Jump to content

Incorrectly Listed Caches


Volvo Man
Followers 1

Recommended Posts

OK, I'm not usually one to moan publicly about caches, the more there are, the more I can find.

 

However, just recently I have come across a spate of caches listed as Traditional that turn out to be multi's or puzzles (Mystery). I'm not against these at all, In fact I quite like them, it's just that when I'm on a day trip out, I plan to do a certain number of caches, and bypass some of the multi's to keep moving.

 

I also like to balance out the distances from the nearest road so I don't end up driving up to all of them, but I also don't want to end up with 2 mile round trips to every cache when I'm aiming for 20 caches in a day.

 

When I plan my trips, I usually map out an extra 50% above my personal target to allow for getting ahead, abandons and other stuff. due to this, I have 30+ caches per trip to plan, I just scan the pages quickly to ensure I'm not chasing archived caches, then dump the WPs to the GPS & the GPS file to the palm and off I go. Often I will read the cache page on the way to the waypoint from the car, or even at the waypoint.

 

When I get to that point only to find I needed to print out a pictorial clue or it's a 2 mile walk round the multi, I'm not best pleased, and abandon the cache.

 

If I know in advance what the cache is I'm going after, then I will check the page if necessary and plan it in if I have the time.

 

So what I'm saying is, if you've hidden a cache whose posted co-ordinates are not those of the actual cache container itself, Please Please Please, pretty please with sugar on top, could you double check it shows as the appropriate type.

 

My take on types is as follows:

 

Traditional: The co-ords posted are those taken with the GPSr on top of the cache.

 

Multi: the cacher has to go to several locations, whether by WP or instructions, to obtain the final co-ordinates, the final cache can be either Actual or Virtual.

 

Mystery/Puzzle: The cacher may have to solve a riddle or go to a single location (the posted WP) to complete the co-ords, or follow treasuremap style directions from the posted Co-ords.

 

Virtual: as Traditional, but without the container.

 

On the converse, many have noticed I am caching rather hard at the moment, I am planning to back off a little next month, then cache hard the following, and so on. the Back off months will be the time I go after the multi's and puzzles, as these are much better for relaxed caching. If they are listed as Traditionals, I may miss them out when I am wanting to do them.

 

OK, vent over, what's everyone else think?

Link to comment

Hi Volvo Man. Your take on the definitions are exactly the same as I use when reviewing caches. One of the things I look for in the review process is whether the cache type matches the description. Where there's an obvious difference I e-mail the owner before listing the cache.

 

However there are occasions where the type is open to interpretation and for those I will go with whatever the owner chooses (possibly after discussion). However we all make mistakes from time to time and the occasional cache will get through with the incorrect type. In these cases a quick note to the owner and/or reviewer can get it sorted easily.

 

When I plan a caching expedition I tend to read the cache descriptions before adding a cache to my "hit list" but I accept there are other approaches and I would urge cache owners to check their caches for consistency.

 

Thanks for raising the point.

Link to comment

I have to agree with Volvo Man here. Not because I'm all that fussy about what sort of cache I'm attempting but because I list the caches I've done on my web site and have to be careful to recall the cache rather than just follow that icon, top left. I appreciate some caches can change from traditional to multi or puzzle (thinking of Dan & Pid's Egyptian Springs, for example) but others, like The Hornet's Aesculus Hippocastanum don't seem to have changed status, and are just plain inaccurate... :rolleyes:

 

Anyway, since the owner can't change the cache designation, perhaps we should be mailing the reviewers about any issues of this sort directly?

 

SP

Link to comment

does make you wonder if it's done to increase the traffic to their cache?

 

some cachers seem reluctant to attempt mysteries or multi's and are happy to stick with trad's - at the end of the day it is each to their own. no problems with that!

 

Without wanting to sound like we're plugging one of our own ... we recently set a mystery near to 3 traditional's and we were suprised to see that some cachers don't attempt it while they're doing the others. So say for instance you avoid multi's or ? and you went to what you thought was a trad for it to turn out to be a multi or ?, you might be reluctant to walk away without even attempting to solve it having made all that effort to get there in the first place. whereas if it's listed as a ? or multi you'd probably avoid it from day 1. - hope that makes sense!

Link to comment

So what I'm saying is, if you've hidden a cache whose posted co-ordinates are not those of the actual cache container itself, Please Please Please, pretty please with sugar on top, could you double check it shows as the appropriate type.

