What is a Traditional Cache?

[+frisbee'r]

A traditional cache is simple. You are seeking a container at the posted coords. A puzzle or a multi is more than one step. One which I found began with a no-brainer container which was a small puzzle box. You slid a couple of sides and the container opened presenting the log. This was considered a puzzle by the volunteer approver and the cache owner had to change it from a traditional in order to have it approved. Another example: I found a great cache where there were six decoy containers within 20' of a very difficult final hide. This was considered a puzzle cache, and rightly so.

 

A problem arose recently when I found a cache which had a rolled-up paper at the bottom of a 12 tube, and I believed the paper to be the log. It was jammed at the bottom and I needed a special tool to extract it. Once out, the paper said, "Sorry, this is not the cache. It can be found 6 feet away." There were no other instructions on the cache page or on the note. I found the bison tube buried in the ground around a stump, attached by a chain. Is this a traditional, puzzle, or multi? It required special search and logging requirements. To me, I consider the first tube a puzzle or a stage in a multi. Nowhere in the cache description does it state, "please restore the cache as you found it" (i.e., with the note jammed tightly in the bottom). As a responsible cacher, I placed a 6" stick at the bottom to make it easier for the next cacher to retrieve the note. The owner went ballistic and sent out a message calling me an A--hole, "LIER," and idiot for altering his cache and other various personal assaults. Also, he deleted all my logs for his caches, as well as those of my caching partner.

 

This cacher has only 105 finds as of this date. This has never happened to me in nearly 7K finds. The approver said this was a traditional. What's the difference?

 

After all my years as a geocacher, I am now confused by the inconsistency of how caches are classified.

[+StarBrand]

I'll bet the volunteer reviewer had no idea about the nature of the cache. How could they!!

 

Irrational act by a distrought owner. oh - well and move on.

 

(BTW - wether you agree with it or not - it is polite to ALWAYS return the cache exactly how you found it - if you disagree with the classification - take it up later with the reviewer and cache owner.)

[+ThirstyMick]

A traditional cache is simple. You are seeking a container at the posted coords. A puzzle or a multi is more than one step. One which I found began with a no-brainer container which was a small puzzle box. You slid a couple of sides and the container opened presenting the log. This was considered a puzzle by the volunteer approver and the cache owner had to change it from a traditional in order to have it approved. Another example: I found a great cache where there were six decoy containers within 20' of a very difficult final hide. This was considered a puzzle cache, and rightly so.

 

A problem arose recently when I found a cache which had a rolled-up paper at the bottom of a 12 tube, and I believed the paper to be the log. It was jammed at the bottom and I needed a special tool to extract it. Once out, the paper said, "Sorry, this is not the cache. It can be found 6 feet away." There were no other instructions on the cache page or on the note. I found the bison tube buried in the ground around a stump, attached by a chain. Is this a traditional, puzzle, or multi? It required special search and logging requirements. To me, I consider the first tube a puzzle or a stage in a multi. Nowhere in the cache description does it state, "please restore the cache as you found it" (i.e., with the note jammed tightly in the bottom). As a responsible cacher, I placed a 6" stick at the bottom to make it easier for the next cacher to retrieve the note. The owner went ballistic and sent out a message calling me an A--hole, "LIER," and idiot for altering his cache and other various personal assaults. Also, he deleted all my logs for his caches, as well as those of my caching partner.

 

This cacher has only 105 finds as of this date. This has never happened to me in nearly 7K finds. The approver said this was a traditional. What's the difference?

 

After all my years as a geocacher, I am now confused by the inconsistency of how caches are classified.

 

6 feet away it isn't really a multi, it's a decoy. But, if the cache itself was buried, the kind of cache it is, is an illegal one.

[knowschad]

It sounds like a traditional cache with a decoy. I've found a few of 'em. Generally pretty annoying, in my opinion, but since the real final was still essentially at ground-zero, I guess there's not much that you can do about it.

 

Pretty lame that the cache owner deleted all of your logs and your caching buddies just for that, though. I'm guessing there were other discussions between you and him before that action occurred. Am I right?

[knowschad]

Edited April 1, 2009 by knowschad

[+Hoppingcrow]

It sounds like a traditional cache with a decoy. I've found a few of 'em. Generally pretty annoying, in my opinion, but since the real final was still essentially at ground-zero, I guess there's not much that you can do about it.

