Yesterday, someone posted a note for one of our geocaches. This geocache, while not officially a puzzle cache, does require a vital piece of information from the cache page in order to log a Find. (We’re realizing just now that this geocache could have easily qualified as a puzzle cache – but it’s too late now.) From the wording of the note, we don’t think the geocacher is happy with us. They had gone after our cache, the note said, based solely on a pocket query. They found the cache container, but didn’t have the vital piece of information (and didn’t know they’d need it until they got to the coordinates). The geocacher suggested, in their note, that we put that vital piece of information in the geocache hint so it would be included in pocket queries.
Phillip and I discussed the suggestion during playtime this morning, and quickly agreed against it. Anyone trying to find a geocache without knowing anything more than its coordinates, size, and difficulty, is missing out on the story behind the cache, as told on the cache page. As Phillip put it, “It’s a Find strictly for the numbers.” If people want to just Find a cache, we concluded, that’s fine, but they are taking their chances on missing out on important information. (Is it a nighttime only cache? Is it on private property, but with permission? Is there a loud, barking dog nearby that can scare small children? and so on) We decided to not change the hint.
This evening, we received an email notification that someone logged a Find on another one of our geocaches. This geocache has a personal story behind it, as told on the cache page. This geocache is clearly our cache. In the Found It log, the geocacher praised someone other than us for the hide. I wonder if that geocacher relied solely on a pocket query, too.
