Jump to content

Cache classifications


Heli Leo

Recommended Posts

I am thinking about a regular sized cache disguised as an everyday object that would not be obvious as how to open it.The first stage would have a red herring component that would require further searching at those co-ordinates and then the 2nd stage would have the disguised final.

Link to comment

Well, I've seen newbies stumped by an ammo can, so I suppose the definition of a field puzzle is somewhat relative. But I'd say that if it seems like a puzzle to you (the cache owner), then list it as a mystery/puzzle cache.

 

Just because most mystery/puzzle caches have a puzzle to solve on the cache page, doesn't mean that that is the only kind of puzzle that should be listed as a mystery/puzzle cache. The type is a catch-all. Around here, if a multi-stage cache involves anything more than basic arithmetic, counting, copying digits (e.g., the last digit of a date on a plaque), projecting a distance and bearing, or things like that, then it is listed as a mystery/puzzle cache.

 

Edit to add: I don't think a red herring or decoy really rises to the level of a puzzle.

Edited by niraD
Link to comment

If the cacher is going to the listed coordinates on the web page to get the coordinates to another stage, it is a multi regardless of any amount of puzzle that may be involved. All three of my local reviewers have made it clear that there really isn't a lot of wiggle room here. If you must visit the listed coordinates in order to proceed, it's a multi.

Link to comment
While DonJ's local reviewers agree it would be a multi, other reviewers take a different approach. Contact your local reviewer and ask for their opinion.
Yep, there are local variations. On a recent trip to Massachusetts, I found a number of multi-stage caches that required copying numbers from signs/plaques (e.g., the third digit of the year xxx happened). Around here, in the San Francisco Bay area, such caches are consistently listed as multi-caches. Back there, they were consistently listed as mystery/puzzle caches.
Link to comment

According to the guidlines on this very website (found HERE), your idea would be a multi-cache.

 

1.Multi-Caches

The coordinates posted at the top of the cache listing are for the first stage of a multi-cache. Provide the coordinates of all subsequent stages of the multi-cache by using the Additional Waypoints feature. If you do not want the coordinates for the additional stages displayed to the public, mark them as "hidden." Only the cache owner, reviewers and Groundspeak lackeys can view hidden coordinates.

 

and

 

2.Mystery/Puzzle Caches

The information needed to solve this type cache must be available to the general community and the puzzle should be solvable from the information provided on the cache page. For many caches of this type, the coordinates listed are not of the actual cache location, but a general reference point, such as a nearby parking location. The posted coordinates should be no more than 1-2 miles (2-3 km) away from the true cache location. This allows the cache to show up on the appropriate vicinity searches and means that the mileage of Trackables passing through the cache will be reasonably accurate. Add the final set of coordinates and any additional waypoints to the cache listing before submitting for review.

 

Before you submit the cache listing, post a Note to Reviewer with an explanation of how the puzzle is solved. This log will auto-delete on publication.

 

A challenge cache is a variation of a puzzle cache that enhances the geocaching experience. It will typically require the cacher to meet a reasonable and positive Geocaching-, Waymarking- or Wherigo-related qualification. If you are thinking of creating such a cache, please review the additional specifications in our Knowledge Book article.

 

Cheers

Edited by Arndtwe
Link to comment

thanks for posting the guidelines, but I think many folks would agree that there are still many examples of caches that its impossible to get a clear forum consensus of what certain caches are given their situation. There are many examples of caches that are hybrids of puzzles and multis. Sure, a multi should have its first waypoint at the listed coordinates but many puzzles I have done do that too but are clearly puzzles in my opinion as various stages of the cache have puzzles to solve on site (or research in the field which is not located on the cache page).

 

in this case, if the final cache is not too difficult, I would call it a multi as well.

Edited by lamoracke
Link to comment

thanks for posting the guidelines, but I think many folks would agree that there are still many examples of caches that its impossible to get a clear forum consensus of what certain caches are given their situation. There are many examples of caches that are hybrids of puzzles and multis. Sure, a multi should have its first waypoint at the listed coordinates but many puzzles I have done do that too but are clearly puzzles in my opinion as various stages of the cache have puzzles to solve on site (or research in the field which is not located on the cache page).

 

in this case, if the final cache is not too difficult, I would call it a multi as well.

I don't disagree, you will find many varying answeers and opinions on the subject. However, for this specific situation, which is the only one that my post concerns, it should be a multi-cache. Puzzle/mystery/unknown listings are for puzzles that when solved, produce a location (coordinates, specifically) not just a way into the container at a location you already found. If no puzzle is used in any form to hide the location of any stage, it is not a puzzle.

 

Even if this specific cache was a single stage with the "puzzle" to open the cache, it would still not qualify for being listed as a puzzle/mystery/unknown. It would simply be a traditional with a twist. In this case since there is multiple containers, the first of which is a "traditional" style hide and last being this unique container of sorts, it should then be listed as a multi-cache.

