Don't Tell Me How To Cache!

[+badger]

I have recently been perusing a few areas for potential cache trips, and have come across some caches where I am being told how and when I can log a cache!

 

No hang on a minute... I have joined geocaching to go and find geocaches, which I can log on the website as caches I have found. There are guidelines offered by the site owners to hide and find caches. So if I find the cache, and sign the logbook, I can log the cache on geocaching.com... right?

 

Not so apparently!

 

Certain caches now state that you must abide by their rules to be allowed to log the cache as a find.

 

IMHO, that's a load of Bo****ks! If I find it and sign the logbook, I can log it on the website, simple! If I found my log was deleted because I wasn't wearing a Baywatch style swimsuit while holding a poster of David Hasselhoff in a leather jacket, then I would more than annoyed. I will not be dictated to by another cacher, how I can cache!

 

As an example this cache states...

 

to claim it you must exchange a TB (travel Bug), no other objects & no TNLN (took nothing left nothing)

 

Rant over!

 

Matt

Edited February 4, 2006 by mattwaggie

[+rutson]

Well, I've looked and I can't find a cache where I have wear a baywatch swimsuit. Thank the PTB for that!

[+sTeamTraen]

Surely one goes for caches because one finds the description interesting, probably a nice place to visit, etc. Part of that is judging whether the cache placers are nice people. Nobody forces you to do a cache just because it's on page 1 of your "nearest unfound" list. I know a lot of people - myself included - treat this as a red rag, but that's really our problem.

 

Otherwise, well, put the cache on your ignore list, or pretend that it's been archived - after all, that could happen at any time. (For example, if the cache were to disappear for any reason...)

[+badger]

I cache because I enjoy it. But I will not be told how to log a cache if I have found it and signed the logbook.

[+kewfriend]

rutson Posted Today, 10:57 PM

Well, I've looked and I can't find a cache where I have wear a baywatch swimsuit. Thank the PTB for that!

 

I'm working on a cache idea whereyou wont need to wear a baywatch swimsuit

[+Alice Band]

I lead a dull, boring and uninteresting life. We need caches like this so uninteresting people like me can have a laugh at you wearing a bathing suit

[+Cave Troll and Eeyore]

I'm with Matt on this one.

If the cacher doesn't have TB to leave it should not stop him logging a find and TNLN if he found the cache fair and square and signed the logbook.

We have eneough "guidelines" as it is without more being imposed upon us.

 

In the example linked to by Matt the so called rules prevent any brand new cacher from logging it as their first cache find if they are not prepared to invest in purchasing a TB.

Edited February 4, 2006 by Cave Troll and Eeyore

[+kewfriend]

Alice Band Posted Today, 11:08 PM

We need caches like this so uninteresting people like me can have a laugh at you wearing a bathing suit

... or not as the case may be .....

[+Happy Humphrey]

Matt,

 

You're quite correct - but no need to rant! I suspect the cache owner just hadn't thought it through - give them a chance to modify their "rules" and hopefully they'll see sense...

 

No harm in them requesting that you comply, but IMO they don't have the right to delete your log if you found the cache but didn't meet their personal requirements . It's their cache, but our game.

 

I've also seen a few where there are "requirements" or else the log gets deleted. These should be amended to polite requests (i.e. without threats) - almost everyone will happily comply anyway if it's at all reasonable, and there's not the temptation to disobey just for the hell of it!

 

HH

[+rutson]

I'm with Matt on this one.

If the cacher doesn't have TB to leave it should not stop him logging a find and TNLN if he found the cache fair and square and signed the logbook.

We have eneough "guidelines" as it is without more being imposed upon us.

 

Errr.... I'm missing something here, who mentioned TBs?

 

AH! Just seen Matts edit :$

[+Moote]

If TB's are involved surely it is not the Cache Owner who says how the TB's in the cache are dealt with. TB's are property of the TB owner and as such it is up to them how the TB travels. If a TB is being held to ransom in this way by a Cache Owner, it is incorrect and I would remove all the TB's and place them in a cache which does not place ludicrous demands on the Cacher.

