Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2
niraD

Additional Logging Requirements

Recommended Posts

If you're going to read the description before hunting anyway, then why would it matter? Having done your homework, you've now plenty able to decide whether you still want to do this or that particular cache, right?

Why do we have different cache types at all? Why bother distinguishing among traditional caches, multi-caches, unknown/mystery/puzzle caches, virtual caches, etc.? If I want a listing of traditional caches, I shouldn't get a listing that includes multi-caches, unknown/mystery/puzzle caches, or any other non-traditional caches. And IMHO, some additional logging requirements clearly push the cache out of the traditional category. Examples that I've seen in local caches include posting a photo of the cache owner's sig tokens (different combinations are required for different caches) and taking the coin in the cache in exchange for a coin that has a date that is numerically adjacent to the one you took (e.g., leaving a 1996 or 1998 coin in exchange for the 1997 coin you found).

Just curious: Were those activities actually required in order to post a smiley? If so, were they clearly spelled out in the description?

Share this post


Link to post
IMHO, some additional logging requirements clearly push the cache out of the traditional category. Examples that I've seen in local caches include posting a photo of the cache owner's sig tokens (different combinations are required for different caches) and taking the coin in the cache in exchange for a coin that has a date that is numerically adjacent to the one you took (e.g., leaving a 1996 or 1998 coin in exchange for the 1997 coin you found).
Just curious: Were those activities actually required in order to post a smiley? If so, were they clearly spelled out in the description?

Yes on both counts. The owners clearly explain the requirements in the cache descriptions, and also say that they will delete any "Found It" logs that do not comply with the requirements. And there are "Note" logs posted by cachers who found the caches and signed the physical logs, but who have not met the additional logging requirements.

Share this post


Link to post
Yes on both counts. The owners clearly explain the requirements in the cache descriptions, and also say that they will delete any "Found It" logs that do not comply with the requirements. And there are "Note" logs posted by cachers who found the caches and signed the physical logs, but who have not met the additional logging requirements.

I'm really beginning to see your point. I don't know that I would go so far as to avoid those caches myself, but I sure wouldn't put them at the top of my To Do list.

 

Hey Jeremy, are you still listening to this guy?

Share this post


Link to post

So what about caches that require you bring a TOTT of some sort to retrieve the cache? I suspect the OP would want to eliminate these as well so he doesn't get to the cache site and find out you needed a ladder or a magnet on a string. Or it could go back to my suggestion that special logging requirments means the difficulty or terrain should be 5.

Share this post


Link to post

[*]add a new attribute for "additional logging requirements"

Any other thoughts?

What about an attribute

[*] no reading required

Share this post


Link to post

[*]add a new attribute for "additional logging requirements"

Any other thoughts?

What about an attribute

[*] no reading required

Now, why would it make you :laughing: to have a special note that a traditional cache is not a traditionally logged? :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
So what about caches that require you bring a TOTT of some sort to retrieve the cache?

 

Requirements for finding a cache are a completely different animal than requirements for reporting you found the cache with the proper log type.

Share this post


Link to post
The owners clearly explain the requirements in the cache descriptions, and also say that they will delete any "Found It" logs that do not comply with the requirements. And there are "Note" logs posted by cachers who found the caches and signed the physical logs, but who have not met the additional logging requirements.

 

Clearly, this is "smilie control" and has nothing to do with finding the cache. Some cache owners realize they have folks over a barrel and take advantage. IMHO, this is unethical.

 

It also sounds like the cache owner realizes and accepts that folks have found the cache, but if they don't comply with some silly requirement, then "no smilie for you!"

Share this post


Link to post

[*]add a new attribute for "additional logging requirements"

Any other thoughts?

What about an attribute

[*] no reading required

Now, why would it make you :laughing: to have a special note that a traditional cache is not a traditionally logged? :rolleyes:

 

imho we've got different things right now mixed in this thread:

- I didn't read the description

- An owner deleted my log

- I don't like this

- What is a traditional anyway

 

Why on earth would someone not want to read the description? Quite a lot of owners put a lot of effort into their descriptions and it's a plain insult towards those owners not to read the description. The description itself can also give you far more information about a cache than any increasing number of the cachetypes or attributes will ever be able to tell you. If you are not into reading, try podcaching.

 

An owner deleted a log because the finder could not (for one of various reasons) comply with the cache rules. That's a hard one. What can we do about it? Oh Yeah! Let's make some new rules ourselfs that will disallow those stupid other rules! That's a good one. We even could ban him completely!

 

Also I'm quite sure that every cacher does not like one cache or another for a large variety of reasons. And if you're into robocaching you like to filter out as many potential "don't likes" as possible. I can perfectly understand that. I can think of dozens of additional attributes I might like for filtering and even more attributes i would never use as an owner. Don't get me wrong. You can have as many attributes or different cache types as you like. I simply doubt that more types or more attributes will really be useful (for both sides seekers and hiders as well).

 

For me traditional just means that there is a box at the given coordinates. everything else is in the description.

Share this post


Link to post
Why on earth would someone not want to read the description? Quite a lot of owners put a lot of effort into their descriptions and it's a plain insult towards those owners not to read the description. The description itself can also give you far more information about a cache than any increasing number of the cachetypes or attributes will ever be able to tell you.

...

An owner deleted a log because the finder could not (for one of various reasons) comply with the cache rules. That's a hard one. What can we do about it? Oh Yeah! Let's make some new rules ourselfs that will disallow those stupid other rules! That's a good one. We even could ban him completely!

...

I simply doubt that more types or more attributes will really be useful (for both sides seekers and hiders as well).

...

For me traditional just means that there is a box at the given coordinates. everything else is in the description.

 

The Tadpole speaks wisely.

Share this post


Link to post
The owners clearly explain the requirements in the cache descriptions, and also say that they will delete any "Found It" logs that do not comply with the requirements. And there are "Note" logs posted by cachers who found the caches and signed the physical logs, but who have not met the additional logging requirements.

 

Clearly, this is "smilie control" and has nothing to do with finding the cache. Some cache owners realize they have folks over a barrel and take advantage. IMHO, this is unethical.

 

It also sounds like the cache owner realizes and accepts that folks have found the cache, but if they don't comply with some silly requirement, then "no smilie for you!"

...and you have made it clear that you insist such hides should be eliminated. You didn't say "avoided. You said "eliminated." CR, you still haven't answered the obvious question:

 

Instead of demanding the elimination of caches you don't like (or 'approve of'), why not simply AVOID them?

 

Coyote's still got bubble gum shoved in his ears, so I repeat: Is there ANYBODY on CR's side of that issue who is willing to answer that question?

Share this post


Link to post

[*]add a new attribute for "additional logging requirements"

Any other thoughts?

