Mystery or Multi?

[+Al 7365]

I have seen propper mystery caches with a puzzel to be solved and I have seen ordinary multis.

 

However there is some issues, I have seen multi's where they have been posted as mysterys simply because the grave in this case does not have a coordinate. This in my view should be a multi, then I have seen multi's where additional research is needed. In my view this should be a mystery, it may well have additional stages but if any research is required it should be a mystery.

 

Then you have night caches and bounus caches where it is nessary to follow fire tacts. I have seen these listed as both and have no idea what they should be listed as. The guidelines seem a bit fuzzy in this area, what does everyone else think? or are the guidlines more spesific but I have just not seen them?

[+Gushoneybun]

I have seen a lot like this. I even saw two published the same day by different reviewers, one went as a puzzle the other a multi. Both involved finding details on gravestones.

 

To my mind as the coords of the stones are not given they should be puzzles as you need to find them. Had the cache page given the coords of the stone rather than a car park then it should be a multi, on my understanding.

 

But I might be wrong

[+Bhob]

the only Groundspeak restriction that I am aware of is that the location of the physical final geocache container for an unknown/mystery geocache must be within two miles of the published coordinates

 

it is my understanding that this rule is to keep the "distance traveled" for trackables close to being fairly accurate (since the distance traveled is based on the given coordinates, not on the location of the container)

 

I believe that multi geocaches do not have this restriction

 

some people list a geocache that would otherwise qualify as an unknown/mystery geocache as a multi, only because of this rule

 

that said, it is my experience that it is pretty much up to the hider to decide how to list their geocache, and it sounds like your experience indicates much the same thing

[+Happy Humphrey]

As a rule of thumb, if there's something at the cache coordinates that acts as some form of assistance (however cryptic) to finding the cache location, but the container is elsewhere, then it's a multi. A mystery cache will have nothing at the coordinates that leads to a final cache somewhere else.

 

So it could be that a mystery cache has the container actually at the given coordinates but can't be opened without performing a task. Or it could be a mystery cache if the coordinates are just for a parking space, or just mark the general area.

 

If you go to the coordinates and there's a number there which allows you to solve a puzzle on the web page and get the cache location, then it's a multi.

 

Of course, there can be hybrids; perhaps you solve a puzzle which gives the start point for a multicache. The decision about which way to post the cache (Multi or Unknown) is based on what definition would cause the least inconvenience to an unsuspecting cacher. If you define it as Multi but there's nothing at the given coordinates, then a cacher may turn up and ransack the area expecting to find the first stage. So "Unknown" would be better, IMO.

[+Graculus]

We generally follow the thinking that if ALL the information to find the cache is on the page it would be a multi. If you print it out and took it with you then you'd be able to find the cache. If on the other hand you need to do some other research first such as on the Internet or solve a complex puzzle then it's an unknown. So if you printed off such a cache page and took it with you and then found you were not able to find the cache because there wasn't enough information then it should be an unknown cache. Don't forget the owner may have some puzzle hidden within the way the cache works and whilst it may appear to be a multi it probably is an unknown. Of course some caches fall into that category that is neither one type nor the other in which case it generally is an unknown.

 

If we get a cache for review and are not sure it should be a multi/unknown we discuss it amongst ourselves to see what others think. So it would be unusual for a cache to be published that was not the right type but we can all make mistakes

 

If you come across a cache you think is incorrectly listed then please mention it to the reviewer.

 

Chris

Graculus

Volunteer UK Reviewer for geocaching.com

UK Geocaching Information & Resources website www.follow-the-arrow.co.uk

Geocaching.com Knowledge Books

[+minstrelcat]

From a purely personal point of view, I'd like to see mystery being used for caches where I need to do some preparation before I go out caching, and multi for caches that I can do in the field without even having looked at the cache page before I went out (even if it means doing some other caches first).

 

This is so I can easily filter out in GSAK the caches I can't do yet because I haven't solved the puzzle.

Lisa

[+trublatmill]

If you come across a cache you think is incorrectly listed then please mention it to the reviewer.

 

But what can be done about it? We have two caches we would, in hindsight, prefer to change category. GC12P81 from multi to traditional and GC176KY from puzzle/unknown to multi.

 

However, we have been told this is not possible as it mucks up peoples stats.

[+Graculus]

If you come across a cache you think is incorrectly listed then please mention it to the reviewer.

 

But what can be done about it? We have two caches we would, in hindsight, prefer to change category. GC12P81 from multi to traditional and GC176KY from puzzle/unknown to multi.

 

However, we have been told this is not possible as it mucks up peoples stats.

If it's an old cache published as a multi or unknown and should be the other type we wouldn't change it as historically these two caches types sometimes got mixed (as has been discussed in this thread). If however it was, for example a multi but was published as a traditional (clearly the wrong type) and was our mistake (very unlikely though that would be ) we would consider changing it because it is clearly wrong. If an owner had a multi cache with some parts no longer working and just wanted it changed to a traditional then we wouldn't change it because that would indeed change peoples stats and some people take them very seriously. We will though change a cache type if originally it had an 'additional logging requirement' (ALR) and was listed as an unknown. This is explained in the guidelines under Logging of All Caches.

 

Chris

Graculus

Volunteer UK Reviewer for geocaching.com

UK Geocaching Information & Resources website www.follow-the-arrow.co.uk

Geocaching.com Knowledge Books

[+keehotee]

If you come across a cache you think is incorrectly listed then please mention it to the reviewer.

 

But what can be done about it? We have two caches we would, in hindsight, prefer to change category. GC12P81 from multi to traditional and GC176KY from puzzle/unknown to multi.

 

However, we have been told this is not possible as it mucks up peoples stats.

If it's an old cache published as a multi or unknown and should be the other type we wouldn't change it as historically these two caches types sometimes got mixed (as has been discussed in this thread). If however it was, for example a multi but was published as a traditional (clearly the wrong type) and was our mistake (very unlikely though that would be ) we would consider changing it because it is clearly wrong. If an owner had a multi cache with some parts no longer working and just wanted it changed to a traditional then we wouldn't change it because that would indeed change peoples stats and some people take them very seriously. We will though change a cache type if originally it had an 'additional logging requirement' (ALR) and was listed as an unknown. This is explained in the guidelines under Logging of All Caches.

 

Chris

Graculus

Volunteer UK Reviewer for geocaching.com

UK Geocaching Information & Resources website www.follow-the-arrow.co.uk

Geocaching.com Knowledge Books

 

This is something I've never understood.

It implies that Groundspeak attach more importance to previous finders stats than they do to a cache owners wishes - but if that were the case it would also be impossible for a cache owner to alter the D/T rating of their cache, as this has just as much (if not more) of an impact on finders stats as category does, and AFAIK that's still possible for a cache owner to do themselves?

 

I would guess that your only option would be to archive your existing cache listing, and resubmit in the new category. But this is far from ideal as it allows previous finders to simply revisit and log the same cache again......and you would run the risk of not having the new listing approved.

[+Graculus]

The reason we don't change cache types when an owner just asks us to is because once when it was done someone complained because it did change their stats. As a result of this we have been given guidance not to do it other than in exceptional circumstances, an example being when an ALR is removed. Owners can change the terrain/difficulty rating if they wish, reviewers have no control over that.

 

Chris

Graculus

Volunteer UK Reviewer for geocaching.com

UK Geocaching Information & Resources website www.follow-the-arrow.co.uk

Geocaching.com Knowledge Books