 

Moote

[+John Stead]

I'm glad Matt has edited his original post as I was puzzled as to what he was getting hot under the collar about - now I have seen it I think he is quite right.

 

If the request had been don't take a TB unless you leave one, then maybe OK as that would save the cache being depleted although if one saw there was a TB there which you knew you could help reach its objective, you should be able to take it even if you did not have a swap handy - I don't think any other TB hotel excludes logs without TBs moving.

 

I hope the owner of the cache in question sees the sense of the points raised here and amends his site accordingly.

[alistair_uk]

My view is the good old live and let live, as long as it is listed correctly, and hear lies my rant. If someone wants to have a cache that you have to exchange something specific lo log is then that is there choice. It is there cache after all.

 

Personally I feel such caches should be listed as “Other” and most defiantly not “Traditional” or “Multi” caches and should have the reason clearly at the top of the cache listing so you do not go looking for it accidentally.

 

For reference, I would not go hunting most of these types of caches, but that is my choice just as it is yours. I like hunting plastic boxes, you like hunting plastic boxes, some like doing other daft things as well and I am not going to stop them if it does not harm me.

[+Pengy&Tigger]

If someone wants to have a cache that you have to exchange something specific lo log is then that is there choice. It is there cache after all.

 

But not their TBs! By imposing restrictions (and making a TB hotel a multi), they are limiting the number of visitors to the cache and thereby trapping the TBs there for longer.

 

T

[+Moote]

My view is the good old live and let live, as long as it is listed correctly, and hear lies my rant. If someone wants to have a cache that you have to exchange something specific lo log is then that is there choice. It is there cache after all.

 

Alistair

 

I believe that the cache in question is saying if you take a TB then replace a TB. Now to me that is Ransom, My TB's belong to me and no Cache Owner can dictate the mission of that TB, this is placing another level in a TB's Journey which the TB owner might not want to be a part of. Therefore a Cache Owner should not interfere with any TB mission in this way.

 

Moote

[+badger]

My view is the good old live and let live, as long as it is listed correctly, and hear lies my rant. If someone wants to have a cache that you have to exchange something specific lo log is then that is there choice. It is there cache after all.

 

To probably quote someone famous... You sir, are talking out of your ........!

 

The guidelines are set by geocaching.com, not the cache placer. If indeed the cache placer set the guidelines, then they could place a cache with no permission or break every current GC guideline.

 

TB's are owned by the people that set them free, not the people who place a cache.

 

Please don't be offended by my reply, I'm just quoting someone famous! Although it may not be on record. (insert relevant smiley)

Matt

Edited February 5, 2006 by mattwaggie

[adrianjohn]

How about this one, if i find a cache why should I have to email the owner with the answer to a question. Surely if I find it and sign the logbook it is a valid find and my log should stand. As far as my knowledge of the guidelines go I have done enough, in my opinion such a cache should not have been approved anyway.

[+Pengy&Tigger]

Therefore a Cache Owner should not interfere with any TB mission in this way.

 

 

Moote has a valid point here. In fact his own TB has been trapped there for 2 months because of the restriction on this cache. Maybe it should be a TB prison, not a TB hospital.

 

T

 

How about this one, if i find a cache why should I have to email the owner with the answer to a question. Surely if I find it and sign the logbook it is a valid find and my log should stand. As far as my knowledge of the guidelines go I have done enough, in my opinion such a cache should not have been approved anyway.

 

That's an interesting one. I am sometimes a lazy reader and don't take time to read the entire description for a cache. As a traditional cache, it's likely I would get caught out by this and assume that signing the log was enough.

[SlytherinAlex]

Well, I've looked and I can't find a cache where I have wear a baywatch swimsuit. Thank the PTB for that!