What about an attribute

[*] no reading required

Now, why would it make you :rolleyes: to have a special note that a traditional cache is not a traditionally logged? :laughing:

 

imho we've got different things right now mixed in this thread:

- I didn't read the description

- An owner deleted my log

- I don't like this

- What is a traditional anyway

 

Why on earth would someone not want to read the description? Quite a lot of owners put a lot of effort into their descriptions and it's a plain insult towards those owners not to read the description. The description itself can also give you far more information about a cache than any increasing number of the cachetypes or attributes will ever be able to tell you. If you are not into reading, try podcaching.

 

An owner deleted a log because the finder could not (for one of various reasons) comply with the cache rules. That's a hard one. What can we do about it? Oh Yeah! Let's make some new rules ourselfs that will disallow those stupid other rules! That's a good one. We even could ban him completely!

Also I'm quite sure that every cacher does not like one cache or another for a large variety of reasons. And if you're into robocaching you like to filter out as many potential "don't likes" as possible. I can perfectly understand that. I can think of dozens of additional attributes I might like for filtering and even more attributes i would never use as an owner. Don't get me wrong. You can have as many attributes or different cache types as you like. I simply doubt that more types or more attributes will really be useful (for both sides seekers and hiders as well).

 

For me traditional just means that there is a box at the given coordinates. everything else is in the description.

Maybe someone is out driving and they have a random moment to go geocaching, so they fire up their GPS and go hunt a plain old traditional while on lunch? I've done this several times. Should they get deleted because some cache owner requires them to wear a tutu in a photograph to log the cache, and they missed it because they were out looking for a simple cache on the spur of the moment? That's stupid.

 

Quit with the hyperbole. A cache owner is not going to get BANNED for being a jerk in this manner. A finder should have the right to log a find, and if it is deleted for no good reason, the cache owner is subject to being 'ignored'. There is a reason TPTB put that feature in place. It just sucks that cache owners can be that petty to begin with.

 

Well, that's a stroke of genius. Not. Simply because someone suggests a way to filter out caches that are not simple find-n-logs, suddenly the sky of attributes is going to come crashing down our ears? Please. Maybe we should just go ahead and rid of ALL the attributes, then, just to be safe? (Answer: No.).

 

Fixed.

 

Now having said all that, if I go to a cache and log a find and it gets deleted because I was not wearing a skirt and feather boa, then fine. The log is gone. I'll put the cache owner on 'ignore', add the cache to a public booklist of 'my deleted cache logs', and move on.

 

What I am having such a hard time getting my mind around is why people are so resistant to making sure that a simple cache is a simple cache. Are you afraid that people will use the attribute parameters and not visit your cache? Why is that any more or less 'wrong' that people filtering out microcaches, if the SEEKER so chooses?

Share this post


Link to post

Why on earth would someone not want to read the description? Quite a lot of owners put a lot of effort into their descriptions and it's a plain insult towards those owners not to read the description. The description itself can also give you far more information about a cache than any increasing number of the cachetypes or attributes will ever be able to tell you. If you are not into reading, try podcaching.

 

An owner deleted a log because the finder could not (for one of various reasons) comply with the cache rules. That's a hard one. What can we do about it? Oh Yeah! Let's make some new rules ourselfs that will disallow those stupid other rules! That's a good one. We even could ban him completely!

 

Also I'm quite sure that every cacher does not like one cache or another for a large variety of reasons. And if you're into robocaching you like to filter out as many potential "don't likes" as possible. I can perfectly understand that. I can think of dozens of additional attributes I might like for filtering and even more attributes i would never use as an owner. Don't get me wrong. You can have as many attributes or different cache types as you like. I simply doubt that more types or more attributes will really be useful (for both sides seekers and hiders as well).

 

For me traditional just means that there is a box at the given coordinates. everything else is in the description.

I'll take a shot at this one.

 

Sometime after the first 1,000 cache hunts, walking down a trail to find a tupperware in a stump can get a bit... repetitive. I am constantly challenging myself to find ways to keep it interesting. Find the cache at night, if legal. Find it in the rain or snow. And find it based just upon coordinates.

 

Yes, I admit it... I LIKE finding caches without reading the cache description. There is something cool about having nothing but a set of coordinates to go by. No parking coordinates, no instructions on how to get to the trailhead, no cautions that there may be poison ivy or muggles or rabid hamsters in the area. If I can solve parking and access, that is part of the challenge in addition to finding the cache. It's the way geocaching used to be, in 2000 to 2002 before the cache pages started telling you so much information that a waiter may as well bring you the cache on a silver platter at the parking coordinates.

 

Of course, I do not practice this technique on remote caches, but these tend to be interesting in and of themselves. And, if I *can't* find parking and trailhead access, or if anything else "looks wrong," I will break out the cache page. After enough cache hunts, I have enough common sense to know when to do this.

 

Going by "coordinates only" tends to make the urban parking lot caches and the suburban park caches a bit more interesting for me. And such was the case in the example I've been discussing in this thread. It was the third of four traditional caches along a trail that began in a suburban park with obvious parking in a paved lot. The *ENTIRE* cache description, save for the extraneous logging requirement to share a memory about a dearly departed person, reads as follows: "A short hike about a quarter of mile from the parking lot. About 3 steps off the trail. Cache is in paintball tube."

 

I did not miss much from not reading that cache page. The same can be said of quite a few cache pages. The ones that have copied and pasted cache descriptions beginning with "Just a quick park and grab..." or which have names like "Manic Midsummer Micro Series #23."

 

I am trying to make these caches a bit more challenging. I recognize that I may miss something by not reading the cache pages, and to a certain extent the criticism is valid. If someone else wants to play a game where I have to do things besides finding the cache and signing the log, that's cool too. All I'm asking for is an easy way to rule these out from my search results.

Share this post


Link to post
So what about caches that require you bring a TOTT of some sort to retrieve the cache?

 

Requirements for finding a cache are a completely different animal than requirements for reporting you found the cache with the proper log type.

 

This is correct if you apply the CR/puritan definition for "find" - i.e. you found the box and signed the log. I continue to differentiate between finding a cache and logging a "found it" log online. I agree that in order to "find" a cache you must have found the container and signed the log. I accept the fact that some people may post a found it log when they didn't find a cache and that some cache owners may have requirements for a found it log in addition to or in place of finding the cache. I know this gets some people upset - but I just accept it as a fact of geocaching.

Share this post


Link to post
So what about caches that require you bring a TOTT of some sort to retrieve the cache?
Retrieving the cache is a separate issue. You may need special equipment to get to, to find, or to retrieve the cache. We already have a mechanism for that (terrain or difficulty ratings, depending on why you need the special equipment). There are caches in the area that are much easier if you have a UV flashlight, but they are rated appropriately to reflect the need for special equipment.

 

I suspect the OP would want to eliminate these as well so he doesn't get to the cache site and find out you needed a ladder or a magnet on a string.
Again, I don't want to eliminate anyone's caches, and I do read the cache description before attempting to find a cache. I just think that some caches have additional logging requirements that are more appropriate for the puzzle/mystery/unknown category than for the traditional category.

