New Cache Types

[+FluCacher]

There are so many forums out there requesting new cache types, it really is time to consolidate. I'm hoping that some people can get behind me on this, because if we want Groundspeak to pay attention, we can't really expect them to go hunting through 400 discussion pages with X number of posts.

 

If new cache types are going to happen, we should try to unify and get them all into one discussion.

 

So far, I've read posts regarding new cache types such as:

• Additional Logging Requirement Cache
  
• Quest Cache
  
• Night Cache
  
• Seed Cache
  

There are probably more requests out there, but that's really my point. If we ever want Groundspeak to make any of these a reality, Let's try to keep all the requests in one place.

 

Now, I'm not trying to be elitist starting this page on my own, I just think that for this idea to work, it should start with a fresh topic.

Edited November 12, 2008 by FluCachers

[+FluCacher]

Now, as I understand it, the new cache type requests listed before are:

 

Additional Logging Requirement Cache

(Also called Codeword Cache or Password Cache)

This type seems to be the most prevalent in the request logs.

These are a new kind of hybrid cache combining Traditional/Multi caches with Virtual caches, where the logger needs to get approval from the cache owner before logging their find, or they need to answer some questions in their log for it to be valid.

This also could involve the cacher being required to post a photo with their log, or accomplish a task (usually requiring a public bookmark list as with Challenge Caches) in order to log their find or even be given the actual coordinates of the cache.

 

Quest Cache

(Also called Series Cache)

These are a variation on multicaches, except that the cacher gets credit for each stage of the journey.

 

Night Cache

This kind of cache would replace the need for a "recommended at night" attribute. The cache would be designed to be found at night (or in the dark at least), and actually more difficult to find during the day.

 

Seed Cache

(Also called "Pay it Forward" Cache)

This is a variation on the "Additional Logging Requirements Cache" except that the cacher is required to hide and maintain a cache to log the find.

 

That is my understanding of the caches being requested so far, but of course, this is why it's a discussion page. So please, discuss.

Edited November 12, 2008 by FluCachers

[+ArcherDragoon]

Regarding Seed Caches...last I heard, those are no longer...

[+FluCacher]

That's totally understandable. Seed caches, from what I've gathered, resulted in cachers placing a cache they had absolutely no intention of maintaining just so they could log the find.

 

The concept is good in its intent, but unfortunately it results in people taking advantage of the system and ultimately hurting the game.

[+StarBrand]

There are so many forums out there requesting new cache types, it really is time to consolidate. I'm hoping that some people can get behind me on this, because if we want Groundspeak to pay attention, we can't really expect them to go hunting through 400 discussion pages with X number of posts.

 

If new cache types are going to happen, we should try to unify and get them all into one discussion.

 

So far, I've read posts regarding new cache types such as:

• Additional Logging Requirement Cache
  
• Quest Cache
  
• Night Cache
  
• Seed Cache
  

There are probably more requests out there, but that's really my point. If we ever want Groundspeak to make any of these a reality, Let's try to keep all the requests in one place.

 

Now, I'm not trying to be elitist starting this page on my own, I just think that for this idea to work, it should start with a fresh topic.

Before you convince Groundspeak, I think you would need to convince the majority of cachers that it is necessary.

 

I'm not convinced addtional types are needed.

 

-ALR caches seem covered quite well under the "?" cache type.

-Never really have seen only heard about Quest caches. Seems covered well under existing types - maybe -just need a bit a of flexibilty in the guidelines to cover this one.

-Night caches - can be handled by attributes. (new one maybe)

-Seed caches - not a fan of these so don't want to see it.

[+DavidMac]

Personally, I support the addition of one of those cache types, plus one you haven't mentioned:

 

* Additional Logging Requirement Cache - no, because I think this is adequately covered under "unknown"

* Quest Cache - I assume you mean "challenge", aka the Delorme challenge. Then yes, I would like these to be their own cache type.

* Night Cache - no, I think attributes cover these well.

* Seed Cache - no longer allowed as per the currently accepted guidelines

 

I would add:

* Puzzle Cache - to separate out caches that can be solved at home to obtain the final coordinates. This would make them easier to separate from ALR caches if you leave them in the unknown category.

