Traditional vs. Puzzle

[+GeoDandrew]

I submitted a new cache for review. The container is a key locker that has a built in punch code lock. I live in the city so I my intention is just to keep out the muggles but give full access to geocachers. In the description I give the code for the lock. The reviewer is not publishing it based solely on weather he feels that it should be traditional or a puzzle.

I would like to keep it traditional as it's intended as a TB motel.

 

Any thoughts or is there a real rule?

[+stevebrassett]

I'm not a reviewer, so this is purely my personal opinion. If you haven't got to work anything out, then it cannot be a puzzle cache, surely.

[+Touchstone]

The first couple of locked caches that I found years ago were listed as Traditionals (i.e. at the posted coordinates). Somewhere along the way, they started getting listed as Puzzles. I think the "rule" you're thinking of is called the "court of public opinion". The Reviewers attempt to guide cache owners in correctly selecting the cache type for their submissions, so as to reduce confusion/consternation with the caching community. A few folks believe (rightly or wrongly), that if they can't just walk up to the cache at the posted coordinates, open the container and sign the logbook, then it's not a Traditional. The Difficulty rating should be based purely on how hard it is to find the container, and not based on how difficult it might be to access the logbook in order to claim the Find. YMMV.

[+J Grouchy]

There's one like that near me...it has a lock and the combination is written on the underside of the cache. It's listed as a traditional...but I guess it's ultimately the reviewer's call.

 

Edited June 2, 2017 by J Grouchy

[+hzoi]

I've seen locked caches published as both traditional caches and unknown caches.

 

The field puzzle attribute might be apropos, whichever type is chosen.

 

I guess the question is, both to the CO and the reviewer, as long as the cache description is specific about what a geocacher will encounter at the coordinates, does it really matter under which category it's listed?

[+macatac1961]

Lose the lock.

[Keystone]

The choice is between "Mystery" and "Traditional with the Field Puzzle Attribute." Just plain "Traditional" would not work, at least for this reviewer. A Traditional cache can be defined as a container and a logbook at the posted coordinates, with no extra steps involved to access the log once the container has been found.

 

Where the line between the two options is drawn is a matter for the cache owner and their reviewer to decide. In part the answer depends on just how much effort it takes to access the log. Since this is the "Getting Started" forum section, my advice to the OP is "work with your reviewer."

[+palmetto]

"In the description I give the code for the lock".

 

Went looking for your listing - here's another reviewer perspective: with a bit of editing, such that the lock code is actually on the cache page, I'd be good with this aa Trad with Field Puzzle attribute.

 

Right now, it has a simple puzzle for the code to the lock. Puzzle has 17 possible solutions. This is not "give the code to the lock".

 

Me, caching with gps, no smartphone, would have to pull out the bolt cutters, or just guess and hope, to get into your cache.

[+J Grouchy]

"In the description I give the code for the lock".

 

Went looking for your listing - here's another reviewer perspective: with a bit of editing, such that the lock code is actually on the cache page, I'd be good with this aa Trad with Field Puzzle attribute.

 

Right now, it has a simple puzzle for the code to the lock. Puzzle has 17 possible solutions. This is not "give the code to the lock".

 

Me, caching with gps, no smartphone, would have to pull out the bolt cutters, or just guess and hope, to get into your cache.

 

Wait...so the OP says he gives the code, but he actually provides a puzzle to solve in order to obtain the code?

 

IF that's true, it's a no-brainer - definitely a puzzle cache. You'd have to actually write out the actual lock code, the numbers (unhidden, unobscured, unencrypted) that one has to put on the lock to open it, in order to even argue the fact that it should be listed as a traditional.

[Nomex]

Ok, I'll chime in as a Reviewer and state neither . Since the combination to the lock is derived from a nearby feature, it's technically an offset and should be listed as a Multi.

 

In all seriousness, work with your Reviewer. It's not the end of the world if it's published as a puzzle. As an aside, I've published many listings like this, that are intended as safe havens for trackables, and the ones with locks on them I could count on one hand. I don't know your neighborhood, but the lock seems a bit overkill to me.

[+cerberus1]

"In the description I give the code for the lock".

 

Went looking for your listing - here's another reviewer perspective: with a bit of editing, such that the lock code is actually on the cache page, I'd be good with this aa Trad with Field Puzzle attribute.

 

Right now, it has a simple puzzle for the code to the lock. Puzzle has 17 possible solutions. This is not "give the code to the lock".

 

Me, caching with gps, no smartphone, would have to pull out the bolt cutters, or just guess and hope, to get into your cache.

Thanks for that.

"Puzzle must be solved to get" and "I give the code" not being the same...

[Keystone]

"In the description I give the code for the lock".

 

Went looking for your listing - here's another reviewer perspective: with a bit of editing, such that the lock code is actually on the cache page, I'd be good with this aa Trad with Field Puzzle attribute.

 

Right now, it has a simple puzzle for the code to the lock. Puzzle has 17 possible solutions. This is not "give the code to the lock".

 

Me, caching with gps, no smartphone, would have to pull out the bolt cutters, or just guess and hope, to get into your cache.

Even if one had a smartphone to have internet access at ground zero, the way the "puzzle" is worded would only narrow it down to a one in five guess (with one of those guesses being more likely than the others). In 2018 it would be a one in six guess, etc.

[+GeoDandrew]

Thank you all for the information.

[+niraD]

Since the combination to the lock is derived from a nearby feature, it's technically an offset and should be listed as a Multi.

Yeah, that sounds like something I'd expect to be listed as a multi-cache. Although when I visited Massachusetts a few years ago, caches like that seemed to be listed as mystery/puzzle caches, so there can be regional variations too.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

Since the combination to the lock is derived from a nearby feature, it's technically an offset and should be listed as a Multi.

Yeah, that sounds like something I'd expect to be listed as a multi-cache. Although when I visited Massachusetts a few years ago, caches like that seemed to be listed as mystery/puzzle caches, so there can be regional variations too.

 

When I've looked at puzzle cache listings in many cities in Europe I see a *lot* of them that are "visit these locations to get the digits" and would normally be listed as a multi.

 

 

[+Cardinal Red]

Thank you all for the information.

 

One more opinion. I am not familiar with other Reviewers (those were too long ago). There have been previous Multi / Traditional / Puzzle discussions with our Reviewer (as in your Reviewer is also my Reviewer). I have not agreed with every decision. Such is life. But your statement of "I give the code for the lock" was totally bogus. That makes me question your judgement of the Traditional concept. In my opinion, if you have to read the description, it is a Puzzle. A smart phone is still only an OPTIONAL tool, no matter how hard it is for some to comprehend that.

 

But as an enthusiastic smart phone hater - here is an option to consider that nobody else is likely to suggest. Put the ACTUAL lock combination IN THE CACHE NAME. Who won't have access to that in the field? It still might not be acceptable to the Reviewer, but you won't know unless you ask.