VirginiaGator

I'll admit the numbers were something I tracked closely at one time. Then with having found so many in our own area and having to do more driving between caches to find anything at that point, it drastically dropped off. At this point I really don't care if someone is 200 caches ahead of me or 2 behind. But I do play my own game with my own numbers. I hate multis, so I always want my Unknown/Mystery finds to be more than the number of multis I've found. I guess I'll have to track that manually now with a number of them being changed to traditional. Ugh. LOL!

Turn that into: As I don't know the particulars of what is on site at ground zero in this case, the details may need to be adjusted to fit what is available, but something like this keeps the flavor of the waypoint projection in your cache, and assures that the cachers are getting the information you want to be sure they are getting. As others have noted, your Earthcaches are exempt from the new guideline, so no change needs to be made there. I think archiving these caches would be a shame, since one of the aspects I really like of caching is the fact that it brings me to interesting places. So, again, what is the difference in the result of the way you propose and the way I did it. Both methods require the seeker to go to the historic data and find the answer. If I make the changes those who complain about ALRs still need to do an ALR to complete the cache. You are just calling it some else. What is the difference? Both methods require you to do something that unless you do it, you can not log a find. In fact my way is less frustrating, because I give the final coords. Your method can lead to errors if you count incorrectly. My method is simpler. And if there's a sign to find information on, there's a good chance some people are not reading and absorbing the information on the sign any way. Some skim and look for the information they need, even if they have to skim it 5 times as opposed to reading the entire thing.

Under the new rules, no. It wouldn't be approved. You can ask them to email you, but they can just laugh at you, and you can't do anything about it. You can't require them to. Thank you for that! There's been a comment on a cache page of now their previous "requirement" being a "request" at this point. But they also mention that any finders may get an e-mail from them for some reason. My thought was to ignore the e-mail. You're not required to give them any information other than what's posted on the cache page (your log) when you log the find.

That was a good lesson learned! The last cache I hid had me thinking a bit. I placed it on a rainy day so was lucky enough to see the nearby ditch with water in it. And behind a bunch of pines it was a low lying area and flat...and water accumulated on it. Next level up the hill were holly trees. Rats! I really wanted a pine tree for this being the branches were lower and would cover it better. But I was afraid of the cache floating or at least sitting in a huge puddle if it rained hard enough. So it's under the holly tree.

That was a good lesson learned! The last cache I hid had me thinking a bit. I placed it on a rainy day so was lucky enough to see the nearby ditch with water in it. And behind a bunch of pines it was a low lying area and flat...and water accumulated on it. Next level up the hill were holly trees. Rats! I really wanted a pine tree for this being the branches were lower and would cover it better. But I was afraid of the cache floating or at least sitting in a huge puddle if it rained hard enough. So it's under the holly tree.

Aha! I haven't seen any like that in areas we've been caching. They do seem excessive. I would skip them for sure. Why would they even be approved like that? There are enough micros in our area alone that have been moved to my ignore list.

There are two ways of looking at this. 1) Should any creativity beyond just placing a cache for someone to find be required? 2) Should any creativity beyond just placing a cache for someone to find be banned? The answer to #1 causes a lot of debates in these forums. Generally however it is understood that the guideline should not ask people to provide some level of creativity beyond just placing a cache. It would seem the answer to #2 would be a resounding no. However, TPTB have decided that there should be some limits on creativity. In the early days of geocaching.com, it was pretty open what you could place as geocache. Guidelines however were written as certain types of hides caused problems with land managers and resulted in caches being banned altogether in some place. Thus burying caches - even clever hides where the cache could still be found without digging up the whole park - was banned. Most of the guidelines have restricted creativity is some way. Locationless and virtuals were causing lots of problems taking up reviewers time. There were people who instead of find really interesting places to put out virtuals were just listing any place because it was easier to hide a virtual than a traditional cache. The guidelines first tried to limit virtuals by addind a "Wow" requirement, but this caused even more problems for the reviewers. Certain types of puzzles were targeted next because people were concerned about downloading files to their PCs needed to solve puzzles. The change to ALRs is just another guideline like all the others. TPTB have decided that, for the good of the game, one more option for creativity is closed. While Miss Jenn may a valiant effort in her original post to explain the rationale, it may have missed the point as for various reasons no examples were given of "ALRs which approached and even reached the absurd." Many people have ideas of what some of these are but, as with "wow", "absurd" is in the eye of the beholder. In addition, the large number of people who have cheered the change because they saw any attempt by a cache owner to have their own rules for logging a cache as anathema to the puritan definition that if you sign the log you have found the cache has fueled the speculation that perhaps the decision was made to please these people. Thank you for the explanation! Those of us who haven't been around that far back don't get the changes over time that we're reading about. Through this thread I'm thinking...what can be required for a cache that's so bad? I don't see specific examples outside of putting on a hat. If I were to find that cache, I'd pick up the hat or the groucho marx glasses and hold them up for a picture. No way would either be on my head or face. And my log would say...being I work in healthcare and am very much aware of germs on the glasses and who know what on the hat (I always tell my son never wear anyone else's hat,) here's the picture of me holding the item, but I'm not wearing it! So I still don't see what can be such an awful requirement to cause this with the exception of an animal carcass. Why wouldn't that just be denied right off the bat? It's a problem to do that? I would never ever think to go to TPTB if I had a log deleted when I found a cache. I have had one deleted. Maybe I should complain to the higher ups and get it reinstated.