Inflatable beach ball. Pot - kettle

[+roolku]

Caches with additional logging conditions are not uncommon. I have seen requirements to log in ryhmes (http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?guid=d473c600-8bfa-4d6c-b721-94a45c8ab26e), give information from a sign (http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?guid=c233a8de-1010-47b1-af4c-4c6bd55acb17) or not to not log it if you are premium member (http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?guid=b5f41724-44ee-4517-bb47-0ed7c5276322). The most obscure condition I know is where you have to submit the picture of you taking a cold shower (http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?guid=da306c5e-4b74-4f86-a7fb-359b24e1b9a7&log=y).

 

Sure it can be annoying if you went there without reading the description, but I say the cache setter spend time, money and effort to provide you with a past time. The least you can do is humor him. If you really can't bring yourself to fulfill the condition, just log a note on the cache. And of course - there is always the ignore button.

[+Kitty Hawk]

Don't tell me how to cache?

 

He's not. He's telling you that if you want his cache, this is how you claim it. It's his cache.

 

There's 8000 others to choose from.

 

Clearly, he is within the guidelines, otherwise the cache would never have been published.

 

As for the travel bugs - insisting on a TB movement would increase TB travel. I don't see how that could possibly restrict travel. To restrict travel he would have to insist on a minimum stay period.

[+Happy Humphrey]

The key point is that if the visitor doesn't comply with the cache setter's requirements, then the log gets deleted. That's the bit that I think is unjustified.

 

I don't object to the request that I should log in rhyme (or whatever), but if I can't / don't feel like complying, I reserve the right to simply record (permanently) that I found the cache.

 

HH

[+Pengy&Tigger]

As for the travel bugs - insisting on a TB movement would increase TB travel. I don't see how that could possibly restrict travel. To restrict travel he would have to insist on a minimum stay period.

 

It restricts travel because it's a multi, and the fact that you have to leave one to take one.

 

The cache has not been found since 29th December. 1 TB has been there for 4 months, 5 have been there for 2 months, and one was dropped on that last visit.

 

T

[+Happy Humphrey]

How about this one, if i find a cache why should I have to email the owner with the answer to a question.

I agree. It would have been much better if the answer to the question was part of the cache hunt instead. I've just set one up (awaiting approval) that requires you to find a password in a microcache before you can access the instructions to the second part. Should someone find the final cache without finding the intermediate part: well done, how did you do that?!

 

Another example of log-delete threats is Interception, which had been on my to-do list, until a requirement was introduced that you had to find all three travel bugs or your log would be deleted. Too artificial now, and logging the cache is just hard work and/or cheating. OK, I can continue to ignore it, but it's a shame that an otherwise good cache is spoilt.

 

A similar idea, but much better IMO because you simply have to find the cache, is All About the UK, which allows you to use initiative rather than just hard work - if you find it you can log it (no-one has!).

 

HH

[SlytherinAlex]

You find the cache, you sign the log, you log your find on geocaching.com.

Simple.

Anyone who decides to delete one of my logs because I don't fulfill their additional requirement will spend the rest of their days re-deleting my log as I will re-log it until it sticks.

[+Kitty Hawk]

As for the travel bugs - insisting on a TB movement would increase TB travel. I don't see how that could possibly restrict travel. To restrict travel he would have to insist on a minimum stay period.

 

It restricts travel because it's a multi, and the fact that you have to leave one to take one.

 

The cache has not been found since 29th December. 1 TB has been there for 4 months, 5 have been there for 2 months, and one was dropped on that last visit.

 

T

 

The conclusion of this train of thought would be that we should only leave travel bugs in easy traditional caches.

 

The cache in the OP is a 2/2 multi, we're not talking Achemy Series here.

 

There are plenty of TB's that sit in caches, especially at this time of year - it's hard to pin the reason for a long staying TB on what is really a very achieveable requirement of the cache. If the TB owner is particularly upset by a long stay, they could always ask the owner to do a maintenance visit.

[+Pengy&Tigger]

The conclusion of this train of thought would be that we should only leave travel bugs in easy traditional caches.

 

 

No it isn't. That wasn't my conclusion at all. I was just pointing out that your theory that travel would be increased was incorrect.

