New cache type (moving target)

[+xeor_zella]

Hello!

 

Is a moving target cache something to consider?

You can have this now with a ? cache that points you to a moving target, but I dont know if that is acceptable..?

 

If this sounds like a cool idea, maybe it is something that can be in the notes/help when you create a ? cache. I would love to hunt down subway/cab with a specific number on it, or maybe a boat.. There are lots of moving stuff out there.

[+Gitchee-Gummee]

How could/would you insure that the moving cache did not intrude close enough to another cache to violate the saturation guideline (528 ft.)?

 

Outside of that, "traveling caches" have been disallowed for some time. There are a few grandfathered traveling caches out there.

[+xeor_zella]

Since we need something other than a coordinate to pinpoint the cache, this is most easily done with a ? cache. The is no way (as far as I know), to enforce the 528 ft. rule on any of the ? caches since the coordinates is hidden..

Maybe traveling caches is something that could be considered once again? It can be a sub type (attribute or something) on the already existing ? caches.. Or is this a bad idea?

[jholly]

Since we need something other than a coordinate to pinpoint the cache, this is most easily done with a ? cache. The is no way (as far as I know), to enforce the 528 ft. rule on any of the ? caches since the coordinates is hidden..

Maybe traveling caches is something that could be considered once again? It can be a sub type (attribute or something) on the already existing ? caches.. Or is this a bad idea?

The reviewers seem to do a pretty good job enforcing the 528 foot rule on ? caches.

[Pup Patrol]

Since we need something other than a coordinate to pinpoint the cache, this is most easily done with a ? cache. The is no way (as far as I know), to enforce the 528 ft. rule on any of the ? caches since the coordinates is hidden..

Maybe traveling caches is something that could be considered once again? It can be a sub type (attribute or something) on the already existing ? caches.. Or is this a bad idea?

 

As already explained, "travelling caches" have not been allowed for some time. (Some "grandfathered" ones are still out there.)

 

I think you are misunderstanding the "?" cache type. The saturation guideline still applies to this type of cache. There are a variety of "?" caches, they are not all the same.

 

Here is a link to the Guidelines that might help:

 

http://support.Groundspeak.com/index.php?pg=kb.page&id=308

 

 

B.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

Since we need something other than a coordinate to pinpoint the cache, this is most easily done with a ? cache. The is no way (as far as I know), to enforce the 528 ft. rule on any of the ? caches since the coordinates is hidden..

Maybe traveling caches is something that could be considered once again? It can be a sub type (attribute or something) on the already existing ? caches.. Or is this a bad idea?

The reviewers seem to do a pretty good job enforcing the 528 foot rule on ? caches.

 

And to clarify, as of a couple of years ago (at least) a cache owner is required to provide the final coordinates of a ? cache as an additional waypoint viewable only by the reviewer.

[+xeor_zella]

Since we need something other than a coordinate to pinpoint the cache, this is most easily done with a ? cache. The is no way (as far as I know), to enforce the 528 ft. rule on any of the ? caches since the coordinates is hidden..

Maybe traveling caches is something that could be considered once again? It can be a sub type (attribute or something) on the already existing ? caches.. Or is this a bad idea?

The reviewers seem to do a pretty good job enforcing the 528 foot rule on ? caches.

 

And to clarify, as of a couple of years ago (at least) a cache owner is required to provide the final coordinates of a ? cache as an additional waypoint viewable only by the reviewer.

Sorry, I did not know that..

 

If a movable cache type have already been tried, and it didn't work out, there is no point of bringing them back. I asked originally because I thought that could be an good idea.

[+NanCycle]

Since we need something other than a coordinate to pinpoint the cache, this is most easily done with a ? cache. The is no way (as far as I know), to enforce the 528 ft. rule on any of the ? caches since the coordinates is hidden..

Maybe traveling caches is something that could be considered once again? It can be a sub type (attribute or something) on the already existing ? caches.. Or is this a bad idea?

