Is it wrong for a puzzle be posted as a Traditional

[+Misha]

Hello Geocachers,

 

I am seeing more and more caches that in my opinion should be Mystery caches being posted as Traditional hides. These caches include having to do math, complete a puzzle, solve something, etc. These are fine for puzzle caches, IMHO. Traditional caches are said to be find the cache, sign log, done. Where as a puzzle requires the users get additional requirements in order to get credit either before or at the scene. If I am wrong then why do we have challenges and night caches as mysteries with their A.L.R. status? I am hoping for reviewer opinion (esp. Cache Tech - Cache Agent)

 

Examples: Traditionals

cube cache (Cacher must get a ball to a spot to unlock door on a container to access logsheet)

http://coord.info/GC3XR6H

 

BYOB A cache for Jim52 and Hillbilly Bob (You must bring your own battery then wire a circuit correctly)

http://coord.info/GC3AM15

 

2ool Tyme Too

http://coord.info/GC3M91J

 

Setup as a Mystery, as I would expect them to be!

? Tool Time

http://coord.info/GC3AKY3

 

Thanks for any insight.

 

Misha

[+The_Incredibles_]

Technically, I think these should have been listed as puzzles. However, I have seen caches like these here that are listed as traditionals. My guess is the owners chose 'traditional' because the caches are at the listed coordinates. I could also see these caches getting less traffic if they were listed as puzzles.

[+Lil Devil]

Examples: Traditionals

cube cache (Cacher must get a ball to a spot to unlock door on a container to access logsheet)

http://coord.info/GC3XR6H

 

BYOB A cache for Jim52 and Hillbilly Bob (You must bring your own battery then wire a circuit correctly)

http://coord.info/GC3AM15

These two correctly have the Field Puzzle attribute so I don't see a problem.

 

2ool Tyme Too

http://coord.info/GC3M91J

From what I can tell, a tool to open the container is provided. But some cachers, myself included, already happen to carry various tools in their pack. Of course I haven't found this one so I don't know exactly what the tool is here, but I've found lots of caches that needed tools from tweezers to screwdrivers to pliers. Yawn.

 

Of course any of the above could have also been listed as Puzzles, but I think Traditional isn't wrong.

 

I am hoping for reviewer opinion

Well, I'm a reviewer so there ya go.

[+jellis]

Examples: Traditionals

cube cache (Cacher must get a ball to a spot to unlock door on a container to access logsheet)

http://coord.info/GC3XR6H

 

BYOB A cache for Jim52 and Hillbilly Bob (You must bring your own battery then wire a circuit correctly)

http://coord.info/GC3AM15

These two correctly have the Field Puzzle attribute so I don't see a problem.

 

2ool Tyme Too

http://coord.info/GC3M91J

From what I can tell, a tool to open the container is provided. But some cachers, myself included, already happen to carry various tools in their pack. Of course I haven't found this one so I don't know exactly what the tool is here, but I've found lots of caches that needed tools from tweezers to screwdrivers to pliers. Yawn.

 

Of course any of the above could have also been listed as Puzzles, but I think Traditional isn't wrong.

 

I am hoping for reviewer opinion

Well, I'm a reviewer so there ya go.

But I thought if it had a field puzzle attribute it would still be a puzzle and not a traditional. (excluding the multi)

Edited November 17, 2012 by jellis

[+tozainamboku]

For many people the definition of a puzzle cache is one that is not hidden at the posted posted coordinate and that is not a multi. I.e., you must solve a puzzle to determine the coordinates to search for a cache.

 

Of course the Mystery cache type has always been a catch-all for other cache ideas. So this is where Challenge Caches are listed and often cachers who have a created a mental or physical challenge to open the container will list them as this type. But it's difficult to decide what is a mental or physical challenge and what is meant to be something that an experienced cacher should have prepared for.

 

One thing that can be said about the Mystery type is that it signals you had better look at the cache page before searching for this cache. Many years ago as paperless geocaching was first becoming possible, cachers would often complain that they had loaded coordinates in their GPS only to get to the posted location an not know what to do. Over time, Groundspeak and Reviewers would question if caches should be listed as Mystery instead of Traditional. However the reviewers will generally publish a cache as a Traditional unless 1) there is nothing to find a the posted coordinates, 2) the cache is a challenge cache, or 3) the cache requires a device to detect a wireless beacon and there is no alternative way to find the cache.

 

Reviewers might suggest using the Special Took Required or Field Puzzle attribute.

[+The A-Team]

But I thought if it had a field puzzle attribute it would still be a puzzle and not a traditional. (excluding the multi)

There are no guidelines at all on usage of the available attributes. Anyone can use them in any way they wish.

