Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2
niraD

Additional Logging Requirements

Recommended Posts

There are caches in my area that have additional logging requirements. That is, they are like traditional caches (a container with a log book at the posted coordinates), but the owner won't allow you to log a find until you do something extra (e.g., post a photo, send owner email).

 

To my mind, these are more like puzzle/mystery/unknown caches than traditional caches, because you can't just go to the coordinates, find the container, sign the log, and log a find on geocaching.com. With most puzzle/mystery/unknown caches, the "something else" you need to do is to solve the puzzle to get the cache coordinates. With caches with additional logging requirements, the "something else" you need to do is whatever the owner requires.

 

The official guidelines say that mystery/puzzle/unknown caches are the "catch-all" of cache types, but they also say that the container for mystery/puzzle/unknown caches is not at the posted coordinates. So what about caches with a container at the posted coordinates, but with additional logging requirements?

 

Here are a few options that I see:

  • add a new type for "additional logging requirements" caches
  • add a new attribute for "additional logging requirements"
  • update the official guidelines to clarify that mystery/puzzle/unknown caches are the "catch-all" of cache types, and that the container for these caches is usually not at the posted coordinates
  • update the official guidelines to clarify that mystery/puzzle/unknown caches are not the "catch-all" of cache types, but are for caches where the container is not at the posted coordinates

Any other thoughts?

Share this post


Link to post

I don't agree with additional logging requirements on caches. I don't follow them. If the owner wants to delete my find, so be it. I'll just ignore the cache. It doesn't negate the enjoyment I had finding it.

 

Just like, I don't usually following trading requirements on travel bug prisons.

 

I'm a troublemaker like that.

 

Life's to short to worry about such things.

Edited by Ferreter5

Share this post


Link to post

I think that these should be listed under mystery. Especially when you are on vacation, these can be hugely frustrating if you had been expecting a completely traditional cache. Sometimes it means that you cannot log them later. B)

Share this post


Link to post

Very seldom do I see something that is in need of changing on the site but an additional logging requirements category would be way cool if they were filterable in a PQ

Share this post


Link to post
I think that these should be listed under mystery.

I agree, but the "letter of the law" of the current guidelines says that the container of a puzzle/mystery/unknown cache will not be found at the published coordinates. The owners can (and do) argue that the container is at the published coordinates, so it isn't a puzzle/mystery/unknown cache.

Share this post


Link to post

I don't agree with additional logging requirements on caches. I don't follow them. If the owner wants to delete my find, so be it. I'll just ignore the cache. It doesn't negate the enjoyment I had finding it.

 

Just like, I don't usually following trading requirements on travel bug prisons.

 

My sentiments exactly. The ignore feature is the best addition to the site since Pocket Queries.

 

Once you find the cache, you've found the cache. Period. End of story. Other than not spoiling it for future finders there's not much a cache owner should be able to demand.

Share this post


Link to post

Interesting take on the issue. I've always read the cache and if they had extra logging requiments pass on them unless I happen to be up to the task. When traveling it's a major PITA. Locally it's not to hard to meet them normally.

 

I used to have a lot of those kinds of caches and found them to be PITA to own on top of being a pain to find. Mostly because people liked to ignore the logging rules then log anyway. That put me in a position to have to delete their log. They should just bypass the cache.

Share this post


Link to post

In a similar thread four days ago, I posted pretty much the same question. I think it's constructive to discuss it here in case there is a solution to be found through a cache attribute or cache type definition. So, with apologies for spamming, I will repeat the relevant part of my post:

 

When I am traveling, I like to stick to just traditional caches. Go to the coordinates, find the container, sign the log. No need to read cache pages unless I get stumped, or can't find parking. Last week, I found 22 caches in one day that way, solo, driving from park to park and trailhead to trailhead in an area unfamiliar to me because it was 2000 miles from home. Great fun!

