Guest jeremy Posted May 4, 2001 Share Posted May 4, 2001 I'm creating an additional attribute for caches where you can indicate the type of cache as "virtual" "multi-stage" "classic" "puzzle", etc. If you have a proposed cache "type" please post to this forum. An exception will be a hitchiker, which would be a travelling item that can be placed from cache to cache. I have an interesting idea on how to support this. When I have something more concrete I'll let you know. Jeremy Quote Link to comment
Guest Scout Posted May 4, 2001 Share Posted May 4, 2001 You should support classifying a cache as being of several types simultaneously. A cache could be a multi-stage virtual puzzle cache, for example. Also, you should allow for non-classification. Classification provides clues that the cache hider may prefer to keep secret. For example, my best cache yet was a multi-stage one that wasn't labeled as such. Advertising it as such up front would have removed a lot of the challenge and enjoyment of figuring out why the description of the cache failed to match the environment of the first stage. Quote Link to comment
Guest cache_ninja Posted May 4, 2001 Share Posted May 4, 2001 yeah, probably would be good to be able to classify as more than one type. what the heck is "puzzle"? also maybe we shoudl include "other" as a category? if you dont make it possible to have more than one classification, maybe one should be "multi-type" i.e. i have one thats "classic" but inside has coordinates inside for a virtual cache,named lonley blu, which doesnt really reveal what blu is. so, in this case, would it be a "multi-stage classic virtual puzzle"? "classic multi-stage puzzle virtual?" i guess this attribute seems kinda silly and meaningless at times, im not sure why its necessary at all. i would think people just describe what kind of cache it is/whatever info they want in the cache listing and since many will invariably fall under more than one classification type, its sort of useless.. or mabye not. i dunno. c/n [This message has been edited by cache_ninja (edited 04 May 2001).] Quote Link to comment
Guest Ron Streeter Posted May 4, 2001 Share Posted May 4, 2001 Jeremy... Your new idea sounds like a good one. For what it's worth, I suggest you be careful with the words you use for the "types" of categories. On some of the forums, semantics have become such an issue that people are throwing up their hands in disgust. For instance, my interpretation of your suggested category "classic" is that it is the usual kind of cache we have been seeking. In other words it is a "traditional" cache. Looking to the future when these categories start to be a part of the sport (or game, or whatever one chooses to call this endeavor) I can see a few disgruntled types saying.....'"Hey, this was promoted as a (type x) but it's really a (type y) !" Heaven save us from these spreaders of doom ! And, as usual to be politically correct, this is just MY HUMBLE OPINION ! Quote Link to comment
Guest Peter Scholtz Posted May 4, 2001 Share Posted May 4, 2001 Alternatively, rather have an estimate on how long it should take to find the cache. ------------------ Peter Scholtz www.biometrics.co.za [This message has been edited by Peter Scholtz (edited 04 May 2001).] Quote Link to comment
Guest robamy Posted May 4, 2001 Share Posted May 4, 2001 it should take to find the cache. Quote Link to comment
Guest Moun10Bike Posted May 4, 2001 Share Posted May 4, 2001 quote:Originally posted by robamy:This would be difficult to do. I think the difficulty, terrain, descriptions, TOPO maps and logs give you the information you need to get an idea of how long it will take. I agree. I have been derogatorily labeled a "purist" on the mailing list for wanting to keep things simple (even though I include a lot of extra information in my own cache reports), but I think that we run the risk of over-complicating this simple and elegant game by adding too many "extras." I'm all for adding Jeremy's cache classifications, but I would steer clear of other things like estimated time to find the cache, coordinates for parking, whether the area is dog-friendly or wheelchair accessible, etc. At some point, there has to be a limit on what info is revealed, and cache seekers have to be responsible for collecting the information they want or need for a hunt. Note that I am only referring to "required" fields on a cache report. I have no problems with hiders supplying whatever information they want to reveal about their cache. If we did have fields for details like those I mention above, then I would like to have the ability to leave these fields blank. [This message has been edited by Moun10Bike (edited 04 May 2001).] Quote Link to comment
Guest Peter Scholtz Posted May 4, 2001 Share Posted May 4, 2001 At this stage I'd say the only distinction (for searching purposes) I'd like to see is the multi-stage cache. ------------------ Peter Scholtz www.biometrics.co.za Quote Link to comment
Guest jeremy Posted May 4, 2001 Share Posted May 4, 2001 Cache types - 1. Traditional 2. Multi 3. Virtual 4. Other / Surprise Sound good? Don't know if we want to make multiple attributes for one cache. These should be global types. As long as we pick global types (where it can only be one) we'll be better off. Jeremy Quote Link to comment
Guest Peter Scholtz Posted May 4, 2001 Share Posted May 4, 2001 "Originally posted by jeremy: Cache types - 1. Traditional 2. Multi 3. Virtual 4. Other / Surprise" Let's get some figures: 1. How many are traditional (go there and get it)? From the cache id counter I'd guess around 2000+? 2. On 26 April I enquired about multi stage caches and received seven responses. I assume there are more. 3. Kenya has a virtual cache, where else? 4. I'm all for option 4. ------------------ Peter Scholtz www.biometrics.co.za Quote Link to comment