[+SwineFlew]

Those caches look fine to me as unknown and I see them around here as well. There are a few unknown caches here that are really traditional when the puzzle is broken or bad links so the CO just posted the final coordinates on the cache page instead of archived the unknown cache but that isnt the point of this thread.

[+NeverSummer]

But I thought if it had a field puzzle attribute it would still be a puzzle and not a traditional. (excluding the multi)

There are no guidelines at all on usage of the available attributes. Anyone can use them in any way they wish.

That may be true, but attributes are meant to be a tool to aide in the hunt for a cache. Stealth, Kid Friendly, 24/7, etc really only should be applied in cases that are true. Just because one can put the Field Puzzle attribute on a Traditional doesn't mean they got the cache type correct.

 

Now, it's great to have a Reviewer weigh in, but what is geocaching.com's stance? I think that the variation in the interpretation of guidelines by Reviewers demonstrates that this might need to be clarified. (Don't get me wrong, I know it is a tough thing to be a Reviewer, and each is entitled to their style I suppose. This isn't meant to be an attack on Reviewers, simply a statement that this might need to be clarified with this case of applicable use of attributes and cache types.)

[+palmetto]

Hi Misha, another reviewer response, and like Hemlock I think the caches you've linked to are all fine as published.

 

In your opening post you wrote, "Traditional caches are said to be find the cache, sign log, done." Said by whom? not Geocaching.com, though maybe by some cachers. NeverSummer asks, "but what is geocaching.com's stance?". There's a definition of each cache type in the guidelines.

 

http://www.geocaching.com/about/guidelines.aspx#traditional

 

A traditional cache consists of at least a container and logbook and is located at the posted coordinates.

 

There's nothing in that definition that about not needing to read the cache page, or do some work on site to get your signature on the log.

 

From time to time, people paw through these forums and find a statement by Jeremy about traditional caches not requiring much beyond find/sign/log,

in an old thread about Additional Logging Requirements. His reference was to the additional logging requirements, not a general statement that all a trad could be was coords. At that time, a cache owner could place a Traditional cache and require that in addition to signing the log, you had log in haiku or email them with name of the actor that the location reminded them of. Folks would find and sign, but not read the cache page closely (or at all) and miss the ALR, then have their log deleted. The solution for a time was to put ALR caches in the Mystery category. Later the solution was to make them go away, with an exception that allowed challenge caches to continue in the Mystery category.

[+dprovan]

So now we've heard that the official word is that there's nothing wrong with them, and I agree.

 

Having said that, I prefer such caches be flagged as unknown caches to give me a fighting chance of coming prepared. I very often find myself caching somewhere with no advanced noticed to allow me to peruse the descriptions carefully on-line and discover which caches require that I bring a quart of water or whatever. An unknown type helps me avoid walking out of my way and searching for a cache when I can't possibly complete its challenge.

 

One danger is that the surprise element of the cache will spark "creative" (i.e., damaging) solutions to the presented problem, either intentionally through spite, or accidentally because the true nature of the challenge is not recognized.

[+CanadianRockies]

But I thought if it had a field puzzle attribute it would still be a puzzle and not a traditional. (excluding the multi)

There are no guidelines at all on usage of the available attributes. Anyone can use them in any way they wish.

I'm aware of at least one guideline on the usage of one attribute.

 

All caches that utilize a beacon must have the "beacon" attribute (pictured above) on the cache page.

[+tozainamboku]

I'm aware of at least one guideline on the usage of one attribute.

 

All caches that utilize a beacon must have the "beacon" attribute (pictured above) on the cache page.

The beacon even goes beyond this. Unless there is an alternative way to find the cache without the beacon the cache has to be listed as a Mystery.

[+geodarts]

It apparently is not "wrong" and I have seen several traditionals that involve some sort of added puzzle component. But I do think it is misguided. To me, if you have to do something extra (whether it be to figure out the lock combination or run a ball through a maze), the cache should be marked as a question mark. Many people have units that do not support attributes and work from pocket queries, so it seems polite to give people as much warning as possible. In view of the prevailing standards, I will probably change my pocket queries to ignore caches with the field puzzle attribute.

 

On the other side of the equation, I have a standard multi that some people think involves a field puzzle -- the attribute clearly states that there is no field puzzle, it is listed as a multi, and the cache description contains several clues to alert people to this. Yet, people ignore the subtle and try figure out what to do to solve the apparent puzzle. To be fair there are quite of few corks in the container, some of which have useless numbers on them. But the cache "honors" someone who had a penchant for prison breaks around 150-160 years ago and the qualities that made him successful -- not getting distracted and paying attention to detail -- are important to this one. It is my only premium member cache because I wanted to limit the frustration. But sometimes it does help to pay attention to attributes.