 

So anyways, I get back home and log my finds, using a script that jumps me directly to the log a find page. Again, I never read the cache page. A few days later I get an e-mail from the owner of one of the caches from that day of solo finds. I was informed that my log would be deleted because it did not comply with the "special logging requirements." To preserve my smiley, I needed to write a little essay that was on-topic to the owner's theme. I did that, but mainly because I didn't want to mess up my find count for the trip, which ended with a milestone find.

 

So should caches with extra logging requirements (write a story, logs must rhyme, post a photo, etc.) be listed as traditional caches? Or should these be under Mystery/Unknown because the "?" flags the need to read the cache page? For me, that cache type would've filtered this cache out from my pocket query which is the right result for me.

 

My post earned some valid criticism that I really ought to have read the cache page. Those folks are entitled to that opinion, and yes, in most cases I do read the cache page. But not always, especially when finding a large number of caches in a new area. Less reading, more hiking. I thought the whole point to a traditional cache is that I could walk up, find the container, sign the logbook and claim a find. Nothing else ought to be needed.

Share this post


Link to post
I think that these should be listed under mystery.

I agree, but the "letter of the law" of the current guidelines says that the container of a puzzle/mystery/unknown cache will not be found at the published coordinates. The owners can (and do) argue that the container is at the published coordinates, so it isn't a puzzle/mystery/unknown cache.

No, a cache can be located AT the posted coordinates and still be classified as a puzzle/mystery/unknown. An example would be to solve a puzzle that gives you the combination to a lock on the cache container, which is located at the posted coordinates. I agree that the listing guidelines are misleading on this point and I have recommended that the language should be clarified in the next update.

Share this post


Link to post

In a similar thread four days ago, I posted pretty much the same question. I think it's constructive to discuss it here in case there is a solution to be found through a cache attribute or cache type definition. So, with apologies for spamming, I will repeat the relevant part of my post:

 

When I am traveling, I like to stick to just traditional caches. Go to the coordinates, find the container, sign the log. No need to read cache pages unless I get stumped, or can't find parking. Last week, I found 22 caches in one day that way, solo, driving from park to park and trailhead to trailhead in an area unfamiliar to me because it was 2000 miles from home. Great fun!

 

So anyways, I get back home and log my finds, using a script that jumps me directly to the log a find page. Again, I never read the cache page. A few days later I get an e-mail from the owner of one of the caches from that day of solo finds. I was informed that my log would be deleted because it did not comply with the "special logging requirements." To preserve my smiley, I needed to write a little essay that was on-topic to the owner's theme. I did that, but mainly because I didn't want to mess up my find count for the trip, which ended with a milestone find.

 

So should caches with extra logging requirements (write a story, logs must rhyme, post a photo, etc.) be listed as traditional caches? Or should these be under Mystery/Unknown because the "?" flags the need to read the cache page? For me, that cache type would've filtered this cache out from my pocket query which is the right result for me.

 

My post earned some valid criticism that I really ought to have read the cache page. Those folks are entitled to that opinion, and yes, in most cases I do read the cache page. But not always, especially when finding a large number of caches in a new area. Less reading, more hiking. I thought the whole point to a traditional cache is that I could walk up, find the container, sign the logbook and claim a find. Nothing else ought to be needed.

Exactly.

Share this post


Link to post
I thought the whole point to a traditional cache is that I could walk up, find the container, sign the logbook and claim a find. Nothing else ought to be needed.

 

Watch it or folks will drag out the "puritan" label on you.

Share this post


Link to post
I thought the whole point to a traditional cache is that I could walk up, find the container, sign the logbook and claim a find. Nothing else ought to be needed.

 

Watch it or folks will drag out the "puritan" label on you.

That would be just awful! I've become rather attached to "Toady." B)

Share this post


Link to post

Hmm... Does the nature of the additional logging requirements change anything?

 

At first, I didn't think so, but I was thinking of requirements that couldn't be met by simply editing the log. Does it matter whether it's a requirement like

  • log must be in rhyming verse
  • must describe a favorite holiday memory in log

that can be met by editing your log, or a requirement like

  • must include photo of self juggling the three balls in the cache container
  • must send owner email that includes the name on the monument 100 feet due east of the container

that can't be met after the fact?

