funkymunkyzone

As I said, we aren't disagreeing at all.

I have found numerous multis and puzzles without visiting all the waypoints in the case of the multi, or solving the puzzle by the intended method, or even at all, in the case of mysteries - and no, no cheating involved. In any case, I don't think we are now disagreeing on anything. I took your comment earlier " it is no different than requiring someone to go through the exercise of a puzzle multi before finding the final" as meaning the CO was somehow requiring it, beyond just the proof of the signature in the log. And it seemed like you were on the CO's side when you said "You can't require the finder to come by the coordinates legitimately" which I took to imply that if you dont find a cache exactly by the method the CO intended, visiting all waypoints etc, was somehow illegitimate. The only illegitimate way to find a multi or a puzzle is to simply be handed the final coords, and there's nothing a CO can do about it unfortunately - any other way you figure out the location of the final and find the cache is fair game. I FTF'ed a puzzle cache fairly recently without solving it - the CO had constructed the puzzle in such a way that I could deduce the final location down to about a 100m stretch of road. The cache was found in the very first place i looked.

Especially as a letterbox is exactly the same as either a trad, multi or *mystery*, just with a stamp added.

Mine too.

Well that's quite a stretch from the topic at hand but ok... So from what you're saying about honesty and integrity, and apparently a ban on adhoc groups, im guessing if you are out caching and happen upon another cacher searching for the same cache as you, if they find it, you will never log a found it yourself, because you didn't find it, they did...? Even if you went back later its too late, they found it and you know where it is because they showed you, so you can never truly find it yourself... lol

I still don't get what you're trying to argue. It seems as if you want to denigrate the efforts of cachers who might make a find as part of a group. I mean to what standard do you think their logs should aspire to? Is there some specific format you'd like to see that ensures that it's clear it was this team or that or whatever? I don't get it. I happily cache by myself or in a group and I usually mention the rest of the group if that's how it was. Sometimes I forget - are you suggesting I'm trying to take more credit than I'm due?

There's no rule to say you have to visit every waypoint of a multi in order to find the final. *Usually* the easiest way (without obviously just cheating and being given the final coords) is to visit all the waypoints, but if you happened across the final, or you worked it out another way, then so be it, it's a legitimate find. That's really the point I am getting at. I'd rather not dwell on the cases where people cheat, because I'm not interested in pandering to cheaters, or making life hard for non-cheaters just because cheaters exist.

Yes, unfortunately. Although thats another topic really. The point is, no ALRs.

Two very different situations, one where they were present when a cache was found, and the other where they werent... but im not sure what you expect them to do when logging, as there is only one way to log a cache: from your account. There is no team logging on the website or app. Edit to add: divide and conquer isn't geocaching, but that's another topic...

Except that, barring challenge caches, earthcaches and virtuals, no CO can require anything to be done by a finder other than sign the log. Anything else is an ALR and these are all unenforceable. So yeah, hence my statement that supporting rogue COs with unenforceable ALRs is not a reason to change the leaderboard.

I think that's a pretty big assumption, and I doubt Groundspeak would ever go that way. With no saturation guidelines on AL locations, it would render the whole game of geocaching obselete as it would become a game of virtuals only. Might as well play the M game in that case.

It might be a mistake to limit the leaderboard, but in order to support an ALR that is completely against the geocaching guidelines? Nope, not a reason at all.

That's funny. I never even considered that a CO would try and enforce that (although i guess I should have right) Personally, I went the other way entirely. I created an AL that took a player through a story, and there is a "bonus" letterbox cache at the end, except that if you want, you can simply do the letterbox cache as it literally takes the player on the same physical journey, just with slightly different questions. The letterbox is locked - complete the AL and you get the code to unlock it, or visit all the waypoints on the letterbox and gather the info to calculate the code. I figured this was the best way to cater for the preferences of the most geocachers.

But why would you think that? They are quite clearly *not* a replacement for multis and I'd be willing to bet a very decent sum of money that they don't replace multis. I don't even think they will change the popularity of multis, particularly as you can't have physical waypoints for an AL. And I can't imagine very many hiders would waster an AL credit on creating a simple offset or a couple of stage multi.

I agree with this too, could be very useful for when travelling (if that ever happens again). Additionally (I wa sabout to say alternatively, but I actually wouldn't want this to be an alternative) it would be great if a PQ could exclude the results of another PQ - this would be very helpful for those times when trying to cover a large area of the map without wasting PQ limits doubling up on the overlapping circular PQ areas. To explain the above, generally when i travel, I'm not exactly sure how far away from my general route I might stray - it could be quite far as I like to have as loose an itinerary as possible. So my preference is to create PQs covering a wide area, and I end up with a lot of overlapping of circles. Having the ability to generate a PQ based ona set of criteria but minus another PQ means I could end up with a bunch of crescent shaped PQs across the map with no wastage. Dreams are free

Are you sure you're scanning the test QR and not the QR on the main screen? Sorry if that sounds patronising, but just making sure as it could be an easy mistake to make.

I think I had that once, and it was resolved by actually closing the app (not just going out and back in but actually stopping it) and reopening it, then it was fine and I could just scan the QR off the computer screen again.

You don't think that's getting just a little bit nitpicky in order to prove you're right? Let's call in the lawyers! lol But seriously though, there are many inconsistencies, even pre-existing long before Adventure Labs, and we could pull them all apart if we wanted to, but we just accept those... The find count on ALs is really just no big deal, particularly if find count doesn't matter, as you pointed out earlier, and also you can manually adjust it down if you want by deleting AL finds. Storm in a teacup.

Just because it didn't turn out to be as unique as you had thought doesn't make it a bad cache or you a poor CO for placing it. Besides, they're not that common so still fun to find something "different".

Pushing the Delete Test is still necessary to get rid of the test AL completely from the system, and not just from your app view. Just don't hit Delete on the main screen, or it deletes the whole AL completely.

I believe you just hit Delete Test and it's gone. I created and deleted tests a bunch of times before laucnhing mine. I didn't need to do anything with a QR - except that the QR on the test page would get the test adventure to load, just nothing to do with deleting.

To be fair, you did use the word "need", which implies it is imperative, not just nice to have. Personally I feel that we all ought to chill out a bit on the whole "new cachers must have x amount of experience before hiding a cache". I think most do anyway, and i don't think it's much of a precursor to success. I hid my first after only a handful of finds, it had an issue or two, but then it lasted for a while and it was a fun cache. I made a few more mistakes over time, but ultimately it worked out - I've hidden some good and bad caches, and three "geocache of the week" awards, so as an official Mr Average my lack of experience initially didn't turn out totally bad. And, well, how many caches did Dave Ulmer find before he hid his first?

@on4bam you're right, for a landline internet connection, but @barefootguru was talking about phone, which obviously changes IP address at least every time you restart it or go into and out of airplane mode (at least from my experience).

This right here (bolding is mine) is why I'm wondering why any of you are concerned with what your find count is after completing an AL. The one find per location within an AL can be justified both for or against, so whichever way HQ went, there'd be someone unhappy. <shrug>

Indeed. Not all mega events have great lab caches. I just gave some examples of awesome ones. This I disagree with. The elaborate gadgety caches revealed a codeword to enter into the AL, and they were arranged as a series of them you could do in any order, and there was a theme. The zombie/crime scene/adventure followed a storyline and fitted really well with the AL concept. I mean, they *could* be separate types, but they don't need to be.