Traditional Cache

[+Mark+Karen]

Regarding cache GC324QD

 

I'm not the only person who went to the cache coordinates to then load up the description to find that I needed to go and get other information first elsewhere. There are notes in the logs saying that as the coordinates given are the coordinates of the cache location then it's a traditional.

 

However I have to say I disagree, in my opinion a traditional cache is one which is self contained, go to the coordinates, find the cache, sign the log. Anything else is a puzzle cache or a multi-cache.

 

There are other traditional caches (not this one) where the description is "Go to this location, turn East and walk 100 paces", which I'd consider to be a multi cache too.

 

Is this being listed as a traditional as puzzle and multi caches attract less visits?

[+mlrs1996]

you can contact you local reviewer.

and they can look in to that cache.

[+Mark+Karen]

The reviewers have already looked at that cache and consider themselves satisfied, I'm more interested in a general debate about the issues surrounding this

[+keehotee]

Regarding cache GC324QD

 

I'm not the only person who went to the cache coordinates to then load up the description to find that I needed to go and get other information first elsewhere. There are notes in the logs saying that as the coordinates given are the coordinates of the cache location then it's a traditional.

 

However I have to say I disagree, in my opinion a traditional cache is one which is self contained, go to the coordinates, find the cache, sign the log. Anything else is a puzzle cache or a multi-cache.

 

There are other traditional caches (not this one) where the description is "Go to this location, turn East and walk 100 paces", which I'd consider to be a multi cache too.

 

Is this being listed as a traditional as puzzle and multi caches attract less visits?

 

For what it's worth, I agree with you - and have found (and hidden) puzzle caches myself that are actually at the given co-ordinates.

But.....

1. It's a game. Unless you were hurt as a result of misinformation, where's the harm?

2. The reviewer thought it was listed under the correct category. You and I might disagree/ state precedent/ show a million and one forum posts that agree with us - but at the end of the day, we don't call the shots.

Move on and find the next one

[+The Hornet]

What Keehote says. It would never have passed muster as a traditional when I was reviewing but I guess the game changes. There are sooooooo many caches around now take keehote's advice - move on and find the next one

[+Malpas Wanderer]

I would say it's wrongly categorised.

 

Oh well lets shake a few trees and say I'd probably smash it open.

 

In a devilish mood today so you'll just have to decipher if that's true or false statement. :anicute:

[+thehoomer]

Mmmmmm, interesting.

The listed co ords take you to the cache. So far, everything is fine. However, as I understand it, to claim a find on a traditional cache, there is a requirement to sign the log book. If the solving of a puzzle is required to open the cache and ultimately sign the book, I would've said that this was a puzzle or multi cache. If the CO is content for those cachers who aren't equipped or are unaware of the puzzle part, to not sign the log book and still claim the find, I suppose that is their call. As we only cache with an eTrex & paper maps, we would have to record a DNF on this if we went to look for it. The CO's comment of, 'If Geocachers don't read the cache page before finding then that's tough', isn't friendly or helpful and with respect, is a little blinkered. I would hazard a guess, that there are few cachers who read the page of a traditional cache before going to find it. That said, there are only a few DNF's reported due to the puzzle element.

In my opinion though, the re-classification of this cache would prevent the disappointment of future visitors and would also befit this kind of hide. In other words, I think this cache is closer to being a puzzle/multi than it is a traditional.

[+Delta68]

The reviewers have already looked at that cache and consider themselves satisfied, I'm more interested in a general debate about the issues surrounding this

 

I'd say the reviewer is wrong.

 

If it was just a case of needing spanner or screwdriver etc to open the cache then yes, it would still be OK as Trad.

 

Having to go to another location first means it blatantly isn't a Traditional

 

 

Mark

[+Delta68]

We found a cache a couple of weeks ago which is listed as Trad but you need information from other caches in the series in order to unlock a combination lock.

Luckily we did the series in the intended order and picked up the info on the way.

Amazingly, even cachers who had to go back for it don't appear to have complained.

 

Did I notify the reviewer?

No. Can't be bothered.

