Mysteries as Letterboxes

[+schafili]

It happens more and more, that I want to start a letterbox, but on location it turns out: Its a mystery.

In more and more cases, its not even obvious, whether the listed coordinates are really the start of the letterbox, or if its actually a mystery.

This really takes the fun out of it for me, if I have to come back another day.

 

I would request from Groundspeak to ensure a clear cut between Mysteries, where coordinates are to be found up front, and Letterboxes, where I usually expect I can just start at the listed coordinates.

[+arisoft]

I will be pissed off if the starting point of a multi-cache is bogus. That happens sometimes, but not very often.

 

I have made a letterbox with bogus coordinates. Many times I see finders trying to start from the bogus because they skip the first part of the decsription that gives the starting point.

 

28 minutes ago, schafili said:

I usually expect I can just start at the listed coordinates.

 

Here is your problem. Traditional Letterboxes do not have coordinates at all. Neither final or bogus. You can not expect anything about the posted coordinates unless the description gives you a hint what to do with them, if any. You start considering the cache as a mystery until you may find it to be a traditional or a multi-cache.

Edited March 17 by arisoft

[Keystone]

The sole distinguishing feature of a Letterbox Hybrid cache is the presence of a letterboxing stamp.  Otherwise, the cache takes on the character of, and is subject to all the listing guidelines applicable to, the underlying cache type.

 

Find  a container at the posted coordinates and sign the log:  Traditional.  Add a stamp:  Letterbox Hybrid.

Find something at the posted coordinates that directs you to another location, and eventually a container and log:  Multi-Cache.  Add a stamp:  Letterbox Hybrid.

Solve a puzzle or do something else to find out where to go first:  Mystery Cache.  Add a stamp:  Letterbox Hybrid.

[+barefootjeff]

7 hours ago, Keystone said:

The sole distinguishing feature of a Letterbox Hybrid cache is the presence of a letterboxing stamp.  Otherwise, the cache takes on the character of, and is subject to all the listing guidelines applicable to, the underlying cache type.

 

I guess the problem the OP is having is that the underlying cache type isn't always apparent from the description.

 

LBHs are pretty rare around here and I've only found 11 of them in my 11 years of caching. Of those 7 were traditionals, 3 were mysteries with a solve-at-home puzzle to begin, and 1 was a multi which had traditional letterboxing-style clues starting from the listed coordinates. I did get caught out with one of the mystery ones, though, as I'd solved the puzzle several months before I was able to go looking for the cache and by then I'd forgotten that it was an LBH, since it only showed on the map as a solved puzzle-piece, and got bamboozled when I reached my solved coordinates only to find a series of letterboxing clues scrolling across an LCD screen that I needed to note down and follow.

[+JL_HSTRE]

Out of 200+ LBH Finds, I can only remember one that wasn't at the posted coordinates. 

 

I agree that a puzzle LBH should clearly spell that out at the top of the description.

[+RCH65]

15 hours ago, Keystone said:

The sole distinguishing feature of a Letterbox Hybrid cache is the presence of a letterboxing stamp.  Otherwise, the cache takes on the character of, and is subject to all the listing guidelines applicable to, the underlying cache type.

 

In other words: "Letterbox" should be an attribute and not a cache type. But that probably can't be changed anymore...

[+niraD]

42 minutes ago, RCH65 said:

In other words: "Letterbox" should be an attribute and not a cache type. But that probably can't be changed anymore...

Exactly. At the time LBH caches were introduced, attributes did not exist, so they were introduced as a new type. If they were introduced today, then they would be introduced as an attribute, not as a type.

[+arisoft]

9 hours ago, JL_HSTRE said:

Out of 200+ LBH Finds, I can only remember one that wasn't at the posted coordinates. 

 

I agree that a puzzle LBH should clearly spell that out at the top of the description.

 

Here the normal is a real Letterbox (with clues) and if the cache is at the posted coordinates it is told clearly in the description.

[+JL_HSTRE]

14 hours ago, arisoft said:

Here the normal is a real Letterbox (with clues) and if the cache is at the posted coordinates it is told clearly in the description.