 

Or it could go back to my suggestion that special logging requirments means the difficulty or terrain should be 5.
I think special logging requirements are a different kind of thing. The cache can be easy to get to (terrain) and easy to find (difficulty), but can still be a challenge to log (e.g., leave a 1903 or 1905 coin to replace the 1904 coin left by the previous cacher). I think special logging requirements change the nature of the cache.

Share this post


Link to post

Sometime after the first 1,000 cache hunts, walking down a trail to find a tupperware in a stump can get a bit... repetitive. I am constantly challenging myself to find ways to keep it interesting. Find the cache at night, if legal. Find it in the rain or snow. And find it based just upon coordinates.

 

That's certainly true! I've found way less than 1000 and I've wanted to spice things up a bit and have found several without having read the description. It doesn't make a difference to some caches (most light post micros) and makes it a lot more difficult for others (especially the terrain if you don't read the helpful way to follow the trail).

 

However, since the definitions of cache types (as they stand) clearly indicate that a cache at the posted coords are Traditional, even if you have to get additional information to be allowed to log it, then not having read the description is part of the risk you knowingly take.

 

You take a welcomed risk of not being able to find it by possibly making it way harder to find than the cache owner intended. If part of the description said, "To keep muggles from stealing this cache I've put a lock on it, the key is located (whereever)". But if you didn't read the page you might walk a quarter mile through heavy underbrush (because you also didn't read about the half mile easy to walk on trail), get to the cache, not be able to open it, and go home without a Find.

 

In that case you actually found the cache, but the owner made it difficult to get to the log book. Would you log it as a Find anyway? Would you insist that locked caches either be moved to the Mystery/Puzzle catagory or perhaps given their own?

 

Surely you don't agree with CR that these be banned from the site?

 

I think most cachers would feel like they took a risk and it didn't work out, and accept it. Maybe not.

Share this post


Link to post

For those of you that insist that Traditional caches be able to be found without reading the description, THIS CACHE is one you should not miss if you're in the area of North Metro Atlanta!!

Share this post


Link to post

You take a welcomed risk of not being able to find it by possibly making it way harder to find than the cache owner intended. If part of the description said, "To keep muggles from stealing this cache I've put a lock on it, the key is located (whereever)". But if you didn't read the page you might walk a quarter mile through heavy underbrush (because you also didn't read about the half mile easy to walk on trail), get to the cache, not be able to open it, and go home without a Find.

 

In that case you actually found the cache, but the owner made it difficult to get to the log book. Would you log it as a Find anyway? Would you insist that locked caches either be moved to the Mystery/Puzzle catagory or perhaps given their own?

 

Surely you don't agree with CR that these be banned from the site?

 

I think most cachers would feel like they took a risk and it didn't work out, and accept it. Maybe not.

1. The example with the lock would be a multicache. The key is found at a separate location. If it were a combination lock with the numbers being derived by solving a puzzle, it would be a mystery/unknown cache. This isn't a logging requirement but rather a cache feature.

 

2. No, I don't want this type of cache banned from the site. But I would ask a reviewer to reclassify it if it is not listed under the correct cache type. The problem is that there's no such set rule to follow for caches with extraneous logging requirements, which are above and beyond getting my name in the logbook.

 

3. Of course I would not log a find if I didn't locate the key and get my name in the logbook. I don't want any of my logs to be featured in another forum thread. :rolleyes:

 

4. Stop calling me Shirley.

Share this post


Link to post

Why on earth would someone not want to read the description?

 

Because most of them are utterly boring compared to the actual cache hunt.

Share this post


Link to post
What would the icon look like?

How about a circus animal jumping through a hoop?

Good idea!

Share this post


Link to post
Logging requirements is a tangent in the evolution of the hobby that should eliminated just like code word caches, moving caches, and more.

I absolutely agree with that.

If you have found the cache and signed the logbook you should be able to post an online log.

Share this post


Link to post

 

1. The example with the lock would be a multicache. The key is found at a separate location. If it were a combination lock with the numbers being derived by solving a puzzle, it would be a mystery/unknown cache. This isn't a logging requirement but rather a cache feature.

 

2. No, I don't want this type of cache banned from the site. But I would ask a reviewer to reclassify it if it is not listed under the correct cache type. The problem is that there's no such set rule to follow for caches with extraneous logging requirements, which are above and beyond getting my name in the logbook.

 

3. Of course I would not log a find if I didn't locate the key and get my name in the logbook. I don't want any of my logs to be featured in another forum thread. :rolleyes:

 

4. Stop calling me Shirley.

 

1. I guess I should have elaborated to say that the key was hidden at the cache location (in a fake rock right beside it or something of that nature) I was trying to think of a scenario where you would find the cache but not be able to open it because you didn't read the description. A combination lock might have been a better example. You still risk not having information by not reading, and therefore not be able to sign the log book. But it's a risk you choose to take when you choose to search for it without having read the description. And if you accept the risk, why can't you accept the failure?

 

2. Correct, no log type other than Traditional fits as the current definitions stand.

 

3. Give us time. <_<

 

4. A hospital? What is it?

Share this post


Link to post
Logging requirements is a tangent in the evolution of the hobby that should eliminated just like code word caches, moving caches, and more.

I absolutely agree with that.

If you have found the cache and signed the logbook you should be able to post an online log.

 

So if a cache type exists that YOU (and CR) don't like, then it should be eliminated from the site so that NOBODY gets to enjoy it?

Share this post


Link to post

What about caches that require you to email the cache owner the code word in the cache (in addition to signing the log) to verify you found the cache. Should these be a different cache type?

They should be banned. Why doesn't the owner check the logbook for fake logs if he does not trust the cachers logging his cache?

Share this post


Link to post

What about caches that require you to email the cache owner the code word in the cache (in addition to signing the log) to verify you found the cache. Should these be a different cache type?

They should be banned. Why doesn't the owner check the logbook for fake logs if he does not trust the cachers logging his cache?

I'm going to take teh middle ground here and not say they should NOT be banned, unless the logging requirements are abusive, offensive or illegal (like posting a picture of yourself smoking crack cocaine) - but such things would be flagged by the reviewer anyway.

 

I don't think a cache owner should make extra-logging activity REQUIREMENTS, but an unofficial 'bonus'. I recognize that writing your log in a poem can be fun, and that reading others poetry can be a good sense of building teh community. However, I am not a Type-A control freak that would require such a thing. How about posting your photo with teh logbook? I HATE having my picture taken, never mind posted on the internet, and there are those people who simply WON'T post their photo on principle.

 

For that reason, I do see that an attribute would be useful for those who do not wish to participate. By being able to remove those from their pocket query, a whole lot of angst is done away with. No deleted log, no stupid conflict between hider and finder, everyone is (or should be) happy. I really don't understand the resistance to the concept.

Share this post


Link to post

The hamster is a very wise rodent. Give me a way to filter out the "red tape caches" and I'll be a happy cacher.