[+Cache O'Plenty]

I'd like to see the "?" cache type divided into caches that are true puzzles that have to be researched/solved prior to venturing out and those that are located at the posted coordinates and only require ALR or need site information to be solved. Many times I bypass "?" caches only to find out that they are really just modified Traditional caches that could have been found just by visiting the coordinates posted.

[+Turtle3863]

I would like to see: Offset Cache This would be a simple two part cache to put in places where it is not practical for a single cache and it would set it apart from the normal multi which are for the most part filtered out when people are traveling.

[+FluCacher]

Quest caches could entail the challenge caches to be sure, but they also could involve several that we've encountered here in Washington currently under the "Unknown" category...

 

They involve going and finding caches which contain information, all of which is necessary to achieve the final "Quest" cache.

 

Examples we seen so far are:

Sam's Solar System

Pond Scrum - Tackle(box)

JAE's Combo

 

And that's just three...there are several out there like this.

 

As for the Puzzle Cache type, if the Additional Log Required, Quest, Challenge and Puzzle types are going to be ignored...I say we start pushing to get the "Unknown" cache re-named as "Other."

 

I'm going to argue that the Offset cache really does fall into the Multi category. My basis for this argument is from this cache:

 

Rooni - "Re-Search & Development"

 

This cache combines the use of physical hides with additional information as well as fixed markers to achieve the final. If the Offset type were created, how then would this cache be classified? If we were going to push this one through, perhaps renaming Multis as "Combination" caches might be more appropriate.

 

If anything, perhaps adding a new attribute to Multis only, which would immediately tell cachers how many parts to the Multi there are to find. Of course, most Multi owners already do this with the descriptions and the inclusion of the number of waypoints (which is usually required for the cache to get published).

Edited November 12, 2008 by FluCachers

[+Prime Suspect]

What you're calling a "quest" cache is nothing more than a Bonus cache. It's just a puzzle, where the clues are in other caches. Like any puzzle or mystery, you have to read the cache page to see what needs to be done. I don't see what a different type icon would accomplish.

Edited November 13, 2008 by Prime Suspect

[+DanOCan]

Before you convince Groundspeak, I think you would need to convince the majority of cachers that it is necessary.

 

Agreed. I haven't seen a cache yet that doesn't fit into the existing categories. My profile page is already long enough from all the different icons for Geocoins and things, I don't need the cache types getting any longer.

[+Rev Mike]

I have to say I think things are just fine as they are.

 

- Rev Mike

[CoyoteRed]

I've been thinking about the present scheme of type categories and have found yet another idea that the hobby has grown beyond.

 

The original idea was there were a limited number of "styles" of a hunt: a single stage, more than one stage, an unknown place to start, no physical stage at all, and a group gathering. Fairly simple. It was also fine when you could scan your nearest caches in a 100 miles and only have 3 unfound.

 

However, with the sheer number of caches now in the wild and wild swing in hunt styles even "traditional" could be broken up into different styles: classic, park-n-grab, epic, etc. The thing is some of those could fit other types, too. I say bring in a new category "style."

 

"Style" would be different than "type" in that it incorporates various elements like type, size, difficulty, etc. and more in varying degrees to define a style. For instance, "urban park-n-grab" could be a cache one would expect (though not necessarily have to be) a micro in a mundane location in an urban environment. "Classic" could be a single stage, non-micro or non-unknown in a park or rural setting where you don't have to read the description while "Traditional" would be the same but you would need to read the description. "Mystery" would be a puzzle cache where the start is unknown while "puzzle" would be one with puzzle elements other than the start location. "Quest" for the challenges where you find caches that fit certain criteria while a "bonus" would be a cache where you find a set of particular caches. Etc.

 

While this scheme does not describe a cache in finite detail like another scheme proposed where the types are augmented with type elements it does describe a cache much better than simply a type. It compartmentalizes caches with a finer granularity which would allow for better filtering in PQs.

[Skippermark]

I'm in with the "it's good as it is now" club.

