+redsox_mark Posted June 6, 2017 Share Posted June 6, 2017 I recently logged a NA on This cache which is wrongly listed as a traditional, AND the final location is too close to another cache. It's had 20 finds over nearly 2 years, with many logs pointing out it should be a multi, but no NA until now. I'm feeling a bit guilty for this reason: The intent of the CO was to surprise - to make the finder think it is a Trad, then find they need to do a task (which is project a waypoint to a final 500 feet away) to reach the final. And many finders like that. I was thinking... how can this be done "legally"? Obvious making it a multi, but then there is no surprise, the finder will be expecting an additional stage. (They won't know it's a projection, but still will expect something). All I could think of is to make it a mystery/puzzle. He could make it a simple puzzle cache for the first stage, then have the final in a separate hidden waypoint, and make no mention of the extra stage. Any other ideas? Quote Link to comment
+barefootjeff Posted June 6, 2017 Share Posted June 6, 2017 All I could think of is to make it a mystery/puzzle. He could make it a simple puzzle cache for the first stage, then have the final in a separate hidden waypoint, and make no mention of the extra stage. Any other ideas? There's a cache a bit like that around here, one I've just adopted actually. At first it looks like a simple puzzle, but it's only after solving that and going to the resulting coordinates that you discover there's a lot more to it. Quote Link to comment
+J Grouchy Posted June 6, 2017 Share Posted June 6, 2017 Seems like that's something the CO needs to work out with the reviewer. I'm thinking it's never a good idea to try to deceive the reviewer... Quote Link to comment
+Isonzo Karst Posted June 6, 2017 Share Posted June 6, 2017 I doubt the cache owner had much intent with regard to finder experience, or to deceiving the reviewer. Probably, given a single find by CO, didn't understand the difference between cache types, or even that there are cache types. Anyway, no need to feel guilty. Multi listed as trad with final that crowds an existing cache needs to be fixed. Quote Link to comment
Keystone Posted June 6, 2017 Share Posted June 6, 2017 (edited) As I wrote a few hours ago in another thread: ... [T]he best classification of the cache in question is an "offset cache." ("Go to this spot and follow these directions to get to the cache.") Most commonly expressed as a distance and bearing from the posted coordinates to the actual cache location, offset caches are properly categorized as Multi-caches. There's no other alternative for the described cache design, and it was right of the OP to bring the issue to the Reviewer's attention. Edited June 6, 2017 by Keystone Quote Link to comment
+lodgebarn Posted June 6, 2017 Share Posted June 6, 2017 Letterbox would fit well with this style of cache. Quote Link to comment
+narcissa Posted June 6, 2017 Share Posted June 6, 2017 I recently logged a NA on This cache which is wrongly listed as a traditional, AND the final location is too close to another cache. It's had 20 finds over nearly 2 years, with many logs pointing out it should be a multi, but no NA until now. I'm feeling a bit guilty for this reason: The intent of the CO was to surprise - to make the finder think it is a Trad, then find they need to do a task (which is project a waypoint to a final 500 feet away) to reach the final. And many finders like that. I was thinking... how can this be done "legally"? Obvious making it a multi, but then there is no surprise, the finder will be expecting an additional stage. (They won't know it's a projection, but still will expect something). All I could think of is to make it a mystery/puzzle. He could make it a simple puzzle cache for the first stage, then have the final in a separate hidden waypoint, and make no mention of the extra stage. Any other ideas? There are some multi-caches here that have a "missing link." You're looking for tags that direct you to the next waypoint, and eventually there's one that isn't there. When you get to the missing one, there's a projection you do to get to the final. But you're never certain if the tag is missing, or you just haven't found it. Quote Link to comment
+bflentje Posted June 6, 2017 Share Posted June 6, 2017 I recently did a NA on a "multi-stage" cache and have zero guilt. The idea was to find three boulders under water in a Minnesota lake and to take a selfie at each boulder. There was NO log to actually sign. Quote Link to comment
