Problems With Non-traditional “traditional’ Caches

[+Oilman]

I was wondering if anyone else has this problem, and what they do about it. Since we travel a lot, we take full advantage of the pocket generator. I only search for traditional caches, large to medium containers. Lately, I have been finding a lot of new caches that are non-traditional, I.E. the caches start out by stating “This cache is not at the above coordinates”. You then have to solve some puzzle, calculate a speeding train distance, answer some other questions, or other nonsense, to find the true location.

 

Over the past six months, we have literally wasted hours and hours on them. We have been 1000 miles from home and are looking for “traditional” caches that do not exist where they state they are. And I do not want to spend hours looking through 400 pages to make sure they are all real caches each time before we travel.

 

Question:

 

Has anyone found a way around this? And, why are these being approved as traditional caches? Is there some way of removing these during the pocket generator run.

 

Please help stop the corruption of traditional caches.

 

Thanks,

Oilman

[+Cow Spots]

I don't think there is any way that any sort of pocket query will be able to filter these out if they're misfiled as traditional caches. The query would have to search the text fields. No chance of that.

 

I take the approach that anytime that there is no point in going to the posted coordinates, it should be labelled as an "Unknown/Mystery" cache.

 

What it really comes down to is an appeal to submitters and approvers of caches to file this type in the appropriate category. I wish they'd go one step further and rename the category "Puzzle caches" and change the icon to that of a jigsaw puzzle piece to further get the idea across.

 

But to solve your current dilemma? I don't see a way of filtering them, other than eyeballing them one at a time. A third-party app like GSAK will at least let you look at cached versions of the geocache's front page, so that the time involved in manually going through them is less.

[+Renegade Knight]

In addition to what The Cow Spots said the only way to filter is to do what you said you don't want to do and read the cache description before you go to hunt the cache.

[koz]

another reason why i'm not that excited about downloading

[+briansnat]

I think it's an issue of caches being mislabeled and I guess in some cases the admins aren't catching them. I haven't found it to be a major nuisance because I've yet to encounter a mystery/puzzle cache mislabeled as traditional. Maybe my local admin is more vigilant about making sure they're categorized properly?

[Keystone]

Jeremy has asked the volunteers to fix the miscategorized caches when we come upon them. And, we're supposed to catch any new ones during the review process, but nobody's perfect, and I am sure that some slip through. I caught a mistake recently that I myself had made when I was a rookie reviewer, and I corrected the cache type.

 

I can also tell you that I have taken incredible crap from cache owners when I have made even the most obvious of cache type corrections. I am talking eight-paragraph flame letters. It makes one reluctant to butt in and fix things.

 

If you notice a miscategorized cache in your home area, contact the volunteer that you work with most regularly. If it happens when you're traveling, you can contact either the reviewer for that area, if you know who that is, *or* your "home area" reviewer, for assistance in fixing the issue.

[+bitbrain]

Ok. If I understand correctly, a multi that requires you to do some calculations with info that's on the cache page itself and numbers you get from a plaque at the posted coordinates should be classified as a Mystery.

 

Did I get it right?

Edited October 19, 2004 by bitbrain

[+Boo & Kitty]

Something I've run into in from time to time are older caches that were placed prior to separate categories for mystery caches. In cases like these, I've pointed out the need for updating the page, and so far, the cache placers have obliged.

 

While on vacation, I did notice that several caches "traditional" caches along the Oregon Coast had "Letterbox" style directions. Junk like: "from the starting coordinates, walk 30 paces due east to an old tree, then go 50 feet southeast and look behind the old stump." After noticing this on three caches by the same placer, I just ignored the rest of the caches by that individual.

 

(Actually, I rather enjoy those types of caches, but not when pressed for time on vacation.)

[+Isonzo Karst]

Ok. If I understand correctly, a multi that requires you to do some calculations with info that's on the cache page itself and numbers you get from a plaque at the posted coordinates should be classified as a Mystery.

 

That's the way I would do it as a cache owner - anytime the posted coordinates will not take you to the cache, or the first stage of a multi-cache, I'd call it and like to see it called a mystery cache. Though if all the information you need is at the site of the coordinates, and the calculation is extremely simple perhaps it's still a traditional multi.

 

I've run into two caches lately where we needed to see a picture on the cache page to understand the write up. "Note the green objects in the picture, how many....?" Pretty useless when caching out of a PDA. I guess the only way to handle that is to call it a mystery cache (both were called traditional). Mystery should alert you to read the cache page in advance of attempting the cache.