Share this post


Link to post
I don't think a cache owner should make extra-logging activity REQUIREMENTS, but an unofficial 'bonus'.

The 'REQUIREMENTS' you refer to are, in fact, voluntary. The extra logging requirements in question only become requirements after you choose to do the cache in the first place. Wanna skip the logging requirements? Then skip the cache!

 

 

I recognize that writing your log in a poem can be fun, and that reading others poetry can be a good sense of building teh community. However, I am not a Type-A control freak that would require such a thing. How about posting your photo with teh logbook? I HATE having my picture taken, never mind posted on the internet, and there are those people who simply WON'T post their photo on principle.

Nobody said you HAD to hunt the photo cache. Nobody said the owner ever had to hide the cache in the first place. Nobody's trying to Type-A control you. Other folks apparently enjoy those caches. Why can't you leave them alone?

 

ALL caching is voluntary. If you don't like having you picture taken, don't hunt the photo-required cache. If you don't like writing poetry, don't hunt my poetry cache.

 

 

For that reason, I do see that an attribute would be useful for those who do not wish to participate. By being able to remove those from their pocket query, a whole lot of angst is done away with. No deleted log, no stupid conflict between hider and finder, everyone is (or should be) happy. I really don't understand the resistance to the concept.

No resitance here. I'm with you! Sign me up! Let me flag it so people who refuse to take responsibility for not reading descriptions will stop demanding that my evil and frightening poetry cache be shut down!

Share this post


Link to post

What about caches that require you to email the cache owner the code word in the cache (in addition to signing the log) to verify you found the cache. Should these be a different cache type?

They should be banned. Why doesn't the owner check the logbook for fake logs if he does not trust the cachers logging his cache?

They should NOT be banned. Somebody else out there thinks they're fun! Leave them alone.

 

What you need to do is simply AVOID the caches you don't like.

Share this post


Link to post
What I am having such a hard time getting my mind around is why people are so resistant to making sure that a simple cache is a simple cache.

If you're refering to a cache with logging requirements like my poetry cache, then you're question is invalid. It's NOT a simple cache. Had I wanted to hide a simple cache, I'd have hidden a simple cache. Once you read the cache page and understood that it's NOT a simple cache, it's now your choice whether or not to find it.

 

 

Are you afraid that people will use the attribute parameters and not visit your cache?

No, but after this debate I'm afraid someone who chooses NOT to read the description WILL visit the cache, and then start shooting at me.

 

What I am having such a hard time getting my mind around is why people are so resistant to the concept of personal responsibility. When you KNOWINGLY choose to hunt a cache without having read the description, then you should be prepared to accept any resulting consequences. Don't blame the cache owner if you didn't know what you were getting into because you didn't read the page!

 

 

What I am having such a hard time getting my mind around is why people on your side of this issue are so resistant to answering the obvious question:

 

Instead of demanding the elimination of caches you don't like, why not simply AVOID them?

Share this post


Link to post

The hamster is a very wise rodent. Give me a way to filter out the "red tape caches" and I'll be a happy cacher.

Give me that red tape flag to fly on my cache page and I'll be a happy cache owner. :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
I don't think a cache owner should make extra-logging activity REQUIREMENTS, but an unofficial 'bonus'.

The 'REQUIREMENTS' you refer to are, in fact, voluntary. The extra logging requirements in question only become requirements after you choose to do the cache in the first place. Wanna skip the logging requirements? Then skip the cache!

 

Isn't that what I am saying by having the attribute?

 

Nobody said you HAD to hunt the photo cache. Nobody said the owner ever had to hide the cache in the first place. Nobody's trying to Type-A control you. Other folks apparently enjoy those caches. Why can't you leave them alone?

 

ALL caching is voluntary. If you don't like having you picture taken, don't hunt the photo-required cache. If you don't like writing poetry, don't hunt my poetry cache.

 

They are being type-a if they delete a log over something dumb like not jumping through a hoop that has nothing to do with whether or not they had their hands on the logbook. Second section I agree with, don't like 'em, don't do 'em.

 

No resitance here. I'm with you! Sign me up! Let me flag it so people who refuse to take responsibility for not reading descriptions will stop demanding that my evil and frightening poetry cache be shut down!

 

Refuse to take responsibility? Jeez, do you never do anything on teh spur of teh moment? If you go into a store at 7:59, and they close at 8:00 (but you didn't know that before heading out), do you expect them to cut you a little slack to get what you need and get out? After all, you were IN the store already... and most places that respect their customer base would not have a problem in letting you do what you need. They don't kick you out and demand you memorize their hours-of-operation and store policies before walking through the door.

 

I will gladly admit I do not understand extra-logging requirements, and if I am not comfortable with the logging requirement for a particular cache, I will do the cache anyway without the dumb 'hooping'. If my log gets deleted for any reason other than spoilers or non-family-friendliness, I will do precisely what I said I would do, no more, no less. Ignore the cache, tag it on a public bookmark and move on. I cache because I like seeing new areas, being outdoors. I don't mind someone trying to make it 'funner', I may even participate. But if they slap my hands because I don't participate they way THEY wanna, tough. My reasons for being out there don't have to be theirs.

Share this post


Link to post
The hamster is a very wise rodent. Give me a way to filter out the "red tape caches" and I'll be a happy cacher.
Give me that red tape flag to fly on my cache page and I'll be a happy cache owner. :rolleyes:
I'm not sure "red tape" is the best icon. For one thing, it's a rather pejorative image. For another, the only red in the existing icons is the red circle-slash for the caches that do not have the depicted attribute.

 

My favorites so far are a log book with a "++" on it, or a log book with a list of things to do on it.

Share this post


Link to post

If you're refering to a cache with logging requirements like my poetry cache, then you're question is invalid. It's NOT a simple cache. Had I wanted to hide a simple cache, I'd have hidden a simple cache. Once you read the cache page and understood that it's NOT a simple cache, it's now your choice whether or not to find it.

 

A plain old traditional cache should BE a simple cache.

 

What I am having such a hard time getting my mind around is why people are so resistant to the concept of personal responsibility. When you KNOWINGLY choose to hunt a cache without having read the description, then you should be prepared to accept any resulting consequences. Don't blame the cache owner if you didn't know what you were getting into because you didn't read the page!

 

See my previous response on the post above this one.

 

What I am having such a hard time getting my mind around is why people on your side of this issue are so resistant to answering the obvious question:

 

Instead of demanding the elimination of caches you don't like, why not simply AVOID them?

Excuse me, I am not calling for the elimination of these caches. That is not "my side" of the issue. As I said before, I take teh middle ground on this. There are more options available than "your" way or "their" way.

Share this post


Link to post
Excuse me, I am not calling for the elimination of these caches.

 

I'm not sure who is calling for the "elimination of these caches." I know I'm not and I want the practice of a logging requirement to end.

