Puzzlemarking.com?

[+Googling Hrpty Hrrs]

Please note: This topic is just for friendly discussion. I am aware of the wonders of PQ filtering...

 

One (there were many, I know) of the reasons I heard for moving virtuals and locationless caches to Waymarking.com was a desire to get back to the roots of geocaching- Hide something, share coordinates, find it, take something, leave something, sign log. I believe that's it, more or less.

 

So why didn't puzzles move with the other near-beers of caching?

 

What do sudoko puzzles, word games, and calculus have to do with true-blue caching?

 

This is not about whether you find puzzles to be fun or not. Lots of people loved virtuals and locationless caches, too. Sitting in front of your computer running algorythyms for days to solve a puzzle might be fun, but isn't caching basically entering coordinates into your GPS (or using map and compass I suppose) and going and finding something?

[+wiseye]

Yes, more true blue-less near beer.

[+carleenp]

You said:

One (there were many, I know) of the reasons I heard for moving virtuals and locationless caches to Waymarking.com was a desire to get back to the roots of geocaching- Hide something, share coordinates, find it, take something, leave something, sign log. I believe that's it, more or less.

 

And ended with

Isn't caching basically entering coordinates into your GPS (or using map and compass I suppose) and going and finding something?

 

The difference is that there is a box with a log book in it in the end. I suppose virtuals had that but it wasn't quite a "cache" (no book, no box, trades), and locationless didn't at all since there was no entering coords and finding first, intsead that was backwards, find and then mark.... Puzzles still have a box and log book at the end.

 

I like log books.

Edited April 17, 2006 by carleenp

[+tozainamboku]

The puritans protect their women folk from near-beer caching. Only the traditional is a real cache. Oh, and micros, even if traditional are not real caches. Puzzles, multis, and especially letterbox hybrids are the work of the devil.

[Team Firebird]

I agree, even though I have posted a puzzle cache. It is pretty easy, but I don't like the idea of an imposible puzzle.

[+CheshireFrog]

The worst thing about puzzle caches is the way brown-shirted, jack-booted nazi thugs force you to do them, when all you want to do is enjoy a real man's cache: a traditional.

[Pto]

Question:

What do sudoko puzzles, word games, and calculus have to do with true-blue caching?

 

Answers? ^^Nice replies above huh? . . . . . .

 

IMO, nothing. I agree- but boy I cant believe there hasnt been a plug yet for the "other" site. .. . .

 

Caching isn't meant to be defined as it is now defined - here on the fly... Dont look for logic, just go with the flow....

Sorry, but its really gotten to a point where the "game" changes a little bit each passing week/Month. . . . .

Edited April 18, 2006 by Pto

[+fizzymagic]

So why didn't puzzles move with the other near-beers of caching?

So you propose we ruin more kinds of caches by moving them to Lamemarking?

 

No, thanks.

[+Googling Hrpty Hrrs]

 

So you propose we ruin more kinds of caches by moving them to Lamemarking?

 

No, thanks.

 

No, I really wouldn't want to subject any poor cache to that death!

Here's the point I was trying to make: (putting on my pointy Puritan hat)

 

I didn't care for Virtuals or Locationless much either. (just found 1 single virtual) And I do understand that there were multiple reasons for moving them. But if your just looking at the reason of "getting back to our roots", I see Virtuals and Locationless caches being more cache-centric than solving puzzles.

 

Carleenp makes an unarguable point- it's about the box at the end. But other than that box, the puzzle itself has nothing to do with the activity of caching.

 

Again- not wanting to really ban, move, or otherwise subject any cachers to Puritanical law. I know a large segment of the caching community loves them. Just wondering if anyone else has wondered where puzzles fit into the grand scheme.

Edited April 18, 2006 by Googling Hrpty Hrrs

[+CheshireFrog]

I was never a big fan of moving Virtual and Locationless caches off site. Mind you, I haven't logged any caches of either type, but my thought process was that as long as they are accurately labelled I'm perfectly capable of ignoring cache types I don't enjoy or am not interested in.

 

Barring cache events and family outings, caching is largely an independent pursuit, and as such, the game is what you make it. There's a high density of caches here in Colorado Springs, (and thanks to all who placed them), but a large portion of them are accessible from within ten feet of where you park the car, and are filled with McDonald's toys, and frankly, that doesn't interest me. I'm really not chuffed about a cache that I can load into the GPS, locate and log in under 30 minutes. Having said that, I know that family cachers love these types of caches: the terrain and the hide are easy enough for the kids in the family to participate. i would never suggest that these caches should be moved to thier own site, or even a new category, just because they don't fit my view of what caching is. I can read the descriptions and logs on the site and decide which ones I might like, ignoring the others.

