A traditional with a field puzzle is really supposed to be a "?" Cache?

[+Wildguineapig530]

I'm a little confused, if you get the option to click on an attribute "Field Puzzle" While creating a traditional then why is it considered the wrong category? I created a TMNT Birdhouse with an on site puzzle, and have been told twice that it's a "Puzzle/Mystery" Category and not a "Traditional" Why would they give the option for the in field puzzle attribute on a traditional if it is incorrect? GC64GRW Cowabunga Cache

[+Path Pacer]

Sounds like people haven't read the definition:

 

Mystery Cache

A non-Traditional cache type that doesn't fit into the other categories. Coordinates listed on the cache page are often bogus, and the final coordinates must be solved for through a series of steps or instructions.

 

Since you already have the correct coordinates, a traditional designation seems appropriate. As you say, why put a field puzzle attribute option if you can't use it?

[+Touchstone]

I'm a little confused, if you get the option to click on an attribute "Field Puzzle" While creating a traditional then why is it considered the wrong category? I created a TMNT Birdhouse with an on site puzzle, and have been told twice that it's a "Puzzle/Mystery" Category and not a "Traditional" Why would they give the option for the in field puzzle attribute on a traditional if it is incorrect? GC64GRW Cowabunga Cache

The Attribute options are the same for all Listing types. There are a small handful of Attributes that only Groundspeak can activate, but that's irrelevant to this discussion.

 

I believe that the comments regarding the cache type on your Listing page are from individuals that firmly believe that for a Traditional cache type, there should be no other requirement to finding the cache than to walk up to the posted coordinates, find the cache and sign the logsheet. Anything else, should be given some other cache type (most commonly the catch all ? type). Puzzle boxes and the like, that require some manipulation to open the actual cache container, often fall into this gray zone.

[Keystone]

Using the traditional cache type with the field puzzle attribute is perfectly fine when there is some little "trick" to accessing the log, like a gadget cache, the need for a TOTT, or a simply answered combination puzzle for a locked container. The container and log are located at the posted coordinates.

 

If there are more complicated steps, like solving a complex puzzle and using information to open the container, then a cache might cross the fuzzy line into mystery/puzzle cache territory.

[+kunarion]

I created a TMNT Birdhouse with an on site puzzle, and have been told twice that it's a "Puzzle/Mystery" Category and not a "Traditional" Why would they give the option for the in field puzzle attribute on a traditional if it is incorrect?

You've listed it well, with I guess an appropriate Difficulty rating: The Cache Owner expects that people may have a tough time with the puzzle. And the description (which must be read after looking at that rating, if not noticing Attributes) would clue people in on what the deal is. It's fine as a Traditional, and evidently the Reviewer also thought this. I've not often seen caches set up like that, but I wouldn't require the cache type be changed for me.

 

I have a vague idea about what I might try if I went to that cache. But it looks like people are having to ask you or others. If a puzzle requires reading the Cache Owner's mind (as opposed to being a well-made tough puzzle), I may skip it entirely. OK, yours doesn't look like a long hike to me , so maybe I'd just work on it once in a while when I get another epiphany. Other peoples' mileage may vary.

Edited November 19, 2015 by kunarion

[+NYPaddleCacher]

Using the traditional cache type with the field puzzle attribute is perfectly fine when there is some little "trick" to accessing the log, like a gadget cache, the need for a TOTT, or a simply answered combination puzzle for a locked container. The container and log are located at the posted coordinates.

 

I have also seen caches which consisted of a gadget such as a puzzle box or cryptex or a cache which use a combination lock (with the combinations displayed in the cache listing) listed as a Mystery/Unknown with the field puzzle attribute set. The inclusion of the puzzle attribute, to me, indicates that the container and log are at the posted coordinates (though there could be a puzzle on the cache listing as well). In one way I think it may be better to list a cache like this as a mystery/unknown. When a cache listed as a mystery/unknown it generally indicates that one should read the entire cache listing to understand why it's listed as a mystery/unknown. There could be a puzzle that must be solved before going to GZ, information required (a combination code) to open the container, or it could be a challenge cache. When it's listed as a traditional there are going to be a lot of people that are just going to navigate to the published coordinates only to discover that there is something about the container that requires additional work in order to open it and sign the log.

 

 

[+niraD]

In one way I think it may be better to list a cache like this as a mystery/unknown. When a cache listed as a mystery/unknown it generally indicates that one should read the entire cache listing to understand why it's listed as a mystery/unknown. There could be a puzzle that must be solved before going to GZ, information required (a combination code) to open the container, or it could be a challenge cache. When it's listed as a traditional there are going to be a lot of people that are just going to navigate to the published coordinates only to discover that there is something about the container that requires additional work in order to open it and sign the log.

