Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3
TwistedCube

New Cache Type ? ? ?

Recommended Posts

What would be a good new cache type? I feel that there would be more to the game with it, allowing more possibilities for hides. 

 

Share this post


Link to post

To allow more possibilities the new cache type should have something which is currently disallowed but still legal. For example cache type which have hidden QR-code and you can log it on-line only. No soaked logbooks any more. I foresee a great popularity for this cache type. Groundspeak could sell these codes and get huge profit. This would be a good win-win situation.

Share this post


Link to post

Wouldn't that be great for armchair logging? One find then post it up on faceplant. Where's the evidence the cacher was ever there?

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, arisoft said:

To allow more possibilities the new cache type should have something which is currently disallowed but still legal.

A completely new cache type may or may not work. There are already enough cache types that are essentially useless because no one uses them for new caches.

I think it would be more productive to create a new cache type for something that we know works, something that has grown out of the "catch-all" mystery/puzzle type, and is ready to be a new type of its own.

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, niraD said:

I think it would be more productive to create a new cache type for something that we know works, something that has grown out of the "catch-all" mystery/puzzle type, and is ready to be a new type of its own.

This is solution for an another question. It is not allowing more possibilities for hides so let's keep challenges and power trails out of this thread.

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, colleda said:

Wouldn't that be great for armchair logging?

Indeed but it does not prevent selling TBs and GCs. Remember the win-win ! No one suffers at all.

Share this post


Link to post
8 hours ago, arisoft said:

To allow more possibilities the new cache type should have something which is currently disallowed but still legal. For example cache type which have hidden QR-code and you can log it on-line only. No soaked logbooks any more. I foresee a great popularity for this cache type. Groundspeak could sell these codes and get huge profit. This would be a good win-win situation.

Bad idea and not a win-win situation. Only those who can afford or have the phone needed to read those codes can play. There's already a game that uses those.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
10 minutes ago, rustynails. said:

Only those who can afford or have the phone needed to read those codes can play.

Actually not. You can take or draw a picture and decode it later on you pc if you don't have a phone.

Edited by arisoft

Share this post


Link to post
10 minutes ago, rustynails. said:

There's already a game that uses those.

QR-codes are widely used everywhere but do you know any game which is based to sharing our experiences on field as we do in geocaching?

Share this post


Link to post
5 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:

What does armchair logging have to do with selling TBs and GCs?

Are you sure you don't now? I think that you are trolling now.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, arisoft said:
7 hours ago, colleda said:

Wouldn't that be great for armchair logging?

Indeed but it does not prevent selling TBs and GCs. Remember the win-win ! No one suffers at all.

What does armchair logging have to do with selling TBs and GCs?

Share this post


Link to post
9 hours ago, TwistedCube said:

What would be a good new cache type? I feel that there would be more to the game with it, allowing more possibilities for hides. 

 

What do you think would be a good new cache type?

Share this post


Link to post
8 minutes ago, arisoft said:
7 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:

What does armchair logging have to do with selling TBs and GCs?

Are you sure you don't now? I think that you are trolling now.

I fail to see the connection.

And I resent the implication.

 

Share this post


Link to post
5 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:

I fail to see the connection.

And I resent the implication.

Maybe it is better this way. Ignorance is bliss.

Share this post


Link to post
9 minutes ago, arisoft said:
9 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:

I fail to see the connection.

And I resent the implication.

Maybe it is better this way. Ignorance is bliss.

So there's no connection.

That's what I thought.

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

No to QR code cache. Think there are too many "TFTC" logs already? See what you get with a QR scan. They're one step down from a power trail.

Also, they deface property when they're stickers stuck on any conceivable surface. Geocaching is about respecting the environment, not slapping stickers on it.