 

I'm not sure you can call it a "type" of cache. A typical logging requirement has little or nothing to do with the finding of a cache. It is only a requirement that you have to do something after finding the cache and show it in your log or risk having a legitimate log deleted.

 

For anyone to say I'm for the archival of caches that have logging requirements is being disingenuous at best. The cache can stay. Just remove the threat, and follow-through, of log deletion.

Share this post


Link to post

A plain old traditional cache should BE a simple cache.

What if I don’t like to search for "plain old" caches?(I don’t)

What about 5/5's? Is there such a thing as a simple 5/5?

How about a simple a 2/2?

What is the definition of "simple"? If the hider has an IQ of 200- and the finder is a 2nd grader - well. . . . ?

If the hider is a heavy equipment mechanic, and the searcher is a brain surgeon . . .well their idea of Simple may vary.... and so on.

I don’t care for extra logging requirements- I Don’t hide them, I don’t search them - Its really very simple.

<snip>. . . . The cache can stay. Just remove the threat, and follow-through, of log deletion.

 

I DO agree with you on this. Its wrong for many reasons. Find cache, sign logbook.

The enforcement doesn’t need to be so strict, given the "value" of a smilie to some people . . . .

Maybe they can create a public bookmark list of people who find it, but don’t complete the task?

=====(End of reply relating to your quote)

 

However, I wont go so far as to demand anything of the caching community, or the website. Sure, some people’s requirements are Ridiculous! But hey- people are Still Finding them, AND doing the extra work involved. Happy finders, Happy hiders. Good For Them!!! I’m not one of them.

 

Sometimes the extra activity is the "draw" for the young kids. With swag not being what it once was, having to do something a little different to "earn" it might seem fun?(like finding, then bringing along a certain year penny to trade-possibly on another 2nd graders cache, themed on the year he was born?(placed by his dad, boyscouts, etc)) Who knows . . .. If a cache like that was created, then logged by kids, then you'd have the answer. (I am on dialup, and not able to effectively go find an example)

I DO know these kids don’t care what year you started caching, how many finds/posts you have or anything else, outside of Finding the Treasure!

 

The several kids I have taken out don’t log online-and their parents haven’t converted to cachers. They have me to take them on Treasure hunts, I have a Gps'r -

I'd expect the 2nd grader to have a tantrum tho if it didn’t work out right, and he didn’t get his smilie.

But hopefully Mom and/or dad would already be teaching them that life isn't fair, and if you don’t put in the effort on the front end, you shouldn’t expect the rewards on the back end. In Boy Scouts- the Motto is Be Prepared. Shouldn't everybody?

Using all the fancy tools, while ignoring the content of a hide seems to be skipping some part of "getting out and enjoying yourself" ?

 

I look at it this way- If I run out of gas on the way home - After searching/ finding a cache over in Wisconsin, Regardless of any logging requirements - I cant really blame the cache hider for not telling me the cache is 60 miles from home, and I get 12 mpg and that Id need at least 5 gallons just to get there, could I ? I'd fill up before leaving........

Just My Opinion- No insults meant to anyone.

Edited by Pto

Share this post


Link to post
Nobody said you HAD to hunt the photo cache. Nobody said the owner ever had to hide the cache in the first place. Nobody's trying to Type-A control you. Other folks apparently enjoy those caches. Why can't you leave them alone?

 

ALL caching is voluntary. If you don't like having you picture taken, don't hunt the photo-required cache. If you don't like writing poetry, don't hunt my poetry cache.

They are being type-a if they delete a log over something dumb like not jumping through a hoop that has nothing to do with whether or not they had their hands on the logbook.

There's something specific I want to say in response here. I've tried saying it a couple times before in this thread but evidently I haven't expressed myself very well. If you'll all be patient with me I'd like to try again. I'll discuss a bit of background, then make my point. It goes something like this:

 

<KBI pauses a moment, then takes a deep breath and pulls a deep swig from his Sam Adams>

 

Consider my "Roses Are Red" cache for example. It's one of the caches in question here because it contains an 'extra logging requirement' -- specifically, you must write your Found It log as some type of poem in order to get credit for the find.

 

We now go back in time to the moment I came up with the idea for the cache. Why did I make it a poetry cache? Because, being my very first hide I didn't want to copy anyone else's idea, yet I wanted to avoid creating plain, boring lameness. I wanted to submit something that involved SOME type of mental challenge. Why did I make the poem thing a logging REQUIREMENT? That's what makes it a challenge! Would you bother solving a tough puzzle for a puzzle cache if the description said "well, the cache IS located at the posted coords, but you really should solve the puzzle anyway" ...?

 

Now to my point. Given those considerations, I had two options: I could create the cache, or I could NOT create the cache. In other words, I could have either (1) carried through with my idea by hiding the container, marking the coords, writing out the goofy poetic cache description and submitting the hide to Geocaching.com; or (2) I could have said to myself: "You know, even though a lot of people might be entertained by this, it might very well annoy other folks here and there as well, so maybe I should just forget the whole thing."

 

More succinctly: Either there was going to be a new poetry cache -- or there was going to be no new cache that day from KBI AT ALL.

 

One more way to look at it: If you found yourself driving around some place you didn't expect to be, had a little time to kill, and glanced at your GPS to see what your PQ had to offer -- which would you prefer to see: a Poerty Cache, or NO CACHE? Forget the "didn't read the cache page description" and "wrong category" arguments for the moment. Which would you prefer? A cache, or NO cache?

 

Now, if I've finally expressed myself adequately, then maybe you can see my point of view. As I listen to everyone ragging on my 'logging requirement' cache I keep thinking to myself: "Well, what if I had never placed the dadgum thing in the first place? You'd have no smiley to even claim is being "held hostage." You'd have no smiley AT ALL!

 

Does any of that make any sense? :P

 

 

 

No resitance here. I'm with you! Sign me up! Let me flag it so people who refuse to take responsibility for not reading descriptions will stop demanding that my evil and frightening poetry cache be shut down!

Refuse to take responsibility? Jeez, do you never do anything on teh spur of teh moment? If you go into a store at 7:59, and they close at 8:00 (but you didn't know that before heading out), do you expect them to cut you a little slack to get what you need and get out? After all, you were IN the store already... and most places that respect their customer base would not have a problem in letting you do what you need. They don't kick you out and demand you memorize their hours-of-operation and store policies before walking through the door.

Sorry, but that analogy doesn't apply very well. If I owned a store and you walked in right at closing, most likely I'm going to try and make you happy. After all, this is my livelyhood we're talking about here. You're my customer, and I want you to leave happy so you'll come back!

 

In the case of the cache it's just a hobby. And besides, I still say there's no valid excuse for not reading the cache description.

 

Have I ever done anything on the spur of the moment? Absolutely! I'm just like most of you: Given any unexpected opportunity to cache, I'm going to jump on it! I know there's a bit of a risk involved in NOT having read the owner's description, but at least I take responsibility for that going in. If I later get back to the Internet to log my find, only to slap my forehead and say "well crap, I didn't know I was supposed to do THAT while I was there" -- well then, I took a chance and I ended up wasting my time. What I DON'T do is BLAME THE CACHE OWNER.

