Why must I solve a puzzle to "Find" a Traditional Cache?

[+8Nuts MotherGoose]

I always thought a Tradition Cache was a container where I went to the posted coordinates, found the container, opened it, signed the log, and replaced the container as found.

Now I am seeing more and more Traditional caches with the Field Puzzle attribute. Once you find the container, you have to spend 15 minutes to an hour or more solving the puzzle of getting into the container to sign the log.

I've done many Puzzle caches in the past exactly like these, with and without the Field puzzle attribute, and earned the Puzzle cache Icon. Now I burn out my brain and only get a Traditional Icon. I know they are called Gadget Caches, but a puzzle is a puzzle. If you solve a puzzle at home or out in the field, it's still a puzzle.

Why are they not listed as Puzzle caches?

[Keystone]

Because Geocaching HQ views either alternative acceptable.

The primary characteristic of a Traditional Cache is that it's located at the posted coordinates.  BUT, having to do extra work in order to sign the logbook is contrary to the concept of a Traditional Cache.  Adding the Field Puzzle attribute is a compromise.

The primary characteristic of a Mystery Cache is that some sort of puzzle solving or other extra step is needed before the logbook can be signed.  BUT, a Mystery Cache is usually not located AT the posted coordinates.  Exceptions: challenge caches, field puzzles. Challenges are identified by having the word "challenge" in the cache name.  Field Puzzles are identified by an attribute.   Adding the Field Puzzle attribute is a compromise.

All hail the mighty Field Puzzle attribute.

Edited November 7, 2017 by Keystone

[+8Nuts MotherGoose]

Thank you for the addition to the description of each cache type.

"All hail the mighty Field Puzzle attribute." - MIGHTY indeed!

[+dprovan]

I don't know. In my area, they're almost always listed as puzzle caches despite there now being a field puzzle attribute. The field puzzle attribute is only used around here if there's something you have to figure out in the field for an unknown or multicache. I'm not sure I've ever seen a traditional that requires 15 minutes of puzzling being justified by just the one attribute that no one's going to notice.

I'm hoping Keystone's response doesn't imply that reviewers aren't supposed to allow field puzzles to be listed as unknowns 'cuz that would annoy a lot of people, and I'd say with some justification.

[+8Nuts MotherGoose]

From his response, I understand that a Gadget Cache can be either depending on the use of the Field Puzzle Attribute.

A Puzzle cache is usually not at the given coordinates. But if you add a Field Puzzle Attribute, the Puzzle cache CAN be at the listed coordinates.

A Traditional cache is at the listed coordinates and usually requires no extra work. But if you add a Field Puzzle Attribute, it REQUIRES extra work to log the cache.

 

[Keystone]

There is room for discretion based on local community customs and the cache owner's preference.  Your reviewer may engage in a dialogue to make sure that, as cache owner, you've considered both alternatives and chosen the one that seems best.

It's a similar debate to "multicache or mystery cache?" when there are multiple stages, each involving a puzzle.

It's a far less mind-blowing classification debate than a multicache that begins with a Wherigo cartridge that takes the finder to a Chirp device that reveals the coordinates for a final cache container that holds a letterboxing stamp.

[+noncentric]

Would another consideration be WHEN the cache was published?  I'm not sure when the Field Puzzle attribute was created.

[+arisoft]

3 hours ago, 8Nuts MotherGoose said:

Now I am seeing more and more Traditional caches with the Field Puzzle attribute. Once you find the container, you have to spend 15 minutes to an hour or more solving the puzzle of getting into the container to sign the log.

Why are they not listed as Puzzle caches?

Have you seen traditional caches placed in a tree? You may need climbing gear and the operation may take even more than an hour. Attributes may warn you about these challenging caches, so read the description carefully.

The same debate seems to happen when there is field puzzle multi cache. Some players may complain that cache type was wrong even it is strictly following guidelines.