 

It really isn't up to the cache owner to say people are not allowed to take a TB for whatever reason, especially if the cache is rarely found.

 

T

Edited February 5, 2006 by Pengy&Tigger

[+roolku]

You find the cache, you sign the log, you log your find on geocaching.com.

Simple.

Anyone who decides to delete one of my logs because I don't fulfill their additional requirement will spend the rest of their days re-deleting my log as I will re-log it until it sticks.

 

That could be interesting. The cache setter would just write a script to auto-delete the log. Presumably you would write your anti-script. The server load would increase. TPTB would take notice, probably remove the contentious cache. Two parties would be upset. The rest of the community would lose out on a potentially good cache. Seems like a well thought out approach to me.

 

Why not spend your efforts on fulfilling a small extra condition? You can be proud of the achievment, the cache owner is happy... I don't get it.

[+Moote]

As P&T have pointed out, one of the TB's is mine, as I am the owner of a trapped TB here is my opinion.

 

All my TB's are there for the taking, they are not swaps, if you see it you may just take it, any cache placing a demand on this is holding my property in a way I do not desire.

 

All I ask is that if you pick up one of my TB's is that you move it on in a reasonable time frame.

 

Moote

[+wildlifewriter]

You find the cache, you sign the log, you log your find on geocaching.com.

Simple.

Anyone who decides to delete one of my logs because I don't fulfill their additional requirement will spend the rest of their days re-deleting my log as I will re-log it until it sticks.

Where does it say on the cache page that non-compliant logs will deleted? It doesn't.

 

Was the OPs log for the cache deleted? Did they even find the cache to log it? Doesn't seem so.

 

Is there any evidence that logs for this cache have ever been deleted? No there isn't.

 

This is just the usual gc forums storm-in-a-teacup, and you've all fallen for it.

 

Again.

 

-Wlw

[+Moote]

You find the cache, you sign the log, you log your find on geocaching.com.

Simple.

Anyone who decides to delete one of my logs because I don't fulfill their additional requirement will spend the rest of their days re-deleting my log as I will re-log it until it sticks.

Where does it say on the cache page that non-compliant logs will deleted? It doesn't.

 

Was the OPs log for the cache deleted? Did they even find the cache to log it? Doesn't seem so.

 

Is there any evidence that logs for this cache have ever been deleted? No there isn't.

 

This is just the usual gc forums storm-in-a-teacup, and you've all fallen for it.

 

Again.

 

-Wlw

 

Come on you can't see the deleted logs, that is it, deleted is deleted i.e. Not Visable. As for your argument on the Ops log, well it fails in all respects as whoever you are your cache has to be approved to be published.

 

The point I make is that TB's are NOT swaps, therefore the Cache Owner is setting unwanted demands on other persons property!

 

Moote

[SlytherinAlex]

Is there any evidence that logs for this cache have ever been deleted? No there isn't.

 

This is just the usual gc forums storm-in-a-teacup, and you've all fallen for it.

 

Again.

 

-Wlw

Where did I say I was talking about the same cache as the OP??

 

I made a general statement about they way I see personally see geocaching and what I would do should someone delete one of my logs for a cache that I had found and where I had signed the log book.

 

You have not read and understood what was posted. Again.

 

Alex.

[+wildlifewriter]

Come on you can't see the deleted logs, that is it, deleted is deleted i.e. Not Visable.

You are mistaken.

 

I said there was "no evidence" - and there isn't. If such a (hypothetical) log had been deleted for the reasons complained of, there would be an anomalous movement somewhere in the TB history for that cache.

 

No such anomaly exists.

 

The point I make is that TB's are NOT swaps, therefore the Cache Owner is setting unwanted demands on other persons property!

This I agree with, as any sensible person would.

 

However, the way for the OP to deal with it in the first instance, was by a polite e-mail to the cache owner - not by an ill-informed rant on this forum.

 

-Wlw

[+mongoose39uk]

[sarahjayne]

[+Happy Humphrey]

WLW - Where does it say on the cache page that non-compliant logs will deleted? It doesn't.