 

How do they meet the GPS requirement Guideline?

[+niraD]

59 minutes ago, JL_HSTRE said:

How do they meet the GPS requirement Guideline?

I don't know about arisoft's location, but the LBH caches I've found have used accurate GPS coordinates to identify the starting location (not a generic starting location like a parking lot or a trailhead). The letterbox-style clues make sense only if you start at the correct location, so accurate GPS coordinates are needed to even start the letterbox-style clues.

[+The_Jumping_Pig]

I find it dumb that just a stamp completly overrides the cache type. If anything, LBHs should be determined by the style of hide (giving clues from starting location).

1 hour ago, JL_HSTRE said:

How do they meet the GPS requirement Guideline?

I have a letterbox style mystery cache. Using an intersection wasn't enough GPS usage, so I had to use a projection as one of my steps.

[+arisoft]

4 hours ago, niraD said:

the LBH caches I've found have used accurate GPS coordinates to identify the starting location

 

In this case the underlying cache type is multi-cache. Without a stamp the cache could be published as a multi-cache.

 

3 hours ago, The_Jumping_Pig said:

Using an intersection wasn't enough GPS usage, so I had to use a projection as one of my steps.

 

As with multi-cache you must have something to find at the posted coordinates. The underlying cache type is mystery when you have to calculate projection from a bogus waypoint.

 

5 hours ago, JL_HSTRE said:

How do they meet the GPS requirement Guideline?

 

Usually the description gives an alternative way to solve the final coordinates as an addition to the Letterbox style clue in the description. Finder must decide whether to follow the clue or solve a mystery. The mystery part may be totally separate part of the description or embedded in the clue. In some cases the mystery is so well hidden that the only practical way is to follow the clue only.

Edited March 19 by arisoft

[+JL_HSTRE]

7 hours ago, The_Jumping_Pig said:

I find it dumb that just a stamp completly overrides the cache type.

 

If Groundspeak had to do it all over again I'm pretty sure LBH type would not exist at all. There would instead be an Attribute for having an ink stamp in the cache. But LBHs precede Attributes and the realization of the better implementation came far too late to be used.

[+Mr Indoorsman]

On 3/17/2024 at 6:47 PM, Keystone said:

The sole distinguishing feature of a Letterbox Hybrid cache is the presence of a letterboxing stamp.  Otherwise, the cache takes on the character of, and is subject to all the listing guidelines applicable to, the underlying cache type.

 

Find  a container at the posted coordinates and sign the log:  Traditional.  Add a stamp:  Letterbox Hybrid.

Find something at the posted coordinates that directs you to another location, and eventually a container and log:  Multi-Cache.  Add a stamp:  Letterbox Hybrid.

Solve a puzzle or do something else to find out where to go first:  Mystery Cache.  Add a stamp:  Letterbox Hybrid.

Not really, stick a stamp in mystery bonus cache and it becomes....still a mystery bonus -a piece of uniquely twisted thinking by HQ that was folded into other changes on bonus caches a couple of years back. Starved of logic, and yet, there it is.

[+thebruce0]

On 3/26/2024 at 6:37 PM, Mr Indoorsman said:

Not really, stick a stamp in mystery bonus cache and it becomes....still a mystery bonus -a piece of uniquely twisted thinking by HQ that was folded into other changes on bonus caches a couple of years back. Starved of logic, and yet, there it is.

 

Well, in this case I'd just say that a Mystery Bonus cache cannot also be a legitimate Letterbox Hybrid.  Its "ALR"-style format (ie complete other caches/AL first) overrides its definition as a LBH (which cannot have an ALR).  So it's better understood as a Bonus cache cannot coexist as a LBH - rather than a LBH having to be listed as a Mystery despite having a stamp...  A Bonus cache with a stamp is just..a cache container with something else with or without ink inside it.