 

Pretty lame that the cache owner deleted all of your logs and your caching buddies just for that, though. I'm guessing there were other discussions between you and him before that action occurred. Am I right?

 

Chiming in here as the other member of this caching team.

 

Yes, there were "other discussions" before our logs were deleted. They consisted of a letter of apology from me for having altered his cache with the insertion of the stick, then a vituperous letter from him, a second apology from me, and then a threat of physical violence from him. I believe Frisbee'r only wrote one, "Hey, guy...calm down!" note after he was hit with the "A..hole" letter BEFORE HE HAD EVEN LOGGED THE CACHE! Since then, neither of us has initiated any contact, although Frisbee'r has received several other threatening letters. The matter was referred to GC, who predictably declined to arbitrate.

 

As for the cache (and the real subject matter of the original post), the bison tube was jammed in to a depth of several inches in the soft soil beside the stump. The chain was attached at ground level so that the only visible evidence of the hide was the topmost one or two links (small gauge chain, no more than half-inch links).

 

The note in the decoy container had been crammed into the bottom of its container by the ball-point pen the cache owner had provided. We thought it was the log, just as any other cacher might have done. However, a less experienced cacher might not have bothered to try to retrieve it. I think many would have simply added a "new" sheet of log paper when they were unable to get the supposed log out easily. We thought we were doing the guy a favor, and that was how my original note to him was composed.

[+frisbee'r]

I'll bet the volunteer reviewer had no idea about the nature of the cache. How could they!!

 

Irrational act by a distrought owner. oh - well and move on.

 

(BTW - wether you agree with it or not - it is polite to ALWAYS return the cache exactly how you found it - if you disagree with the classification - take it up later with the reviewer and cache owner.)

The caching community should have a sense of responsibility to help newbie cachers learn the sport. These are valuable lessons and will help define how the cacher will grow. When I am in the field and I find a cache in distress, I will do what's necessary to add a new logbook, bundle contents in baggies, and even clean up the area within 50' of the cache to safeguard it from accident discovery. I've had no problem with any cacher when I perform maintenance as I notify them the same day.

Edited April 1, 2009 by frisbee'r

[+Castle Mischief]

...threat of physical violence from him.

 

Stop the car.

 

I hope you've contacted your reviewer about this. There is no need for anybody to ever escalate cache issues of any sort to this level.

 

At the very least, place all the cache owner's hides on your ignore list and never seek them out again.

[+Hoppingcrow]

...threat of physical violence from him.

 

Stop the car.

 

I hope you've contacted your reviewer about this. There is no need for anybody to ever escalate cache issues of any sort to this level.

 

At the very least, place all the cache owner's hides on your ignore list and never seek them out again.

 

Already done, believe me! But he also told us to stay "up north where you belong."

 

This type of situation is not really the reviewer's domain, so we referred it directly to GC. The threats of physical violence stopped, presumably because GC told him to lay off. They advised us to avoid his caches, which we have done, but his demand for us to stay out of the much larger general area is absurd.

[knowschad]

Yes, there were "other discussions" before our logs were deleted. They consisted of a letter of apology from me for having altered his cache with the insertion of the stick, then a vituperous letter from him, a second apology from me, and then a threat of physical violence from him. I believe Frisbee'r only wrote one, "Hey, guy...calm down!" note after he was hit with the "A..hole" letter BEFORE HE HAD EVEN LOGGED THE CACHE! Since then, neither of us has initiated any contact, although Frisbee'r has received several other threatening letters. The matter was referred to GC, who predictably declined to arbitrate.

 

Sounds like a gem of a guy! Is he real popular at local caching events, too?

[+amianda]

Already done, believe me! But he also told us to stay "up north where you belong."

 

This type of situation is not really the reviewer's domain, so we referred it directly to GC. The threats of physical violence stopped, presumably because GC told him to lay off. They advised us to avoid his caches, which we have done, but his demand for us to stay out of the much larger general area is absurd.

 

It's not like it's "his territory" or that he has any control over it like that. He'll probably cool off, eventually, now that you and he are not communicating anymore.

 

 

As for the original question, if the cache was buried, I would have reported that to the reviewer. You probably did. That's a no no, as we all know. At that point it's in the reviewer's hands, right?