Share this post


Link to post
Hmm... Does the nature of the additional logging requirements change anything?

 

Not in the least. If you were able to find the cache and sign the log, then you should be able to log online with the "Found It" log-type. That would be the proper log-type because you found the cache. Does the fact one may absolutely suck at a particular task preclude them from the feedback of logging with the proper log-type? No, it shouldn't.

 

Deleting a legitimate log because the logger didn't perform some silly additional task smacks of someone on a power trip.

Share this post


Link to post

[...Deleting a legitimate log because the logger didn't perform some silly additional task smacks of someone on a power trip.

 

....or somebody trying to have fun. I am all for some attribute to mark such caches. If you have no interest in them, you are welcome to skip the few I have like that. Nothing in the worl compels you to HAVE to visit. I won't delete legit finds but I do encourage people to "play along and have fun with it".

Share this post


Link to post

Yeah, it was real "fun" being forced to write a story about a fond memory of someone who had passed away, or else risk having my find deleted -- even though I *found* the cache and *signed* the log. Excuse me, but one reason for the trip was to get over the lingering effects of my friend's untimely death. It was nice to be out geocaching again and enjoying it.

 

Had I not needed to keep that find so that my last find of the trip was #1700, celebrated with a nice party, I would've gladly sacrificed the smiley. It would've been my first deleted log out of 1700.

Edited by The Leprechauns

Share this post


Link to post
If you have no interest in them, you are welcome to skip the few I have like that. Nothing in the worl compels you to HAVE to visit.

 

You miss the point. I like geocaching. I'll visit the cache and forgo providing the feedback.

 

While you might not delete a legitimate log, there are those who will. The threat of taking away a smilie implies the smilie has some value.

Share this post


Link to post

The threat of taking away a smilie implies the smilie has some value.

Ooh, I like that! I really do.

Share this post


Link to post

For those that don't agree with additional logging requirements... what about web cam caches? Did you go to these and refuse to have your image captured? For virtuals did you go to the coodinates, look around, refuse to email the owner the required information? Why not? You were there right? You "found" the cache. Period. End of story.

 

Would you be opposed to someone showing up at your CITO event, hanging out for a few minutes and leaving without picking up any trash, and then logging it as a find?

 

Just asking.

Share this post


Link to post

When I choose to visit a webcam cache, or puzzle through a mystery/unknown cache, or step my way through a multicache, or look at a virtual cache, I know instantly from the cache type that I *have* to read the cache page to find out what's required. If I am traveling, I exclude all of these cache types from my pocket queries so that I can focus on traditional caches. If I have more time in the area, like at home, I enjoy other cache types, especially multicaches.

 

My objection is based solely upon the definition of "traditional cache" and the expectation that complying with that definition leads to a valid "found it" log.

Share this post


Link to post

For those that don't agree with additional logging requirements... what about web cam caches? Did you go to these and refuse to have your image captured? For virtuals did you go to the coodinates, look around, refuse to email the owner the required information? Why not? You were there right? You "found" the cache. Period. End of story.

 

Would you be opposed to someone showing up at your CITO event, hanging out for a few minutes and leaving without picking up any trash, and then logging it as a find?

 

Just asking.

 

When I hunt a webcam or virt I know in advance that I'll have to do something extra to get credit. If the cache is listed as traditional I should only have to walk to the cache, find it, and sign the log. If I have to post 4 pictures of myself spelling out YMCA or include a knock-knock joke in the log, then it's not a traditional cache. I'd rather see it listed as a mystery cache.

 

As for the CITO situation, let them do what they want. I don't even care about my stats so why should I care about theirs?

Share this post


Link to post

There is a local cacher who drops different color tokens in local caches. He has a series of caches where you have to have a certain combination of tokens before you are allowed to find it. If you don't post a digital pic of your tokens showing the tokens unique serial numbers your found log will be deleted. In this case its very clear in the description and it does not bother me (since I already had the tokens). But it would be nice to know before hand that there are additional steps I need to do before I can log my find.