Edited March 28 by thebruce0

[+Mr Indoorsman]

6 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

 

Well, in this case I'd just say that a Mystery Bonus cache cannot also be a legitimate Letterbox Hybrid.  Its "ALR"-style format (ie complete other caches/AL first) overrides its definition as a LBH (which cannot have an ALR).  So it's better understood as a Bonus cache cannot coexist as a LBH - rather than a LBH having to be listed as a Mystery despite having a stamp...  A Bonus cache with a stamp is just..a cache container with something else with or without ink inside it.

So finding stages to get the cache is an 'ALR'? Really? Bad news for Multis then...

Plus plenty of Letterboxes take you to multiple locations before the find, that's kinda the original idea of what a Letterbox is.
Think you have over-reached a bit there and are trying to brand a long-standing core part of the game as an ALR in order to try to justify what is just a poorly thought-through decision by HQ. It isn't consistent with other rules of the game, and serves no useful purpose in terms of advancing people's enjoyment of geocaching. 

[+thebruce0]

3 hours ago, Mr Indoorsman said:

So finding stages to get the cache is an 'ALR'? Really?

No, not really. Other geocaches or Adventure Locations are not 'stages' to a Bonus cache. A Multi is not a Bonus cache.

 

And, I didn't say they ARE ALRs, I said "its 'ALR'-style format".  You can find a Bonus cache without finding the other caches first, if you have the coordinates, but the intent is that you find the other geocaches/ALLs first, to get the information needed for the Bonus.  A LBH is not a Bonus cache, and a Bonus cache therefore cannot be a LBH.

Edited March 29 by thebruce0

[+Mr Indoorsman]

If in order to explain why a rule changed, you have to invent a new concept - 'ALR-like' - that doesn't exist in the rules before or after that change, then we can't say that is a consistent and logical argument, now can we. The rules should make sense in themselves. The 'stick a stamp in a container and it's absolutely a letterbox' rule.....except when it's not (sometimes), is a good example of an inconsistent rule that doesn't align with other existing rules.

What you have said above is just that an LBH is not a bonus cache. However, 'just cos' isn't a reason, more a baseless assertion. Reasoned argument needs reasons. If it could be explained why the rule changed, without having to ad hoc invent concepts that don't exist, (say if it were a logical consequence of other rules), then it would be obvious that the change had been thought through.

In the absence of reasons, it just appears like a HQ mistake, and one that we don't need to slavishly defend. If it is a mistake then no harm no foul, someone just had a bad day at the office and that needs to be corrected and move on.

[+barefootjeff]

58 minutes ago, Mr Indoorsman said:

The rules should make sense in themselves. The 'stick a stamp in a container and it's absolutely a letterbox' rule.....except when it's not (sometimes), is a good example of an inconsistent rule that doesn't align with other existing rules.

 

But that's in conflict with another rule that says a bonus cache must be a Mystery cache, so something has to give. Tied into that is the Bonus Cache attribute which, along with the Challenge Cache attribute, is only available in Mystery caches. What happens if you put a stamp in a challenge cache?

[Keystone]

4 hours ago, Mr Indoorsman said:

If it could be explained why the rule changed,

 

There has been no rule changes on this topic; perhaps that's the source of your angst.

 

There have been some new attributes introduced, such as Bonus Cache Attribute and Challenge Cache Attribute.  But, they merely enhanced an existing framework - they didn't change it.

 

The Letterbox Hybrid guidance from Geocaching HQ has also been consistent for many years.  As has been noted above, if the concept of attributes had been around at the time when Jeremy Irish identified a need for a way to alert finders not to steal letterboxing stamps, then "Has a Letterboxing Stamp" would have been an attribute, not a cache type.

[+arisoft]

10 hours ago, Mr Indoorsman said:

LBH is not a bonus cache. However, 'just cos' isn't a reason, more a baseless assertion.

 

I see a logic reason. If you are playing only Letterbox game you can not find these caches required to find the Letterbox hybrid bonus. (Unless all required caches are Letterboxes)

Edited April 1 by arisoft

[+thebruce0]

23 hours ago, Mr Indoorsman said:

we can't say that is a consistent and logical argument, now can we.