[+amianda]

(BTW - wether you agree with it or not - it is polite to ALWAYS return the cache exactly how you found it - if you disagree with the classification - take it up later with the reviewer and cache owner.)

 

Question, then. If this was truly a misunderstanding (and it sounds like it was), then what is the difference between adding a stick to help retrieve a log and adding a plastic zip bag to a cache log that doesn't have one? Or replacing a log that is damaged, wet, missing, or full? Or any of the other 'repairs' we do to help out? It's hard to know when to draw a line, then.

 

Just a thought.

[+Hoppingcrow]

Already done, believe me! But he also told us to stay "up north where you belong."

 

This type of situation is not really the reviewer's domain, so we referred it directly to GC. The threats of physical violence stopped, presumably because GC told him to lay off. They advised us to avoid his caches, which we have done, but his demand for us to stay out of the much larger general area is absurd.

 

It's not like it's "his territory" or that he has any control over it like that. He'll probably cool off, eventually, now that you and he are not communicating anymore.

 

 

As for the original question, if the cache was buried, I would have reported that to the reviewer. You probably did. That's a no no, as we all know. At that point it's in the reviewer's hands, right?

 

Frisbee'r contacted the reviewer who had published the cache. I don't believe he received a reply. Other caches by this same person have private property/access issues.

[+GroveBird]

and then a threat of physical violence from him.

 

Thats just stupid and uncalled for. Just ignore it and move on.

[+Hoppingcrow]

(BTW - wether you agree with it or not - it is polite to ALWAYS return the cache exactly how you found it - if you disagree with the classification - take it up later with the reviewer and cache owner.)

 

Question, then. If this was truly a misunderstanding (and it sounds like it was), then what is the difference between adding a stick to help retrieve a log and adding a plastic zip bag to a cache log that doesn't have one? Or replacing a log that is damaged, wet, missing, or full? Or any of the other 'repairs' we do to help out? It's hard to know when to draw a line, then.

 

Just a thought.

 

Neither Frisbee'r nor I could believe the direction this simple act of maintenance took. We had both expected him to react in one of two ways. He could have sent a polite "Thanks! You saved me a trip!" note or he could have chosen not to respond to my note saying we'd made a repair to his cache. But the very first note I received from him called me both a "LIER" and "DISRESPECTFULL." When I replied, I maintained my professionality and simply repeated my apology. By that time, he had sent Frisbee'r the "A..HOLE" letter.

 

The bad part was that at the time, Frisbee'r made his personal email address public in his profile. I keep mine private. The result was that the man made no further contact with me (or if he tried, it went to GC's "noreply" address). He continued to pepper Frisbee'r with increasingly aggressive notes despite the fact that Frisbee'r only responded to his first one.

[+Renegade Knight]

...threat of physical violence from him.

 

Stop the car. ...

 

Amazing that people so casually threaten violence. I ponder if they really have a clue about life, and how much trust they are placing in their self appointed enemies to not maim or kill them should they take any action that could be seen as enacting their threat. While the realization of how much trust they place in me makes me smile, I tend to take the threat as forwarning that the individual is cracked and needs treated with kid gloves lest they explode and need to be put out of their misery.

[+Renegade Knight]

...After all my years as a geocacher, I am now confused by the inconsistency of how caches are classified.

You should be amazed at how many creative variations blur the lines between catagories that made so much sense back when they were created.

 

This cache though has a simple and happy ending in the Ignore Catagory.

[+Prime Suspect]

The classification was correct. A decoy doesn't alter it from being a Traditional, as long as the real cache is at the same coordinates. And you were wrong to alter the decoy. Sounds like you were mad at getting fooled, and wanted to spoil the COs fun. Very bad form. The CO displayed the same bad form in over-reacting. Call it a draw, and stop trying to "improve" caches you don't own. That's what started this whole mess.

[+Hoppingcrow]

...After all my years as a geocacher, I am now confused by the inconsistency of how caches are classified.

You should be amazed at how many creative variations blur the lines between catagories that made so much sense back when they were created.

 

This cache though has a simple and happy ending in the Ignore Catagory.

 

As previously stated, we've already put all of this chap's caches on the Ignore List. Neither of us is so hungry for numbers that we'd feel compelled to go after them.

