Puzzle caches

[+muney4nuthin]

SO I have a ? then...I placed a puzzle cache and when I activated it, it came up a ? mark (for puzzle cache). The local publisher here asked why I marked it that way and said I ought to think about it. My cache is a large tube with a locked cap on one end and the other is a cap that you have to pull and twist at the same time...it looks like a giant key when out...then you dump the key out, unlock the other cap and the cache is in that end. Does this sound like a good cache to hide? Or if I had marked it a traditional would more people be interested in finding it? (GC1R32A)

[+Sol seaker]

Caches with a question mark are puzzle caches.

Puzzle caches are caches that do not have the correct coordinates written at the top of the cache. in order to get the correct coordinates for a puzzle cache you have to do a puzzle. Something the cache owner has figured out that will give you the correct coordinates.

 

You might want to go find a few more puzzle caches yourself before placing more so you get the idea.

You've only found two at this point. It would get you better familiarized with what they are before you place more of them.

[+muney4nuthin]

Caches with a question mark are puzzle caches.

Puzzle caches are caches that do not have the correct coordinates written at the top of the cache. in order to get the correct coordinates for a puzzle cache you have to do a puzzle. Something the cache owner has figured out that will give you the correct coordinates.

 

You might want to go find a few more puzzle caches yourself before placing more so you get the idea.

You've only found two at this point. It would get you better familiarized with what they are before you place more of them.

 

Ahhh.....ty very much...guess ill change my cache description.

[+Taoiseach]

Caches with a question mark are puzzle caches.

Puzzle caches are caches that do not have the correct coordinates written at the top of the cache. in order to get the correct coordinates for a puzzle cache you have to do a puzzle. Something the cache owner has figured out that will give you the correct coordinates.

 

You might want to go find a few more puzzle caches yourself before placing more so you get the idea.

You've only found two at this point. It would get you better familiarized with what they are before you place more of them.

 

I don't necessarily agree with that.

 

'?' does not stand for puzzle cache, but rather Mystery/Unknown. I'll state right off that I think that Mystery/Unknown is the correct cache type.

 

Mystery/Unknowns are the 'catch-all' of cache types, meaning that if it doesn't fit any of the other cache types, it should be listed as a Mystery/Unknown. As your cache isn't as straight forward as a traditional, it isn't a traditional. It might very well be at the posted (Many Mystery/Unknowns are), but you still have to do something else once you've actually found it.

 

I would call this sort of thing a form of on-site puzzle

Edited September 14, 2009 by Taoiseach

[+niraD]

Caches with a question mark are puzzle caches.

Some caches with a question mark are puzzle caches. All caches with a question mark are mystery or puzzle caches, which is the "catch-all" of cache types for caches that don't fit the other types for any reason.

 

Puzzle caches are caches that do not have the correct coordinates written at the top of the cache. in order to get the correct coordinates for a puzzle cache you have to do a puzzle. Something the cache owner has figured out that will give you the correct coordinates.

I've found a number of puzzle caches that were located at the posted coordinates. You still needed to solve the puzzle to access/sign the log though.

 

The guidelines say that a mystery/puzzle cache "often involves complicated puzzles that you will first need to solve in order to determine the coordinates" (emphasis mine). They do not say that a mystery/puzzle cache "always involves complicated puzzles that you will first need to solve in order to determine the coordinates".

[+Arrow42]

Caches with a question mark are puzzle caches.

Puzzle caches are caches that do not have the correct coordinates written at the top of the cache. in order to get the correct coordinates for a puzzle cache you have to do a puzzle. Something the cache owner has figured out that will give you the correct coordinates.

 

You might want to go find a few more puzzle caches yourself before placing more so you get the idea.

You've only found two at this point. It would get you better familiarized with what they are before you place more of them.

 

I don't necessarily agree with that.

 

'?' does not stand for puzzle cache, but rather Mystery/Unknown. I'll state right off that I think that Mystery/Unknown is the correct cache type.