 

........I certainly agree with this sentiment.

 

Several caches I have reviewed in the last few days have needed some adjustment. I suppose one problem is there is no heading for a simple offset cache. If info from a virt, or a notice board at the published location is used to lead straight to the final cache, although there are not lots of stages, it is still a multi..................

 

My £0.02 woth :rolleyes::D:D

Link to comment
My £0.02 worth :rolleyes:  :D  :D

Sounds like serious inflation when the exchange rate is taken into consideration...

 

Seriously, is the following a traditional or a multi?

 

[Coordinates get you here then --->] Once there you have an approximate 190 feet walk on a bearing of 326 degrees to the cache container.

 

Maybe an Offset Cache icon is needed.

Link to comment

It's a multi as the cache isn't at the co-ords given. As simple as that! Your example is a very 'illustrative' one, and I've never come across a cache quite like that myself, but if I did, I'd regard it as an offset, the most basic form of multi.

 

SP

 

P.S. My new girlfriend's in this months Loaded Magazine. Nothing to do with geocaching - I'm just feeling the need to tell everyone, lol!

Edited by Simply Paul
Link to comment

Seriously, is the following a traditional or a multi?

 

[Coordinates get you here then --->] Once there you have an approximate 190 feet walk on a bearing of 326 degrees to the cache container.

 

......if it was phrased exactly like that I'ld call it a letterbox hybrid......................and I suppose I try to encourage folks to post the co-ords for the locatioin itself if they do this, unless they ask for a hybrid.........

Link to comment

Some times its hard to classify a cache, I have one, which from the co -ords for a plaque, you have to go on a magnetic bearing + the first two figures on the plaque. I ended up classifying it as a puzzle cache, but it could also be described as a multi, even though you only have to walk 24m from the plaque. Without giving anything away, I did it this way to add a twist in the tail as anyone who has found it can tell you :rolleyes:. I nearly classified it as a multi when I was listing it.

Dave.

Link to comment

To add my tuppence worth. :rolleyes:

 

I've just finished a hard days caching recently and four caches had similar instructions. Park at the posted coordinates and walk up the road to the church where you will find the gravestone.

 

Another said cache is 120 degrees for 25-30 meters away from given co ordinates.

 

I won't bore you with the others but I was going to post a moan. Somebody beat me to it. :D

 

Why not just get a fix on the co ordinates of the cache. The caches all had traditional on them??

Link to comment
........I certainly agree with this sentiment.

 

Several caches I have reviewed in the last few days have needed some adjustment. I suppose one problem is there is no heading for a simple offset cache. If info from a virt, or a notice board at the published location is used to lead straight to the final cache, although there are not lots of stages, it is still a multi..................

 

My £0.02 woth :D:D:)

I would have to say that from the GC.com cache type guidelines, alot of these would come under the Mystery/Puzzle banner. Personally I'd like to see a seperation for these:

 

Mystery: the real unusual stuff should go here, they are great fun to do when you come across them, one example would be Squirrels Nest by Pyoung1s, another might be GeoGnome Cache. Also DodgyDaved's Quote Series would fall into this pot

 

Puzzle: This could cover the go x co-ords and get the number from y and this will lead you to the cache

 

Now, I also kind of agree with the post that said some will just go do the cache, but when it's the 5th that day, it gets a little wearing, and I tend to just walk away, feeling a bit dejected. I've done this a couple of times and when I've gone back with the intention of doing it, I've found the cache was just a few feet away, other times it's been a lonk walk to the cache, and if I'd known, I'd have brought my Bike. Also, Like I said above, I really like the Mysteries, and it'd be nice to know where they are, so I can pre-print the cache page and do them.

 

Something I didn't point out is that It's nice to have them show up in your stats, many people might think I don't do Multi's by looking at my stats, but several of the trads I'm credited with are Multis.

 

My£0.01127206 worth (exchange rate adjusted) :D

Link to comment

Wow, I am so chuffed.

 

I was half expecting to be called a moaner for posting this thread. I also didn't know that once submitted you can't change the cache type without asking the approver to do it.

 

I also note that many have highlighted their problem caches and our ultra fast approvers have sorted said caches out immediately. Perhaps it would be a good idea to have a cache corrections topic or something pinned to the top of the forum, to cover such as this.

 

Oh, and a sorry to the Approvers, didn't mean to make all that extra work for you, but thanks for doing it.