 

Addressing your previous post, I do worry that this wacko is going to hurt someone at some point in his career. If he gets this bent out of shape over a pen, I hate to think what might have happened if we'd put a guard rail micro back behind the wrong post or failed to lay all three sticks across an ammo box in the precise pattern he dictated.

 

I am also concerned that he so casually disregarded the "family-friendly" directive from GC with respect to the language he sent through GC's email system. He used no words that this couple of old fogeys hadn't heard before, but what if his emails had been addressed to a young geocacher?

[+Hoppingcrow]

The classification was correct. A decoy doesn't alter it from being a Traditional, as long as the real cache is at the same coordinates. And you were wrong to alter the decoy. Sounds like you were mad at getting fooled, and wanted to spoil the COs fun. Very bad form. The CO displayed the same bad form in over-reacting. Call it a draw, and stop trying to "improve" caches you don't own. That's what started this whole mess.

 

No, we weren't mad at being fooled. That's part of the fun of geocaching, after all.

 

We readily admitted we'd made a judgmental error in our attempted maintenance, although anyone else we've ever helped has thanked us for drying out caches, adding new log paper, raising a cache above flood level, carting out litter or whatever. I think a high percentage of experienced and conscientious cachers would have done the same thing in our position.

[+frisbee'r]

Please, let's get this back to the original topic. How to evaluate whether a hide is a traditional, puzzle, or a multi.

 

In my opinion, a traditional cache is a single container which requires no tricks to open. A multi consists of more than one container or waypoint ending with a final container with a log. A puzzle can be a multi which requres that you solve a problem either as shown on the cache page or in the field.

 

The problem with this particular cache was that the decoy was a tube containing a PEN with paper firmly lodged in the bottom of the tube that most cachers would have thought was the log. It took us 10 or 15 minutes to extract it with a special tool. Many cachers would not have bothered and possibly added another log. We attempted to rectify the problem and offered suggestions to the cache owner who is a newbie. His response was totally off the charts. There was no discussion, just hate mail.

[+briansnat]

Please, let's get this back to the original topic. How to evaluate whether a hide is a traditional, puzzle, or a multi.

 

In my opinion, a traditional cache is a single container which requires no tricks to open. A multi consists of more than one container or waypoint ending with a final container with a log. A puzzle can be a multi which requres that you solve a problem either as shown on the cache page or in the field.

 

The problem with this particular cache was that the decoy was a tube containing a PEN with paper firmly lodged in the bottom of the tube that most cachers would have thought was the log. It took us 10 or 15 minutes to extract it with a special tool. Many cachers would not have bothered and possibly added another log. We attempted to rectify the problem and offered suggestions to the cache owner who is a newbie. His response was totally off the charts. There was no discussion, just hate mail.

 

Unfortunately I think you ran into a cacher who isn't rowing with all his elevators on the top of the water. Your transgression was relatively minor and apparently met with an unreasonable response.

 

As to the original question, a traditional cache will be at the posted coordinates and there will be no trick to logging a find other than finding it, and signing the log.

 

With a multi there needs to be some sort of object at the posted coordinates that will give a clue to the next stage, and so on. Could be a cache with coords, could be a sign, could be a container with written instructions. If there is an object to be found that provides a clue to the next stage or the cache, then it's a multi.

 

A puzzle/mystery will usually be a cache where there is nothing at the posted coordinates. In some cases there can be something there but a there is a trick to logging a find. It could be a combination lock on the container, an ALR, a container that takes puzzle solving skills to open. Anything that will prevent someone from finding the cache and signing the log based solely on the coordinates should not be listed as a traditional.

Edited April 2, 2009 by briansnat

[+Star*Hopper]

That said (x Briansnat), it should answer your OQ - not that I'm any kinda authority but I agree, ie, that's my interpretation of the 'state of the guidelines'.

 

But every hackle on m'body went up with the 'threats' issue....and if Groundspeak doesn't wanta intercede & rid us of someone who's made physical threats either through their auspices OR outside e-mail, I'd make hard copies of the threats (provable, actual threats, not braggadocio, mind you) and see how his local law enforcement officials feel about the matter. Actually, I can't believe Groundspeak didn't take harsher action, if the complete story runs as you two have concerted it. Sheez!!

~*

Edited April 2, 2009 by Star*Hopper

[CoyoteRed]

I'm going to disagree with some of the above saying a cache at the posted coordinates with a puzzle to access the inside is not a traditional. I think it is.

