New requirements for Non-Traditional Physical Caches

[+CacheDrone]

During the review process we have been asked to start requiring an identifier for the posted coordinates of all physical caches that are not listed as Traditional. This covers all Multi-Caches, Letterbox Hybrids, Wherigo and Unknown Caches. Below is one template being used to help aid in this transition.

 

Multi - QtoA waypoint at posted coordinates if virtual/data collect, SoaM waypoint at posted coordinates if there is a physical object that you placed. A Multi always start at the posted coordinates.

Letterbox Hybrid - Same rules as a Multi.

Wherigo - Same rules as a Multi.

Unknown - Reference Point at the posted if they are bogus. QtoA waypoint at posted coordinates if virtual/data redirect, SoaM/Final waypoint at posted coordinates if physical.

All of these can and should be listed as hidden waypoints unless you want to provide extra info to players in the additional waypoint itself.

 

 

If you already own listings that the above would apply to, please update them to include this info. This is detailed more at http://support.Groundspeak.com/index.php?pg=kb.page&id=72

 

CD

[+dprovan]

Seems like a good idea. Personally I've always thought it would make more sense to provide a way to just assign one of these to the posted coordinates instead of forcing the creation of a redundant waypoint for the same location, but this, although somewhat clumsy, solves the problem while avoiding fundamental changes.

 

The one thing I don't understand is the point of creating a waypoint to say "there's nothing here" at the posted coordinates of an unknown when the normal case for an unknown is for nothing to be there. That makes as much sense as requiring a redundant waypoint on a traditional that points to the posted coordinates and says, "The cache is hidden here."

 

By the way, why's this in the Canada forum? The guideline you cite explaining this requirement appears to apply to caches everywhere.

[+CacheDrone]

The one thing I don't understand is the point of creating a waypoint to say "there's nothing here" at the posted coordinates of an unknown when the normal case for an unknown is for nothing to be there.

 

There are several reasons of which I will share two

 

- it provides 100% consistency instead of people having to guess when they need to and when they don't.

- many Unknown caches DO have something at the posted coordinates. Challenge caches typically are, or locked caches, and are two of many examples.

 

CD

[+dprovan]

The one thing I don't understand is the point of creating a waypoint to say "there's nothing here" at the posted coordinates of an unknown when the normal case for an unknown is for nothing to be there.

 

There are several reasons of which I will share two

 

- it provides 100% consistency instead of people having to guess when they need to and when they don't.

Yet it's now inconsistent with traditionals, where you don't need the redundant waypoint. Furthermore, knowing when they do and when they don't need the waypoint is a trivial consideration compared to knowing whether they need to make the waypoint a stage of a multicache, a reference point, or a question to answer. In fact, I claim it's far less confusing to say "you don't need a waypoint when there's nothing there" than to say "when there's nothing there, you have to create a waypoint that's a reference point." The latter literally makes no sense: why do I want to reference a point that has no meaning to my cache? On the other hand, the former is exactly what one would expect.

 

- many Unknown caches DO have something at the posted coordinates. Challenge caches typically are, or locked caches, and are two of many examples.

The unknown caches with something at the posted coordinates have to have a waypoint in order to flag it as a physical stage no matter how you slice it. That case is completely irrelevant to the idea of forcing an entirely useless, meaningless, and redundant reference point in the typical case where there isn't something there.

[+CacheDrone]

This update also allows reviewers to know instantly the nature of the posted coordinates with respect to a virtual data point using an existing object as compared to a physical item placed by the cache owner when we determine saturation/proximity.

 

As long as there is a waypoint that matches the posted coordinates that explains it then it is fine. That can be a Final, a Stage of a Multi (SOaM), Question to Answer(Q2A) or Reference Point. Parking and Trailhead are not a viable option. New listings require this for publication, and previously published listings should be updated by their owners to reflect this important improvement.

 

Since Traditional caches MUST be at the posted coordinates this update does not need to cover them but you can add a Final Location if you really want to.

 

CD

 

Edit: removed extra word and clarified.

Edited March 3, 2014 by CacheDrone

[+dprovan]

OK, thanks for the discussion. Sorry, I still don't find the justification reasonable, but I see you don't consider it up for debate. I'm sorry I missed the chance to provide input. (Oddly, the third most common use of the posted coordinates of an unknown -- after "no relation to the cache" as the first and "the cache is at the posted coordinates" as the second -- is "park here" or "here's the trailhead", yet those are ones that you're saying are specifically not allowed.)

 

And, to repeat: this is the Canada forum, and it's the only place I've seen this discussed. Are your comments regarding this being a requirement limited to Canada?

[+CacheDrone]

OK, thanks for the discussion. Sorry, I still don't find the justification reasonable, but I see you don't consider it up for debate. I'm sorry I missed the chance to provide input. (Oddly, the third most common use of the posted coordinates of an unknown -- after "no relation to the cache" as the first and "the cache is at the posted coordinates" as the second -- is "park here" or "here's the trailhead", yet those are ones that you're saying are specifically not allowed.)

 

And, to repeat: this is the Canada forum, and it's the only place I've seen this discussed. Are your comments regarding this being a requirement limited to Canada?

 

The article in the Knowledge Books applies to every new listing, Canada or other parts of the world. I typically enjoy keeping Canada up to date, especially Ontario. As for debate, I'm only the messenger, not the creator.

 

CD