 

Mystery caches, puzzle caches, caches with elaborate backstories and multis that force you to learn something about the history of the area you're in are growing in popularity, and that's as it should be. By being inclusive and leaving it up to the individual to decide what they like we are inviting ever more people to join in, and that generally means more caches to hunt.

 

We can take this "getting back to our roots" thing to extremes, requiring that people turn off WAAS to hunt, because WAAS wasn't available when the sport started, or we can simply decide for ourselves what we like and hunt accordingly. Labels like "Grab and Dash", "Urban Lamp Post Micro" and "Near Beer" imply an attitude of superiority and exclusivity that I think goes further afield from what Geocaching really is than virtuals and locationless caches ever did.

Edited April 18, 2006 by CheshireFrog

[+nikcap]

Just curious.

What is the oldest puzzle/mystery/off-set cache out there? (archived or active) Not just one with the pretty blue ? in the cache identifier, but one where the description tells you to add or subtract numbers, or where something else beside hitting goto on your GPS gets you to the cache.

I found Octopus Garden (GC70), which by my quick look appears before the first virtual.

 

If age of caches have anything to do with it, a "puzzle" cache is about a back-to-the basics as we can get.

 

I couldn't identify the oldest "true" multi cache. However, I remember quiet a few Multi (and puzzle) caches that were listed a traditionals. Not until you read the description did you realize they where multi staged or offsets.

 

If anyone has examples of these I like to see them.

[+AtoZ]

Welll Dave Ulmer the father of Geocaching proposed servery puzzle ideas. So puzzzle geocaching is part of geocaching history at its roots.

cheers

[Jeremy]

Welll Dave Ulmer the father of Geocaching proposed servery puzzle ideas. So puzzzle geocaching is part of geocaching history at its roots.

cheers

 

He abandoned geocaching to be raised by wolves, so that justification doesn't hold much water.

 

This isn't directed to anyone in general but the real answer is "It's the container, stupid."

[+headybrew]

My thoughts? It's not about what makes a cache a real cache. Obviously there are many types of caches and some people like some types but not others. So we should stop trying to ordain one defined type of cache as a "true" cache.

 

There is a need to seperate the kind of cache you like from the kind that other people like. There are many ways to do this, PQ's, icons, different web sites, etc...

 

What we should be discussing is not what makes a "true" cache, but what it the most convenient way to organize the different cache types for people of different tastes to conveniently find.

 

I have no problem with moving Virts and LC's to a seperate site. I do dislike how that site is organized, and how it subjugates Virts to LCs. But that is another story entirely. If we were to move puzzles to Waymarking, how would they fit into the paradigm of "category=virt and waymark=LC" ? Perhaps Virts, LC's and Puzzles should each have their own site? Perhaps all of these should be on one site, but with easier ways to seperate them on different lists? Maybe there should be seperate smiley counts for each type?

 

I think that's the stuff we should be discussing. Not what makes a real cache, but how to organize the various types. There is a chance of coming to reasonable agreements on organizational schemas. But the cache purity argument will never be won.

[+StarBrand]

I'm scared of crossword puzzles - so I just ignore puzzle caches. Some like the mental challenge - I like to find things. I think the container at a set of coordinates justifies them.

[+Maingray]

Puzzle caches are great, and as they have a container at the end they are true blue geocaches! I and many others like working them out.

[+VegasCacheHounds]

I don't like hiking caches. I think they should be moved to a different website, because I don't see what hiking has to do with caching.

[+Recdiver]

I don't like hiking caches. I think they should be moved to a different website, because I don't see what hiking has to do with caching.

Exactly. I don't believe Ulmer's first cache had anything to do with hiking so let us get back to basics.

[salmoned]

Tough puzzles are my favorite type of cache. Whether hiding or seeking, the hoi polloi riffraff are kept from bothering us true blues.

[+tozainamboku]

I don't like hiking caches. I think they should be moved to a different website, because I don't see what hiking has to do with caching.

Exactly. I don't believe Ulmer's first cache had anything to do with hiking so let us get back to basics.

 

And Dave Ulmer's cache wasn't hidden in a lampost either. Let's move these to that other site. Wait, I already proposed this

[+Googling Hrpty Hrrs]

As I've already conceded, the box is the thing for listing on this site. Understood. (not that I ever actually meant for any cache-banning. Though I didn't care for 'em, wouldn't have bothered me to keep virts or locationless. "Puzzlecaching" was just an attempt at humor. )

 

The hiking point is closer to what I was talking about in the first place.