[+Corp Of Discovery]

What about the other side of the coin? I know of at least one cache that is at the posted coordinates and has nothing for you to do other than go there and sign the log. It's listed as a puzzle/mystery.

[+tozainamboku]

What about the other side of the coin? I know of at least one cache that is at the posted coordinates and has nothing for you to do other than go there and sign the log. It's listed as a puzzle/mystery.

Since the Puzzle/Mystery is a catch-all, it would be pretty difficult to argue soemething doesn't belong there. However, there are probable a few caches that started being listed as puzzle/mystery because the there was a puzzle involved in opening the cache up at one time. The owner may have eventually tired of the extra maintenance involve and replace it with a regular container.

 

I'm not sure where the idea that a traditional couldn't have some challenging component beyond terrain or camouflage comes from.

 

The argument I keep hearing is the same as was used against ALRs. A cacher loads traditional caches in their GPS without any description. Once at the cache site they discover a cache but have no way to retrieve or open the cache because they didn't bring the right TOTT, or don't have the description that contains hints or instructions for retrieving and opening the cache.

 

Perhaps what is needed is a cache type for "This cache is at the posted coordinates and requires no special tools or skills in order to sign the log."

 

Now this topic is difficult for me. I have argued here that signing the physical log is not always necessary for logging an online find. And what some people do in this case is to log a find because they found the cache container. So when a cache owner deletes their log they are a bit upset. At least if they knew which caches had a special challenge in signing the log book and a cache owner is going to delete logs if they don't meet this challenge, they could avoid these caches.

 

I think the basic problem is the disappointment most people have in a DNF. They went to look for a cache, but were not prepared for a special challenge. They have to log a DNF (or a at least not log the find). Rather than blaming their lack of preparation, they blame the cache owner for using the wrong type or the reviewer for publishing the cache a a traditional.

 

When I go out caching, I expect a certain number of DNFs. If I find a cache where the owner clearly intended to challenge me by putting it out of reach or requiring special tools to open the container I don't blame the owner for my lack of preparation. Instead I will post the DNF. I will decided whether or not I am going to try again, and if I do, I will come back prepared the next time.

[+Cubby&BigBear]

i feel qualified to answer on behalf of Critter as I've found these caches. they are in fact trads. you just need skill to get to the log sheet. check out the favourite points awarded, these caches are in a word....AMAZING!.

 

in the case of BYOB, that's a multi...and yes you DO need batteries. however the first stage is exactly where it should be. the batteries you need are in your gps. this was a super fun multi to do and a simple two stager. highly recommended!

 

in the case of Tool Time. again, the cache is exactly where it should be, but you need a tool to retrieve the log sheet. the tool IS there within a few meters of the cache.

 

Critter caches have a difficulty rating for a reason. they are hard! but oh so satisfying.

 

in my opinion they are listed correctly

[+Don_J]

So now we've heard that the official word is that there's nothing wrong with them, and I agree.

 

Having said that, I prefer such caches be flagged as unknown caches to give me a fighting chance of coming prepared. I very often find myself caching somewhere with no advanced noticed to allow me to peruse the descriptions carefully on-line and discover which caches require that I bring a quart of water or whatever. An unknown type helps me avoid walking out of my way and searching for a cache when I can't possibly complete its challenge.

 

One danger is that the surprise element of the cache will spark "creative" (i.e., damaging) solutions to the presented problem, either intentionally through spite, or accidentally because the true nature of the challenge is not recognized.

 

I make it a habit not to walk out of my way without reading the description first. If it's just another cache in the city, I can come back, or not.

 

I do understand getting "creative" to get to the cache or log. My friend had dropped a pill bottle with a magnet on top, way down an old fence-less chain link fence post. The idea was to drop a metal nut down the post on a string in order to fish the cache out. A group from out of town figured out the hide but didn't have the necessary tools, so they rammed the post with their rental car enough times to loosen it, and then just ripped it out of the ground. I have also seen more than one "water" cache that had been ripped off of what it was attached to. One of them was on a 4X4 post that secured a water tap that had a two foot section of hose on it.

[+NeverSummer]

So now we've heard that the official word is that there's nothing wrong with them, and I agree.

 

Having said that, I prefer such caches be flagged as unknown caches to give me a fighting chance of coming prepared. I very often find myself caching somewhere with no advanced noticed to allow me to peruse the descriptions carefully on-line and discover which caches require that I bring a quart of water or whatever. An unknown type helps me avoid walking out of my way and searching for a cache when I can't possibly complete its challenge.

 

One danger is that the surprise element of the cache will spark "creative" (i.e., damaging) solutions to the presented problem, either intentionally through spite, or accidentally because the true nature of the challenge is not recognized.