I can't think of any types of caches that haven't been tried already and rejected. I'd go with challenge caches. They wouldn't add more possibilities to the game, but it would be an improvement, anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
9 hours ago, arisoft said:

To allow more possibilities the new cache type should have something which is currently disallowed but still legal. For example cache type which have hidden QR-code and you can log it on-line only. No soaked logbooks any more. I foresee a great popularity for this cache type. Groundspeak could sell these codes and get huge profit. This would be a good win-win situation.

While i'm sure they would have a following, it's something i would not be interested in at all. I can certainly imagine a lot of people going that route because they'd be so easy to place. Can also imagine them taking over the landscape in some areas. Imo, a physical logbook to sign at ground zero is a big part of geocaching and that would go away if these things took over.

On cache type,,, these aren't new but a couple of the popular ones have been taken away by Groundspeak. People really enjoyed virtual and challenge caches. There was a lot of criticism when they got axed which certainly had an ill affect on geocaching. Allowing virtual caches, that could be placed by anyone, not just a few "good" members, would be a positive move. Challenge caches aren't really a type of cache but they did have a big following. Unfortunately, the ridiculous restrictions placed on them these days have pretty much taken away a lot of the enjoyment they once provided.

Bringing either/both of these back would be a step in the right direction. Reviewer headaches would not take place if these were published like power trail caches. A reviewer should not have to determine if a cache meets a "WOW" factor. They shouldn't have to determine how many people qualify for a CC. They should just publish them the same way they do power trails,, they meet guidelines, they get published.

Share this post


Link to post
29 minutes ago, TriciaG said:

Also, they deface property when they're stickers stuck on any conceivable surface.

What I meant is just replacement for logbook. Not stickers. More like a TB. Actually I have seen a cache which logbook was the on-line log of TB instead of physical logbook.

29 minutes ago, TriciaG said:

I can't think of any types of caches that haven't been tried already and rejected. I'd go with challenge caches.

This idea has not been tried. Some virtuals may be similar but the difference is the registered physical item, not some arbitrary element, that limits the use for reasonable level because you have to buy them.

Challenges are not new idea and wouldn't give more possibilities for hides.

 

Edited by arisoft

Share this post


Link to post

"Reviewer headaches would not take place if these were published like power trail caches."

where in the world did you get the notion that PT's weren't a headache for Reviewers?

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
11 hours ago, arisoft said:

For example cache type which have hidden QR-code and you can log it on-line only

You mean the other game which shall not be named?  Nope.  1. Already done (competing game), 2. Already attempted (in geocaching challenges; died before it started), 3. There was brief forum discussion about the concept of having auto-log QR codes you could put in your cache to log from the field; you can imagine how well that went over.

Personally, I think the closest 'new cache type' that has the most merit, which has been hotly discussed in other locations, is a "History Cache".  Without Virtuals, Earthcaches are popular but we have loads of puzzle caches based on getting info at historic locations, and there's a popular idea of making a Virtual-style listing that highlights Historic locations (there've been lots of ideas for how to make that work as well, such as using a 3rd party review process, just as ECs do).  However, we recently got 1000 new Virtuals, many of which are at historic locations. And we have Unknowns that also highlight historic locations (amongst caches of most every time).  Basically, there are easy ways to highlight historic locations already without its own cache type.

I'm not there's any type of cache that would actually really benefit from its own cache type.
(at least, insomuch as we're leaving out challenge caches, since functionally they exist uniquely as an exception to existing rules to all other cache types, with the ALR)

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
27 minutes ago, arisoft said:

Actually I have seen a cache which logbook was the on-line log of TB instead of physical logbook.

Sounds prime for armchair logging.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

Video caches. It's basically a Multi, but instead of following waypoints and answering questions stated in the listing, you watch a first person view video of the owner following the trail, asking questions at some points (where the answer is not visible in the video) to collect variables. To find the cache, you have to use a formula to calculate the final coords and your GPSr.

If the video can be downloaded and not just streamed, you wouldn't need internet access in the field. That can be already done with the multicache type, but it would be nice to be able to filter them out, either because you like or hate them.