+redsox_mark Posted June 6, 2017 Author Share Posted June 6, 2017 As I wrote a few hours ago in another thread: ... [T]he best classification of the cache in question is an "offset cache." ("Go to this spot and follow these directions to get to the cache.") Most commonly expressed as a distance and bearing from the posted coordinates to the actual cache location, offset caches are properly categorized as Multi-caches. There's no other alternative for the described cache design, and it was right of the OP to bring the issue to the Reviewer's attention. Thanks for the responses, and especially Keystone's one quoted above. I feel less guilty now. I don't think the CO was trying to hide information from the reviewer, but I do think they wanted the extra stage to be a "surprise". The note in the first stage starts with "Sorry, this isn't it".... Quote Link to comment
+J Grouchy Posted June 6, 2017 Share Posted June 6, 2017 (edited) As I wrote a few hours ago in another thread: ... [T]he best classification of the cache in question is an "offset cache." ("Go to this spot and follow these directions to get to the cache.") Most commonly expressed as a distance and bearing from the posted coordinates to the actual cache location, offset caches are properly categorized as Multi-caches. There's no other alternative for the described cache design, and it was right of the OP to bring the issue to the Reviewer's attention. Thanks for the responses, and especially Keystone's one quoted above. I feel less guilty now. I don't think the CO was trying to hide information from the reviewer, but I do think they wanted the extra stage to be a "surprise". The note in the first stage starts with "Sorry, this isn't it".... I once found a traditional cache by a relatively inexperienced CO where they hid the log sheet inside a flashlight in the cache in amongst the other swag. They were trying to make it sort of a challenge to find the log to sign it, but they ended up getting an FTF log where the person stated there was no log inside so they put in a log sheet. Really, the intentions need to be more clear. There are different types of caches for a reason and the expectation for a traditional will always be that the cache, with the logsheet, will be find AT the posted coordinates with no additional steps to take. Any departure from that means they will get confusion, complaints or unexpected "assistance" from cachers who think they are helping out by providing a new log sheet or container. Edited June 6, 2017 by J Grouchy Quote Link to comment
+hzoi Posted June 6, 2017 Share Posted June 6, 2017 I recently did a NA on a "multi-stage" cache and have zero guilt. The idea was to find three boulders under water in a Minnesota lake and to take a selfie at each boulder. There was NO log to actually sign. Guessing it was not a grandfathered multi virtual. (A rare breed, but there are still some around, including two in Arlington Cemetery.) Quote Link to comment
+cerberus1 Posted June 6, 2017 Share Posted June 6, 2017 I thought you were accurate in your NA. See a couple Reviewers agree. May not have intentionally used an incorrect cache type, but it still needed to be fixed. - Shame the other 19 didn't get it corrected by doing the same... Next time you "feel guilty"... The other 2/3rds isn't as thick skinned as me, and after having folks yell at her at an event over a cache I NA ( it intentionally had fake coordinates - 528' rule), when she's with me, we now simply send that cache's Reviewer an email. You still did your part, and now someone who can do something about it is aware. Quote Link to comment
+niraD Posted June 6, 2017 Share Posted June 6, 2017 I was thinking... how can this be done "legally"? Obvious making it a multi, but then there is no surprise, the finder will be expecting an additional stage. (They won't know it's a projection, but still will expect something). All I could think of is to make it a mystery/puzzle. He could make it a simple puzzle cache for the first stage, then have the final in a separate hidden waypoint, and make no mention of the extra stage. Any other ideas? One of my Favorites was a mystery/puzzle cache like that. There was a typical "decode this message" puzzle on the cache page. That took you to the first stage where there was another message that used the same code to give you the coordinates of the final. At the final, there was a physical puzzle. First, you found a decoy with a message telling you that this was not the cache, but that you were very close. It turned out that the decoy was part of the physical puzzle that you needed to work out to access the cache. Unfortunately, the whole setup was rather fragile, and eventually the cache was archived. But it was fun while it lasted. Quote Link to comment
+mikemtn Posted June 6, 2017 Share Posted June 6, 2017 The purist that only does traditional caches might be a bit unhappy after finding(?) this one. Quote Link to comment
