Separate the puzzle caches from challenge caches

[+Team OPJim]

What kind of caches are designated with a question mark?

1. Puzzle caches: the posted coordinates are incorrect, instead you have to solve a puzzle to find the real ones. This is a particularly popular type of cache with some people

2. Challenge caches: the posted coordinates are correct, but you have to accomplish something (say find 10 other caches with a certain criteria: the Delorme Challenge is a good example). There are far fewer of these.

 

Currently, both appear under the same cache type. The unknown/puzzle cache type appears to be the general wastebasket for caches that don't fit another category. This is confusing, because some people may like one type but not the other.

 

I proposed that it is time to separate them into two cache types. The puzzle cache can remain with the question mark. The Challenge cache can have a new symbol: I don't have a current preference.

 

The CO could be asked to designate which type of cache their current unknown/puzzle cache is. This would not be onerous.

 

Thoughts from other cachers?

[+lamoracke]

I agree with you, but there are 2 problems I foresee.

 

one, to do this, you would have to come up with a concise clear definition between the two and there would have to most likely be clean up of the existing ones to change them (which I would love to be a part of if such a task was ever done). You would also have to distinguish between series and challenge caches. Is the PEACE series a challenge cache? Is a challenge cache when its one person saying you must find just their caches? Different owners? 3 cache requirement? 10 or more? 5 or more? I am not going to go into definitions here, but if you look at the litany ofchallenge caches out there, to try and distinguish a puzzle vs a series and a challenge in every case is a little challenging as there is no concise definition that is established.

 

two, and this is the clincher, Jeremy has told me to my face that he has no desire to do this. Maybe he will change his mind some day, but unless there is a torrent of demand for this (and it seems rarely anything in the forums is a demand for any one issue), I doubt this will change.

 

as I said, if done right with the older ones fixed, I would LOVE this idea to happen. I would personally volunteer my time for this project if this could happen. This has been brought up before in the forums and the suggestion boards.

Edited August 28, 2012 by lamoracke

[+tozainamboku]

Mystery or Puzzle Caches

 

The "catch-all" of cache types, this form of geocache may involve complicated puzzles that you will first need to solve to determine the coordinates. Mystery/Puzzle Caches often become the staging ground for new and unique geocaches that do not fit in another category.

So if we were to split mystery caches into Puzzle caches and Challenge caches, what would server as the "catch-all" where new and unique caches go?

 

Challenge caches ended up as Mystery/Puzzle due to their history. The original challenge caches probably fit the category a little better since they were not at the posted coordinates. You had to email the cache owner with proof that you met the challenge in order to get the coordinates for the cache.

 

Later we had a period when "Additional Logging Requirements" (ALR) became popular. After several complaints, the guidelines were changed so that ALR caches had to be listed as the Mystery/Puzzle type. The reasoning was that since you couldn't be sure if such a cache was at the stated coordinates, you would read the cache page before you searched and would know about any ALR before you hunted the cache. Most ALR caches were at the posted coordinates.

 

During this period, reviewers began publishing more challenges, since they could now fall under the ALR guidelines. Previously, challenges were rare because they needed Groundspeak permission to deal with issue of emailing for the coordinates. When ALR caches were banned, there was an exception made for challenges. Not only did they remain, but under new guidelines, reviewers could continue to publish them.

 

Of course this is an annoyance for people who like puzzles. In the past, most(but not all) mystery caches were puzzles. The few that weren't were simple enough to ignore (though perhaps there was still a mystery about them than attracted the same people).

 

Challenges too are popular among certain geocachers. Of course here there are many bookmark lists. And the current guidelines require challenge caches to have "Challenge" in the name, so they are pretty easy to distinguish from other mystery caches.

 

It's not clear to me that we need another cache type. I worry that there will be a lot of confusion about a new type. IMO, it is onerous to ask cache owners to designate what type of cache they own. I suspect, however, that if a a new type was added it would be for challenge caches and at least those that meet the new guideline might be identifiable as such. But I suspect that there will be "misclassified" caches for years.

 

I personally would like to see Geocaching challenges handled some way other then by designating that certain caches can only be logged as "Found" online if you complete a challenge, requiring someone who finds the cache but hasn't completed the challenge to log a note or nothing at all. This was the reason ALR caches were banned and is makes no sense to me that challenge caches are treated differently. So for me, creating a new cache type would only reinforce the commitment to keep such things around. As it stands now, it would be much easier to grandfather these caches (or ban them outright like other ALR caches).