Share this post


Link to post
21 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

You mean the other game which shall not be named?  Nope.  1. Already done (competing game),

I do not know any game where players share they experiences by writing interesting on-line logs as we do in geocaching. Do you?

21 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

2. Already attempted (in geocaching challenges; died before it started)

Challenges were self validated tasks without ability to share your experience. That is why they died. Not applicable here.

21 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

3. There was brief forum discussion about the concept of having auto-log QR codes you could put in your cache to log from the field; you can imagine how well that went over.

That was easy to foresee as the most significant part of the game, sharing experiences, was missing.

Edited by arisoft

Share this post


Link to post
11 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:

Sounds prime for armchair logging.

So there's no connection. That's what you thought.

Share this post


Link to post
12 minutes ago, Touchstone said:

"Reviewer headaches would not take place if these were published like power trail caches."

where in the world did you get the notion that PT's weren't a headache for Reviewers?

Sure, the sheer number of caches of a power trail submitted at once would be a headache. It's a straight forward process other than that.

From what i have read over the years, traditional caches, which include power trail caches, are published if they meet guidelines. A reviewer doesn't have to look at any other criteria, make a determination whether it's a decent cache, or determine how difficult a cache is for other cachers.

Share this post


Link to post
7 minutes ago, arisoft said:
15 minutes ago, Team Microdot said:

Sounds prime for armchair logging.

So there's no connection. That's what you thought.

The walls around my garden aren't four feet high.

Share this post


Link to post
26 minutes ago, arisoft said:
40 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

You mean the other game which shall not be named?  Nope.  1. Already done (competing game),

I do not know any game where players share they experiences by writing interesting on-line logs as we do in geocacing. Do you?

Well, you didn't say "share they experiences by writing interesting on-line logs", just "and you can log it on-line only" :P

 

26 minutes ago, arisoft said:

Challenges were self validated tasks without ability to share your experience. That is why they died. Not applicable here.

No, I'm referring to the Geocaching Challenge type that was going to use a QR code to scan in order to 'qualify' and log. (and yeah, GCCs did have the ability to share experience, just quite limited by comparison)

 

26 minutes ago, arisoft said:

That was easy to foresee as the most significant part of the game, sharing experiences, was missing.

Exactly.  However, if the point is to scan the QR to 'find' it, yet you still have to spend time writing an "interesting" log, what is the draw to the type?  If you don't have to write the log, that's been done. If you do have to write the log, you either have the Geocaching Challenge type (which failed) or little to no interest because the difference between scanning the code and signing the physical logsheet (both happen before writing the "interesting" online log) is negligible.  I'm not seeing an enticing reason why merely scanning a QR code at the cache location would merit a new cache type.

Edited by thebruce0
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
17 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

No, I'm referring to the Geocaching Challenge type that was going to use a QR code to scan in order to 'qualify' and log. (and yeah, GCCs did have the ability to share experience, just quite limited by comparison)

Never heard. Any GC-code for reference?

19 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

If you don't have to write the log, that's been done.

Scanned QR-code could be entered to fiedrafts and you can write the on-line log later as usually. Only difference is that you don't need a pen.

21 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

I'm not seeing an enticing reason why merely scanning a QR code at the cache location would merit a new cache type.

This cache type works different way as orher cache types. You need camera instead of pen. But things will be more complicated if you want to use QR-log in a mystery cache. Practically this is just an another mystery cache sub class as challenges. QR-log attribute should be enough.

Share this post


Link to post
11 minutes ago, arisoft said:
33 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

No, I'm referring to the Geocaching Challenge type that was going to use a QR code to scan in order to 'qualify' and log. (and yeah, GCCs did have the ability to share experience, just quite limited by comparison)

Never heard. Any GC-code for reference?

They were Geocaching Challenges, not Challenge Caches.  They were wiped clean off geocaching.com without a trace remaining.

Last reference to QR challenge (wayback machine), and the GCC FAQ, and a bunch of captured listings (codes start with CX)

33 minutes ago, arisoft said:

Scanned QR-code could be entered to fiedrafts and you can write the on-line log later as usually. Only difference is that you don't need a pen.