 

I make it a habit not to walk out of my way without reading the description first. If it's just another cache in the city, I can come back, or not.

 

I do understand getting "creative" to get to the cache or log. My friend had dropped a pill bottle with a magnet on top, way down an old fence-less chain link fence post. The idea was to drop a metal nut down the post on a string in order to fish the cache out. A group from out of town figured out the hide but didn't have the necessary tools, so they rammed the post with their rental car enough times to loosen it, and then just ripped it out of the ground. I have also seen more than one "water" cache that had been ripped off of what it was attached to. One of them was on a 4X4 post that secured a water tap that had a two foot section of hose on it.

This, yes.

 

However, like Cubby&BigBear said, these caches also have some extra components to them. As they have described them, they are more like Mystery/Unknown caches in presentation and physicality. That said, it can be important to classify caches "properly" (read: using some kind of common practice) in cases like Challenges that might require certain types of finds. To me (I know my opinion to someone else here matters little), if there is more than the step of getting to GZ and popping a cache open and signing a log, it isn't a traditional. If I need to press a secret latch, know a combination, or what have you, it is a little more than a traditional IMO.

[+Don_J]

So now we've heard that the official word is that there's nothing wrong with them, and I agree.

 

Having said that, I prefer such caches be flagged as unknown caches to give me a fighting chance of coming prepared. I very often find myself caching somewhere with no advanced noticed to allow me to peruse the descriptions carefully on-line and discover which caches require that I bring a quart of water or whatever. An unknown type helps me avoid walking out of my way and searching for a cache when I can't possibly complete its challenge.

 

One danger is that the surprise element of the cache will spark "creative" (i.e., damaging) solutions to the presented problem, either intentionally through spite, or accidentally because the true nature of the challenge is not recognized.

 

I make it a habit not to walk out of my way without reading the description first. If it's just another cache in the city, I can come back, or not.

 

I do understand getting "creative" to get to the cache or log. My friend had dropped a pill bottle with a magnet on top, way down an old fence-less chain link fence post. The idea was to drop a metal nut down the post on a string in order to fish the cache out. A group from out of town figured out the hide but didn't have the necessary tools, so they rammed the post with their rental car enough times to loosen it, and then just ripped it out of the ground. I have also seen more than one "water" cache that had been ripped off of what it was attached to. One of them was on a 4X4 post that secured a water tap that had a two foot section of hose on it.

This, yes.

 

However, like Cubby&BigBear said, these caches also have some extra components to them. As they have described them, they are more like Mystery/Unknown caches in presentation and physicality. That said, it can be important to classify caches "properly" (read: using some kind of common practice) in cases like Challenges that might require certain types of finds. To me (I know my opinion to someone else here matters little), if there is more than the step of getting to GZ and popping a cache open and signing a log, it isn't a traditional. If I need to press a secret latch, know a combination, or what have you, it is a little more than a traditional IMO.

 

What if it's in plain sight but 10' up a post? While I would prefer the Unknown type, or at least a Field Puzzle attribute for a puzzle box, by definition it can be listed as a Traditional. Traditional does not have to mean easy. The caches used as examples in the OP all had high D ratings. This should be a clue that you may have to do something out of the ordinary. Too many people feel that they have the right to simply load a PQ and then run around and find every cache without really having to work for it. Or, that they are such great cachers, they should be able to find all Traditionals without reading the descriptions. A cache that slows them down reduces the find count for the day.

[+NeverSummer]

So now we've heard that the official word is that there's nothing wrong with them, and I agree.

 

Having said that, I prefer such caches be flagged as unknown caches to give me a fighting chance of coming prepared. I very often find myself caching somewhere with no advanced noticed to allow me to peruse the descriptions carefully on-line and discover which caches require that I bring a quart of water or whatever. An unknown type helps me avoid walking out of my way and searching for a cache when I can't possibly complete its challenge.

 

One danger is that the surprise element of the cache will spark "creative" (i.e., damaging) solutions to the presented problem, either intentionally through spite, or accidentally because the true nature of the challenge is not recognized.

 

I make it a habit not to walk out of my way without reading the description first. If it's just another cache in the city, I can come back, or not.

 

I do understand getting "creative" to get to the cache or log. My friend had dropped a pill bottle with a magnet on top, way down an old fence-less chain link fence post. The idea was to drop a metal nut down the post on a string in order to fish the cache out. A group from out of town figured out the hide but didn't have the necessary tools, so they rammed the post with their rental car enough times to loosen it, and then just ripped it out of the ground. I have also seen more than one "water" cache that had been ripped off of what it was attached to. One of them was on a 4X4 post that secured a water tap that had a two foot section of hose on it.