 

 

I will gladly admit I do not understand extra-logging requirements, and if I am not comfortable with the logging requirement for a particular cache, I will do the cache anyway without the dumb 'hooping'.

So, if I understand correctly, whereas I in that situation would say "My bad, I had no way to know, but it was worth the chance," you on the other hand would essentially say "Screw you Mr Cache Owner, I'm logging your cache anyway!!" :(

 

 

Second section I agree with, don't like 'em, don't do 'em.

FINALLY somebody talking some sense!! ;)

Edited by KBI

Share this post


Link to post

If you're refering to a cache with logging requirements like my poetry cache, then you're question is invalid. It's NOT a simple cache. Had I wanted to hide a simple cache, I'd have hidden a simple cache. Once you read the cache page and understood that it's NOT a simple cache, it's now your choice whether or not to find it.

A plain old traditional cache should BE a simple cache.

If we're talking categories again, then I agree there is a problem, but under current definitions the 'Traditional' category is still the most appropriate.

 

 

What I am having such a hard time getting my mind around is why people are so resistant to the concept of personal responsibility. When you KNOWINGLY choose to hunt a cache without having read the description, then you should be prepared to accept any resulting consequences. Don't blame the cache owner if you didn't know what you were getting into because you didn't read the page!

See my previous response on the post above this one.

Same here.

 

 

What I am having such a hard time getting my mind around is why people on your side of this issue are so resistant to answering the obvious question:

 

Instead of demanding the elimination of caches you don't like, why not simply AVOID them?

Excuse me, I am not calling for the elimination of these caches. That is not "my side" of the issue. As I said before, I take teh middle ground on this. There are more options available than "your" way or "their" way.

You're right. I was wrong there. I got you confused with the people in the CoyoteRed faction.

 

Sorry. :P

Share this post


Link to post
Excuse me, I am not calling for the elimination of these caches.

I'm not sure who is calling for the "elimination of these caches." I know I'm not ...

Oh really? Then who was it that said:

 

Logging requirements is a tangent in the evolution of the hobby that should eliminated just like code word caches, moving caches, and more.

... and ...

 

Logging requirements are as bad an idea as was virtual caches and will cause similar problems. Let's have a bit of forethought on this issue.

 

I repeat, it is best for this tangent in the evolution of geocaching to be eliminated.

... and ...

 

I asked you what's wrong with simply avoiding the caches that have post-find requirements. You still haven't answered that question.
That's because the question is irrelevant. It's not about avoiding caches that is bad for the hobby. It's about eliminating caches that is bad for the hobby.

Sorry, CoyoteRed, but you've been caught in a clear contradiction this time.

 

Care to backpedal again? Here, allow me to oil your chain. Your legs must be tired by now.

 

 

 

I'm not sure you can call it a "type" of cache. A typical logging requirement has little or nothing to do with the finding of a cache. It is only a requirement that you have to do something after finding the cache and show it in your log or risk having a legitimate log deleted.

 

For anyone to say I'm for the archival of caches that have logging requirements is being disingenuous at best. The cache can stay. Just remove the threat, and follow-through, of log deletion.

Okay, I think I've got it now. The creative challenge part has to go, but the lame 1/1 micro can stay? Gee, thanks! <_<

 

So suppose one day I decide that I no longer approve of puzzle caches -- let's say I don't like the idea of cache owners holding the cache coordinates 'hostage' the way you don't want me holding your smiley 'hostage' -- then I needn't simply avoid those hides? I can call for the wholesale, systemwide elimination of the puzzles? Cooooool. B)

 

Suppose you actually had the power to dictate your will, CR. If you could go around happily stripping every hide of whichever elements you don't happen to like, then how is that really any different than eliminating those caches? The difference is only a matter of degree. Besides, even if you COULD do that, how many cache owners do you think would react to your 'sanitizations' by throwing their hands up in disgust, giving you the finger, archiving their hides and pitching their cache containers into the nearest Dumpster? That's exactly what I would do with my poetry cache. Sure sounds like "bad for the sport" to me!

 

No, I can't see any good coming of your demands. Again I say: If you don't like the cache, then DON'T DO THE FREAKING CACHE!!!! :mad::mad::mad:

 

Some of us actually like those hides. Leave us alone!!!

Share this post


Link to post

Boy, am I getting tired of the implied bashing of CR - just because he has the gall to disagree with you. As I see it/read it he never said eliminate the extra logging required cache, but eliminate the requirement of hoop jumping (a direct quote would change my mine). And I am in that camp. Not because I don't like them (some times they are fun, sometimes not), but because of the abuse they can create (like the one I did that stated you must email a picture of yourself at the site - how? You can't attach pictures to email from GC. Sorry I don't have time to go thru the 200+ caches I did on my vacation to find that exact example.). Make the hoop jumping strongly (if you must) recommended, not required. I will try and do it if I can. But if I have a interesting story to tell about my experince in finding (just as an example, nothing against you or your caches) a poetry cache, and I have to tell the whole thing in verse, I'll skip the story (which is what I find most fun about reading past logs) and post a verse like "Found it/Logged it", a nice short poem (about my level of skill) that is boring as all get out (I would hope you wouldn't delete it, as it fits the definition of a poem, same meter and it rhymes).

 

The other thing I'd like to share on this, is it isn't always I don't want to do the hoop jumping, but like on my vacation last year, I had 181 finds, 17 DNF's, and 3 notes to write/log. I use GSAK, which has a semi-automatic logging feature. I write the log, post it without refering back to the page, and so I might miss the requirement while writing the log (which could be three weeks later). I planned on writing the logs each night but it turned out that didn't happen, so they were all written in the week following the trip.

 

Ok, so that you will quit harping on the question (which has be addressed, but you don't seem to hear):

 

Why not simply avoid caches you don't like?
Frankly the whole thread is the answer - there isn't a simple way to avoid them! And having to read every cache page prior to loading anything on PDA/GPSr kind of defeats the "spur-of-the-moment" idea (or refer back to my point on vacation, will I remember the requirement later). So someone "from CR's camp" has addressed that question directly, so you can stop asking it.

 

Or you can keep asking it because you don't like/agree with the answer. Such as your:

[qoute]I still say there's no valid excuse for not reading the cache description.You didn't read Lep's post about this? Adding challenge to caches isn't a valid excuse? I've done the same thing, but I almost always have the PDA so if I need to I can - and I do (which is where the arguement about not being able to open a locked cache breaks down, you don't need that info ahead of time. If I found a locked cache, I'd read the page. Not a locked cache, maybe I wouldn't.). But generally that need has to do with finding the cache, not logging the cache (yep, I'm in the camp where these are different also).

Share this post


Link to post

Once I've found a cache, I simply want to record this minor achievement. The log book is signed, the treasure in my hands. Geocaching complete.