 

TL;DR; If no coordinates are masked by riddle/puzzle etc., then it is not a puzzle/mystery/unknown type cache. It is traditional if only one container, and multi if more than one container.

Link to comment
Puzzle/mystery/unknown listings are for puzzles that when solved, produce a location (coordinates, specifically)
While mystery/puzzle listings are for puzzles that when solved, produce a location, mystery/puzzle listings are not exclusively for puzzles that when solved, produce a location. As the Geocache Types page says (emphasis added): "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."

 

And even when the solved puzzle produces a location, it is not required that the location be in the form of coordinates. The requirement is only that "GPS usage is an integral and essential element", not that every stage of the cache process involve GPS usage.

Link to comment

thanks for posting the guidelines, but I think many folks would agree that there are still many examples of caches that its impossible to get a clear forum consensus of what certain caches are given their situation. There are many examples of caches that are hybrids of puzzles and multis. Sure, a multi should have its first waypoint at the listed coordinates but many puzzles I have done do that too but are clearly puzzles in my opinion as various stages of the cache have puzzles to solve on site (or research in the field which is not located on the cache page).

 

in this case, if the final cache is not too difficult, I would call it a multi as well.

 

They are clearly puzzles in my opinion too, but according to the guidelines, if you have to visit the listed coordinates to start, it's a multi. When these types of caches started popping in in my area, I questioned the CO and he forwarded the Reviewer Note where it was made clear.

 

It would be nice if people used the Field Puzzle attribute, so I could filter them out of my PQs.

Link to comment
Puzzle/mystery/unknown listings are for puzzles that when solved, produce a location (coordinates, specifically)
While mystery/puzzle listings are for puzzles that when solved, produce a location, mystery/puzzle listings are not exclusively for puzzles that when solved, produce a location. As the Geocache Types page says (emphasis added): "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."

 

And even when the solved puzzle produces a location, it is not required that the location be in the form of coordinates. The requirement is only that "GPS usage is an integral and essential element", not that every stage of the cache process involve GPS usage.

Yes, it is a catch-all... but only for things that cannot be defined by other cache types that are in existance.

 

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.

 

We are not discussing general geocache hides. We are discussing a specific idea brought forth by a cacher. Their idea fits a cache type that is not a catch-all... this type is: multi-cache.

 

I completely agree with what you have stated for general purposes, but in this particluar instance multi-cache fits the bill perfectly. Guidelines suggest that you should be able to "solve" the puzzle from the cache page. This doesn't seem to qualify, not in my opinoin.

Link to comment

thanks for posting the guidelines, but I think many folks would agree that there are still many examples of caches that its impossible to get a clear forum consensus of what certain caches are given their situation. There are many examples of caches that are hybrids of puzzles and multis. Sure, a multi should have its first waypoint at the listed coordinates but many puzzles I have done do that too but are clearly puzzles in my opinion as various stages of the cache have puzzles to solve on site (or research in the field which is not located on the cache page).

 

in this case, if the final cache is not too difficult, I would call it a multi as well.

 

I just focused in on that last line. Difficulty is way too subjective to be a litmus test. What is simply to some is unsolvable to others, (me).

Link to comment

Guidelines suggest that you should be able to "solve" the puzzle from the cache page. This doesn't seem to qualify, not in my opinoin.

 

The guidelines are open to interpretation. I don't believe the statement "the puzzle should be solvable from the information provided on the cache page." means there can not be multiple stages and also field puzzles.

 

I would list the cache described by the CO as a multi-cache with a field puzzle, though I think puzzle/mystery is also valid, as there is a puzzle element required.

Link to comment

Guidelines suggest that you should be able to "solve" the puzzle from the cache page. This doesn't seem to qualify, not in my opinoin.

 

The guidelines are open to interpretation. I don't believe the statement "the puzzle should be solvable from the information provided on the cache page." means there can not be multiple stages and also field puzzles.

 

I would list the cache described by the CO as a multi-cache with a field puzzle, though I think puzzle/mystery is also valid, as there is a puzzle element required.

I agree with this as well. But it is implied that in order to get to the first stage you should have to solve a puzzle from the cache page. Otherwise it should be listed as a multi-cache.

 

As far as the guidlines being open to interpretation... I disagree. But that is not a debate for this thread.

Link to comment

But it is implied that in order to get to the first stage you should have to solve a puzzle from the cache page. Otherwise it should be listed as a multi-cache.

 

I agree that if there is no puzzle, and multiple stages it should be listed as a multi. But it is perfectly valid to have a puzzle cache where the posted coordinates take you to a physical first stage. One example: A puzzle which involves cracking a cipher, and the key to the cipher is hidden at the posted coordinates.