[Skippermark]

Wanted to clarify that people have a tough time getting it right now when it comes to multis and puzzles. I've seen simple offset caches listed as a multi (the way it's supposed to be) and as puzzles by some cachers because they list it wrong.

 

The more options you add, the more confusing it'll get. In the same vein, I'd like to see the choice of the size of containers get reduced because there's confusion over what a regular and a small is. But that's been discussed already in other threads.

Edited November 13, 2008 by Skippermark

[+Happy Humphrey]

I say bring in a new category "style."

I've been proposing this type of thing for ages. It also addresses the "cache rating" issue, because you can see what the intention of the cache was. It also means that you don't need new cache types: you just allocate caches to an appropriate category (or more than one), Waymarking-fashion.

[+ValerieB]

I'm for an ALR (Additional Logging Requirement) cache type. I think if you're going to answer another question or find something else, etc., you should get credit for it. Logging the same cache twice seems very anticlimactic to me.....and it is something else you are accomplishing.

[+The Caching Crew]

Don't know how much programing it would take, but I would like to see the Icon of multis show how many stages the multi has. The ? could be used if the owner doesn't want to share that info. A 2 part multi could have a 2 in the treasure box, a 10 part multi could have a 10, and so on. Just something I thought of.

[+succotash]

Many of these suggestions seem like they would have the (unintended) consequence of encouraging cachers to not read cache pages. At the very least, they would minimize the risks involved in not taking the time to read cache pages. That doesn't seem like a good thing.

[+Glenn]

There are so many forums out there requesting new cache types, it really is time to consolidate. I'm hoping that some people can get behind me on this, because if we want Groundspeak to pay attention, we can't really expect them to go hunting through 400 discussion pages with X number of posts.

 

I'm not sure what other forums you are talking about but here in the Groundspeak forums the threads about new cache types are all mostly in the Geocaching.com Web Site forum. If by many forums out there you mean many threads in the Geocaching.com Web Site forum then I say no. I don't like it. Soon there will be so many post in the thread that it will make manual searching for specific posts very laborious. Also once a thread has about 3 or pages of posts it loses a lot of readers and the discussion tends to fall off or head off the original topic of the thread.

[+Prime Suspect]

Don't know how much programing it would take, but I would like to see the Icon of multis show how many stages the multi has. The ? could be used if the owner doesn't want to share that info. A 2 part multi could have a 2 in the treasure box, a 10 part multi could have a 10, and so on. Just something I thought of.

Why? The owner can reveal that on the cache page, if they so choose. Traditionals are pretty much the only type of cache you should attempt without reading the cache page. Not all multi-caches have multiple containers with coordinates. Some are off-set caches, and you'll never solve those without reading the page (other than with just blind luck).

[+Cache O'Plenty]

I don't know if I've ever come across a multi that didn't state somewhere how many WPs are involved. And, the newer ones should have the waypoint grid near the bottom anyway so you then would know.

 

Groundspeaks position is that reading the cache page is required - they want you to visit the page. That's why you don't get coordinates in the Instant Notifications. There may be dangers involved with caches that you should be aware of.

[+Sagefox]

 

I'm not convinced addtional types are needed.

 

 

That about sums it up for me too.

[+The Caching Crew]

I read the cachepage most of the time, The exception would be a LONG page with little to do with the cache, then the short description is about as far as I get. We cache with the laptop and an internet connection so we have the latest info in the field.

 

I personally don't care if GC ever has a new cache type, I an an icon junky and the numbered multi cache sounded fun to me. I really not a big fan of multis in the first place.

[+DiamondDaveG]

 

I'm not convinced addtional types are needed.

 

 

That about sums it up for me too.

 

I gotta join this group too. There is too much confusion about the types currently, adding more will cause more confusion.

[+ChileHead]

I'm in favor of getting rid of all cache types, and do everything else with attributes.

[+Sagefox]

I'm for an ALR (Additional Logging Requirement) cache type. I think if you're going to answer another question or find something else, etc., you should get credit for it. Logging the same cache twice seems very anticlimactic to me.....and it is something else you are accomplishing.