As mentioned, this was discussed long ago. Not gonna happen.

33 minutes ago, arisoft said:

This cache type works different way as orher cache types. You need camera instead of pen. But things will be more complicated if you want to use QR-log in a mystery cache. Practically this is just an another mystery cache sub class as challenges. QR-log attribute should be enough.

Yeah, not gonna happen...

Share this post


Link to post
22 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

They were Geocaching Challenges, not Challenge Caches.

Ok, a challenge subclass. I opted out from challenges, so it is possible that I have never seen this type of challenge.

Edited by arisoft

Share this post


Link to post

Do I get this straight? There was a question from OP, then there was a lot of arguing because of the first proposal, and maybe two or three other answers (out of 30) that were targeted at the original question? You guys are funny. :)

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, arisoft said:

QR-codes are widely used everywhere but do you know any game which is based to sharing our experiences on field as we do in geocaching?

Don't forget the BIT cache type on the OpenCaching platforms. They are exactly what you are talking about, a QR code cache. Affix 1000's  to a guardrail and call them a power trail or geoart. No thank you. Not here on the it's all about the numbers game site. ;)

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

I would propose that one of the main arguments for adding cache types is for visual identification on maps and listings. With GC.com, we have the one cache equals one icon on the map rule. However, there are some cases where the same cache type shows as different icons on the map. Found caches are smilies. Caches with corrected coordinates are a puzzle icon. 

Let's take the separation of the map icon and the cache type a step further. I think that expanding the list of icons on the map would be an acceptable alternative to adding new cache types. Take the discussion of Challenge caches as an example. If there were a new icon for Mystery+"Challenge" caches, that would take care of a fair sized subset of the existing challenge caches. (Yes, I know, it is not perfect, but I am not going for perfect. An alternative that catches a majority is a step in the right direction.)

That said, I do think that Challenge Caches should have their own cache type, for any new caches. I think that the icon change for existing caches, plus the new cache type going forward would address most of the problems outlined elsewhere, and be the easiest to implement.

Back to the OP's question, what other new cache type should there be?

IMO, caches fall into three categories.

  1. Caches with a physical container and log book. (Trad, Multi, Mystery, etc.)
  2. Caches with a short duration logbook only. (Events, etc.)
  3. Caches with no physical container, and therefore no log book. (Virtuals, Webcams, Earthcaches, etc.)

So, what new cache types that have a physical container and log book should we ask for? Breaking down the cache types, what differentiates the existing types of caches?

  • Traditional - Your basic geocache.
  • Multi - A basic geocache with multiple stages.
  • Letterbox - A basic geocache with a stamp for letterboxing.
  • Puzzle/Mystery - A basic geocache that...
    • Might have an ALR's.
    • Might require solution of a puzzle in the field.
    • Might require solution of a puzzle somewhere other than in the field.
    • Might have multiple stages.
    • Could have any or all of these.
  • Wherigo - A basic geocache with multiple stages, and requires special equipment (a specific application on a smartphone or a specific model of GPSr).
  • Project APE - A basic geocache, used to promote a third party.
  • HQ - A basic geocache at the headquarters of a company.

With a Challenge Cache, the difference is that a Challenge Cache is a basic geocache with an ALR. We are already required to differentiate Challenge Caches by putting the word Challenge into the title. Let's continue the differentiation by making them their own cache type.

An Intercache is a basic geocache with multiple stages, and requires special equipment (a smartphone with GPS and web access). That might be a new cache type. However, there doesn't appear to be many Intercaches, and I don't know how well the software is being supported. But maybe a new cache type to cover all cases where there is a basic geocaches, that may have multiple stages, and requires a smart phone with GPS and web access would be appropriate. That would cover Intercaches, and allow for others to create their own experience.

Are there any new kinds of events that should be broken out into their own cache type? We already have three event cache types based on size. We also had the Block Party, and other one of a kind events. Again, I don't see anyone clamoring for any new kinds of events.