Link to comment
We are not discussing general geocache hides. We are discussing a specific idea brought forth by a cacher.
Yes and no. Yes, the thread is about a specific idea described by the OP. But in the process, a lot of people have posted general principles to support their views about the specific idea described by the OP.

 

I agree that the specific idea described by the OP probably fits the existing multi-cache type (although there may still be undisclosed details that would IMHO push it into the mystery/puzzle type). But during the discussion, people have posted general principles that I don't necessarily agree with, at least in the absolute form they were posted in. For example:

 

But it is implied that in order to get to the first stage you should have to solve a puzzle from the cache page. Otherwise it should be listed as a multi-cache.
As a general rule of thumb, sure. As an absolute, no. I've found a number of mystery/puzzle caches that were located at the posted coordinates, or where I had to go to the posted coordinates to start working on the cache, but they still had a significant puzzle aspect and the mystery/puzzle type was more appropriate than the traditional or multi-cache types.
Link to comment

But it is implied that in order to get to the first stage you should have to solve a puzzle from the cache page. Otherwise it should be listed as a multi-cache.

 

I agree that if there is no puzzle, and multiple stages it should be listed as a multi. But it is perfectly valid to have a puzzle cache where the posted coordinates take you to a physical first stage. One example: A puzzle which involves cracking a cipher, and the key to the cipher is hidden at the posted coordinates.

 

Yes, there are several of these locally by the same CO. He forwarded the Reviewer note to me, where the reviewer told him to change it from a puzzle to a multi before it would be published. It was also suggested that he apply the Field Puzzle attribute.

Link to comment
We are not discussing general geocache hides. We are discussing a specific idea brought forth by a cacher.
Yes and no. Yes, the thread is about a specific idea described by the OP. But in the process, a lot of people have posted general principles to support their views about the specific idea described by the OP.

 

I agree that the specific idea described by the OP probably fits the existing multi-cache type (although there may still be undisclosed details that would IMHO push it into the mystery/puzzle type). But during the discussion, people have posted general principles that I don't necessarily agree with, at least in the absolute form they were posted in. For example:

 

But it is implied that in order to get to the first stage you should have to solve a puzzle from the cache page. Otherwise it should be listed as a multi-cache.
As a general rule of thumb, sure. As an absolute, no. I've found a number of mystery/puzzle caches that were located at the posted coordinates, or where I had to go to the posted coordinates to start working on the cache, but they still had a significant puzzle aspect and the mystery/puzzle type was more appropriate than the traditional or multi-cache types.

Point taken. And taken well at that :D

 

We may have our differnces, but all in all, I think we're on the same side. I appreciate the friendly discussion. It has been enlightening and educational for me. I hope you [all] have come away with the same thoughts.

 

Regards

Edited by Arndtwe
Link to comment
We are not discussing general geocache hides. We are discussing a specific idea brought forth by a cacher.
Yes and no. Yes, the thread is about a specific idea described by the OP. But in the process, a lot of people have posted general principles to support their views about the specific idea described by the OP.

 

I agree that the specific idea described by the OP probably fits the existing multi-cache type (although there may still be undisclosed details that would IMHO push it into the mystery/puzzle type). But during the discussion, people have posted general principles that I don't necessarily agree with, at least in the absolute form they were posted in. For example:

 

But it is implied that in order to get to the first stage you should have to solve a puzzle from the cache page. Otherwise it should be listed as a multi-cache.
As a general rule of thumb, sure. As an absolute, no. I've found a number of mystery/puzzle caches that were located at the posted coordinates, or where I had to go to the posted coordinates to start working on the cache, but they still had a significant puzzle aspect and the mystery/puzzle type was more appropriate than the traditional or multi-cache types.

Point taken. And taken well at that :D

 

We may have our differnces, but all in all, I think we're on the same side. I appreciate the friendly discussion. It has been enlightening and educational for me. I hope you [all] have come away with the same thoughts.

 

Regards

 

As a general rule of thumb, if deriving a set of coordinates from information obtained while in the field involves anything more complex than basic arithmetic then, in *my* opinion it should be listed as a mystery/unknown. That's just my opinion though and I've seen a few multis listed that required obtaining a few numbers that had to be plugged into an algebraic formula to determine the final coordinates. The formula was complex enough that it was prone to math errors and, of course, a coordinates checker might not be available to most while out in the field.

Link to comment
How about a ruling on this one? Mystery or multi?

 

GC1ANQH - 407ETR at Bayview

I am not a lackey, so I can't give a ruling. But here's my opinion. From the description, it looks like a multi: go to the first stage, figure out where you are, plug the letters of that keyword into the formula. But from the logs, it looks like it isn't that obvious what the correct keyword is, so the CO may have strayed (intentionally or not) into mystery/puzzle territory. (And D1.5 might be low.)

 

But this is also the kind of cache that I would expect to bring out differences in local expectations, and I am not at all familiar with Ontario geocaching customs.

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...