Guidelines include examples of when the cache is a mystery and when multi. The same instructions can also be used to determine whether the cache is a mystery or a traditional one when there is only one waypoint available. The one important factor is that cache must be mystery type if the cache cannot be found without research that goes beyond reading the cache page. Basically, you should be able to find traditional cache using printed description and a GPS receiver.

Edited November 7, 2017 by arisoft

[+baer2006]

2 hours ago, Keystone said:

There is room for discretion based on local community customs and the cache owner's preference.  Your reviewer may engage in a dialogue to make sure that, as cache owner, you've considered both alternatives and chosen the one that seems best.

It's a similar debate to "multicache or mystery cache?" when there are multiple stages, each involving a puzzle.

It's a far less mind-blowing classification debate than a multicache that begins with a Wherigo cartridge that takes the finder to a Chirp device that reveals the coordinates for a final cache container that holds a letterboxing stamp.

Around here (Germany) the general consensus is like this: If you have to do "homework" before going outside for the cache, it's a puzzle cache. If you can just read the listing, pack the required gear, go to the listed coordinates, and continue from there (possibly involving field puzzles, tricky boxes, etc.), it's a traditional (if the final container is at the listing coordinates) or a multi (if it's not).

I think this is a very useful convention, because you immediately know if you can rush out at once, or if you have to solve a puzzle first. Whenever an exception is published, cachers tend to be somewhat confused .

 

Quote

It's a far less mind-blowing classification debate than a multicache that begins with a Wherigo cartridge that takes the finder to a Chirp device that reveals the coordinates for a final cache container that holds a letterboxing stamp.

LOL ! You forgot to mention that you need to solve a puzzle first to get the starting point of the Wherigo cartridge .

Anyway, the actual classification is actually easy - it's a Wherigo.

[+on4bam]

2 hours ago, baer2006 said:

Around here (Germany) the general consensus is like this: If you have to do "homework" before going outside for the cache, it's a puzzle cache. If you can just read the listing, pack the required gear, go to the listed coordinates, and continue from there (possibly involving field puzzles, tricky boxes, etc.), it's a traditional (if the final container is at the listing coordinates) or a multi (if it's not).

Same goes for Belgium.

I think 8NutsMotherGoose looks at it the wrong way thinking you "earn" a cache icon. It has nothing to do with "earning" but having a difference between a home solved puzzle  = "?" and field solved puzzle = traditional (or multi...)

[+boisestate]

We have a puzzle cache that is a field puzzle at the posted coords. I think it would get more "hits" if we had listed it as a traditional. We have been asked by another cacher why we didn't list it as a traditional with the puzzle icon...i just explained it the same way as Keystone (above post). Our other nearby traditional caches in the same park get found on a way more regular basis. 

 

Edited November 7, 2017 by boisestate
Spelling

[+arisoft]

3 hours ago, boisestate said:

We have a puzzle cache that is a field puzzle at the posted coords. I think it would get more "hits" if we had listed it as a traditional. We have been asked by another cacher why we didn't list it as a traditional with the puzzle icon...i just explained it the same way as Keystone (above post). Our other nearby traditional caches in the same park get found on a way more regular basis. 

 

Threre are some known ways to limit number of visitors for a cache, especially beginners. For example you can make it Premium Only, set Need Maintenance flag or heighten difficulty over 1,5. Changing the type to mystery is one of the most effective ways but not used very often. On that basis, sometimes it may be sensible to use mystery type for traditional cache and sometimes not. It depends on how many visitors the cache can actually handle.

[+on4bam]

6 minutes ago, arisoft said:

Threre are some known ways to limit number of visitors for a cache, especially beginners. For example you can make it Premium Only, set Need Maintenance flag or heighten difficulty over 1,5. Changing the type to mystery is one of the most effective ways but not used very often. On that basis, sometimes it may be sensible to use mystery type for traditional cache and sometimes not. It depends on how many visitors the cache can actually handle.