Yep. According to the guidelines, you can list it as a traditional cache because the cache is at the posted coordinates. But you can also list it as a mystery/puzzle cache, which is a catch-all for unusual caches.

 

Consider what kind of experience someone is interested in when they query the site for traditional caches only. Consider what kind of experience someone is interested in when they query the site for mystery/puzzle caches only. Now consider your cache, and consider whether its experience better matches the first example or the second example.

[+narcissa]

I have found a few of these "field puzzle" traditionals, and almost invariably, they've been broken by frustrated cachers who expect to find, well, a traditional. Fans of mystery/unknown caches don't appreciate them either.

 

I have found caches where the owner has gone to ridiculous lengths to keep it a traditional when it shouldn't be. I once found one where the cache contained a note with coordinates that said "The logbook can be found here." Uh, dude, that's a multi. His excuse? People don't like multis. Yeah, so don't trick them into doing one.

 

Let's just dispense with the tomfoolery and classify caches in the manner that best communicates the intention and experience of the cache.

[+Harry Dolphin]

Sorry. I broke the container with the log inside, trying to open it. Oh, well. NM.

[+WarNinjas]

I would like to see it as a traditional with the field puzzle attribute. That way I know it is actually at the posted coords. If it was a ? I would probably skip it when in the area. That is just my opinion though.

[+J Grouchy]

I would like to see it as a traditional with the field puzzle attribute. That way I know it is actually at the posted coords. If it was a ? I would probably skip it when in the area. That is just my opinion though.

 

Same. They're typically published as Mystery caches around here and I've passed by several because of it, only to realize later that it was only because it had a combo lock on it...or the log sheet was in a puzzle box...

[+thebruce0]

Really a traditional with the field puzzle attribute is like a traditional with the tool required attribute. People expecting to go either cache and just find and sign the logbook are going to be disappointed. Maybe list it as a traditional and put it up a tree as well that requires a ladder, that way at least if they're upset they can't reach the cache to damage it in frustration

Edited November 20, 2015 by thebruce0

[+narcissa]

Really a traditional with the field puzzle attribute is like a traditional with the tool required attribute. People expecting to go either cache and just find and sign the logbook are going to be disappointed. Maybe list it as a traditional and put it up a tree as well that requires a ladder, that way at least if they're upset they can't reach the cache to damage it in frustration

 

In a perfect world, cachers would always look at attributes and read the cache page.

 

We know that in practice, this is not the case. We can howl into the wind about it all we like, but it's too late to close the barn door.

 

A traditional that requires people to read the cache page and attributes is simply poor design, given the realities of the game.

[+thebruce0]

It's really a matter of whether the CO is prepared to put up with grief, if their design choice is entirely legitimate. People need to learn to read the attributes and the listing (I still often make that mistake and have been bitten by an unexpected task at a traditional GZ).

If you don't want the grief, cater to the lowest common denominator. If you want to do what you are allowed to do and willing to put up with potential frustrations, then go for it. It helps bring people up to speed as well, which is a Good Thing, imo. *shrug*

I don't think there's a 'right' or 'wrong' way in this case. I've seen many field puzzles as both mysteries and traditionals. Whatevs

[+kunarion]

close the barn door.

At least in the case of the OP, the cache title could be changed to "[Cache Name] - Warning: Field Puzzle". That title with its original short [Cache Name] would even be close to fitting on a GPSr screen.

[+narcissa]

It's really a matter of whether the CO is prepared to put up with grief, if their design choice is entirely legitimate.

 

Putting up with grief is one thing, having a cache that is perpetually broken because of bad design means that most finders are not going to experience it as intended. If a CO is willing to inflict a poor caching experience on others out of stubbornness over cache type, well, not much anyone can do about someone like that.

[+thebruce0]

Sure. But it's up to the CO. Again, they're not doing anything incorrectly, so it's more like an angry mob wanting things their way when it's them that's not understanding how things can be legitimately done Maybe the CO wants to put up with it on principle; or maybe they'll have a soft heart and cater to the mob. Who knows, it's up to them. (I won't say a CO is good or bad for doing it either way - both are equally allowable, regardless of how one or many people feel about the CO's design)

[+kunarion]

I have found a few of these "field puzzle" traditionals, and almost invariably, they've been broken by frustrated cachers who expect to find, well, a traditional. Fans of mystery/unknown caches don't appreciate them either.

There is a cherished Geocaching Tradition of "Break it if you want to for a Smilie" (mentioned here in this thread and many other threads ...uncontested). This affects any cache type, even caches that are not at all hard to access. In this OP's case, the suggestion is that there is justification to vandalize the cache -- merely because it's not listed per some people's expectations.

Edited November 20, 2015 by kunarion

[+TriciaG]

I have found a few of these "field puzzle" traditionals, and almost invariably, they've been broken by frustrated cachers who expect to find, well, a traditional. Fans of mystery/unknown caches don't appreciate them either.