This, yes.

 

However, like Cubby&BigBear said, these caches also have some extra components to them. As they have described them, they are more like Mystery/Unknown caches in presentation and physicality. That said, it can be important to classify caches "properly" (read: using some kind of common practice) in cases like Challenges that might require certain types of finds. To me (I know my opinion to someone else here matters little), if there is more than the step of getting to GZ and popping a cache open and signing a log, it isn't a traditional. If I need to press a secret latch, know a combination, or what have you, it is a little more than a traditional IMO.

 

What if it's in plain sight but 10' up a post? While I would prefer the Unknown type, or at least a Field Puzzle attribute for a puzzle box, by definition it can be listed as a Traditional. Traditional does not have to mean easy. The caches used as examples in the OP all had high D ratings. This should be a clue that you may have to do something out of the ordinary. Too many people feel that they have the right to simply load a PQ and then run around and find every cache without really having to work for it. Or, that they are such great cachers, they should be able to find all Traditionals without reading the descriptions. A cache that slows them down reduces the find count for the day.

Good point on the "D" ratings. It makes sense for the cache to be rated properly as well, no matter the type.

 

What is interesting is that most of the time I think of "D" ratings on a traditional to have more to do with how hard the cache might be to find in its surroundings, or how long you might need to be gone from a trailhead, etc.

 

When I see an Unknown cache, the description generally lets you know what you're getting into for the "D" rating. Knowing that the cache might require more effort to open the container than just...opening a container still makes me think "Unknown" and not "Traditional".

 

Check this one out: http://coord.info/GC2AHD4

[+BAMBOOZLE]

IMO a traditional cache SHOULD be at the posted co-ords, no tools, acrobatics, gymnastics,computers, cameras, or puzzles required to get at and sign the log. Anything other should be a mystery, puzzle, or whatever.

Again, not saying this is the rule but the way I think it should be.

[AZcachemeister]

Personally, I'd say a puzzle, is a puzzle, is a puzzle.

 

A 'Field Puzzle' is a subset of the puzzle type.

 

If the cache is at the listed co-ordinates, but you need to solve a puzzle to obtain access to the container (like a combination lock), then it is still a puzzle...and should be listed as such.

 

For a traditional cache I should not need to do any solving of any sort (either before visiting the site or when at the site) in order to be able to sign the log and consider it found.

[+Harry Dolphin]

GC3Z5JG

I have not tried this one yet. But most of the people who have have said that it is a multi-stage mystery cache, pretending to be a traditional.

[+tozainamboku]

If you want to use black and white definitions for cache types then it is understandable why caches like these are listed as traditional. A black and white definition would be something like

 

Traditional Cache - the cache is located at the listed coordinates.

 

Multi-Cache - the cache is not located at the listed coordinates, however there is something at the listed coordinates that will lead you to the cache (possible via intermediate stages)

 

Mystery Cache - any physical cache that does not fit in one of the other categories. Often the cache is not at the listed coordinates and you need to determine where the cache is located using the information in the cache listing.

 

Under these definitions, any type of cache can be a puzzle.

 

What has happened over the years is that these original definitions have been modified, in part to deal with community complaints about "incorrect" classifications and in part to deal with new types of caches without creating new "cache types". The colloquial use of Puzzle Cache for Mystery cache has also slipped into the official usage on Geocaching.com which has further confused the issue.

 

The development of "challenge caches" came out of the experiment to allow ALRs only on Mystery type caches. Prior to the ALR rule, the earliest challenge caches fit the original Mystery definition as they were not at the posted coordinates. However the requirement to email a qualifying list to the cache owner to get the true coordinates was problematic. The decision to allow ALRs if the cache was listed a Mystery allowed this technique to be applied to challenges as well. When ALRs were banned, Challenge Caches were allowed to remain as an exception.

 

At the time ALRs were banned, there was quite a bit of discussion on what made a puzzle box or a lock different from a requirement to post your log in haiku. The general consensus was that a challenge or puzzle that needed to be solved before signing the log was different than an ALR - or in the words of the often misinterpreted guideline "Physical caches can be logged online as "Found" once the physical log has been signed."

 

Of course that begs the question. If someone has a requirement "The electronic log in the cache must be signed" - is this an ALR? Is a paper log still required in the cache? But that is for a different thread.

 

Based on the discussion at the time, a puzzle component such a lock or requiring a tool to retrieve was not an ALR. However no guideline changes were made at the time to require these be listed as Mystery. The answer to the OP is that the caches are properly listed as Traditional.

