Trinity's Crew

Great post! Great suggestions too. To the OP.... Isonzo Karst is giving good advice here. The underlying message is that you should work with your reviewer(s) to figure out how to make this work. Good luck!

It isn't the challenge. It's the expectation that GS will mediate if a problem arises between a cacher and the owner. And this is a huge part of the problem. The moment groundspeek started mediating deleted logs, they opened a can of worms that could not be closed. If they had just remained a listing service only and not meddled in cache owner affairs, they would not have been overwhelmed to the point of needing to make more rules to lighten their workload. They could have treated ALRs the same way they treat power trails and LPCs; don't like 'em, don't do 'em. I agree with this to an extent but I also know that while it's not about "the numbers", an awful lot of people get upset when their find count isn't accurate. Also, when people bring complaints about deleted logs on any type of cache to the forums a lot of people recommend that they contact GC.com. I suppose GS could ignore these complaints but they do have paying customers and I'm not sure ignoring them or telling them "You're on your own here." would make good business sense.

It isn't the challenge. It's the expectation that GS will mediate if a problem arises between a cacher and the owner.

Hi, Matt! I find it funny that you would say that, because I feel that I'm in the minority in wishing that the challenge caches would go the way of the ALR (which I feel they really are, anyway), and that I have to put up with them because the majority approves of them. Then I guess the question might become, why don't we have an ALR cache type? And give individuals the opportunity to always display these caches or never display them. Then those that like challenges with ALR's can have them show up as accomplishments, and those who don't like them don't ever have to see them (and thus don't have to push for restricting someone else's idea of fun). Unfortunately, the basic issue still remains, and no one ever provides an answer to it: should you be allowed to restrict someone else's activity because you yourself don't enjoy engaging in said activity. I would remind you that restricting my ability to put out a challenge cache does not increase my desire to put out a traditional cache, so really, no one is winning. Once again, Matt... the "you" that you reference is Groundspeak, and from all that I've seen over the years they do NOT follow the majority opinion. They make their own decisions. As to why no ALRs any longer, that is well documented in the forums, but essentially it is because they got out of control with silly or impossible to meet requirements. ALRs granted too much power to the cache owner. If an owner decided that you didn't fulfill the "requirement" to their satisfaction they could delete your log. Some owners were stupid about it and Groundspeak didn't have a lot of leverage there. They had upset cachers who kept getting their logs deleted and no real way to require the owner to leave the log in place. Your challenge seems fun but there will always be shades of gray when deciding whether a cacher has met the challenge to your satisfaction. I'm not saying you'd be a jerk about it but there were enough ALR Nazis out there to cause the demise of that cache type. Actually they have a very good way of leaving the log in place. They can re-instate the log and then lock it. The CO can not delete that log. But I suspect that with the other reasons mentioned, the lackeys and reviewers just got tired of moderating logging wars. Exactly.

Thank you for the positive response about my challenge. I acknowledge what you are saying, but what your statement, in essence, comes down to is this: "There are some cache-nazis out there who abuse their power to enforce requirements, therefore, we had to take away the power of they and everyone else to create said requirements, regardless of how reasonable they may or may not seem on a case-by-case basis." This type of argument is the absolute death of every single free society in the history of all of humankind, whether we are talking about entire nations or little geocaching communities run by a central body. And still, no one has posited a proper response to: "Why should you be allowed to stop me from engaging in a legal activity simply because you don't like it?" Legal of course meaning law-abiding. As was mentioned previously, Groundspeak is not a democracy. Why would they want to put themselves in a position where they are forced to arbitrate whether a cacher fulfilled the challenge? Because I guarantee that the moment you start deleting logs someone will be firing off emails to GS headquarters complaining that their logs were unfairly or arbitrarily deleted. It's a lot easier for them to say, "If you find the cache you earn the ". If this were my business I'd sure go that way.

Hi, Matt! I find it funny that you would say that, because I feel that I'm in the minority in wishing that the challenge caches would go the way of the ALR (which I feel they really are, anyway), and that I have to put up with them because the majority approves of them. Then I guess the question might become, why don't we have an ALR cache type? And give individuals the opportunity to always display these caches or never display them. Then those that like challenges with ALR's can have them show up as accomplishments, and those who don't like them don't ever have to see them (and thus don't have to push for restricting someone else's idea of fun). Unfortunately, the basic issue still remains, and no one ever provides an answer to it: should you be allowed to restrict someone else's activity because you yourself don't enjoy engaging in said activity. I would remind you that restricting my ability to put out a challenge cache does not increase my desire to put out a traditional cache, so really, no one is winning. Once again, Matt... the "you" that you reference is Groundspeak, and from all that I've seen over the years they do NOT follow the majority opinion. They make their own decisions. As to why no ALRs any longer, that is well documented in the forums, but essentially it is because they got out of control with silly or impossible to meet requirements. ALRs granted too much power to the cache owner. If an owner decided that you didn't fulfill the "requirement" to their satisfaction they could delete your log. Some owners were stupid about it and Groundspeak didn't have a lot of leverage there. They had upset cachers who kept getting their logs deleted and no real way to require the owner to leave the log in place. Your challenge seems fun but there will always be shades of gray when deciding whether a cacher has met the challenge to your satisfaction. I'm not saying you'd be a jerk about it but there were enough ALR Nazis out there to cause the demise of that cache type.