I really don't think that is a good idea. When you submit a cache, you are agreeing to delete any bogus, offensive, or off-topic, log's. This would take any form of control away from the cache owner. That's true. What about the owners that don't keep up with it, those who don't delete a double post/find by a cacher, etc. While we were on a caching trip during the holidays, an area reviewer posted a note on the cache page to the owner about them really needing to police the cache. There were lots of people physically in other countries posting finds on this particular cache on the east coast of the US. I'd love to adopt those caches because they are neat! This wasn't the only one. But they were the same owner.

While the overall number of cachers who play that way will increase over time, I'm betting that the overall percentage of players who do this will diminish. While I have no data to support my claim, this seems logical to me. When I started playing, there were very few options available for going paperless, and the options that were available required someone a lot brighter than me to figure them out. Our original caching kit consisted of a big binder, stuffed full of cache page print outs. We'd find ourselves near a cache, and have to dig through dang near 500 sheets of paper, looking for the appropriate page. This became a pain in the backside, and was the single driving force in getting us to go paperless. I started with a PDA, which worked great, till the batteries died. Then it was back to caching blind. Then I learned how to add cache type, size and D/T, as well as some of the hint, to the screen on my 60CSx. This helped quite a bit, but since getting the cache page details into my 60 still eluded me, we were still often hunting blind when the PDA died. Now I cache with an Oregon 300, and my wife uses a Colorado 400I, and everything we need is at the tips of our fingers. Going paperless has been an evolutionary process, that keeps getting easier. Thanks for the laugh! I still cache with paper although I don't have a binder full of them. I pay enough for internet access at home. I don't need to pay an equal amount for the service on my phone.

Yeah, but you've been playing this game for four years or so. You know better. While caching, (at least on this website), at its most basic could be described as: Hide a cache Publish a cache Seek a cache Find a cache Log a cache You know that each of us, as unique individuals, bring something different to this game, and take away something different from each cache and/or cacher we encounter. If you allow someone else to limit your thinking to the absolute basics, then this is quite likely all you'll ever get out of the game. I have seen many folks who harbor such beliefs enter this game, but they usually only last long enough to have their delusions dispelled. You've already had at least one Groundspeak Lackey, as well as some volunteer reviewers tell you that you are still free to add whatever silly tasks you want to your cache page, so I'd hope this would carry more weight that the single comment you interpreted from the aforementioned charter member. Yup, and all the little quircks, nuances, requirements have been the fun part of the game. If all I can do is look for a container and sign a log, it's going to get boring quickly. But I can still do whatever suggestion if I want. And I can skip those I don't want to do. When do they get rid of caches that "require" a boat to get to them?

Unfortunately, yes. It should now be a suggestion/request as opposed to a requirement.

Really? Anyone we know? That sure is a wild tale! Posted on a discussion board by a charter member... "But this is geocaching, not scrapbooking. The intention should always be to find some sort of geocache."

Any ALR cache that I may have in my inventory still has the ALR's intact and unchanging. My rules override the sites rules. Man, are you going to be so banninated. Really, I'd like an answer from Groundspeak as to how they are going to enforce the new guideline. What is the punishment for a cache owner like RK who says he would still enforce his ALR? AFAIK, Groundspeak can restore deleted logs and make them un-deletable by the cache owner. If it becomes a problem with spending enough time restoring logs, they may remove the cache owner's ability to delete them. Of course, if someone logs a cache using profanity or whatever, the CO would then have to contact Groundspeak to have the log removed. I guess it depends on which way would create less work. This is personal speculation - I have no inside knowledge of how they would handle this, regardless of my status as a moderator in the forums. You would think that this would be the easiest way to deal with the entire issue. No one can delete any logs.