That leaves the third category, which is caches without a physical container. As GS has actively eliminated one of these cache types (Locationless) and doesn't allow several others (WebCams, Virtuals) from being created by the geocaching community at large, I don't see them adding any new cache types that don't have a container, or at least a log sheet.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, thebruce0 said:

Welcome to the forum

I guess this is the standard forum regulars answer to remarks like mine. It's poor and lame. Is there some kind of new cache type you would like to see?

Share this post


Link to post
10 hours ago, TriciaG said:

No to QR code cache. Think there are too many "TFTC" logs already? See what you get with a QR scan. They're one step down from a power trail.

This is exactly my experience when I tried Munzee for a couple of years. I put a lot of effort into each Munzee hide. Created personalized skins for each, put them in decent locations--trails, not parking lots and guardrails, maintained them, all this in the hope for some good feedback and connection with fellow players. One, maybe 2 players would write a relevant log after scanning. The rest just scanned. TFTM-only logs were aggravating--like they are here too. I'd get alerted that there was a log, go check and see TFTM. :{ I'd rather they scan and go. But in the end, what I'd rather not play.

 

 

Edited by L0ne.R
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
8 hours ago, arisoft said:
12 hours ago, niraD said:

I think it would be more productive to create a new cache type for something that we know works, something that has grown out of the "catch-all" mystery/puzzle type, and is ready to be a new type of its own.

This is solution for an another question. It is not allowing more possibilities for hides so let's keep challenges and power trails out of this thread.

We already have a place for experimenting with completely new cache concepts:

Quote

Mystery or Puzzle Caches
The "catch-all" of geocache types, this type may involve complicated puzzles that you will first need to solve to determine the correct coordinates. Mystery/Puzzle Caches often become the staging ground for new and unique geocaches that do not fit in another category.

So my answer for the stated question ("What would be a good new cache type?") stands: Pick something that has proven itself, that has been shown that it works and is popular, and that has thus outgrown the "catch-all" staging ground of the mystery/puzzle type.

And my response to the clarifying comment ("allowing more possibilities for hides") is that we already have a "catch-all" staging ground for new concepts. Give your new concepts a try there. Once they have proven themselves and have outgrown the "catch-all" staging ground of the mystery/puzzle type, then we can discuss creating a new type for them.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post

How about (T.I.N.Y.) Teentsy Infinitesimal Nucleic Yocto...

 

Edited by boisestate
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Wet Pancake Touring Club said:

Take the discussion of Challenge caches as an example. If there were a new icon for Mystery+"Challenge" caches, that would take care of a fair sized subset of the existing challenge caches. (Yes, I know, it is not perfect, but I am not going for perfect. An alternative that catches a majority is a step in the right direction.)

Currently there is no datapoint for classifying a "Challenge Cache", so that would need to be added. It's published as such only because a reviewer recognized it as such and requires the checker before publishing and "challenge" in the title. It would be a pain to build a toggle feature into the map to categorize them based on that criteria.  Add a data flag to identify challenge caches, and that's less an issue. Dare I say, that Mystery+"Challenge" would then be solved with the 'challenge stars' concept. :ph34r:

1 hour ago, Wet Pancake Touring Club said:

An Intercache is a basic geocache with multiple stages, and requires special equipment (a smartphone with GPS and web access).

An intercache is effectively a web-based Wherigo.  It's a mystery because it's not a Wherigo cartridge, and it's a mystery because it's a 'puzzle' to be solved by visiting a website and completing a task to determine final coordinates; special equipment requiring a smartphone for web+gps capability (unless you're a good hacker).  An 'intercache' can exist conceptually as a custom programmed web page as well, and provide exactly the same experience.

 

59 minutes ago, Rebore said:
2 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

Welcome to the forum

I guess this is the standard forum regulars answer to remarks like mine. It's poor and lame. Is there some kind of new cache type you would like to see?

