New Cache Types

[+Cache O'Plenty]

The original five categories were fine until we developed so many variations and the population of caches grew that the "?" category has become unweildy.

 

To me:

Traditional = the physical cache is at the coordinates posted. Find it = you're done. Log it. Move on. One find per traditional.

 

ALR = a Traditional (yes, a physical cache is present) that has an extra step or requirement. Make a note of the requirement or do the exercise. But the extra step or info gathering can be done AT the posted coordinates. Still, only one smiley per GC#

 

Multi = The posted coordinates are the start point at which point you have to find one or more additional caches. Finding the final one gets you the smiley. Information required to complete these is available at each stage (ie. coordinates in the stage for the next stage or the info on the plaque or at the cache are needed to get to the next stage). Again, only one smiley per GC#, regardless of the number of finds to get to the last one.

 

Offset = Multi because you have to find WP1 and then the actual cache at a different location. Again, one smiley.

 

Puzzle = The posted coordinates are NOT the location of the cache. Here you run into some trouble because some you can solve mentally (like calculations) or due to superior knowledge (like the color coding on resistors). The other type require you actually have to look something up on the computer (like the coordinates are hidden in the source code of the cache page - good luck with that in the field). One smiley.

 

Quest = completing a number of qualifying caches before being granted access to the final cache (or bonus cache). Each stage is a separate smiley. Get the right smilies and you get a "grin". The Quest Cache has it's own GC# so it gets one find. We have some here that require you to have found 100, 200, 500, 1000, .... caches before you are allowed to find and log them. That would fall into the Quest category.

 

Seed = Yeah, I know what they are. Don't allow them.

 

I'm sure I've left some variations out but......

Edited December 27, 2008 by Cache O'Plenty

[+Corey]

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).

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. ).

So, what constitutes "Solve on the trail", if not "visit the coordinates to begin"? Low difficulty? No Internet access required?

[+tenebrus]

So, what constitutes "Solve on the trail", if not "visit the coordinates to begin"? Low difficulty? No Internet access required?

"Solve on the trail" is something like "use the keyword that you find at the waypoint" to do something. That is, from home, one wouldn't know what, exactly, to solve. Like knowing the cipher but not the keyword until you actually get there. The same is true of (some!) fill-in-the-blanks from the local signage. In contrast, "solve at home" would mean that one could solve it in fully before "getting there." I hope this helps.

[+ghettomedic]

I would like to see a way to search for quick stop and grabs. That way if you are out and about you can have a list of quick stop and grabs.

[+Corey]

"Solve on the trail" is something like "use the keyword that you find at the waypoint" to do something. That is, from home, one wouldn't know what, exactly, to solve. Like knowing the cipher but not the keyword until you actually get there. The same is true of (some!) fill-in-the-blanks from the local signage. In contrast, "solve at home" would mean that one could solve it in fully before "getting there." I hope this helps.

So, that does sound like your definition of Multi vs. Puzzle. I think it works.

 

I would like to see a way to search for quick stop and grabs. That way if you are out and about you can have a list of quick stop and grabs.

I suppose:

Difficulty less than or equal to 1.5

Terrain less than or equal to 1.5

Adjust the numbers to taste.

http://markwell.us/pq.htm

[+tenebrus]

"Solve on the trail" is something like "use the keyword that you find at the waypoint" to do something. That is, from home, one wouldn't know what, exactly, to solve. Like knowing the cipher but not the keyword until you actually get there. The same is true of (some!) fill-in-the-blanks from the local signage. In contrast, "solve at home" would mean that one could solve it in fully before "getting there." I hope this helps.

So, that does sound like your definition of Multi vs. Puzzle. I think it works.

Hmm.. not so sure. Are you suggesting that Puzzle-at-Home is a Multi because one could have the real first coordinates? I would have a Multi where the listed coordinates for Part 1 have a physical container. I would hate to discover that false coordinates had been torn up only to later discover that some geocacher afterwards realized that the real first container was elsewhere. Regardless of opinions in this topic, I think that clearly distinguishing real coordinates from fake coordinates is non-negotiable. If would eat my own opinions on the matter in order to keep that one distinction clear. The Solve-at-Home vs Solve-on-the-Go distinction is merely wishlisting.