 

Mystery/Unknowns are the 'catch-all' of cache types, meaning that if it doesn't fit any of the other cache types, it should be listed as a Mystery/Unknown. As your cache isn't as straight forward as a traditional, it isn't a traditional. It might very well be at the posted (Many Mystery/Unknowns are), but you still have to do something else once you've actually found it.

 

I would call this sort of thing a form of on-site puzzle

 

I would agree, and there are other caches out there that are similar. I recall one that is a mailbox-sized cache with buttons that you must press in a particular order.

[CoyoteRed]

SO I have a ? then...I placed a puzzle cache and when I activated it, it came up a ? mark (for puzzle cache). The local publisher here asked why I marked it that way and said I ought to think about it. My cache is a large tube with a locked cap on one end and the other is a cap that you have to pull and twist at the same time...it looks like a giant key when out...then you dump the key out, unlock the other cap and the cache is in that end. Does this sound like a good cache to hide? Or if I had marked it a traditional would more people be interested in finding it? (GC1R32A)

Sounds like an interesting cache from what you've said. However, I'm assuming it's a single stage cache with the listed coordinates as the location of the cache. You didn't say otherwise. While there is a bit of a puzzle to get into the cache, it's not really a "puzzle cache" as it generally defined. A "puzzle cache" generally means it's a puzzle to determine the coordinates of the cache, not really to get into the cache. The point is you show up at the listed coordinates, you figure out how to find, retrieve, access, and get into the cache.

 

This means you should be able to list the cache as a traditional.

 

But wait!

 

You are allowed to put any cache into the Unknown category if you wish. This gets you the leeway to not be specific on what type of hunt it is. It could be a straight up traditional, a simple multi, or whatever. The point is you're not telling the seeker what it is.

 

Still, all is well. I think the point the reviewer may have been trying to make is you would get more visitors if you listed the cache as a traditional with proper ratings. Nothing wrong with having a traditional that is difficult getting into. No different than a traditional that is difficult find or difficult to retrieve.

 

Traditional or unknown. It's up to you.

[+Taoiseach]

Nonetheless, I'm definitely of the opinion that it should be listed as a Mystery/Unknown if there is any sort of trickery going on at all.

 

For example, I could go and hide a traditional, make it an ammo can with a combination lock on it, and give you no idea as to how to get into it. It is technically a traditional, as the final is at the posted co-ords, it's just that it's difficult to get in to. That being said, the added challenge is not something that should warrant a higher difficulty6 rating alone. If you have to try to crack the combination, that is an on-site puzzle (i.e. not a traditional).

 

It wouldn't be entirely correct to list it as a traditional, but it would certainly be more correct to list it as a Mystery/Unknown.

 

An example that I'll point to for this are some of Model12's birdie caches. Some of them are straight traditionals, however some of the other ones require you to figure out where he's hidden the log book inside of the container. Those ones are (correctly) listed as Mystery/Unknowns, just to make sure that cachers realise that there's more to the cache than just finding it.

[+ecanderson]

Caches with a question mark are puzzle caches.

Puzzle caches are caches that do not have the correct coordinates written at the top of the cache. in order to get the correct coordinates for a puzzle cache you have to do a puzzle. Something the cache owner has figured out that will give you the correct coordinates.

The above, while a the description of a typical "unknown type" (?) (aka "puzzle cache"), does not reflect the nature of all of them. There are puzzle caches where the coordinates are indeed accurate, but a puzzle must be solved using cache page information in order to open or otherwise manipulate the cache itself in order to sign the log. There are a couple of those in our area that are a good bit of fun. GC176DQ is one of my favorite examples. In such cases, the log CANNOT be signed by knowing just the coordinates and finding the cache container.

 

Where the finder must go through some sort of mental exercise from information on the log page just to figure out how to open the container, the cache actually ceases to be traditional, and reviewers will usually insist that these be qualified as "unknowns".

