Traditional or Puzzle

[+Legochugglers]

Interesting topic that has cropped up in our area - When is a cache a traditional or a puzzle?

 

GC308H8 is the new cache up for scrutiny. Co-ordinates seem to be purposely circa 200 feet from the actual cache with a series of hints and descriptions which help us to find the container. Not particularly challenging in this particular case as we found the cache realtively quickly using the description but where does the line get drawn.

 

Latest finder appears to be challenging the CO for an explanation so the topic is very much 'live' at the moment. Personally I am not convinced that it should catch on as a way of making a cache slightly more difficult as it could cause all sorts of confusion and wording it as a puzzle appears to be the right conclusion??.

 

What do other cachers think?

[+Bear and Ragged]

Set by a phone user?

[+drdick&vick]

can't honestly say that this should be a traditional.

 

Quoted from the GS Getting Started with Geocaching <Geocache Types>

Traditional Cache

This is the original geocache type consisting of, at minimum, a container and a log book or logsheet. Larger containers generally include items for trade. “Nano” or “micro” caches are tiny containers that only hold a logsheet. The coordinates listed on the traditional cache page provide the geocache’s exact location.

[+Malpas Wanderer]

If the final location is not that displayed at the top of the page then it needs to be "Unknown" type.

 

The final coordinates need to be declared to the reviewer to avoid proximity issues.

[Alan White]

If the description said that at first then I'm surprised it was published.

 

A traditional cache must be at the published coords. The coordinates listed on the traditional cache page provide the geocache’s exact location.

 

It's not acceptable to say "The GPS position is not accurate just to make it a little bit harder to find."

 

Bring it to the attention of a reviewer.

[+Gushoneybun]

The cache page: The Pepper Pot

 

A traditional should be at the listed coordinates, the coordinates should not be deliberately wrong. There is nothing on the cache page to make it anything else, but I was a little suprised that the cache page includes the line:

 

The GPS position is not accurate just to make it a little bit harder to find.

 

It looks like the CO managed to squeeze that past the reviewer.

 

If the coordinates were for a starting point and it said something like walk 100 metres east turn 30 degrees walk .... etc etc then that could be a puzzle.

[+Happy Humphrey]

Just inexperience, I suppose, thinking that this was a good idea. One of mine (no criticism to the reviewer) was rejected initially just because the coordinates had a lot of zeros in them, and there was therefore a suspicion that they were false. Mind you, I did encourage the suspicion.

 

The cache should also have been given a note to point out that there are no attributes, even though it's apparently wheelchair accessible.

Or with the spelling mistakes too, it could just be an ironic "worst cache" attempt?

[+Legochugglers]

Seems there is a clear consensus of opinion on this one so I will watch the listing with interest to see if CO responds to recent challenge regarding validity of the cache.

[+simplysup]

If the coordinates were for a starting point and it said something like walk 100 metres east turn 30 degrees walk .... etc etc then that could be a puzzle.

 

Or more likely, an offset multi - which is probably what Pepper Pot should have been, if the coords are deliberately off (when I saw the listing published, I thought that they were "off" just because of inaccuracy - I had to have two goes at finding it ).

[+MartyBartfast]

 

The final coordinates need to be declared to the reviewer to avoid proximity issues.

 

I know of a cache where the published co-ords are about 100' out, and it states the correct co-ords on the cache page, I suspect this was done to avoid a proximity problem.

 

Not saying any more 'cos it's a cracking cache

[+MBFace]

It looks like the CO managed to squeeze that past the reviewer.

I was under the impression that the reviewers are more concerned with proximity issues, whether the cache has been placed without permission on e.g. an SSSI, all stages of a multi are identified, etc. and don't necessarily read the description.

 

As HH says it appears that the cache owner hasn't got to grips with the game yet. Looking at their profile it would appear that they had only found four caches when they hid this one and it's yet another newbie error. Given that some people will go out without reading the description or taking the hint it's a good job that it's not in Wetherby

[+Graculus]

<snip>

The cache should also have been given a note to point out that there are no attributes, even though it's apparently wheelchair accessible.

We've been told not to stop publication of a cache because there are no attributes or if the terrain is 1* and there is no indication it is wheelchair accessible. But.... we do add an automatic log to each cache in this position telling the owner they should check this and make the necessary changes. Then the cache is published. The log goes to the owner but isn't visible on the page. There is such a log on this particular cache.

 

I did a check recently on caches where I'd added the log and found that in the majority of cases the log is ignored even though the wording says, "you may make this change even if the cache has been published".

 

Chris

Graculus

Volunteer UK Reviewer for geocaching.com

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

Geocaching.com Knowledge Books