Link to comment

in actual fact it isn't really. What should have happened is that the final coords for the cache should have been posted, or if it was intended to be a hybrid it ought to have a stamp as well.

 

Sometimes caches like this are let through because they are very close to being OK, and it saves both setter and reviewer a lot of time and effort sorting things out!!

 

There has to be a little tad of flexibility :D:):D

Link to comment
This one: Swyre Head, by Gary and Jane turned out to be an offset, rather than a traditional.

When we originally placed our Swyre Head cache it was a straightforward traditional one. We made it an offset cache after we had problems with two hiding places at Swyre Head itself. We wanted to show people the view from Swyre Head which is why we didn't just change the coordinates to the new hiding place. As the total round trip distance from the suggested parking place didn't change, and the cache description indicated that it was an offset cache, we decided it wasn't necessary to change the cache type.

 

One of the reasons the cache owner is no longer allowed to change the cache type is that it causes statistics anomalies. We never do virtual caches but we're credited with finding two because when the real caches were stolen the owner changed the cache type. What should happen is that a new cache page should be created with the new type. We probably should have created a new cache page for Swyre Head, listing it as a multi-cache, but (as others have said) we were reluctant to do so as a lot of people don't attempt multi-caches!

 

After saying all this, what's the problem with simply reading the cache description before you set off? :)

Link to comment
This one: Swyre Head, by Gary and Jane turned out to be an offset, rather than a traditional.

After saying all this, what's the problem with simply reading the cache description before you set off? :)

Well, in my case it was because I was in a hurry and I was a divvy :D

 

Seriously though, I simply forgot what the cache description was, as I normally refresh my memory of the description on foot on my way to a cache using my iPaq.... this time it was hammering down with rain and I only read it when I couldn't find the cache at said spot. It was an ace view though, and I really don't have a problem with it being a traditional listing... but since this thread appeared, I thought I'd mention it :D.

 

At the end of the day, you're the cache owner, so it's up to you what you put on the cache page :D

 

Now then..... I wonder when I will get time to do the "Gary and Jane" cache day Part II?

Link to comment
I was half expecting to be called a moaner for posting this thread. I also didn't know that once submitted you can't change the cache type without asking the approver to do it.

 

I also note that many have highlighted their problem caches and our ultra fast approvers have sorted said caches out immediately. Perhaps it would be a good idea to have a cache corrections topic or something pinned to the top of the forum, to cover such as this.

 

Oh, and a sorry to the Approvers, didn't mean to make all that extra work for you, but thanks for doing it.

There are no approvers, only reviewers! :-)

 

Symantics maybe, but it is a crucial difference.

 

I'm sure Mr Eckington or Mr Lactodorum can explain.

 

- Neil.

Link to comment
After saying all this, what's the problem with simply reading the cache description before you set off? :D

At around 40 caches mapped per day trip, with a goal of hitting somewhere in the high twenties, the answer to the above question is "Time"

 

At the weekends, I have been caching both days, all day from 5am to 8pm, what with midweek caching after work, all I have time to do is update GSAK & dump it out to Autoroute, The GPS and the Palm. If the PQs are more than a couple of days old, I quickly scan the online pages for Red text at the top, Highlight all the caches in the area I am going to and then print out streetmaps for them all.

 

I always check the pages for Puzzle caches, because I enjoy them so much. Multi's I will often check to see how long it will take and will it interfere with my plans etc. Traditionals I assume they are correctly listed.

 

I know that some avoid Multi's, but that is their choice, not that of the Placer, there could be many reasons, unable to walk long distances, limited time, etc etc. for the same reasons, some may not do some Traditionals etc. It may even be that they are just Purists who only want to do Geocaching in the original format (I'm not one of those).

 

On one recent trip, One cacher's incorrectly listed Multi's annoyed me so much (by the fourth instance) that I skipped all of the other caches they had placed for the rest of the day, assuming they were probably all like it. when I had more time, I found that the 4 incorrectly listed ones I had come across, turned out to be the only ones they had gotten wrong, out of 30 or so placed caches.

Link to comment
There are no approvers, only reviewers! :-)

 

Symantics maybe, but it is a crucial difference.

 

I'm sure Mr Eckington or Mr Lactodorum can explain.

 

- Neil.