There is a cherished Geocaching Tradition of "Break it if you want to for a Smilie" (mentioned here in this thread and many other threads ...uncontested). This affects any cache type, even caches that are not at all hard to access. In this OP's case, the suggestion is that there is justification to vandalize the cache -- merely because it's not listed per some people's expectations.

Agreed! And this line doesn't help (emphasis mine):

If a CO is willing to inflict a poor caching experience on others out of stubbornness over cache type, well, not much anyone can do about someone like that.

No, no - it's the OTHER CACHERS inflicting a poor caching experience by breaking the cache.

 

Is there any excuse to purposely break someone's cache? I say no.

[+BCandMsKitty]

Really a traditional with the field puzzle attribute is like a traditional with the tool required attribute. People expecting to go either cache and just find and sign the logbook are going to be disappointed. Maybe list it as a traditional and put it up a tree as well that requires a ladder, that way at least if they're upset they can't reach the cache to damage it in frustration

 

In a perfect world, cachers would always look at attributes and read the cache page.

 

We know that in practice, this is not the case. We can howl into the wind about it all we like, but it's too late to close the barn door.

 

A traditional that requires people to read the cache page and attributes is simply poor design, given the realities of the game.

 

nonsense!

 

That's just catering to bad behavior.

Make all caches premium only, and describe the cache properly, and you've solved a big percentage of the problem.

Edited November 20, 2015 by BC & MsKitty

[+dprovan]

I would like to see it as a traditional with the field puzzle attribute. That way I know it is actually at the posted coords. If it was a ? I would probably skip it when in the area. That is just my opinion though.

I agree with you for the most part. I've burned by the same problem with multicaches when I'm in one of those areas where the standard is to list them as puzzle caches if the first stage involves a calculation based on information at the posted coordinates.

 

But I have to point out that what you're saying is that someone that ignores puzzle caches because they don't want to sit at home solving puzzles is, nevertheless, fine with sitting out in the field solving puzzles as long as they're at the posted coordinates. OK, I'll buy that if the puzzle is simple, but there's clearly a limit, and I'd claim it's fairly low.

[+Mudfrog]

Really a traditional with the field puzzle attribute is like a traditional with the tool required attribute. People expecting to go either cache and just find and sign the logbook are going to be disappointed. Maybe list it as a traditional and put it up a tree as well that requires a ladder, that way at least if they're upset they can't reach the cache to damage it in frustration

 

In a perfect world, cachers would always look at attributes and read the cache page.

 

We know that in practice, this is not the case. We can howl into the wind about it all we like, but it's too late to close the barn door.

 

A traditional that requires people to read the cache page and attributes is simply poor design, given the realities of the game.

 

A cache page's description and it's attributes are fine. These are tools that everyone should utilize. However, many of us, myself included, don't read every cache page. In cases like this, it would be my fault if i came up on a cache that turned out to have something like a field puzzle involved. I wouldn't get upset and break a cache if this happened. In the real world, it's people who are of poor design.

 

As far as being traditional, and from what we've been told, i don't see why the OP's cache can't be listed as one.

Edited November 20, 2015 by Mudfrog

[+BCandMsKitty]

I went to the cache page, and I might have a bit of a problem with this one not being listed as a puzzle.

Simply because, from the cache page description, how critical is the "know the original lyrics from the "1987" opening theme to Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles."

If the puzzle can't be solved without that information, then it should be listed as a puzzle.

If it can all be solved at GZ, without any other outside information being needed, then I think it's OK as a Trad. with "field puzzle" attribute.

 

And who is telling you it should be a puzzle? Obviously the reviewer decided it was OK as a Trad., and I'm sure nomex would have made sure before publishing!

Edited November 20, 2015 by BC & MsKitty

[+NYPaddleCacher]

Really a traditional with the field puzzle attribute is like a traditional with the tool required attribute. People expecting to go either cache and just find and sign the logbook are going to be disappointed. Maybe list it as a traditional and put it up a tree as well that requires a ladder, that way at least if they're upset they can't reach the cache to damage it in frustration

 

In a perfect world, cachers would always look at attributes and read the cache page.

 

We know that in practice, this is not the case. We can howl into the wind about it all we like, but it's too late to close the barn door.

 

A traditional that requires people to read the cache page and attributes is simply poor design, given the realities of the game.

 

That's more or less that I was getting at in a previous post.

 

I also think that in the realities of the game reading the cache page and attributes on an unknown/mystery is pretty much a requirement, thus my suggesting the mystery/unknown is a better choice for a cache with a field puzzle.

 

 

[+niraD]

I have found a few of these "field puzzle" traditionals, and almost invariably, they've been broken by frustrated cachers who expect to find, well, a traditional. Fans of mystery/unknown caches don't appreciate them either.