When they say it's up to us to help improve standards they don't really mean it

 

 

Mark

[+dartymoor]

It's not a traditional cache in my view - possibly a Field Puzzle, but the logs suggest it's well received by the finders so I don't think it's a big problem.

 

However, as you say you can't be bothered to notify the reviewer, yet *can* be bothered to start a thread complaining about it, I have to question your motives. Is this a whinge about reviewers or Groundspeak in general rather than a genuine attempt to resolve confusion for others?

[+Delta68]

However, as you say you can't be bothered to notify the reviewer, yet *can* be bothered to start a thread complaining about it, I have to question your motives.

 

I think you are confusing two different posts by two different people

 

 

Mark

[+Legochugglers]

In my opinion the listing makes it absolutely clear that you need some info before walking to the co-ordinates and the 'Field puzzle' attribute has been used. It wouldnt appear that the collating of that info is particularly taxing (unless of course you dont read the listing properly).

 

I have read before in the forums where it is claimed that "many people don't read the listing". If this is really the case then they only have themselves to blame, I would kick myself if I made that mistake and certainly wouldnt berate the CO. The reviewers are happy with it, many visitors seem happy with it. No problem.

[+Happy Humphrey]

Yes, it's an unknown (mystery) cache.

 

I have a cache that plays on this rule; i.e. it's listed as a Traditional, but if you read the description you are supposed to get the feeling that you might have some more work to do when you get to the site. When you get to the location, no surprise that there's a container in a place that the hint seems to indicate. Thing is, this merely contains the coordinates for another cache. This second cache sends you back to the original spot; and then (hopefully) you look a bit more carefully and find the real cache. Which also fits the hint.

 

The more considered and careful cacher will realise that there's no need to go traipsing around in search of another cache. As it's a traditional, it must be at the first location; there's never any need to go elsewhere. So you simply have to ignore any red herrings.

 

If I was at GC324QD and picked up the locked container, I'd assume that it is supposed to have a combination with it, and would perhaps think that it had come unstuck. After a bit of a search I'd read the description, then either go and find the other stage, or give it a miss (depending on how much time I'd allowed).

[+The Hornet]

Interestingly I have just re-read the various definitions of cache types ( !!!). When I started out 10 years ago a Traditional cache was findable, and loggable, using purely the coordinates. That was the purest form of geocaching. Obviously things have changed since then as the current definitions only talk about finding the cache containers. No mention is made about getting into them to access the logbook.

 

So by the current definition of a Traditional, if you can find the box using the published coordinates that's all that is needed to qualify. So in this case the reviewer is technically correct.

 

I personally think it is wrong but, hey!, nobody ever said life was fair.

[Alan White]

I've seen a few - and thankfully only a few - of this type of cache. Nevertheless I hate coming across them unexpectedly and I'd love to see a statement from Groundspeak giving their view, and then a clarification of the guidelines.

 

In my view, a Trad should require only the coordinates to find and log the cache; anything else is another cache type. The one quoted in the OP is a multi in my opinion, and GC3BYW8 is an Unknown (which comment will make no sense unless you've found the cache ).

[+Happy Humphrey]

In my view, a Trad should require only the coordinates to find and log the cache; anything else is another cache type. The one quoted in the OP is a multi in my opinion,

I agree with the first part. But the cache in question shouldn't be a multi as it stands, because the coordinates given are for the final cache. The other "stage" doesn't lead you to the final, either. So the format is similar to many mystery caches, where you have to find something nearby in order to crack the puzzle.

[Alan White]

But the cache in question shouldn't be a multi as it stands, because the coordinates given are for the final cache.

The distinction between multi and unknown is often subjective, and there's no requirement that for any cache type the listed coords must not be of the final - or only - cache. I've found multis where, after collecting the data, the coords of the cache are "revealed" to be the listed coords .

 

I think the crux of the issue is that there's a belief that if the only cache is at the listed coords then it must be a Trad. I don't subscribe to that view and the discussion then is "what sort of cache is it?". The rules for a multi seem fine as they are: there must be more than one stage (yes, I've seen multis with only one stage including the final cache); and the listed coords must be the first stage. By this definition then the cache in question could be a multi. However, I don't much mind whether it's a multi or an unknown - it's just not a Trad .