So who Aproves caches then? on my cache page, it says :

 

"My caches awaiting approval" :D

Link to comment

:D From a complete novices point of view - we are currenlty avoiding anything other than trad caches. We will attempt Multi's when we are a bit more confident but I think it is useful when the owners put an approximate completion time. This allows you better planning of your time.

 

The Hokesters

Link to comment
After saying all this, what's the problem with simply reading the cache description before you set off?  :D

At around 40 caches mapped per day trip, with a goal of hitting somewhere in the high twenties, the answer to the above question is "Time"

But if you don't read the cache description before you set off you might miss important information about the best route to the cache! The direct route isn't always the quickest. By taking the direct route you might also miss something that the cache owner wants you to see.

 

We looked at a selection of cache pages and it took us on average about 15 seconds to read the information. Surely the extra 10 minutes needed to read 40 cache pages would be time well spent considering the potential time savings on the trail?

Link to comment
So who Aproves caches then? on my cache page, it says :

 

"My caches awaiting approval" :D

Ah semantics! Don't you just love semantics? :D

 

The question of Public Liability has been raised at Groundspeak and there has been a lot of discussion between "Reviewers" about the subject. At the end of the day it was felt better that we drop the term "Approver" as this implied, in the strict legal sense, an acceptance of liability for new caches. Don't ask me to summarise the argument as I'm not a lawyer.

 

Until the various web pages that mention the old term are updated you will come across both terms.

 

I hope that is sufficient explanation. Hopefully you'll see no difference in the "service" Eckington and I offer the Geocaching community at large. :D:D:D

Link to comment
What should happen is that a new cache page should be created with the new type. We probably should have created a new cache page for Swyre Head, listing it as a multi-cache, but (as others have said) we were reluctant to do so as a lot of people don't attempt multi-caches!

We got a cache called Mills and Boom which was just a traditional cache. However the box got completely waterlogged as the corner of the field we placed it in got flooded... So we are going to replace in another location nearby. At the same time we are going to add another part to it. This cache is designed to show off a particular location, but you can acess it from another direction and miss the mill altogether... we've been debating whether to set it up as a new cache. I guess from what you've said that you think we should as it really changing to a multi-cache as well...

 

Would any of you submit a new cache listing is you've just changed the location of the box?

Link to comment
Would any of you submit a new cache listing is you've just changed the location of the box?

If I was changing the format of the cache, then yes, I would certainly submit it afresh, after all, it's a new location, probably a new box, and a new way of getting to it. This way, people get legitimate FTFs on new locations, anybody who's credited for the old one gets to log it again in the new locale, and everybody's stats remain accurate.

 

If I was just relocating a cache a few feet away, then I'd just ask the "REVIEWERS" tochange the co-ords.

 

Basically, I believe that if a significant change has been made, then a new listing is appropriate. As I said, previous finders of the easy 1/1 micro can go log the spanking new 3/3 multi with an ammo box at the end (call it the Mark2 cache). Fairer that way, wouldn't you say?

 

I totally know where you're coming from with the cachers not going to the place you want them to, but that's a whole different discussion, and I don't want to stir it up here.

Link to comment
But if you don't read the cache description before you set off you might miss important information about the best route to the cache! The direct route isn't always the quickest. By taking the direct route you might also miss something that the cache owner wants you to see.

Sorry, have to agree to disagree there, I have more often found access to a cache closer than the placer, and often easier going, than the number of times I have had to go back and start again, due to obstacles that cannot be overcome (Twice)

 

In one example, of a local cache, that I keep meaning to get around to, the placer has advised to approach from the north, giving a 4 mile round trip up and down hills, I and many others have found easy parking and a quick walk along the top of the hill to the cache from the south, with a round trip of just .75 mile.

 

In another example, I know of a long time cacher who hiked several miles in the snow to place a cache in order to give a bit of a challenge to another long time cacher in his area, The next day, to his astonishment, the FTF log read:"Easy find, Parked 200ft from the cache", there was a public road that the placer had not noticed on the map, leading straight to the cache.

 

The whole point of Traditionals as a category is that you shouldn't need much in the way of instructions. As quoted in the GC.com Guidelines for cache type:

 

Traditional Cache

This is the original cache type consisting, at a bare minimum, a container and a log book. Normally you'll find a tupperware container, ammo box, or bucket filled with goodies, or smaller container ("micro cache") too small to contain items except for a log book. The coordinates listed on the traditional cache page is the exact location for the cache.

