ALR caches

[+flask]

it would be really helpful to me if the ALR caches didn't take the "mystery" icon.

 

the mystery type signals to me that the cache is not at the posted coordinates.

 

if an ALR is at the posted coordinates it would be nice to have my PQ reflect that.

 

if i filter out puzzles because i don't have time on the front end of the trip to solve them, i also lose my ability to see simple caches that ask me to log in a particular way.

 

i don't really care about a new icon, which is what so many of these debates sound like to me. i'm not icon collecting. i'm perfectly happy with ALR caches. i would just like my PQ to sort caches that ARE where they say they'll be.

[+trainlove]

Unknown means "unknown" not "puzzle" as many people think. It is for ANY cache that does not fit into any other category.

 

To be safe I look at all Unknown caches, and even all multi's since some multi's are only 1 or 2 parts and are DT 1,1.5. If there were a new 'type' many people wouldn't use it right, and it would be more work for the reviewers I think.

[+niraD]

FWIW, I've found puzzle caches that were located at the posted coordinates, or that started with a physical puzzle at the posted coordinates. Even for puzzle caches, the posted coordinates aren't necessarily bogus.

 

But as trainlove said, the guidelines describe Mystery/Puzzle/Unknown caches as a catch-all type for caches that don't fit the other types. The common factor is that you need to read the cache page.

[+flask]

the location of an ALR cache is known.

 

that's why i want it to be represented by an icon that will sort it as such.

 

i think it was a bad move to take it out of the regular category.

 

if it has more than one stage, it should be listed as a multi.

 

the bottom line, though, is that these things ARE where the listing says they are, and therefor do not reflect this in the PQ. i don't care what the solution is, as long at it gets solved.

 

case in point: i filtered out puzzles from a PQ. because of this i missed a very nice traditional cache whose only ALR was to tell a birthday story in the log. it was not an unknown location. the container, devoid of any other challenge, was sitting right where the posting said it would be.

[+mtn-man]

I understand where you are coming from flask, but I found a traditional cache once several years back. It was a light post hide, so I did not read the cache page. It took seconds to find it. I signed the logbook. I came home and logged my find. It was deleted and I was emailed and told I had to answer a virtual component, something an inane as the name of the restaurant in the next parking lot. I've never been back to it because of the sore spot it left in my mind. I was probably not the first person who had this happen at a cache somewhere, and I was most certainly not the last.

 

I think it is OK for it to be this way to me if it keeps someone else from having to have the experience I had. With this cache designation, I know to read the page since there is more to the cache than just signing the logbook. The container might be sitting right there, easy to find, but that doesn't mean you will get to claim your find.

[+Cache O'Plenty]

Concur with OP. As of now, I examine all puzzle caches and if they really are where the posted coordinates are located (albeit requiring some extra task), then I set the "corrected coordinates" flag in GSAK (withthe original coordinates as the corrected ones). I then filter out all puzzles except those with CC. Thus any "unknown" cache in my todo list is "ready to be found".

 

It takes a while to do this but, absent any separate type indicator in the PQ or it's own icon, this is the workaround.

 

I missed one recently because it was a birthday cache that could only be found on one's birthday, thus an ALR or an unknown. Gotta wait an additional year now.

[+Lil Devil]

What we need is an attribute to signify that some preparation work (puzzle solving) is required first.

[+trainlove]

What we need is an attribute to signify that some preparation work (puzzle solving) is required first.

You mean "Difficulty" right?

[+Lil Devil]

No, the "difficulty" rating signifies the overall difficulty to finding the cache. That includes several tasks. Getting the coords. Getting to the coords. Spotting the cache. Retrieving the cache. Replacing the cache. Each one could have its own rating, but that's not feasible nor necessary. But knowing that you have work to do ahead of time is necessary.

[+tozainamboku]

What we need is an attribute to signify that some preparation work (puzzle solving) is required first.

What we need is an attribute for "Read the cache page before you hunt this cache". That seems to be what the mystery/unknown type has become. Need to meet an ALR -> make it a mystery/unknown. Need to solve a puzzle to get the real coordinates -> make it a mystery/unknown. Need to bring a TOTT or be prepared to solve a puzzle in the field -> make it a mystery/unknown. Lets change the the icon from a question mark to a book and call it what it is "Read the cache page before you hunt this cache".

[+flask]

what we have here is two animals masquerading as one:

 

caches for which the coordinates are not known, and for which one must do preparatory work, and

 

caches for which the coordinates are known but there will be some additional requirement after.

 

because the PQ and the cache type are meant to work as an AID TO SORTING, we need to have the sorting be accurate.

 

while not as much of a pain as missing a cache because my PQ sorted it as having an unknown location, it's also a pain to download all of the puzzles in an area and then have to wade through and eliminate the ones for which we know the coordinates but have to write down the name of a restaurant.

[+fizzymagic]

I think it is OK for it to be this way to me if it keeps someone else from having to have the experience I had.

I agree with you, mtn-man. It is clear that ALR caches need to be segregated from traditional caches. It's also clear that adding another type for them is not a viable solution at present, and complaining about that is not likely to be a productive thing.

 

I have a (perhaps) unique solution for this situation. In the script I use to process my PQs, any question-mark caches that I have not entered corrected coordinates for are automatically placed in a "special spot." For me, it's in the middle of the ocean. I then go and look at those caches individually. If it is a simple ALR cache that is at the nominal coordinates, I just stick the coords into my "corrected caches" file and it will be included at the correct place in the future. If it is a puzzle, it stays out of the way until I solve it. If it is a challenge, I also tend to leave it out of the way until I have fulfilled the requirements.