[+Corey]

Oh, never mind.

... I think that clearly distinguishing real coordinates from fake coordinates is non-negotiable.

Yes.

[+Flag_Mtn_Hkrs]

I think most cache types can be handled with attributes. There are so few caches of the types mentioned that it would be a lot of work for little pay off.

 

On the other hand.

 

Make a Micro Icon

 

Since it is not truly a cache but a log container

[+flask]

I think most cache types can be handled with attributes. There are so few caches of the types mentioned that it would be a lot of work for little pay off.

 

On the other hand.

 

Make a Micro Icon

 

Since it is not truly a cache but a log container

 

filter by size!

[+Prime Suspect]

I think most cache types can be handled with attributes. There are so few caches of the types mentioned that it would be a lot of work for little pay off.

 

On the other hand.

 

Make a Micro Icon [annoying size attribute removed]

 

Since it is not truly a cache but a log container

But all physical caches are log containers.

[Skippermark]

I think most cache types can be handled with attributes. There are so few caches of the types mentioned that it would be a lot of work for little pay off.

 

On the other hand.

 

Make a Micro Icon

 

Since it is not truly a cache but a log container

I don't understand what you're asking for. Why would you need an attribute to say "micro" when that's already a cache size? Seems like double work.

[+niraD]

Make a Micro Icon

You mean, like this one?

 

Just to reiterate what others have said, a micro size cache can have a type of traditional, multi, mystery/puzzle, or letterbox hybrid.

[+Harry Dolphin]

Hmm... I haven't put out a micro multi yet! I shall have to work on this!

[+Flag_Mtn_Hkrs]

Didn't mean to mess with the hive here.

 

I just don't feel that a hide with log only is a cache. A cache to me is something to put trade items in. It isn't really a cache anymore if there are not items to trade.

 

It is a log.

 

I am not dense and realize that I can filter my PQs by size, but why should I have to. I should just be able to hunt traditionals. A traditional to us is just like the original cache. Full of stuff to trade.

 

You try telling a 4 yr old that you are going "treasure hunting" and there is never treasure because 7 of 10 caches in the town you are visiting are micros.

 

I just don't feel that this is what the originators of "the game" had in mind when this all started.

 

Call a cache a cache

 

Call a multi a multi

 

Call a virtual a virtual

 

and so forth.....

 

Don't call a micro a geocache

[+Parabola]

 

You try telling a 4 yr old that you are going "treasure hunting" and there is never treasure because 7 of 10 caches in the town you are visiting are micros.

 

I hear ya there and rarely take my boy caching anymore due to this. But I can already filter them out from my PQ's.

 

 

But I don't feel a micro should be it's own cache type. I've found just as many micro's as the next guy if not more but I would still say they are a geocache. I just wish there was a even number of size's around me to even thing's out but have to come to relize, this just isn't going to happen. But then I just wonder if I didn't go after the larger sized caches first?

 

We have resorted to hiding our own private cache that's just not listed anywhere in one of our favorite hiking area's, and we he want's to go we just visit that. It give us exercise and the joy of getting outdoor's and taking a nice hike and some bonding time plus there's all sort's of "treasure" for him to trade. Yes, I still have him trade stuff. Don't want any bad habit's starting.

 

The icon I would still really like to see is a Night cache type.

[+Lil Devil]

You try telling a 4 yr old that you are going "treasure hunting" and there is never treasure because 7 of 10 caches in the town you are visiting are micros.

When I take my grandchildren "treasure hunting," I simply filter out micros when I run my PQ, or if I already have my GPS loaded, I can ignore the micros because GPX Spinner gives me different icons for the different cache sizes. The kids never have to be disappointed.

[+flask]

we need a new food type for "sweet and sour cucumbers".

 

i only like dill pickles. nothing else is a pickle. those "bread and butter" things aren't pickles. they are their own thing.

 

same with those little ones. they're not pickles, they're too small.

