirements?

Link to comment
Are all caches with bogus coordinates are puzzles?
Not all, however, the majority probably are puzzles.

 

Are challenge caches puzzles?
No

 

Are caches where I found the coordinates in another cache a puzzle?
No

 

What if what I found in the other cache was something I need to solve a puzzle?
That cache is not a puzzle.

 

Why is cache where I need to solve a puzzle to get the combination of a lock not a puzzle?
It is.

 

Why is a multi where I solve a puzzle to get subsequent stages not a puzzle?
It is.

 

f you are going to have a puzzle type your going to have to define it better.
I agree. There seems to be a lot of confusion about this. I'll try to keep this simple.

 

A puzzle cache is a cache needs to meet these two conditions:

1) The posted coords are bogus.

2) You must solve some kind of puzzle to get the actual coords.

Link to comment
Are all caches with bogus coordinates are puzzles?
Not all, however, the majority probably are puzzles.

 

Are challenge caches puzzles?
No

 

Are caches where I found the coordinates in another cache a puzzle?
No

 

What if what I found in the other cache was something I need to solve a puzzle?
That cache is not a puzzle.

 

Why is cache where I need to solve a puzzle to get the combination of a lock not a puzzle?
It is.

 

Why is a multi where I solve a puzzle to get subsequent stages not a puzzle?
It is.

 

f you are going to have a puzzle type your going to have to define it better.
I agree. There seems to be a lot of confusion about this. I'll try to keep this simple.

 

A puzzle cache is a cache needs to meet these two conditions:

1) The posted coords are bogus.

2) You must solve some kind of puzzle to get the actual coords.

Some of the puzzle examples that you just agreed to don't have bogus coords.

 

That being said, the way you've defined puzzles is the way that I originally understood puzzles. It is for that reason that 'Great Caesar's Ghost' is a multi.

Edited by sbell111
Link to comment

I don't know if a new icon/category is the answer -- there seems to be a lot of those already anyway.

 

In my happy little word, if the published coordinates are bogus then it is a puzzle/unknown. If visiting the posted coordinates is necessary (to gather information, do a projection or whatever) then I consider it a Multi. Don't get me started on ALR caches... :)

 

I run two local pocket queries -- one for "normal" caches and one for Mystery caches. I keep them in separate GSAK databases. As new Mystery caches get published I check out the cache page to see what it is. If it is an ALR I'll select the User Flag in GSAK. If it is a puzzle that involves getting info from the posted coordinates (since not everyone has the same definition of a puzzle that I do) I'll check the User Flag box. If it is a puzzle and I solve it I enter the corrected coordinates into GSAK, check the User Flag box. When I load up the GPSr I filter out anything that isn't flagged in that database and then dump the remaining caches to the GPSr so I don't spend time chasing puzzles for which I don't have good coordinates.

 

So, to get back to topic, I don't think we need to create a distinction between puzzles and other Mystery/Unknown caches.

Link to comment

To me the mystery caches all have one thing in common: You must actually read the cache description before attempting the cache.

:) You should do that with all caches. That's the problem with many cachers. They don't want to take the extra seconds it takes to make sure they haven't missed anything. :):)

I completely agree, but in the old ALR thread (and the more recent 'lame' threads), it was made clear that many people didn't wish to read the descriptions. They wanted to load up the caches into their GPSrs and have it automatically take them to a cache that they would enjoy.

 

I read the descriptions for most caches when possible. However, when traveling and caching it's not very practical to read every description for every cache for which you might have the waypoint in your GPS. For example, I am going to New York City this weekend (about 230 miles from home) and will be taking different routes coming and going. I've created several pocket queries using "caches along a route" but once I'm on the road I really can't predict where I might pull off the major highway to go look for a cache.

 

There are couple of solutions that help. First, I load all of the waypoints into a "travel" database I have set up in GSAK. Then I use the "mobi" macro to create a Mobireader file that includes the cache full cache descriptions and recent logs that I can upload to my Blackberry. Then I send the waypoints using my GPS from GSAK. That retains the appropriate icons for each of the cache types so it's easy to see if the cache near the upcoming exit is a traditional, multi, or unknown cache. Whether or not I get off on that exit might depend on the cache type. If I have to take a bathroom break anyway, or stop for lunch I might still grab an unknown cache if it's something that I can solve quickly.

 

In any case, I think the reality is even you're not a cacher with "the problem" (cough), the amount of preparation one does before searching for any specific cache varies greatly. The amount of preparation, in terms of reading the listings, for my upcoming trip is quite different from the preparation involved in the four caches I found yesterday.