 

I am for elimination of ALRs because what do they have to do with finding a container and signing a log? Ifind them very annoying. But at least with an ALR cache type I could put them on my ignore list easier...

 

...but, then again, an ALR cache type would only encourage more ALRs so I guess I am against an ALR cache type.

[+Sagefox]

...Logging the same cache twice seems very anticlimactic to me...

 

Oooooh. I missed that the first time. You are logging caches twice? Bad idea.

 

Since this point is off-topic here you might want to search the forums for prior discussions about multiple Found It logging. You will get an earful.

[+Prime Suspect]

And, the newer ones should have the waypoint grid near the bottom anyway so you then would know.

Not if the owner made them invisible, which most do.

[+The Blue Quasar]

I'm in favor of getting rid of all cache types, and do everything else with attributes.

 

That'd be nifty and they could stop using POSTED COORDINATES totally and instead use Additional Waypoints for everything. Cool

 

BQ

[+widdi]

* Night Cache - no, I think attributes cover these well.

 

you can't search for something like that. We're collecting nightcaches on different lists, because you can't search for attributes. In northern bavaria, we have plenty nightcaches. We know our nightcaches (someone said, we have most nightcaches in a german region). But we don't know other regions, so we have to read many multi cache listings to find them, or bookmark lists,....

 

and a cachetype I love is: "Lost Places" (you call it "forgotton places" i think). NC/LP-caches are my favorites

 

in germany we add often "LP" to a cachename to show, that it is an extra ordinary cache

Edited December 22, 2008 by widdi

[+Prime Suspect]

* Night Cache - no, I think attributes cover these well.

 

you can't search for something like that. We're collecting nightcaches on different lists, because you can't search for attributes.

Yes you can. Use PQs.

[+widdi]

you can't search for something like that. We're collecting nightcaches on different lists, because you can't search for attributes.

Yes you can. Use PQs.

 

Sure - I know... but although the reviewer often tell, that there are missing symbols, not all cacher will add all correct attributes.

 

A "recommended at night" is an indicator for having a nightcache, the same "flashlight required". these two symbols are a help - but not more. You find these symbols also in cache listings for caves, buildings,... or caches, where you have no good chance to reach them unseen by daylight (e.g. caches in inner cities).

You have to check them, if they are really nightcaches (reflector stages, reactive lights,..) or something else

 

I don't know how "it works" in USA - in germany people have often problems with classifiying their caches (diff, terr, attributes). The experienced cachers will do that properly - no problem.

Edited December 22, 2008 by widdi

[+widdi]

and.. I like to use google earth and google maps to get an overview of the spreading of geocaches.. for planning my tour - but there I have no attributes - I see only the cache type symbols

[+WVangler]

 

you can't search for something like that. We're collecting nightcaches on different lists, because you can't search for attributes.

Yes you can. Use PQs.

 

I agree that PQs of attributes don't cover night caches well enough. I did a pocket query for night caches in my state and only found some about 2 1/2 hours from me. Then just the other day I was in a different area much closer and started looking up cache descriptions and discovered that there were a half dozen night caches in that area alone that NEVER showed up on my PQ of night cache attributes.

[+ValerieB]

...Logging the same cache twice seems very anticlimactic to me...

 

Oooooh. I missed that the first time. You are logging caches twice? Bad idea.

 

Since this point is off-topic here you might want to search the forums for prior discussions about multiple Found It logging. You will get an earful.

 

I was referring to caches similar to GC10MNW. I thought that if we had ALR caches, then if you answer the questions you could log the ALR for your extra smiley....

[+Sagefox]

...Logging the same cache twice seems very anticlimactic to me...

You are logging caches twice? Bad idea.

 

I was referring to caches similar to GC10MNW. I thought that if we had ALR caches, then if you answer the questions you could log the ALR for your extra smiley....

 

Yes, that is what I thought you meant. The cache owner encourages multiple logging. I don't think a reviewer would approve a cache that encourages multiple found it logs. This one may have slipped by or the cache owner may have edited in this condition after the initial approval.

 

I am quite certain that there will never be a cache type that supports multiple Found It logs.