 

You show up at the posted coordinates and have to go no where else or use anything other than your brain to open the cache is, IMHO, a traditional. I equate the opening the cache with finding the cache or accessing the cache.

 

Consider the following three otherwise identical caches located at the respective posted coordinates:

• A cache 50' up a tree. No limbs accessible from the ground. You need special equipment to access.
  
• A perfectly camouflaged container. It takes you multiple trips and many hours to identify this object as a cache.
  
• A box that takes you several trips and many hours to figure out how to open.
  

Is any one cache less than a traditional? Not a "classic" cache for sure. One requires critical thinking and skill for you to put hands on it. The other takes critical thinking and luck to identify. The last takes critical thinking to open.

 

In my book, if a cache is at the posted coordinates and you don't have to go anywhere else to gather clues, hints or instructions, then it's a traditional. Sure, you might have to punt and come back later with more information, but that doesn't negate it being a traditional. It only makes it a higher difficulty cache.

 

Decoys don't change the type, either.

[+Hoppingcrow]

That said (x Briansnat), it should answer your OQ - not that I'm any kinda authority but I agree, ie, that's my interpretation of the 'state of the guidelines'.

 

But every hackle on m'body went up with the 'threats' issue....and if Groundspeak doesn't wanta intercede & rid us of someone who's made physical threats either through their auspices OR outside e-mail, I'd make hard copies of the threats (provable, actual threats, not braggadocio, mind you) and see how his local law enforcement officials feel about the matter. Actually, I can't believe Groundspeak didn't take harsher action, if the complete story runs as you two have concerted it. Sheez!!

~*

 

Law enforcement will be the next step if he issues another threat. The only email we don't have copies of is my original explanation of the change we made to his cache. All letters, both internal and external, were referred to Groundspeak. Their advice was to steer clear of his caches and have no further contact with him. We complied with that advice. I am certain Groundspeak must also have told him to cease and desist, which he did not do.

 

As for that cache ... trying to keep with the OP, here ... I feel it should have qualified as a multi. As a matter of fact, I've done a multi along similar lines where the final was placed only a few feet away from the last waypoint. In this case, the 12" camoed decoy tube was relatively obvious, while the bison cache container was buried...let me repeat that, BURIED...in the soil beside the stump (although two links of the attachment chain were visible). This information was also reported to the reviewer who approved the cache, but I think due to the other issues at hand, it may have been dismissed as a complaint made in spite. Such was not the case.

[+Taoiseach]

...threat of physical violence from him.

 

Stop the car.

 

I hope you've contacted your reviewer about this. There is no need for anybody to ever escalate cache issues of any sort to this level.

 

At the very least, place all the cache owner's hides on your ignore list and never seek them out again.

 

Already done, believe me! But he also told us to stay "up north where you belong."

 

This type of situation is not really the reviewer's domain, so we referred it directly to GC. The threats of physical violence stopped, presumably because GC told him to lay off. They advised us to avoid his caches, which we have done, but his demand for us to stay out of the much larger general area is absurd.

 

That to me is cause for banning from gc.com at the very least

[+tozainamboku]

I'm not sure why the OP if they really are going to let this go and ignore this guy's caches is trying so hard to get the community to agree to the claim the cache is classified wrong and my even be against the guidelines. Even though we have only heard from one side here - the side that wants the community to agree the cache is at least classified wrong, I see no evidence here that the cache was classified wrong or even against the guidelines. A decoy container is just that - a decoy container. Left to fool the cacher into grabbing it first before finding the real cache. It certainly doesn't change the cache to a multicache or a mystery as there is always the possibility that someone finds the cache before the decoy. 6 feet is well with the error of a GPS so just because you zeroed out at the decoy and it said the cache was six feet away doesn't change the cache to something other than a traditional. And there are many ways that something as small a bison tube could be "buried" that doesn't violate the guidelines. The "buried" guideline is really mislabeled. It should be the "no digging with a shovel, trowel, or pointy object" guideline. A bison tube could easily be covered in a handful or two of loose soil or sand with no digging or moving of earth using tools. Bison tubes can also be pushed down into loose soil. The idea is that it can be found as well without digging up the area like you are looking for buried treasure. And apparently this was the case.