 

I have no problem with the cache owner suggesting some special way of logging, and as long as the task is not onerous, pointless or time-consuming I'll probably comply. If, for any reason, I don't want to log the cache in this special way, I would still like to record that I successfully completed the search for the cache. I wouldn't take kindly to MY record being deleted: this high-handed action is reserved for cases where the log is false/illegal/offensive. The act of deletion is the start and end of this topic: make whatever "rules" you like, but don't delete records of genuine visits.

 

If there is a creative aspect to the cache, it should always be as part of the trail. E.g. you have to finish off the last line of a poem to obtain a keyword which gives you the coordinates.

 

This is an example of a cache with special logging requirements (specified only when you find the cache) - but they are fun and can easily be incorporated in your normal cache log.

 

This one is a good cache spoilt by the additional "rules" which make it an artificial and tedious search. If I find the box by using one of the travel bugs and a bit of deduction, why shouldn't I log it online too? To me, the gc.com log is merely a mirror image of the one in the cache logbook.

 

HH

Share this post


Link to post

On the plus-side, those are both 5/5 caches making them easy to filter out with the PQ's. Although, I'm a bit suspicious of the first. It sounds like one of those caches that might be easy to find but requires a log telling of a dangerous hunt. Either way, I have a means to avoid that one. Now if it was listed as a 1/1, then the main problem many are expressing remains.

Share this post


Link to post

Boy, am I getting tired of the implied bashing of CR - just because he has the gall to disagree with you.

I don't think the bashing is implied because he disagrees with KBI, I think it's because CR disagrees with himself. Or more correctly stated, contradicts himself.

 

As I see it/read it he never said eliminate the extra logging required cache, but eliminate the requirement of hoop jumping (a direct quote would change my mine).

Then read the KBI post directly above yours. He clearly quotes CR twice saying that these caches be eliminated, and another quote saying that the tangent in the evolution of geocaching be eliminated.

 

My biggest problem with CR is, and always has been, the way he demands changes to the game or site when some attribute doesn't suit him, regardless if lots and lots of other people enjoy that particular attribute. He comes across as saying, "This is the way I think it should be done, those who think different are obviously wrong and therefore not as good of a cacher as I am, so I want to change things to my way to make sure everyone has fun."

 

That's it!

 

I don't have anything else against him. He might be a crappy dresser, a Sadam supporter, or even run around setting old ladies on fire for fun. But since we never discuss his fashion, politics, or non-caching hobbies I have no idea what he might be like in other parts of his life. In fact, I'd guess that he's a snappy dresser, a down to earth red blooded American, a wonderful husband, and is loved by women and children everywhere.

 

I just don't like the way he comes across in the forums and so I call him on some of the things he says. People have called me on things I've said too, it's all part of the forum life. If you make a statement that's out there for the public to read, someone just might see something about it that they'd like to comment on. Most of us will read the comments and enjoy the debate. I've had people change my mind on a topic quite a few times here.

 

Again, I have no problem with CR the person, just his debating skills and his demands of changes to the game to suit him regardless of what other people might want. The next time I'm in Charleston I'd be more than happy to meet with him, buy him lunch, and sit and talk face to face. Who knows, maybe that'll change the way I perceive what he's saying when he posts in the forums?

Share this post


Link to post

Seems the problem here is the confusion some people have between finding the cache and logging a found it on-line. This is tied up with the importance that many people give the smiley and "find" count. I can agree with those that say I signed the log so it's a find. However, I've found a puzzle cache by tagging along with someone else who solved the puzzle. I logged a note and only changed it to a find when I finally solved the puzzle - but I wouldn't delete a find on one of my puzzle caches if some found it that way. I've also log a find on a puzzle where I found the cache using the encrypted hint which gave me an idea where to look (It was one of those bonus puzzle where you have to find a series of caches - I had only found on other in the series). I have also seen notes where someone found a cache with a logging requirement they couldn't meet immediately and then a found log when they go back to the cache to complete the requirement.

 

I can understand power cachers planning on finding all the caches in an area wanting to know they should avoid certain caches that have logging requirements (or ar too difficult or involve a hike) since they're objective is to get as many smileys as possible. And I can see the problem for someone on vacation who may not be able to return to a cache to complete a requirement. I'm not sure if an attribute would work, since these are optional - many hiders won't use them and even fewer would go back and add new attributes to existing caches. I'm thinking that bokmark lists may be the way to go - but there is no way current to create a list of cache that are not in some bookmark list other than with an offline tool like GSAK.

 

Hiders have been adding logging requirements for a long time as a way to make their caches standout. Since this is usually just to make it more fun, the requirement is often optional. I have a logging requirement on my Fortune Cookie cache. I haven't deleted any logs - but its a lot more fun to see the logs where the person writes what fortune they took. In fact, unless you are a smiley whore, every logging requirement is optional - just log a note that you found the cache and simply can't or won't comply with the added requirement for a smiley.

 

Every one of my caches has an unwritten logging requirement (especially the puzzle caches) - no spoilers!.

Share this post


Link to post

Boy, am I getting tired of the implied bashing of CR - just because he has the gall to disagree with you.

I don't think the bashing is implied because he disagrees with KBI, I think it's because CR disagrees with himself. Or more correctly stated, contradicts himself.

 

As I see it/read it he never said eliminate the extra logging required cache, but eliminate the requirement of hoop jumping (a direct quote would change my mine).

Then read the KBI post directly above yours. He clearly quotes CR twice saying that these caches be eliminated, and another quote saying that the tangent in the evolution of geocaching be eliminated.

 

My biggest problem with CR is, and always has been, the way he demands changes to the game or site when some attribute doesn't suit him, regardless if lots and lots of other people enjoy that particular attribute. He comes across as saying, "This is the way I think it should be done, those who think different are obviously wrong and therefore not as good of a cacher as I am, so I want to change things to my way to make sure everyone has fun."

 

That's it!

 

I don't have anything else against him. He might be a crappy dresser, a Sadam supporter, or even run around setting old ladies on fire for fun. But since we never discuss his fashion, politics, or non-caching hobbies I have no idea what he might be like in other parts of his life. In fact, I'd guess that he's a snappy dresser, a down to earth red blooded American, a wonderful husband, and is loved by women and children everywhere.

 

I just don't like the way he comes across in the forums and so I call him on some of the things he says. People have called me on things I've said too, it's all part of the forum life. If you make a statement that's out there for the public to read, someone just might see something about it that they'd like to comment on. Most of us will read the comments and enjoy the debate. I've had people change my mind on a topic quite a few times here.

 

Again, I have no problem with CR the person, just his debating skills and his demands of changes to the game to suit him regardless of what other people might want. The next time I'm in Charleston I'd be more than happy to meet with him, buy him lunch, and sit and talk face to face. Who knows, maybe that'll change the way I perceive what he's saying when he posts in the forums?