 

However, this discussion seems to indicate that some people feel the guidelines need to be changed to call out certain puzzle elements that might be part of a traditional or multi-cache and require that going forward such caches be listed as Mystery. Personally, I don't think such a change is warranted. One issue is the difficulty in determining what is a puzzle component. After all, for some (maybe most) people, figuring out you can lift up lamppost skirts and look underneath them was a puzzle the first time; and I have to figure out how to unlatch an ammo can every time I fine one. I tend to doubt that a definition other than Potter Stewart's "I know it when I see it" can be agreed upon.

[+NeverSummer]

If you want to use black and white definitions for cache types then it is understandable why caches like these are listed as traditional. A black and white definition would be something like

 

Traditional Cache - the cache is located at the listed coordinates.

 

Multi-Cache - the cache is not located at the listed coordinates, however there is something at the listed coordinates that will lead you to the cache (possible via intermediate stages)

 

Mystery Cache - any physical cache that does not fit in one of the other categories. Often the cache is not at the listed coordinates and you need to determine where the cache is located using the information in the cache listing.

 

Under these definitions, any type of cache can be a puzzle.

 

What has happened over the years is that these original definitions have been modified, in part to deal with community complaints about "incorrect" classifications and in part to deal with new types of caches without creating new "cache types". The colloquial use of Puzzle Cache for Mystery cache has also slipped into the official usage on Geocaching.com which has further confused the issue.

 

The development of "challenge caches" came out of the experiment to allow ALRs only on Mystery type caches. Prior to the ALR rule, the earliest challenge caches fit the original Mystery definition as they were not at the posted coordinates. However the requirement to email a qualifying list to the cache owner to get the true coordinates was problematic. The decision to allow ALRs if the cache was listed a Mystery allowed this technique to be applied to challenges as well. When ALRs were banned, Challenge Caches were allowed to remain as an exception.

 

At the time ALRs were banned, there was quite a bit of discussion on what made a puzzle box or a lock different from a requirement to post your log in haiku. The general consensus was that a challenge or puzzle that needed to be solved before signing the log was different than an ALR - or in the words of the often misinterpreted guideline "Physical caches can be logged online as "Found" once the physical log has been signed."

 

Of course that begs the question. If someone has a requirement "The electronic log in the cache must be signed" - is this an ALR? Is a paper log still required in the cache? But that is for a different thread.

 

Based on the discussion at the time, a puzzle component such a lock or requiring a tool to retrieve was not an ALR. However no guideline changes were made at the time to require these be listed as Mystery. The answer to the OP is that the caches are properly listed as Traditional.

 

However, this discussion seems to indicate that some people feel the guidelines need to be changed to call out certain puzzle elements that might be part of a traditional or multi-cache and require that going forward such caches be listed as Mystery. Personally, I don't think such a change is warranted. One issue is the difficulty in determining what is a puzzle component. After all, for some (maybe most) people, figuring out you can lift up lamppost skirts and look underneath them was a puzzle the first time; and I have to figure out how to unlatch an ammo can every time I fine one. I tend to doubt that a definition other than Potter Stewart's "I know it when I see it" can be agreed upon.

You know, the "History of Geocaching" really needs to include these kinds of records. I know that this is how it all went down, but many don't. (And even fewer come to the forums) The timetable and process are helpful context for those who don't know about how we got to where we are now. The ALR thing was really going down in, what, 2009? So for some geocachers I see participating in the forums, they have no idea what led to the current guidelines, exclusions, and grandfathering scenarios.

 

The funniest part to me, however, is the conclusion you drew from the history. All of what you outlined seemed like it was leading to "the OP's examples show that there is more to the cache than simply arriving on site, finding the cache, opening a container, and signing a logbook."

 

I can see what you mean about lamp posts and ammo cans as a "puzzle" the first time you get there, but that can be quick to learn and also outlined in "D" ratings. If a cache container requires more than opening the container without hinderance, there's more to it. If it isn't clearly in the description (a combination, a code, or "bring 2 AA batteries so you can activate the switch"), and needs some "puzzling" at the site to open the container itself, it is a puzzle.

 

A LPC is more about "camouflage" than the container itself. A nano in a tree is very difficult, but it isn't a puzzle, even if it is wrapped in matching bark camo.

 

If the LPC or nano have some device required to open it when you get there, and it isn't clearly described in the cache page's description (not the hint), it isn't a "Traditional" in my opinion. I think that logic applies to what you listed above, and also your own points...up until you say you see the caches as "traditionals".

[+briansnat]

IMO a traditional cache SHOULD be at the posted co-ords, no tools, acrobatics, gymnastics,computers, cameras, or puzzles required to get at and sign the log. Anything other should be a mystery, puzzle, or whatever.

Again, not saying this is the rule but the way I think it should be.