 

While ideally a new cache type would be the best way to deal with this issue, my method works pretty well and prevents exactly the kind of situation mtn-man describes.

[+mtn-man]

That is a cool solution. I leave them out of all PQ's and work them out old school -- I print them out or just view them online and try to work them out that way.

[+nittany dave]

Mystery/unknown has become kind of a catchall for things that don't fit elsewhere. I have to look at each one to see what it really is. Not a very big job but when I'm caching away from home I don't always have time to do this so I just skip caches of this type. Then I end up missing some ALRs or unknowns that I could have found without solving a puzzle.

I wouldn't mind seeing a new type for ALRs, but I doubt the volume of ALR caches really warrants that.

Using an attribute wouldn't help me much because they seem to be used inconsistently (by me too) so I don't pay much attention to them. I don't think GSAK can use them to filter on unless I've missed it. If GSAK could use the attributes then that would be a great way to separate the ALRs from the puzzles & others in this type, at least for the caches whose owners bother to turn on the attribute.

The script idea is a very good workaround! Is it available and can it be used with GSAK?

Edited January 18, 2009 by nittany dave

[+Isonzo Karst]

A tip for handling Mystery caches in GSAK.

Filter on the type, then filter for the word, "above" in the description.

Common phrases, "cache is not at the above coordinates," or "coordinates above are bogus".

 

That group are really puzzles at a very very high rate. The others you must look at individually, but at least you've thinned the herd.

 

I expect fizzymagic's script is more sophisticated.

Edited January 18, 2009 by Isonzo Karst

[AZcachemeister]

what we have here is two animals masquerading as one:

 

caches for which the coordinates are not known, and for which one must do preparatory work, and

 

caches for which the coordinates are known but there will be some additional requirement after.

 

because the PQ and the cache type are meant to work as an AID TO SORTING, we need to have the sorting be accurate.

 

while not as much of a pain as missing a cache because my PQ sorted it as having an unknown location, it's also a pain to download all of the puzzles in an area and then have to wade through and eliminate the ones for which we know the coordinates but have to write down the name of a restaurant.

 

Actually, there is a third animal in this zoo: The cache which is not at the listed co-ordinates, but you must go to the listed co-ordinates to begin solving the puzzle. More of a multi to me, but I've seen them listed as ? caches.

 

Just in case anyone is interested in my work-arounds:

 

I regularly review recent caches for new ? caches, if it's a real puzzle to me (serious math, devious decryption, no idea how to proceed) I DL a .gpx and then ignore it. It's there in GSAK for when (if ever) I get time to mess with it. If it looks do-able, I might solve it right away, and/or leave it alone to go through in my PQ.

 

I ALWAYS skim through the description of a cache (on my PDA) when hunting it, just to make sure there isn't anything I missed previously.

 

All ? caches are uploaded to my GPS with a certain special icon, except for those with corrected co-ordinates (solved) which get a different special icon.

 

Yes, I realize these tips won't help everyone, because you need to be running GSAK, and have a PDA.

[+flask]

 

All ? caches are uploaded to my GPS with a certain special icon, except for those with corrected co-ordinates (solved) which get a different special icon.

 

 

i do this, too.

 

it still doesn't take care of those cache that we know where they are from the beginning.

[AZcachemeister]

You're right, but it does alert you that something is 'wrong' with that cache, and you'd better do some reading.

 

Having the cache details at-hand let's me decide in the field if I want to comply with the owners conditions.

[CoyoteRed]

I think if ALR caches are pushed into its own type then you'll have folks complaining--and rightly so--they don't know what "type" of cache it is. An ALR is an attribute of a cache. This attribute could be attached to a traditional, multi-cache, or a puzzle. It really has nothing to do with the number of stages or how you discover the coordinates to the first stage.

 

I think it painfully obvious that the "type" category has outlived it's usefulness as classifying the overall style of cache. It could very well be time to think of a new category to describe caches. I've mentioned this before, as well as others, it might be well pass time to look at a "style" category. This combines various attributes, ratings, and categories into one. For instance: "classic style" could be described as a single stage, coordinates to the location, small or larger, with trinkets and a logbook, and no need to read the cache description.

[CoyoteRed]

Actually, there is a third animal in this zoo: The cache which is not at the listed co-ordinates, but you must go to the listed co-ordinates to begin solving the puzzle. More of a multi to me, but I've seen them listed as ? caches.

It is a multi. Being listed in the ? doesn't make it a puzzle. The reason the "?" is used to represent the category is because it was originally "unknown." If you don't want to let seekers know what kind of cache it is you can put it in the "unknown" category. This means you should be able to find any cache type in there.

 

A lot of folks don't understand this and when they learn by example they get confused because they see a particular style of cache in the ? category and think that's where it belongs. Sometimes this is true. Sometimes not. Some don't know the difference or that there is one.

[AZcachemeister]

I attempted This Cache, but the instructions were vague enough to keep me from figuring it out.

 

Back OT, I agree that there is no mystery in an ALR cache. That is assuming you can read.

[+Prime Suspect]

the mystery type signals to me that the cache is not at the posted coordinates I need to read the cache page.

Fixed!

[+paleolith]

Yet another animal: the cache is at the posted coordinates but you have to do something first, like find a list of other caches.

 

I don't see the problem. I download ? caches, and if I don't like them, I delete them from GSAK with the option not to add them back. I know I need to read the cache page before looking for a ? cache.

 

Edward