 

My guess is that we are not hearing the whole story and they is something more going on between the OP and cache owner. Not that anything excuses the cache owner using threatening language. Someone inadvertantly modifying a hide just means I may need to make a maintenance trip to fix it. I might write a note to the finder explaining why something was hidden the way it was and why I expect it to be put back the right way, but that isn't a reason to threaten the person. If some one were to post a spoiler in there log, I'd delete their log with a invitation to relog without the spoiler. A log indicating or hinting that there might be a decoy involved could cetainly be construed as spoiler. I don't know what was in the original log but suspect that the log was more likely deleted because of a spoiler rather than the modification to the decoy per se.

[+Team Black-Cat]

Please, let's get this back to the original topic. How to evaluate whether a hide is a traditional, puzzle, or a multi.

 

In my opinion, a traditional cache is a single container which requires no tricks to open. A multi consists of more than one container or waypoint ending with a final container with a log. A puzzle can be a multi which requres that you solve a problem either as shown on the cache page or in the field.

 

The problem with this particular cache was that the decoy was a tube containing a PEN with paper firmly lodged in the bottom of the tube that most cachers would have thought was the log. It took us 10 or 15 minutes to extract it with a special tool. Many cachers would not have bothered and possibly added another log. We attempted to rectify the problem and offered suggestions to the cache owner who is a newbie. His response was totally off the charts. There was no discussion, just hate mail.

 

Since you are not required to find the decoy to find the cache, this is a traditional.

 

As for the cache owner, I have nothing to add to the advice you've already been given other than to be sure to return the favor of log deletions if he should ever find one of your caches.

[+beejay&esskay]

 

As for the cache owner, I have nothing to add to the advice you've already been given other than to be sure to return the favor of log deletions if he should ever find one of your caches.

 

Two wrongs don't make a right. Certainly the temptation to delete valid finds would be there, but you should be a better person than that.

[+Stargazer22]

I'd call it a traditional. I've done several caches with decoys. You may or may not find the decoys, depending on your searching skills and methods. You may have found the bison tube first and then would have never known about the decoy, since you probably would not have continued to search after having found the cache. I'm sure that on some of the decoy caches I have found, I didn't find every one of the decoys. One of them had about 6 I did find, but I'll bet there were more. That was a traditional also, since the decoys were within 50 feet of GZ.

 

A bison tube is so small it can easily be pushed down into loose soil or leaf debris but I wouldn't call that 'buried'. It's not how I would prefer to find a bison tube, but that's just a preference. The hider's preferences may not match my own.

 

I wouldn't have done anything to the decoy if I had found it. If I found a cache that required a special tool (like a long stick, a container filled with water, etc...) I certainly wouldn't leave a tool there with the cache that wasn't there when I got there. Sometimes you have to come back to a cache if you find something is needed to retrieve it that you haven't got with you at the time. I don't equate leaving a special tool with the cache to cache maintenance like leaving extra log pages, a new pen if the old one is dead, or a new ziplock if the one that's there has holes in it. Leaving a tool would be more like leaving a big "X" where the cache is, something that is intended to assist future finders to make the find.

 

I don't think cache owners should have to specify to leave the cache as you found it on their cache pages. That should go without saying, especially to a finder with many finds.

They also should not have to specify other things that are 'Standard Operating Procedures" when finding caches, like not damaging the environment, closing the cache back up when you are done, putting the camo back the way you found it, etc....

 

Had you simply found the cache and logged the find, none of this would have come up.

Sorry you had the reaction you did from him and threats of physical violence are never OK. That's a clear overreaction on his part.

[+Markwell]

Question, then. If this was truly a misunderstanding (and it sounds like it was), then what is the difference between adding a stick to help retrieve a log and adding a plastic zip bag to a cache log that doesn't have one? Or replacing a log that is damaged, wet, missing, or full? Or any of the other 'repairs' we do to help out? It's hard to know when to draw a line, then.

 

Haven't you ever watched all 6 of the Star Wars movies?!??!? The whole Anikin Skywalker journey is about good intentions that somewhere cross some gray line and tip us to the Dark Side of the Force without us even knowing we've gone there.

 

Such it is in real life. Consider these situations and your response:

1. A container is sitting out exposed in the middle of a field with a tree 10 feet away.
   
2. The container is a old film-canister that leaks, and you've got a new air-tight state-of-the-art micro in your backpack.
   
3. A container is wet and the log book is soaked and starting to smell (it has just rained heavily in the last few days).
   