 

I largely agree with that. Go, to coords, sign log and you have a traditional. I may part on the gymnastics part. If it's in a tree that ups the terrain, but doesn't necessarily make it a puzzle. And the tools would depend. If you need a special tool to open the container then that may make it a puzzle. Tweezers to get a log book out of a blinkie, then no.

[+tozainamboku]

If the LPC or nano have some device required to open it when you get there, and it isn't clearly described in the cache page's description (not the hint), it isn't a "Traditional" in my opinion. I think that logic applies to what you listed above, and also your own points...up until you say you see the caches as "traditionals".

Then you missed the most important points.

 

Originally if the cache was at the posted coordinates, nothing else mattered. It was a a traditional cache.

 

Originally there was no such thing as a "puzzle" cache. There was a mystery or unknown cache. This was meant as catch-all for caches that weren't traditional or multi-caches. A common use was for a cache that was not at the posted coordinates where you had to figure out the coordinate from the information on the cache page. This particular use of the mystery type came to be commonly referred to as a puzzle cache.

 

I don't know when this idea that a traditional cache shouldn't involve more than finding a cache and signing the log came about. Most likely this is a misinterpretation of the ban on ALRs. Prior to the ALR ban, many people would list multi-caches and traditional caches with field puzzles as mystery/unknown, but there was no requirement that they do so. After the ALR ban there is still no requirement. But this thread sure indicates that some people believe there is.

 

If you believe there should be such a requirement, you are certainly entitle that opinion. This thread seems to indicate that there are several people who would like to see such a guideline implemented.

 

I'm not 100% against such a guideline. The problem I see is that it will be hard to defined just what constitutes something other than finding the cache and signing the log. Between finding a cache and signing the log, there are a number of tasks that you have to do for all caches: you need to retrieve the cache, you need to open the cache container, and you need to find the log in the container. It isn't clear to me just what activity to accomplish these tasks you would consider "traditional" and which you would not.

[+niraD]

IMO a traditional cache SHOULD be at the posted co-ords, no tools, acrobatics, gymnastics,computers, cameras, or puzzles required to get at and sign the log. Anything other should be a mystery, puzzle, or whatever.

Again, not saying this is the rule but the way I think it should be.

I largely agree with that. Go, to coords, sign log and you have a traditional. I may part on the gymnastics part. If it's in a tree that ups the terrain, but doesn't necessarily make it a puzzle. And the tools would depend. If you need a special tool to open the container then that may make it a puzzle. Tweezers to get a log book out of a blinkie, then no.

I think there's a difference between terrain-related challenges and "get at and sign the log" challenges. Terrain-related challenges (e.g., climbing a tree or cliff, diving for a submerged container, swinging on a rope swing) are part of getting to the cache location so you can search for the cache. In contrast, "get at and sign the log" challenges come later, after you've found the cache.

 

I can see the point that "get at and sign the log" caches can be listed as traditional caches. After all, the container "is located at the posted coordinates". (The difficulty and terrain ratings need to be correct, of course.)

 

Still, my preference (and what I've usually seen around here) is for such caches to be listed as mystery/puzzle caches. It's mostly a matter of setting correct expectations. Whether it's written in the guidelines or not, there is a common assumption that once you have a traditional cache in hand, signing the log should be relatively straightforward. What kind of cache do people expect when they run a PQ with only traditional caches in it? What kind of cache do people expect when they run a PQ with mystery/puzzle caches in it? Which group does a "get at and sign the log" cache fit in best?

[+NeverSummer]

If the LPC or nano have some device required to open it when you get there, and it isn't clearly described in the cache page's description (not the hint), it isn't a "Traditional" in my opinion. I think that logic applies to what you listed above, and also your own points...up until you say you see the caches as "traditionals".

Then you missed the most important points.

 

Originally if the cache was at the posted coordinates, nothing else mattered. It was a a traditional cache.

 

Originally there was no such thing as a "puzzle" cache. There was a mystery or unknown cache. This was meant as catch-all for caches that weren't traditional or multi-caches. A common use was for a cache that was not at the posted coordinates where you had to figure out the coordinate from the information on the cache page. This particular use of the mystery type came to be commonly referred to as a puzzle cache.

 

I don't know when this idea that a traditional cache shouldn't involve more than finding a cache and signing the log came about. Most likely this is a misinterpretation of the ban on ALRs. Prior to the ALR ban, many people would list multi-caches and traditional caches with field puzzles as mystery/unknown, but there was no requirement that they do so. After the ALR ban there is still no requirement. But this thread sure indicates that some people believe there is.

 

If you believe there should be such a requirement, you are certainly entitle that opinion. This thread seems to indicate that there are several people who would like to see such a guideline implemented.