I think you're a little too invested in this... plenty of explanations above as to why they are not compatible formats.

 

22 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

But that's in conflict with another rule that says a bonus cache must be a Mystery cache, so something has to give. Tied into that is the Bonus Cache attribute which, along with the Challenge Cache attribute, is only available in Mystery caches. What happens if you put a stamp in a challenge cache?

Very succinct examples of fundamentally incompatible setups, with that dreaded "ALR-like" idea (which is of course itself not any 'official' term).

 

Bonus cache: Find other things in order to get the info to find this. (other Found it logs are not required)

Challenge cache: Accomplish other things in order to lock in your Found It log. (statistical demonstration is required to let the Found It log stand)

Letterbox Hybrid cache: Find it like you would any other other physical cache type [having no other requirement to log it as found]*; but if it has a stamp, it's a Letterbox Hybrid.

* these (Bonus/Challenge) did not exist when the LBH cache type was created.

[+Mr Indoorsman]

Is it really being 'too invested' when someone asks for a bit more of a logical explanation for something? I find that an unusual perspective, but I guess it's a view, and you are entitled to it.

 

Anyhoo, my understanding is that there are already many letterbox caches which are bonus caches, I certainly have some, and a quick look through earlier discussions on the forums on this point leads to many more being evidenced, all over. Then, when the new bonus attribute arrived that changed. and I think either the online guidelines were updated, and/or reviewers were given additional steers on this point, and caches like that started to be rejected, in multiple countries based on previous forum discussions. So, fair to assume that there was some sort of steer from HQ on that point either in updating the online rules or guidance to reviewers....I'm ruling out large scale international coincidence, or an epidemic of errors by reviewers across the globe over several years . 

 

At it simplest, this is just a question of 'why' this is the rule, not 'is that now the rule or is it not', that's all I want to know. Not an unreasonable request, for a customer paying for a service.  So far all points (bar arisoft's comment above, which has separate limitations) seem to centre on 'the rules say that because that is what the rules say', and without sounding too interested in this topic (god forbid), I am just asking why the rules say that and why Letterboxes have been decided as not appropriate to be bonus caches. There must have been some sort of thought process there, so let's hear it.

 

 

Edited April 2 by Mr Indoorsman

[+Mr Indoorsman]

On 4/1/2024 at 7:16 PM, arisoft said:

 

I see a logic reason. If you are playing only Letterbox game you can not find these caches required to find the Letterbox hybrid bonus. (Unless all required caches are Letterboxes)

Is that a mandatory rule somehwere for geocaches? If you could help by linking to that, it might help understand this a bit better.

Edit: and I think your original comment on this topic when we last debated it is still relevant, if original letterboxing could have bonus caches, why can't hybrids, particularly if the feeder caches are supplying clues that are not just straight 'here are bonus coords' info, and are a bit more 'letterboxy' in style.

Edited April 2 by Mr Indoorsman

[+Mr Indoorsman]

On 4/1/2024 at 1:02 PM, Keystone said:

 

There has been no rule changes on this topic; perhaps that's the source of your angst.

 

There have been some new attributes introduced, such as Bonus Cache Attribute and Challenge Cache Attribute.  But, they merely enhanced an existing framework - they didn't change it.

 

The Letterbox Hybrid guidance from Geocaching HQ has also been consistent for many years.  As has been noted above, if the concept of attributes had been around at the time when Jeremy Irish identified a need for a way to alert finders not to steal letterboxing stamps, then "Has a Letterboxing Stamp" would have been an attribute, not a cache type.

Last time I posted on the forums about this topic you accused me of being upset by your response. This time you are accusing me of "angst". Both, quite baffling responses in the circumstances. As a moderator I'd like to think you are capable of responding in a factual and balanced manner, rather than reverting straight away to speculations on someone's emotional state just because you don't agree with them. There is no angst here, I'm just asking a simple question, so that sort of comment is a bit inappropriate really. 