The reviewers seem to do a pretty good job enforcing the 528 foot rule on ? caches.

 

And to clarify, as of a couple of years ago (at least) a cache owner is required to provide the final coordinates of a ? cache as an additional waypoint viewable only by the reviewer.

 

And yet, just a few months ago a ? cache placed just 165 ft from an existing cache was published. (OK, nobody's perfect.)

[+Lil Devil]

And yet, just a few months ago a ? cache placed just 165 ft from an existing cache was published. (OK, nobody's perfect.)

Mistakes do happen, but also be aware that many of the older ? and multi caches that were created before the "additional waypoints" feature was introduced, do not have their finals in the system. So a reviewer can't know if a new cache is placed too close.

[+NanCycle]

And yet, just a few months ago a ? cache placed just 165 ft from an existing cache was published. (OK, nobody's perfect.)

Mistakes do happen, but also be aware that many of the older ? and multi caches that were created before the "additional waypoints" feature was introduced, do not have their finals in the system. So a reviewer can't know if a new cache is placed too close.

 

Did you not read my post? I said the ? cache was published just a few months ago (about 6 months I think) The existing cache (placed about a year and a half earlier) was not a ? or multi cache, so knowing or not knowing the final waypoint was not an issue.

[+The A-Team]

The existing cache (placed about a year and a half earlier) was not a ? or multi cache, so knowing or not knowing the final waypoint was not an issue.

I'd file that under "reviewer made a mistake". It happens, but not very often.

[+xeor_zella]

Ok, besides previous mistakes and back to the original question.

Movable caches, is it an idea we/I can just forget about for now? Is it something to consider for future cache types? Or is it just a bad idea that I didn't think well enough trough?

 

Thanks for all the comments

[+The A-Team]

Movable caches, is it an idea we/I can just forget about for now?

They were tried a long time ago, but they also ended a long time ago (at least the publication of new ones). Their time has come and passed, so I wouldn't imagine we'll be seeing them again. Good idea, but I wouldn't hold my breath.

[+Prime Suspect]

And yet, just a few months ago a ? cache placed just 165 ft from an existing cache was published. (OK, nobody's perfect.)

Mistakes do happen, but also be aware that many of the older ? and multi caches that were created before the "additional waypoints" feature was introduced, do not have their finals in the system. So a reviewer can't know if a new cache is placed too close.

 

Did you not read my post? I said the ? cache was published just a few months ago (about 6 months I think) The existing cache (placed about a year and a half earlier) was not a ? or multi cache, so knowing or not knowing the final waypoint was not an issue.

Can you point out where in your post that you specified the type of the existing cache? Is it in some special invisible font? Do I need a UV light to see it?

[+JesandTodd]

]

Can you point out where in your post that you specified the type of the existing cache? Is it in some special invisible font? Do I need a UV light to see it?

I think you need to look at the source code. It's clearly written there...

[+The A-Team]

Can you point out where in your post that you specified the type of the existing cache? Is it in some special invisible font? Do I need a UV light to see it?

This is a type post.

Difficulty , terrain

 

I'd tell you how to solve it, but that would be a spoiler, and those aren't allowed.

[+Don_J]

The existing cache (placed about a year and a half earlier) was not a ? or multi cache, so knowing or not knowing the final waypoint was not an issue.

I'd file that under "reviewer made a mistake". It happens, but not very often.

 

Or, the cache owner submitted fake coordinates as his final waypoint. Unless the reviewer solves the puzzle, or someone reports it, they wouldn't know. I have seen it intentionally done more than once.

[+Don_J]

Ok, besides previous mistakes and back to the original question.

Movable caches, is it an idea we/I can just forget about for now? Is it something to consider for future cache types? Or is it just a bad idea that I didn't think well enough trough?

 

Thanks for all the comments

 

It's not going to happen. There were two big problems with the movable caches. Proximity to other caches and the cache owner was required to submit corrected coordinates each time the cache was moved. At some point, the owner loses interest and stops doing the updates. The last one that I found in Southern California was listed as being in Northern California. It stayed listed there as it was actually moving all over Germany. The reviewers finally archived it.