 

I solved an easy puzzle on a cache close to home Sunday night. I went out yesterday at lunch time and grab that cache (and got a FTF). On the way I had an idea about a 5 star difficulty cache that I had been working on and sure enough, it panned out, and I solved the puzzle. Then I went out after work with the intent on finding two caches (the closest was 12 miles away). Depending on my success on the first, I had 3 choices for the cache I would do next. One was a micro in the woods, another was that 5 star puzzle, and the third was an ammo can in the woods that has had it's share of DNFs. I ended up going after the last as the first cache was a 1/2 a mile from the trailhead and wasn't a real quick find. I had one left to go, and it was a cache that was placed on Sunday in honor of a local cacher that achieved 1000 finds (a Golden Ammo Can). I targeted that cache to be my 400th find. Because there was some specific caches that I was going after I read the listings for all of them prior to going out. For my trip this weekend there is only one that I have targeted and that's because it's in a state in which I have not found a cache and close to where I will be staying Saturday night.

Link to comment

To me the mystery caches all have one thing in common: You must actually read the cache description before attempting the cache.

:) You should do that with all caches. That's the problem with many cachers. They don't want to take the extra seconds it takes to make sure they haven't missed anything. :):D

I completely agree, but in the old ALR thread (and the more recent 'lame' threads), it was made clear that many people didn't wish to read the descriptions. They wanted to load up the caches into their GPSrs and have it automatically take them to a cache that they would enjoy.

 

I read the descriptions for most caches when possible. However, when traveling and caching it's not very practical to read every description for every cache for which you might have the waypoint in your GPS. For example, I am going to New York City this weekend (about 230 miles from home) and will be taking different routes coming and going. I've created several pocket queries using "caches along a route" but once I'm on the road I really can't predict where I might pull off the major highway to go look for a cache.

 

There are couple of solutions that help. First, I load all of the waypoints into a "travel" database I have set up in GSAK. Then I use the "mobi" macro to create a Mobireader file that includes the cache full cache descriptions and recent logs that I can upload to my Blackberry. Then I send the waypoints using my GPS from GSAK. That retains the appropriate icons for each of the cache types so it's easy to see if the cache near the upcoming exit is a traditional, multi, or unknown cache. Whether or not I get off on that exit might depend on the cache type. If I have to take a bathroom break anyway, or stop for lunch I might still grab an unknown cache if it's something that I can solve quickly.

 

In any case, I think the reality is even you're not a cacher with "the problem" (cough), the amount of preparation one does before searching for any specific cache varies greatly. The amount of preparation, in terms of reading the listings, for my upcoming trip is quite different from the preparation involved in the four caches I found yesterday.

 

I solved an easy puzzle on a cache close to home Sunday night. I went out yesterday at lunch time and grab that cache (and got a FTF). On the way I had an idea about a 5 star difficulty cache that I had been working on and sure enough, it panned out, and I solved the puzzle. Then I went out after work with the intent on finding two caches (the closest was 12 miles away). Depending on my success on the first, I had 3 choices for the cache I would do next. One was a micro in the woods, another was that 5 star puzzle, and the third was an ammo can in the woods that has had it's share of DNFs. I ended up going after the last as the first cache was a 1/2 a mile from the trailhead and wasn't a real quick find. I had one left to go, and it was a cache that was placed on Sunday in honor of a local cacher that achieved 1000 finds (a Golden Ammo Can). I targeted that cache to be my 400th find. Because there was some specific caches that I was going after I read the listings for all of them prior to going out. For my trip this weekend there is only one that I have targeted and that's because it's in a state in which I have not found a cache and close to where I will be staying Saturday night.

 

I agree! Thanks for saving me from having to say that! I blow off all mystery caches when I'm traveling. I could sit there and read through them all but I have better things to do. So it would be nice to be able load the non-puzzles without sifting through all the puzzles. :D

 

I also don't think one more cache type is too many. If anything it's like having a fun new flavor of ice cream! It would be like being able to eat just one of the flavors in Spumoni! :)

Edited by TrailGators
Link to comment

I started a topic along these lines last fall. It started moving, gained a little momentum (even to the point of re-writing the "guidelines" to reflect the new category), then I allowed it to die when I realized two things: 1) I was spending WAAAY too much time posting in the forums instead of working and spending time with my family, 2) I decided I maybe preferred creating a new category for ALR's instead of the Mystery category I suggested originally, and finally, 3) It didn't matter what we discussed because TPTB weren't going to do anything about it.

 

I heartily endorse creating a new Mystery (or Puzzle) cache type, a new ALR cache type, or both. But I don't expect to see one anytime soon.

 

And to answer a previous question, existing caches should NOT be forced into any new category. Maybe a provision to allow a reviewer to change categories at the owner's request.

Link to comment
And to answer a previous question, existing caches should NOT be forced into any new category. Maybe a provision to allow a reviewer to change categories at the owner's request.
That means that Mystery caches will still have puzzles mixed in. So maybe it would be better to reclassify ALRs. At least that way when you download ALRs, you could be confident that all you are getting are ALRs (with legit coords). Plus there are a lot less ALRs so it would make it much easier for the reviewers to make the switch (on request). Then when you traveled you could ignore Mysterys and download ALRs in your PQs.

 

Maybe all we really need is a checkbox that says: "Cache is not at posted coords" that we could use to filter Mysterys with bogus coords out of our PQs! :)

Edited by TrailGators
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...