Misidentified Caches

[+TheNomad]

I was chastised recently for pointing out that some caches in another city I was visiting on business were miscategorized. One of the cache owners even stated that I shouldn't look for his caches because I was whining and complaining.

 

AFAIK, traditional caches are supposed to lead to a cache. Puzzle- and Multi- caches are used when the posted coordinates don't actually take you to a cache. Since I download only traditional caches to my GPSr when on business, I reasonably expected to be taken to a cache area on each of the caches in my GPSr.

 

On one (that was categorized as a traditional micro), I wandered around the entrance of a mall for 20 minutes in 25 degree weather only to find out that the cache has you enter the mall, take a trolly, disembark at the end of the line, and follow various headings and such for about 540 yards. Not exactly a traditional cache in my opinion.

 

Anyway, I don't know if this is whining, or what. You guys be the judge. Here is my log on the cache. Also, if you have a suggestion on how to handle this in the future, I'd appreciate it. I'm a software engineer by trade, and I'm a firm believer in making sure that data is correct and accurate.

 

Note - This is the cache log from the cache I described above. The owner of this cache is not necessarily the cache owner that stated I shouldn't look for his/her caches.

 

----- Begin Log -----

IMO, this should be a puzzle cache, not a regular. The posted coordinates don't take you to the cache - that's what puzzle caches or multi-caches are for. Traveling on business, I only download traditional caches to my GPSr. In this case, I spent 20 minutes foraging around the entrance of the mall looking for a cache that wasn't there.

To change the cache type, you'll have to work with your local administrator because geocaching.com doesn't open that field for edit.

 

Sorry if the tone of this log is harsh - I just hate searching for a cache only to find out that it is misidentified.

[+JMBella]

Doesn't sound like you're whining to me. If it's not a traditional it's not a traditional. You do however sound guilty of something I do all the time. Which is NOT read the cache page before you go out looking. I assume there is some info on the cache page that tells you this is not a simple traditional cache. Correct me if I'm wrong. Maybe give a link to the cache page as well. I don't think you were wrong about speaking your mind. Either way though it's water under the bridge.

[+Prime Suspect]

Well, you're right in that, according to your description, it's actually an off-set cache. That puts it under the Multi category.

[+rover-r-us]

i sometimes do the same thing' and don't read it all.but traditional caches should be traditional caches.

[+blazerfan]

I love to put a bunch of coordinates in my GPS and just go places with no idea of what I am looking for and no hint. One time in Salem I searched around a hospital for hours just to find out the cache was a puzzle and I was looking in the "dummy" location. I feel that if no cache is at the coordinates than it should not be labled traditional... but not many people seem to agree with me...

[+Navdog]

This cache seems to have skirted some guidelines by being misidentified.

[+Renegade Knight]

Well, you're right in that, according to your description, it's actually an off-set cache. That puts it under the Multi category.

Agreed. I would of emailed though rather than say it in the log. Or maybe not. I've told stories before to make a point. Maybe I better check that log...it may not be there...

[+TheNomad]

On my initial approach into the city, I didn't have time to read any of the cache descriptions. However, after posting several DNF's on misidentified caches, I read the cache description on each one before approaching for the rest of the trip.

 

On this one, and on the other ones, the cache description does tell me where to go and what to do. But I was relying on the cache type to properly filter such things. When I'm searching for caches at 11:30pm, I doubt that a trolly will be coming by to whisk me along the journey to the cache. That's why I only get traditionals when on business.

 

You're right though - it is water under the bridge. But, since I definitely bristled some people in the area (I didn't mean to raise any hackles), I just wanted the data to be correct. Probably the anal engineer in me or something.

 

I'll say this - searching like an idiot for a cache that isn't there is pretty frustrating. Especially in 25 degree weather. []

[+Team GPSaxophone]

I had a cache in my area listed as an "Other" type cache. The cache description states that the owner selected the wrong type when creating the cache. I sent off an email to CO_Admin asking him to change the type and he did.

 

If the owner of the cache is unwilling to label his cache properly, maybe you should talk to your approver.

[+TheNomad]

You know, if I were a local, I might consider it. I suppose that the folks in that city are quite content with the cache types. As an outsider to the area, going to the reviewer, in my opinion, would be very bad for public relations.

 

It's a shame that, after pointing it out, the cache owner wasn't/isn't willing to fix it/them.

 

I'd like to think that I'm open enough to constructive criticism on my caches that, if someone complained about the cache type, I'd hear them out and consider the change or the suggestion. But, I'm new enough to this sport to believe that most everyone has more experience and wisdom. I just made a suggestion based on my understanding of the cache types.

 

Of course, I'm probably living in a utopia.