It doesn't explicitly say that on the OP example, but it does on Adrianjohn's example and on my example. The OP example infers that this will happen.

Do you agree with this approach?

 

HH

[+Moote]

You are mistaken.

 

I said there was "no evidence" - and there isn't. If such a (hypothetical) log had been deleted for the reasons complained of, there would be an anomalous movement somewhere in the TB history for that cache.

 

No such anomaly exists.

This I agree with, as any sensible person would.

 

However, the way for the OP to deal with it in the first instance, was by a polite e-mail to the cache owner - not by an ill-informed rant on this forum.

 

-Wlw

OK that maybe true where TB transactions have taken place, but what about in a case where no TB transaction has taken place, can the logs for them be seen? I think not, now I have no evidence if anyone has had or not had this happen, but it is still making it harder for the TB's to do what they were intending doing. There are times I think an owner can add a restriction such as:

• Webcam cache - requesting some kind of gesture on the cam photo.
  
• Earthcache - Answering a question or taking a snap with GPSr in shot
  
• Virtual - Answering a question
  

But Multi-Cache (offset Cache), Traditional, Letterbox Hybrid and Mystery or puzzle caches, should just be find sign and log!

 

Moote

Edited February 5, 2006 by Moote

[+Mr Burns]

However, the way for the OP to deal with it in the first instance, was by a polite e-mail to the cache owner - not by an ill-informed rant on this forum.

 

-Wlw

 

I see.....

and how else, pray tell, was he supposed to inform the caching community at large of a potential problem that could impede their enjoyment of the hobby? PM every active UK cacher? What evidence have you, that he didn't PM/Email the cache owner?

As for it being ill-informed, how so? Indeed, you state that there would be a discrepancy in bug movements - but this may not necessarily be the case;

viz: Should a cacher find the cache mentioned by the OP, and TNLN, then their log would be deleted by the owner, leaving no evidence that they had been there.

So unfortunately my friend, your logic is flawed.

Dan.

Edited February 5, 2006 by Mr Burns

[+Moote]

However, the way for the OP to deal with it in the first instance, was by a polite e-mail to the cache owner - not by an ill-informed rant on this forum.

 

-Wlw

 

Just remembered I politely emailed a cache owner in January, informing them that a Cache was not Traditional but was a Puzzle, this was then brought to the forums, and mentioned both my name and a friends. There was no need, I had explained that I rarely read traditional cache pages (As you should not need to; as published coords are the actual location of the cache for traditional). I'm never going to email a cache owner again about such an issue like that, as the response was too unfriendly and made me out to be being petty!

 

Moote

[+wildlifewriter]

I'm never going to email a cache owner again about such an issue like that, as the response was too unfriendly and made me out to be being petty!

That is a heartrendingly sad story, Moote - but just because you encountered one single idiot in geocaching, it doesn't follow that all geocachers are idiots.

 

-Wlw

[+Moote]

I'm never going to email a cache owner again about such an issue like that, as the response was too unfriendly and made me out to be being petty!

That is a heartrendingly sad story, Moote - but just because you encountered one single idiot in geocaching, it doesn't follow that all geocachers are idiots.

 

-Wlw

Yes you do have a point there

[+Birdman-of-liskatraz]

I confess I have a cache with a logging condition. My "Hi Tech out of Town Bookstore" Insists you leave a book and take one from the cache and in your log explain why you liked the book you left.

 

I've had no complaints - and most of the stories have been interesting. I probably wouldn't delete a log if someone just logged it in the normal way - but I would feel slightly miffed!

 

Its my cache - if you want to claim it I don't think its unreasonable that you play to my rules.

[alistair_uk]

First can I jump back a bit and say that I agree with Moot and others that the mission of a TB should take precedence over the logging of a cache, but you can log in and out a TB without logging a find.

 

Can I also clarify that I also hate conditions on logging and in my mind if you legitimately sign the log you can log a find. The point I was trying to make is that each one of us play this game our own way and if we said no conditions at all it would stifle much innervation and in the long run we would be worse for that.