Bad advice. At least here, in most cases, a NM will get you a reviewers note after about a month and an archived cache after another month

Raise D rating, set PM should be enough most of the time.

 

[+arisoft]

11 minutes ago, on4bam said:

At least here, in most cases, a NM will get you a reviewers note after about a month

How do you know that this happens in "most cases"? My own experience is that nothing like this happens in no case at all.

[+on4bam]

6 minutes ago, arisoft said:

How do you know that this happens in "most cases"? My own experience is that nothing like this happens in no case at all.

Because I see the logs here. NM >> one month with no OM >> reviewers note >> no action by CO >> archived.

If you don't see that happening then maybe Finnish reviewers don't act as fast as the Belgian ones (in most cases, not all).

 

[+NYPaddleCacher]

40 minutes ago, on4bam said:

Bad advice. At least here, in most cases, a NM will get you a reviewers note after about a month and an archived cache after another month

Raise D rating, set PM should be enough most of the time.

 

I agree that although it might not be the case in some areas, recommending putting a NM on it as a general practice probably isn't a good idea.

Raising the D (or T) rating, or setting the cache to PM will significantly reduce the number of visits by basic members (even accounting for the fact that basic members can still d/l cache data for D2+/T2+ caches, and can still find and log a PM using backdoor methods).

Making a cache with a field puzzle an unknown cache may further reduce the number of visits as there are some that will systematically exclude any cache with a puzzle icon.  Of course, there are some that specifically *look" for caches with an unknown cache icon, but I suspect that the number of geocachers that do is less than those that categorically don't want anything to do puzzle caches.

[+arisoft]

28 minutes ago, on4bam said:

Because I see the logs here. NM >> one month with no OM >> reviewers note >> no action by CO >> archived.

If you don't see that happening then maybe Finnish reviewers don't act as fast as the Belgian ones (in most cases, not all).

 

As there are more caches in Finland than in Belgium, this definitely is not "most cases" at all. Maybe most caches in Belgium has already been archived because of this procedure you described.

Does anyone know another country where need maintenance flag only leads to archive?

[+on4bam]

7 minutes ago, arisoft said:

As there are more caches in Finland than in Belgium, this definitely is not "most cases" at all.

Is it a language problem?

I wrote:

Quote

At least here, in most cases, a NM will get you a reviewers note after about a month and an archived cache after another month

HERE (in Belgium), in most cases... is it clear now? I'm not claiming that in other countries the same is happening "in most cases".

[+8Nuts MotherGoose]

Thank you all for your input.
I love puzzles. Whether it is listed as a Puzzle cache or Traditional with Field Puzzle is mute to me. I'll go for either. Keystone gave me an explanation that I understood.

on4bam stated, "I think 8NutsMotherGoose looks at it the wrong way thinking you "earn" a cache icon."
Whether you say "earn" or "get", it's a personal viewpoint of the amount of work you put into it. You can go out and "get" a Traditional Park and Grab, or a lamp post micro. But when you go after an Ape Cache you expend time and money that you "Earn" by working hard. Therefore, you "Earn" that Icon. The same thing goes for Puzzle caches, Field Puzzles, and many other Attributes. I will not disagree with you if you say you "Earned" those hundreds of Traditionals.

I have to agree with boisestate when he said,"I think it would get more "hits" if we had listed it as a traditional." I also think the "Field Puzzle" attribute will also slow the number of people, but not as much as a Puzzle cache. For many cachers, it's about quantity. Puzzles, Multicaches, Field Puzzles, and high DTs slow them down, so they get ignored by many. I had a cacher tell me that he could find 10 caches while I was solving one puzzle. I replied, "I solved 4 puzzles last night. How many caches have you found at night in the past week?"

[Keystone]

Let's not get too sidetracked.  I think a consensus would agree that setting a Needs Maintenance attribute, without there being an actual need for maintenance, is not the most preferable method for limiting visitors to a geocache.

Back on topic, if limiting visitors were one of the owner's objectives (e.g., delicate field puzzle), this would be a factor in favor of choosing Mystery Cache for the cache type.