OK, you read it as removing the cache, I read it as removing the requirement. Such as a code word cache could stay by adding a logbook. A poetry cache could exist without the requirement to log in verse. So the tangent of requiring hoops should be eliminated.

 

To me, you come across just as strongly as CR. You are "demanding" some things be included to suit you regardless of the problems people point out. Where is the difference between you?

Share this post


Link to post

Once I've found a cache, I simply want to record this minor achievement. The log book is signed, the treasure in my hands. Geocaching complete.

You're exactly right. Assuming you don't feel the need to claim a 'smiley,' then there's no need to further inconvenience yourself with the particular entertainment/challenge that cache provides.

 

 

I have no problem with the cache owner suggesting some special way of logging, and as long as the task is not onerous, pointless or time-consuming I'll probably comply....

 

If there is a creative aspect to the cache, it should always be as part of the trail. E.g. you have to finish off the last line of a poem to obtain a keyword which gives you the coordinates.

Here we go. Yet ANOTHER cacher who can't simply leave the offending cache alone and go around it. Yet ANOTHER cacher who wants to dictate how others should play the game.

 

 

This is an example of a cache with special logging requirements (specified only when you find the cache) - but they are fun and can easily be incorporated in your normal cache log.

 

This one is a good cache spoilt by the additional "rules" which make it an artificial and tedious search. If I find the box by using one of the travel bugs and a bit of deduction, why shouldn't I log it online too? To me, the gc.com log is merely a mirror image of the one in the cache logbook.

BOTH of those caches sound like a lot of work, but they also sound like a lot of FUN. The cache owners went to a lot of trouble for no reason other than to entertain others, and, in the process, entertain themselves. Would you have the website outlaw such fun, taking it away from others just to make you feel better?

 

To repeat and clarify: I SUPPORT electronically marking caches which have special logging requirements. I strongly OBJECT to such caches being forbidden.

Share this post


Link to post
To me, you come across just as strongly as CR. You are "demanding" some things be included to suit you regardless of the problems people point out. Where is the difference between you?

I can't speak for Mushtang, but I'm not "demanding" such things be included -- I'm "demanding" such things be ALLOWED. See the difference?

 

 

OK, you read it as removing the cache, I read it as removing the requirement. Such as a code word cache could stay by adding a logbook. A poetry cache could exist without the requirement to log in verse. So the tangent of requiring hoops should be eliminated.

Again, can't speak for anyone else, but I gave what I thought was a very good reason why the logging requirement works better as a requirement than a suggestion:

Why did I make the poem thing a logging REQUIREMENT? That's what makes it a challenge! Would you bother solving a tough puzzle for a puzzle cache if the description said "well, the cache IS located at the posted coords, but you really should solve the puzzle anyway" ...?

You still haven't given me any convincing reasons why you can't simply drive past the cache instead of demanding that it to be changed.

Share this post


Link to post

. . .

 

However, since the definitions of cache types (as they stand) clearly indicate that a cache at the posted coords are Traditional, even if you have to get additional information to be allowed to log it, then not having read the description is part of the risk you knowingly take.

 

You take a welcomed risk of not being able to find it by possibly making it way harder to find than the cache owner intended. If part of the description said, "To keep muggles from stealing this cache I've put a lock on it, the key is located (whereever)". But if you didn't read the page you might walk a quarter mile through heavy underbrush (because you also didn't read about the half mile easy to walk on trail), get to the cache, not be able to open it, and go home without a Find.

 

In that case you actually found the cache, but the owner made it difficult to get to the log book. Would you log it as a Find anyway? Would you insist that locked caches either be moved to the Mystery/Puzzle catagory or perhaps given their own?

 

. . .

 

I think most cachers would feel like they took a risk and it didn't work out, and accept it. Maybe not.

 

 

I disagree. A Traditional listing implies that there is nothing extraordinary required to find and sign the log. If there is anything else required (including the cache page) other than just the coordinates and a GPSr then in MO it is not a Traditional (except for Five Rating for Terrain.)

 

Let me give a personal example. The reviewer in my area (Cache-Tech) was kind enough to point out this very issue on my first hide (GCTCGG Etienne Brulé) which is a locked box designed to thwart muggles.

 

You need to bring the cache page with you in order to know how to get the combination to open the box. I thought it was a Traditional, or possibly a Multi (coordinates are provided for sign), as there are no calculations or puzzle to be done and the combination to open the cache was easily obtained from a nearby sign.

 

However, I now clearly understand the point made by Cache-Tech that it is really a Mystery because a cacher could arrive at the coordinates and not be able to access the log book if they hadn't brought the cache page with them.

 

I agree with the OP and offer the above example which illustrates what should not (and was not) be listed as Traditional.

 

With more experience, now, I realize how frustrating it would be to arrive at what I thought was a Traditional, with only the coordinates on my GPSr, and not be able to get to the log book. With it being listed as a Mystery, everyone knows that they need to look at the cache page in order to learn something necessary to get to the log book.

 

edited: to clarify Terrain Five would require specialized equipment.

Edited by Maxima

Share this post


Link to post
The other thing I'd like to share on this, is it isn't always I don't want to do the hoop jumping, but like on my vacation last year, I had 181 finds, 17 DNF's, and 3 notes to write/log. I use GSAK, which has a semi-automatic logging feature. I write the log, post it without refering back to the page, and so I might miss the requirement while writing the log (which could be three weeks later). I planned on writing the logs each night but it turned out that didn't happen, so they were all written in the week following the trip.

Which translates to: "Well, I WOULD have read the cache page, but it just wasn't [whiny voice] convenient. [/whiny voice] So screw the cache owner!"

 

How is that the cache owner's fault?

 

 

 

Ok, so that you will quit harping on the question (which has be addressed, but you don't seem to hear):

 

Why not simply avoid caches you don't like?
Frankly the whole thread is the answer - there isn't a simple way to avoid them!

 

I never said there was a simple way! I said there was a way. You're the one who's insisting that a 181-cache numbers run, using all the latest paperless, description-skipping technology should somehow excuse you from meeting requirements that other, less worthy finders are held to.

Share this post


Link to post
This is an example of a cache with special logging requirements (specified only when you find the cache) - but they are fun and can easily be incorporated in your normal cache log.

 

This one is a good cache spoilt by the additional "rules" which make it an artificial and tedious search. If I find the box by using one of the travel bugs and a bit of deduction, why shouldn't I log it online too? To me, the gc.com log is merely a mirror image of the one in the cache logbook.

They both sound like great caches to me. And they're both labeled as puzzle/mystery/unknown caches, so they won't show up on listings of traditional caches.

 

My concern is only with such caches that are listed as traditional caches.

Share this post


Link to post

...

 

Yet ANOTHER cacher who wants to dictate how others should play the game.

 

...

Have you looked in the mirror lately? Isn't that what YOU are doing as the cache hider? YOU are insisting that we do it YOUR way or YOU won't allow the log.

Share this post


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

×
×
  • Create New...