Already answered above. And my comment was in jest, because there is indeed relevant discussion going on here.

 

52 minutes ago, L0ne.R said:

This is exactly my experience when I tried Munzee for a couple of years. ... I'd rather they scan and go. But in the end, I'd rather do is not play.

Yep, ditto with my experience. And THAT is a competitive numbers game.

 

Edited by thebruce0

Share this post


Link to post
31 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

Currently there is no datapoint for classifying a "Challenge Cache", so that would need to be added. It's published as such only because a reviewer recognized it as such and requires the checker before publishing and "challenge" in the title. It would be a pain to build a toggle feature into the map to categorize them based on that criteria.  Add a data flag to identify challenge caches, and that's less an issue. Dare I say, that Mystery+"Challenge" would then be solved with the 'challenge stars' concept. :ph34r:

I don't think a toggle feature would be very difficult. This assumes that a new challenge cache type were created, and used going forward.

Currently, the logic for determining what icon to display is something like:

  1. If the cache type is toggled off, don't display anything and exit
  2. The icon is the icon for the cache type
  3. If the cache has corrected coordinates, the icon is the puzzle piece
  4. If the cacher has posted a DNF, the icon is the frowny
  5. If the cacher has found the cache, the icon is the smiley
  6. Display the last icon

We change that to:

  1. The icon is the icon for the cache type
  2. If the cache is a puzzle, and has the word "Challenge" in the title, the icon is the challenge cache icon
  3. If the icon is toggled off, don't display anything and exit
  4. If the cache has corrected coordinates, the icon is the puzzle piece
  5. If the cacher has posted a DNF, the icon is the frowny
  6. If the cacher has posted a DNF, the icon is the smiley
  7. Display the last icon

 

:D Oh please, anything but 'challange stars'. Really, I'll be good, anything but them. :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
6 minutes ago, Wet Pancake Touring Club said:

:D Oh please, anything but 'challange stars'. Really, I'll be good, anything but them. :lol:

Hey, I'm a proponent. I'm not fanatical, but I'm a proponent. :P

 

7 minutes ago, Wet Pancake Touring Club said:

2. If the cache is a puzzle, and has the word "Challenge" in the title, the icon is the challenge cache icon

That is the filtering I was referring to. Right now it's just Cache Type. Your #2 is an added programmatic filter that has to check every cache, and it's not a flawless identifier. So it can't be done that way. There needs to be a strict data flag for challenge caches, and there is no method of identifying them to 100% exclusive certainty.  Even now requiring a checker, the checker is embedded in the description HTML, which means scouring the description; and that's still not a guarantee.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, thebruce0 said:

An intercache is effectively a web-based Wherigo.  It's a mystery because it's not a Wherigo cartridge, and it's a mystery because it's a 'puzzle' to be solved by visiting a website and completing a task to determine final coordinates; special equipment requiring a smartphone for web+gps capability (unless you're a good hacker).  An 'intercache' can exist conceptually as a custom programmed web page as well, and provide exactly the same experience.

What I was trying to do was come up with generic differentiators for the cache types.

A Wherigo requires a very specific application, something that has to be downloaded, and an Intercache only requires what generally comes builtin to every smartphone. Yes, Intercache requires the intercache web site.

So, to answer the OP question, a new cache type for any physical cache that requires a smart phone with gps+web access would be a candidate for a new cache type. Its just that they never really took off.

Share this post


Link to post
8 minutes ago, Wet Pancake Touring Club said:

A Wherigo requires a very specific application, something that has to be downloaded, and an Intercache only requires what generally comes builtin to every smartphone. Yes, Intercache requires the intercache web site.