 

 

 

here's a hint for ya: "cache" is a noun. "small" is an adjective. a noun does not lose its property of representing a thing just because it's modified by an adjective.

 

a cache is a cache regardless of whether it is teeny or huge. a traditional cache is a container with a log, regardless of size.

 

that's why we have size attributes.

 

and look! we also have the capability to filter!

 

coincidence, do you think?

[+tozainamboku]

Don't call a micro a geocache

There is a vocal minority who agree with you and feel the log only or swagless caches don't fit the dictionary definition of a cache. They are convinced that a cache needs something in it (supplies, ammunition, trade items, etc.) to meet that definition. A piece of paper on which to write your name is not sufficient for these people to call something a cache. They are as adamant about this as are the people who say you can't call a domestic partnership between two people of the same sex a marriage.

 

Fortunately (or unfortunately, depending on which side you are on), we have a new word - geocache. It is used to describe the objects we find as we play our game. While Dave Ulmer's original hide had trade items in it, it quickly developed that this was not necessary. For one thing, caches often started with lots of nice items but, because not everyone trades fairly, they soon had nothing in them to trade but junk. Some people simply stopped trading at all and the "rule" of take something/leave something became optional. Some people found that hiding smaller and smaller containers allowed caches to be hidden in urban areas and other places where a regular size container would not last. While most of the early micros has room for some small swag it didn't take long for some containers to become too small for swag. Some were even too small for logs and people put code words in caches as a way to confirm they were found. TPTB on Geocaching.com eventually decided that code word only caches were not acceptable for listing on this site and defined a cache as having at a least a log of some kind the finder could sign. Other listing services still allow code word only caches as well as virtual caches which are now grandfathered on Geocaching.com.

 

Some people like the challenge of finding a micro. There is definitely a difference between looking for a bison tube or film canister and looking for an ammo can or quart sized Tupperware. Others detest micros, either finding them too hard to find or feeling deprived of being able to trade. (Although I would say you are deprived of trading whenever you find an empty except for the log ammo can.) I'm also pretty sure that some people who tend to avoid urban hides are upset that more and more micros are being hidden in rural and wilderness places. Most people who want to avoid hunting micro caches eventually become premium members and filter these out in their Pocket Queries or using a third party GPX tool like GSAK. In GSAK you can even change the symbol used for a micro on your GPS.

 

The current system separates cache size from cache type. The sizes are micro, small, regular, large, and other. (For other the cacher is supposed to describe the cache on the cache page but many use this for nano caches or if they don't want to reveal the size). The types are: traditional, multi-cache, mystery, and a few others defined here. The trouble with making micro a type is that one can have a multi-cache, a mystery, a Wherigo cache, etc., that is micro size.

 

Now, it is not unprecedented to have a cache type that is basically not really another type. The letterbox hybrid is just a designation to show the cache may also be listed on a Letterboxing site. Generally that means the cache has a letterbox stamp that is supposed to stay with the cache. Letterbox hybrids can be traditional, mystery, multi-cache, etc. But you lose this distinction when select the letterbox hybrid type. Some people think that a letterbox hybrid is just a kind of mystery cache that uses letterboxing style clues as part of the cache hunt; and that might work if all letterbox hybrids were set up that way. If you can make a strong enough argument that a micro is a significant different type of hunt, I suppose you could use the letterbox hybrid as a precedent for calling micro it's own type. Personally I would find this about as useful as I find the letterbox hybrid type.

[+niraD]

I just don't feel that a hide with log only is a cache. A cache to me is something to put trade items in. It isn't really a cache anymore if there are not items to trade.

FWIW, I've found small caches with no trade items, and I've found micros with trade items.

 

I just don't feel that this is what the originators of "the game" had in mind when this all started.

Do you really want to go there? I'm sure there's a lot about modern geocaching that Dave, et al., didn't imagine when they started hiding containers in the woods. If you want to play the game the way they played it, then you'll need to ignore more than micros.

[+Prime Suspect]

I just don't feel that this is what the originators of "the game" had in mind when this all started.