4. A pen exploded in the cache.
   
5. A rodent chewed through the container's corner.
   
6. The coordinates lead you to a spot with a great hiding place 45 feet away from the where the cache is currently hidden.
   
7. All of the pencils are broken.
   
8. The cache is decently hidden now, but there are some rocks and twigs laying nearby that looks like they may have been used to cover up the cache.
   
9. A log book is full with no room to write, even on the inside covers.
   

I know how I would respond, but not everyone responds the same way.

1. Move it to the tree

2. Sign the book, mark cache as "Needs Maintenance"

3. Grab a new book from my pack with a ziplock and put it in the cache, leaving the original book (if I've got a spare ziplock, put one in there for the original book) - sign both, mark cache as "Needs Maintenance"

4. Try to sign, mark cache as "Needs Maintenance"

5. mark cache as "Needs Maintenance"

6. Note the coordinates I got in my log.

7. Replace with spare pencil

8. Sign the logbook replace as I found it.

9. Grab a new book from my pack with a ziplock and put it in the cache, leaving the original book - sign both, mark cache as "Needs Maintenance"

Edited April 2, 2009 by Markwell

[+Castle Mischief]

 

Haven't you ever watched all 6 of the Star Wars movies?!??!? The whole Anikin Skywalker journey is about good intentions that somewhere cross some gray line and tip us to the Dark Side of the Force without us even knowing we've gone there.

 

Such it is in real life. Consider these situations and your response:

1. A container is sitting out exposed in the middle of a field with a tree 10 feet away.
   
2. The container is a old film-canister that leaks, and you've got a new air-tight state-of-the-art micro in your backpack.
   
3. A container is wet and the log book is soaked and starting to smell (it has just rained heavily in the last few days).
   
4. A pen exploded in the cache.
   
5. A rodent chewed through the container's corner.
   
6. The coordinates lead you to a spot with a great hiding place 45 feet away from the where the cache is currently hidden.
   
7. All of the pencils are broken.
   
8. The cache is decently hidden now, but there are some rocks and twigs laying nearby that looks like they may have been used to cover up the cache.
   
9. A log book is full with no room to write, even on the inside covers.
   

I know how I would respond, but not everyone responds the same way.

 

 

That depends. Are the conditions cumulative to a single cache and is Palpatine hiding in the bushes tempting you with cookies? If the answer is yes then I rent a backhoe and dig a pit in a 20' radius and post a "Should Be Archived".

 

Back on topic- the question of classification was answered above very well- you aren't required to find the decoy- it's still a traditional.

Edited April 2, 2009 by Castle Mischief

[+sbell111]

A traditional cache is simple. You are seeking a container at the posted coords. A puzzle or a multi is more than one step. One which I found began with a no-brainer container which was a small puzzle box. You slid a couple of sides and the container opened presenting the log. This was considered a puzzle by the volunteer approver and the cache owner had to change it from a traditional in order to have it approved.

The seeker was required to work a puzzle prior to making the find. That pretty much sounds like a puzzle cache, to me.

 

This is much different from the 'decoy' cache. Not only are seekers not required to find the decoy, but the decoy actually gives them a hint to how to find the cache. That's a traditional cache, not a puzzle or a multi.

Edited April 2, 2009 by sbell111

[+Castle Mischief]

The seeker was required to work a puzzle prior to making the find. That pretty much sounds like a puzzle cache, to me.

 

This is much different from the 'decoy' cache. Not only are seekers not required to find the decoy, but the decoy actually gives them a hint to how to find the cache. That's a traditional cache, not a puzzle or a multi.

 

Re-read the post. The puzzle was an example. The cache he found had no puzzle as a first stage. It's a decoy.

Edited April 2, 2009 by Castle Mischief

[+sbell111]

The seeker was required to work a puzzle prior to making the find. That pretty much sounds like a puzzle cache, to me.

 

This is much different from the 'decoy' cache. Not only are seekers not required to find the decoy, but the decoy actually gives them a hint to how to find the cache. That's a traditional cache, not a puzzle or a multi.

Re-read the post. The puzzle was an example. The cache he found had no puzzle as a first stage. It's a decoy.