[Mesa Mike]

I don't think a reviewer would approve a cache that encourages multiple found it logs.

 

Why should a reviewer care? That's not the reviewer's job.

[+Sagefox]

I don't think a reviewer would approve a cache that encourages multiple found it logs.

 

Why should a reviewer care? That's not the reviewer's job.

 

You are right. I take it back. I believe it is not the reviewer's job and this is off-topic anyway.

 

Edit: What ValerieB is talking about is not really an ALR. An ALR would be where the ALR answers or actions are required before a cache can be logged. Her example simply allows a multiple find as a reward for extra credit work.

Edited December 22, 2008 by Team Sagefox

[AZcachemeister]

Don't know how much programing it would take, but I would like to see the Icon of multis show how many stages the multi has. The ? could be used if the owner doesn't want to share that info. A 2 part multi could have a 2 in the treasure box, a 10 part multi could have a 10, and so on. Just something I thought of.

Why? The owner can reveal that on the cache page, if they so choose. Traditionals are pretty much the only type of cache you should attempt without reading the cache page. Not all multi-caches have multiple containers with coordinates. Some are off-set caches, and you'll never solve those without reading the page (other than with just blind luck).

 

I DON'T WANT YOU TO KNOW how many stages my multi-cache has...and I'm not telling!

[+flask]

not only do i not tell anyone how many stages my big multi has, but due to some brain damage, i don't know.

 

you want to find out? do the cache.

[+Parabola]

There are so many forums out there requesting new cache types, it really is time to consolidate. I'm hoping that some people can get behind me on this, because if we want Groundspeak to pay attention, we can't really expect them to go hunting through 400 discussion pages with X number of posts.

 

If new cache types are going to happen, we should try to unify and get them all into one discussion.

 

So far, I've read posts regarding new cache types such as:

• Additional Logging Requirement Cache
  
• Quest Cache
  
• Night Cache
  
• Seed Cache
  

There are probably more requests out there, but that's really my point. If we ever want Groundspeak to make any of these a reality, Let's try to keep all the requests in one place.

 

Now, I'm not trying to be elitist starting this page on my own, I just think that for this idea to work, it should start with a fresh topic.

 

-ALR cache should still land in a ? cache, since you really have to do ? to claim them

 

-Add a puzzle cache type, pull them out of the ? type and that makes them a real puzzle, and not just falling in the "catch all cat" plus that free's up the ? cache type to leave in ARL's

 

-Quest cache, I don't think is needed. After all the "bonus" cache is already just an extra cache to a series.

 

-Night cache, I wouldn't mind seeing that. I enjoy night cache's and if there was a special icon I think more would show up.

 

-Seed cache, Please, NO. I've seed caches and what they do. Of course you can still have them just you have to put that hiding a cache isn't needed to "find" this. But usually a seed cache just's spaw's very bad caches just so a person can get their "find". They don't put any thought into them (it seems). The idea behind them is nice but it's just not realistic due to people will just toss them out anywhere to get their find. can you imange what would happen if this became an icon. You would have ton's of seed cache's popping up, so people can gain that icon and 4 or 5 of these in one area would be a nightmare.

 

Just my thought's on them. I'm interested in what other's think about these as well.

Edited December 23, 2008 by Parabola

[MorningLightMountain]

I'd love to see a night cache available as a type. I cache at night often and am frustrated by caches that are located in the typical dawn-dusk park that aren't specified in the description.

[+tenebrus]

I don't know if I've ever come across a multi that didn't state somewhere how many WPs are involved.

 

For the record, I have a cache called Orange Ya Glad I Didn't Say Banana where, like the joke of the same name, goes on for an unknown amount of stages. In general, however, I usually give out that info.

[+tenebrus]

I don't think a reviewer would approve a cache that encourages multiple found it logs.

Why should a reviewer care? That's not the reviewer's job.

You are right. I take it back. I believe it is not the reviewer's job and this is off-topic anyway.