What eventually became this website was formed in November 2000. Micros were being placed within the next 2 months. The idea that they're something recent and separate is a false one.

[+Markwell]

I just don't feel that a hide with log only is a cache. A cache to me is something to put trade items in. It isn't really a cache anymore if there are not items to trade. It is a log.

I have found traditional caches that the trading contents are the result of the various leftover items and pocket lint of the inconsiderate cachers that have preceded my visit. In those instances, the cache is a log, not a container with trade-able items. I doubt that this needs a special type like "empty container".

 

 

I am not dense and realize that I can filter my PQs by size, but why should I have to. I should just be able to hunt traditionals. A traditional to us is just like the original cache. Full of stuff to trade.

If you are already filtering to find traditional caches, then filtering on size is just two more (maybe three more) clicks.

 

 

Here's a response I posted back when this question came up in November:

If it were needed and were something that would enhance the filtering process and not confuse the issues, I would say yes.

 

But since we already have a size designation, if we move Micro to a cache type, could a micro be labeled as size "Large" or "Regular"?

 

But beyond that, if this is what you're proposing, I would say "No" -

The top section is how Chicago area caches look now. The bottom is what I think you're proposing.

 

 

 

You try telling a 4 yr old that you are going "treasure hunting" and there is never treasure because 7 of 10 caches in the town you are visiting are micros.

Then don't visit them. If they are properly filtered out then you don't even have to see them on your GPS.

 

 

I just don't feel that this is what the originators of "the game" had in mind when this all started.

The originators of the game had a very different vision than we have. In fact, the last I heard the originator doesn't believe that geocaching is good for the environment. He also left a can of beans...

 

BTW - I placed my first Micro (and the first micro in the Chicago area) back on May 4 2001. The next one in Chicago was placed Feb 17 2002. Both were placed as micros because to place a larger cache would have compromised the cache location. The first micro remained in place a little more than 3 years. The second one is still in place.

Edited January 15, 2009 by Markwell

[Skippermark]

I just don't feel that this is what the originators of "the game" had in mind when this all started.

The very first cache was essentially a park and grab, since it was located only a few feet off the road.

[+Dgwphotos]

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.

 

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.

 

 

Terrain 5 typically is defined by something beyond the average geocachers skill set or equipment. It's not hard to work a flashlight, and I doubt that the majority does not own a flashlight, so yes, it should be part of the difficulty rating. As to attributes and pocket queries, the last I knew, they did not work very well, if at all. A new cache type for night caches would fill the gap.

[+niraD]

As to attributes and pocket queries, the last I knew, they did not work very well, if at all.

The big problem is that you can't exclude caches with a certain attribute. That is, I can select caches that are "Recommended at night", and I can select caches that are "Not recommended at night", but I cannot exclude caches that are "Recommended at night". There is a big difference between caches that do not have the "Recommended at night" attribute, and caches that have the "Not recommended at night" attribute.

 

A new cache type for night caches would fill the gap.

We'd need multiple types though: Night Traditional Cache, Night Multi-Cache, Night Mystery/Puzzle Cache, Night Letterbox Hybrid Cache, Night Event Cache,...

[+Markwell]

As to attributes and pocket queries, the last I knew, they did not work very well, if at all.

The big problem is that you can't exclude caches with a certain attribute. That is, I can select caches that are "Recommended at night", and I can select caches that are "Not recommended at night", but I cannot exclude caches that are "Recommended at night". There is a big difference between caches that do not have the "Recommended at night" attribute, and caches that have the "Not recommended at night" attribute.

 

Sure you can.

 

GC1C7X4 is Recommended at Night

Doing a PQ with no limitations on type/size/attributes of caches within 5 miles of N 42 03.000 W 088 02.000 yields 207 caches

Doing a PQ with include only the caches within 5 miles of N 42 03.000 W 088 02.000 that are recommended a night yields 2 caches - GC1C7X4 at 179 feet and GC16Y1Z at 4 miles.

This setup is the same center, but excludes the caches with the "recommended at night", and the results are 205 (and the two caches GC1C7X4 and GC16Y1Z are not on the list).