Interesting. Because I say I have no idea what Groundspeak's response would be to a cache owner deliberately violating their guidelines, and I suggest that they may take further action, that makes me unqualified to be a reviewer in your eyes? I'd love for you to elaborate on this. My thinking is that Groundspeak is a company that has non-employee interaction to their web based service. The interaction of one non-employee has the ability to affect the interaction of other non-employees. Recognizing this, the company created some rules for all us non-employees to play by, such as the terms of service and guidelines. Every other company that I know of, that supplies a web based service with non-employee interaction has similar rules in place. If I owned such a company, and someone violated these rules, (guidelines), I would initially assume they did so because they weren't aware of the change, and I, or one of my associates, would sent the offending party a polite note, explaining the change. If the response I received from the offending party was along the lines of, "Go jump in a lake. I don't give two hoots about your guidelines", then I might take further action. I'd have to ask myself if I felt the violated guideline was a good one. And if, after a lengthy mental evaluation, I decided that the guideline was sound policy, and that it is taking my company in the direction I envision, do I really want someone who blatantly ignores those guidelines affecting those non-employees who do abide by the rules? This makes me unfit? Yup! With the demise of virts, Groundspeak realized that their volunteer reviewers were a vital asset that should be protected. Forcing them to apply wildly subjective "Wow" factors to newly submitted virts caused them unnecessary stress. By eliminating virts, Groundspeak learned that there are steps they can take to help make their reviewer's jobs easier. Apparently, history can be repeated even when something valuable is learned from it. That's one heck of a stretch. Going from, "ALRs have to be changed to ALSs" to what you came up with is a spin worthy of a politician. That is what I've been told by a charter member.

I apologize if I missed it but has the subject of cache/find history been addressed? For those who are concerned about their numbers, especially their number of puzzles, the fact that ALR cache owners are being required to change the cache designation from Unknown to Traditional (or anything else, for that matter) is going to wreak havoc. One Challenge Cache (which, by the guidelines, isn't effected) here comes to mind: To log a find, the cacher must have a certain percentage of their total finds be puzzles. What happens to anyone working on this challenge? I seem to remember discussions about changing a cache from a Traditional to a Multi, and the stock answer had always been "You are changing the cache history if you change they type. Don't do it." This always made sense to me, so to hear otherwise now directly from Groundspeak is dismaying. To do this "right," the cache should be archived, then re-listed. The only reason I can see to do it this way is to make it not look like the giant cache purge that it is. Exactly! And exactly the reason I archived my ALR and submitted the exact same cache as a traditional.

What you're describing is the perfect set up for an offset multicache, rather than an ALR cache. Doing it the off-set way accomplishes exactly what you want, ie, gets the cacher to the monuments/signs and gets them to read them. Coords take cacher to signs, cache page uses the signs and some questions about them to generate a second set of coords for cache. Regardless, both caches have ALRs that I consider essential to the cache. The point of my caches is to learn a little about where you are. I do not see these simple questions and answers as being optional. The history is the reason for the cache. But I'm being told the only reason for caching is to find a cache and sign a log. It's not for history, it's not for a collection of cool pictures, it's not for a fun time to be had if you want some special requirement attached to it. Find the cache, sign the log, end of the caching experience.

Count me as another who appreciates a good sized container for a find after completing a puzzle. I haven't seen a puzzle with a micro as of yet. I'd be inclined to skip it. And I guess I've been lucky enough to have found puzzle caches in decent areas. Usually the woods. After archiving my ALR cache, I'm now down to having one puzzle cache out there. It's called The Bridge. When we were hunting around for a place to put it, it was neat that while we placed it, we saw a bridge nearby. That was the spot for sure!

You don't need coordinates to find a cache. There is an art form of sorts to finding a cache without having the coordinates or solving the related puzzle. I recently found a cache with only one piece of information to go on - the posted coordinates which were within two miles of the cache. But that was enough to get me to the correct spot. I looked at the two mile circle inside which the cache was hidden and immediately felt I knew exactly where to go. Actually, the cache was a micro and there was a hide hint provided by the CO that was also crucial once I got there. In the same way, I have seen some people, one person in particular, find puzzle caches of mine in ways I never imagined. It's not cheating, it's ingenuity. . More great info! I'll have to try it!

