New cache types (requested by OCNA)

andrixnet commented 7 years ago

The is a list of new cache types requested by OCNA in advance of their migration to OCPL-current:

BIT Caches (special QR code label, similar to Munzee); ID=12
MP3 Caches; to drop
USB Dead Drop Caches (as cache type, instead of just attribute); ID=11 to drop
Guestbook Caches; ID=13; must change at import from id=10
Letterbox Caches; (as cache type, instead of just attribute); ID=13 to drop
Benchmark Caches; ID=14
Challenge; ID=15 [updated IDs according to wiki, 2019-07-04]

Caches should be added with ID's according to column F as described here: https://wiki.opencaching.eu/index.php/Cache_types

New cache types should go into forbidenCacheTypes by default for existing nodes.

Code changes needed (at least):

[x] cache type definitions (in code)
[x] other necessary code changes
[x] cache type definitions in database (still required)
[x] translations
[x] default graphical resources
[x] default config

andrixnet commented 7 years ago

I also suggest using this opportunity to redefine current porentially overlapping IDs in the code and database and have the code define the complete set of cache types, even if only a subset is available by default.

deg-pl commented 7 years ago

I think it is not a very good idea. It is source of GIGANTIC problems with incompatibility with 3'rd party software (c:geo and MANY others).

I think better way is migrate these cache types to right cache type and use attributes. For example - USB Dead Drop cache can be traditional cache, multi-cache (http://opencaching.pl/viewcache.php?cacheid=53498), moving cache (http://opencaching.pl/viewcache.php?cacheid=17058), mystery cache (http://opencaching.pl/viewcache.php?cacheid=18287), other type cache (http://opencaching.pl/viewcache.php?cacheid=23419). Dead Drop is type of logbook (attribute!) not type of cache. Letterbox means that is a stamp in the cache. It can be every cache type!

If I go for caches - I usualy don't search multicaches because them requre much more time. I can't determine easily that Dead Drop or Letterbox is multicache or traditional cache. In PL we have attribute "letterbox" or "dead drop" - so cache type is adequate to phisical type. Thats a big difference for me.

Mr-Yuck commented 7 years ago

@deg-pl Most of these cache types were added by our founder in 2010 (he is no longer involved with the site). I think our userbase would be very upset if any of them went away! Generally not too much of a problem with c:geo, they all show up on the maps or in a list, they generally just have a mystery cache icon, rather than their own unique icon.

andrixnet commented 7 years ago

If userbase is c:geo, contributions to c:geo can help mitigate.

andrixnet commented 7 years ago

There are also some cache types unique to OCNA, that have no corresponding type or attribute in neither OCPL nor OCDE. See Bitcache, Benchmark. And by their nature, I don't think they can be equally equivalated to traditional / puzzle / multi and an attribute. I presume, even if MP3 cache might be contended and converted to attribute, these others should be added.

wrygiel commented 7 years ago

I think better way is migrate these cache types to right cache type and use attributes.

I think the same. I also think the same about some of the other cache types we use in Poland (e.g. webcam).

In my mind, cache types should to be very broad and general. It's a big mistake to introduce new, specific ones, because - once the users realize what happened - they will simply require of us to introduce even more. This won't end happily.

wrygiel commented 7 years ago

If OCUS's <1k users managed to think of 6 special types of caches, then imagine what our 36k users will do.

Mr-Yuck commented 7 years ago

@wrygiel I cannot argue with that. Although I would not necessarily say our users came up with the cache types, rather our founder, RvRoadTrip, who ultimately ran the site for less than 2 years. We were founded in 2010, and the last type was added in 2011, although we did come up with a new one we want to add now (Benchmarks). I really think our userbase would be highly pissed off if they were all reverted to Mystery type caches identified only by attributes after all these years. @andrixnet had told me in another conversation they could be "forbidden caches" on any other site using OCPL code?

wrygiel commented 7 years ago

I really think our userbase would be highly pissed off if they were all reverted to Mystery type caches identified only by attributes after all these years

True. Every change brings some haters along with it.

You (OCUS and OCPL developers) could make this work in such a way, that no users see any changes (OCPL would have cache types of its own, and you would have yours). But this, on the other hand, would be much more work for OCPL developers (and possibly external app developers, such as c:geo), so - if you choose this path - the users will not object, but the developers probably will. In the end run, users might still suffer, because of broken app implementations (because many developers have hard-coded cache types in their apps).

There is no good choice here. Either way, someone will be mad with the decision.

Mr-Yuck commented 7 years ago

@wrygiel I agree no real good choice here. I will say that all our unique cache types have always shown up on the map or list of caches as "?" (mystery or unknown) on c:geo, and we're all used to that, and fine with it. I don't even remember when c:geo came online with OCNA, but I'll bet it was around 2013.

kojoty commented 5 years ago

I agree that it seems to be much more easy to add a attributes instead of new cache types. @Mr-Yuck how many active caches of every requested type you have right now?