 

I don't like hiking caches. I think they should be moved to a different website, because I don't see what hiking has to do with caching.

 

In my mind, hiking can be an integral component of caching, which is getting up, leaving the house, and going after something. Sure, the hike may be from the car to the lamp post, , but it still entails GOING. Whether it's by hike, by bike, by car, by train, you're being taken to another location due to tracking down a set of coordinates. So yes, hiking is integral to caching.

 

However, sitting at home solving puzzles is a separate activity than caching itself. And while virts and locationless cache don't have the crucial box, they are still about GOING and FINDING things.

 

Puzzle caches are great, and as they have a container at the end they are true blue geocaches! I and many others like working them out.

 

I understand that people love puzzles. I never debated that. They should stay just because of that. Still doesn't change the fact that the puzzles themselves aren't caching. (IMHO)

 

I think that's the stuff we should be discussing. Not what makes a real cache, but how to organize the various types. There is a chance of coming to reasonable agreements on organizational schemas. But the cache purity argument will never be won.

 

Why limit what we can discuss? They're not shutting down the forums anytime soon. Let's discuss it all.

[Clan Riffster]

Everybody has their own belief system, which most likely includes what constitutes a "real" cache for them. For me, a real cache has a container full of goodies at the final coordinates for me to run my grubby paws through. This materialistic viewpoint undoubtably puts me in the catagory of "It's all about the find", as opposed to those who feel it's all about the hunt, but being fairly new to this way kewl game, that's how I feel. Micros don't qualify as real caches in my mind because they lack swag. Not that micros are inherently bad, they just aren't caches, in my mind. In fact, some of my most memorable finds have been cleverly hidden micros, the key word being "cleverly", but I've never considered them to be caches. Dropping a film canister into a shrub at Burger King doesn't quite fit my definition of "clever".

 

Maybe we could come up with a third website? www.Lamea**micros.com?

[+CheshireFrog]

In my mind, hiking can be an integral component of caching, which is getting up, leaving the house, and going after something. Sure, the hike may be from the car to the lamp post, , but it still entails GOING. Whether it's by hike, by bike, by car, by train, you're being taken to another location due to tracking down a set of coordinates. So yes, hiking is integral to caching.

 

How does a mystery or a puzzle cache not fit this definition? Whether the clues are published on the cache page or contained in multi legs along the hunt, ultimately you must load up the coordinates and go find the cache, in many cases multiple times. A few examples from some of the better local puzzles:

 

In Vigenere's Right to Bear Arms, all the information needed to decode the coordinates of the cache are included on the cache page. Once decoded, the hike to the cache takes better than an hour and involves a steep altitude gain.

 

Playfair's Extreme Geocacher Test, on the other hand, is a multi where the first stage is a micro containing the code that must be cracked to get the coordinates for the cache. Once decoded, the hike to the cache is better than two hours with a hard climb at the end, and more than one person who has made the hike has still had to log a DNF.

 

Finally, I won't mention the name, (for fear of posting a spoiler), but there is a multi stage, multi puzzle cache here that requires that at least one of the clues be decoded at the cache site, i.e. writing the clue down and taking it home will not allow you to decode it.

 

I guess my point is that the puzzle elements of puzzle caches don't replace the going and the finding, but rather augment the experience for those that like that sort of thing, myself included.

 

It's not for everyone, but nothing really is.

[+headybrew]

 

I think that's the stuff we should be discussing. Not what makes a real cache, but how to organize the various types. There is a chance of coming to reasonable agreements on organizational schemas. But the cache purity argument will never be won.

 

Why limit what we can discuss? They're not shutting down the forums anytime soon. Let's discuss it all.

 

Why? Because the constant re-hashing of the minutia of cache definitions leads nowhere. Here we are yet again talking about hikes vs. cars... boxes vs. no boxes... weather a puzzle cache is a "real" cache...

Those are valid topics for discussion, but they are un-resolvable differences of opinion.

 

Discussion of how to easily organize and sort the typical cache types would simply be more productive.

[+slumbersix]

Welll Dave Ulmer the father of Geocaching proposed servery puzzle ideas. So puzzzle geocaching is part of geocaching history at its roots.

cheers

 

He abandoned geocaching to be raised by wolves, so that justification doesn't hold much water.

 

This isn't directed to anyone in general but the real answer is "It's the container, stupid."

 

So the wolves would be you and your crew, right Jeremy?