+narcissa Posted June 6, 2017 Share Posted June 6, 2017 The purist that only does traditional caches might be a bit unhappy after finding(?) this one. It isn't about being a purist, it's about being honest and giving fellow geocachers accurate information, not just so they can find the cache, but so they can decide if it's a cache they would like to find. Traditional caches are supposed to be at the posted coordinates. There are numerous other ways to make a cache a surprise for people who want a surprise. Incorrect cache information isn't clever or fun. It's inconsiderate. Quote Link to comment
+redsox_mark Posted June 7, 2017 Author Share Posted June 7, 2017 I thought you were accurate in your NA. See a couple Reviewers agree. May not have intentionally used an incorrect cache type, but it still needed to be fixed. - Shame the other 19 didn't get it corrected by doing the same... Next time you "feel guilty"... The other 2/3rds isn't as thick skinned as me, and after having folks yell at her at an event over a cache I NA ( it intentionally had fake coordinates - 528' rule), when she's with me, we now simply send that cache's Reviewer an email. You still did your part, and now someone who can do something about it is aware. Thanks. It was more a feeling of "guilt" as finders seemed to enjoy it, than being concerned about upsetting the CO. But agree I could have just contacted the reviewer. I did send a separate mail to the reviewer with additional detail, such as the coordinates of the final. Quote Link to comment
+bflentje Posted June 7, 2017 Share Posted June 7, 2017 I recently did a NA on a "multi-stage" cache and have zero guilt. The idea was to find three boulders under water in a Minnesota lake and to take a selfie at each boulder. There was NO log to actually sign. Guessing it was not a grandfathered multi virtual. (A rare breed, but there are still some around, including two in Arlington Cemetery.) This cache was less than three years old. Quote Link to comment
+thebruce0 Posted June 7, 2017 Share Posted June 7, 2017 As I wrote a few hours ago in another thread: ... [T]he best classification of the cache in question is an "offset cache." ("Go to this spot and follow these directions to get to the cache.") Most commonly expressed as a distance and bearing from the posted coordinates to the actual cache location, offset caches are properly categorized as Multi-caches. There's no other alternative for the described cache design, and it was right of the OP to bring the issue to the Reviewer's attention. Thanks for the responses, and especially Keystone's one quoted above. I feel less guilty now. I don't think the CO was trying to hide information from the reviewer, but I do think they wanted the extra stage to be a "surprise". The note in the first stage starts with "Sorry, this isn't it".... I once found a traditional cache by a relatively inexperienced CO where they hid the log sheet inside a flashlight in the cache in amongst the other swag. They were trying to make it sort of a challenge to find the log to sign it, but they ended up getting an FTF log where the person stated there was no log inside so they put in a log sheet. Really, the intentions need to be more clear. There are different types of caches for a reason and the expectation for a traditional will always be that the cache, with the logsheet, will be find AT the posted coordinates with no additional steps to take. Any departure from that means they will get confusion, complaints or unexpected "assistance" from cachers who think they are helping out by providing a new log sheet or container. We had one with a high D, the CO saying that if you didn't sign the correct log, then your log would be deleted (as is their right). The log was in the 'old/broken' pen in the container. That was good. And the description and difficulty did indicate that there was more to it than first glance. But it was a traditional. Whether multi or mystery would depend on if there's something at posted to find that helps determine the offset. You could say "go to these coordinates and project..." and have it listed as a mystery. But if you say "go to these coordinates, locate the tag with distance and bearing, and project..." then it's a multi. If you list it as a traditional, then the cache must be at these coordinates. Quote Link to comment
+hzoi Posted June 7, 2017 Share Posted June 7, 2017 I recently did a NA on a "multi-stage" cache and have zero guilt. The idea was to find three boulders under water in a Minnesota lake and to take a selfie at each boulder. There was NO log to actually sign. Guessing it was not a grandfathered multi virtual. (A rare breed, but there are still some around, including two in Arlington Cemetery.) This cache was less than three years old. Then I guessed right. Quote Link to comment
Recommended Posts
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.