Why are these caches listed as "traditional"?

[allrounder]

<p>These are a couple of random caches I have come across...

<p>First cache is "Picture This: (2) Cryptic" by The 2 Dogs

<p>I wanted to place a cache near the listed co-ords for this one but found that this cache was already "there" - it's clearly not a traditional as I have to travel some distance from this point to the pictured area to get some additional info then plug that in to get the final co-ords...

<p>The second one is "Triangle's Apex" by bubble & squeak...

<p>the listed points are "irrelevant" as you need the final waypoints of two other caches to find this one...

<p>Any advice would be much appreciated!

[Team Piggy]

Even though they may be offset or multi caches, you have to think.

If it was my cache how would I feel in this situation?

A lot of us have probably at some time or another found a decent spot, only to find another cache is too close. Thats the way it works sometimes.

You know you can do the same, start your cache elsewhere and have the final location there? Works both ways

[acts2youthgroup]

The second one is "Triangle's Apex" by bubble & squeak...

I emailed them recently and got no response.

I mail the owners and if no responce usually pass it on to a reviewer.

[allrounder]

You know you can do the same, start your cache elsewhere and have the final location there? Works both ways

<p>The current reviewing procedure requires that you post the final co-ords (as an add waypoint) to the reviewer...any clashes with other waypoints already in place will prevent it from being published...

[theUMP]

You know you can do the same, start your cache elsewhere and have the final location there? Works both ways

<p>The current reviewing procedure requires that you post the final co-ords (as an add waypoint) to the reviewer...any clashes with other waypoints already in place will prevent it from being published...

So, if you see a clash with a nearby cache that you think is wrongly labelled (and both these examples are), then write a note to the reviewer stating so!

We're reasonable folk, and we'll either fix the other listing (if the other waypoints/GZ are available) on the spot, or get those coords from the owner (or a recent finder if the owner's lost them!) and then make the required changes.

Either way, if your waypoint/GZ is in a valid spot, then it'll be published.

However, I for one am not about to go checking on every trad that's 'blocking' a new cache just to see if it's been correctly listed! You're placing one or two caches, I'm looking at dozens or scores, so the onus is on you to check those nearby caches.

[Team Piggy]

SO is there actually "something" wrong with these other 2 caches? Or is the point now to simply "move them along by force" ? Is how I read it?

[Damo.]

In some cases the caches have been there for years. There used to be a thing called an "offset" cache which may or may not have been listed as a "multi".
Then along came GSAK and paperless caching, and people started demanding that other people list their caches properly so that they could filter out all those pesky multis so they could find caches without the burden of having to actually read the cache description.

[Papa Bear_Left]

(Other hat, same bloke)

Most of my geocaching stories and memories are about multis.
There's something about the thrill of the chase, and solving puzzles on the fly rather than from an armchair that makes them special. Back when we had an open choice of caches, we we running at about 30% of caches found being multis or puzzles (we then found all of the caches within cooee in NZ and so our ratio reflected the availability rather than our predilections)

(theUMP hat back on)
Nothing to do with the examples above, though. Both of them state quite clearly in their descriptions that the listed coords are false, so they're mystery/puzzle caches, by definition. One was listed long enough ago that the category might not have existed (and it was published by an overseas reviewer, and many of the examples of sloppy reviewing I've come across have been by non-locals, filling in while the locals were offline...) The other one? Well, we all have our off days!

I leave a lot of older caches alone, if it doesn't really matter, but some of these actually do make a difference. We don't look at a mystery/puzzle's listed coords for the purposes of cache proximity, so being listed as a traditional 'blocks' an area that it shouldn't.

I bemoan the trend to split multicaches up into a series of dull trads and a puzzle, but it's not against the guidelines and so I just hold my nose and publish them, all else being correct.

Unfortunately, it's like lame urban micros; new cachers see that most caches in their area are magnetic keyholders on the back of signs in insignificant places, or film canisters under a rock in a 5m square park, and they think that this is what geocaching is all about. So they place more of them with the warm fuzzy feeling of giving back to the community.

Similarly, cache-placers can see that an involved-looking multi gets only a few visits from the FTF seekers, which then fall away as the general caching community goes after the easy numbers. So they place ten micros instead, each with a digit or somesuch to a puzzle cache. The filtered databases (that Damo recognised) have them listed and the cacher who finds them eventually tracks down the puzzle cache, and collects 11 smileys for the one multicache.

Ah, well, 10cm accurate GPS systems are gonna kill urban geocaching soon enough anyway, so the problem should fix itself!

[allrounder]

<p>i wasn't having a go at reviewers here, i just wondered why these caches (for example) had been listed as "traditional"...

<p>FYI, Triangle's Apex has now been changed to an "unknown"...

<p>i like finding all sorts of caches but i do appreciate correct categorising, particularly if i'm going to be travelling to find caches...

<p>so from now on, if i see what i think is incorrect labelling, i will indeed write a note to the reviewer!

<p>thanks for all the input!

[Cached]

also, remember that it has to be an email, not a reviewer note, cos they don't actually go to the reviewers!

[theUMP]

also, remember that it has to be an email, not a reviewer note, cos they don't actually go to the reviewers!

Yes, isn't that silly? I have hopes that the "reviewer note" option will someday be restricted to reviewers only after the cache is published, to avoid that mistaken expectation. (There was a new cacher recently who was writing cache-sensistive stuff as reviewer notes until I warned her. I think I got to them before too many people had seen them...)

Another thing to be wary of is that older caches may have been published by reviewers who are no longer reviewing or not in Australia, so be a little wary if the name's not i,riblit or embi or theUMP. If in doubt, either contact me at "theUMP.reviewer@gmail.com" or post a "needs maintenance" log for the owner.

[allrounder]

so noted (not emailed LOL)!

thanks guys...

[acts2youthgroup]

check it out the ump is calling out as the ball hits the stumps.

[Papa Bear_Left]

One of the Yank reviewers referred to that avatar as the Disco Polar Bear.

Ignorant damn foreigners... mutter.. mutter..

[allrounder]

oh dear, i'm sure you have better disco moves than that!