[+CanadianRockies]

What kind of caches are designated with a question mark?

1. Puzzle caches: the posted coordinates are incorrect, instead you have to solve a puzzle to find the real ones. This is a particularly popular type of cache with some people

2. Challenge caches: the posted coordinates are correct, but you have to accomplish something (say find 10 other caches with a certain criteria: the Delorme Challenge is a good example). There are far fewer of these.

 

Currently, both appear under the same cache type. The unknown/puzzle cache type appears to be the general wastebasket for caches that don't fit another category. This is confusing, because some people may like one type but not the other.

 

I proposed that it is time to separate them into two cache types. The puzzle cache can remain with the question mark. The Challenge cache can have a new symbol: I don't have a current preference.

 

The CO could be asked to designate which type of cache their current unknown/puzzle cache is. This would not be onerous.

 

Thoughts from other cachers?

Actually, the "Unknown" cache type includes more than just puzzles and challenges. Groundspeak mentions the following:

* Puzzle caches

* Challenge caches

* Night caches

* Beacon caches

* Bonus caches

* Other caches

 

I guess Groundspeak could split the "Unknown" caches into these six types. But I suppose someone else would come along and point out that "Other" caches include multiple types that should be further divided out.

 

I like that there are special attributes to help separate the "Night" and "Beacon" caches, and I wish there was a new attribute for "Challenge" caches. But I'm not holding my breath.

[+Team OPJim]

two, and this is the clincher, Jeremy has told me to my face that he has no desire to do this. Maybe he will change his mind some day, but unless there is a torrent of demand for this (and it seems rarely anything in the forums is a demand for any one issue), I doubt this will change.

Forgive my ignorance, but who is Jeremy?

[+The A-Team]

two, and this is the clincher, Jeremy has told me to my face that he has no desire to do this. Maybe he will change his mind some day, but unless there is a torrent of demand for this (and it seems rarely anything in the forums is a demand for any one issue), I doubt this will change.

Forgive my ignorance, but who is Jeremy?

First on the list

[+Singletree Expedition]

...

 

I proposed that it is time to separate them into two cache types. The puzzle cache can remain with the question mark. The Challenge cache can have a new symbol: I don't have a current preference.

 

...

 

Thoughts from other cachers?

 

Yes, yes, yes. +1, +1, +1

 

Puzzles can remain the "catch-all" for new ideas.

Challenge Caches are unique and deserve their own cache type.

 

Here's a list of 4,647 caches that may be eligible for the new type:

http://www.geocaching.com/bookmarks/view.aspx?guid=0a3e1a81-39d8-45c9-bfb3-7fe026bf883d

 

This would provide value for those interested in completing challenge caches as well as those preferring to ignore them.

[AZcachemeister]

Nope.

It works perfectly the way it is IF you really understand that the ? means:

 

You had better read the cache page so you know what you are getting into.

 

Maybe the co-ordinates are bogus...it's a Puzzle.

Maybe there are logging requirements...it's a Challenge.

Maybe it's a CHIRP cache...you need to own a specific brand and model of GPSr.

Etc.

 

I believe Challenge caches are recommended (if not required) to have the word CHALLENGE in the title for easy identification.

 

Who is Jeremy?

Really??

[+Singletree Expedition]

Nope.

It works perfectly the way it is IF you really understand that the ? means:

 

You had better read the cache page so you know what you are getting into.

 

...

 

Would this not also hold true for an Earthcache, Event, Wherigo, Virtual, Webcam, CITO, Letterbox Hybrid, and many Multi-caches?

(not to mention all of those other cache types such as block party, exhibits, etc.)

 

...

I believe Challenge caches are recommended (if not required) to have the word CHALLENGE in the title for easy identification.

...

 

Yes, that is in the written specifications. But is a naming convention really the best way to handle? It seems more like a workaround.

[+lamoracke]

yes, all new Challenges have to have the word Challenge but all caches with the word challenge in it are not challenges.

[+GrievousAngel]

Nope.

 

This is the category for miscellaneous caches that don't fit into one of the other types. All you need to do is real the page!

 

If we separated the "puzzles" and the challenges, what would we do with the rare cache that is at the posted coords but listed as a mystery/puzzle because the reviewer and the CO wanted cachers to be aware of some special issue with the cache--I can think of two (one now archived) like that in my area--or the brand-new original idea (there must be some)?

 

And then we'd have to separate the "puzzles" that are really puzzles from the "puzzles" that are "quizzes" where you just google stuff--and then the real puzzles from the illogical read--my-mind ones--and the field puzzles from the paper-and-pencil types--and . . . .