 

In the case of the OPs cache, no information beyond the coordinates is necessary (or even helpful) in order to sign the log. The manipulation of the container on site requires no external information. Therefore, it qualifies as a traditional, but as a PITA to get open

[CoyoteRed]

Nonetheless, I'm definitely of the opinion that it should be listed as a Mystery/Unknown if there is any sort of trickery going on at all.

If that's the case, then give me an example of a 5/1 traditional.

 

Oh, and what about those multis where you have to do some sort of trickery at each stage?

Edited September 14, 2009 by CoyoteRed

[+NYPaddleCacher]

Nonetheless, I'm definitely of the opinion that it should be listed as a Mystery/Unknown if there is any sort of trickery going on at all.

If that's the case, then give me an example of a 5/1 traditional.

 

Oh, and what about those multis where you have to do some sort of trickery at each stage?

 

A pocket query will show a list of 5/1 traditional caches pretty easily. How many of those are over rated is open to debate.

 

I agree with Taoiseach. If there is any sort of trickery involved when obtaining coordinates from any of the stages, it shouldn't be listed as a multi. The fact that there are plenty of examples of multi caches which do have some sort of trickery involved only means that they're not listed as I (or Taoiseach) would list them.

 

IMHO, as a general guideline, if obtaining the coordinates for any stage in a multi cache involves manipulating some numbers, and is anything more complex than basic arithmetic, it *should* be rated a mystery/unknown.

[CoyoteRed]

I think a few folks need to re-read this site's definitions of cache types.

 

Traditional Cache

This is the original cache type consisting, at a bare minimum, a container and a log book. Normally you'll find a tupperware container, ammo box, or bucket filled with goodies, or smaller container ("micro cache") too small to contain items except for a log book. The coordinates listed on the traditional cache page are the exact location for the cache.

 

<...>

 

Multi-Cache (Offset Cache)

A multi-cache ("multiple") involves two or more locations, the final location being a physical container. There are many variations, but most multi-caches have a hint to find the second cache, and the second cache has hints to the third, and so on. An offset cache (where you go to a location and get hints to the actual cache) is considered a multi-cache.

 

<...>

 

Mystery or Puzzle Caches

The "catch-all" of cache types, this form of cache can involve complicated puzzles you will first need to solve to determine the coordinates. Due to the increasing creativity of geocaching this becomes the staging ground for new and unique challenges.

 

That's straight for the above linked page. It's pretty clear.

 

The criteria for requiring a cache to be a puzzle is when you have bogus coords listed at the top of the cache page. There's no criteria for there to not be any puzzle elements in a traditional or multi. It's right there on the page.

 

There's no reason to make it more complicated than it really is. For instance, where do you draw the line of what is and what isn't a puzzle? For some, simply figuring out how to open an ammo can is a puzzle. What about a can locked with a three move (pull-twist-push) climbing carabiner? How far do we go before something is enough of a "puzzle" to be required to be listed as a puzzle in your book? See? Where's the line?

[+ecanderson]

That's straight for the above linked page. It's pretty clear.

But it's not how a lot of reviewers are looking at caches that are at posted coordinates, but require additional non-coordinate information to successfully sign the log. It's a situation that the gc descriptions don't really adequately address, and reviewers have responded accordingly.

There's no reason to make it more complicated than it really is. For instance, where do you draw the line of what is and what isn't a puzzle? For some, simply figuring out how to open an ammo can is a puzzle. What about a can locked with a three move (pull-twist-push) climbing carabiner? How far do we go before something is enough of a "puzzle" to be required to be listed as a puzzle in your book? See? Where's the line?

The current practice in at least the caching areas with which I'm familiar draws the line as previously described: If additional information beyond the coordinates and subsequent discovery of the cache are necessary for the finder to sign the log, these are being called "Other" (puzzle) caches. That seems to me to be a very clear line indeed.