Guest 300mag Posted May 4, 2001 Share Posted May 4, 2001 I think this is a good idea.It will give you an idea of what kind of cache you'll be looking for.If you prefer such or such type of cache well it will be listed and easy for you to pick out. Or if you are going for a puzzle cache,multi or other you will know what to expect. Cool i am considering changing one of my caches into a multi or puzzle cache. [This message has been edited by 300mag (edited 04 May 2001).] Quote Link to comment
Guest 300mag Posted May 4, 2001 Share Posted May 4, 2001 I think this is a good idea.It will give you an idea of what kind of cache you'll be looking for.If you prefer such or such type of cache well it will be listed and easy for you to pick out. Or if you are going for a puzzle cache,multi or other you will know what to expect. Cool i am considering changing one of my caches into a multi or puzzle cache. [This message has been edited by 300mag (edited 04 May 2001).] Quote Link to comment
Guest Jude Posted May 4, 2001 Share Posted May 4, 2001 Good idea Jeremy.Has we speak,I'm working on a cache.It's going to be a multyleg cache, where the hunter has to goto 6 diferrent location and find the coordinates of each of the legs.I will only give the hunter the first coordinate to get them in the area,then he will fellow clues as to locate the next set of coordinates,all the way to the cache.As of now,I only no about 2 type of cache,"traditional","urban".I thought I would be the first to try this,but glad to see somebody else do it.What's a "virtual"?? Quote Link to comment
Guest Ron Streeter Posted May 4, 2001 Share Posted May 4, 2001 Jude.. A virtual cache is one that essentially doesn't have a physical presence like a plastic or metal container, but rather might be a spectacular view or an interesting natural phenomenon like thousands of butterflies nesting in trees. Depending on the "cache" the site may be temporary or long-lasting. Usually there is no logbook (since there is nothing to store it in) and the cache finders simply log their 'find' on the cache page at Geocaching.com. I think that's an accurate portrayal. My fellow cachers may have some additional perspectives I haven't thought about. Quote Link to comment
Guest cache_ninja Posted May 6, 2001 Share Posted May 6, 2001 every time but i really dont care. c/n Quote Link to comment
Guest cache_ninja Posted May 6, 2001 Share Posted May 6, 2001 just realized, you could run into the problem of , well, how do you distinguish between a micro and small traditional etc. with all these categories you are going to need to have some loose definitions on the url somewhere anyway, otherwise when newbies report the caches/look at cache listings etc and see them, you'll get tons of questions in e-mail, on the forum, on the list "whats a virtual cache" etc etc....so, i dunno....we could probably work out loose "definitions" here on the forums, if you like, once you decide on the categories, if you want... c/n [This message has been edited by cache_ninja (edited 06 May 2001).] Quote Link to comment
Guest logscaler Posted May 6, 2001 Share Posted May 6, 2001 Why not catagorize(sp?) cache's by the size of the containers? Micro-less then a quart size; mini-less then a gallon; medium - one / two gallons; large- two gallons to five gallons; jumbo - five gallons plus. I was even thinking about a re-sealable fifty-five gallon barrel. To much? Quote Link to comment
Guest Tyger Posted May 7, 2001 Share Posted May 7, 2001 I don't know if others would be opposed to this or not, or if they would rather keep the two seperate, but what about a category for combo caches, that have stamps for letterbox people? (Or alternatively letterboxes where the owner posted them for geocaching, as well) Don't get me wrong, I enjoy geocaching just fine. Sometimes figuring out how to get there from GPS coordinates can be harder than figuring it out from clues, as I have discovered. And the exchange of items can be interesting. But almost every cache I have come across now has been overflowing. Also, items can get damaged, and there is the problem of what is a reasonable item. Sometimes nothing has interested me, so I just take something and deposit it in another cache. But on the other hand, letterboxing uses simple caches... A log book, and a stamp. It can fit in nice small containers, and finding out what the stamp is can be fun, too. Also it gives a little more personality for your mark if you use a stamp you selected or made yourself to fit you. So what I am suggesting, is perhaps start a category of letterbox caches. The reason I suggest explicitly naming them letterbox caches, is the LbNA orginization recognizes any hidden stash with a log book and rubber stamp with clues as to how to get to it as a letterbox. And GPS coordinates count as clues. (In fact, I've noticed some people regularly use them in letterbox clues, though usually only as starting points. The difference between letterboxing and geocaching, it seems, is that letterboxing is more focused on solving and following clues, while geocaching is more about navigating terrain) Addittionally, there should be a category for a cache with no items meant for taking. (Is that what a mini cache is?) As for definitions, just putting a "Whats this?" link by the categories whenever they are displayed should saffice. Just get everyone to agree on definitions, and put those in the FAQ. As a bit of a background, I'm new to geocaching, have found 3 so far and not found 1. I have never been letterboxing, and only found out about it after geocaching, but it sounds intriguing to me. I got my GPS (Garmin eMap) just after SA was turned off. It has been somewhat useful since, but nowhere as fun as geocaching. I likely won't start letterboxing anytime soon, as theres only 5 boxes within 60 miles of me, mostly towards the outer edge of 60 miles. But if there were more boxes with stamps in them and stamp logbooks, I might be encouraged to make my own stamp. I might do so anyway, and start stamping logbooks when I sign them. Maybe I'll start a trend. Quote Link to comment