[+JesandTodd]

Can you point out where in your post that you specified the type of the existing cache? Is it in some special invisible font? Do I need a UV light to see it?

This is a type post.

Difficulty , terrain

 

I'd tell you how to solve it, but that would be a spoiler, and those aren't allowed.

 

Quite possible the funniest post, ever!

[+xeor_zella]

Ok, besides previous mistakes and back to the original question.

Movable caches, is it an idea we/I can just forget about for now? Is it something to consider for future cache types? Or is it just a bad idea that I didn't think well enough trough?

 

Thanks for all the comments

 

It's not going to happen. There were two big problems with the movable caches. Proximity to other caches and the cache owner was required to submit corrected coordinates each time the cache was moved. At some point, the owner loses interest and stops doing the updates. The last one that I found in Southern California was listed as being in Northern California. It stayed listed there as it was actually moving all over Germany. The reviewers finally archived it.

Ohh, I am not thinking about a cache like that. I am thinking of a cache without coordinates at all. More of a "Hidden under the 2nd seat on the subway with id #1000", or a boat, or something like that.

It might lead to some tense situations tough with people hiding anything on a movable transport. People can mistake it for something else..

[+The A-Team]

Ohh, I am not thinking about a cache like that. I am thinking of a cache without coordinates at all.

You mean Locationless () caches? Those used to exist, but they were all archived and locked on Dec 31, 2005. The idea was that Waymarking would replace them.

[+xeor_zella]

Ohh, I am not thinking about a cache like that. I am thinking of a cache without coordinates at all.

You mean Locationless () caches? Those used to exist, but they were all archived and locked on Dec 31, 2005. The idea was that Waymarking would replace them.

I was original thinking about normal cache except without coordinates, only hints on where the box was hidden..

[Pup Patrol]

I was original thinking about normal cache except without coordinates, only hints on where the box was hidden..

 

Without coordinates, it's not a geocache.

 

That would be a Letterbox, and those aren't published by Groundspeak. You can read about Letterboxing here:

 

http://www.atlasquest.com/

 

And here:

 

http://www.letterboxing.org/

 

Please take a few minutes to read the Guidelines. And then read them a few more times.

 

http://support.Groundspeak.com/index.php?pg=kb.book&id=11

 

In particular:

 

2.1. Listing Guidelines that Apply to All Geocaches

 

This page is an extension of our Geocache Listing Requirements / Guidelines.

 

[updated 4/23/2012]

 

1. Technical Requirements

 

1. Listings must contain accurate GPS coordinates. You must visit the cache location and obtain the coordinates with a GPS device. GPS usage is an integral and essential element of both hiding and seeking caches and must be demonstrated for all cache submissions. Projecting waypoints from a specific location already defined by set of coordinates is permissible. For geocaches that include additional waypoints see the guidelines specific to those cache types.

 

 

 

B.

[+NanCycle]

And yet, just a few months ago a ? cache placed just 165 ft from an existing cache was published. (OK, nobody's perfect.)

Mistakes do happen, but also be aware that many of the older ? and multi caches that were created before the "additional waypoints" feature was introduced, do not have their finals in the system. So a reviewer can't know if a new cache is placed too close.

 

Did you not read my post? I said the ? cache was published just a few months ago (about 6 months I think) The existing cache (placed about a year and a half earlier) was not a ? or multi cache, so knowing or not knowing the final waypoint was not an issue.

Can you point out where in your post that you specified the type of the existing cache? Is it in some special invisible font? Do I need a UV light to see it?

 

No, it's true that I didn't specify the type of the existing cache. Since I knew it was a traditional, it didn't occur to me that anyone would assume that it was a ? or multi. Sorry if I misled you.

[+eagsc7]

I was original thinking about normal cache except without coordinates, only hints on where the box was hidden..

 

Without coordinates, it's not a geocache.