 

The cache I mentioned above (GC176DQ) is a classic example of this. Although the cache is located rather precisely at the posted coordinates, you could NOT simply go to that site, find the container, and log the cache. By calling this a "puzzle" cache, it avoids having people show up with just their GPS full of coordinates, completely unprepared with the other requisite information, and expecting an ordinary traditional, which would be really annoying.

Edited September 14, 2009 by ecanderson

[CoyoteRed]

That's straight for the above linked page. It's pretty clear.

But it's not how a lot of reviewers are looking at caches that are at posted coordinates, but require additional non-coordinate information to successfully sign the log. It's a situation that the gc descriptions don't really adequately address, and reviewers have responded accordingly.

...and yet another good example of "creep" if some reviewers are forcing this. I haven't heard this to be a global requirement beyond ALRs.

 

Is this a new requirement or is it a response by a few reviewers to some whiners who don't bring a description with them on a hunt?

 

Still, doesn't apply to the cache at hand which is one where you simple need to show up and use your wits.

[CoyoteRed]

By calling this a "puzzle" cache, it avoids having people show up with just their GPS full of coordinates, completely unprepared with the other requisite information, and expecting an ordinary traditional, which would be really annoying.

Forgot to address this in the above post and decided on a new one.

 

By forcing certain traditionals into the puzzle category because some folks are unprepared is, if true, the wrong answer to a problem. Not that I'm surprised as Groundspeak has a long history of these kinds of mistakes. One was the issue of someone finding a cache different than the one they were seeking and then logging the one they were seeking. The owner of said cache would then delete the log because there was not the corresponding signature in the log. The seeker would get mad because it knew he signed a log, just didn't realize he signed the wrong one. Groundspeak's response was the proximity rule even though it is mostly touted for saturation. In reality, what should had happened was Groundspeak say that all caches should be properly marked to avoid confusion and then the onus lay on the seeker to sign, and then log, the right cache. Then there was to be a saturation rule it could have been a more appropriate area-based rule and not a distance-based rule. But instead we have issues with folks wanting to place good caches "too close" to another cache.

 

So, instead of forcing a traditional into the puzzle category what Groundspeak should have done is added an attribute indicating important information on the cache page. This was something I suggested way back when ideas were being sought for what to include. Instead we get "Watch for Livestock" and "Picnic Table Nearby," you know, useful stuff like that. That way if you wanted to go Commando then your PQs would reflect this.

 

What's the unintended consequence of forcing some traditionals into the puzzle category? Fewer visits. I would miss out on a traditional in distant area simply because it required a combination for a lock as I filter out puzzles on the road. This "rule" only benefits those who don't bring descriptions and adversely affects those who do yet filter puzzles. Just another bad rule.

[+ecanderson]

 

Still, doesn't apply to the cache at hand which is one where you simple need to show up and use your wits.

I agree. It does not apply to the cache at hand. However, your generalization that included other caches that really shouldn't be traditionals was bothering me.

[+flask]

if you wish to eliminate all ambiguity about the CO's cache, you might put a puzzle in it just to get the coordinates to solve the onsite puzzle.

 

still, all in all i believe that if there's a puzzle to solve onsite, it's properly a mystery cache.

 

i have become very fond of physical onsite puzzles and have seen quite a few clever ones.

 

it's a bonus: i'm out playing a game and i hhie some and then get another game to play. it is an embarrassment of riches.

[CoyoteRed]

Still, doesn't apply to the cache at hand which is one where you simple need to show up and use your wits.

I agree. It does not apply to the cache at hand. However, your generalization that included other caches that really shouldn't be traditionals was bothering me.

What's bothering me is reviewers, and others, taking it upon themselves to change the definitions of the cache types. Granted, I'm not privy to the behind the scenes of reviewerdom, but I've not heard of such a change in policy beyond ALRs.