Guest Eoghan Posted May 7, 2001 Share Posted May 7, 2001 1. Traditional 2. Multi 3. Virtual 4. Other / Surprise I'd add: 5. Micro 6. Letterbox 7. "One time only" (for caching events) or perhaps just "Dated" or "Limited access" for some that are accessible only at certain times. Instead of "Letterbox" there could be a "Crossover/Variant" category for caches that don't tend to fit the more traditional type but are formalized enough not to be lumped into "Other" Quote Link to comment
Guest jeremy Posted May 7, 2001 Share Posted May 7, 2001 1. Traditional 2. Multi 3. Virtual 4. Micro 5. Letterbox Hybrid 6. Event 7. Other / Surprise The letterboxing folks will probably go rabid on me for #6 (I offered to help them once. Never do that again). I'll be adding two more fields as well - date start and date expire. If they're blank they'll last forever (or in the case of the date, start immediately) 1. date start - The coordinates will not be shown until a specific time. Cachers will be able to be "notified" via email when the cache goes live. 2. date end - Cache will be automatically archived once this date has passed. Good for temporary caches or events. As for "other" this is a placeholder so I can add new ideas as they come up. If an idea is so diabolical I will add a new category for it. Micro cache type sort of concerns me. Perhaps there should be a size option for caches (was posted somewhere) - 1. Micro (35mm canister) 2. Normal (tupperware, ammo box) 3. Large (5 gallon bucket and higher) 4. Unusual (Not sure about this one) Jeremy Quote Link to comment
Guest Eoghan Posted May 7, 2001 Share Posted May 7, 2001 Yeah, I like the idea of a size option rather than a separate category; it'd help out in knowing what size of items you could take to swap in the cache. Of course it'd also help in knowing what you're searching for so I'd make it so you could opt out of specifying size for those who want to give fewer clues. Quote Link to comment
Guest jeremy Posted May 7, 2001 Share Posted May 7, 2001 Here's the list, and icons to define each cache type. I'll be shrinking down the images and using them on the results page, etc, so at a quick glance you can see what type of cache it is. Comments? http://www.geocaching.com/about/cache_types.asp Jeremy Quote Link to comment
Guest Silver Posted May 8, 2001 Share Posted May 8, 2001 Jeremy, The icons look great! And they will still be recognizable when they are smaller in size. My only suggestion is maybe a GPS receiver icon on the 'traditional' rather than a satellite? A nice yellow eTrex might look good there IMHO. Nice job. Silver Quote Link to comment
Guest Ron Streeter Posted May 8, 2001 Share Posted May 8, 2001 Yep...the icons look great and the "types" seem to cover all possibilities at this time with a little growing room left over. Silver...Hey...Magellan fans may not like the yellow etrex on the traditional can ! How about a little treasure chest? Quote Link to comment
Guest jeremy Posted May 8, 2001 Share Posted May 8, 2001 I'm not going to put a Garmin *or* Magellan on the official Geocaching type icon. Too much controversy - and - they didn't pay me Replaced the satellite with a smiley face. Seemed fitting since I use them to indicate a find. As it turns out the satellite didn't shrink into a small icon very well. J Quote Link to comment
Guest jeremy Posted May 8, 2001 Share Posted May 8, 2001 I'm not going to put a Garmin *or* Magellan on the official Geocaching type icon. Too much controversy - and - they didn't pay me Replaced the satellite with a smiley face. Seemed fitting since I use them to indicate a find. As it turns out the satellite didn't shrink into a small icon very well. J Quote Link to comment
Guest Markwell Posted May 9, 2001 Share Posted May 9, 2001 Cool idea! Two questions and a comment. 1) Are these subcategories going to be searchable in the "advanced search" module? 2) Will the Difficulties/Terrain categorizations be searchable as well? Comment: you mentioned a multiple selection for size (micro, normal, large, unusual). I presume this will be a "combo" box. I might suggest that a "virtual" cache is the hyperbole of a size - expand the sizes of the cache to be Unusual, Large, Normal, Micro and None. Just a thought. [This message has been edited by Markwell (edited 09 May 2001).] Quote Link to comment
Guest Nemesis Posted May 25, 2001 Share Posted May 25, 2001 quote:Originally posted by jeremy:I'm creating an additional attribute for caches where you can indicate the type of cache as "virtual" "multi-stage" "classic" "puzzle", etc. If you have a proposed cache "type" please post to this forum. Jeremy, I know you have already implemented cache types on geocaching.com, they are very useful. But, I just remembered that the "divine" geocache is another popular cache type (I have one). As you already have the letterboxing hybrid, it would be great to have a degree confluence project hybrid too. The icon for the "divine" geocache could be crosshairs on the usual cylindrical container background. Cheers, Donovan Govan. Quote Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.