The feedback that I received from New York Admin was that multiple finds were unapprovable. Certain grandfathered types, like moving caches, are okay though in that multiple finds would actually happen. Undiscussed was the notion of finding multiple temporary caches at an event, but I suspect that the label "Attended" indicates that they too should be logged only once despite the number of temporary caches that one might have found (or not) during the event. Also, I think that caches which have been replaced but for which significant modifications have occurred might qualify for multiple find logging, although these, in my experience, have been encouraged to be listed as a new cache entirely (sort of a CYA side-step of grandfathering approvals - remember that previous caches do not set precedent for approval of new ones).

[+tenebrus]

So far, I've read posts regarding new cache types such as:

• Additional Logging Requirement Cache
  
• Quest Cache
  
• Night Cache
  
• Seed Cache
  

Just my thought's on them. I'm interested in what others think about these as well.

 

Here lots to think about. Really. Lots. And perhaps more questions than answers.

 

Puzzle versus non-Puzzle. This too would be a good distinction. But it is hard to decide what defines a puzzle. Is reading a sign, determining a couple of digits, and heading over to the WP a puzzle or not? How about a Rot-13 cipher? A Vigenère cipher? A code wholly unto itself without the option of finding an online Java applet? An epic riddle requiring lateral thinking? Somewhere along the spectrum, this would turn into a puzzle, but where exactly? I suspect that this is the basis for an epic debate. Although my heart wants Puzzle versus Non-Puzzle Mystery caches, my mind is having a hard time finding any self-evident good place for that line between them. Until the time that I find this line, I cannot justify a distinct cache-type. If I had to vote today on the matter, I would suggest that anything involving only fill-in-the-blanks and simple 4-function mathematics to be not a puzzle, and anything beyond that (including rotation ciphers) to be a puzzle. For example: if I have a cache called Clark Kent's Dressing Room listed to be at N 32 CA.CHE W 65 FI.NDS, where the trick is to use phone button subsitution (i.e., N 32 22.243 W 65 34.637 ), then it's a Puzzle, although not a very hard one. (Also, I suspect that one would be wet out there in the ocean).

 

Also, I would like an easy distinction amongst Mystery caches between Solve-WPs-at-Home and Solve-WPs-on-the-Trail caches. Sometimes, I will be planning a vacation somewhere away from home and this distinction would save a lot of time in preparing which caches I might hunt during the trip. Is this necessarily a need for a distinct cache-type? Hmm... I don't know. Perhaps this is something better reserved for attributes.

 

Quest Cache. Absolutely should be used. In fact, any component cache of a Quest Cache should be indicated on the Component Cache pages. Ideally, such cross-notification would be automated at the owner's choice. That is, the process for setting up a Quest Cache would include the Component Caches, much the way one includes Additional Waypoints. Then, much like Bookmark Lists, they would cross-link to each other AUTOMATICALLY because of the Quest Cache's information. I would like the ability to exclude any Quest that I wish not to hunt down. (Okay, actually, I often seek out Quest caches, even on vacation trips, but I understand the opinions of others with whom I've spoken about this and the general consensus is they are a nuisance to anyone who doesn't want to do them.) Also, even my idea for automatic cross-listing isn't perfect. Consider a DeLorme Challenge. Any cache in the grid will do. That couldn't be automatically determined ahead of time by the Quest Cache owner. Furthermore, some quests involve list completion before earning the final coordinates from the cache owner whereas others are simply determined by visiting the components and collecting the data directly. My idea does not clearly address this concern, although I suspect that the distinction is very close to being able to determine ahead of time any cross-listed caches.

 

On a side-note: should there be a minimum number of caches needed to call it a Quest. That is, a 25+ cache Checklist Cache would be much different than a Cache whose coordinates were all on the back of the logbook of the cache 529 feet away. Which ones are Quests? All of them. Somewhat arbitrarily, I would suggest having the following requirement. (A) Must visit at least 3 other caches to qualify.