 

I'm not 100% against such a guideline. The problem I see is that it will be hard to defined just what constitutes something other than finding the cache and signing the log. Between finding a cache and signing the log, there are a number of tasks that you have to do for all caches: you need to retrieve the cache, you need to open the cache container, and you need to find the log in the container. It isn't clear to me just what activity to accomplish these tasks you would consider "traditional" and which you would not.

But I didn't miss the important points. I get it. I was there, man...

 

The caches were "Mystery/Unknown", and now are called "Mystery/Puzzle". I'm not sure when that change happened, but I fail to see how the name changes anything of what is being said in this thread. This has nothing to do (on my part, at least) with ALRs and a guideline interpretation.

 

Your example:

The problem I see is that it will be hard to defined just what constitutes something other than finding the cache and signing the log. Between finding a cache and signing the log, there are a number of tasks that you have to do for all caches: you need to retrieve the cache, you need to open the cache container, and you need to find the log in the container. It isn't clear to me just what activity to accomplish these tasks you would consider "traditional" and which you would not.

This simply can be used as an argument that any cache can be a traditional; why bother having Multis or Mystery/Puzzle caches? The difference is the signing of the log. The steps before getting a log in your hands are the real difference between all cache types. "Multis" mean that you will visit 2 or more locations before you can open the cache and sign a logbook. "Mystery/Puzzle" means it could be a puzzle, or anything else (except an pre-online log ALR) before you can sign a log. "Wherigo" means you complete a cartridge before you find, open, and log the cache. A "Traditional" doesn't fall into those catagories--it just is a cache, at the coordinates listed, with a container and a logbook. If it is more than that (in process to log it, etc), it is not a Traditional, IMO.

 

It just so happens that a combination lock, funky electronic opener doodad, field puzzle, etc all mean that you need to do something else to get the log in your hands. Those caches might be at the coords, yes, but so can "Mystery/Puzzle" caches. If this isn't clearly outlined in the cache page, then how is it not a "Mystery/Puzzle"?

 

Now, if a cache said something like, "To open this cache, you will need to pop a combination lock [or other explicit process here]. The combination is: 1234", that doesn't mean the "difficulty" can't be addressed in the rating.

 

If a cache says something like, "The cache is at the coordinates. Solve the combination by using the last 4 digits of the phone number listed on the billboard to the north of the cache", how is it not a puzzle?

 

Now, believe me...all this splitting hairs using silly examples can go on and on.

 

The way I read the caches in the OP, they are more of a "Mystery/Puzzle" than a "Traditional". I would have thought the same thing many years ago if I came across them. "Traditional", to me, means a hide that is like the tradition of geocaching, starting with the example of the original stash. That was where tradition started, and it was just a container, swag and logbook at the coordinates. What is the "tradition" of "Traditional", if not that? Other cache types were created if they didn't follow the "tradition" of the first hides. No?

[+dprovan]

We've covered the legality: yeah, the rules say it's fine, reviewers won't reject it.

 

I think a good practical case has been made for making such caches unknowns.

 

In the interest of full disclosure, I'll admit that one last reason I prefer such caches be made unknowns is that I like getting credit for solving the puzzle in my cache type counts.

[4wheelin_fool]

Either is fine. Most of the older listings were mostly published as traditionals, while the newer listings with a puzzle at the cords are usually listed as puzzles. There are many cachers that do not read descriptions and only load coords and hints. There is a small segment of these cachers that will also throw a temper tantrum if they run into a puzzle listed as a traditional and may damage the hide as a result, so the advise is to list them with a question mark. This may cut down the traffic, but sometimes that is a good thing.

[+redsox_mark]

We've covered the legality: yeah, the rules say it's fine, reviewers won't reject it.

 

I think a good practical case has been made for making such caches unknowns.

 

In the interest of full disclosure, I'll admit that one last reason I prefer such caches be made unknowns is that I like getting credit for solving the puzzle in my cache type counts.

 

I agree Traditional caches with field puzzles are allowed by the guidelines.

 

My personal preference/view is based on this point: With a puzzle or a multi-cache, I expect to have to need to read the cache page and have access to it. With a Traditional I do not.

 

So:

 

- A Multicache which has field puzzles I'm OK with it to be listed as a Multicache.

 

- Traditional with field puzzle (case 1): If the field puzzle doesn't require any advanced planning or additional information on the cache page (e.g a container which is physical puzzle to open the box, like "cube cache"), I'm OK with it being a Traditional.

 

- Traditional with field puzzle (case 2):If I need to read the cache page and/or prepare in advance (e.g. bring a battery), I'd prefer it to be listed as a Mystery/Puzzle.