<snip> I think that's also what the dog poop guy charges.

I won't pretend to know a lot about bots but his log was a little more elaborate on this cache.

I am reminded of a color...

Heh! Funny, someone has unwatched it. It's down to 457 watchers today!! why is it watch worthy I wonder? Only 5 finds (one of them a dupe) and 1 who never found another cache. Still, not sure why its watch worthy. I did make a bookmark list for a challenge which wanted finds based on GC#, but never found the cache while in Oregon. Most interesting one I found at the time was GC1GERM. Did CoFTF it. that challenge in Oregon http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?guid=a525d79c-d798-4df8-8ee5-92206d2b9cb3 Thanks, Lamoracke. I didn't ask my question well, but that's actually what I was wondering. It had a very limited lifespan and didn't seem worthy of that many watchers. It made me wonder if there was some history behind this cache that wasn't obvious when looking at the listing.

Like my Mother used to say, "Patience is a virgin." Patience was her spinster sister but you get the point.

Are they on fire?

...and 458 watchers! I don't want to derail the thread, but why would 458 people be watching an archived cache that has apparently been locked down to prevent any further logging? I'm just curious. Does anyone know or have any educated guesses?

Maybe this one?

<snip> Fixed it.

The Maryland State Parks system requires you to fill out an application and obtain approval. They only allow clear containers. They don't currently charge a fee. And I noticed that recently the park rangers placed a few of their own, which I think is pretty cool.

Forget it. Not worth the angst.

I have to agree. There is an awful lot of negativity being dumped on a cacher who was insulted by another cacher simply because they enjoy trying to be the FTF. OK, post deleted, that was overly harsh on my part. Sorry. Kudos Mr. Benchmark. It WAS a little over the top, but humorous none the less. Unless I miss my guess the humor wasn't wasted on Team Yianni.

And before we make the argument that his cache is being misinterpreted or there is too much being read into the title, see the description that I pulled off of the cache listing. "Friendly Universal Thank You!!! I would like to offer my Friendly Universal Thank You to the Geo Caching Community who has brought me to some amazing places. It has let me discover new places and I have met many people. Especially for those who are always there 1st." I am not local to the area and it seems pretty obvious to me that this was directed at Team Yianni.

I have to agree. There is an awful lot of negativity being dumped on a cacher who was insulted by another cacher simply because they enjoy trying to be the FTF.

Thanks for providing this information. It does seem to answer the question of whether they knowingly broke park rules. Hopefully this public shaming will convince them to change their ways. I'm not sure. The caches were briefly published early. If they paid the day use fee for the area sometime between April 2nd and the event then maybe it was ok for them to be there. Again, I'm not sure. I could be misinterpreting the Hollister Hills description of the area. I 'm not in either camp on this issue, at least not yet. I am just trying to make sure I'm getting the whole picture.

From the Hollister Hills website: The Upper Ranch "This 800-acre area, which has about 24 miles of trails, is used for 4-wheel drive recreation and for 4-wheel drive and motorcycle special events; a fenced motocross track is also located here. Four-wheel drive operators should call before coming, especially on weekends, to make sure that the area isn’t reserved for a special event. To use the area for the day, register first at the park office. If your vehicle gets stuck or breaks down, you are responsible for removing it. The Upper Ranch may be accessed for day use from 8 a.m. to sunset. Vehicle operation is allowed only between sunrise and sunset." Unless I'm reading this wrong you can pay a fee and use the Upper Ranch area anytime, but the area may be reserved for a special event which would bar you from going in on event/reserved days. From the maps I saw the Hudner Property is included in the Upper Ranch area but I may be wrong about that. So the general public wasn't allowed in the area on the day of the event but it seems like they were allowed on the days prior to the event if they paid the fee. If any of this is wrong please just correct me. I am really just trying to understand the situation.

1. Permanent caches 2. Available to anyone who has access to the area -- this area is for Groups. If you put together a 4x4 party and pay the fee for day use of the area, you can find all of them that you like. You can probably hide some, too, if you don't mind caches which will not be found terribly often. Ok. From what I can find on the interwebs, the Hudner Property has been open since January and is available for groups with 10-25 vehicles for a fee of $150.00 to $250.00 per night. Is this correct?

I'd like some clarification. I've read the thread and if this information is there, I missed it. 1. Are/were these temporary event caches? 2. If not, does that mean that individual cachers are never allowed to seek/find them? Edit: Spelling

It sounds like you're planning to set the coordinates some distance away from the actual cache location. You may need to make it a mystery cache.