Very true. I don't think anyone would argue that. Allow me to touch on the key word in your statement: "Want" I assume from your language skills that you know the difference between someone wanting something and someone demanding something? Most puzzle caches I know of would qualify as a "want", since, by its very creation, it can be inferred that the owner would like you to follow their footsteps to get the final coords. The same is true for most multis. There are a few puzzles and multis where the owner dictates specifically that any finders who bypass the puzzle and/or stages will have their logs deleted, however these seem to be the exception, not the rule. "I would like this, please" vs. "Give me that right now" Want vs. demand. Since Groundspeak is the final arbiter regarding what rules exist in this game and what rules do not, I would say they are the ones who say if there are any "requirements" for finding puzzle caches. Here are the guidelines for mystery caches. http://www.geocaching.com/about/guidelines...x#mysterycaches Can you see anything in them that dictates a puzzle MUST be solved prior to logging a find on a puzzle? I can't. Huh? If you don't complete the "required" puzzle, how will you get the coordinates for the cache short of getting them from another cacher? I've found some (and would imagine that some have been found) by: - Following a random geo-trail leading to nowhere in particular - Looking for places to hide my own caches - Paying attention to clues inadvertantly posted in finders' logs - Recognizing areas by photograph and performing a quick search of that area - Noticing odd piles of sticks/wood where there really shouldn't be any - Lifing random lampskirts at the nearby Wal-Mart To me, that's just being resourceful, cognizant of one's surroundings, and in some cases, lucky. I wouldn't ask to take a "hide" away simply because I stumbled upon a cache that was poorly hidden (or perhaps, not hidden well enough after being found), so I don't see why somebody would have to solve the riddle or risk having a "find" log removed. This debate might best be served in a separate forum post (Performing All Stages vs. Signing Final Cache) and I think I've contributed enough to the conversation veering off topic somewhat. Suffice it to say as mentioned in the OP, ALR's have now gone the way of the dodo, but I will still enjoy them in all their "suggestive" glory whenever possible. LOLOL! That last one is funny. And the others are interesting. I'll have to try them.

One might wonder, if you were dead, how you are still posting? But that would be off topic, and only feeding your already over-dramatic prose. So, let's address your concerns: They are also Webster's. "Want - to have a strong desire for" "Demand - an act of demanding or asking especially with authority" "Requirement - that which is required; a thing demanded or obligatory" Are you seriously suggesting that you define "Requirement" as something other than that which is required? If so, perhaps you should look up the definition of "Suggestion". Isn't that what "Requirement" means? If you have a different definition, I'd be interested in hearing it. To me, "Requirement" has always meant something required. An ALR is, by its very nature, a cache with an additional "requirement". As in, "You Must Do This", rather than, "Please do this". The leading words, "You Must" makes it a demand. Something other than a request. Not optional, so to speak. I have never seen a multi that said "Please do all of the stages" or a puzzle that said "please solve this puzzle". The CO placed the additional stages or the puzzle to be done not as a suggestion. Come on man. Exactly! I'd be really happy if multis go next!

In my opinion? No! If these people only wanted you to find a cache, they would've hidden one stinkin' cache! Multis usually weren't hidden for people to find creative ways to bypass them. See, somewhere along the few years I have been away from the Geocaching forum, some finders started believing they had more rights than owners and they had the right to do whatever the heck they wanted to do, as long as they signed a logbook. The reason there aren't rules that YOU HAVE TO FIND EVERY STAGE OF A MULTI is because it is so dang obvious! What idiot needs to have a rule down that states they need to find every stage of a multi to log it as a find. It is an unwritten rule, because there used to be something called "respect for the cache and its owner". I hide caches for the finders, but I also expect them to respect my cache and whatever stuff I have worked on to set it up. Some owner's don't care, but some do! The good thing to do is to act like EVERYBODY cares that you are respecting the owner, the cache, the rules, the unwritten rules, and the spirit of the game! Has geocaching become so numbers hungry that signing the log is the only thing important to everybody??? My God, what the heck is happening? This "idiot" apparently does. This "idiot" is also curious how a CO could possibly confirm whether a cacher did everything they intended, if the found log makes no mention of this, to take such action anyway? The cacher found the cache and signed it. At that point, I think you are outta luck. Again, I will agree that advancing to the final short-changes the cacher (and honestly the CO), but it doesn't mean that they didn't find a CO's intended final cache. You are blurring the lines between caching etiquette and the posted guidelines of finding a cache, IMO. Personally, I enjoyed many ALR's and performed 2 caches with ALR's yesterday and will likely still do the majority of them because it adds to my caching experience. I just don't see where you graft that you have the power to delete a find simply because stages were skipped. Multis should have the same guidelines as unknown/mystery caches...no deleting of logs! You find the cache and sign the log, that's the point...according to some cachers in our area.

