Some reviewers are better than others. My reviewer is a PITA to deal with. He insists on having final coordinates, so I put them as a secondary waypoint. The last one I posted, I even copy/pasted the the text from the guidelines page to the Reviewer Note that said "This cache type pays homage to an older form of scavenger hunt. A Letterbox Hybrid must include significant GPS usage for AT LEAST PART of the hunt. Letterbox-style clues may be used to guide seekers to the container, but only if the clues are accompanied by coordinates specific to the hide. The container for a Letterbox Hybrid must include a stamp, which stays with the geocache and may be used by letter-boxers to stamp their personal letter-boxing book. The cache can be logged without using the stamp." I just think my reviewer is anti-letterbox.

One of the first hybrids that I tried placing using directional clues ended up going back and forth about 5 times before it finally posted. I even blogged about that one. http://nativtxn.blogspot.com/2012/09/frustrations-with-trying-to-get-cache.html

Again, the review team on opencaching.us is MUCH easier to get along with.

It doesn't matter how you word it. Those types of geocachers generally never see the cache page. They just bring up the list of all the geocaches in the vicinity and download them directly to the GPS. Only when they don't find the cache at the coordinates will they consider bringing up the listing on their smartphone to see if it's a two-stage or something.

I tend to agree with you, Kirbert. Usually they say...duh, I should've looked at the cache page, though. Not....if you would've "X", we wouldnt have wasted so much time. (I bet they "wasted" 5 to 10 min). I'm glad they changed their comment, because of the 50 finders, I've had maybe 3 who said anything about being confused, and only one DNF, because the woman missed seeing a clue, which I can't help if she can't tell a tree from a hole in the ground!

He insists on having final coordinates, so I put them as a secondary waypoint.

I know that the final coordinates have to be available to the reviewer, so they can be hidden from the general public. Does your reviewer insist that they be visible to the general public? I think you said that was so in a previous post, but I'm just verifying. I must have good reviewers around here, which I'm glad for. We seem to interpret the rules in similar ways.

Both of my crossover letterboxes have been puzzles. With a reviewer such as yours, a puzzle should be able to work because it's obvious on a puzzle that a puzzle's final coordinates shouldn't be open to the public. On both of mine I use the required coordinates as an intermediate point where they then follow clues. They're clues all of the way here.

Through some back and forth emails yesterday, he consented that the final can be hidden as long as GPS is used for most of the hunt. He thinks letterboxes should just be an attribute to show that it contains a stamp and shouldn't be a type of its own.

Through some back and forth emails yesterday, he consented that the final can be hidden as long as GPS is used for most of the hunt. He thinks letterboxes should just be an attribute to show that it contains a stamp and shouldn't be a type of its own.

Glad to hear that he finally conceded that the final coords do not need to be public. His bias (although I agree with it) shouldn't affect his reviewing responsibilities. He is required to follow the guidelines as they are currently laid out for letterbox hybrids. Hybrids must have a stamp and can be either follow the style of a traditional, puzzle/mystery or multi-cache type. At the discretion of the owner, the posted coordinates can be at the box location, a landmark or point along the way to the box, or a starting point with coords at stage 1 and coords to be found at stages along the way to the final.