I guess my point was - if I built a website to run on the smartphone that made use of GPS to carry out a set of location-based tasks, emulating the Wherigo experience, emulating the intercache experience, would I be able to create it as an "Intercache" cache type? Point is - it's just a web-based puzzle/task to complete, and whether it's following a gps to predetermined waypoints to answer questions, or reading a webpage to locate answers, you're using a phone to access the internet.  The only difference is GPS use while using a web page. But the only difference between that and Wherigo is the Wherigo cartridge; the experience is, simply speaking, exactly the same. And since those experiences are classified as Mystery, with Wherigos requiring the use of a Wherigo cartridge and app/device, I don't think "Intercache" merits a unique cache type. Too similar to a common puzzle mechanic.

If you consider perhaps a cache "requiring data use" as a significant difference to all other cache types, well one might argue that's a 'special tool required', and covered by the attribute. The end result is the same as the cache type under which it's listed (sign the logsheet or perform virtual task at designated coordinates).

 

I think one of the defining cahracteristics of the "Cache Type" is not the tools used to "Find" but process by which one does what is required to "Find". Physical caches (Traditional, Multi, Unknown, Letterbox, Wherigo) aren't distinguished by device but process, and the final is the same sign-log requirement (save "Challenge Caches" with the exception of an ALR). Virtual caches (Earthcache, Virtual, Webcam, Events) are distinguished by the task required in order to "Find" (answer questions, provide a photo, be in attendance).  The cache types, ultimately, are device agnostic. It needs to have GPS capability, that it.

So I think the best chance an idea has to be a unique cache type is if the process required to "Find" it is sufficiently different. And with Unknown being the catch-all for anything similar enough to "determine final coordinates then sign the logsheet", I think it may take a whole lot of convincing (or discovery of a great new unique idea) to get TPTB to see merit in another cache type :)

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
20 minutes ago, Wet Pancake Touring Club said:

So, to answer the OP question, a new cache type for any physical cache that requires a smart phone with gps+web access would be a candidate for a new cache type. Its just that they never really took off.

Yeah, they tried Geocaching Challenges; that failed. And a cache requiring a smartphone (or device with GPS+Web capability) can be covered by special equipment since the purpose is to determine the hidden final coordinates. I wouldn't mind seeing an experience like a mobile-location-based-task (Intercache style, however created) being recognized. But I doubt it's enough for a cache type.

Share this post


Link to post
18 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

So I think the best chance an idea has to be a unique cache type is if the process required to "Find" it is sufficiently different. And with Unknown being the catch-all for anything similar enough to "determine final coordinates then sign the logsheet", I think it may take a whole lot of convincing (or discovery of a great new unique idea) to get TPTB to see merit in another cache type :)

We have a winner B)

Share this post


Link to post

I was under the impression that Lab Caches were a means to experiment with new cache types, but it seems that they've mostly become something that caters to icon collectors.

 

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
8 minutes ago, NYPaddleCacher said:

I was under the impression that Lab Caches were a means to experiment with new cache types, but it seems that they've mostly become something that caters to icon collectors.

This is because Lab caches seems to be limited to special events and organizer of the event is usually not villing to take risks. I would call lab caches as amusement caches.

Maybe it is good this way but the experiment feature is lie.

Share this post


Link to post

People think Lab Cache is some other cache type. It's literally "laboratory" - an experimental catch all. Mystery is the catch-all for allowed cache styles not classifiable as another type. Lab caches can be any new test idea, or temporary tasks or puzzles or whatnot for events, etc, physical or virtual. At least when they started, it was a legitimate container to try something and find out if it could hold water as something official. Now it seems to be primarily temporary event games and whatnot.  I see the Lab Cache find as number of times you've helped "test" a new caching idea, and that's why they're not added to your cache find count (any more). They're not an official cache. :P

Share this post


Link to post
16 minutes ago, thebruce0 said:

 I see the Lab Cache find as number of times you've helped "test" a new caching idea, and that's why they're not added to your cache find count (any more). They're not an official cache. :P

 

I see them as event games, and have completed several. How about you? ;)

Share this post


Link to post

If Lab caches are one step ahead and trying to pull cache types out of the "catch all" Mystery zone, i think this thread is obsolete. They failed.

Edited by Rebore

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3

×