Hope13

Isn't being strict about signing logs more likely to cause people do things that risk the integrity of the cache such as carrying beach chairs in the middle of winter or asking a tall muggle nearby to reach the cache for them? By being strict doesn't one force shorter people to take more of a risk in revealing the location of the cache and hence, forcing them to sometimes choose between getting the find and respecting the creed? Whereas while tall people will face this tension occasionally (heck all cachers will), they will face it less often if they can reach caches using conventional methods. *I'm only talking about caches where reaching the cache isn't meant to be a challenge. Presumably on the ones where reaching the cache is a challenge it will be equally difficult for tall and short people to be inconspicuous or whatnot.* Edited to add: This isn't necessarily meant as an argument for not being strict. It's simply meant as an honest question about whether this does increase this kind of action/tension.

Most certainly I am not arguing that a 1/1 and a more challenging cache should be considered the same. To recap my position these need to be taken on a case by case basis. "I can't reach it" isn't enough if reaching the cache is a part of the challenge. Short cutting a cache doesn't take away from the finds of others but can reduce the hiders enjoyment, making them feel like their effort was wasted. While I may accept that there where extenuating circumstances for not signing the log it is up to me, the cache hider, to make the call. In the guidelines or not signing the logbook is a part of the conventions of geocaching. These are my opinions. Yes, but the hider isn't injured in any way by someone who is too short to reach a cache. If one wanted to cry foul for discrimination, one could. The OP was stating that if she were of average height, she could have reached the cache but she isn't. The OP indicates that the cache wasn't intended to need a ladder for average height people. I doubt the OP was trying to cheat, in any way shape or form. As for the cheaters, again I would say what harm does it cause the hider if one cheats? I am sure that there are less than 5% cheaters out there. My point has been all along that "I'm too short." may or may not be acceptable. If reaching the cache is a part of the challenge then no. I never said the OP was cheating but the conversation has gone beyond that It seems to be a discussion of the general state of caching. An attempt at understanding each others point of veiw. That or a total wast of time. 5% or 95% cheating is wrong. Accepting it blindly in anything harms our society as a whole. But don't let it worry you, I'll sleep fine tonight. I don't think I'm disagreeing with you. All I meant was that it isn't necessarily Groundspeak's position that signing the physical log is necessary for signing the online log. That doesn't mean that the CO can't make that a necessary requirement. Similarly, it doesn't mean that the CO must make it a necessary requirement (perhaps just describing the area or a picture of the GPSr next to the cache is sufficient). I think it should be up the CO.

I'd hope that people have enough common sense to see the difference between a 1/1 which happens to be too tall for some people and a harder one where the challenge is getting to it (and it's challenging for most people or whatnot). Slippery slope arguments are actually fallacies unless you can prove a necessary connection between the antecedent and the consequent. Also, the wording in the "rules" looks like signing the paper log is a sufficient condition for signing online. It is up to debate whether the wording makes it look like it's a necessary condition. Although, based on why that line was introduced (to deal with the elimination of ALR), it seems unlikely that it was meant as a necessary condition.

Thanks for the replies everyone! I didn't know about the attributes feature (I'm still pretty new). I guess I've just been a bit unlucky in the ones that I've picked to go for have often been inconsistent with each other in terms of ratings. I've seen two 1-star terrains which I couldn't do (scrambling over logs or steep inclines) and anything above that it's been about 50-50 whether I could do it or not (I've only looked up to 2 star ones).

How about an on-line questionnaire? http://www.clayjar.com/gcrs/ that was pretty much a great response to a topic I just posted! Thanks for reading my mind! How did you find out about that link?

I think it would be nice if there was a bit of a description about what level of terrain=what difficulty (beyond 1 being wheelchair accessible and 5 needing special equipment). I've found that there are large discrepancies between what's counted as say a 1.5 or a 2 depending on the person hiding the cache (and the city the cache is located in). While it probably doesn't matter to some people, I think it does matter to people with physical limitations. I'm currently recovering from ankle surgery and so cannot do certain types of terrain (slippery or steep slopes). I try to only attempt caches that I know I can do. It is slightly frustrating for me to research a cache and plan a route which involves it only to discover that the CO's idea of a 2 isn't the same as other caches which were ranked as 2. A little clarity in the hiding guidelines might even out this discrepancy. Another related thought, prior to actually spending time in a wheelchair and on crutches I don't think I had a good idea of what wheelchair accessible means. It might be nice for the hiding guidelines to include some basic info on that (a cache 6 feet off the ground isn't wheelchair accessible, similarly a cache that's tucked half a foot in between rocks half a foot off the ground isn't really wheelchair accessible either, if you don't believe me, try sitting in a wheelchair and reaching for something near the ground but not right by the chair). I don't think anyone intentionally rates their terrain as a 1 even thought it's not wheelchair accessible but I do think that people generally don't realize what is accessible by wheelchair. Anyways, I was just wanting other people's thoughts on these two ideas.

I've wondered (partly in jest) if this means that the difficulty/terrain ratings should be height dependent. I mean there are some caches where a 6 foot tall person can just reach up and grab the cache but someone who is 5 foot 6 will require special equipment.