 

Now, I do actually read the description, but not until I get to the closest point to the cache, and often while making my way along the trail. I get really suspicious when I pull into a car park and there's only 35 feet to the WP, although in one case this did turn out to be the cache location. If I read 40 cache descriptions at 1am before a 5am trip, I'm not going to remember them all, so I get more sleep and read them on site, like I would have to anyway.

 

I also note the point GC makes regarding themed caches & pre-reading, this is to cover themed trades. If I'm on a mission, I don't often trade, although I do carry a small selection of trades in my pocket in case I spot that must have item.

 

Also, whenever I travel anywhere, I upload all the waypoints near to my route (could be a couple of hundred), and the descriptions to my Palm. If I spot a trad closeby on the map display, I'll often make my way as close as possible, then stop to read the description on Cache Mate. If it then turns out to be a Multi, I've wasted time stopping to check it out, as I rarely have time to slip in a multi when travelling.

 

Just to set the record straight, I have actually done 6 incorrectly listed Multi caches, and abandonned about a dozen, now my stats only show 4 correctly listed Multi's found, when it's actually 10. I have to say that I really enjoyed the 4 correctly listed ones. I also have easily half a dozen incorrectly listed Virtuals on my stats for traditionals, but I don't find them too much of a pain, as the waypoint is the location of the actual cache, albeit virtual.

Link to comment

QUOTE (Volvo Man @ May 1 2004, 02:39 AM)

On one recent trip, One cacher's incorrectly listed Multi's annoyed me so much (by the fourth instance) that I skipped all of the other caches they had placed for the rest of the day..

 

That fixed them. I bet they didn't sleep that night.

 

I thought the whole idea of geocaching was about enjoyment and getting some fresh air whilst partaking in an outside hobby. Yes, I have had instances where a cache has said one thing and then when I arrived it was totally different, however, I try not to let this annoy me as I enjoy caching.

People cache for different reasons. There are times when I'm a stats man, and there are times when a good hearty stroll is planned to clear the cobwebs. Whatever reasons you cache for the FUN is in the chase. If it isn't fun, then don't do it.

Only my opinion like. :D:D:D

Link to comment

I thought the whole idea of geocaching was about enjoyment and getting some fresh air whilst partaking in an outside hobby. Yes, I have had instances where a cache has said one thing and then when I arrived it was totally different, however, I try not to let this annoy me as I enjoy caching.

People cache for different reasons. There are times when I'm a stats man, and there are times when a good hearty stroll is planned to clear the cobwebs. Whatever reasons you cache for the FUN is in the chase. If it isn't fun, then don't do it.

Read that and thought that it exactly reflects my own feelings - then read this:

http://forums.Groundspeak.com/GC/index.php?showtopic=70336

But Sparticus is demonstrating what he said in the quote and demonstrating that we can all find something to satisfy us in the game even if what others do is not the way we'd do it.

Anyway (even if in the wrong thread) CONGRATULATIONS!

Edited by John Stead
Link to comment
I thought the whole idea of geocaching was about enjoyment and getting some fresh air whilst partaking in an outside hobby. Yes, I have had instances where a cache has said one thing and then when I arrived it was totally different, however, I try not to let this annoy me as I enjoy caching.

People cache for different reasons. There are times when I'm a stats man, and there are times when a good hearty stroll is planned to clear the cobwebs. Whatever reasons you cache for the FUN is in the chase. If it isn't fun, then don't do it.

Only my opinion like. :D:D:D

That particular day, what could have been an easy high twenties or low thirties day, perhaps even a record reclaiming high thirties :D turned into a 21 cache slog with 4 DNFs for missing caches. after the 4th or fifth incorrect multi, it's hard not to get annoyed when you're on a mission. I gave up on their caches because I figured better to cut my losses and move on to another area, which cost me a lot of time.

 

Like I say, it's not so much the first, or even the second, but it soon starts to build. The other time it gets grating is when I think, "I've got just enough time after work to go bag a couple before it gets dark, only to find that the 2 I've gone for are both long multi's, and all the trads are in the other direction.

 

Ok, so I'm a stats man, I admit it, but that's the way I like to do it, I get to see a lot of really interesting places along the way. I never was one for spending too much time at an interesting place, and I push hard to improve my Fitness. The Stats really help the willpower along when doing that.

Link to comment

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.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Followers 1
×
×
  • Create New...