 

And the fact is that the existence of so many letterboxes that are bonus caches (and in a variety of countries, over an extended range of publication dates) indicates either a large degree of confusion on this point, or mass serial errors by COs and their reviewers. If a nice logical explanation of why letterboxes can't be bonus caches were provided it might cement people's understanding and stop any more confusion. That's in all our interests.

 

The point about attributes and cache types is a bit misleading because there are probably other cache types that could have been addressed by using attributes I guess. Besides, not sure an attribute would stop stamps going missing, any more than using a cache type would. As a CO with 70+ letterboxes published, it looks to me like this is just a risk you have to accept of creating these style of caches - cache contents of any type can go awol.

 

[+Mr Indoorsman]

On 4/1/2024 at 9:55 AM, barefootjeff said:

 

But that's in conflict with another rule that says a bonus cache must be a Mystery cache, so something has to give. Tied into that is the Bonus Cache attribute which, along with the Challenge Cache attribute, is only available in Mystery caches. What happens if you put a stamp in a challenge cache?

Yes the rules do need to be consistent, but it's a bit of circular logic to say letterboxes can't be bonuses just because that is the rule, mainly because it just takes a simple 'unless' statement in the rules to make that option seemingly workable, in much the same way as the rule 'any cache type plus stamp equals letterbox' rule had the 'unless it's a bonus' statement added to it at some point. You can make the rules do anything really, it just needs to be rationalised as to why it is either a good or bad idea to do so. My question is simply what is that ratiionale behind the decision, not what does the rule say. 

[+barefootjeff]

3 minutes ago, Mr Indoorsman said:

On 4/1/2024 at 7:55 PM, barefootjeff said:

What happens if you put a stamp in a challenge cache?

Yes the rules do need to be consistent, but it's a bit of circular logic to say letterboxes can't be bonuses just because that is the rule, mainly because it just takes a simple 'unless' statement in the rules to make that option seemingly workable, in much the same way as the rule 'any cache type plus stamp equals letterbox' rule had the 'unless it's a bonus' statement added to it at some point. You can make the rules do anything really, it just needs to be rationalised as to why it is either a good or bad idea to do so. My question is simply what is that ratiionale behind the decision, not what does the rule say.

 

So should a Challenge Cache with a stamp in it be listed as an LBH? Maybe it should, but on the other hand the long-standing definition of a challenge is a Mystery cache with the word "Challenge" in the title.

[+Mr Indoorsman]

16 minutes ago, barefootjeff said:

 

So should a Challenge Cache with a stamp in it be listed as an LBH? Maybe it should, but on the other hand the long-standing definition of a challenge is a Mystery cache with the word "Challenge" in the title.

I don't know if that should be a letterbox or not tbh, but as challenge caches are often at the published coords or at disclosed waypoint coordinates, it's difficult to envisage one being a 'proper' letterbox in that respect (none of my LHB caches are at the published coords, that's just a personal preference not an obligation). But my point is a lot simpler than that, it's about getting a rationale. I kinda envisage a discussion in HQ where a bunch of intelligent folks who know the hobby are sitting around discussing rule changes and rationalising why things should change in a particular area. Then they announce a rule change or issue new reviewer guidance, and seek to embed that change in their customer base by explaining why the rules were changed. That doesn't seem a ridiculous expectation, changes work best when the people involved know why the change is happening.

 

[+niraD]

1 hour ago, barefootjeff said:

So should a Challenge Cache with a stamp in it be listed as an LBH? Maybe it should, but on the other hand the long-standing definition of a challenge is a Mystery cache with the word "Challenge" in the title.

If we're talking what SHOULD happen, then I would argue that the LBH type should be migrated to a LB Stamp attribute. But I'm sure the idea of removing a cache type triggers all the usual tech-related issues that the idea of new cache types triggers, plus a bunch of angst from stats hounds who would be losing a cache type for Busy Day challenges and the like.

[+arisoft]

2 hours ago, Mr Indoorsman said:

Is that a mandatory rule somehwere for geocaches?

 

In geocaching, logic and guidelines not always match. I have made one LBH cache just because adding a stamp was the only way to accomplish the cache idea I was planned couple of years. The underlying cache type was not allowed with this setup, but it was allowed when masquered to LBH.