 

Note: I talked to the owner and reviewer of these caches at an event and the rules of geocaching were actually modified to allow this.

Share this post


Link to post
If you have no interest in them, you are welcome to skip the few I have like that. Nothing in the worl compels you to HAVE to visit.

 

You miss the point. I like geocaching. I'll visit the cache and forgo providing the feedback.

 

I respect that. I realize and understand that some people just like to cache and don't log - thats fine. My point was, I am all for a new indicator of such caches. This new indicator will flag this cache as needing something addtional - that way people can filter them out or filter to find. Those of us that ask for addtional requirements aren't trying to ruin your day or be some kind of power hungry monger - we are simply trying to expand the game a little bit and have fun along the way. I have 2 poetry caches that simply ask you to write a four line rhyme. Some poems do, some don't but the attempts are all fun to read. These are placed in relitvely un-interesting but easy to get to locations. Sort of value added caches in my book. In 2 years of field tests - nobody has failed to give it a shot.

 

So.....lets add some kind of new description or attribute to set these apart.

Share this post


Link to post
Hmm... Does the nature of the additional logging requirements change anything?

No.

Edited by Ferreter5

Share this post


Link to post
There is a local cacher who drops different color tokens in local caches. He has a series of caches where you have to have a certain combination of tokens before you are allowed to find it. If you don't post a digital pic of your tokens showing the tokens unique serial numbers your found log will be deleted. In this case its very clear in the description and it does not bother me (since I already had the tokens).

Yep. One of his caches showed up on my "nearest to home" page, which brought this issue to my attention. My only issue with these caches is that they are listed as "traditional" caches. IMHO, the additional logging requirements clearly make it something other than a "traditional" cache. But the owner points to the clause "the coordinates listed are not of the actual cache location" in the guidelines, and argues that these caches are not mystery/puzzle/unknown caches.

 

But it would be nice to know before hand that there are additional steps I need to do before I can log my find.

Yep. And cachers should be able to exclude them from searches/queries. And I don't think the "nearby caches of this type" link should list them when the original cache was a traditional cache, which is why I don't like the idea of merely adding an "additional logging requirements" attribute. So if creating a new cache type is too much of a change, my preference would be to clarify the guidelines so the puzzle/mystery/other type is clearly the catch-all type, perhaps editing it to read "the coordinates listed are usually not of the actual cache location".

 

I talked to the owner and reviewer of these caches at an event and the rules of geocaching were actually modified to allow this.

Okay, now I'm curious. How did the rules need to be modified?

Share this post


Link to post

No, a cache can be located AT the posted coordinates and still be classified as a puzzle/mystery/unknown. An example would be to solve a puzzle that gives you the combination to a lock on the cache container, which is located at the posted coordinates.

Good point. All the more reason to update the guidelines for puzzle/mystery/other caches to read something like "the coordinates listed are usually not of the actual cache location".

Share this post


Link to post

Hmm... Does the nature of the additional logging requirements change anything?

 

At first, I didn't think so, but I was thinking of requirements that couldn't be met by simply editing the log. Does it matter whether it's a requirement like

  • log must be in rhyming verse
  • must describe a favorite holiday memory in log

that can be met by editing your log, or a requirement like

  • must include photo of self juggling the three balls in the cache container
  • must send owner email that includes the name on the monument 100 feet due east of the container

that can't be met after the fact?

 

It changes the nature of the cache. Having to sing the log in a rhyme changes how I normally log. Trading NASCAR swag creates a side quest to find a NASCAR related item. The quest or challenge is part of the cache experience intended by the owner. Geocaching can be a box and a log, or it can be far more creative.

 

My experience though has told me that the best way to make numskuls who can't read comply with a logging requiremnt is to put it in front of the cache. What that means is that rather than require a NASCAR swag trade after the find, you set up the cache so finders have to complete the NASCAR quest in some way to even get the cache coordinates or the combo to the lock. People will work to find the cache, they won't work to log it.

Share this post


Link to post

Does the fact one may absolutely suck at a particular task preclude them from the feedback of logging with the proper log-type? No, it shouldn't.