 

Night Cache. Minimally, something should be indicated. If it truly is a night cache, and a flashlight (or like "special equipment") is required, then it is technically "Terrain 5" according to the suggested rating system offered when submitting a cache. Hmm.. that just doesn't seem right. I had to either rappel down a 50' wall or kayak across a lake in order to earn the bulk of my Terrain 5's... carrying a flashlight just doesn't seem to be the same thing. So, again, cache-type or attribute? I'm okay with either, but perhaps the suggested rating guide take into account Night Caches in helping to determine more accurate ratings. A night cache just off of a park-and-ride is a lot different than a nighttime 3-mile loop through state game lands when it comes to terrain ratings. I've done both kinds. Maybe flashlight required is better suited to Difficulty.

 

AudioCaches (PodCaches). I've seen a small number of these popping up too. They are caches for which a person must listen to an audio file (eg.: .mp3) in order to navigate themselves somewhere. The GPSr gets involved somewhere (or else it's not a geocache -- or so suggested New York Admin). Granted, the audio file might involve Mystery-like data collection in order to determine real coordinates. These too would fall into the special equipment category as Night Caches, where the Terrain is not necessarily 5 despite what the suggested rating is.

 

Perhaps the solution is the creation of a cache type called "Special Equipment Cache" which would include those Terrain 5 caches, but for which a Pocket Query set to Terrain less than 5 would sort out most Night Caches and most Audio Caches from the most physical Kayak Caches, Rappelling Caches, and Dirigible Caches.

 

Seed Cache. No way. This seems to encourage some poorly planned geotrash. Granted, not always, but often enough that I think we must consider our sport's appearance to muggles. Whenever I think of seed caches, I also think of bomb squads. No thanks. We participate in an activity that inherently involves suspicious acts - sleuthing, hiding, going off-trails, loitering, etc.. - this is all perceivable as deviant behavior. We would be remiss if poorly planned caches were the public image of this sport. (Not to mention that a Seed Event Cache would be quite silly. "Okay, folks: Monday night, Brian is hosting Wings and Smileys. Tuesday, Sarah is hosting Pizza and Smileys. Wednesday, TeamDNF is hosting Bowling and Smileys. Thursday, NumbersHog2345 is hosting Picnic and Smileys. Etc..." Well, unless it were a CITO Seed Event. Nah, probably still overkill, huh?)

 

Finally, an administrative issue. What about all of the previously-issued caches that would fit into these categories. How should the update happen? Would I retroactively get a Quest Cache Find for the NY DeLorme Cache.

[+StarBrand]

I have careful read all the posts since my last post.....

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Answer remains the same - I am not conviced we need any new cache types.

[+Corey]

...I would suggest that anything involving only fill-in-the-blanks and simple 4-function mathematics to be not a puzzle...

Fill in the Blanks

 

Yes, the distinctions are difficult.

Also, I would like an easy distinction amongst Mystery caches between Solve-WPs-at-Home and Solve-WPs-on-the-Trail caches.

I usually think this is the difference between a Puzzle and a Multi-cache (but then again, maybe not always).

[+tenebrus]

...I would suggest that anything involving only fill-in-the-blanks and simple 4-function mathematics to be not a puzzle...

Fill in the Blanks

Yes, the distinctions are difficult.

Also, I would like an easy distinction amongst Mystery caches between Solve-WPs-at-Home and Solve-WPs-on-the-Trail caches.

I usually think this is the difference between a Puzzle and a Multi-cache (but then again, maybe not always).

Dang. Great counterexample of Fill In The Blanks. Yeah. That's a Puzzle, by my definition, but against what I had stated. As for the Solve-It-Where stuff, a "traditional" Multi-Cache to me involves starts by having the initial WP up front with a Puzzle/Mystery/? involving some activity to produce the IP. (Awaits next counterexample. ).

[+Cache O'Plenty]

I don't know if I've ever come across a multi that didn't state somewhere how many WPs are involved.

 

For the record, I have a cache called Orange Ya Glad I Didn't Say Banana where, like the joke of the same name, goes on for an unknown amount of stages. In general, however, I usually give out that info.

If the owner doesn't want to divulge the number of WPs for a multi, that's fine. One option could be for the icon to have a "?" instead of the number. And, yes, I have seen multis (that's an odd word) where the cache page doesn't say how many WPs there are. Just not many in this area.