Jump to content

NA Guilt


Recommended Posts

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?

Link to comment

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.

Link to comment

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.

Link to comment

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 by Keystone
Link to comment

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.

Link to comment

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"....

Link to comment

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 by J Grouchy
Link to comment

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.)

Link to comment

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. :)

Link to comment
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.

Link to comment

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.

Link to comment

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.

Link to comment

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.

Link to comment

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. :)

Link to comment

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. :laughing:

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...