 

That would be a Letterbox, and those aren't published by Groundspeak. You can read about Letterboxing here:

 

But Letterboxes ARE a cache Type supported by Groundspeak, AND geocaching.com. I've set up a couple letterboxes, and though they DO have GPS coordinates, the Final is Hidden from everyone except reviewers. You just have to make sure to put in rather detailed directions.

 

The Steaks

[+Gitchee-Gummee]

I was original thinking about normal cache except without coordinates, only hints on where the box was hidden..

 

Without coordinates, it's not a geocache.

 

That would be a Letterbox, and those aren't published by Groundspeak. You can read about Letterboxing here:

 

But Letterboxes ARE a cache Type supported by Groundspeak, AND geocaching.com. I've set up a couple letterboxes, and though they DO have GPS coordinates, the Final is Hidden from everyone except reviewers. You just have to make sure to put in rather detailed directions.

 

The Steaks

Letterboxes and Letterbox Hybrids are similar, but they are different animals. Letterboxes ARE NOT supported by Groundspeak or geocaching.com whereas Letterbox Hybrids are.

 

So.... the coordinates requirement "statement" IS correct.

Edited May 24, 2012 by Gitchee-Gummee

[Pup Patrol]

I was original thinking about normal cache except without coordinates, only hints on where the box was hidden..

 

Without coordinates, it's not a geocache.

 

That would be a Letterbox, and those aren't published by Groundspeak. You can read about Letterboxing here:

 

But Letterboxes ARE a cache Type supported by Groundspeak, AND geocaching.com. I've set up a couple letterboxes, and though they DO have GPS coordinates, the Final is Hidden from everyone except reviewers. You just have to make sure to put in rather detailed directions.

 

The Steaks

 

No, "Letterbox Hybrids" are a cache type published by Groundspeak. They are completely different than "real" letterboxing.

 

Please read my post again...I gave the links to two Letterboxing sites that are not "geocaching" and are not affiliated with Groundspeak.

 

 

B.

[+Papa EGTH]

Ohh, I am not thinking about a cache like that. I am thinking of a cache without coordinates at all.

You mean Locationless () caches? Those used to exist, but they were all archived and locked on Dec 31, 2005. The idea was that Waymarking would replace them.

I was original thinking about normal cache except without coordinates, only hints on where the box was hidden..

The closest cache type to your description would be either a Letterbox Hybrid or a Multi Cache.

 

The Letterbox Hybrid usually involves starting at a certain point and provides written directions to get the finder to the container. This cache type is expected to have a stamp in the container for the finder to stamp in their "Letterbox log". When I think Letterbox Hybrid I think of a cache like this: racecar

 

I have done Multi Caches with descriptions that do not have a requirement for a stamp. The most recent I have found was the Greenbelt Tour Jumble

[+xeor_zella]

Thanks for the tips, I will look into letterbox hybrids..

[+The A-Team]

Thanks for the tips, I will look into letterbox hybrids..

Just keep in mind that Letterbox Hybrids require at least some GPS use, and there needs to be a final container at a fixed location.

[+Don_J]

Thanks for the tips, I will look into letterbox hybrids..

Just keep in mind that Letterbox Hybrids require at least some GPS use, and there needs to be a final container at a fixed location.

 

And, as clarified in the last guideline revision, it must include a stamp.

[Keystone]

It's not going to happen. There were two big problems with the movable caches. Proximity to other caches and the cache owner was required to submit corrected coordinates each time the cache was moved.

I'd list two other problems as "big" from the era of moving caches.

 

-- Placing the moving cache into an area where geocaches were not allowed or were regulated. Bad for land manager relations. Often caused by travelers bringing the cache from their home area to a vacation destination and plunking it down without knowing local rules for geocaches.

 

-- Geocacher takes moving cache while traveling, but doesn't get around to reporting the new location for two weeks. Meanwhile, geocachers tear up the ground zero area at the old location, looking for something that is no longer there.