 

When Jeramey makes a decision to bring Geocaching back to it's roots I here no end of moaning, but now I am hearing moaning for what amounts to the opposite reason.

[+Sensei TSKC]

I have a cache which has a condition that you email me with the co-ords of a particular object along the route to the final cache. I believe I have stated that I will delete any 'found' logs which do not comply with my request/requirement.

 

It's my cache and you play it my way. What is the problem with that? If you don't want to 'play' my cache, my way - then don't play.

 

I would accepted logs if the finder was unable to fulfill requirements IF he/she took the time to email me and tell me why they didn't in the first place.

 

It's all about give and take and being polite!

 

The reason behind my request, is to ensure the cacher takes the route I want them to take and not just a dash & cache in a car! If they did this, they would miss the WHOLE point of the cache!!

 

Oss!

[+MartyBartfast]

I don't have a problem with caches asking for additional info to be supplied in order for a cache to be logged, but the cache in the OP has turned into something of a TB prison. If one of my TBs was in there and I was close enough then I'd be tempted to raid the cache and rescue my TB and any other that I thought had languished too long. After all the TB belongs to the person who created/released it and if it has a mission then the first responsibility is to the TB and it's owner and not the cache owner.

 

M:

[+Sensei TSKC]

I don't have a problem with caches asking for additional info to be supplied in order for a cache to be logged, but the cache in the OP has turned into something of a TB prison. If one of my TBs was in there and I was close enough then I'd be tempted to raid the cache and rescue my TB and any other that I thought had languished too long. After all the TB belongs to the person who created/released it and if it has a mission then the first responsibility is to the TB and it's owner and not the cache owner.

 

M:

 

I agree as in most cases, a cache owner should not impose conditions on things he does not own i.e. TB's.

 

Oss!

[+The Cache Hoppers]

Don't anyone put any of our TB's in there please cause we shall have to call Rescue!

And just for Sensei's benefit ..... OSS!

[+HazelS]

I hope the owner of the cache in question sees the sense of the points raised here and amends his site accordingly.

 

But they won't because they don't use the forums....

 

 

Moote has a valid point here. In fact his own TB has been trapped there for 2 months because of the restriction on this cache. Maybe it should be a TB prison, not a TB hospital.

 

T

I agree with Tigger here....

 

The problem with this TB "Institution" is that it's up at the top end of Wirral where you're not really en route to anywhere when you visit...

 

I believe that the Cache Police should look very carefully at where Institutions are placed... at the end of the day, TB Hotels, prisons etc are there to quickly move TB's on... if it's stuck in the cul de sac of Wirral it aint gonna move very quick!!

 

Moote - tell me which TB it is and when I go next week if it's still there I'll move it on!!!

 

Edited just to say I'm sorry I cannot get the hang of these new quotes!!!!

Edited February 5, 2006 by HazelS

[+spannerman]

 

The reason behind my request, is to ensure the cacher takes the route I want them to take and not just a dash & cache in a car! If they did this, they would miss the WHOLE point of the cache!!

 

Oss!

 

You could always make the cache a multi ensuring visitors followed the route you want them to take.

 

A problem with email verification is that the owners do not always respond. I visited a virtual cache about 4 months ago and never recieved an answer to my emails so I have never logged the cache. It is now on my ignored list.

 

I have a cache on the edge of Dartmoor with the final site being yards from the parking area. In order to get the coordinates you have to walk up a hill to a micro where there is a wonderful view. If anyone gets given the final coords by a caching friend then I don't have a problem with that. They sign the log, they claim the cache. I may have set it to share the view but if anyone wants a cache and dash who is the loser?

[+Moote]

A problem with email verification is that the owners do not always respond. I visited a virtual cache about 4 months ago and never recieved an answer to my emails so I have never logged the cache. It is now on my ignored list.

 

Spannerman

 

Send the email then log the cache and add at the end email sent 5/02/2006 or whatever the date was.

 

Moote