 

Deleting a legitimate log because the logger didn't perform some silly additional task smacks of someone on a power trip.

 

The geocaching website brings hiders and finders together. Unfortunately logs are owned by the cache owner. I agree that a cache owner needs to be able to maintain their cache listing and edit/delete logs if necessary. However, as a finder my log entries belong to me. So even if the cache owner deletes a log I should be able to retain a copy of this log in my online records records...

Share this post


Link to post
...rather than require a NASCAR swag trade after the find, you set up the cache so finders have to complete the NASCAR quest in some way to even get the cache coordinates or the combo to the lock. People will work to find the cache, they won't work to log it.

Quite right!

Edited by Ferreter5

Share this post


Link to post

What would the icon look like?

 

I guess if most people think it should be allowed then I would prefer to have it as an attribute. That way I can filter them out of my own queries.

 

I'm the first to say that we don't necessarily have to play it one particular way. However deleting someone's log on a traditional cache because they didn't have a picture of themselves phooning at the location would certainly be irritating.

Share this post


Link to post

I am no good with graphics, so I can't provide examples, but maybe something as simple as an exclamation point, meaning "stop and read the cache page, you cannot log a find here without reading and following the instructions." Or maybe a little log notebook with a 1-2-3 written on it, to symbolize that there are requirements to follow.

 

If you went the attributes route, wouldn't you need to refine the way that pocket queries handle attributes? Or was this already fixed? I would want to run a pocket query that returned all traditional caches in the defined area, BUT which excluded those that had this attribute. The last I checked, you could either search for just those caches that did have an attribute (like "fee required") or which had the negative version of the attribute ("no dogs allowed"), but you couldn't use an attribute's presence as a tool to refine a search. ("Show me all caches rated terrain 5, but excluding those terrain 5's that have the "boat required" attribute.")

 

Unless the pocket query programming is fixed, personally I would prefer to see this addressed in the listing guidelines, so that caches with additional logging requirements are listed as mystery/unknown/puzzle caches.

Edited by The Leprechauns

Share this post


Link to post
What would the icon look like?

How about a circus animal jumping through a hoop?

 

Or a ruler-wielding schoolmarm?

 

Or a log book with "++" on the cover?

 

I guess if most people think it should be allowed then I would prefer to have it as an attribute. That way I can filter them out of my own queries.

I dislike making it an attribute because such caches would still show up when you click the "nearby caches of this type" link on a traditional cache. Even with an attribute set, I don't think they're traditional caches. But I'm not sure I want to encourage such caches by giving them their own type.

 

My preferred solution would be to update the guidelines to make it clear that such caches are not traditional caches, but are mystery/puzzle/unknown caches.

 

I'm the first to say that we don't necessarily have to play it one particular way.

I agree. But I think the place for atypical caches is the mystery/puzzle/unknown cache type.

Share this post


Link to post

If you went the attributes route, wouldn't you need to refine the way that pocket queries handle attributes? Or was this already fixed? I would want to run a pocket query that returned all traditional caches in the defined area, BUT which excluded those that had this attribute. The last I checked, you could either search for just those caches that did have an attribute (like "fee required") or which had the negative version of the attribute ("no dogs allowed"), ,,,

 

Click on it once, its required, click a second time, its excluded, click a third time its back to default.

Share this post


Link to post

Unless I'm missing something, that doesn't get me where I need to be.

 

Assume there's an attribute called "Additional Logging Requirements." Can someone explain how I construct a PQ that returns all traditional caches EXCEPT for those that have the "Additional Logging Requirements" attribute?

Share this post


Link to post

 

My preferred solution would be to update the guidelines to make it clear that such caches are not traditional caches, but are mystery/puzzle/unknown caches.

 

 

I would also prefer going this route but it does upset the guideline weary. The ++ is kind of funny but true. Maybe a new log type for "Mission Accomplished" though that evokes images of another mission not yet accomplished. And for that to work we'd have to create a new cache type which doesn't make sense.

 

We'll just make a phooning waymark category.