[+Mr Indoorsman]

11 hours ago, arisoft said:

 

In geocaching, logic and guidelines not always match. I have made one LBH cache just because adding a stamp was the only way to accomplish the cache idea I was planned couple of years. The underlying cache type was not allowed with this setup, but it was allowed when masquered to LBH.

Yes thats why I like the cache type. it's a bit more versatile than some others, and what you've done is a good intelligent use of that flexibility. Nothing wrong with that. 

[+Mr Indoorsman]

11 hours ago, niraD said:

If we're talking what SHOULD happen, then I would argue that the LBH type should be migrated to a LB Stamp attribute. But I'm sure the idea of removing a cache type triggers all the usual tech-related issues that the idea of new cache types triggers, plus a bunch of angst from stats hounds who would be losing a cache type for Busy Day challenges and the like.

Yes it feels like that ship has sailed and couldn't be done now. Too many issues. However not sure what would have been gained by doing it, I don't know that it really solves a problem. I'm not even sure Letterboxes are a problem to be solved tbh. They work fine in my view, and importantly, add something to the hobby, something that is a nice nod towards the historical origins of geocaching.  They're no more an obstacle to the OPs activities than say a mystery Wherigo or multi, it would just be nice to get a thought-through rationale on why they can't be bonus caches.

 

On 4/1/2024 at 9:55 AM, barefootjeff said:

 

But that's in conflict with another rule that says a bonus cache must be a Mystery cache, so something has to give. Tied into that is the Bonus Cache attribute which, along with the Challenge Cache attribute, is only available in Mystery caches. What happens if you put a stamp in a challenge cache?

 

13 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

 

So should a Challenge Cache with a stamp in it be listed as an LBH? Maybe it should, but on the other hand the long-standing definition of a challenge is a Mystery cache with the word "Challenge" in the title.

 

[+niraD]

32 minutes ago, Mr Indoorsman said:

it would just be nice to get a thought-through rationale on why they can't be bonus caches.

I don't think it goes any deeper than the quotes you included from barefootjeff.

 

LBH is a type, so LBH caches are by definition not mystery/puzzle caches. Bonus caches  and challenge caches are by definition mystery/puzzle caches. Therefore, bonus caches and challenge caches cannot be the LBH type, even if they have a stamp in the container.

[+thebruce0]

6 hours ago, niraD said:

Bonus caches  and challenge caches are by definition mystery/puzzle caches. Therefore, bonus caches and challenge caches cannot be the LBH type, even if they have a stamp in the container.

This. And the logic is there in the fact of what these 'exception' styles do. A Trad/Multi/Mystery setup can coexist with a stamp if it's a LBH type, which doesn't limit its setup against those other three types.  Bonus and Challenge cannot be listed as LBH because their setup is in conflict with what the LBH type allows. A LBH can't be a bonus - it must be findable with all information self-contained. A LBH can't be a Challenge cache - there can't be any prerequisites in order to log it as found.  So there is both logic and rule in the definition of the types that demonstrate why a Letterbox Hybrid cache cannot be a Bonus Cache or Challenge Cache, and vice versa.  To put it another way, putting a stamp in a Bonus cache means either not having the LBH cache type or it being a self-contained cache, not the final cache after completing others as intended. The styles are in conflict with each other.

 

I do agree that it's a situation where if these styles were created today then Letterbox Stamp would also be best implemented as an attribute, which would also work well with Challenges being an attribute just like the Bonus.  In those cases then, the setup style wouldn't be defined in the cache type, but by the attribute, and they could then be additive where possible.

You could create a Challenge cache as a bonus with a stamp, listed as a Mystery, and you'd only be able to log it found once you qualify, and find prerequisite caches/ALs, and you'd know there's a stamp to use, and it could even be multiple stages, with remote or fiend puzzles to boot. All within the 'catch all' Mystery type.  But as it is, LBH as its own type puts it in practical conflict with the other cache styles.