[+bons]

I just want to make sure I understand this.

 

You didn't read the cache descriptions.

 

If this is correct, then I'm sorry, but the problem that caches aren't properly identified for queries to work is the smallest problem in this discussion.

 

If any of those caches had warnings, instructions, restrictions, or anything else, not only were you not going to find it, you were probably going to upset a number of people. We've already had a number of rants about people hitting daylight only caches at night and otherwise not following instructions.

 

If you're saying it's acceptable to not even bother reading the instructions, well, let's just say I suspect not everyone is going to agree with you.

[+TheNomad]

You make a valid point. No, I didn't read the cache description. But let me ask - have you ever been at a cache site, and done a search for nearest waypoints?

 

You're absolutely right that reading a cache description would/should provide additional hints or information on the availability of a cache. Yes - I agree. But the cache description shouldn't be used to change the TYPE of a cache from traditional to puzzle or multi-cache. But that's what's being done in this and many other caches.

 

It's analgous to ordering a McBurger from the list of burgers because it's a "burger" only to find out that the description says it's fried fish. That is, the description should be used to augment the given information about the cache. It shouldn't be used to say something like "even though this is called a burger, it's actually a fish".

 

I assert that a traditional cache shouldn't start out saying something like "You won't find a cache at the above listed coordinates. To find the cache, you must...".

 

That's my $0.02. That, and another $0.99 will buy you a cup of coffee in Florida.

[+IV_Warrior]

I just want to make sure I understand this.

 

You didn't read the cache descriptions.

 

If this is correct, then I'm sorry, but the problem that caches aren't properly identified for queries to work is the smallest problem in this discussion.

 

If any of those caches had warnings, instructions, restrictions, or anything else, not only were you not going to find it, you were probably going to upset a number of people. We've already had a number of rants about people hitting daylight only caches at night and otherwise not following instructions.

 

If you're saying it's acceptable to not even bother reading the instructions, well, let's just say I suspect not everyone is going to agree with you.

Perhaps, but I do similar PQ's for when I work, and I definately agree with him that caches should be categorized correctly. I do however have my Ipaq with me, with the cache info stored on it, but I don't want say a multi taking up space where a traditional could be, simply because the owner mis-labeled his/her cache.

 

And yes, I have run into this, and a polite e-mail directly to the cache owner pointing it out, and giving my reasons why I noticed, was enough to get it corrected.

[martmann]

I think Bons brings up a great point, some caches have text in the description that need to be read before hunting the cache, like maybe it's on private property, and should only be hunted during specific hours.

 

In that case I think it would be wise to categorize it as an unknown type, then list the real coordinates in the description text, while the listed coordinates put you in the closest public place to the cache.

 

If you just plug coordinates into your GPSr and go hunting, you're bound to have problems.

 

Still, calling a multi or unknown cache a traditional is just sloppy cache hiding, and a polite email should be all it takes to correct the problem.

[+Sissy-n-CR]

While I agree with many of the above posts about reading the cache description I have to disagree with some blasé attitudes.

 

It's got to the point where I don't pay very close attention to types or rating because folks don't use them properly. Caches typed as a traditionals actually requires extrordinary mentals skills to decypher a code first and one star terrains that involve animal trails and steep elevation changes are but a couple of examples.

 

It's my feeling if you have a cache that has special restrictions you feel you must put on the cache, then don't make it a traditional! This protects everyone involved; you, the finder, and the landowner. All it takes is making it a simple offset; "Go to the coordinates and spy the massive oak tree. Go there." It makes it a multi, makes the finder read the cache page, and isn't so hard that people can't figure it out.

 

In my utopia, traditionals would have no restrictions. You load the GPS and go.

 

One last point on the improperly typed caches. The "type" is part of the discription no less than the ratings, size, coordinates, or even the cache description itself. IMHO, wrong types are on par with misdirection in the cache description or a "regular" sized cache in a film can.

 

I really do wish people would be more vigilante with typing the cache properly.

 

CR

Edited January 27, 2004 by Sissy-n-CR

[+Bloencustoms]

It's important to read the cache descriptions. It's also important to label caches correctly when they are created. Mislabelling caches renders PQ filters useless. Ever notice that multi virts and multi physical caches both fall under the same category?

[+briansnat]

I found one that was listed as a traditional, but it turned out to be a multi. I was kind of annoyed because I was expecting a short walk, but it turned out to be significantly longer. If it was listed properly, I would have been prepared.

 

And the odd thing is that the owner encrypts any logs that mention the fact that its a multi. What's with that?

[+cacheKidds]

I definitely would not have posted that in a log whether it was incorrectly labled or not. I think an email was the way to go. Otherwise, I would not be surprised if the owner thought that you were whining or taking public shots at his cache and consequently take a hostile attitude toward you.