Share this post


Link to post

Assume there's an attribute called "Additional Logging Requirements." Can someone explain how I construct a PQ that returns all traditional caches EXCEPT for those that have the "Additional Logging Requirements" attribute?

 

also a good point. We'd have to create a query that excludes certain attributes as well.

Share this post


Link to post

I don't mind a logging requirement that adds a little fun to the experience. For example, find a cache in a Japanese garden, and write your log in the form of a haiku.

 

However, I draw the line at requirements that are questioning my honesty. My signing the log is proof enough. If a cache owner requires email to prove I was there, that cache goes on my Ignore list.

Share this post


Link to post
We'd have to create a query that excludes certain attributes as well.

Thanks. If you can beat a Lackey into doing that, it's an acceptable solution. In the grand scheme of things, this isn't a giant problem, certainly not warranting a new cache type. And I don't wish to discourage the practice since some cache owners and some finders enjoy these things.

Edited by The Leprechauns

Share this post


Link to post

I don't mind a logging requirement that adds a little fun to the experience. For example, find a cache in a Japanese garden, and write your log in the form of a haiku.

 

However, I draw the line at requirements that are questioning my honesty. My signing the log is proof enough. If a cache owner requires email to prove I was there, that cache goes on my Ignore list.

 

So basically something where the logging requirement doesn't involve finding or doing something at the location after finding it to prove you are there goes beyond what should be required to log a find. However having someone do something fun in their log entry like a haiku or joke as a theme would be fine.

 

That sounds like we're getting somewhere.

Share this post


Link to post
So basically something where the logging requirement doesn't involve finding or doing something at the location after finding it to prove you are there goes beyond what should be required to log a find. However having someone do something fun in their log entry like a haiku or joke as a theme would be fine.

What about a circus-themed cache that requires you to post a photo of yourself juggling (or attempting to juggle) three balls located in the container? It fits the theme, and some will consider it fun.

 

I wouldn't have any complaints about such a cache existing, but it shouldn't be listed as a traditional cache.

 

If there were an attribute for Additional Logging Requirements, then maybe we could have traditional caches with Additional Logging Requirements (easily met by editing your log if necessary), and mystery/puzzle/unknown caches with Additional Logging Requirements (which may or may not require a return trip to the container, but which cannot be met by simply editing your log).

Share this post


Link to post
So basically something where the logging requirement doesn't involve finding or doing something at the location after finding it to prove you are there goes beyond what should be required to log a find. However having someone do something fun in their log entry like a haiku or joke as a theme would be fine.

What about a circus-themed cache that requires you to post a photo of yourself juggling (or attempting to juggle) three balls located in the container? It fits the theme, and some will consider it fun.

 

I think "jumping through hoops" best describes this situation :)

 

The problem is when a user doesn't have a camera or didn't read the description but still found the cache. So why would you get your cache find deleted? You did find it, after all.

 

I don't think the objection is to the fun request - just the enforcement of it. The juggling at the location should be fun not something that rains on a geocacher's parade if they didn't do it for whatever reason.

Edited by Jeremy

Share this post


Link to post

It's quick, it's embarrassingly lame, and it is two hikers carrying a log. :)

 

Attribute sketch:

 

6d764b72.jpg

 

A B&W version might be a single hiker holding a log on his shoulder...

Edited by New England n00b

Share this post


Link to post

How about a hiker [with clenched teeth and eyes] squeezing a log onto a cache? That's my opinion of additional requirements. Yikes, I've entered the ranks of the scatological posters.

Edited by salmoned

Share this post


Link to post

How about a hiker [with clenched teeth and eyes] squeezing a log onto a cache? That's my opinion of additional requirements. Yikes, I've entered the ranks of the scatological posters.

I don't care for the idea of extra logging requirements much myself but that is hardly teh way to go.

Edited by New England n00b

Share this post


Link to post

I disagree. I think it's exactly the way to go. Additional logging "requirements" should go the way of web-cam and virtual caches. Grandfather the stinkers we have, put new ones on that other site.

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2

×
×
  • Create New...