There is a cherished Geocaching Tradition of "Break it if you want to for a Smilie" (mentioned here in this thread and many other threads ...uncontested). This affects any cache type, even caches that are not at all hard to access. In this OP's case, the suggestion is that there is justification to vandalize the cache -- merely because it's not listed per some people's expectations.

If we were talking to the neanderthals who vandalize field puzzles they can't solve, then I might buy this line of reasoning. But we aren't.

 

We're talking to the owner of a field puzzle, who (presumably) wants to avoid attracting these neanderthals to his field puzzle. We're just acknowledging the reality that such neanderthals exist.

 

Furthermore, even ignoring such neanderthals, we're acknowledging that people who query the site for only mystery/puzzle caches will be happier finding a challenging field puzzle than people who query the site for only traditional caches.

[+K13]

If I get to GZ of a cache, and discover that I have to know the lyrics to some obscure 1987 TV show theme, I wouldn't consider that a Field Puzzle. YMMV.

[+noncentric]

If I get to GZ of a cache, and discover that I have to know the lyrics to some obscure 1987 TV show theme, I wouldn't consider that a Field Puzzle. YMMV.

 

+1

I'd expect a traditional cache with the 'field puzzle' attribute to have all required information at the posted coords. If an internet search is required to determine the combination to a locked cache, then I'd consider the cache to be a mystery rather than a trad. If cell signals are sparse at GZ, then the need for an internet search would be even more annoying.

 

If the question is something universal or discernable at the posted coords, then a trad listing would seem appropriate. What is 'universal'? Something like: combination = days in February + days in December = 2831. What is 'discernable at the posted coords'? Something like: standing at GZ, look at the telephone pole and use the last 4 digits as the combo.

 

Attributes can be useful when looking at caches online or via an app, but they don't seem useful for cachers using GPSr's in the field, since most (all?) GPSr's lack the functionality to show attributes.

[+Mudfrog]

I went to the cache page, and I might have a bit of a problem with this one not being listed as a puzzle.

Simply because, from the cache page description, how critical is the "know the original lyrics from the "1987" opening theme to Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles."

If the puzzle can't be solved without that information, then it should be listed as a puzzle.

If it can all be solved at GZ, without any other outside information being needed, then I think it's OK as a Trad. with "field puzzle" attribute.

 

And who is telling you it should be a puzzle? Obviously the reviewer decided it was OK as a Trad., and I'm sure nomex would have made sure before publishing!

 

I just looked at the page as well. After reading the description and some of the logs, it sure looks like this cache would fit better into the mystery type category. It really depends on how important those lyrics are for getting the cache.

[+BAMBOOZLE]

Really a traditional with the field puzzle attribute is like a traditional with the tool required attribute. People expecting to go either cache and just find and sign the logbook are going to be disappointed. Maybe list it as a traditional and put it up a tree as well that requires a ladder, that way at least if they're upset they can't reach the cache to damage it in frustration

 

In a perfect world, cachers would always look at attributes and read the cache page.

 

We know that in practice, this is not the case. We can howl into the wind about it all we like, but it's too late to close the barn door.

 

A traditional that requires people to read the cache page and attributes is simply poor design, given the realities of the game.

 

I agree.

On a traditional cache you should be able to easily sign the log once finding the container. ANYTHING in the container design that complicates log removal is a ALR IMO and the cache should be listed as a puzzle....as you say many CO's don't wish their cache to be a puzzle or multi because many ( like me ) won't look for them.

[+redsox_mark]

Keystone gave a nice definition in post 4. That makes sense to me.

 

This specific cache, if you need to know the song lyrics, that seems to push it to being a puzzle cache in my view.

 

What is also clear from this thread is many cachers feel ANY sort of field puzzle should result in the cache having the puzzle/mystery type. Right or wrong, it means you may get complaints even if the puzzle is easy to solve on site and does not need specialist information. Or some may break it trying to open it.

[+narcissa]

I have found a few of these "field puzzle" traditionals, and almost invariably, they've been broken by frustrated cachers who expect to find, well, a traditional. Fans of mystery/unknown caches don't appreciate them either.

There is a cherished Geocaching Tradition of "Break it if you want to for a Smilie" (mentioned here in this thread and many other threads ...uncontested). This affects any cache type, even caches that are not at all hard to access. In this OP's case, the suggestion is that there is justification to vandalize the cache -- merely because it's not listed per some people's expectations.

 

This is a categorically unfair and inaccurate characterization of my comment.

 

It is well known that some cachers vandalize these caches. Attributes and cache pages do not deter this vandalism. That's a simple fact. There's no justification for damaging someone else's cache, but we cannot pretend it doesn't happen.

 

As a cache owner, you can either account for this up front and classify the cache accordingly, or you can cope with the maintenance issues that arise. Entirely up to you.

Edited November 23, 2015 by narcissa