Edited October 20, 2004 by Isonzo Karst

[nobby.nobbs]

i agree that these should be labeled as mystery caches or have a seperate problem solver cache title. as regards approvers getting 8 page flame emails then the sender should just have the cache disallowed!

i know some people are jobsworths and too pedantic when interpretting rules but that doesn't justify attacking the approver. but then there are rude people all over the world.

 

meanwhile the only answer is to take longer and read all logs etc prior to going. saves time and frustration in the long run.

[robertlipe]

I have sympathy for KA and his peers. But it turns out if you make life easy for them, they can and often will help you. You may even develop some mutal respect along the way. Sometimes, you (or they) may be unduly punished by butt-heads. That can definitely be a drag.

 

Back in the old days, the rules of the various cache and container types were not well defined. There are certainly some caches that grandfathered into categorizations that don't match the current standards, but I think the more common case is that we have cachers -and sometimes approvers- with cereberally cached copies of the old "standards" and are still using them. The current guideline for "traditional" is pretty clear: a logbook at the posted coordinates. But there's definitely a locality thing involved with the categorization; I think it's that people learn things "wrong" when they start caching, so when they start placing caches, they place 'em like they found 'em.

 

I, too, travel a bit and have learned to invest the time to review each and every cache page before travelling. With a little practice, I can do about 150 per hour. (No, there is no way on earth I could reach that speed if waiting for database timeouts and page retries; I HAVE to do this from a pocket query and local software.) You don't have to read every page, every log, and every hint, but certain keywords like "the cache is not at the above coordinates" or "let A=...." or "count the number of BLAHS at" or "arrived at the seventh stage tired and sweaty" will start to catch your eye with a little practice for miscategorized caches. Similarly a disproportionate number of notes and frownies often indicate problems with a cache that should be highlighted. Five consecutive frownies from experienced cachers on different days on a 1/1 when all the previous logs talk about how easy the cache is? Puh-leeeze. A note from a previous finder confirming a cache is missing? These are all big alarms for me.

 

(Then there was the 1/1 I stumbled across when reviewing caches that mentioned a 42 mile canoe trip and recommended packing for a three night hike that had been unquestioned for about three years....)

 

The good news is that if you make a list and submit them to the approvers or placers along with even a short description of why you feel they need adjustment, they can be made right for the next seeker. Most approvers are pretty cool if you drop a list on them that contains GC#'s and single-line descriptions of what needs fixed.

 

When reviewing a new area, I'll usally drop a note to the placers as I go and make a list to send to the regional approver who is much better equipped to do the follow-up thing if the placer fails to follow-up.

 

I'll bet I've had two hundred caches "fixed" this way - either by the placer or the reviewer - in the last year. It's a tiny little way that we, from our desks, can leave the sport better than we found it. I've taken a few raspberrys, but most of the time it's been really smooth if you include a polite explanation, citing the guidelines, of why things need tweaked. Then that area is "right" for the next one to visit that area.

 

(And I've had my own chain yanked on this, too, since I learned from the 2001 edition of the hymnal.and have to change some of my own... :-)

[+Robespierre]

Sorry to have to reply this way. I'm using a student access to a school computer, and it keeps refusing and alerting due to content: My question concerns THE BIG PICTURE (44833) which I can't link right now. It's a multi where you need to pick up some numbers and do some simple math. I don't think we're saying that it should be labeled differently, but some seem to indicate that.

(the kids are in Art) 6th grade, I'm the sub.

[+radioscout]

This is a big problem here in Europe.

Many offset or multi caches are listed as traditionals. If asked, most owners say that the cache distance is only 0,75 mi or less and only one or two stages before the cache and they don't think that this is a real multi.

Many say that they list the caches as traditionals because most people don't like multi caches and the cache gets more logs if it is labeled as a traditional.

 

So why do they place a multi if they know what the cachers like to search for?

 

In my opinion, every wrong-labeled cache should be listed correcly by the owner or archived.

[+Oilman]

Not to pick on one area in particular, but southwest Houston is my next trip. I ran the Pocket query to see what it came up with and looked through the first 100 on the list during my lunch break. Here is a list of the traditional caches that are not at the posted coordinates.

 

The Bitter End GCHGY7

Anchor's Aweight GCHGYB

A Bridge II Far GCGAHR

Sinking Sandbar GCHAHG

OVERDUE GCH97J

Another Dark Side of Da MQQN GCJ3H8

Dash Dit Dash GCH7FE

 

I like the idea of having a Cache type as puzzle. Occasionally these can be fun and I have thought of a couple I would like to place out when I have time.