Re-read my post. I discussed two issues, the puzzle-box cache which was correctly listed as a puzzle and the 'decoy' cache which was correctly listed as a traditional. Edited April 2, 2009 by sbell111

[CoyoteRed]

A traditional cache is simple. You are seeking a container at the posted coords. A puzzle or a multi is more than one step. One which I found began with a no-brainer container which was a small puzzle box. You slid a couple of sides and the container opened presenting the log. This was considered a puzzle by the volunteer approver and the cache owner had to change it from a traditional in order to have it approved.

I think the approver was wrong to force the owner to change the type. (It was not wrong to list it as a mystery as any cache can listed as such.)

 

I agree the cache had a puzzle element to it. Just because a hunt has a puzzle element to it doesn't automatically make it a puzzle cache. How many multi's have we found that have puzzle elements to it? If all caches were forced to be listed as a puzzle simply because it has a puzzle element to it then there would be a lot fewer multis.

 

What about traditionals that require one to figure a tricky approach? The cache is behind several properties posted with trespassing signs, yet there is one safe, legal way to access? There's a puzzle element, but I've not heard of them being forced into the puzzle category.

 

What about locked traditionals? The combination is right on the cache page, but it certainly is an additional step to open and log. I see that pretty much as a gimme puzzle. Not a puzzle? What about if the numbers are spelled out and the ROT-13'ed? Puzzle then? Doable standing right there at the posted coordinates with the cache at your feet? Don't want to have to read the cache page? What if the combination (puzzle) is written on the side of the container?

 

Oh, and I've seen people have to figure out how to open an ammo can.

 

When you start introducing other issues into the hunt as to which type category a cache belongs you create a gray area. Create a gray area and you make things complicated and confusing to new hobbyists. My opinion is if you start trying to define a traditional as having no puzzle elements then you have to define "puzzle." I don't think that has ever been defined. This and my previous post should illustrate some of those gray-area puzzles and the difficulty in defining just exactly what is and isn't a puzzle.

[+Castle Mischief]

The seeker was required to work a puzzle prior to making the find. That pretty much sounds like a puzzle cache, to me.

 

This is much different from the 'decoy' cache. Not only are seekers not required to find the decoy, but the decoy actually gives them a hint to how to find the cache. That's a traditional cache, not a puzzle or a multi.

Re-read the post. The puzzle was an example. The cache he found had no puzzle as a first stage. It's a decoy.

Re-read my post. I discussed two issues, the puzzle-box cache which was correctly listed as a puzzle and the 'decoy' cache which was correctly listed as a traditional.

 

Oh, I see now, my mistake. That was unclear to me because you only quoted the first example and commented on the second. I think we just hit the nested quote threshold for a meaningful exchange, yes?

 

EDIT: Almost forgot, pretend there's a smile emoticon at the end of the post. That last sentence wasn't intended to be a barb.

Edited April 2, 2009 by Castle Mischief

[+niraD]

A cache 50' up a tree. No limbs accessible from the ground. You need special equipment to access.

That sounds like a Traditional with 5-star terrain to me. Although I've also found "elevated" caches that were rated 5-star difficulty instead, because the owner expected you to use special equipment to retrieve the cache while standing on the ground below the cache, and no special equipment was required to get to that location.

 

A perfectly camouflaged container. It takes you multiple trips and many hours to identify this object as a cache.

That sounds like a Traditional with a high difficulty.

 

A box that takes you several trips and many hours to figure out how to open.

A lot depends on how the owner expects you to open the container. I've seen locked boxes listed as Traditional with a 5-star difficulty because the owner expected you to use special tools/skills (lockpicking) to open the box. I've seen locked boxes listed as Mystery/Puzzle because the owner expected you to solve a puzzle to get the combination to open the box. I think both approaches work.

[+Cache Viking]

...threat of physical violence from him.

 

Stop the car.

 

I hope you've contacted your reviewer about this. There is no need for anybody to ever escalate cache issues of any sort to this level.

 

At the very least, place all the cache owner's hides on your ignore list and never seek them out again.

 

Already done, believe me! But he also told us to stay "up north where you belong."

 

This type of situation is not really the reviewer's domain, so we referred it directly to GC. The threats of physical violence stopped, presumably because GC told him to lay off. They advised us to avoid his caches, which we have done, but his demand for us to stay out of the much larger general area is absurd.

 

Sounds to me like a caching adventure is at hand. Call up friends and head south for a great day of caching with friends.