Very true. I don't think anyone would argue that. Allow me to touch on the key word in your statement: "Want" I assume from your language skills that you know the difference between someone wanting something and someone demanding something? Most puzzle caches I know of would qualify as a "want", since, by its very creation, it can be inferred that the owner would like you to follow their footsteps to get the final coords. The same is true for most multis. There are a few puzzles and multis where the owner dictates specifically that any finders who bypass the puzzle and/or stages will have their logs deleted, however these seem to be the exception, not the rule. "I would like this, please" vs. "Give me that right now" Want vs. demand. Since Groundspeak is the final arbiter regarding what rules exist in this game and what rules do not, I would say they are the ones who say if there are any "requirements" for finding puzzle caches. Here are the guidelines for mystery caches. http://www.geocaching.com/about/guidelines...x#mysterycaches Can you see anything in them that dictates a puzzle MUST be solved prior to logging a find on a puzzle? I can't. Huh? If you don't complete the "required" puzzle, how will you get the coordinates for the cache short of getting them from another cacher?

And what some people, including you, seem to be missing or ignoring is this: Puzzles: Solve before finding the cache and signing the log book. Math caches: Solve before finding the cache and signing the log book. (how this differs from a puzzle I don't know, but I'm going with it). ALR: Even if you find the cache and sign the log book you are still then required to do something else. Therefore... Before = OK After = Not OK How hard is that to understand? Take the picture before you sign the log... now = OK Exactly!

I'll try to clarify this, since it didn't sink in last time: With an ALR, the finder was required to jump through a specific hoop, as established by the cache owner. No ifs, ands or buts. To claim credit, you had to hop through those hoops, regardless of whether or not your name was in the logbook. That's why the last letter, "R", stands for "Requirement". It's a mandatory action, instilled by the owner. Failure to comply results in your otherwise legitimate log being deleted. With a puzzle, there is no such requirement. For the most part, the seeker would take what steps they deemed necessary to determine the final cache location. Often, this involved solving a particular puzzle provided by the cache owner, however that's not always the case. The last puzzle I found involved obtaining clues from 7 physical, (traditional), caches, a benchmark and a waymark, to work out the final coords. Before I ever left home, I had three of the numbers for the final. After locating 3 of the 7 traditionals, I knew exactly where the final was located. I located the other 4 traditionals because the CO is a friend, not because I had to. On another puzzle find in my profile, I looked at pictures posted by previous finders, deducing precisely where the final would be, simply because I was familiar with the area. I still "solved" the puzzle, but I did so simply because it gave me pleasure, not because it was necessary. Had I skipped the final 4 traditionals in the first example, or bypassed solving the puzzle in the second example, the owner might have deleted my logs. Or, they might not have, depending on how they felt about the matter. I have had several people log finds on some of my puzzles without obtaining the coords as the cache page was set up, and all their finds stand. Absolutely. Which ones would you like? I currently have 7 active puzzle caches. You are more than welcome to the final coords for any or all. If you are OK finding them under those circumstances, I am OK with you logging them as such. Actually, in this case, the only one controlling the seeker is the seeker. The owner hides a cache and posts the coords. It gathers dust until someone decides to hunt for it. Once that choice is made, the seeker continues to make choices along the way, (which trail to take, bushwhack vs. hiking, how long to search, etc), as dictated by their particular muse. In this, an ALR is exactly the same. It's a cache that someone chooses to hunt. The situation changes right about the time the seeker's ink is drying in the logbook. Now they are faced with another choice. Wear the silly hat or not? Here's where the seeker's actions are being directly controlled by the hider. According to the aforementioned imaginary cache page, the seeker MUST wear the silly hat to claim a find. They know from reading the cache page that, if they opt against wearing the silly hat, their find will go "Poof" and be no more. While it's true that the seeker could choose not to hunt the ALR, his decision is being directly influenced by the existence of the ALR. To find a puzzle cache you are "Required" to solve the puzzle. So you deducted where one was to get around the puzzle... Well use photo shop to put the silly hat on and you get around the ALR. Sounds the same to me. Come to think of it you are, for the most part, "required" to visit geocaching.com to find any cache listed there. What happens if you can't solve a puzzle? I guess you're being denied finding that particular cache, aren't you? It's been fun reading some logs in our area on a few of the puzzle caches. Military folks who have had code breakers get through some of them. And some code breakers who can't figure at least one out.

I'd be paying attention to that sign! There's a road where I grew up where the planes fly over it. No stop signs... http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2008/03/s...near_morri.html