 

How would one go about finding out whom is the local coordinator, or approver of the caches?

 

Thanks,

Oilman

Edited October 20, 2004 by Oilman

[+sept1c_tank]

It may seem old-fashioned, but I usually either take the time to read the cache pages or at least print the ones I'll likely be seeking and take them with me. In doing so, I spend only a little extra time at the computer and almost no wasted time on the road.

[+WalruZ]

If all you have are coordinates and a waypoint, you're asking for trouble. Look at the cache page before you decide to do it. Print it out or go paperless. If you're out in the woods without the cache description you are caching blind. (no offense meant to blind cachers...)

[+blazerfan]

First I have to say that I agree... misslabled caches have cost me hours of search time as well. Personally I think there is nothing as fun as having a bunch of way points and no clues as to what you are looking for or how to get there. One misslabled puzzle cache can ruin it all.

 

For those who say "read the cache pages" it is obvious that you've never tried geocaching like this. So I challenge you to put in 300 waypoints and drive to a new town... on a good day you'll find 10-20... you'll also find that you see a lot more of the area (usually as you dive in circles)

 

I can offer the advice of limiting cache difficulty on your pocket queries to 2.5... most puzzle caches have a higher difficulty, but not all.

 

As for myself I bought a PDA... saves a lot of paper and a lot of search time. But I mainly bought it so I could include virtuals in my out of town queries. For virtuals and multis you always need the cache page.

 

I do not consider a multi that starts with calculation a "mystery" if the starting point for the calculations is the given coordinates. If I'm wrong then I have a multi that needs changed.

[+sept1c_tank]

...For those who say "read the cache pages" it is obvious that you've never tried geocaching like this.

Yes, I have. It is truely a different kind of adventure, and I do enjoy it. When you're "caching blind," there is a different diminsion, like caching at night. I accept this and "suffer" the consequences.

 

Still, if I don't want to waste a lot of time on the road, I do some research (read the cache page and sometimes the logs); if I don't, I accept whatever I may find.

[+Hemlock]

Ok.  If I understand correctly, a multi that requires you to do some calculations with info that's on the cache page itself and numbers you get from a plaque at the posted coordinates should be classified as a Mystery.

 

Did I get it right?

No. That would be a multi-cache.

 

Here's a good rule of thumb:

• If the cache IS at the posted coordinates, its a traditional.
  
• If there is something at the posted coordinates that needs to be found (whether a micro-stage or a plaque) in order to find the final cache elsewhere, it's a multi-cache.
  
• If the posted coordinates are bogus, or nothing more than suggested parking, then it's a mystery/puzzle.
  

There are other rules and exceptions for webcams and letterbox hybrids, but the above should cover 99% of all caches.

[+Corp Of Discovery]

I've seen (and used) 'mystery' as a cache type when the container is something out of the ordinary. Maybe 'offset' would be a better cache type for what is usually considered a 'mystery/puzzle' currently. There are quite a few gray areas here.

[robertlipe]

I've seen (and used) 'mystery' as a cache type when the container is something out of the ordinary

I've seen (and done) the same. That was the definition back in the old days, but there is now a stronger distinction between container type (what you're hunting for) and cache type (how you're hunting for it). You can post container type as "not telling" for'something out of hte ordinary'.

 

Hemlock's guidelines are a nice terse distillation of the current guidelines as I understand them.

 

It's funny that Houston was called out. That's an area where I remember getting many recategorized when I reviewed that area for a hunt about two years ago. :-)

[+Corp Of Discovery]

I've seen (and used) 'mystery' as a cache type when the container is something out of the ordinary

I've seen (and done) the same. That was the definition back in the old days, but there is now a stronger distinction between container type (what you're hunting for) and cache type (how you're hunting for it). You can post container type as "not telling" for'something out of hte ordinary'.

 

Hemlock's guidelines are a nice terse distillation of the current guidelines as I understand them.

 

It's funny that Houston was called out. That's an area where I remember getting many recategorized when I reviewed that area for a hunt about two years ago. :-)

Yes, he distills them nicely. However, if I had a nickel for every cache that is labeled a multi that in those terms should be a mystery, I'd be pretty well off. I guess it all comes down to being prepared by reading the cache page first- know what you are looking for. Don't depend too much on just the icons.