 

Leave the categories as they are and read the cache page.

[+DanOCan]

I think the current cache types are fine. The more granular you get the more chances there are for errors.

I have no problem with reading the description of any '?' caches and deciding if it interests me or not.

[+The A-Team]

If we separated the "puzzles" and the challenges, what would we do with the rare cache that is at the posted coords but listed as a mystery/puzzle because the reviewer and the CO wanted cachers to be aware of some special issue with the cache--I can think of two (one now archived) like that in my area--or the brand-new original idea (there must be some)?

 

And then we'd have to separate the "puzzles" that are really puzzles from the "puzzles" that are "quizzes" where you just google stuff--and then the real puzzles from the illogical read--my-mind ones--and the field puzzles from the paper-and-pencil types--and . . . .

It helps if you don't think of all the non-challenges as "puzzles". The puzzle/mystery/unknown cache type is officially the "catch-all" type, and contains lots of caches that aren't puzzles. If a cache doesn't fit one of the other cache types, it falls under this cache type. If challenges were split out into their own type, all the others would just stay as they are. There's no need to additionally sub-split puzzles.

 

Personally, I don't really have a preference either way. I'd be just fine if challenges got their own type, and I'd be just fine if they didn't.

[+GrievousAngel]

If we separated the "puzzles" and the challenges, what would we do with the rare cache that is at the posted coords but listed as a mystery/puzzle because the reviewer and the CO wanted cachers to be aware of some special issue with the cache--I can think of two (one now archived) like that in my area--or the brand-new original idea (there must be some)?

 

And then we'd have to separate the "puzzles" that are really puzzles from the "puzzles" that are "quizzes" where you just google stuff--and then the real puzzles from the illogical read--my-mind ones--and the field puzzles from the paper-and-pencil types--and . . . .

It helps if you don't think of all the non-challenges as "puzzles". The puzzle/mystery/unknown cache type is officially the "catch-all" type, and contains lots of caches that aren't puzzles. If a cache doesn't fit one of the other cache types, it falls under this cache type. If challenges were split out into their own type, all the others would just stay as they are. There's no need to additionally sub-split puzzles.

 

Personally, I don't really have a preference either way. I'd be just fine if challenges got their own type, and I'd be just fine if they didn't.

 

Mea culpa--I should have added a smiley to my post!

[AZcachemeister]

Nope.

It works perfectly the way it is IF you really understand that the ? means:

 

You had better read the cache page so you know what you are getting into.

 

...

 

Would this not also hold true for an Earthcache, Event, Wherigo, Virtual, Webcam, CITO, Letterbox Hybrid, and many Multi-caches?

(not to mention all of those other cache types such as block party, exhibits, etc.)

 

 

Actually, I'm a firm believer in reading EVERY cache description. (Well, the ones I'm going to look for anyways...)

[+tallglenn]

LOVE the challenge caches, they inspire me. However, solving puzzles is tedious and tiresome IMHO. It is dreadful having to look up sports stats when I have absolutely zero interest in sports. I usually don't include puzzle caches in my PQs for this reason, as the majority are the solving type. I for one would like to see them separated

[+ColoradoTrekker]

I brought this up one time before and someone mentioned a solution that I really like. Instead of two different categories, all we really need is a new attribute (or two). Then you could separate out the caches that you like from the caches you don't want using a PQ. It wouldn't be too hard to implement that way either.

[+CanadianRockies]

I brought this up one time before and someone mentioned a solution that I really like. Instead of two different categories, all we really need is a new attribute (or two). Then you could separate out the caches that you like from the caches you don't want using a PQ. It wouldn't be too hard to implement that way either.

Adding a new attribute wouldn't be terribly difficult, although Groundspeak appears to want to keep the number down to a reasonably manageable level. The hard part of implementing such a change would be getting people to add the new attribute(s) to their cache pages (especially existing cache pages).

[+Team OPJim]

LOVE the challenge caches, they inspire me. However, solving puzzles is tedious and tiresome IMHO. It is dreadful having to look up sports stats when I have absolutely zero interest in sports. I usually don't include puzzle caches in my PQs for this reason, as the majority are the solving type. I for one would like to see them separated

While my feeling towards puzzle caches are more ambivalent than anything else, I too would like to be able to separate them out. I agree that I would rather spend my time out caching as opposed to doing google searches. However, I really enjoy the challenge caches.