[+arisoft]

7 minutes ago, on4bam said:

Is it a language problem?

Not at all. Just ordinary forum conversation. For example when you quoted your own line:

8 minutes ago, on4bam said:

At least here, in most cases, a NM will get you a reviewers note after about a month and an archived cache after another month

You left off this

55 minutes ago, on4bam said:

Bad advice.

Maybe you found that I did not give any advice. I just listed known ways, how someone has tried to avoid excessive number of finders.

[+redsox_mark]

As Keystone clearly explained, either is acceptable.   An advantage of using the mystery/puzzle type for these cases is that cachers will read the page in advance and know what to expect.   The field puzzle attribute on a traditional will likely not be noticed.    Why is that important?   Well the person who knows in advance they will have a field puzzle will likely be more patient with it.   While all cachers should be patient and respectful, I think there is a greater chance of the field puzzle being broken (perhaps in frustration) by someone who wasn't expecting a puzzle in the first place.   

[+niraD]

1 hour ago, 8Nuts MotherGoose said:

I also think the "Field Puzzle" attribute will also slow the number of people, but not as much as a Puzzle cache.

I'm not sure how many people would filter out traditional caches with the Field Puzzle attribute. I would expect most "find the cache and move on" geocachers to simply focus on traditional caches and leave it at that. If they encounter a traditional cache with a Field Puzzle, then they might log a frustrated DNF, or they might log a Find without solving the field puzzle (possibly leaving a "replacement" log sheet, depending on the design of the field puzzle), or they might leave in a huff (perhaps taking out a bit of frustration on the field puzzle). But I think it would be another step to figure out how to filter out traditional caches with the Field Puzzle attribute, and most wouldn't bother taking that step.

[+NYPaddleCacher]

1 hour ago, niraD said:

I'm not sure how many people would filter out traditional caches with the Field Puzzle attribute. I would expect most "find the cache and move on" geocachers to simply focus on traditional caches and leave it at that. If they encounter a traditional cache with a Field Puzzle, then they might log a frustrated DNF, or they might log a Find without solving the field puzzle (possibly leaving a "replacement" log sheet, depending on the design of the field puzzle), or they might leave in a huff (perhaps taking out a bit of frustration on the field puzzle). But I think it would be another step to figure out how to filter out traditional caches with the Field Puzzle attribute, and most wouldn't bother taking that step.

With a PQ one can filter out all puzzle caches.  We can also create a PQ that only includes traditional caches with the field puzzle attribute.  However, it's not so easy to create a PQ of caches that excludes puzzle *and* do not have the field puzzle attribute set.  I tried setting the Field Puzzle attribute in the "exclude" list and it doesn't seem to make any difference in the number of results.  

 

[+thebruce0]

7 hours ago, arisoft said:

Does anyone know another country where need maintenance flag only leads to archive?

To address this, yes, Canada. In my region (Ontario), it's the same general process: NM -> unaddressed for a month -> Disabled -> Unaddressed for a month -> Archival.  General process; some periods could be slightly more or less than a month. But for the most part, same as on4bam, NM if unaddressed can lead to archival, so is definitely not a good method of (merely) dissuading finders.

[+dprovan]

5 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

13 hours ago, arisoft said:

Does anyone know another country where need maintenance flag only leads to archive?

To address this, yes, Canada. In my region (Ontario), it's the same general process: NM -> unaddressed for a month -> Disabled -> Unaddressed for a month -> Archival.  General process; some periods could be slightly more or less than a month. But for the most part, same as on4bam, NM if unaddressed can lead to archival, so is definitely not a good method of (merely) dissuading finders.

Yes, that's SOP now here in the San Francisco Bay area. I'm not sure I remember the last time someone posted an NA because everyone expects the reviewer to step in. That just started happening this year. Before that, a normal person would always file the NA, so I'm not sure why the reviewer felt a need to change things.