Edited January 27, 2004 by cacheKidds

[+TheNomad]

I think that is a good suggestion. In the future, I'll e-mail the owner of the cache. Thanks!

[+TheNomad]

Here is an example of one of the misidentified caches. It's a neat idea for a puzzle cache, but it is definitely not a traditional.

[+FerretFinder]

How about getting a PDA? I got mine really cheap and it's been a life saver in more ways than one.

 

Also if it's that big of a deal why would the approvers let it slide that it's not categorized correctly?

Edited January 27, 2004 by FerretFinder

[+Prime Suspect]

I just want to make sure I understand this.

 

You didn't read the cache descriptions.

 

If this is correct, then I'm sorry, but the problem that caches aren't properly identified for queries to work is the smallest problem in this discussion.

 

If any of those caches had warnings, instructions, restrictions, or anything else, not only were you not going to find it, you were probably going to upset a number of people. We've already had a number of rants about people hitting daylight only caches at night and otherwise not following instructions.

 

If you're saying it's acceptable to not even bother reading the instructions, well, let's just say I suspect not everyone is going to agree with you.

With more and more people using off-line GPX cache viewers, people are making their initial decisions on what caches to visit based what they can see in the list - its type and size (some people refuse to do micros), how far away it is, and sometimes by who hid it.

 

In the past, it was easy to just say "you should have read the cache page", but that doesn't hold water any more. The owners have a bigger responsibility now to present accurate information, and should be called on it if they don't. If a cache is tagged as "traditional" then the cacher has every right to expect the coordinates to actually lead them to cache. If it doesn't, the owner's the one who screwed up.

[+Monkeybrad]

I just followed the link to the E.T. cache. While it is not written in english, what makes you so sure that the cache is not at the location listed? Did you do a full search of the area, taking into account that the hider might use a magellan to take their coords, or that they might be slightly off for some other reason. Having done this cache I can tell you that a thorough search of the area should have turned up the cache.

 

Do not misunderstand me. I agree that caches should be labeled correctly, it is especially frustrating when caching on the road. But this one and the "Paradise" cache are both fairly simple, if you read the pages.

 

At least in Middle Tennessee where you were hunting, it is always important to read the pages. In a couple of instances that I can think of, the caches are properly located and categorized, but if you approach them from the wrong way or in the wrong way, it could have some fairly serious consequences for the finder. The Tennessee cachers that you have slammed in their logs, and now in the public forums are both very responsible cachers. All of the information was there for the taking. In fact in the case of both of these caches, there was free internet acces available with 1/3 of a mile of the coords, in one case the acces was less than 300 ft. away. I guess my point is that you have a responsibility as a hunter to be prepared, just as much as a hider has a responsibility to not send you into danger without warning you. Kinda tough though when you won't read the warnings.

 

Final note and then I will go away. Whether it was intentional or not, your logs on several caches in this area were very negative. They came off as pushy and arrogant, particularly when you tell at least two cachers with over 2000 finds how they should play the game according to your standards. While you may not have meant them that way, that is how they read. As a local I found myself thinking, who is this guy? He comes in from out of town, slams a bunch of good caches and then presumes to tell us how to play the game. I think that the responses you have received were greatly influenced by how you approached the problem. You would have caught many more flies with honey.

 

Just my two cents, what do I know?

 

Edit: The Magellan slam in the first paragraph is a private dig on the cache owner who I always give a hard time for using a "toy" gps. He is a capitol fellow who always has remarkably good coordinates (for a guy using a Magellan).

Edited January 27, 2004 by Monkeybrad

[+Team GPSaxophone]

I found one that was listed as a traditional, but it turned out to be a multi. I was kind of annoyed because I was expecting a short walk, but it turned out to be significantly longer. If it was listed properly, I would have been prepared.

 

And the odd thing is that the owner encrypts any logs that mention the fact that its a multi. What's with that?

Email your approver. They can change it to the proper type.

[+sbell111]

I definitely would not have posted that in a log whether it was incorrectly labled or not. I think an email was the way to go. Otherwise, I would not be surprised if the owner thought that you were whining or taking public shots at his cache and consequently take a hostile attitude toward you.

I disagree on this point. There are a few things about any cache that should be correct. The coords, cache type, size and ratings are among these things.

 

I see no problem with someone disagreeing on any of these things. It is totally appropriate to put corrected coords in a log for a traditional, why not the other issues?

 

There are way too many cache owners out there who get completely bent out of shape if anyone posts a log that is not full of praise. These people need to get over themselves. Whether a person has hidden (or found) 1 or 10,000 caches makes no difference.